you are trying to make sure they avoid in is when the camp. fraud has been committing. they should be held independently responsibly. the concept of assessing everyone who ever made a loan to pay into a pool to fund something in the future is unreasonable based on those who are trying to do the right things prevent. because that there is not been some punitive action, lenders have paid tremendously. investors have made huge investments and debt paid through loss of assets. many who bought mortgage backed

securities, like countrywide, tried to make them look like a mortgage-backed security. those investors lost tremendous amounts of money. there has been a hardship on everybody throughout this, if you want to cause it a depression -- everybody has paid a price. people who were being unreasonably foreclosed upon, those individuals who made those action should be held accountable. on the part of fannie and freddie to hire attorneys he did something improperly, hopefully the damages assessed against them will be in doubt that others in the future would want to avoid that. we have to say things have gone wrong in the past. we are trying to do with them now, but how do we look to the future? mr. stevens, you made some very good comments. how much impact do you think your efforts are having on the system today as it applies to

rectify some of these problems that have occurred? >> we thank you for the question. we have seen a significant change since we began our reviews. as and bs or to the process of our formal procedures to the mortgage review board, i believe we will see a greater response. today we have already find a quarter of a million dollars in penalties. >> that is for those responsible in those misdeeds? not be an asset? >> that is correct. we have eliminated 1500 other institutions. it has elevated the awareness of all institutions in the country about the need to adhere to processes. thatu'd think your actions have taken place are affected and they are working?

>> we need a verifiable approach. we are doing what we think is appropriate. we are sending teams into the service is right now. we are expanding our reviews. we will look at the remaining stages of the foreclosure process beyond what we have already looked at. if they are not compliant, we will take our authority, which we have some significant ability to assess penalties legally. >> you are going to verify your actions and implementation sap taken place? >> that is correct. >> mr. walsh, do you agree with that? >> certainly when we took action a couple of weeks ago with the servicers to identify problems in their modification programs, they greatly improved the quality and effectiveness of the modifications. the examinations we are undertaking are going to grind it right down to the most granular detail to understand

what has gone on in this process to make sure those processes are remedied so they operate i get a fair and legal manner. to the extent there are systematic problems, there will be mediation and there may be penalties. >> i applaud you on that. a question for you. we have a debacle in the past year. did we prove that that did not work and put new guidelines in place? i am bothered by that. freddie and fanny are the largest holders of trustees. why are they not complying with the same things we have placed on banks? >> congressman, i am going to find out what the discrepancies or that you are concerned with. they're deep and fanny had maintained the other did elements. they are focused on appraiser

independent. >> they have not done that. that is my problem. i am at that time, but would you check on that and get back to us? from what i am hearing, that has not occurred. >> mr. green? >> thank you, madame chair. dr. king reminded us that for every complicated problem there is a simple solution that is usually wrong. what i would like to do is first to examine how complicated this problem is and try to get beyond the superficial solutions if at all possible. at one time we had a mortgage circumstance when we had a borrower, a lender, and eight ween or a mortgage. currently, that has metamorphosed into a winter, the borrower, the mortgage -- but we

also had a sponsor that turns the mortgage into a bond and then sells it to the depositor. we have the depositor that sells the mortgage to a trust. then the trust hires a servicer. this does not include the entities that have become a part of this process. with all of these various entities in the process, the question becomes are there impediments to sustainable mortgage modifications with reference to this current crisis? i would just like to mention a couple of issues that have been called to my attention. many of my issues have been satisfied. i have had an opportunity to meet with some of the witnesses and have some of my issues addressed. these i would like to call to your attention this morning. the first has to do with services holding jr. leins.

did they present an impediment to our having sustainable mortgage modification? i will start with the first witness. can you give me some intelligence on this, please? >> thank you for raising set at least. regardless of who they are held by increased the homeowners debt of the property and can sometimes prevent sustainable modification. getting the second liens addressed is a very important part of the modification process. we have tried to address that with the second lane program, but we certainly need more focus on second lein to enforce modification. >> i would echo that.

