Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a solemn moment for this House in a time where, in a little under an hour, all of our Members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. As such, and…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a solemn moment for this House in a time where, in a little under an hour, all of our Members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. As such, and because the rules allow Mr. Rangel 30 minutes to defend himself against the recommendation of the committee, and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the chair and the ranking member, I want to inform the body that there will only be three Members on this side of the aisle who will speak. I say this because there have obviously been a number of Members who have approached me, even some on this committee, asking for time. But out of respect for all, and especially in light of the rare nature of this debate, I intend to recognize our time only to myself, Mr. Hastings, the former chair of the Ethics Committee and our colleague who served for almost 2 years on the investigative subcommittee, as well as our colleague, Mr. McCaul, who served as the ranking member of the adjudicatory subcommittee during that phase of this matter.
Naturally, if other Members care to have their views inserted into the Record, we would have no objection.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I now yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a sad day, but a necessary day, to complete final action on a matter that honestly should have been concluded with a public trial. Mr. Rangel chose to walk out of that hearing and failed to present his case. Instead, we are left with a vote, an important vote, I would suggest, not only for Mr. Rangel, but equally a significant vote for this House as an institution and for how we are seen by our employers, the American people.
Watching at home, some are probably looking on with a curiosity of sorts as we dispense with this unpleasant yet constitutionally mandated responsibility to punish our own when necessary.
In fairness, today's action may also confirm what many of us already know--that Washington, D.C. truly is disconnected from the real challenges and worries that much of the rest of America is facing every day: the angst of a father whose son is standing guard in some dangerous remote location in Afghanistan, or the uncertainty of that single mom who was just told this week that she had been fired. Not only does she have to worry about whether she can afford Christmas for her children, but whether she can pay the car note or the rent without a job.
All across America, these are the real life crises that our constituents are facing. And yet here on the House floor, one of our colleagues is dealing with something that to him, and I believe to all of us, should be considered a serious matter and one that deserves our utmost attention.
As I noted back on July 29 when the investigative subcommittee reported this case, there is no debate but that Congressman Charles Rangel has led a compelling life story, one that all of us, including myself, can respect. He was a private, as his autobiography said, left to die on that battlefield in North Korea. He earned the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star for bravery. And he was a fatherless high school dropout who went from pushing that handcart in the streets of New York City to becoming one of the most powerful figures on Capitol Hill. We all know the story.
But my friends, Mr. Rangel's life story is not why we are here. After all, every American has their own unique story to tell. Regretfully, this is a day that did not have to be if only Mr. Rangel had settled for the lesser sanctions that today he hopes this body will somehow consider.
During the course of the investigation, he was given multiple opportunities to settle. Instead, he chose to fight on, declaring his innocence in saying the committee did not have a case.
If only Mr. Rangel had paid his taxes, as we are all required to do. As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he certainly knew something about requiring Americans to pay their taxes.
But the Ethics Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Rangel himself had failed to pay his taxes for 17 years, violating U.S. as well as State and local tax laws on income derived from his beach villa in the Dominican Republic.
My friends, when you go back home this weekend try explaining to your constituents that it's okay for a powerful Member of Congress, the chairman of the tax-writing committee, to not pay his taxes. Just don't ask your constituents to do the same.
If Mr. Rangel had just used the Ethics Committee as it is intended to be used, to give advice and counsel on how we can use our names to benefit worthy causes, such as creating a school for underprivileged minority students to encourage them to consider public service. There's nothing wrong with that idea. Actually, it is rooted in the most noble of American missions: education. But rather than finding out how he could do it the right way and legally, Mr. Rangel instead chose to use both his personal and committee staff, as well as other official resources of his office, to help solicit donations of up to $30 million each for a school and library to ensure his legacy. Donations from some of the 100 biggest and wealthiest corporations in America, many of whom had direct interests before this very committee that he chaired. The Ethics Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Rangel solicited those donations from the very lobbyists of those companies who were coming before his committee.
As Members of Congress, we are all required to file financial disclosure statements. It's not easy to do, and sometimes it's easy to make a mistake. But again, this committee found on clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Rangel for 10 years failed to file his reports promptly, and they had numerous omissions, including the failure to disclose over a half a million dollars.
Ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, there is a lot to be said today,
and a lot has been said. Keep this in mind as you consider the report of the only truly bipartisan committee that stands in this Congress, the only one that's evenly divided, and sent this recommendation of censure to you for your consideration.
Mr. Rangel is a man who has spent more years on the Hill than all but five of our colleagues, and he has served his district for longer than 26 of our Members have been alive. Even so, this recommendation of censure was not made lightly, and it was not made without respect for the totality of his life or the seriousness and number of charges for which he has been found guilty.
It is a sad day for sure, Mr. Speaker. But now the entire House has a responsibility to join the Ethics Committee in rendering your judgment. I have no doubt that the people that we work for will be watching with interest.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.