Congressman Rangel Censured?

Today, in the House of Representatives, the issue of whether or not to censure Congressman Charles Rangel for ethics violations came to the floor. The facts have not been disputed during the entire course of the two-year investigation. Mr. Rangel was found guilty of 11 of 13 counts of ethics violations, including the use of House resources to solicit donations and failure to pay taxes on a property he owns in the Dominican Republic for the last 17 years.

Some dispute whether or not there was corruption involved, specifically whether or not Mr. Rangel intentionally committed these violations. The final conclusion of the Ethics Committee was that there was not enough evidence to support a charge of corruption and their recommendation (passed by a vote of 9-1) was to censure Mr. Rangel for his acts.

During the floor debates, many Members spoke in support of a censure, while many spoke in support of a reduction from a censure to a reprimand (the House equivalent of a traffic ticket). Even those that spike in favor of a reprimand conceded that Mr. Rangel did indeed violate ethics rules and that he should be punished for doing so. Their point was that the punishment should not be as severe as a censure, based on the precedent that has been set in previous Ethics Committee recommendations. For the most part, that is correct, although it's important to note that in the past, censures have been issued for such vile offenses as insulting the Speaker and "using unparliamentary language". Some even referenced the fact that the House essentially did nothing to punish former Congressman Tom DeLay, who was recently convicted of money laundering.

My question is this. Is that really the precedent that we want to use when holding our Representatives accountable? They are supposed to be held to a higher standard, and since they police themselves, I believe that they must be completely beyond reproach. Using this precedent is the reason why only 11% of the American Public trusts our Congress. Personally, I think Mr. Rangel knew exactly what he was doing. He was Chairman of the Tax Writing Committee, so let's not pretend that he didn't know he was violating Ethics Rules (and federal law, for that matter). He shouldn't be censured. He should be expelled from the House of Representatives, as should all others who violate the trust of the people they were elected to represent.

Interesting subplot: As I write this, the House just voted to censure the Congressman. About an hour ago, an amendment was offered during the debate to reduce the charge of the resolution from a censure to a reprimand. The presiding Chairman called a voice vote, then stated that "in the opinion of the Chairman, the Ayes have it". Apparently, C-Span's audio wasn't as out of kilter as I thought, because this was immediately challenged with a request for a recored vote. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 267-146.

Debates continued until the Resolution was offered for a vote. Once again, the Chairman asked for a voice vote on the censure, which was followed by the statement "in the opinion of the Chairman, the Nays have it". Wow. The acoustics must really be off at the Speaker's chair, because once again, the Chairman seemed not to hear what sounded like an overwhelming vote in favor of the censure. Again, the conclusion was challenged with a request for a recorded vote. The vote to censure Congressman Rangel was passed by a vote of 333-79.

When the House censures a Member, the Resolution is read by the Speaker with the Member standing in front of the entire House, in what can only be described as a public admonition. Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi, as is customary, came to the podium and requested Mr. Rangel to step into the well of the chamber. She, in a very quiet, demure voice, spent a grand total of about 30 seconds reading the Resolution and admonishing Mr. Rangel.

These are our Representatives. These are the people we have elected to represent us. It is the responsibility of every one of us to pay more attention to what our Leaders (and I use that term loosely) are doing. It is our responsibility to not believe everything we hear from politicians and the media, but to do our own research, to get the facts and to use them to make our own decisions.