they should look into the root causes. they are alienating two billion people. they are causing them to become enemies. some of the callers use the muslim names. thank you, ms. murphy, for your work. guest: i appreciate your comments. i do think there is a great deal of alienation going on by the desire on the pt of some leaders to ascribe guilt by association, religious association, country of origin. a lot of people are fleeing totalitarian regimes when they come to the united states, to make a better life, to participate in our democracy, to get away from terrorism, and we

cannot have a system where we are not able to distinguish those individuals because we do risk alienating people, and really irease in our safety concerns. host: one last tweet from a dealer. so, now, americans are guilty until proven innocent? guest: it feels that way, and i think the good news about this country is that we are capable of correction and making improvements. we live in a robust democracy. people are complaining. legislators are getting involved. the aclu has a website. in the search area, put in tsa complaint, and you will get a forum. we are looking at this. this is a dynamic situation. it is time for the public to

weigh in. host: laura murphy, thank you as always for being with us. guest: steve, thank you, and i want to give you a copy of the aclu constitution for the entire giving a new perspective on the domestic and international impacts of the war. ow coverage starts saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history tv. telling the american story. every weekend only on c-span3. >> the house ethics committee today called for a new york congressman charles rangel to be censured for financial misconduct and fundraising allegations. that's next on c-span. then house republicans talk to

reporters about their priorities. this afternoon, president obama praised general motors after the u.s. automaker made a successful initial public offering of its stock to investors. later, a hearing on the government's home mortgage modification program. now, part of today's ethics committee hearing, then we'll bring you the hearing in its entirety. we'll hear from vermont congressman peter welsh first who serves on the committee. spent the coldest winter and died in korea and when you came home, you couldn't get a job because of the color of your skin and didn't get discouraged and pushed a cart in lower

manhattan. you got married and have a wonderful marriage and a great family. you earned the respect and esteem of the people of harlem. you have been an inspiration to generations of people. and you find yourself now having lost the prize that you sought for so long, the chairmanship of the ways and means committee, of this united states congress, you find yourself sitting where you wish you never were before the ethics committee and you know you will soon be standing before the entire congress. going back to that. and i just want to give you an opportunity to express whatever it is you want to say to the people of your district that i know you care so much about and who looked up to you for so long.

>> let me apologize to the committee. in korea, and whatever else god has given me, i'm deeply appreciative of. and with the opportunity to serve. and i don't know how much longer i have to live but it will always be to try to help people and to thank god for what he's given to me and

hopefully i've lived to share with others and leave the sanction to you as it relates to fairness and apologize for any wrongfulness that i caused you. and i just hope that no matter what you decide, in the sanctions that you put in that report that charles rangel never sought any personal gain. i've been overpaid in terms of the satisfaction i've gotten for everything that i've ever done. please make certain that my name, notwithstanding the imagination that some people may have, that no way to stretch this, that i was a corrupted individual, that i would bring shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the

country. i'll leave it up to you as to what is fair in terms of sanction. and i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that's not before this committee. but what the -- what's been done to me and my family and community is unfair. counsel knows it. all of you know it. and it's not your responsibility to correct them. but they will continue to call me a crook and charge me being corrupt. i do hope that no matter what you decide in the sanction that you might see your way clear to say that this member, honored to serve with all of you, was not corrupt and there's no excuse for my behavior.

and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. i never attempted to enrich myself. and that i walk away no matter what your decision. i'm grateful that i had this opportunity to serve and recognize that had it not been for god's gift in saving my life, i would not even be here today to talk with you. thank you for this awkward opportunity to express myself. and i apologize for -- for any embarrassment i've caused you individually or collectively as a member of the greatest institution in the country or the world.

>> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. there are no further requests for questions. at this point -- >> based on the comments of the last three speakers it appears we've moved into the deliberation phase of what we're going to do. if we go back behind that door, then nothing said back there is -- will be known. and is that -- a little confused as to half a loaf or a whole love. -- whole loaf. and sanctions. and not sure -- >> to answer the gentleman's question, we have had a number of statements made by members throughout the day. and at this point, we will recess to a session to deliberate as indicated at the beginning of the hearing. thank you.

[indistinct conversation]

>> the ethics committee recommended that congressman rangel receive a censure. the most serious congressional discipline short of expulsion. the committee vote was 9-1. a resolution would require a vote by the full house disapproving mr. rangel's conduct. and the speaker would verbally administer a rebuke to the new

york congressman. you will hear the entire ethics committee hearing in its entirety.

>> the committee, the standards committee, will come to order. i would like the record to reflect that all 10 members of the committee are present. and to note also that the chair is authorized to recess the committee at any time. this hearing of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of representative charles b. rangel will come to order.

when i designated the members of the judetory subcommittee to consider the statement of alleged violations in this matter, i noted that the code of government ethics states clearly that a public office is a public trust. it was our responsibility to determine whether representative rangel's conduct met that standard. it was our obligation to act impartially as finders of fact and law. and the members of the subcommittee fulfilled that responsibility and met that obligation. we did so fairly, honestly and without bias. the subcommittee did not prejudice the allegations against representative, prejudge the allegations against representative rangel, and indeed, the subcommittee did not find all of the alleged counts to be proven. but ultimately, we found that his conduct failed to meet the ethical standards that apply to all members of the house. those standards apply equally to those of white house have the privilege of representing our communities in the house for the first time and to our

most senior colleagues. on november 16, of this year, the subcommittee in the matter of representative rangel determined that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violations in this matter were proven by clear and convincing evidence. under committee rules, when a subcommittee concludes that one or more counts have been proven, it becomes the responsibility of the full committee to determine whether to recommend disciplinary action regarding representative rangel and if so, what form of sanction would be appropriate. the committee has the option to take disciplinary action on its own initiative or to recommend that the full house do so. the purpose of this hearing is to allow both representative rangel and committee counsel to share their views with a member of the committee as to what sanction would be appropriate in this matter, if any. as we begin, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the ethics process is not punishment but accountability

and credibility. accountability for the respondent and credibility for the house itself. when a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that member must be held accountable for the conduct. but it is perhaps equally important that the outcome demonstrate the credibility of the house of representatives. by investigating credible allegations of misconduct and sanctioning conduct that is proven to violate that standard, we maintain the integrity of the house and the trust of the public in this institution. the committee may recommend a range of sanctions. our rules provide some general guidelines to follow in recommending a sanction. for example, a letter of reprolve may be issued by the committee on its own initiative. other sanctions require actions by the full house. among these are rules to indicate that reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious

violations, and the expulsion is appropriate for the most serious violations. further, both the committee and the house itself are guided by the precedents of the house. for example, the house has in its history expelled only five members. three for disloyalty to the union during the civil war, and two, after they were convicted of felonies. our rules are clear that findings of violations alone should not be the basis for recommending a sanction. instead, we are required to provide both the respondent and committee counsel with an opportunity to share their views about disciplinary action. in reaching our decision, it is imperative that we act in a fair and evenhanded manner. i note that today's hearing is open to the public. although our deliberations will take place in executive session, our colleagues and the public will have the opportunity to hear the views of the parties regarding an appropriate sanction at this hearing.

representative rangal and committee counsel have previously been advised of the guidelines for this hearing. and as with any other phase of this process, the respondent may seek to waive this procedural process if he so chooses and is not required to be here or address the committee. representative rangel has chosen to be here today and has a right to share his views on the appropriate sanction with us. and should he wish to do so, we will hear him out or his representative. and take his opinion into consideration in our deliberations. the parties will each be allowed 30 minutes to present their views to the committee. although they are not required to do so, they may submit written briefs for the committee's consideration and if they do so, those findings will be included in the record. as a general rule, witnesses are not permitted in this phase. however, if a written request for a witness is made, witness testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the committee. neither party has to this point

filed a written request seeking to permit witness testimony. after we've heard from the parties, members will be permitted under the five-minute rule to ask any questions they may have following the presentations. we will then adjourn to executive session where we will deliberate and by majority vote decide what disciplinary action to recommend. our decision will be announced publicly and the basis for our conclusions will also be explained in a public report to the house of representatives. with that, i would ask my colleague, the ranking member joe bonner, whether he would like to make a brief opening statement. mr. bonner. >> we are at the end of a long and difficult task. and let me speak for just a moment about what makes this so

unpleasant. i know for a fact that many newly elected member of congress on both sides of the aisle have been welcomed to capitol hill by that bigger-than-life gravely voice of charlie rangel. who had put his hand on their shoulder and said welcome to capitol hill. so before i go any further, i would personally like to thank you, madam chair, ranking member mccall, and all of the members of the add judetory -- adjudicatory subcommittee for the work you completed this week. special thanks are also in order for the entire committee staff. as well as those who were involved in the investigative phase of this matter which regretfully and unavoidably lasted for almost two years. individually and collectively, we have shown what the chairwoman stated on tuesday

was our moral obligation. act with fairness. led only by the facts and the law as we attempt to discharge our duties. as most everyone in this room knows, the work of this committee is often mundane. and almost always done out of sight. we give advice and education to members of congress and their staffs so that they can know what they can and can't do to be in compliance with the rules of the house. we look into matters that have come to our attention to see whether or not a member has crossed in any inappropriate line. and as the american people have witnessed this week, and in recent months, as these rare but not unprecedented public proceedings have occurred, we have once again demonstrated that your-elected representatives can deal with

