current tax rate for the highest wage earners to 35%. and i have great respect for my friend but the fact is the highest tax rate right now is 35%. what we are trying desperately to avoid is the biggest tax increase in american history. now, art laffer are, i think, is one of the most brilliant economists in the united states, he does an incredible job in helping pregnant women steer our economy out of an economy worse than we have now. i remember well during my time in the army we had more than 10% unemployment, we had more than 10% inflation and interest rates were far above 10%. 10%. it was a rough time in america.

and yet, with his advice and guidance, president reagan was able to turn the economy around completely within three years if president reagan had taken laffer's advice and cut taxes 31% as art points out, we could have that whole economy turn around. since the democrats had the majority and president reagan had to negotiate to get to a 30% tax cut and that full 30% didn't kick in until the last 20% was added to the 10 and half percent from the years before. and that's when the economy recovered. if we had done the full 30% in 1981, the recovery would have

been then. it would have saved two years of absolute disaster, economically in this country. but we didn't do that. and as mr. laffer pointed out back in january of this year to a small group of us, he felt like by november, there would be signs of a recovery because in january, january 1, unless we do something quickly, the biggest tax increase in american history would take place. capital gains would go up by 33 1/3, from 15 to 20%. it will deficient state this economy. every marginal rate goes up. death tax goes up from 0% to 55%.

his comments were, it would look like a recovery because people were starting to sell things and cash things out and get in a position for the biggest tax increase in american history on january 1, and it would look like a recovery, but it wouldn't be a real recovery, just people trying to get in position, take gains now this year before this massive tax increase. so with respect and due deference to my friend, we aren't talking about a tax cut here. we are talking about keeping the same tax rates. if my friends across the aisle as the majority until the end of the year, were willing to talk about a true tax cut, a drop in 35% to 30r%, that would be fantastic, because we know from history when president kennedy did it, president reagan did it, president bush did it, every

time there was a meaningful tax cut, the treasury of the united states exploded. it went higher than it had ever gone before each time. the problem was not in lowering taxes, which increase the economy, it gave people more income. that was not the problem. the treasury was bigger than it had ever been. the problem was that we began to spend money unlike we had ever spent before, and each time we got into higher deficits because we weren't controlling spending. had we increased the revenue by cutting taxes, then -- and controlled spending, we would have had a balanced budget immediately. it would have been fantastic. but that's not what is happening. we have seen it happening in

ireland. tax decreases years ago and manufacturing jobs flooded into ireland and didn't control their spending and now they are in trouble. that's the key, control spending. and there are those who say we should go back to 2008 for the budget, i'm not one of those ople, because i remember as a freshman in 2006 being beat up by people across the aisle because we were spending way too much money. and since i know we could go back and capture speeches from the record, our friends across the aisle who said we were spending far too much money in 2006, we needed to cut that deficit spending. since i know people across the aisle said that, then i said, i believe we go back to the 2006 budget, the one they complained

about we are spending too much money, we go back to that you one. if we were spending too much money, then surely there couldn't be much objection across the aisle. of course, that was before the ensuing budgets that the democratic majority produced, which doesn't include this year, but more reasonable budgets was deficit spending on steroids and has got to stop. solution, go back to 2006. since my wife and i cashed our assets in order for us to run for congress, it's what responsible people do when you have to pay things, you cash out assets. i agree with art laffer and

start character things we bought as a government that we had no business if we are a true free market country of ever buying. we divest ourselves for a big price of freddie mac and fannie mae. we divest ourselves of the car company ownership we currently have. there's no way, that is not a socialist activity when the government takes over private enterprise. and the current speaker and friends across the rile have dear friends on wall street and donated four times to one to the democratic president than they do to republicans. i get it. they are the friends. they work together. in fact, they are such close friends, the friends on wall street don't mind so much when the president and the democratic

majority bash their friends over and over and over here in washington, because their friends know that's the price, getting bashed verbally allows them to keep funneling money to wall street, including through the federal reserve, including managing government money so that goldman sachs is able to have their biggest profit in their history last year. who knows how good it was this year. good for wall street and goldman sachs. their investment of giving four times to this president than they do republicans paid in goes for them, it just was great, maybe another banner year for them now, but it's got to stop. americans are getting hurt across the country. it's got to stop. one of the things people don't

remember so much, but in january of 2009 when this president took over and the democratic majority in this house had a two-year head start and because of the terrible examples set by the prior republican president in pushing through a $700 billion wall street bailout, they were able to push through what was thought to be about $800 billion porkyou lous, and maybe $1 trillion and we aren't sure, people notice that. it made voters irate and showed that in november of this year. but most people didn't notice the next week that $400 billion

land omnibus bill, what does that mean, that means the federal government was going to take $400 billion and buy more land. the federal government already owns more than half of the land west of the line through texas to north dakota and yet, they want to buy more land. when you run a deficit that this administration has been running, then it's time to say, you know what, we shouldn't be buying land and we haven't found out how much of that $400 billion has been squandered with in buying land, whatever has been bought ought to be sold, whatever has not been spent needs to be cut off. some have said, well, where

would you get the $700 billion to avoid raising these massive taxes? they don't get it. they need to check the current news articles about states and cities that have raised taxes on wealthy people like i will never be, that raised taxes on them, they ended up losing money which takes you back to the laffer curve. you can only raise the taxes so much which keeps increasing the federal revenue that once you cross that threshold where you tax so much and add tax beyond that, then you have hurt the economy and the tax revenue decreases. so, my friends across the aisle may try in this lame duck session to do the unthinkable

and raise taxes on people, force taxes to go up by playing a class warfare game, playing the game that our founders did he tested because all americans were ericans. no americans were just americans , which is why on our great seal on the ribbon has those words, out of many, one. we come together as one. it's time to stop the class warfare, time to stop luring woman from a rut in which they could never get out by saying, keep on having babies out of wedlock and we will keep paying you for them and get to a level of income as a single mom with children that will never get out

of that hole. and welfare reform took place. cast it any way you want to, but the fact is, when welfare reform took place for the first time in 30 years, single women with children have income that when adjusted with inflation went up, went up dramatically. and now the unthinkable has occurred this year in the obamacare bill. they included the rescinding of the welfare reform that was done by the republican -- new republican majority in the 1990's. it was taken away. we have now sentenced young women, single moms desperate to get out of their rut, to remain

in their rut for the rest of their lives or until such time as we remove those enslaving provisions from the obamacare and allow single moms with children to once again get back on the uphill climb with more income after adjusted for inflation than they had in the 30 years before with the great society legislation. i know it was well intentioned back in the 1960's. i get it. i understand it. it's because of hearts full of women trying to raise children from dead beat dads who wrnt willing to contribute. what we have done instead is sentence these sad situations to a hole they couldn't get out of it. it's time to do what a

government is supposed to do. and those who don't believe in the bible, but those who do, look at romans 13, a government is different from individuals, it's not to turn the other cheek, it's not to steal people's money that allows you to steal their money against their will and give it to charities that only the government supports. it is -- it is to incentivize good conduct and help people reach their potential instead of enslafing young women as the great society legislation did. good grief, we should have incentivized them to finish their education. instead of having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance to pay people not to work and yes, i know there are people who are

out of work who have been trying for hours and hours every day to find new employment. but the overall studies don't indicate that's the average, that's the exception. generally people only spend only less than an hour a week until the last couple of weeks of their unemployment. then they begin to seek unemployment. if we're going to do what some consider the bib lickal approach to government to punish evil but reward and incentivize good government, we would eliminate the marriage penalty. why penalize marriage? and we would incentivize people finishing their education. not paying them to have babies out of wedlock and not to finish school. we would be incentivizing them to reach their god-given

potential before it's too late, that's -- what a caring government -- that's what a caring government would do. i was asked recently, you've advocated eliminating the department of education, you also talked about schools ought to provide vocational training, right on both counts, $65 billion, throw another $10 billion in there this year, for what? department of education, lots and lots of bureaucrats, take a hunk of money for themselves, dole out the rest. i get it. friends, republicans, democrats, on school boards across the couldn't arery have said, we've become so enslaved so reliant on federal money, we'll be broke as a school system if you cut out the funds immediately. so what i'm -- i think would be more fair, more constitutional, is to say we eliminate the

department of education and we'll take that money and we will are have a formula to distribute it to the schools across the country and they'll get a lot more money and over, say, a five-year period, i'm flexible, we could compromise on what would be a good way to do it, you provide a formula that the states and people under the 10th amendment pick up the obligation to support education, take it away from the federal government, we cut the required contributions to other areas, whether it's medicaid or something else, we incentivize them to take over their obligation since education is not an enumerated power, and let the local control take over. when there was no federal control and when i was going through school, high schools d vocational training. you didn't have to go to college to make a a great

living. you could study auto repair at our high school. you could learn to be a carpenter, you can learn to weld, you could learn all kinds of great trades and go immediately into a good job and you're way ahead in income than those people that went to college in four or five years, eventually they catch up and went further with the money they seved, but they were great -- they receive bud they were great livings. and we need people doing those jobs. one final comment as my time is about to expire, i heard donald trump say that the solution is to put a 25% tax on everything we buy from china. you're going to start a trade war with somebody we owe money to? you don't realize we'll lose great jobs, union jobs,

nonunion jobs, how about instead doing something that doesn't trigger a trade war, doesn't cause us to be penalized around the world, how about, instead, eliminating the 35% tariff we put on our own products for people in other countries trying to buy them? it's called a corporate tax. you eliminate the 35% tariff we've got on our own products, union jobs or nonunion jobs come flooding back into america because we could compete with anybody if you take off that insidious tax that tells people across america you don't have to pay it, the evil corporations will pay it. the corporations pass it on. if they don't they don't stay in business. yet they have lost jobs across this country. union jobs, nonunion jobs, flooding across to other nations because of the tariff of 35% we slap on our own

