In the genteel parliamentary history of the House of Representatives there lurk rowdy days of rough-and-tumble brawls, beatings, chokings, fistfights, upended hairpieces, stentorian demands for apologies unheeded and a lot of sneaky conduct and foul-mouth talk. Some did nothing bad, or almost nothing.
But they all wound up where Representative Charles B. Rangel, a Democrat from Harlem, is expected to find himself this week: in the well of the House, facing the shame of formal censure. The choreographed mortification ritual has played out more than a score of times since 1832. Convicted by peers, the transgressor ? all have been men ? stands before the assembled members and a packed gallery of spectators and reporters as the speaker reads the rebuke.
?What it?s saying is you?ve brought disgrace to the House of Representatives, you?ve discredited the institution that you serve in,? said Ilona Nickels, an author and expert on Congressional affairs. ?You have impugned the integrity of our proceedings. You?re a disgraceful person. And you?re going to stand there in the well of the House and we?re going to read these charges against you and we?re going to, in essence, say, ?Shame on you.? It doesn?t really help your résumé, or your obit for that matter.?
It is also a moment of truth, not for the fainthearted.
On Oct. 27, 1921, Representative Thomas L. Blanton, Democrat of Texas, faced it with deep anxiety. He had been convicted of entering in The Congressional Record a letter that was, in a colleague?s words, ?unspeakable, vile, foul, filthy, profane, blasphemous and obscene.? It involved a squabble between union and nonunion printers, and by today?s standards was relatively mild stuff.
As the speaker finished his condemnation, Mr. Blanton turned ashen and fled the chamber. ?In the corridor he fell exhausted, striking his head on the marble floor,? The New York Times reported. ?He rested a few minutes on a couch, refused medical aid and shuffled to his office, tears running down his face as he forced his way between spectators and members who were leaving the session.?
Not all of them cry and carry on. Depending on the offense, its probable fallout and the thickness of a politician?s skin, censured members have shown humility or defiance, perhaps relieved that the practical consequences are only dishonor and a need to face voters at the next election, well short of immediate expulsion, if slightly more humiliating than a slap-on-the-wrist reprimand. (Officially, there have been 22 acts of House censure, but some are debatable because the censures appear to have been politically motivated.)
As censurable violations go, the seriousness of Mr. Rangel?s fall somewhere in the middle. He was convicted by a subcommittee of the House ethics committee of 11 violations, including improper fund-raising, failing to pay taxes on rental income and failing to report income on Congressional financial-disclosure forms ? not of stealing fortunes, battering colleagues or cornering pages in the anterooms.
It was much worse in 1873, when Representatives Oakes Ames, Republican of Massachusetts, and James Brooks, Democrat of New York, were censured for bribery in the Crédit Mobilier scandal, in which millions were skimmed from stock sales during construction of the nation?s first transcontinental railroad, the Union Pacific.
In 1870, three Republican congressmen ? Benjamin F. Whittemore of South Carolina, John T. Deweese of North Carolina and Roderick R. Butler of Tennessee ? were censured for selling appointments to Annapolis and West Point. And in 1979, Representative Charles C. Diggs Jr., Democrat of Michigan, was censured and resigned after being convicted of mail fraud and padding his staff payroll.
Many 19th-century censures were for ?unparliamentary language,? a grab-bag for name-calling, mud-slinging and insults, mostly in Civil War-era debates. But in 1864, Representatives Alexander Long of Ohio and Benjamin G. Harris of Maryland, both Democrats, were cited for ?treasonable utterances? ? backing the Confederacy.
?When you look at the list for all the various reasons people were disciplined, it really is a function of the times,? Ms. Nickels said. ?Every era has its own ethos ? what?s considered horrible and what?s not considered horrible.?
TNW Quick Hit


Giftalogs is quite grand in its current version, but there is even more to come, including: providing one with organizational tools that ease gift-giving, help one get great gift ideas from others and make gift collaboration easier.