-- your elected representatives can deal with an uncomfortable but absolutely necessary charge that comes to us from the constitution itself. which requires that each house of congress maintains the responsibility to punish its members for breaking either the rules of the house or the laws of our land. for disorderly behavior and for bringing discredit to this, the people's house. as an aside, i found it especially ironic and troublesome that on the very day that almost 100 newly-elected members of the 112th congress 0 were' -- were arriving in washington for their freshman orientation, in another room just a few steps away, was a man who once wielded one of the most powerful gavels in town. and at one time was one of our most highly regarded colleagues. and yet who showing so little

regard and respect, either for the institution that he has claimed to love or for the people of his district in new york that he claims to proudly represent for more than 40 years. now, i don't pretend to speak for mr. rangel's constituents. they have re-elected him often without opposition more times than many of the members of congress have actually been alive. but while mr. rangel has tried repeatedly this week to claim the unfairness of what has happened to him, in my mind, the most unfair thing of all was that his constituents were denied an opportunity to know the findings of fact as determined by eight of his colleagues. four-runs and four -- four republicans and four democrats. before they, the voters in the 15th district of new york, had an opportunity to choose their representative earlier this year. this process could have and should have been concluded

earlier and as such, it is my view that the committee failed the people of harlem and the 15th district of new york for this reason alone. before he walks out of the hearing on monday, but even after the subcommittee's conviction by clear and convincing evidence on tuesday, mr. rangel stated that this panel should now take into account his entire 40 years of service to the congress as well as his military record. let me be clear -- his distinguished military service is not up for debate. nor is it a relevant part in my view of this deliberation. when the american people bestow upon us the privilege of being their representative, it is both a matter of tradition and protocol that the position also carries with it the title of honorable. sadly, madam chair, it is my

unwavering view that the actions, decisions and behavior of our colleague from new york can no longer reflect either honor or integrity. as i noted earlier, i can't speak for the people in mr. rangel's district. but i do know this -- for the tenants would qualified for a rent stablized apartment in new york or any american city, but couldn't get one because a powerful man -- there's something wrong with that. for the small business woman who didn't pay her taxes for 17 years and had the i.r.s. breathing down her back, i can only imagine how she would have liked to have had the chance to help write the tax code of this country and make it less burdensome and simpler for everyone else. and for the still relatively new member of congress, from california, who just a couple

of years ago questioned whether or not it was appropriate to be building a monument to me, i will never forget the arrogance of the response. i was on the floor that day. i would have a problem if you did it, mr. rangel said to mr. campbell, on the house floor on july 19, 2007. because i don't think you've been around long enough to have your name on something to inspire a building like this. madam chair, it is painful for me to say this to a man i personally respect. but mr. rangel can no longer blame anyone other than himself for the position he now finds himself in. not this committee. not his staff or family. not the accountants or lawyers. not the press. mr. rangel should only look into the mirror if he wants to know who to blame. well, i'm not an attorney as

most of the members of this committee are, as well as the respondent himself. i know and i believe we all know that it should not take either a law degree or a legal dictionary to tell us the difference between right and wrong. it is now up to each one of us to determine the appropriate measure of punishment for the discredit mr. rangel has brought to this house. and i thank the chairwoman for this opportunity to offer a few heartfelt observations and yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam chair. i have an opening statement that i hadn't intended to deliver and as ranking member of the subcommittee that brought this forward, i would simply ask that this be entered into the record. >> the gentlemen asks unanimous consent that his statement be submitted into the record and without objection, it is so entered. and i would note that other members of the committee who would like to submit opening statements will have five

legislative days to do so. with that, i now would ask mr. chisholm to make his presentation on the issue of sanctions. to the committee. you will have 30 minutes to make that presentation beginning now. mr. chisholm. >> thank you, madam chair, ranking member bonner, members of the committee. the house's authority to discipline its own members is explicit in the constitution. article one, section five provides each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. when a member has been found to have violated the standards that govern his conduct, it falls to this committee to recommend to the full body an

appropriate sanction. charges of unethical conduct can only be evaluated on a case by case basis. it was for the very purpose of evaluating particular situations against existing standards and of we hadding out baseless charges -- weeding out baseless charges from legitimate ones that this committee was created. respondent, on his own initiative, came to this committee and asked it to evaluate his conduct. the committee has. before dawe are the findings of the adjudicatory subcommittee in the matter of representative charles b. rangel. that subcommittee found that 11 counts in a statement of alleged violation were proven by clear and convincing evidence. the 11 counts relate to four general areas of misconduct.

respondent's improper solicitation of individuals and entities with business and interests before the house to fund the charles b. rangel center for public service and the city college of new york and his misuses of official resources to make those solicitations. respondent's failure to file full and complete financial disclosure statements for the years 1998 through 2008. respondent's acceptance of a favor or benefit from his landlord related to his use of a residential rent stablized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. and respondent's failure to report and pay taxes on his dominican villa. the subcommittee found that respondent's actions and accumulations of actions

reflected poorly on the institution of the house and thereby brought discredit to the house. based on the subcommittee's findings, this committee must now determine the appropriate sanction to recommend. the committee's rules provide at least some guidance in determining sanctions. under those rules, the range of punishment is a reprimand, a censure, or expulsion. the committee may also recommend a find or the denial of any limitation or denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the member if under the constitution the house of representatives may impose such denial of limitation. the rules say that a reprimand is appropriate for serious violations. censure for more serious violations.

and expulsion for the most serious violations. this committee in its 43-year history has recommended that the house impose sanctions 16 times. four times the committee has recommended expulsion. the most recent being former representative travent in 2002. -- traficant in 2002. three times the committee has recommended censure. the most recent being former representative charles h. wilson in 1980. nine times the committee has recommended reprimand. the most recent being former speaker of the house gingrich in 1997. on three occasions, the full house has declined to follow the recommendation of the committee. in two cases in which the committee recommended reprimand, the house determined to censure the members. in one case, the committee

recommended censure. but the house instead imposed a reprimand. during the history of this committee, only eight members have been reprimanded. only four have been censured. in the committee's history, it has issued five public letters of reproval. four since 1997. the committee's precedents do not draw a clear line to determine an appropriate sanction in this case. on two counts respondent is found to have violated ethics on service and violations of clause five in the manner of representative robert psyches. in that matter, representative sikes was active in promoting the establishment of a bank, including his intervention with state and federal officials.

during the time he was assisting with the bank's establishment, he also purchased 2,500 shares of the bank's privately held stock. based on that conduct, the committee recommended that representative sikes be reprimanded. respondent has been found to have violated the financial disclosure requirements. the committee also found violations of financial disclosure requirements in the matter of representative george hanson. representative hanson had failed to report nearly $334,000 in loans and profits from 1978 to 1981 and had been convicted of four counts of making false statements. in that matter, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations of financial disclosure requirements in the matter of representative robert

sykes. in that matter, representative sykes failed to disclose ownership of two stocks. the committee specifically stated that in neither instance, does it appear that the failure to report was motivated by an effort to conceal the financial holding from the members of the house or the public. nonetheless, the committee stated that a failure to report was deserving of a reprimand. respondent has been found to have violated laws and regulations pertaining to the misuse of official resources. this committee also found violations for misuses of official resources in the matter of representative austin murphy. in that matter, the committee found that representative murphy permitted official resources to be diverted from his district office to his former law firm. the committee also found that ghost voting had occurred and that representative murphy

retained a staffer who did not perform duties commensurate with his pay. based on those violations, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found misuse official resources in the matter of representative james traficant. among numerous other violations found against representative traficant, the committee found that he had directed members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor and services related to his boat and his farm. taking into account all of representative traficant's violations, including bribery, the committee recommended that representative traficant be expelled. respondent has been found to have violated tax laws. the committee also found violations for tax-related conduct in the matter of