the existence of the second leins themselves to further complicates the process. >> i would agree. the more investors involved in the ownership of the obligations against a particular home complicates the process further because it is another set of decisions that have to be concurred with when you are trying to do a modification. >> mr. ross. >> it certainly, as described, the additional debt burden would be an issue. it is a supervisory manner. we insist that the banks address the overall debt per the modification status of the first lane and to take that into account in reserving for and addressing the risk of the second lien. we want to make sure there is no impediment in that way. >> mr. walsh? >> seconds liens are a

substantial problem force us and have been an impediment in some of the modification activity. i would go further to suggest that if this committee considers having finance reform in the coming year, it is going to take a comprehensive look at things. i hope we will consider some of the practices that have been in place with regard to seconds leins. >> intelligence is it running -- time is running out. tell me this, with reference to the second leins, what percentage are we dealing with with deference to the products that services have to negotiate? what percentage would be second liens. >> we have about 50% of the

loans that have second liens. in terms of our second lien program, we have 16 servicers signed up to participate. they agreed to modify the seconds lien when they get knowledge the first one has been modified. >> thank you. >> there is a vote depending on the floor, so this committee will be in recess so members may go vote and return again and 15 minutes. i will forgo the vote and state. i will be here when you return. this will give me an opportunity to figure out a couple of b things that have not been made clear what we were in session.

the panel will stay. we had not finished the question on this panel. this panel will be here when you return. thank you very much periods while our members orbiting, i would like to raise some questions that you may be able to help me with. how many of you who are here today representing your agencies have ever walked through a loan modification process? do you know what happens when the average citizen calls into their bank where they thought

their loan was being held or where they think they are paying their mortgage? how many of you know what happens from the time that home owners call the bank? how many of what to that process? -- how many have walked through that process. >> in terms of my role at treasury, almost one year ago we had a campaign where we set treasury staff on site to the servicer is shot to listen to the calls that came in and try to address issues and clarify dinettes wherever possible. more importantly, on a personal note, prior to joining treasury, i had to work with might mother in law to renegotiate a very inappropriate mortgage products that had been sold to her and to many of the senior citizens on

her block, just devastating the neighborhood. i also had to walk another family to a short-sale. but those were very difficult -- both of those were very difficult. that is why i joined the treasury to try to address this. >> i appreciate that. how many people know what happens when you first called the bank and say, "i am ms. jones. i have a problem. i have lost my job. i do not have as much income. i would like to talk to someone about a loan modification because i do not think i will be able to make my payment. maybe i can make my payments for one month or two months, but i will not be able to make them after two or three months." have any of you know what happens at that point? >> you actually propose a couple of different scenarios there.

what happens depends on exactly what the scenario is. the borer calls and says i just lost my job. i am still current on my mortgage. i will have the destruction in income. there is one script that is used because that is a particular situation. in the situation where a borrower has missed several payments -- >> i did not go to where a borrower has missed several payments. miss jones is calling. she is saying, "i have a problem. i may not be able to or won't be able to make my payments after next month in the same amount that i had been paying. can you help me? i need to talk to you about a loan modification." what happens then? >> there is a script with a set of questions to ask to understand the particular circumstances of the bar work --

on the borrower. they could be talking to the servicer of their mortgage. >> no. the person does not get to the servicer of the mortgage on the first call. or most of you aware that there is a loss mitigation department that may screen that call prior to beginning to a service or if they ever get to a servicer? are you aware of that? >> servicers have of loss mitigation departments. the banks have loss mitigation departments. >> when you call the bank with this problem, you go to the loss mitigation department first. is that correct? >> what difference our research companies call their different departments, madame chairwoman, i do not get into that. i think servicers should be well equipped to direct the call to

the right place. >> just a moment. are you aware that it is almost impossible for a homeowner to get to the servicer that the system is now have screeners, this first contact person, and they had a cookie-cutter sheets and they ask a number of questions. if they determine that the ratio of debt to earnings it does not comply with what they have on the sheet that they can never get to to discuss that modification? they never get to the servicer is? are you aware of the systems? >> i am aware that servicers have instructions from their various investors in terms of the series of questions to ask and assessments to make

regarding those loans. not everyone that calls that has a problem with their loan is going to be eligible for a particular modification program. there are many variables at play here. what is the mortgage, who is the investor in the mortgage, is the particular circumstances -- is the borrower eligible or not? these are screening questions that are asked when an individual calls. >> when the individual calls and they are talking to this person who is not a -- who cannot really negotiate a modification, this person simply can't go down the questions that are pre arranged to determine whether or not they are meeting the investor's requirement, for example. if ms. jones would like to talk about a reduction in interest rate or ask a question about a reduction in principle, that person is not able to discuss that with them. are you aware of that?