products, making them uncompetitive. it's time to get this country competitive again. bring back the jobs to america in the way we know best as a free market society. at the same time we protect our borders and stop the crazy deficit spending. i realize my time is now expiring and for that, i now yield back my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to address the house here in the aftermath of the elections that

took place a week ago. however, i'd like to start this presentation this evening, mr. speaker, with a recognition of valor of an iowan who tomorrow will be receiving the medal of honor that hung around his neck, by command for the chief president obama, in a ceremony at the white house. i rise to honor an american hero, staff sergeant sal rah dor junta of the 173rd air force brigade combat team. he'll be presented with the medal of honor. he distinguished himself by acts of gal rant i ry at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. on october, 2007, when moving

in the area, the squad was ambushed on three sides by at least a dozen call ban fighters, even though staff sergeant junta was injured he continued the fight. he rescued one a wounded soldier. then running again directly into the path of on coming gunfire to evertake and kill two fighters while rescuing staff sergeant brennan. though brennan would die in surgery, the family had the comfort of knowing his brothers were with him. this, mr. speaker, is our privilege to express our gratitude and to honor salvator

junta. to commemorate this gallantry and medal of honor, the first medal of honor awarded to a surviving american service member for either the afghanistan or iraq conflicts, probably the greatest supporter and cheerleader of our military, our combat veterans and combat wounded, works -- reaches out to them every day. albert casswell has written a number of poems he's provided to wounded and the families and provided enormous comfort to those who are defending our freedom. this is something he penned last night, i read this into the record out of great respect for his contribution and great

respect for the medal of honor winner that will be receiving that medal from the president. this poem is called, at honor's height. it reads like this. hall at honor's height, all in the darkness of war, this fight, all in those most sacred moments that which unite, when who lives or die bus lives to see another sunrise, dependent upon you as you stood so tall, almost like a god, as into the face of death you ran, as did all your brothers in arms so too who on this day began, such brilliance, such light, as were you. airborne with your badge of

courage worn as only in that moment as when your faith so chose to crest all in your actions and deeds to answer freedom's quest as your heart so sailed up to new heights, so now all in your most selfless light, its highest point at honor's height. turning the darkness into the light, to win that day, to win that night, all at honor's height for there can be no greater gift, no more blessed thing than this, than but the will to give up one's life, all for your brother's in arms this most sacred sacrifice. while all in that moment of truth, by bringing your life which so brings such tears even to the angels' eye this is night. ah, yes, so stand this day, all

at honor's height. all in what you so gave, so brilliant and bright, for what child shall be born all from your gift in future warmth who might so save the world or in harm's way so too climb to such heights, for on this day, you and your brother at arms have so shown us all the way to honor's height. mr. speaker, i don't have the words to embellish the actions of staff sergeant salvatore giunta, nor do i have the words to embellish the poems brillcrantly written by albert caswell, at at honor's height," to honor the bravery and gallantry of this iowan who will be honored tomorrow at the white house.

i have had the privilege to get to know one of our top medal of honor recipients in the nation, in fact, the most decorated living american, colonel bud day, also from iowa, we happen to have three living recipients of the medal of honor that i claim as iowans and colonel day heads up that list as the dean of them. he was the top officer in the ha noy hilton in vote tissue in the hanoi hilton in vietnam. he's a world war ii, korean, and vietnam veteran. he's also been an honorable and noble leader here in america that stepped forward and has worn the medal of honor with courage and dignity, he's been a noble american every day of his civilian life as well as his enlisted life. he has made the advice for medal of honor winners that you have to carry that, you wear

that medal every day of your life, that when you receive the medal, everyone looks at you and wherever you go, they know that you have are received a medal of honor and so all of your behavior is observed more closely than it might be if you were perhaps significantly more anonymous. so you can catch dis-- cast disgrace on america or cast honor on america. the medal of honors have, by and large, and in all cases i know of, cast honor upon america by their deed, by their bravery, by their nobility, and bay their actions as they proceed through the course of, perhaps post-military service and being americans, seeking to make america a better place to live. in we look forward to the future that saff sergeant giunta has and the message he'll deliver to this country as he proudly wears the medal

of honor. i ask that this congress stop and pause and reflect upon the sacrifice that he has made and i think also that there's -- there's circumstances that we have lost americans who have conducted themselves in as noble a fashion who are unrecognized and i pray that saff sergeant giunta does grow old here in america and leaves a legacy of his nobility and bravery wherever he goes as an inspiration to the young, as an inspiration to all of us. he's an inspiration to me and should be an inspiration to us here in this congress. says, i o have that debate, it's a brutal debate, we never had such a thing here in this congress. there are brutal battles in war, destinies are changed, the

destiny of america has changed when the destinies are sacrificed in that noble cause and staff sergeant junta was willing to make that sacrifice and stepped into the gun fire and tomorrow he steps up to receive the medal of honor from the commander in chief, i salute staff sergeant junta and ask the young people to look up to him. tomorrow we honor staff sergeant junta. i appreciate the indulgence and the summary of his sacrifice here on the floor. and i ask that as we go forward into the 112th congress, we keep in mind, we get into our battles here and i mean that, of course, figuratively because they aren't

battles by comparison, and we wear the republican jersies and the people on the other side where the democratic jersies and this congress, mr. speaker, over the last, especially the last two years, but i think over the last four and those on this side of the aisle would say no further back from that, have gotten away from doing the right thing for the american people and got involved in the one-up man shp here in congress. and i recall the four years and subsequent to that, if i had a policy issue, had swints that had a problem, i took that argument to the committee or took it to the committee chairs, members of the committee, i testified before committees to move that policy forward, mr.

speaker. and there was an ear for a policy discussion. that ear was there on the part of the committee chairs, the members of the committee to a certain degree with the leadership that would he seek to accommodate those concerns that i would bring forward. and i'm convinced most of the members were in the same condition. there was an ear there and the system was set up so that the wisdom of the american people could be poured into the 435 members of congress and we would sort those issues out and raise the priorities of them and as we brought those issues here and those priorities came to the top, this congress acted upon those priorities, at least the process and the system was wired to do that. sometime in 2007 perhaps that began to evolve. sometimes we did have a

legitimate appropriations process where an open rule and an amendment was brought down to the floor and introduced and if it met the rules of the parliamentarian, it would be deemed in order and one could force a debate and recorded vote on an issue that had to do with an appropriations bill. that had gone on for 200 years and went on in the early part of 2007 which is the last time we had a legitimate appropriations process with open rules. and along about 2008 that began to get shut down and in 2009 and 2010, it was shut down. and members of congress, democrats and republicans were shut out of the proces. our swints can't understand why electing a member and the

deliberative proceedings that take place as directed by our constitution, electing someone to establish that franchise and having that franchise cut out from underneath them because the speaker of the house had deemed there wouldn't be any amendments to the appropriations bills or any open rules. i'm pretty sensitive to this, mr. speaker, because in 2007, my staff analyzed this, i didn't pay attention to this, analyzed that i successfully passed more amendments than any member of congress in that appropriations process in 2007 and i look back on that time and i think, where have we gone? we have gone from having an active, open rule that was consistent with the sessions, to the kind of system that not only has a closed rule and shut off for two years, but no

appropriations bills, no budget, just a continuing resolution, a c.r. that is written in the speaker's office and if someone can knock on the door and slip a piece of paper underneath the door and if someone wants to incorporate it, you might have your voice heard. but the voice of the american people has been shut out. and that is one of the biggest problems. if we don't have enough faith that we can't allow open, public debate and can't allow amendments to be offered, debated and acted upon to perfect legislation in subcommittee, committee and here on the floor and the system shuts out the american people and puts it into the speaker's office, the speaker staff and to the extent that any of the committees can weigh in. that's the process i hope will

change and see more open rules and the appropriations process comes down with open rules and any member of congress, democrats or republicans, can offer an unlimited number of amendments so some that the american people can see it's a legitimate process, debate those issues vote them up or down and move on. mr. eaker, i'm looking forward to this reversion back to the pressure air we had, some might say a breath of fresh air and it's high time. all of the issues that have been debated up and down in the media, a lot of them didn't see the light of day here in this congress and i'm hopeful they will see the light of day. and i hope the first issue, with this incoming new freshman class, this 80-some -- some numbers in the 90's when we add

those on the other side of the aisle, too, i believe as god's gift to america just in time. the cavalry has arrived. we have been fighting the battle of the alamo, this freshman class full of conviction, vigor, dreams and passion, the life blood of the vigor of america, going through ownertation, getting prepared, putting their offices together, hiring their staff, finding out where everything is, committee assignments, et cetera, so they can hit the ground running on january 4, and 80 some republican freshman who will bring their vigor and their legislative valor here to this floor and they expect that their voice is going to be heard and we make sure their voice is

heard and that the provides is open and might mean long days, long debates and might be tired to come back here to vote, but the american people expect us to do our work and should want to do our work and in fact, if we shrink from that, the work product that we have won't be the work product of the wisdom of the american people. it will the work product of folks that are sitting behind closed doors instead of the c-span cameras. we should be doing our business here. the first business i hope comes out of this 112th congress and it will have the throat of the freshman members, i'm hopeful and i will seek to establish that h.r. 1, the first pill coming out of the chute is repeal of obamacare.