representative newt gingrich. representative gingrich failed to seek and follow legal advice , thus failing to ensure that the activities of his organizations were in accordance with section 501-c-3 of the internal revenue code. the committee also found that representative gingrich should have known that information transmitted to the committee was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. based on that conduct, the committee recommended that representative gingrich be reprimanded. the committee also found violations for tax-related conduct in the matter of representative james traficant. representative traficant failed to report and pay income tax for two years. representative traficant had been con victed of filing false tax returns. the committee recommended that

representative traficant be expelled based on numerous violations including underlying criminal conduct. respondent used the imprimatur and resources of his office to solicit money from individuals and entities with business and interests before the congress, and before the ways and means committee in particular. he was soliciting to create and establish a center that would encourage young minority students to consider entering public service, a noble goal, and an admirable project. imagine for a moment how it would feel to be a startup nonprofit struggling to find a funding needed to keep going. you have great ideas. but you need the money to fund

them. you aren't really sure of the best way to approach potential donors. you send letters to big foundations, to corporations, to well-known philanthropists. you don't get your foot in the door. and your ideas don't get anywhere. and then you see congressman rangel sending letters out using taxpayer money. in an attempt to raise money for his cause. he gets advice. he gets meetings. he gets donations. for a center named after him. how would that feel? think also about the students at the rangel center. they have an interest in going into public service. they want to do good. to make this country a better place. but what they come to learn is that respondent, to raise money, to create a center that was about public service, did not follow the standards

expected of public servants. what kind of example was that of what public service ought to be? but it's more than all of that. respondent's position in congress mattered. and everyone knew it. his staff understood it. the college understood it. the donors understood it. even those who did not give understood it. before the november, 2006 elections, there was only one significant private donation to the rangel center. a $25,000 contribution that came in solely because respondent wrote a letter. at that time, things looked bleak. the college was worried they would have to shut the project down. particularly after a major earmark respondent requested fell through. but they all said in one form or another, that when respondent became chairman, it

would help raise praoist money. after the 2006 election, after it was clear respondent would become chairman of the ways and means committee, the college started to get larger contributions. the donors, they had business or interests before the congress. just the appearance of that alone is striking. and how does it help ensure trust in government? the adjudicatory subcommittee found that respondent's use of an apartment as an office for his campaign in violation of the terms of his lease and new york city zoning regulations and its building code was a favor or a benefit to respondent. that created an appearance of impropriety. think for one moment about one

of respondent's neighbors and constituents. one who may not have been as fortunate as him. maybe she lived in lennox terrace for 30 years and had a rent stablized apartment. their landlord was seeking to evict her because they claim she wasn't using the apartment as her primary residence. faced with the choice to buy groceries or pay to fight the lawsuit, she simply decides to pack up and leave. imagine a few months later she discovers that respondent had an apartment in the building. that he dent use as his primary residence. she also learns that lennox terrace staff knew about the office and that the landlord got rent checks and emails with rangel for congress on them. she also learns that management put respondent's name on a list of special handling tenants.

she learns that respondent and his staff met with the landlord about a potential new real estate development deal. and she learns that when the press wrote about respondent's use of the apartment, he moved his campaign office somewhere else. almost immediately. how would that influence her faith in government? the supreme court has said taxes are the lifeblood of government. and their prompt and certain availability and imperius need. imagine how it feels to be one of your constituents who dutifully pays her taxes. maybe she's a waitress who earns much of her pay from tips. preparing her tax returns, a real pain. it takes a lot of time. she can't afford an accountant and she sure doesn't like to file. she doesn't like paying, either.

but she does it. and she reports all of her income. including those cash tips she gets. one night, after a long day on her feet, she turns on the television and she sees the chairman of the house ways and means committee, he's responsible for writing the tax laws. and she learns that he hasn't been paying taxes on his dominican beach villa for 17 years. a member of congress who has a c.p.a. to help him prepare and file his taxes and still he didn't get it right. how would she feel about that? the purpose of financial disclosure is to inform the public about the financial interests of government officials in order to increase public confidence in the integrity of government and to deter potential conflicts of interest.

every member of congress and thousands of government employees are required to complete these forms every year. taking the time which can be significant to complete the forms completely and accurately. the forms are important. as this committee has recommended -- has recognized and reiterated repeatedly. financial disclosure is about the public's trust. being able to see potential conflicts of interest between a member's private interests and his official duties is essential to helping the public have faith that its representatives are working to serve the public interest, not their personal interest. respondent from 1998 to 2008 failed to file accurate financial disclosure statements. this deprived the voters in his

district of the opportunity to view and test his personal financial holdings against his duties as their representative in congress. in addition, respondent is a senior member of the house. he held positions of trust, authority, and power. as ranking member and later chairman. ways and means committee, he had significant influence over critical and intricate policy areas that touched the lives of millions of americans. from taxes to medicare, social security, to trade, the ways and means committee's work has an effect on virtually every american. what does it say to the public when they learn their tax laws, health care policies, and retirement incomes were in large measure overseen by someone who showed such sloppiness and such

carelessness in preparing and filing his own financial disclosure statements? what would that alone do to the public's trust in government? inscribed over a door in the capitol is a line by george washington. it reads, "this government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, has a just claim to your confidence and support. it is essential that the public have faith in this institution. the public must be able to trust those who govern them. as former speaker of the house said, henry clay said, government is a trust and the officers of the government are trustees. and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.

public office is a public trust. respondent violated that trust. a member who has been found to have violated the house's ethics rules has breeched the public's trust. -- breached the public's trust. when a member of the public violates that trust he is subject to discipline by his colleagues. as trustees of the public trust each of you must consider the best interests of this institution and the people it represents. you should consider whether the conduct of a member who has violated the rules undermines the public's trust in its government. committee counsel submits that respondent's conduct which violated house rules, laws, regulations, and other applicable standards of conduct, undercut the public's ability to have faith and trust in this institution. the subcommittee found that

respondent's conduct reflected poorly on the institution of the house and thereby brought discredit to the house. disciplinary action in this matter is necessary. as to what that sanction should be, the question is whether the precedents adequately reflect the standards expected of members today. at least with regard to individual counts, a reprimand would not be inconsistent with the precedent. a lawyer's fealty to precedent serves a purpose. in this case, both to the law and to the institution. however, the fact is that the subcommittee's findings show that respondent's course of conduct demonstrated a lack of attention and carelessness over

a broad range of issues, over a lengthy period of time. his actions and his accumulation of actions as the subcommittee found brought discredit to the house. his conduct serves to undermine public trust in this institution. the subcommittee's findings, itself -- the nature of his misconduct and the effect his actions and accumulation of actions had on the public's trust when weighed against the precedents of this committee, suggest that something more than a reprimand but less than a censure would not be inappropriate. that said, we cannot ignore the fact that respondent was at relevant times either the chairman or ranking member of the ways and means committee. nor can we look past the fact that so many elements of his conduct intersected so overtly with his stature and his position.

as a result, i respectfully submit that this committee should recommend to the full house that it take disciplinary action against respondent and that this committee recommend respondent be censured by the house. >> have you concluded, mr. chisam? >> yes, madam chair. >> we will turn to mr. rangel. and i see you have our colleague, mr. lewis, sitting next to you. and i would invite you to address us now. >> thank you. first, let me say i can imagine the awkwardness that this committee had in its deliberation over the years. and i know none of you would have volunteered for this service. nor would you have believed that this case would have taken as long that it did take. and i understand that.

the second thing i would like to say that i hope mr. bonner and his statement did not imply my lack of love for my country or this congress. one of the reasons why -- in fact, this has taken so long, is because when people were talking about settlement, never was the evidence that was not found that relates to the allegations ever mentioned. as a matter of fact, one of the reasons why i was insisting on having the witnesses to testify in front of the investigate other -- investigatory committee was that because they may not have changed the facts.

they may not have been giving excuses for behavior. but clearly some think that it's been said today, by counsel and mr. bonner, they would have given an explanation for my faulty behavior as it relates to the very serious charge, charges, of violating the house rules. i look at myself every morning, mr. bonner, and i have never blamed staff, my family, or anyone for my irresponsible behavior as it relates to violation of the house rules. as a matter of fact, i have said it publicly and you had clips of this as to what i've said.

