By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
c.2010 New York Times News Service
The panel that oversaw a two-year ethics inquiry into Rep. Charles B. Rangel’s conduct recommended that the New York Democrat be punished with a reprimand, rather than a more serious censure or expulsion from office, the panel’s chairman said Friday.
The recommendation appears to be carrying significant weight with the full 10-member House ethics committee, which will decide Rangel’s fate. On Friday, the full committee spent hours debating whether to agree to a settlement that would require the congressman to admit to wrongdoing in exchange for receiving a reprimand and avoiding a public trial on his conduct.
A reprimand is considered a moderate punishment, more serious than the minor sanction of admonishment but not especially severe: Members including Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Barney Frank have received reprimands.
On Thursday, the ethics committee released a report detailing 13 charges against Rangel, including his improper use of his office to solicit donations for a City University of New York center to be named in his honor; his failure to report rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and to pay taxes on it; his omission of some $600,000 in assets on his House financial disclosure forms; and his acceptance from a Manhattan developer of four rent-stabilized apartments, one of which he used as a campaign office.
The report said Rangel had shown “a pattern of indifference or disregard for the laws, rules and regulations of the United States and the House of Representatives.” It also documented the major charges.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, who was chairman of the investigative subcommittee, told reporters Friday that the congressman had previously been offered the settlement that included the reprimand. But negotiations stalled on the question of how much wrongdoing Rangel would admit to, causing the talks to break down and prompting the ethics committee to take the rare step of preparing for the public hearing – the congressional equivalent of a trial.
“If we could have reached a settlement we would have recommended that to the full committee … but that didn’t happen,” Green said.
Asked if Rangel had put a settlement on the table, Green replied: “At different times there were offers from both sides.”
He said there was never a vote on a proposed deal.
Green’s comments added fresh drama to what has become a chaotic story on Capitol Hill.
The ethics committee is among the most secretive bodies in Washington, and after speaking to reporters, Green apologized for his comments – saying that had erred by piercing that confidentiality.
Then, adding more confusion to the picture, Rangel reacted angrily when reporters asked his response to Green’s statement, saying it was “absolutely untrue” that he had been offered a reprimand.
Hours later, Rangel’s lawyer amended that statement, saying Rangel “misspoke” and acknowledging that Green’s comments were accurate.
“The appropriate sanction, including reprimand, was one of a number of issues addressed in settlement discussions,” said Leslie Kiernan, the attorney representing Rangel before the committee.
She declined to elaborate on any continuing discussions.
Predicting what punishment a House member will receive after ethics infractions is always difficult; factors including the member’s contrition, level of knowledge of the misdeeds and relationships with colleagues can play a role. And given how high profile the case involving Rangel has become, especially after the public detailing of the charges, it is possible that Republicans on the committee will now face pressure to reject any settlement.
Even some Democrats seemed to grow more uncomfortable with Rangel’s continued presence in the House. Since the charges were detailed, three Democratic members have called for him to step down, joining three members who had previously asked him to leave the House.
“Too many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, have fallen victim to the idea that they are ‘different’ than regular folks, and nothing could be further from the truth,” Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., said in a statement released Friday. “It is our job as members of Congress to hold each other accountable to a higher standard regardless of party,” she said, adding that if the charges against Rangel are accurate, “he needs to resign.”
The chairwoman of the ethics committee, Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., declined to comment on the committee’s discussions. As reporters waited outside the meeting room where the committee had huddled, a committee spokesman read a statement saying there would be no announcements Friday.
Some government ethics groups said a reprimand seemed too lenient and would do little to insulate Democrats from Republicans’ changes that they failed to deliver on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promise to “drain the swamp” of Washington’s murky ethical culture.
“Now that he’s put the committee through all this, to issue something as mild as a reprimand would look terrible,” said Melanie Sloan, a former federal prosecutor who is executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Some of the conduct alleged here could be a felony. If the committee lets him off that easily, it won’t do a lot to restore the public faith in Congress.”
From 1966, when the House Committee on Standards and Conduct was established, to 2008, 83 members have received some kind of ethics sanction. Gingrich, R-Ga., was reprimanded for accepting improper gifts and using charitable donations for political purposes; Frank, D-Mass., received his reprimand for helping a male prostitute who lived in his home “fix” parking tickets. Last year, the House voted against reprimanding Rep. Joe Wilson for shouting “You lie” during an address to Congress by President Barack Obama.
In its history, the House has expelled only three members.