Censure is the harshest form of punisment short of expulsion from Congress. | C-SPAN Screenshot House censures defiant Rangel

The House voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to censure Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who pleaded for leniency but now finds his 40-year career tarnished after his colleagues rebuked him using a rare form of public punishment for ethics violations.

The vote was 333-79, with 77 Democrats and two Republicans voting against censure, the harshest form of punishment short of expulsion from Congress.


Immediately following the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) formally called on the 80-year-old Rangel to stand in the well of the House to be informed that he had indeed been censured by his colleagues for series of 11 ethics violations.

Rangel obliged, rising from the center-aisle seat in the front row. He stood, feet shoulder-width apart with one hand clasped over the other in front of his waist. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and New York delegations crowded into the first two rows behind him.

The ordeal was over in about 45 seconds, bringing a surprisingly anti-climatic end to a long battle that cost Rangel his gavel at the Ways and Means Committee and $2 million in legal fees, and nearly jeopardized his four-decade hold on a Harlem congressional district.

“By its adoption of House Resolution 1737, the House has resolved that Rep. Charles B. Rangel be censured, that Rep. Charles B. Rangel forwith present himself in the well of the House for the pronouncement of censure, that Rep. Charles B. Rangel be censured by the public reading of this resolution by the speaker, and that Rep. Rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities for any unpaid taxes … on income received from his property in the Dominican Repbublic and provide proof of payment to the [House ethics] committee,” Pelosi intoned.

It marked the first time in 27 years that the House had censured a member and only the 23rd time a lawmaker had been subject to that sanction that in the past 180 years. But for all the pomp and circumstance surrounding the censure ritual, that’s basically the end of the process for Rangel, who will return as a member of Congress in the next session.

Rangel’s allies had earlier attempted to downgrade the punishment to a reprimand, meaning a resolution condemning him would be read into the Congressional Record, but that motion – offered by Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) – was defeated by a 267-146 margin.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) voted for Butterfield motion, but Pelosi didn’t vote and most of her Democratic allies rejected it. In the end, more than 105 Democrats voted against the Butterfield motion.

With the reprimand alternative out of the way, the House was cleared for a final vote on the censure resolution.

Rangel was found guilty by the ethics panel of 11 counts of violating ethics rules, including charges that he improperly solicited millions of dollars from corporate officials and lobbyists for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, failed to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars of income and assets on financial disclosure forms, maintained a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office in a Harlem apartment building and failed to pay income taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic.

Rangel asked to and received permission to speak to colleagues after Pelosi finished her brief censure statement, the second time he had addressed them from the floor in the last few hours, and he once again took a defiant tack over the case.

“Even though it is painful to accept this vote, I am fully aware that this vote reflects not just the thinking of members but the political tide and the constituency of this body,” Rangel said.

Rangel, who survived bloody battles during the Korean War, added that “In my heart, I truly feel good…. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I know in my heart, I’m not going to be judged by this Congress. But I’m going to be judged by my life, my activities, my contributions to society, and I apologize for the awkward position that some of you are in. But at the end of the day, as I started off saying, compared to where I’ve been, I haven’t had a bad day since.”

At a press conference afterward, Rangel declared that he was ecstatic that the whole scandal was finally completed.

"At long last, this two-year nightmare is over,” the New York Democrat said. "I am at rest with myself and convinced that when the history of this has been written people will recognize that vote for censure was a very, very, very political vote."

Rangel and his allies had spent the last few days imploring their colleagues not agree to a lesser sanction than censure, saying Rangel would gladly accept a reprimand.

But the House ethics committee, GOP leaders and many rank-and-file lawmakers refused to support the reprimand alternative, saying that Rangel’s action warranted a public condemnation.

As the debate on the Rangel censure resolution began during the afternoon, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the House ethics committee, read a lengthy list of violations committed by Rangel, who was the subject of a two-year ethics investigation into his personal finances. Rangel, first elected in 1970, was found guilty of 11 ethics violations on Nov. 16.

The scene on the House floor was a solemn one, as Rangel stood in the front of the House to hear the charges against him. Many lawmakers paid close attention to the proceedings, and a series of Rangel defenders came to the floor to defend him after the charges were read.

Rangel only gave a brief defense, but he told an elaborate story about his time in the Korean War, where he fought in sub-zero temperatures on the battlefield and thought he might not survive.

Rangel said he spoke of his time in Korea "not for sympathy but to let you know that at that time in every sense I made up my mind that I could never complain to God for any event that occurred in my life and that I would dedicate my life in trying in some meaningful way to improve the quality of life for all Americans...."

Rangel admitted violating House rules, but pointed out that there was no allegation of personal corruption, and he did not feel censure was warranted.

"I do believe that there should be enforcement of these laws; there should be sanctions. But if you're breaking new ground, I ask for fairness," Rangel said.

Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), New York Republican Peter King and others defended Rangel, saying a censure was too harsh. While King spoke, Scott walked up and down the aisles of the chamber lining up speakers on Rangel's behalf.

"I implore you to pause for a moment and step back," King told his colleagues, calling for them to "apply the same standard of justice" to Rangel as has been applied to others.

“If expulsion is the equivalent of the death sentence, then censure is life imprisonment,” said King. King and Rep. Don Young (Alaska) were the only Republicans who voted against the censure motion.

When King wrapped up, Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.) – who had faced her own ethics investigation during the 111th Congress - applauded him.

But the ethics committee members who helped convict Rangel on a 9-1 committee vote did not relent.

“Nothing we say or do here today will any way diminish his service to our country, or are gratitude for his service in this House or as a hero of the Korean War,” Lofgren declared.

“… That service does not excuse the fact that Rep. Rangel violated laws, he violated regulations, he violated the rules of this House, and he violated the standards of conduct,” Lofgren said. “Because of that misconduct, the non-partisan committee staff recommended that he be censured, and bipartisan majority of the committee voted to recommend censure.”

Lofgren added: “Some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent with the committee’s past precedent… But it also true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set.”

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who helped lead the ethics trial for Rangel, also backed the censure resolution.

McCaul referred to the debate as a "this solemn occasion...and important day....I take this responsibility very seriously. As chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel said he should be held to a higher standard. I agree. He failed to meet that standard.”

Earlier in the day, Rangel had demanded in a closed-door meeting with Pelosi and other Democrats that he and his allies be allowed the right to seek a lesser punishment.

“It got very emotional,” said one Democrat who witnessed the exchange. “Pelosi clearly wanted to just get this done. Charlie wanted the right to amend the [censure] resolution, to change it reprimand. It got very tense.”

Pelosi was described as "emotional" and "teary" in discussing the session.

"Barney [Frank] got up there and said 'I got reprimanded. ... He should be reprimanded not censured," said one participant. Frank was reprimanded in 1989 after an ethics committee investigation into whether he had allowed his former personal assistant and boyfriend to use his apartment for a gay prostitution ring, as well as getting parking tickets dismissed for him. Frank has publicly declared that he is voting against the Rangel censure resolution.

"This is a hard thing," the source added.

Butterfield and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) were among the CBC members arguing for a reprimand rather than censure. Butterfield is a member of the ethics committee, and he was the only member of the secretive panel to support the lesser punishment.

“In the Democratic caucus, and I can’t speak for Republicans, there’s a lot of support for reprimand. This conduct does not rise to the level of a censure,” Butterfield said.

Butterfield and Cleaver said they researched censure resolutions going back to the 1830s, and they don’t believe Rangel’s actions warranted such a sanction.

Richard E. Cohen contributed to this report.