if there is any piece of legislation that has signaled dramatic change, these 90-plus freshmen that will be seated here, most republicans, if there is any one single piece of policy that embodies that he reason for the transformation, the passing of the gavel, it's the repeal of obamacare as the clearest example of what people have risen up against. i remember four years ago, four years in january, right behind me, mr. speaker, as the gavel was passed from republican to democrat from john boehner to nancy pelosi, the incoming speaker. i remember that day, the first female speaker of the united states house of representatives, nearly four years have gone by, some have said a lot of water under the golden gate bridge,

and we have seen unpopular policy after unpopular policy become unfolded. for example, the theory that spending bill i don't know, sir of dollars is the -- billions of dollars is the best bang of the buck, i was not prepared to rebut such an argument, but that's one of those principles that the american people know better and they said, we are uneasy with that path. the idea of pushing obamacare down the throats of the american people when it was clear that they had rejected it, when you think of tense of thousands of people -- tens of thousands of people who poured in, on november 5, but november 5 of 2009, tens of thousands of people were out here on the west lawn of the capitol building,

swarmed around the capitol, down through the hallways of the office building and said keep your hands off of our health-care. we don't want obamacare. this nation has never seen the kind of resince tans we have seen and opposition to a policy that was proposed. never seen that. and it says in the constitution, freedom of speech, religion and the press, and petition the government peacefully. and they did. all within the confines of the contusion, a lot of them with the constitution in their pocket, because they thought what was being done to america and saw what was being done to the constitution and saw what was being done to their personal liberty and personal freedom and they came here to this city and to most of the big cities. in fact most of the towns in iowa, people filled up the meeting to resist the coming of

obamacare. that was the summer buildup in 2009 to the vote that took place on november 7 of 2009 and then we saw a vote on christmas eve in the senate when harry reid decided he had enough leverage on people if they wanted to see their families, they had to catch a plane on christmas eastbound and if they held out until 9:00 that evening, a lot of those senators would have spent christmas in washington, d.c. which is what they deserved . they passed through by usi the leverage that they had and with no margin to spare, a health-care bill that didn't match the one in the house but they moved the ball down the hall on christmas eastbound. that would be december 24. and some of us said how do we

stop this obamacare that passed on november 7, 2009 and a different version squeaked through the senate on christmas eve morning and i asked one of the senior senators, what do we do now? and his answer was, pray and pray for a victory in the special election in massachusetts. i don't think very many people believe that scott brown was going to be the next senator of massachusetts. i went up to massachusetts to participate to the extent that i could contribute and for three days up there, i saw valiant constitutional conservative americans making phone calls, lined up to make phone calls for the benefit of scott brown's

candidacy. tea party activeists, regular bay staters from massachusetts, and i met people and some would say i'm a teacher union's member and my husband is a member of the electrical workers and we have always walked the streets and campaigned for democrats but we are campaigning for scott brown and we have had enough and we are going to elect someone who will stop it. he voted to block it. january 19 of this year, he was elected to fill teddy -- he always said it was the people of massachusetts' seat, like any seat in the house or senate, it belongs@people, he was humble enough in that regard, we see

it was the seat occupied by teddy kennedy for all of those years. the political dynamics of america changed on that day, january 19. a lot of people thought, myself cautiously included, that that was the end of obamacare because they would not have the votes to move obamacare. it had to be defeated, had to sustain itself in a cloture vote. we saw president obama's mojo being lessened dramatically. we saw other people being elected when it was improbable that it would happen. even though he had a lead in the last few days, some of thought something would happen

to beat chris christy. when scott brown was elected it was clear that president obama's moe owe had been diminished dramatically and the prospect of americans having to live under obamacare had been diminished and perhaps crushed. but the president came before the republican conference, had a conversation that lasted about 90 minutes, and subsequent to that, he called a meeting on february 25 at the blare house, which was the big -- at the blair house, a big square table discussion about health care, challenging that republicans didn't want to talk, we just wanted to disagree with the proposals he had. republicans wanted to talk, it was the president that didn't seem to want them to talk. i had a staff person who sat there and put it all in a spread sheet, timed everybody's time, but the president said he didn't have to follow the rule thrs -- rulers in meeting, he

interrupted republicans 72 times that day on february 25 at the blare house. that was the level of are respect he had for our input. he gained some traction and they found a way to leverage obama karabakh at us from february 25 until march 23, they marched through this congress and finally on that day, when obama care passed here on the house, it didn't have the majority support of the house in order to be passed. to get enough votes to pass it, they had to meet a couple of conditions. the president had to make the oath that he would sign an executive order. can you think of such a thing, he took an oath and thinking that a president could write

aned orer that eclipses legislation passed by the congress and tell them you'll do it in advance? that's what the president did. if that's not appalling enough, on top of that, another group, house members here wouldn't vote for obamacare even with the fig leaf net ordered for the gentleman from michigan, they also had to have a lockdown pledge the senate would pass a reconciliation package that would effectively amend the package coming to the house. for those who didn't live through this, mr. speaker, i put it this way, obamacare was the first big piece of legislation, it became the law of the land that on the day of its passage didn't have the majority support in the house of representatives and it could not have passed the united states senate under their

current rules but they had to do this by legislative slight of hand to package -- package up to three components of obama care. the bill itself, the fig leaf executive order this president promised and did sign, it was supposed to prohibit the funding of abortion through obamacare which we know it did not. the third thing was the reconciliation package that circumvent the requirement for a kilotur vote, that's what it -- a cloture vote, that's what it took to give america obamacare. when americans rose up for that weekend and for three days they stayed on the capitol grounds, they would stay outside the windows of the rules committee by the thousands and chant, kill the bill, kill the bil when i'd say to them, we're going to have to break this up, we can't keep this up, they said, we won't go until they all vote no. we won't go.

these are courageous americans that stayed here all night. if they slept at all it was out here on the cement or maybe in the grass. they would not go until they killed the bill and there were enough americans that poured out here that kept individualal around the capitol. they joined hands around the capitol building and i'm not talking about one human chain with long arms each, i'm talking six or eight deep all the way around the capitol building and clusters in the corners of thousands who were needed to fill the chain around the capitol. they came to petition the government, petition the government for redress of grievances, the speaker marged through the -- marched through the crowd.

the american people saw the takeover of investment banks, they saw $180 billion go out to a.i.g., the insurance company. they watched as the formerly private sector, then quasi-government, now completely government-owned, operated, functioned backed up fannie mae and freddie mac saddled the american taxpayers with a contingent liability of $5.5 trillion. they saw as the federal government took over general motors and chrysler to operate those formerly private sector businessers in people affected by them, that's when they handed the secured assets and their sense of justice, their sense of justice was offended. the affront to the free

enterprise system. the government takeover of the student loan program, 100% of the student loan program, how, was there debate here on the floor of the house or senate, hearings before committees and markups of subcommittees and a prose process as envisioned? no written into the reconciliation package. as a slight of hand that came out of circumstance um vention that came out of the cloture vote of the senate to be stuck in as obama care. then we saw the federal government under the direction of president obama with the magnum gavel that nancy pelosi radio reel reegly walked through the crowds that wanted to maintain freedom and liberty, watched that government nationalize our skin

and everything inside it. that's obamacare. the second most sovereign thing we have is our body and our health. the federal government took it over to manage it. made it the law of the land. they put a 10% tax on the outside if you go to the tanning salon. there was no square inch of skin unnationalized by this government. and the american people rose up in a peaceful way. i have to give the american people credit, a tremendous amount of credit, and any other country in the world if they watch their liberty go like that, they would be demonstrating in the streets of athens or as we watched take place in france or great britain. the french may have to work until age 62, they think that's worth burning tires or cars and demonstrators. what do we do when we agree -- disagree with the boston? we fill up the parks in

america, fly the american flag, we run the yellow flag up alongside it, down just an inch or so from height, the yellow gadsden don't tread on me flag. we petition the government peacefully for redress of grievances. peacefully. and they were peaceful. when these rallies were done, the press conferences were done, i sent people out staff people out with cameras to look so they could take pictures of the litter. could they find at least a cigarette butt out there, show me how disrespectful it might have been? these crowds were the most respectful crowds that the park service had ever seen. they don't -- clay they clean up behind them, when they were done they might have walked the grass down a little bit but there's litter to pick up. they love this country they love this beautiful capitol they respect the history of this nation and the constitution and the system with that we have.

they were maybe in the successful in rolling back obama care in november of 2009, december of 2009, or march of 2010. but they understood what happened. they understood that our freedom and our liberty had been marginalized by an arrogant attitude that the people up in the speaker's office knew best and the american people didn't know and when the statement came, we had to pass the bill so the american people could find out what's in it. i have met a lot of people outside this capitol, outside the beltway that read every word of that health care bill. i wouldn't say i've ever met anybody, in or out of the beltway that could read or understand its implications, that's impossible given the depth and magnitude of it but they understood this was an affront to our liberty and freedom and it would forever transform the way health care was delivered in america and it was a component of this vast

overreach, taking of our liberty and freedom that had been initiated, oh, several generations ago, blouth to a head several times, but never had it seen the configuration of and intense liberal president of with a determination to use the majority that a happenstance of history had given him and the house and supermajority that was filibuster proof in the senate, and they used it and they abused it and the american people rose up and went to the polls and said, enough. enough. we're going to send people here to this congress that understand that the constitution is our default position that whenever there's a question we look back to the constitution for guidance. if the constitution constrains us, we don't disregard the constitution, what we must do is either comply with the original intent of the constitution, or take the

trouble to amend it and it takes a lot of trouble to amend the constitution. the constitution needs to be our default mechanism. we have a lot of new freshmen coming in that understand that, one is bobby shilling from quincy, illinois, and he understands it, the opponent he ran against once said, oh, the constitution? we don't care about that. his constituents do they sent their message and they sent a new representative here to congress who does care about the constitution and his colleagues in this class are 80-something strong. all of them i know do care about the constitution. when they take their oath of office, they'll take it seriously. it will be something branded on their heart as it should be of any member that comes in here and has the privilege of serving americas, we have to uphold our oath.