>> how each individual servicers handle that process, i would not want to speak to there being a single answer to that question. >> if you knew and understood what takes place when miss jones burst calls and if miss jones cannot discuss a reduction in interest rate or principal outside a big city -- outside of the cookie-cutter arrangement that the first person they encountered uses, what would you advise ms. jones to do? >> most of the major servicers encourage borrowers and make available to borrowers home councilors in their local area that can't assessed the troubled home owner in evaluating their

entire situation and also to assist them in working with their mortgage servicer with regards to options that might be available to assist them with that mortgage and help facilitate the gathering of appropriate information for the mortgage servicers to do an appropriate ample assessment of the -- >> held many of you know that if miss jones would like to talk about a modification and ask questions about a reduction in interest rates or write down in principle, how many of you know that miss jones is being referred to someplace else -- some counselor somewhere for help? how many of you know that is taking place? >> madame chair? two things. you are hiding part of the reason we are doing the service reduced. you are specifically addressing

the disconnects that are occurring and cause such delays for solving the problem. i believe it is an issue. we believe at fha it is. in many cases, the first call is to make collections department to determine if they can get payments made. from there it could go to a loss mitigation area after that. while it varies by servicer in terms of how to implement solutions, that is precisely why we did a servicer might servicer loan level review on site to go to the process. we have literally just completed that. we are taking action on those servicers that are not meeting the expectations because, to your point, it is the frustration that we all did daily e-mail sent all calls from families who are desperate. we have a call center that is overwhelmed with calls from families in crisis. it is why we set our teams and

to look at that. we do have monetary penalties provided to us by congress for not complying with the process to provide a solution to a family in the early stages of delinquency. we did not know it until we set our teams in. we are now recognizing the gap. we have to be much more vigilant and aggressive with the services that make it the hardest on families in crisis to connect the results -- a solution for bending. -- a solution for them. >> how many of you know what banks have their loss mitigation offshore and that when american taxpayers are calling their banks to get some help on a loan modification, if they are

first encountering the loss mitigation department -- how many of you know that they may be talking to somebody in india? >> we do know it exists for some servicers. fha has a provision that does not allow any customer service to be handled by offshore were contacted out. >> treasury. >> treasury operates with the home preservation foundation. there is a hot line that is one better% on shore. >> that is not my question. my question is, how many of you know that banks have loss mitigation departments offshore? this mistrals i am describing, her first contact to discuss what -- this miss jones i am describing, her first contact may be talking to someone in india or tie 1 or someplace.

>> i know that it exists within the servicing industry. i can confirm whether or not it is a requirement in the mha program. >> do not forget, miss jones does not do anything about anything. she is calling the bank where she sends her payments and she is talking to someone whom she thinks can help her with a loan modification. it turns out that she is talking to a call center offshore with someone with a cookie-cutter sheet that asked her some questions and basically tells her she is not eligible for the loan modification. how many of you understand that? >> we do understand that and it

is very frustrating. >> if you understand, why can you not do something about it? >> one of the things we continue to do, first of all, it is in demand but the lack of capacity to respond to the crisis. we have held recognizing the importance of person to person contact. we have held out reach events in over 50 cities where homeowners and servicers are on-site. they are meeting in person and they had the opportunity to talk about the modification one on one. what continues to be very disturbing is that when we survey, we still find that many homeowners that stand in line, that come to these events in the with their servicer, the first time they are making a connection with their servicer is at that event.

it is a daily reminder to us that there continues to be some disconnect in the call and contact the environment. >> let me ask another question of you. when the contact person for the bank, who is not a sore berserk, who is answering miss jones on this first call looks at the debt and a look at the end come. they are looking at whether or not this person qualifies for a loan modification. basically, miss jones now has a property that is under water. it is not what -- it is not worth what she thought she had purchased. it is not the same thing. so ms. jones really will never

qualify for a loan modification based on a difference in income -- less and come. she wants to talk about what can she do with the encompass that she has that does not meet the criteria that the loss mitigation person is describing. she has an come. she was to stay in her house. why should she do? -- what should she do? >> i will go ahead and start. certainly within the program, the servicer would have to see if mrs. jones or the person is eligible for a modification. the homeowner who gets a modification has their mortgage reduced by 1/3. >> this person miss jones is