and i, no matter what sanction you finally reach, i will dedicate my life in trying to let younger members and other members know that these rules are not there to punish. they're there to guide the members to protect the character and the integrity of this congress and whether new members or older members, they have a responsibility to do just that. i would have hoped, however, that the atmosphere in which i dealt with the landlord at 40 west 35th street and dealt with those people that listed foundations, that could make recommendations for city college to receive a grant, that they would have been able or that they were able and did

testify that in all of this, there was no request for -- or suggestion that i would receive any personal gain. it would not even be a suggestion of corruption. and had there been some suggestion that we were negotiating as to whether or not we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to me that they were willing, and really asking this committee to do, to say what was not found, even though it was alleged and still is being alleged by newspapers, reporters, by television reporters, as it deals with rangel being a crook, rangel being corrupt, rangel gaining, just -- i don't see any reason why, if this

committee pointed out those things, yes, i wanted my community to know what i had done. i wanted to be judged publicly. and i admitted wrongdoing to my committee. and it want my fault that this committee decided to have this hearing on the eve of my primary. or the eve of the general election. but god knows there was enough derogatory things said about me that i don't think mr. bonner that you have to feel sorry for my constituents not knowing. the press took care of it. and i don't see where this committee or anyone did anything to clear the record as to what i did not do even though i humbly recognize that what i did do was serious enough for this committee to continue its investigation. i am not here to retry the

case. but even you, mr. bonner, might think it would be fair to point out that the record would indicate that the landlord solicited me for that fourth apartment, that the apartment had been vacant as other apartments had been throughout the building, and that was the -- with the exception of the zoning law mentioned by counsel, it was determined there was no violations of any agreements. and the person that the lease was made to said that he wanted me there. and that my leaving there would have destablized the apartment. but again, since you referred to the appearance of favoritism , i can't get into that subjective feeling about the appearances of people. i did not know i was on a special list. and i don't think anyone, what

did i gain as a result of being on that list because if there was appearances, it was with the staff. in any event, again, the fact that for 17 years, taxes were paid to the dominican republic, has nothing to do with the facts in this case as it relates to my conduct. but i would believe that the accountant that testified would have shared with you how mistakes were made that i assume responsibility for. because whether a lawyer or c.p.a. or accountant, i signed the paper. but had i had the opportunity to listen to the witnesses that mr. chisam heard, i think that perhaps the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person. but more in line with what was

said. when mr. butterfield asked the question of blake chisam, the ethics chief counsel, do you have any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption ? and blake chisam asked, i see no evidence of corruption, said blake chisam, in response to representative butterfield's question. do you believe based on the record that your -- that congressman rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in congress? no. i believe that the congressman quite frankly was overzealous in many of the things he did and sloppy in his personal finances. .

>> i assume that when you go into executive session, you compare when people were personally enrich and when there was no question the corruption existed. i brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share who are was. i felt awkward in giving some serving statements as to how

i've dedicated my life to my country and to this congress and to my community. and i know that if i had council here that they would say one thing -- don't antagonize any of the members of this committee. but i really was surprised that you could deal with questions that dealt with my love for my congress and my country and my district as well to talk about testimony that you found as factual that was not disputed by me, but by the same token, the surrounding circumstances of whether i have left the aartment -- if it'd been

subsidized apartment. the answer is no. the people that were looking for a subsidized apartment, they were not looking for it there and heard those apartments of were vacant. i did not try to hide anything from anybody. but again, that doesn't deal with how it appears, even though there is an account there saying that i gave the appearance that i was receiving a gift. and again with ccny, i was overzealous, because i have dedicated my life to trying to make certain that those people that were not exposed to the proper education could get it and there's the rangel seles of that the state department runs -- scholarship at the state department runs. because i know that the only ing between mean as the high school -- me as a high-school

dropout and korea and becoming the chairman of the wings and means committee is the gi bill -- the ways and means committee is the g.i. bill. it is not an excuse, but i appreciate that mr. chisholm demonstrated that it is an explanation. and not an excuse of my behavior. i hope you take that into consideration because it is not just the years i have been in congress. it is the years that i expect my grandchildren to be looking at, my community, and i hope you take all those things in consideration. and i ask now that you give an opportunity for john lewis to share some of the views of the over 50 years of friendship we have enjoyed. >> and by unanimous consent, mr. lewis is no recognized.

>> thank you, madame chair, members of the committee, mr. ranking member, i am here to say just a few words about my dear friend, my colleague, my brother charlie rangel. i must say upfront that i do not know the facts in this case. i have known mr. rangel for more than 50 years. he is a committed and dedicated, hardworking, patriotic american. he fought in korea for our country. he returned home and got an education and went off to law school. he served the city of new york and thes tat state of new york. he is a hardworking public servant. when the call went out in 1965 to come to selma, alabama, to

help people who had been standing in line who could not register to vote, he came to sleelma and he walked with many of us, including dr. martin luther king, all the way from selma to montgomery, alabama, for the right to vote. he sponsored aggressive legislation to end the business and evil system in south africa. he has always been a champion for those who have an left out and left behind. he has traveled to the length and breadth of america for those who did not have a voice. my colleagues, i must tell you, that charlie rangel is a good and decent man. i know this man. i think i know his heart.

i want to thank you, madame chair, mr. ranking member, and members of the committee for allowing me an opportunity to say just a few words. >> thank you, mr. lewis. you have additional time, mr. rangel. >> if there are any members of the committee that have any questions, i would be more than glad to respond. >> the gentleman yield back his time. i would turn out to the committee for guidance. the democrats have been noticed that we have a recorded vote. so that has been postponed. i retract the statement. are recorded vote has now been rolled, so we will now go to the time in our proceedings when members may, under the five minute rule, as questions that

they may have. i will turn first to the ranking member for his five minutes. >> madam chair, i will defer questions to my colleagues, but i want to respond directly to mr. rangel about two matters that he raised in his statement. mr. lewis referenced the fact that as a young man mr. rangel volunteered in came and marched with him and sel alabama, to rightsing civil and justice for all. i was born in slema before -- in selma before the march, and i wanted to know that is one of many proud part of your legacy. as someone that is born in selma, i am glad that you came and did what you did to

make america a better place. i want to make it perfectly clear, though, that in my statement and i just read checked the facts, i did not nor would i ever question your love of country, and i did not question your love of the institution. i said that you have so long proclaimed to love this institution, and also made it crystal clear that i am not qualified to speak for the people of harlem and the 15th district of new york. i also noted that no one can take away the proud and dedicated service you rendered your country and the honrors and the medals you earned. >> i'd like to thank you. >> while it was clearly your prerogative on monday to make a statement about the lack of

counsel and the frustration of not being able to set up an account, and to do what needed to be done so you would be represented, i do want to point out that the a judicatory subcommittee of which was not a member, had the responsibility and it was my understanding the intent to conduct a trial to allow those witnesses that could give defended your record and your views to have come in a public setting to have made those arguments for you or for the record. and while i was not here that day, and you chose to leave after you came, i just want the record to be clear that that was a choice that was made to not call witnesses and to not represent yourself or to have

legal counsel represented for you. and i just did not want that assertion that the record could not have been more complete. that was a decision that i had no role in. >> could i respond? >> i'm through. >> as i said in my remakr rks, the only reason i wanted a hearing is some of the witnesses would be able to come forward and the questions as to corruption and self interest answered, that the landlord could tell me that he solicited me. he was not doing me any favor. it is not true that i had the option of having witnesses called. that was denied me. they created summary judgment

in saying there was no need for witnesses because rangel admitted to wrongdoings with the disclosure and effect as related to other issues was established. so i do not know whether you were not on the committee, but if you have any information that i had the opportunity to call witnesses, you are making one big mistake. that was denied. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i will know that it will indicate that although a motion was filed, the chair did indicate that if the member wished to be heard that the ruling on the motion would be held in advance. the other members have questions? mr. mccall? >> that me say first that that was a tribute -- i was at a tribute last night, mr. lewis, to you. i want to commend you for your courageous x during the civil rights movement. i think a lot has been made of the issue of self interest and

corruption and the chief counsel or prosecutor hasn't gotten widely publicized for his comments that there was no corruption in this case. i guess i am a little confused. i guess it depends how you define corruption. mr. rangel, in your letter to speaker nancy pelosi, you stated, as chairman of ways and means i am held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree with that statement. sitting on one of the most powerful committees as chairman, to solicit corporations, foundations, lobbyists with business before the committee, to raise money for what i call a monument and had institutes to be named after yourself i believe it is a self-interested. people donate millions of dollars to have institutions named after themselves. in fact, mr. chisolm, and your

motion, he said the donations and benefits were accepted under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of respondents in governmental duties. is that not corruption? i guess it is how you define corruption here. i think reasonable people may disagree on that interest. pretation. i have great respect for you, but the failure to pay taxes for 17 years. what is that? what is that tantamount to? when we are all expected to pay our taxes, and you of all people as chairman of the tax committee, writing loss for the country. what is the difference between that and someone who did not pay taxes for two years? who was expelled from the