i understand the message sent by this country and it's been sent with those new representatives arriving here in washington, d.c. and those that will be sworn in on january 4. the message is, adhere to the constitution, hold on to the constitution and believe in it and defend it. there have been so many who have died in its defense. we can at least stand and defend it and adhere to it here. understand also that debt and deficit, jobs, and the economy are the central team that's been thrown out here but the takings of our liberty and the form of the nationalization of all these companies and entities has been an affront to the american free enterprise system. it reinstates the vigor of america -- to think that the federal government would make decision on a one size fits all

formula for our health care and do that to us when we completely have the ability to manage that health care for ourselves. i think there's something also that was missing on the part of the liberals here in congress, mr. speaker. that's this. that as much as the progressive movement draws its instruction from western europe, when the progressive movement was generated by intellectuals that visited germany in the latter part of the 19th century and came back here and began to inject the progressive thought process and socialized social democracy, western european social democracy values to keep it simple, mr. speaker, came to us out of western europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it's been debated in this country over and over again, these are the people who decided they'd undermine our constitution not by amending it but by trying to redefine its meaning and intent and they made the argument that it's a living and breathing document

and has to adapt itself to the mores of the day, otherwise we couldn't possibly be burdened with something so rigid in structure we'd have to amend it as society evolved. well, i make the statement that, human nature does not change and that if we ever get the fundamental structure of our constitution and law correct and for the most part we have the fundamental structure of our constitution correct, if we ever get it correct, the only reason to meet is make appropriations for the upcominging year or two and make adjustments to new technology if that's required. but the progressives from a century and a generation ago have polluted the thought process of americans and the people who are progressives, and there are some 77 in this congress, at least today and they are listed on their web

site and they are linked with the democratic socialists of america. they are one in the same. we are not a dependency people, even if the socialism was right, social democracy is right for western europe, it's not right for america, and there are a good number of reasons why it's not right. a lot of them are in the bill of rights. we have rights that come from god. they don't believe that. some believe it, baugh it's not in -- but it's not in anybody else'sp constitution and our rights come from god. they don't come from a sovereign, a king, a government, if government takes your rights away, who are we to complain? who do we complain to. if the government takes our rights away, they are the

sovereign. we have god-given rights that are vested in the people. the people are sovereign and the people then entrust the power of their sovreignty to the representative form of government, and they elect those representatives to represent them here in washington and around the country and guarantee a republican form of government. that's a requirement. but it's the people that are sovereign, the vigor that americans have that come from these rights, this vigor -- a lot of it is in the bill of rights. the freedom of speech and a full throat away and let fly with your deepest convictions without fear of punishment, i recall standing on a courthouse lawn in orange city during the tulip festival and myself and another

candidate lined up a couple of speakers. and we started to give speeches. and as we did that, more and more people started to gather and after a little while, a fellow came on it of the courthouse and came over and approached representative who represents that area and is from there and he said you have to shut these down. these men can't give these speeches on the courthouse lawn because this is a polling place. now this is the first weekend in may. no elections going oh, no elections near, the fact it was a polling place during elections is irrelevant. he said this is polling place and violation of state law. we are speaking away on the things we advocated and believed in. and the representative looked at that courthouse employee and

said well, if you can't exercise your right to freedom of speech here on the courthouse lawn, could you tell me wherein the world you can exercise yoir right of freedom of speech. and the gentleman turned around and that's the last we heard of him. but the vigor that comes from the freedom of speech and confidence that we can write a letter, send an email, facebook, twitter, radio, go out on the street corner or stand ti pulpit and express our convictions without fear of retribution or recourse that would come from government, that is one of the essential principles of being an american that adds to our vigor and allows us to reason and rationalize and continually self-example our culture and civilization to make these

adjustments. like the american people made the adjustment when the gavel was passed to speaker pelosi in january of 2007. they made more adjustments in 2008 and then they watched the results of their decision and they weren't particularly alarmed when it was speaker pelosi and senate majority leader harry reid. and i sat out there on the capitol and saw the momentum time in history when the first black president was sworn in and perhaps we put race behind us d perhaps he would find a way to blend the two sides together and get us to a post-partisanship in america. people can see the pattern over and over again. it wasn't going to be

post-partisanship but more and more partisanship and economic theory that had been discredited since, the new deal by f.d.r. he decided he was going to spend money hand over physician -- fist and he was still down there with that shovel digging on election day november 2 of 2010 and the american people looked at that and were appalled and thought good judgment would take over sooner and they decided, the quickest and most effective way they could take the shovel out of the president's hands was to take the gavel out of nancy pelosi's. it became the order of the day and the american people were appalled that their ability to manage their own health-care was

taken away and company after company was taken over by the federal government and the pillar of freep enterprise also was being diminished on on regular basis by -- i don't know i could say clearly it is an anti-capitalist administration but the president surrounded himself with many anti-capitalist. free enterprise, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of religion has been diminished by the i.r.s., the intimidation that they might lose their status and so pastor after pastor steps up and by the time their convictions and conscience opens up their volume and throat they say, what if i lose, i will be stack on the street corner. some let fly and i'm proud of them, all of them, some pull it

back and decide they are going to be more careful and afraid of the tax penalties that might come. but it is the moral foundation that holds or civilization together and you cannot higher enough police officers. it has to be part of our moral character. look at our police force in new orleans. more police officers, but the core of our values is tied to our faith which is the center core of american civilization and that's part of american vigor and speech, religion and the press, the freedom toll freely assemble and the right to property under the 5th amendment, freedom from double

jeopardy, and the list goes on and on and then we have this other vigor, this american vigor and it's unique to us. this situation where i'm going to make this argument, mr. speaker, that americans are a disstinching race of people, a race of people. we have a distinction that characterizes us. we may have different skin tones and shapes. we may come from -- we do come from every mr. conyers: tin in the event on the planet -- in the event on the planet. people that came to america bring with them the distinct vigor of their culture and their civilization. it isn't somebody that comes from france or italy or

argentina or russia, wherever it might be, sweden, that comes to the united states. it isn't that those nationalities have the values to put a mark on freedom and leave it better. we got did the the dreamers from every civilization and can-do spirit. the american sulttur, the american dream is built because we are the recipients of the cream of the crop of every donor civilization on the planet that sent legal immigrants here to america. they rose up and had to sacrifice to get here, had to plan, sell out their future, but when they came here, they were determined to build something of value. and when they saw the statue of liberty, it was a dream. they saw themselves sailing into

ellis island, here was the promised land. yes, some thought the streets were paved with gold, but many of them thought they had the opportunity to go out there and mine for that gold and pave their own streets and nobody could take away their freedom, their liberty, their property rights and no one could put them in double jeopardy of a crime. that vigor that is from each donor civilization is part and parcel of america. i come from a number of different sources, about some of my ancestors came across the prarie on a covered wagon and they walked 10 miles and sea of grass on a good day, they traveled 10 miles. where they decided to drive that stake in the ground and declare homestead, i don't know how that process goes through one's mind, i never read nor have i heard

how they were thinking. i know this, they came to live free or die on the prarie and took the state motto of new hampshire and transposed it to the midwest, where you had freedom-loving people that wanted spaces and opportunity and put their spikes in the ground, however they got started and they built a house out of sod and started raising kids and turned the land into farms and ran calt and found -- cattle and found ways to live free or day on the prarie. we understand why. why are my neighbors proud, independent. they don't want to be dependent upon government but the opportunity opportunity to work, succeed, support their church, neighborhood and schools.

that's all they asked for. the proudness, the independence, the industry, that's what has built america. and we took the cream of the crop and gave them the opportunity here under the banner of freedom and liberty and american vigor rose up, this experiment of freedom and liberty rose up and here we are. we aren't a people who are suitable to be put under the yolk of socialism or have a government dictate to us and take away our shares in general motors or clicer and hand them over to the union and h.r. we are going to guarantee that we are going to charge the taxpayers to pick up the difference. these people want to be free. they want to be left alone. we want to allow for the vigor of americans to shine and to

glow and project itself across this continent and across this grobe. as i have said with the opening remarks about staff sergeant salvatore junta, the risks that he took running into enemy gun fire over and over again to save his fellow troops and lived that will be receiving the medal of honor tomorrow in the ceremony at the white house. he put his life on the line. some of his people lost theirs. and we owe to him, we owe to all of those who have put their lives on the line, who have put on the uniform throughout the centuries, we owe them the fight for freedom and liberty here on the floor of the united states congress. we owe them that fight, we owe them that liberty. we owe them that we're going to shut off this accumulation of debt, we're going to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit

and in doing so it will bring the economy back around and it will produce jobs and it will enhance our freedom and liberty and those entrepreneurs that came to this country for that freedom, for a chance to build, and the descendents of those entrepreneurs that came here in earlier generations so that their children would have an opportunity for a better life to earn, not to receive as if america is a giant a.t.m., but to earn a better life here, we owe it to staff sergeant salvatore giunta and everyone like him. our best effort here on this floor, to honor his effort, to uphold the constitution, to uphold the oath to the constitution that we will again take on january 4 here on the floor of this house of representatives, to raise america up to the next level of our destiny, to honor those who have gone before us and to leave a legacy for those that come

behind us. this is the beginning, mr. speaker, this class, this new freshman class for the 112th congress, is god gift's to america and the american people will appreciate it and we need to empower them to the maximum amount because i believe that they will lead us forward to that next level of our destiny. thank you, mr. speaker. and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa for a motion. mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m.

>> live coverage of the u.s. house always on c-span. >> in a few moments, monday's ethics hearing looking at allegations against four% of charlie rangel of new york. in a little less than two hours, a rally at the u.s. capitol focusing on government spending. after that, we will talk with two incoming members of congress.