talking to, the loss mitigation department, are they going to say, "though miss jones, but the report you to the program. let meelp u go through a program that the federal government may give you an opportunity to pay what you can for the first three months or so and let's see if you can qualify for a loan modification." is that what this person is supposed to do? >> if the servicer is participating in our program, they are required to do that. >> mrs. jones has not gotten to a servicer yet. the screen that is set up to keep miss jones from getting to a servicer so the servicer does not have to be bothered with someone who does not meet the underwriting criteria as they know it, occ, you have all the major services. you had the too big to fail, you

have all of them. the you know and understand what i am talking about? >> i certainly understand the situation you are describing. i, needless to say, have not want to that process. we have examiners in the large banks that reduced the servicing process, somewhat akin to the fha project. we did a horizontal review of modification processes in 2008, 2009 to look at the practices across the firms where there were deficiencies, we issued a letter to the banks indicating deficiencies in the process and calling for improvements. certainly there has been a systematic effort to get the institutions to bringn more staff and to train them and otherwise make more service available for the people that are calling.

but the process bank to bank may vary. there may be an intake level. the will be a loss mitigation process that will be part of the overall servicing process. >> of course pydna let me -- of course. look at your testimony. when you say services and do not use standard business processes such as the validity of projects -- ability of the contracts for the actual physical presence of notes unless there is evidence of a material witness or breakdown in governance and internal controls. i have a article from january 2008 detailing how countrywide was fabricating documents and help the chapter 13 bankruptcy trustees in western pennsylvania

were concerned about it. there are many articles like this and members of congress have been talking about the failures of mogage services for years. was all of this evidence not enough to qualify as a material witness or break down? >> we very specifically what in and examine the modification process and demanded improvements. that is not the kind of routine manner i was referring to on page 13. the underwriting of a loan is a substantial issue for a bank. it involves people with skill and understanding of the process. it is part of the safety and soundness of the bank. that is not the kind of technical matter that was referred to in that statement. >> what members of congress is trying to figure out is a white

regulators are not able -- why regulators are not able to pick up or identify these witnesses and big problems? what takes so long and why is it you do not know how these systems will operate as regulators? that is the big question among members on both sides of the .isle perio do you believe that miss jones should be able to get to a servicer of who can negotiate a loan modification or if she stuck with a person who tells her she does not qualify unless she has x amount of dollars? and you think that really should happen that way? >> it would be hard to say without understanding the circumstances of the individual,

but if someone is having difficulty getting be relieved that they think they should have as was mentioned, i think it is important to rely upon counseling, which is an important part of helping people navigate the system. it is also the case at the occ that if someone steals the process is unfair or is not working, they can file a complaint with our customer assistance group. it is true that mortgage complaints have become the number-one thing. >> what is that? >> it is a unit that is based in houston, texas, that has a 100 number and they website to assist people >> how would mistrals know about that?

the effort to create a nation- wide point of contact was part of legislation that was reported out of this committee, i believe in the last congress to expand on this boiler. it is central to what the consumer bureau is about. >> do any of you require the loss mitigation department of the bank to walk through with miss jones what she should do pauling the contact with them? they cannot go any further? that is all they can do and now miss jones is going to get a telephone number and be pointed in the right direction.

i am going to tell you how you can get in touch with your service work? do any of the required that? >> it is mandatory to be an approved fha insured and that context be made no later than one of the 20 days. loss mitigation programs provided by h. at -- by fha or opera. there have been gaps. there are gaps that exist today. that is why we are using our authority in our reduce. should we not get a resolution, we will assess penalties that are within our legal rights and granted by congress recently that can be damaging. >> i asked earlier about whether or not fines had been levied by

the treasury department. let me turn to the sec. since we started expressing the fallout from the subprime boom, as that affected services? >> we have issued supervisory requirements on matters requiring attention. nes?ad the lead in the financ >> i do not believe that we have. >> had issued a cease and desist orders? >> no. >> had been threatened to revoke any charters? >> no. >> if you think the servicers main -- the services think you mean business if there are no consequences? >> i think the consequences are quite clear in that we can