congress. and charles wilson received improper gifts and was censured. mr. chisholm, it is my understanding that your recommendation is for censure. >> that is correct. >> there is a misunderstanding in the opinion of the american people that we have the authority somehow to put people in jail or so forth. that is in a court of law, not within the jurisdiction of this committee. in fairness to you, mr. rangel and mr. chisholm, i would like some clarification, and i think the american people would like clarification as to how soliciting monies in an improper way from entities that have business before your committee, including lobbyists,

how that is not self interest and how that is not, in some way, defined as corruption. >> is that a question to counsel? >> that is a question to mr. rangel. >> had the witness is been called, mr. chisholm would have told do that city college came to me. had the witnesses and hear, it would of been made abundantly clear that i was not trying to criminally hide anything from the irs or congress. if you looked at the records of disclosure, you would see sloppiness would have shown that i was not hiding anything. it was just not properly recorded. and if intent is involved in corruption, then i think he should -- listen, there is

nothing that i can imagine that anyone can make a contribution to the city college and that somehow or other that matter would not be one that could possibly come before the congress. it is impossible. you and i discussed incorruption, i am satisfied with the record that the investigatory committee established. and that would lead you to believe as a former prosecutor that never but never was there and it tends to hide anything from my constituents or from the irs. and so, to me, if you have to properlys uick this up to not abiding by the rules, that is serious enough, but i really think said it is a stretch to imply -- i do not want to get into a discussion. is it objective, and there are a

lot of things that happened in life that i would think a lot -- someone conduct is corrupt, and that is something but i am just glad that you raise these issues to emphasize that i wanted the people to know before the election exactly what i have done and to allow them the opportunity to make the decision whether their congressperson was corrupt or not. >> your time is expired. >> i would like mr. chisholm to respond. on this side of the aisle, we did try it numerous times to get him to respond. >> you'll get an additional minute to respond to mr. mccall pose a questi's question. >> congressman, the other day i answered a question. i answered it based on my reading of the record, the

interviews that i have conducted, the people i have talked to. it was my opinion, mine. i do not presume to speak for anyone else nor did i intend to. i do think it comes to the question of intent at the end of the day, and that is how i interpreted mr. butterfield's questioned. >> summons time is expired. other members have questions for timeonaway -- gentleman's is expired. >> the city college of new york came up with the idea of the rangel center for public- service and the approach do with that idea. is that what you just told us?

>> i have left the clinton library with a member of congress on the appropriations committee, and i was sharing that experience with the president of city college, and he asked me whether or not quiet do with my would papers. and i told him sincecall in paul had something there, that i could put my -- since colin powell put his papers there, that i could put something there. i think the record is clear, even though i have not talked with the president or read his testimony, and my lawyer told me that i should not read the testimony of the witnesses because that would confuse -- >> mr. rangel. >> i am saying that they wanted me there more than i wanted to go to city college. there is also a question of -- i

know counsel will say this, nobody at city college told me about the gifts at the office. >> i reclaim my time, madam chair. i am perfectly satisfied with a clarification, the way this thing came together. he retained a forensic accountant to go through not only your financial disclosures are also your tax returns for those 17 years. and they estimated what your taxes would have then as besst had to filed their tax returns during that time frame. most of that was beyond the opportunity for the virus to compel you to pay those taxes. have you given any consideration to voluntarily paying those back taxes to square yourself with the irs?

>> i certainly have, because the question with have been have the taxes been paid and the deductions and made for the taxes and depreciation of the property in the dominican republic? my accountant tells me it would of been at minimal. the only reason i did not go beyond that was because i wanted the case closed as it related to coming before the committee. if a part of your adjudication with me is the responsibility to do it, i did send not want to get involved legally and doing something in front of this committee -- i it is did not want to get involved legally and doing something front of this committee. every obligation i have, this was not reported. this is what i referred to the committee. i was prepared to do what ever the committee suggested to show there was no intent to evade or the law. >> those taxes from the early

1990's up until 2004, you have not paid those. >> i paid whatever my accountant told me was not paid to make certain that i was not behind in any taxes that i owed. >> thank you. >> gentleman yields back. any other member wish to be --? >> i have a few questions. this is as it relates to the issue of corruption. i do not think this is the place for rangel to determine the corruption. i think the judging will be with the american people on that question. what we are here to do with today are the various violations of the 13 counts, 11 of those 13 had been proven. we are here today to deal with the issue of sanctions, whether

it be a censure or fine, whatever. my question to mr. chisholm, you did not recommend the fine, if when you pay those delinquent taxes, did you pay fines and penalties in interest at the time? >> ipad whatever the accountant told me to pay. -- i paid whatever the accountant told me to pay. i have always had an accountant, and what ever they are said to do to amend returns, i have done. that is true of disclosure as well as the irs. on those counts, if i might add, as a former prosecutor, you know that under the 13 allegations, i think four or five of them derives directly from the fact that by improperly used congressional stationery.

and with the intent that it was the right and proper thing to do, then all the things about it happening on government property -- >> reclaiming my time. mr. chisholm, can i ask why you did not recommend a fine in this situation? he recommended censure but not a fine. >> my ultimate recommendation is a censure. in historical terms, i think that would be remarkably significant on its own. however, i noted in my remarks that under the precedents, the case could fall between a reprimand and the censure, and that it would not be inappropriate to find a sanction in that range. i think it is obvious, given the

committee rules, that there are limited options for how you would get between or reprimand and a censure, and a fine would be within the province of the committee, in complying with the committee roles. >> thank you. when recommending a sanction, is it a proper to consider the fact that mr. rangel refused to participate in the proceedings the other day? i had a number of questions i wanted to ask the responded that submitted for the record. can the committee consider his refusal to participate in determining the appropriate sanction? >> i think that this is an institution buthat judges itsel. and that your conscience, each

member's conscience, and the variables that reflect on this institution may be considered as you see fit. obviously, ideally, with the charges that have been found, ideal with the proceedings and based solely on those charges and what was found, it is my recommendation for of censure. >> in the history of this institution, has a member ever been disciplined for such a large number of violations as in this case? what is the case history? ink my recollection is that there were eight -- charles wilson -- eight counts.

>> that is the most you are aware of. >> yes. >> to other members have questions or wish to be heard? -- do other members have questions or wish to be heard? >> on the question of not participating, i would like to respond. >> if i could, mr. rangel, if we could ask the questions and i would note before recognizing mr. harper that the chair did note during a hearing that the responder was not under our rules required to participate. >> but he has counsel, and since i do not have counsel, i thought i could also respond. >> mr. dent is given another minute so that mr. rangel can answer that. >> the question is about

refusing -- when you walked out of the hearing, i have questions i was going to ask you or your counsel, and you left. >> it was understood as the chair said that i did not have to come here during the proceedings. two, no one challenges the fact that i had expected to have counsel here. at third, no one could expect me to submit to questioning without a lawyer here. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has again expired. >> i just want to make sure that

we are clear, and hope that mr. rangle understands that when we were here the other day, the witnesses were here under subpoena, correct? >> there were nine found counts. i just wanted to clarify that for the record. and yes, up we had witnesses here and available and were prepared to proceed. >> it was my understanding that had mr. rangel not walked out, those witnesses would have been called and we would have heard that testimony, correct? to this motion for summary judgment would have been held in advance? >> that was my understanding. >> it passed unanimous consent to tell council what i was --

could i ask unanimous consent to tell council what i was told in regards to this hearing? i was told i would have the chance to cross-examine witnesses. >> if i may, we are going to let mr. harper finished his questions. i will allow a brief interplay with the indulgence of the members on that point and then we will go to the last vote for the day, return, finish our questions, and then go into deliberation. >> as you look at the allegations, excluding the ones that dealt with violating the spirit of the letter of the house rules, of the others that were proven by clear and convincing evidence, is there any one or two that stood out as more and serious -- more serious in your consideration?