>> this saturday, tune in as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the civil war, live from the national eye covers with promise historians giving a new perspective on the impact of the war. coverage starts saturday at 9:00 m. eastern on american history to be, telling the american story every weekend only on c- span3. the subcommittee of the house ethics committee has adjourned for the night without making a decision on the 13 ethics charges against representative charlie rangel of new york. the congressman spoke earlier in the hearing but then left. the subcommittee members accepted their chief counsels evidence as uncontested. if the committee finds rangel guilty, they would recommend a sanctions.

you'll hear representative rangel's statement and what the other members have to say after he left. i would like the record to reflect that all eight members of the subcommittee are present. this hearing of the adjudicatory subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of representative charles b. rangel will come to order. the constitution authorizes the house of representatives to discipline its members. in the house, the committee on standards of official conduct is charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust. it is under that authority that we are meeting here today.

this hearing is authorized by house rule xi, clause 3, and committee rule 23. the purpose of this hearing to determine whether any of the 13 counts included in the statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel have been proved by clear and convincing evidence. on june 17, 2010, a bipartisan investigative subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct adopted a statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel. representative gene green chaired the investigative subcommittee. the ranking member of the full committee, representative jo bonner, served as the subcommittee's ranking member. representatives bobby scott and doc hastings also served on the subcommittee. the investigative subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violation which includes 13 separate counts. for each count, the investigative subcommittee concluded that there is substantial reason to believe that representative rangel violated the code of official conduct, or a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to representative rangel's performance of his official duties or the discharge of his

official responsibilities as a member of the house of representatives. the role of an adjudicatory subcommittee is to determine, at a hearing, whether any count of the statement of alleged violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. the purpose of this adjudicatory hearing is to do just that. however, it is important to bear in mind that this proceeding is a hearing, not a trial. attorneys from the committee's non-partisan, professional staff are the moving party in these proceedings. their role is to make a case for the statement of alleged violation adopted by the investigative subcommittee. at the adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests with committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in each count of the statement of alleged violation by clear and convincing evidence. representative rangel will have an opportunity to present his side of the story, should he wish to do so. a respondent is not required to present a case in his defense, and should representative

rangel choose not to present a case, the subcommittee will not and may not draw a negative inference from that fact. as members of the adjudicatory subcommittee, we are neither accusers nor are we defenders of our colleague, mr. rangel. our job is to act impartially as finders of fact and law. we are honor bound to do so without regard to partisanship or bias of any sort. we are required to act honestly and fairly based on the evidence presented to us during the adjudicatory hearing. in light of that role, i remind my colleagues that while this hearing is in progress, and while the ethics process continues for this matter, we should continue to refrain from commenting on the facts, the law, or any other aspect of this matter. in conducting this hearing, the adjudicatory subcommittee will follow the procedures established by the rules of the committee. the quorum required for the adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct any business is a majority plus one, or six

members. if at any time the subcommittee does not have a quorum, the chair may recess the hearing, and may direct the clerk to contact the members who are not present. in addition, the chair can recess the hearing at any time as needed. the order of the adjudicatory hearing will be as follows. first, the subcommittee will hear argument on a motion noticed by committee counsel. unless he is under oath, any statements, questions, or arguments that representative rangel makes will not be considered evidence in this matter. members of the subcommittee will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the parties, should they choose, under the five- minute rule. following a ruling on the motion, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be allowed 10 hours to present their case, including the time allotted for opening statements and closing arguments. the order is established by committee rules. first, i will recognize committee counsel and

representative rangel or counsel -- who i gather since he is sitting by himself may be representing himself. each party will be limited to one hour for opening statements. the order for receiving committee counsel will present witnesses first. representative rangel will have the opportunity to cross- examine witnesses called by committee counsel, should he wish to do so. next, representative rangel will should he choose to do so. committee counsel will have the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses mr. rangel calls in his defense. after representative rangel finishes his case, committee counsel may ask to present rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the chair. members of the subcommittee will also have the opportunity to ask questions of each

party's witnesses under the five-minute rule, unless otherwise directed by the chair. after all testimony and evidence has been presented, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be permitted to make a closing argument. each party will be limited to one hour for their closing argument. members of the subcommittee will then have the opportunity to ask the five-minute rule, unless otherwise directed by the chair. at that time, the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee will to consider each count included in the statement of alleged violation. the subcommittee will determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved. the adjudicatory subcommittee will then report its findings to the full committee. if no count is proved, the full committee will prepare a report to the house, based upon the report of this subcommittee. on the other hand, if any 1 or more of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation are proved, the full committee

will conduct a sanctions hearing to determine what sanction, if any, the committee should recommend to the house. the allegations included in the statement of alleged violation are significant. we take seriously our obligation to conduct these proceedings fairly, impartially, and with the dignity and decorum the house of representatives. responsibilities as set forth in the rules of the house and the rules of the committee. the adjudicatory hearing will be conducted subject to the rules and the decorum of theall participants will be promptly all evidentiary, the committee and rulings issued in this hearing. any breach of decorum by hearing

and to proceed in opening remarks. hearing. this is an important day, both committee, for the congress, but most importantly for the american people. as a member of this committee and a former federal prosecutor -- sitting in judgment is a very difficult to do. we accept our responsibility for today. we serve for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity and credibility of this institution often referred to as the people's house. the american people's confidence in us is a it an historic level. it is my sincere hope that these public, a televised hearings

will help increase transparency and accountability and restore much-needed trust to the house as an institution. our responsibility as judges in this matter is to be fair and i. this is an investigation that received testimony from more than 50 witnesses and over 28,000 pages of documents. an investigation of alleged violations. over 500 accidents have been placed on the committee's website. these allegations have proven that mr. rangel violated

statutes. as judges, we must determine where the selling -- whether these allegations will proven by clear and convincing evidence. mr. rangel has requested public hearings, a right that he is afforded under committee rules. today, he is given the opportunity to be heard and it is our responsibility to make sure the process is both fair and dignified. as a former federal prosecutor in the public integrity section of the department of justice, due process is nothing new to me. it is guaranteed by our constitution and it is a responsibility that i take very seriously. as we prepare to hear the evidence against one of our most tenured colleagues in the house, we need to make sure that we have done everything we can to show the american public that we will handle this matter with the utmost professionalism and non-partisan ship that it

deserves. we can never forget that the public office is a public trust. >> the gentleman yields back. before proceeding, we see that committee counsel is present, mr. rangel, are you represented by counsel here today or are you representing yourself? >> madame chair, i would like to make a brief statement. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

-- this has been going on for over two years and because during this time, i have had council. it is not my fault that it took two years before the [inaudible] during this period of time, my lawyers were working while you were investigating. when the council was paid two million dollars, it could be $1 million for the hearing. the argument that this has been going on for two years, i do not see how it relates to me.

the second issue has been raised [inaudible] i have been asking for this matter [inaudible] my family has caught hell. when can people be exposed to these charges? [inaudible] you have indicated that there were pages of testimony. i have not been able to explain my position ever because of rules of confidentiality.

each time i have asked for a hearing, do you think i would ask for a hearing without counsel? i was just asking for the aperture to to have counsel and i think that the community should know what i have been charged with. [inaudible] it would have been helpful if you would have done it before the general election. for whatever reason, when i had council, that was done. when my opponent and critics were charging me with corruption, i had hoped [inaudible]

[inaudible] the whole idea that i have not had counseled because i was [inaudible] i do not have the opportunity to have a legal defense and since i cannot afford another million dollars, i can't even promise that to counsel. quite frankly, there is a third reason that the chair has done that pains me the most. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] i would be entitled if we had more time. [inaudible] what prevents us from doing this?

as i stand before you i have no idea how counsel intends to proceed. 80 pages of what could be considered a summary i think would indicate that they may not call witnesses. that this committee would ask that a judgment be made based on [inaudible] i have had a lawyer to look at this. to me, [inaudible]

>> mr. mccaul said that you have spoken to 40 witnesses or more. 30,000 pages of testimony. and my supposed to know what they will testify to? i have been denied that opportunity. if the chair is suggesting that i can make my remarks, then i will do that. but i want you to know that i do not think it is fair that i participate in any type of proceeding if, in fact, you are basically telling me that the political calendar will not allow you and of time to allow

me to get a lawyer at this critical point in my life. 50 years of public service is on the line. i truly believe that i am not being treated fairly and that history will dictate that, notwithstanding the political calendar, i am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding and want to thank you for your courtesy. i have prosecuted in the u.s. attorney's office. i have served as a legislator in the state. i am so proud of my work in congress, i love this congress and i love this country. i think i am entitled to more. >> thank you, mr. rangel. before turning to committee counsel, i would just no for the record, and i will put into the

record the exchange referred to by mr. rangel so that this will not be a mystery to the public, but i would note that we were advised that mr. rangel's council withdrew little over a month ago and further council has not been retained and the committee has indicated an intent to proceed today. >> madame chair, would be appropriate to ask you a question? >> i listened to what mr. rangel have to say very carefully. it troubles me that he is before the committee without counsel. are we going to consider his statement as a motion to continue this hearing? >> is that a motion to continue mr. rangel? >> i do not know -- first of

all, my role here is as the respondent. i am not here representing myself. i have been a lawyer long enough to know that it is very, very unwise for any person, a lawyer or judge, to be his own lawyer at a proceeding like this. i am not in a position to make a motion unless we are talking about fairness and if someone is contradicting anything that i say. notwithstanding the fact the use limited your letter for the record. if there is anything i said about that letter and all of the conversations we have had, i would think that notwithstanding procedure, that paris would allow you to say that this is a statement of how i feel as a person and a member of congress and as a citizen that expects

due process. you can call it a motion, and i cannot quite frankly answer that question. >> we appreciate that. >> we will turn, now, to committee counsel to introde your team and make your motion for the admission of evidence. >> madame chair, ranking member mccaul, members of the subcommittee, rep rangel. my name is blake. i am the chief counsel. to my right is deborah morris, counsel to the committee, and to my left is donald sherman, also counsel to the committee. at this time i would like to introduce evidence number one through 549 for the record. >> any questions? >> with all due respect, i am not in a position to pass

judgment on what counsel is about to do. i have never known that this proceeding even existed in summary judgment if that is what he is about to do. any lawyer that i have talked to said that the committee -- >> if i may intrupt mr. rangel, just to clarify, we weren't notified, as were you come out of this motion. -- as were you, of this motion. we will hear the motion, the argument from the committee counsel and whatever argument you may choose to make, but if you wish to be heard, in an opening statement, we will hold any ruling on that motion in abeyance so that if you wish to be heard, we will hear you. >> i appreciate the chair. would that include the right for me to have a lawyer? >> you may hire whomever you wish as a lawyer. that is up to you.