compel action. >> you have not done that. you have not done any of that. why should they take you seriously? >> the supervisory process is one that happens -- that does not mainly happened in the public spotlight. it happens in the dealings directly with the institution to the process shutdown examination, matters needing attention, and other things. only when it arrives at the appropriate level do we get -- >> less talk about examiners. if you have examiners on site, can you explain how you do not know about all of the problems that have recently come to light? what do examiners do? >> as i mentioned, our attention was focused on the modification process. it would be quite unusual for us to be in the room were present at the time and i affidavit is

being signed orenda -- or a new recession is being placed. unfortunaty, those did not raise an alarm about this process. >> i know that as a past leaders in your agency, you are not doing day to day work and you do not necessarily new details, but i think it is important for somebody to understand how it really works. i do not get that impression in talking with most of you here today that you really do understand what the homeowner is confronted with when they are sinking -- when they are seeking

help and wishing to talk to someone who can make decisions. i think that if that was well understood that you have the power by which to help make systems work so that homeowners can get some assistance. this problem is so big, so many families are devastated because they got into these subprime loans, these exotic products, without knowing or understanding what they were all about. some people would like to say they are just irresponsible homeowners, but i said to anybody that would listen, you do not had this many americans

all of a sudden becoming irresponsible. something happened in the system and we all know what it is. we all know that these exotic products, no documentation loans, these interest-only, all of these products came onto the market and simply placed homeowners in the position of trying to paulo the american dream and get back home because they are now told, "i can get you in a house pierre "they are following the lead of those initiating the loans. we have a this problem that has been going on for a long time and it is not getting any better. what can you tell us today that you can do to straighten this

out? what can you tell us? what is your answer? >> madame chairwoman, we have made quite clear that we have a lot of targeted were going on, examination work with regard to the specific matters that have recently arisen. it is potential for us to complete that work so we are operating with tax. so that we know the scope and magnitude of particular issues, either generally. at that time, we will be in a better place to make informed judgments about appropriate responses. in the meantime, there has been a tremendous amount of work done by the agency's represented here to enhance multiple programs to allow troubled

homeowners to retain their homes. i take these particular matters about the foreclosure processing, we are gathering this information and we will certainly have improvements in place what we have a firm grasp of where the problems are and what they specifically are. i am sure the servicers will as well. >> i would like to thank you for basically just reiterating what you have said over and over again and what you were warned about, coming here saying we are working on it. we are moving on its. you cannot show us that in this link the time you have done anything to bring about penalties or to levy fines or to show us that you are serious about assisting the homeowners.

mr. miller, please. >> listen to a landmark supreme court cases saturday on c-span radio. >> in texas, women are still not able to receive abortions because doctors still fear they will be prosecuted under the statute. >> this week, part 2 of rule the way. argued in 1972, it is considered one of the court's most controversial decisions. listen at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and radio. online at c-spanradio.org. >> the house ethics committee called for new york congressman charged randall to be censured for misconduct and fund-raising violations. that is next on c-span. the house republican leadership on their congressional agenda. today, president obama praised general motors after the u.s.

automaker made and a successful initial public offering of its stock to invtors. now, part of today but the ethics committee hearing. then we will bring you the hearing in its entirety. we'll hear from congressman peter welch burst who serves on the committee. >> and mr. riegle, i want to give the one opportunity. i know this is important to you. you have led an extraordinary life. you're born on the wrong side of the checks and all your way to the right side of the charts. your way out was to enlist in the united states military. you were in a brutal war. he nearly died in korea. when he came home, it was colder still. you cannot get a job because of the color of your skin. he did not get discouraged. he pushed a cart on lower manhattan. you have a wonderful marriage and a great family. you haven't 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. divide yourself sitting we wish you never were, before the ethics committee. we know you would just as soon be standing before the entire congress. i want to give you the opportunity to express what you want to say to the people of your district that you care so much about and looked up to you for so long.