>> i think there were three. the financial disclosure account -- count, the counts relating to the non-payment of taxes, and the solicitation and the circumstances in which the solicitations were made, particularly the miss use of official resources weighed heavily in my decision. >> were there any that stood out more heavily? >> as i said, the financial disclosure and the tax pieces together, given his position as

the chairman of the ways d means committee, and the effect that would have -- did have, on the public trust, moves me in favor of a recommendation of censure, in my judgment. >> what were counts 12 and 13, count 12 being the charge of violating the spirit of the letter of the house rules, and 13 being conduct reflecting does credibility on the house? how did you weigh those in your consideration of your recommendation? >> the finding that respondent 's conduct reflected this creditably on the house, at the end of the day, if you look back at the history of the committee

and the way these things are disposed of, this is about the institution, congressman, and the ultimate test for the institution is whether members be incredibly -- behave credibly.io that 13th count, as someone who loves the institution, was fundamental. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. i will just note, and we will come back after the vote, just to clarify, we did have all of the subpoenaed witnesses in the building. as i indicated on the record, we were prepared to proceed with the hearing if mr. rangel chose

to do so, and not rule on the motion that was offered. it was his right not to participate. when i went up to tell the witnesses that they could go that was the way that happened. at this point, the committee will be in recess until after the vote. will ask members to promptly return after the vote is complete. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the committee will come back to order. when we left for votes, we were under a five minute rule. mr. harper had just asked his questions. i will now ask the other members to ask their questions. >> i know that protecting the integrity of this institution is extremely important, although i must say that some people would question whether there is any integrity left to protect. that probably refers to one party as much as it does the other. that being said, i think that the people of this country have an abiding sense of fairness and justice, and while they want to see their institutions protected, they also want to see

justice done. i think that is a very important matter to most americans that i know. while it is easy, i think, to sit and judged and criticize, it is a bit more difficult to actually find it justice. we have to, in this case, since this is a hearing on sanctions, it is very important that we find justice. it is justice to the institution. it is justice to the people of this country, but it is also just as to someone who has been accused and found guilty. that being said, i would like to ask counsel -- it is my understanding, based on some testimony that i have heard,

that there has been no finding that the respondent was guilty of any intent or factual instants of having personal gain. is that correct council? >> with respect to the findings, that is correct. >> now, in our jurisprudence system, in order to find justice, one of the best ways that we have, maybe the best way that we have to determine what constitutes justice is the system of precedence, and what presidents have been set --

precedents have been set, what congresses before us have done in similar circumstances. am i correct that there have been four instances of censured? >> there are a number of more censures in the history of the house, dating back to the 1970's. >> let's talk about this committee then. this committee has recommended four centuries? >> correct. >> which of those did not contain some elements of personal gain, of those four? >> just give me one second, i am sorry. the recommendations for censure were failing to report a $1,000

cash contribution, 11 counts of mail fraud and aiding counts of false statements, accepting a loan of more than $10,000 from a person with direct interest in legislation -- >> personal gain in all instances? >> there were two matters in which the committee recommended a reprimand in which house members were convicted of having sex with pages. >> well, we will not get into that. so, the others had personal gain involved in them, correct? i guess what i am asking you

is, if we find censure to be appropriate in this case, would we be setting a precedent, or would we be following a previous previous precedent? >> there are not any cases that are squarely on a point here. you can line them up with different recommendations, but there is really not case in the committee passed that you can line up well with this case. to the extent that prevent -- precedent should be the guide, i noted that the times may be different than previous times in

which the committee has considered censure. >> this takes us into the realm of and subjectivity. >> the gentleman goes the time has expired. is there anyone else who would like to ask a question? >> thank you to the committee and the subcommittee and the staff for all of your hard work. it does not go unnoticed. thank you very much. i have heard that this is a difficult case. difficult it is. it is difficult for me, first of all, because i have not had staff or counsel to advise me as a member of this committee. the staff works for and with the ranking chair and a member. members of this committee are instructed that we cannot discuss this matter or any matter in front of the committee with our personal staff.

when i was on the supreme court in my state, i had an executive assistant who worked with me and for me every day and i depended on them greatly. i have not had the support in this case. that puts me at a tremendous disadvantage. the other thing that has made this case difficult is that we are judging not only a colleague, but a man who is 80 years of age, has spent 40 years of his life -- that is one-half of his life -- in this institution. i did not know until a moment ago -- i was eating a chicken salad sandwich and next to the chair in the cloak room. i looked up, and there was a portrait of congressman rangel that has been up there for years, depicting his service during the korean war. he was awarded a purple heart

and a bronze star. that is the individual that we are judging. it also troubles me in this case that we are dealing with a respondent who has no legal counsel. that troubles me greatly. it troubles me that his lawyers, the day this hearing was announced, after that his council decided to withdraw from the case. i do not know the reason for his withdrawing. i can tell you that when i was a trial judge in my state, never ever what i have allowed council to withdraw on the eve of trial. that has troubled me greatly. if mr. rangel had council today , there are arguments that could have been made. those arguments have not been made. it is not my responsibility to make those arguments for mr. rangel, but there are certainly arguments that could have been made. those arguments would have had a bearing on the sanction that we

will ultimately impose a in this case. the president's -- the precedents of the house are critically important. it is my hope so we will make a decision based on precedents, not based on politics. the facts of this case do not warrant a center in my opinion. -- censure, in my opinion. iuggest that any conflict between these punishments must be resolved in favor of the respondents. centaur is extreme. it should be -- censure is

extreme. it should be applied when the respondent has received personal financl benefit. that is not the case. committee council clearly stated that the evidence does not suggest corruption. council has lived with this case. knows it inside and out. has a distinguished career in public service. if he saw corruption in this case, he would have said so. the law establishes no corruption, and as judges we should be bound by this fact. we must not insert any legal conclusions that would supplant the conclusions of the parties and the judicatory subcommittee. we are judges. we're not advocates. we must not lose sight of the fact that members of the house make contrutions and donations to their favorite charities every day. mr. rangel fell short only

because he failed to get permission to do so, and because he used official resources in making the solicitations. with respect to the failure to disclose, he has been acknowledged that he was sloppy in his reporting. but this record that we have before us does not show that his failing to disclose was intentional. i look forward to our deliberations and trust that justice and fairness will be our guiding star. thank you. >> thank you. does any other member wish to ask a question? mr. welch. >> thank you, madam chair. this is an extraordinarily important case for the institution and for mr. rangel. the facts are relatively simple.

there was improper solicitation. mr. rangel should not have used his staff and his office to solicit funds, even though the funds being solicited or for a private, nonprofit educational institution, something he has acknowledged. he should not have been soliciting before someone who had business before his committee in congress where it was very apparent that there would be a conflict. we will come back to that in a moment. rent stabilization is something he was not entitled to and benefited by. the taxes, obviously, were due and he did not pay them. mr. rangel has candidly of knowledge in each case that his record keeping was sloppy, that he breached his responsibility. his defense is essentially not a defense, because failing to meet your obligation whether adipocere accident or intention does not abrogate your -- whether out of accident or

intention does not abdicate your responsibility. members of this body to solicit or educational institutions that are named after themselves. i think that is something that should never have been allowed in this congress, but it was the manner in which mr. rangel did it that got him into this trouble. these are serious concerns, and the process by which we got here was long and complicated. i thought it cost a lot of concern on the part of the american public. but that is essentially what happened. the question that we face is now sanctions. as mr. chandler said, we have an obligation to the institution to be fair to mr. rangel. the sanction will be serious,

whenever it is. this committee will make its recommendation and the full body will make a decision. it is rare that a member of congress is called before the committee and then stands in front of the entire body, whether it be reprimand or censure, and have read before the congress of this united states and the people of the united states a recommendation of the public penalty. but caution, we are going to make our decision, but i would caution those of us on this committee and all of us in congress that this is not the end of it for the american people. when we have the system where, in fact, corporations, individuals contribute money to each and everyone of us because of the position we have, and we try to make fine, calibrated distinctions between what is legitimate and what isn't, where do you draw the line in the eye

of the beholder? the american people believe that with the enormous amount of money in politics, the fix is in one way or the other. we have to do everything we can to uphold the rules, regulations, and ethical standards of this institution. that requires us to call it as we see it as far as mr. rangel is concerned. that may do something to restore some public credibility, but it will not be the end of this, because when people who are working hard and trying to pay their bills, and they're looking at those of us with i positions of responsibility to receive donations -- with high positions of responsibility to be received donations, they question whether this body is doing everything it can to work on

their behalf. mr. rangel, let you lead an extraordinary life. you were born on the wrong side of the tracks and fought her way to the right side of the tracks. you showed aptitude in the united states military. you spent the coldest winter, nearly died in korea. when you came home, it was colder still. you could not get a job because of the color of your skin. you pushed a car in lower manhattan. you have a wonderful marriage ended great family. you earned the respect of the people of harlem. you have been an inspiration to generations of people. you find yourself now having lost the prize that you sought for so long, the chairmanship of the ways and means committee of this united states congress. you find yourself sitting where you wish you never were, before the ethics committee, and you will soon be standing before the entire congress. i just want to give you an opportunity to express whatever

it is you want to say to the people of your district that i know you care so much about the have looked up to you for so long.