>> you have seen the record. two million dollars already, and i have been advised that this hearing could cost another million dollars. you have not allow me to have a defense fund which would allow me to have a lawyer come into the case. if that is what you are saying, there is nothing i would not yield to for that purpose, but you know that if you are saying that we can't move forward, then that restricts me from getting a lawyer, not only financially, the legal defense fund would have no meeting at all. if there is anything that i can do within the rules of the committee that will allow me to move forward with this, i would not object to just procedure. but i did not know until a week ago that this 80 pages would be

the way you intended to judge my conduct a week ago. so, i can listen to what he is saying, but does this mean that he is going into this procedure, that i do not have counsel to guide me? >> if i may, mr. rangel, if you could be seated. for clarification, the respondent has inquired of the committee whether a fund could be created where contributions could be made for legal representation and has been advised by this committee that that is permissible, however, the retention of counsel is up to the respondent, whether you are to hire rick at your own expense, for your campaign committee, or through a fund, it is your decision, not the committee's decision.

>> i am just asking for time to get counsel. i have lawyers from washington d.c. and new york that are willing to give me free counsel, to be able to come here because they do not think that i have been treated fairly, but they say that if they do that as a gift, it violates the law. i heard that they could do it for reduced fees, if only we had time to develop the committee. you're telling me that i do not have time to do that. well you tell me that i can hire anybody and get anybody, or not have a lawyer, you are also saying that time does not permit this matter to be concluded before the end of this session, and that is the nuts and bolts of what we're talking about. you are not going to give me

time to do it. i do not think anyone can say that this is the way it ends up. yes, i can do these things, but you have to conclude this now. my reputation, 50 years of public service has to suffer because this committee has concluded that he will conclude this matter before this congress ends. all i am asking for is time to get counsel. time to get counsel. and i think you are saying now that you denied it before and you're denying it now. >> i gather that you do not object to the evidence that has been proffered by committee counsel. >> i object to this proceeding and with all due respect, since i do not have counsel to advise me, i am going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings because i have no idea what this

man has put together over two years that was given to me last week. i hope that this committee, in terms of fairness -- [inaudible] with all due respect and understanding how awkward it is for members of this committee, as someone who would like to reserve the right to be judged by their peers with counsel, i respectfully removed myself from these proceedings. >> madame chair, before he leaves, and ask an additional question? >> gessler. >> even though the respondent did not make a motion to continue, i would like this committee to seriously continue the motion to continue.

we can discuss among ourselves what the response it has said. i think he is taking this very seriously. i serve as a judge and i know the need for counsel, especially in this environment. >> that is a request from one member to have a discussion on the motion -- align >> i make a motion to continue the matter. >> we will go into our closed session and then we will return. >> was there except to the motion? >> yes there was. >> there was a second to the motion. all right.

>> i wish i could make a statement, but as you know, they have gone into recess. i do not think that there is anything that i can say.

>> of the subcommittee has been meeting on the motion made by mr. butterfield and seconded by .r. conaway the committee has decided not to

continue this matter. i would like to make a couple of comments regarding that decision. mr. rangel has repeatedly sought and received committee guidance on how he may pay his legal fees in this matter. mr. rangel asked for a vice from the committee in september of 2008, march of 2009, october of 2010 and again in november of 2010 and received informal advice on that in august. each time the committee responded and provided mr. wrangle with formal guidance of how he could pay for legal fees in this matter relative to contributions and there is no prohibition on an individual using their own fees to retain counsel. under current house rules, it is

not possible for mr. ragle to except pro bono representation, nor is it possible for the committee to compel his former counsel to represent him today. we are extremely troubled that they -- that his former counsel with your shortly after this hearing was noticed. i would note that the -- of these matters have been under way for quite some time. the investigative subcommittee completed its work and mr. frankel, the respondent, was provided with all of the evidence and materials on june 17 of this year and again with the notice of alleged violation formally on july 22 of this year. todayprepared to proceed and we recognize that mr. rangel

has indicated that he does not intend to participate and it is his right not to participate in this matter as mentioned earlier. no conclusions as to the facts of this matter can be drawn by the fact that mr. rangel has decided not to participate in this hearing. unless there are further matters at this point, dodge neon >> madame chair, mamet,? >> sure. >> since the first hearing opened in july, we have repeatedly asked that this committee proceed with this hearing as expeditiously as possible as requested by the responded. it is unfortunate that that did not happen and we are where we are today. i would agree with madame chair

that it is also unfortunate that the law firm, for whatever reason, is not here today to represent mr. rangel. somehow, they got off the case after the hearing was scheduled. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you for those comments. at this point, i would ask our counsel, mr. chisam -- >> madame chair, i would like to agree with mr. mccall. it is an astonishing display of professional irresponsibility for a law firm to be representing an individual, whether it is before this tribunal or another tribunal, to essentially drain the resources available to pay the firm into this for two years in the range

of two million dollars, and then on the eve of the hearing, where his fate is in peril, they withdraw. it reminds me of bleak house, where the dickens character at the very beginning of the epic novel, there is a large estate and the book ends were all of the resources of this state have been drained by the estate lawyer. none of the problems of the estate have been resolved. i understand that our rules prohibit us from taking action on that, but if this were a court of law, and a month before the capital case came to trial after two years of investigation, but would not be

allowed to happen. i would agree with mr. mccaul in expressing my astonishment for them taking the money and then kicking their client to the side of the road when it came time for the actual hearing. thank you. >> certainly, mr. butterfield? >> i, too, would like to associate with them. it is fundamentally unfair to the respondent for council, after learning the date of the hearing, and on october 14, we did not to mentation from a lawyer asking permission to withdraw. they simply gave notice that they were of the case. that is fundamentally unfair.

would not happen in my court and it should not happen here. we should at least promulgate a rule to prevent this from happening in the future. we should make sure this firm explains their conduct to the committee. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. we will turn now to mr. chisam. madame chair, i will renew my motion to submit items one through 549 at this time. >> those items will be entered into the record. do you have additional motions? >> i do, madam chair. at this point, i would like to introduce what has been marked as exhibit 550, 551, 552, and

553. 551 is the exhibit of meal ruler. thus the affidavit -- >> the affidavit from ivan seinberg. we are prepared to call witnesses in this matter. throughout the course of preparation and recent days, we have entered into -- witnesses have offered affidavits. in fact, and at least one of these instances, suggested changes to the language that we negotiated and we agreed to. at this time, i would move the admission of these. >> there is a motion to put those affidavits into the record.

is there objection? if not, the items by unanimous consent will be put into the record. i would also note that we have received this morning a letter from congressman bobby scott along with a document entitled "minority viewpoint." without objection, those items will also be placed into the record. >> at this time, i would like to call up and proceed with the motion that we noticed on november 8, 2010. >> each side has 20 minutes to argue this motion. at this point, we will ask if

you would like to begin your arguments and? >> i would. the motion before you is 13 separate but nearly identical motions. those motions say that quite simply, it is time for you to vote. the affirmation supports -- the state's our case at length and argues on the uncontested facts in this record. each of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation is ripe for a vote. more than six months ago, the respondent was provided notice of the charges against him. more than five months ago, he was given the documentary record as well as transcripts of testimony. on october 22, by direction of the chair, the committee counsel provided the exhibits to the

respondent. he was afforded an opportunity to object and he did not. also on october 22, respondent was notified of the names of witnesses we intended to call. he was given summaries of their expected testimony and provided an opportunity to object. the respondent was given the opportunity to provide notice of any evidence he intends to offer and any witnesses that he intends to call. he gave no such notice. provided the opportunity, the respondent has not contested the evidence. nor has he indicated that he intends to put on a case. simply, the record before you is the record. the facts are the facts. accounts are ripe for a vote. there are 13 counts charged with the statement of alleged

violation. one, improper solicitation. the violation of part 5 relating to the respondents through benefits of private donors under circumstances that reasonable persons might construe as influencing the respondent. a violation of the gift rule where respondents received private donors that gave to the center at the behest of the respondents. count four, violation of postal service lost, for of using his frank to solicit private donations. a violation of the federal franking statute. in violation of house office building regulations for soliciting private donations on house property. count seven, a violation of the

purpose law and how -- for misusing resources to solicit private donations. count a, a violation of the letter had ruled. violation of the ethics in government act. for failing to file full and complete financial disclosure statements. violation of clause 5 for accepting a favor or benefit from his landlord in the form of his landlord's tolerance of the nonconforming use of a residential or rent stabilized apartment for campaign purposes. count 11, a violation of clause 2 for failing to uphold federal tax laws. cantwell, a failure to appear to both the letter and the spirit

of the house rules. and calf 13, conduct not reflecting credit heavily on the house. the solicitations for the center. 1-8 relate to solicitations and of the center. the law is really quite simple. members of congress may not solicit unless they follow rules established by the house ethics committee. the respondent could have lawfully solicited donations for the rental center, but it was only in his personal capity. but he did not. the respondent has admitted that he used official letterhead to solicit. >> there has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationery and not really doing the right bank.