>> whatever else god has given me, i am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to serve. it has always been my goal to help people and to thank god for what he has given to me. i will leave the sanctions to all of you as it relates to fairness. i just hope, no matter what you decide with the sanctions that you put in that report, charles rangel never sought any personal gain.

please make certain that my name, not withstanding the imagination that some people may have, that there is no way to stretch this that i was a corrupt individual, that i brought shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the country. i have left it up to you as to what is there in termsf sanctions. -- fair in terms of sanctions. i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that are not before this committee. but what the press has done to me and my community and my family is totally unfair. counsel knows it. all of you know it. it is not your responsibility to

correct that, but they will continue to call me a crook and charge me with being corrupt. i do up, no matter what you decide with the sanctions, that you might see your way clear to say that this membethat is honored to serve with all of you was not corrupt and there is no excuse for my behavior, there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as a salary. i never attempted to enrich myself, and then i walk away, no matter what your decision, grateful that i have this opportunity to serve, and recognize that had it not been for god's gift in saving my life, i would not even be here

today to talk with this body. thank you for the opportunity to express myself. i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused you individually or collectively as a member of the greatest institution of the greatest country of the world. >> thank you. it appears we have moved into the deliberation phase. if we go behind that door, then nothing said will be known. i am confused. we have that statement.

>> we are padding number of statements made by members throughout the day. at this time, we will recess. thank you. >[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the committee on

standards will reconvene to report the bed after much deliberation, they voted 9-1 to recommend that mr. charlie rangel the censored by the house and be required to pay restitution for any unpaid taxes. and to transmit these recommendations. i able of like to say this. we have worked hard to get there in this matter in a way that has been quiet wrenching.

we are satisfied to be concluded. we do a thing called the staff and members. thank you for being here. unless there are further comment, i would recognize mr. charlie rangel. >> i know how much discussion went into this decision. as i started out rivera, i hope that you can see a way clear- cut to make it clear that the record would indicate that any action taken by me was not with the intention to bring with any disgrace in the house to enrich myself personally or to have a corrupt. that would be of great help to my family and my community. >> thank you.

our report to be on the committee website later this evening. with that, there are no further comment. the committee is adjourned. thank you to all who participated. >> the house ethics committee recommended that he had based insurer. the committee vote was 9-1. the speaker of the house with it to mr. ary the to the new york congressman. the house is expected to pick it up after thanksgiving.

>> up next, house leaders talk to reporters about their priorities them president obama on the automobile bailout following the initial public offering of stocks. later, home mortgage modification programs. >> listen to supreme court cases saturdays from c-span radio. >> when they are not able to receive abortions from license doctors, they fear they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> this week, part 2 of roe v wade. it is when e most controversial decisions.

>> house republicans met to use their of leadership for the 112 congress which begins next week with republicans in stemming the majority predict a they chose john boehner as speaker. he will assume in texture after a boat of the house. the group spoke to reporters for 15 minutes. >> good afternoon. republicans are impressed with the trustee a place dynasts.

we have a new majority. the american people are in charge. congress will focus on the priorities. it does not work. republicans have made a pledge to make sure that they will focus on the prioriti. where but to focus on creating jobs. we are going to fight for a smaller and less costly one in washington, and d.c. we hope the president will work with us on all of these

priorities. i want to say how proud i am of the leadership team that our members have an elected. i think we have a team that represents a broad consensus and diversity of our party. i'm looking forward to dealing with the priorities. >> the afternoon. we are energized to its suit irresponsibility. we realize the public has given us a second chance, a golden opportunity to live up to the expectations that the voters have for this party. we are going to be a result of giving congress. job one is for us to cut federal spending and to remove the

uncertainty that has been hampering job creation over the last several years. this congress is going to be about reform. the barge firstling cash will help with the reform and change the culture. today we took the position that demonstrates our commitment to that reform. we are committed to reforming the way this works. as a leader said, we have elected a leadership team that is fresh and ready to get to work. you will see the freshman class in south dakota.

>> as mr. boehner laid out, we are listening to the american public. we have america speaking out. thousands of ideas came through. never once did we ask what party they were affiliated with. we are debating the a deal is in an open format. this is what is line to come to the floor of congress. we laid out a pledge to america that we thought would turn this country around. the majority party would not let it come to the floor. but i believe is the strongest part with the very first words in the preamble. the voters laid out a very clear and concise message.

they want to see change in washington but . only in america of be able to get a second chance. we will have to earn it. our whole focus will be about job creation, reducing spending, and changing very form of congress itself. we understand the power is with the people. you see a lot of new faces. it does not matter what part did the country it comes from, it is from across the country. this is a national message. we are making sure we are able to carry out what they told us. quite the american people spoke loudly on election day.

we want the federal government that is less intrusive and more accountable. they said we want to save the american dream where our children can still have greater opportunities than we had. we heard this message loud and clear. we understand this is not an affirmation of us. there the policies of the senate majority leader. we are humbled that irresponsibility that the american people have given us it is the second chance. we look forward to getting to work on behalf of the american people. >> the freshman class is not just historic in size. the plan to be historic in the

results. we said we were common in everyday people. we were raising our family. we recognize the legislation that was passed, the real ramifications that come on families. we were trying to keep our doors opened. we ran campaigns burd we plan to deliver results. we are united. >> on the campaign trail, i also

heard owners tell me that they cannot pay higher taxes prevent they are struggling to keep their budgets to get their praetor -- to gather. please come and gather a working. our commitment is a look into the american people. >> i guess verlaine to ask some questions. >> mcconnell said he would try to block it by the end of the year. are you an alignment with this? >> i think it is a shame they did not pass a budget or any appropriation bills.

now we are left with nothing but bad choices. we have been operating since october the first. we made it clear that we are interested in less spending. in september, the spending bills was about the right size. i am more focused on cutting spending them what type of peoples i am in. >> do you think this is inappropriate for the violation? do you think the house suld vote? >> i believe and the ethics committee process. is the only bipartisan

committee, five members surveyed committee. they have come to an agreement on. i wholeheartedly support this bill i believe mr. charlie rangel wanted a faster process then was supportive. it is in the best interest of the institution. quite some republicans are saying you are reluctant to have the results. is there any truth to this? >> we have a meeting scheduled with the president on november 30. we are of looking forward to it. >> house signal everyone see a vote on repealing health care? >> we think that obamacare will

ruin the country. it will bankrupt our nation. we believe it needs to be replaced with common sense reforms to bring down the cost. you will see us move quickly. >> i've wondered if anyone believes the government actions saved any jobs? reaction tonment's the general motors bailout could have been handed in a more orderly way by a bankruptcy judge. if you look at the people who lost, because of the government actions, we are talking about tens of thousands of americans

who were punished as a result. >> to think it is a paper-thin to vote on a lame duck session? it will help them repeal it. >> every legislative body goes through the possibility of a lame duck session. i believe the congress has gotten into a bad habit. this might be the fifth consecutive congress where we have had a lame duck session while there is business and needs to be done, i would hope that the leaders still in charge would heed the fis and the american people. >> can you tell us the latest on the efforts to save the cups?

>> i believe they ought to extend all of the current tax rates. >> do you think it is a good thing that congress will do in the lame duck? >> sure. >> they are asking to move the energy over. what do you think about this? it shows you how we can best do our work preven having a debate about what community is doing a dialogue that we ought to encourage. i do not have a position on this.

>> when the incoming freshmen had objected a meeting with the new members. it is a contradiction? >> i wonder if you can help us understand the discussion we are having? >> we have obligations on our point.

>> president obama announce that the federal government is on track to recoup all of the investment in general motors after they returned to the new york stock exchange with an initial public offering. this is five minutes.