>> in addition to misusing his letterhead, the uncontested evidence shows clearly that when the respondents said over 100 letters that included a brochure requesting $30 million for the rangell center. they were taken as solicitations by donors. at least one donor gave $25,000 based solely on respondents' letters. he used staff time and other official resources to create a list of potential donors. he he he used staff time and official resources to draft those letters and schedule appointments with potential donors to discuss funding for the center. he used his congressional frank

consent solicitation letters. he created and a mail solicitation letters from the congressional office. he solicited donations from individuals, businesses, and from foundations with business and interest before the house as well as the ways and means committee. many contacted him and his staff about legislative and other official matters during the time in which he solicited. in one case, with respect to aig, who responded said it would not be appropriate for him to meet with aig representatives to discuss the funding. he later met with aig officials to close that deal. aig did not of a because of the perceived risk. the respondent is soliciting

gifts from david rockefeller who donated $100,000 home from his personal fund in tribute to the respondents. he indirectly received gifts from private entities and individuals or when they donated money to the center at his request and in his honor. the respondents received updates from of the city college and his staff on the status of funding for the rangel center. he focused his energies and his hot on private-sector fund- raising. particularly after a $3 million earmarked that he would sell through along with other earmarks' in 2006. these facts are uncontested. they are in the record before you. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent

violated counts 1-8 in the statement of alleged violation. the financial disclosure and tax issues, when the uncontested evidence establishes that the respondent repeatedly did not get his financial disclosure statement and tax filings correct. he has admitted as much. gosh when it comes to the negligence of the disclosures and the tax issues, there is absolutely no excuse. >> and the papers before you show the errors and omissions. on the facts here are the facts. the emissions are the omissions. and the inaccuracies are the inaccuracies.

these facts are uncontested and they are on the record. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent [unintelligible] it is nonconforming use of an apartment as a campaign office. in the uncontested facts show that the respondent least an apartment in the complex in harlem in his district in 1996. he stated he was to use it for living purposes only. he did not. instead, he used solely and exclusively as a fund-raising office for his campaign committee and commercial use of violated the terms of his lease. commercial use of the property violated building code

regulations and son-in-law's. he made no secret about his use of the apartment as a campaign office. he paid the rent with campaign checks and his staff sent females to the in-house counsel that oversaw evictions with his apartment address in the campaign office clearly noted. at the same time, the landlord was evicting other tenants had an increased rate. on the grounds of non primary residence. some of the tenants complained and. the office contacted the tenants and the landlord. th landlord had representatives that also met with the respondent about a new development project. the landlords tolerance of respondents's nonconforming use

was a favor or a benefit to the respondent, particularly during the time that the landlord was evicting the other tenants for not using their apartments for primary residences. as part of his official duties, it might have created the appearance of impropriety. the respondent has said as much himself. >> what was the benefit? the benefit was that they were not sensitive to the fact that there was appearances though i was being treated differently than anyone else. >> these facts are uncontested. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated house council 10 of the statement of alleged violations. cal 12 and 13, the respondents

axe in his accumulation of act violated both the letter and the spirit of house rules and other laws, but his conduct did not reflect well on this house. the uncontested records -- the uncontested facts in the record before you clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated both counts 12 and 13 of the statement of alleged violations. finally, the respondent himself as noted that the allegations are serious. and that his conduct violated the rules. gosh i am prepared to let and try to let young people null and that you never get too late to recognize that these rules are

for junior members as they are four senior members. and you can't get so carried away with good intentions that you break the rules. the rules are there to make certain that we have some order, discipline, and respect for the rules. i violated that and i am apologizing for it. i don't think that apologies mean that it is -- is very serious. >> for these reasons and for those stated fully in the written motion, we submit to you that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts in this case. as a result, the case is ripe for decision. we simply request that you grant each of the 13 motions and that you commit the matter forthwith to the subcommittee for the

liberation and for a vote on each count as alleged. >> i would note that this motion and all of the documents entered into evidence are posted in an committee's website effort to be fully transparent. at this time, he would have been recognized to argue against the motion, but he is not president -- present. members of the committee who have questions will be recognized under the 5 minute rule. how do any members of the committee have questions at this time? >> we need to look at whether

there is a material issue of fact in dispute. perhaps those serious allegations have to do with the respondent's alleged violation of the tax code given the position as chairman of the ways and means committee, charged with writing the tax laws for the nation. in the motion for rejection on 77, is a the respondent violated tax law by failing to report and pay on rental income in the dominican republic. the respondent has admitted that he should have reported the income and from there on, you say that it is undisputed and he violated the internal revenue code. i want to look at some exhibits that you attached to see if there is any material issue in

dispute. >> we have the opportunity to put exhibits on display of members have questions about them. perhaps we can let that happen. the you need time to do that? i am sorry for interrupting. >> essentially, it indicated that he failed to report on the original tax returns from 1998 until 2006. interestingly, he sent a letter to the dominican republic requesting a contract bill. the ethics committee required

disclosures, and while i enjoyed a good relationship, it would be politically embarrassing if i am unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings. when he testified before the subcommittee on the issue of the tax returns, he stated that he had a misguided and inappropriate view regarding be in town because he had not received a check for direct income. when the president testified, he said that the resort set statements every six months showing his income. if we could put up the exhibit number 82 on the screen. this is a letter from the resort. in the first paragraph, the statement shows a total income of $2,604.

next, i would like to put up exhibit number 540. this appears to be a letter written to the speaker nancy pelosi. he states that he, until this year, had not received anything as of september 2008. i have not personally received proceeds in cash and he goes on to say that as chairman of the ways and means committee, who he is held to a higher standard of propriety. if we can turn to exhibit number 87. while he states that he did not receive this in come, i found

exhibit number 87, he sent a letter and entered his signature to the yacht club asking them to please send the in come check to the account of charles frankel -- rangel. the documents in my view seemed to indicate other matter. exhibit number 89, if i can be put up on the screen, he said he never received cash, but when i was reviewing the exhibits, i found this wire transfer directly from the yacht club as far back as 2002. in the statements from there in

terms of the earned income is my understanding that they were sent every six months. these letters were written on official stationery, and on one hand, the documents seem to be done controverted. he seems to have some explanation as to why this was not earned income. can you explain this discrepancy? >> the paper governments. the respondent did not report on his tax return, and come that he received. these documents, exhibit 86 and 87 show clearly that the

respondent was told that he had and come and that he requested and told them where to send that money. that is unequivocal. he did make statements at some point that were not sworn in a letter to the speaker that suggested that he did not know. there is no doubt that he did. the evidence in this record which is the paper here, shows that he knew and that he failed repeatedly to report his income. i would also note exhibit number 5. this was in 2000, and the

respondents did not report and come -- income on his tax return. his amended financial disclosure indicated there is between 20 $505,000 worth of and come. we don't have an amended tax return for that year. if you look at the highlighted portion, there was no income derived from these assets during the year 2000, and it should have been noted in my financial disclosure statement. >> the committee worked with him to identify this, it seemed he continued -- >> he affirmatively stated that he did not have income and the documents indicate that he did.

>> i know that our time is limited, but i agree in his letter to the speaker that as chairman, he should be held to a higher standard. >> do other members of questions at this time? mr. butterfield. >> let me go back to the question of council of i can do that very briefly. beat you have any contact with the law firm that represented mr. rangel prior to october 7? about this case or the preparation of this case? >> in the ordinary course of events, i regularly taught to opposing counsel, and that was

the case here. >> extensive contact with his lawyers. is that right? >> we discussed the case regularly. i want to be careful with what i say because most of not all of those discussions were covered under the blanket of settlement negotiations, and largely would be -- >> you did have extensive contact with this council, that would not be privileged, would it? is it true that the law firm simply withdrew from this case without asking permission to do so? gosh they filed a letter with the committee that withdrew. >> and they said that we are out of here and we're not representing this man any longer? >> i have the courtesy of a phone call shortly before that.

>> and this was before -- after the date of the hearing was announced? >> it was closed. i would say yes. >> where specifically in the rules as a motion for summary judgment addressed? >> congressman, i know that we like to talk about this as a motion for summary judgment and i would like to put that matter to rest. it is not really the same thing for a motion for summary judgment. and you should be able to fulfill your role. i am not asking as a matter of law. as many things go, maybe we don't say anything. they are silent on this issue about what types of motions --

however. they do talk about the chair could be considered evidence. emotions are at the discretion of the committee and the subcommittee as to what -- >> you think it is inherent to entertain this motion? and did i understand you to say that he did not respond to your motion for summary judgment? >> he has not responded in writing or orally, either. >> during your investigation of this matter, could you with some certainty determine who maintained his financial records? whether it is the chief of staff, his wife, an accountant?

to maintain the records? >> within his family, records were kept most likely by his wife. his chief of staff returns in 2000 and helps them with his financial disclosure report, he had held before then. >> is a clear that different people perform different functions? one person might have filed his disclosure form and another person prepared his tax returns? >> that is a fair statement. >> in your investigation of this matter, d.c. any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption?

>> i see no evidence of corruption. it is hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. the short answer is probably no. do i believe based on this record that congressman rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in congress? i do not. i believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did and sloppy in his personal finances. with respect to the center, i

think what is ironic to me is that he could have done this without seeking permission, without having to come to the committee and ask permission if he had only followed a few simple rules. the committee allows a blanket waiver for solicitation without having to ask for permission. he could have done this right. >> he did not use official resources and could have done this? there was some reference to earned income from other instruments that he received actual and come in from what i can gather, that income was reported on his tax return. it was simply not reported on his financial disclosures.

>> i will go with sometimes. there were variances throughout the entire time with respect to both what and how accurately amounts were reported. >> are there additional questions? >> part of the issue is that he repeatedly left off -- repeatedly left of assets from his financial disclosure of a material nature. there is an ing russia fund. it is not on his original.

the next page, there are two other accounts, both of those on this amendment return, not on the original return. it is somewhere between 400,850 thousand of assets. would those be considered material to his financial statement? >> in general, underneath the structure of the house rules, assets by definition are considered material. they are to be reported. >> the the reason [inaudible] [unintelligible] >> if you ask him, it was attributed to slightly -- sloppiness. >> do we know where the source of these funds came from?

his tax returns on don't appear to be super wealthy. the least for a number of years, [unintelligible] >> there is no indication as to why those same records were used. in answer to your first question, there appear to have been, for what it is worth, and up-tick that results in the sale from 2004. >> that makes sense. his accounts back on the deal, do we know for sure that he fired those many tax returns.

>> from 2004 forward. we know that we -- he attempted to pay the taxes. >> exhibit 66, we might go into it. we were told by a statue of limitations, was a totally? >> they did not have adequate for the years that he did not file. >> protection is afforded?

all of these cumulative repeated deficiencies, did you include that? >> i have no reason to believe -- i don't believe it is a defense at all. i believe it is a violation of the rule. page 3699, this is a transcript from a press conference done by mr. randall in the house press gallery. really looking at the bottom of the page 3699.

there we go. that is not its. is it 3699? that was it, i'm sorry. this is mr. rendell speaking at the conference. i did not expect any special treatment because i am a member of conference. whatever mistakes, if any, i have made. has a matter of fact, i truly believe that those in public service really have a higher obligation than people who vote for them -- this is a twisted

final phrase, is this a correct copy of the transcript? >> that is my understanding. yes. i am a lawyer, congressman. >> with his lawyer were in here and said this is not a true and correct copy of the transcript, would we toss it out? >> he produced this document to us. >> high yield back. >> to other members have questions they wish to ask? >> i will keep my questions as it relates to a specific issue. a few things. on page 74, you state that the

evidence in the record makes clear that the respondent accepted a favor or benefits in the form of leasing the rent stabilized apartment for his campaign office. this violated the terms of his lease. the york city zoning regulations, new york city building code, in this particular box. could you describe more specifically the zoning and building regulations that were violated by his use of the campaign office in a residential building? and secondarily, what is the significance about the commercial units above the first floor? >> the lease that was provided was for living purposes only. had i think that was for a reason.

the reason is that every building in new york has what it is called a certificate of occupancy and what you can use a building for. the certificate of occupancy refers to as different as son- in-law's, and the bottom line comes to this. every unit above the first floor had to be used for residential purposes. if it wasn't, it would have violated the zoning restrictions as well as the building code. agassi to the certificate of occupancy, and there are certain exceptions. there is some promise ability to use a residential unit for a business so long as you don't use more than 25% of the space for the business and you don't bring people into work. there is absolutely no circumstance that his use of this particular apartment would

not have violated some law in new york. >> and the first floor issue? >> hobbes buildings, there are about six of them. you can live and shop in the same place. it is a large, a tall building. >> and the other questions, if you could put up the exhibit number 5 away. it is a copy of the original lease for the apartment that he signed for his campaign office. on the first page, he is tight as the tenant. the tenant shall use the apartment for living purposes only and could only be occupied by either the tenant named on the lease or buy the immediate family. it seems clear that the respondent did not live in that

particular unit. >> it is absolutely clear based on everything that we know that he used that unit solely and exclusively as a campaign office. he had his staff go and there. they worked in there. he did not use its -- and he was quite open about it. >> if you can put up the exhibit number 530. the evidence and testimony confirmed that this was used for the campaign office unit? >> before the investigative subcommittee, my recollection is that a witness indicated that

this appeared to have come from the file for that unit. >> the person named on a lion is mr. randall's son. is there any evidence that his son lived in that unit? >> there is no evidence to indicate that his son live there. >> i have a series of questions that i intend to ask of mr. rangel's council which i will not do here. i will be happy to submit them for the record. i yield back. >> how do additional members have questions?

mr. harper, be you have questions? >> earlier, you were asked by mr. butterfield of mr. rangel had received personal financial benefit or the issue of corruption. electable of the summary judgment if i could. is that available on the screen? >> i don't think we have that. >> if you could refer and members of the committee references to page 59 of your motion for summary judgment. the first full paragraph, the first sentence says, the nation's to the center were a favor or benefit to the respondent. if i could drive down to the paragraph on page 59, it said the respondent also receive benefits for himself. the receive a place on the

houses papers. i would ask, do those things, referring to the paragraph, do those have value? >> to answer your question directly, they do have value. the physical location for the center has never been built. he has never donated his papers because he is still in congress. do i think it has value? i absolutely think it has value. but is perspective and a little hard to measure at the moment. >> if we were talking about cash or monetary contributions, that has an exact value. but this does personally benefit mr. rangel, does it not? >> it would have.

>> if i could refer you to exhibit 113. just by way of the information, it is an e-mail that is dated december 26, 2006 between shirley butler at the rental center, the former chief of staff and a number of other house staff. at the list of foundations that was faxed to the -- congressional stationery was used on these contacts, is that correct? >> can i take a look and see it before i answer the question? congressman, i don't want to mess this up. the question is -- i don't

understand the question. >> i apologize. what are we at 136? how many letters were sent regarding the rangel center? were they all sent on congressional letterhead and were they sent with house frank? >> this exhibit shows a list of foundations to our knowledge. the record is pretty clear on this. everybody on the west got a letter. it was on the official letterhead. and we know that at least in the case of the new york stock exchange, which have evidence

that the franc was used. >> one concern is to how to proceed on this motion whether we call a summary judgment or however you want to phrase it. while it is not specifically in the rules, what is the precedent for a motion like this being offered in lieu of the oven a judicatory of varying -- of an adjudicatorial hearing? >> it would be more in lieu of taking live testimony. in terms of not taking on public testimony, i think there is ample precedent before the committee. but this is the hearing. the evidence is admitted at the hearing. we are essentially having a hearing. the motion simply states that based on the record before you,

you can decide today and you can go back and talk about this case if he deliberate on a, you can argue about it, you can agree on that. the right now, you can get to a vote based on what you have before you. >> is this sufficient with the evidence that has been admitted with a summary judgment motion that we are able to make a decision? >> the fact that we have stated are not all the facts in this case, we believe they are the material facts and they are ample to allow you to decide. we need in favor of the counts of 13 counts. >> are there further questions? >> did you investigate for

comparison purposes, other members of congress who had raised funds for an educational institution? >> the jurisdiction of the subcommittee was limited to congressmen rangel. >> other members of congress have raised money for an educational institution that has been named after them. correct? and you have no adverse nation about what members have done that and what circumstances it has been done? >> i don't find irrelevant. >> if i understand what you're saying, it is permissible for a member of congress to raise funds for an educational institute that will be named after the member? >> so long as they don't use of

the resources -- official resources. >> an individual is allowed to solicit funds, and that includes from campaign donors or individuals that might have interest before their committee in order to establish a nonprofit educational institution to be named after them? under existing rules and the house of representatives and in the u.s. senate? >> under the committee's general waiver for solicitations for what you're talking about, that is generally true. but you cannot directly solicit, yes. >> the question here is the way in which he did that, rather than what is he actually did, is that correct?

it is just yes or no on this, right? >> you are correct. >> they cannot use congressional letterhead, right? but they can send that letter to a corporation, to an individual who, whoever they seek to solicit funds from, correct? >> on personal letterhead, sure. >> in the fact that that individual might have interest before a committee or jurisdiction is not a bar to them making that solicitation in the first place? >> that is correct. >> on the question of rent control, mr. randall -- rangel had [unintelligible] had multiple units on the

sixteenth floor of the same building. >> most people think it is a pretty byzantine process of rent control in new york city, the department that is the substance of this inquiry was in force for several months. is indeed -- they paid the highest rate allowed under existing law? >> the units are stabilized hall under new york law and he paid the maximum rent. >> and the landlord had a policy as to how it competed with rent- controlled apartments? >> [unintelligible] >> what we have here is a situation in which mr. rangel,

his campaign paid a maximum rate under law for a rent-controlled apartment that had been left vacant for several months before his campaign rented it? is that right? >> the rent stabilization law is not at the landlord, this is the violation of zoning code. >> high-yield back. -- i yield back. >> representative rangel was represented for a substantial bit of time, about two years. they filed a motion to dismiss at an earlier stage in the proceedings. in their written brief, the motion was denied. but in their motion, they argue that the charitable contributions in connection

with the center cannot be construed as an improper favor or benefits. and they went on to argue that the indirect benefits were not favors, they were integral parts of the academic program. and the city college was a beneficiary, not mr. rangel. if he had gotten permission and had solicited the the nation's in accordance with committee rules, would you argue that it was a benefit? >> if he had complied with committee rules, i do not believe that it would have been attributable to him. >> the argument is really twofold, that the process was

defective, and some sort of trance modification, -- transmogrification, it became a graph -- gift. i have trouble following that. >> i would flip it a little bit. the statute in the house rule, the house rule on gifts essentially prohibits all gifts to members. it is blankets. there are exceptions. the solicitation ban is likewise a nearly absolute motion on soliciting donations. the house rules specifically

provides that somebody else gives money to somebody else, and the member knew about it and requested it, that gift is attributable to the member. that is of the house rule. >> i understand that. but if it is an indirect gift, it would be in direct gift if you follow the rules of solicitation as well by your logic. all the people that we approved for charities are violating the rule. >> the letters that you so very often sign contain language that talk about when the solicitation is approved either by the general waiver or by a waiver issued by the committee, the corresponding gift problem, that gift won't be attributed. >> let me ask you another question regarding the

allegation that he received an improper gift because of the promise that he would have an office and there would be archiving of his papers. this is something that i have never agreed with, but it is in our rules. if you receive something from a public entity, it is specifically not a gift. so that if you go to the ucla game, if you sit with usc, you pay for your tickets, but if you sit with ucla, you do not. how could this violate the gift rule if the gift rule specifically excludes benefits

coming from the public sector? >> this is the indirect part of this gift. it is not in the provision directly of the office, it is how you get the money for the office. he solicited -- g. eisenberg gave $1 million in a match contribution for constructing that office. i think whether you do it under the letter and spirit or all under the indirect gift rule, it is abundantly clear that that gift ought to be attributed to representative rangel and what not, in my judgment, be considered a gift when that happens from the university. >> let me ask a final question, i am just about out of time. the statement of alleged the statement of alleged violation alleges