>> that afternoon. today we had details of the recession that took another step to becoming a success story. gm launched itself as a public company, cutting the government stake by nearly half the bill american tax payers are now positioned to recover more in my administration invested in gm. that is a very good thing. last year we told the management that if they made the decisions necessary to make themselves more competitive, the ones requiring fresh leadership, then we would stand by them. because they did, the american automobile industry that has

been a proud symbol of american manufacturing for a century and help to build our middleclass is once again on the rise. there in the midst of their strongest amounted drucker. gm announces best quarter for over 11 years. most importantly, american workers are back at the assembly line. they were prepared to throw in the towel.

independent estimates suggested that had taken the step and given up, we would have lost more than 1 million jobs across of 50 states sadda it also would have resulted in devastating areas across the this was not an acceptable option to throw up our hands and quit the bill -- and quit. we do not give up when times are tough. we do what is necessary to move forward. we have a lot of work to do.

we secured the american dream with their children and grandchildren. i'm confident we will continue making progress. we will get through this tougher and stronger. i had faith in the ability of our automobile workers. i faith in the american people to presser beer. -- to preserve rare persevere. i want to embarrass a couple of people. we are key members of the team that helped to engineer this rescue of gm and chrysler.

it then had not been for these gentlemen, and a lot of people might have been out of work. we are proud of them. they are all looking sheepish. thank you very much, everybody. >> the house ethics committee called for charlie rangel to be censured for financial misconduct we will have that hearing later in our schedule. u.s. homeowners are dropping out of the federal government foreclosure program at a faster rate than they are doing it. today and house financial services subcommittee

investigated the program. here is part of that hearing chaired by maxine waters of california >> in 1994, he read the transition team after they won the midterm elections and became the majority party. then the center for american progress on things americans can do to expand their agenda without getting the approval of conagra's. -- congress. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. later, the federal society's annual convention of a vil live coverage begins at @:00pm east.

>> to and then as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on on the war. >> like all men of great gifts, one day give up power, they have been there. they give it up. >> maxine waters chaired this

subcommittee hearing brit >> the press release says those failing to meet performance obligations under a participation agreement will be subjected consequences which could include monetary penalties and sanctions. have you leveled any penalties or sanctions? >> we have required they go back and read solicit homeowners that they may not have solicited. we ask them to change the

process and reevaluate it predicts. >> have you leveled any penalties or sanctions? >> have you leveled any penalties or sanctions? >> i and aemi you are saying this. >> we have not rebelled any penalties or sanctions? is that your answer? >> that is not correct.

>> as i describe commit the penalties and the remedies available under the performance agreement are limited to directing servicers to do additional things and upholding compensation per them retake compensation. we pursued many of the non monetary remedy is a bill -- remedies. the major services or implementing it correctly. >> i understand that. because of the press really is that he released november 30,

2009 where you said services failing to meet performance obligations under the agreement will be subject to consequences which could include monetary penalties. there have been no monetary penalties from what i am hearing and a sanctions. you have instructed them that they have to change their procedures. with over 1% of the money allocated, do you think they have met performance obligations? >> as we go in, we have found that in less than 5% of the time, servicers have not met those requirements. they may not decline. they must go out and fix the

process. in the first year, our focus was making sure they had every opportunity to be considered. the second year we need to. >> thank you very much. >> let me read your paragraph from a recent washington post article. they are in the investigation. even as they closed the door on state oversight, it tells itself not to scrutinize the operations, forgoing any

examination of the procedures and paperwork. >> i do not agree with that. >> do you have knowledge of what to place? .> i do predict would you like to recount? >> that is what i'm asking you. >> at that time, it these days came to us seeking information about subprime loans. we were in the process of developing our mortgage metrics report which was gathering a more extensive body of the informational.

we began releasing a more detailed report of that information. the report has been sufficiently robust that in the act we were directed by congress to make that information available. >> i am going to turn to our ranking member. >> i appreciate it. the our advancements. members of congress first learned about the signing which

i isin's reduce which i assumed were used to speed through the paperwork. -- signings which i assume you are used to speed through the paperwork. were you aware -- we were not aware until the news reports. we are you aware before you had to review it? >> i'm not sure whether it is clear.

it is the case that we were not aware of the signing issue. it would have been visible to you. i wonder why they burn not visible. >> i think that is an absolutely ballot question. we were concerned about the -- a very valid question. we were concerned about the process. we sent teams in this year to

number of these services to do lovell reviews. weaver not specifically where it was. it is clearly highlight tuna -- highlighting the bigger concerns. what i think yet these same concerns we have, if not before close down.

>> the procedural irregularities -- as long as the documentation was not current. i can see what your main concern would be it. there have been very few reports of people who were current or almost current funding for close down. is that true? >> i believe it is for the enterprise loans.

>> as long as they do not indicate more. what did they affect more significant problems. are you concerned that there may be indications that there may be potentials for larger problems? >> we are not aware of a reason

but there is some systematic reason to doubt. >> i think the banks agreed. the decision to float -- to foreclose on a homeowner is very serious. it affects them, their families, and their neighbors. our interest is to make sure the foreclosure process is handled properly. i look for it to working with pawlenty. after follow-up on my questions put them.

>> the treasury has existing contract with multi services. there are reductions of payment and recruitment. i have a report that says treasury has yet to find any servicer for known -- or noncompliance.

i am troubled by that. they say you are not penalizing it. t of evidence to repeat that? >> i only have a limited time. i does need some evidence. >> out to speak about a few of the main things to them. >> can you just applied the committee with the evidence that he are enforcing? i have another thing i want to ask you about. >> in january of 2010, we told

servicers they may not find any homeowner. >> that is not a penalty. you are readjusting things canad we have a report here. back in september here. they conducted a relief of loans that it reviewed. 97% of the 6533 runs did not conform to underwriting guidelines.

we are finding there are gaps in the chain of title and a lot of documents that are fraudulent. and you concerns that you are paying services but did not actually own the properties that they are modifying? that there is no clear change of title? you treasuries paying these services. >> subsidies contract only pays when a loan is modified permanently. we are very concerned about the issues involving chain of title. none of those issues to date have reflected the servicers

contract. our focus has been making sure it that the homeowner has an opportunity toodify the agreement. >> he said today that was news to me. the only get paid from treasury and the modification is made permanent? >> correct. unless it is permanent and then they all make a partial permanent. big paid over three years. investors like the rest. >> thank you. this is an observation.

the overriding thing is that we did not know this is going on. we did not know that people were making these kind of blunt. it gets a little frustrating to me that the people we put in charge are regulating it. i am on it now. the american people have a greater expectation that in no before it happened seven reacting to it. i would hope -- we passed a historic regulation in this congress. i thought like what we did not need was more regulation. we need your regulators doing

their jobs. one of the things we are quite to have to ascertain is do we have a competency level and our regulatory structure? do we have the regulatory commission back and function as regulators? >> will launch an investigation they had been handling foreclosure cases. i think it is one of the attorney networks. how much money have they paid this entity? if it turns out that the attorney general can bring action, and looking after the

taxpayer. i am wondering what the implication that will have on the air prices. >> thank you. they also had a mortgages for which servicers were using the same law firm. cannot tell you. cannot say how much has been paid. it is the ultimate additional cost -- is in close negotiation. we have a cooperative relationship.

it is part of the settlement agreement. if a law firm is done that is inappropriate, the sediment is for a write-down. there are few things i've seen in the newspaper heir predicted the connection seems a bit tenuous to me. in terms of our work here, the law firm is in a contractual relationship with the enterprises. i cannot speak to what the attorneys are using.

>> it is brought against fannie mae. this case has not been resolved. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> are we still paying the legal fees? >> fannie mae is a dance in legal fees to them. -- is advancing legal fees to them. >> could you give me the amount of money tt have been spent defending those folks? that is another tack that the

taxpayers are now picking up. i do not know that they will be excited. correct i will be glad to follow up with the with the context. i share the concern. the general matter is something that has been carefully weighed at the agency. i will get back to you. >> thank you. in response to the ranking member, you said there was no systematic operation. you do not think there was any intent to do wrong? >> i did not mean to imply that.

>> i am not suggesting that you were. >> there were a clear they some systematic failures within servicers to a reserve requirements of law that unnecessary to the foreclosure. i was pointing out that we bring not aware of any systemic issues associated with the non- performance of these documents and things. >> the mac it did dealing with this issue would be inappropriate? >> this will depend on what the enforcement people determine in the investigation and cannot

presume to comment. >> to any believe this has missed fast science -- must plasticize -- metastasized? we have been using a lot of words. fraud is probably better term. do anything this goes deeper than what we are discussing? >> i do that the cree have any information. we refer them to the justice department. we found we will make these referrals. >> do you support the creation of a compensation fund similar

to what was done in the gulf coast after the oil spill? >> i heard there are reports that this is what they are looking back. it is very positive. mccaw also come to some resolution so that the mortgage can continue. >> she mentioned there is a possibility of the least 4 million additional foreclosures.

but you believe that what we are trying to de will have any bearing at all on making the 4 million homeowners a part of the mess that we are hoping to clear up? >> i think the issues related to the documentation with impact the timing. these are the estimates the we are making it based on the number of loans. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i enjoy hearing from each of you. and if there are a lot more things that can be discussed. the system