>> [inaudible] i appreciate what god has given me. i had the opportunity to serve. i do not know how much longer i , but i thank god for what he has given to me. i leave the sanctions up to all of you.

i apologize for all that i have caused you. i hope that no matter what you sanctions, that you will note that charles rangel never sought praises or gain. i have gotten satisfaction for everything i have ever done. please make certain that my name notwithstanding the imagination that some people may have. i brought shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the country. i leave it up to you what is

fair as far as sanctions. i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that are not before this committee, but what has been done to me, my community, and my family is unfair. the council knows it. all of you know it. it is not your responsibility to correct them, but they will continue to call me a crook and charge me with being corrupt. i do hope, no matter what you decide in the sanction, that you might see your way clear to say that this member is not corrupt. there is no excuse for my behavior. there is no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me. i never attempted to enrich

myself. in what way no matter what your decision thankful that i had this opportunity to serve. had it not been for god's gift for saving my life, i would not be here today to talk to you. thank you for this opportunity to express myself. i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused you collectively or individually. >> thank you. de jongh and's time has expired. there are no further requests for questions. >> based on the comments of the

last three speakers, it appears we have moved into the deliberation phase of what we are going to do. if we get that behind that door, nothing said back there will be known. i am a little confused. we have had statements and supreme court sanctions. >> to answer the question, we have had a number of statements made by members throughout the day. that is point, we will recess to deliberate as indicated. thank you.

>> the ethics committee suggested that congressman rangel received a censure. a censure resolution would require a vote by the full house disapproving of his conduct. the speaker would verbally in minister a rebuke to the new york congressman. ethics committee meeting in its entirety.

>> this hearing will come to order period. we will consider the alleged violations in this manner. it is stated that a public office is a public trust. it is our responsibility to determine whether rep randall's, but meets the standards of our

obligation to act impartially. the members of the subcommittee to fulfil that responsibility and meet that obligation. we did so poorly, honestly, and without bias. -- we did so fairly, honestly, and without bias. ultimately, we felt that his conduct failed to meet the ethical standards that apply to all members of the house. the standards apply equally to those of us who had the privilege of representing our communities in the house for the first time at your most senior colleagues. on november 16 of this year, the subcommittee on the -- the subcommittee recommended that 11 of the 13 counts were prudent by clear and convincing evidence. under committee rules, when a subcommittee concludes that one or more accounts has been

proven, it becomes the responsibility of the full committee to determine whether to recommend disciplinary action regarding rep rendell and what sort of sanction would be appropriate. the committee has the option of taking disciplinary action on its own initiative or to recommend the full house do so. the purpose of this hearing is to allow representatives rangel and council. as we began, 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 to the house itself. when a member has been felled by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that number must be held accountable for the content. it is equally important that the outcome demonstrates the credibility of the house of

representatives. by investigating credible allegations, we maintain the integrity of the house and the trust of the public in this institution. the committee may recommend major sanctions. i will provide some general guidelines to follow in recommending sanctions. for example, a letter of reproval may be issued by the committee on its own initiative. other sanctions require actions by the full house. among these our rules indicate that reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion is appropriate or the more serious violations. but the committee and the house its cell are guided by the presidents of the house. for example, the house in its history expel only five members. 34 disloyalty after the civil war and two after they were

convicted of felonies. violations of law should not be the basis for recommending sanctions. we are required to offer the respond at an opportunity to share his views about this action. in reaching our decision, it is imperative that we asked in a fair and evenhanded manner. this hearing is open to the public and although our deliberations take place again executive sessions, the public will have the opportunity to hear the views of the parties at this hearing. but representative rangel and council have been advised of the guidelines for this hearing. as with any other place of this process, the respondent may seek to waive the procedures at the chooses. he is not required to be here or just the committee. he has chosen to be here today. he has the right to share his

views on the appropriate sanction with us. should he wish to do so, we will hear him out or his representative. we'll take his opinion in consideration. 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 before the committee's consideration. if they do so, those bodies will be admitted into the record. witnesses are not permitted as a general rule in this space. with his testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the committee. neither party has filed a written request boards testimony. members will be permitted to ask any questions they may have under the five-minute rule following the presentation. we will then adjourned 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 puic report to the house of representatives. with that, i would ask my colleagues, the ranking member jo bonner, if he would like to make an opening statement. >> i know for a fact that many a newly elected member of congress on both sides of the aisle have been welcome to capital hill by the bigger than life, gravelly voice of charlie rangel, who would put his hand on their shoulder and say welcome to

capitol hill. so before i go any further, i would personally like to thank you, madam chair, ranking member mccall, and all the members of the subcommittee for the work that you completed earlier 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 but unavoidably lasted for almost two years. and individually and collectively we have shown with the chairwoman stated on tuesday with -- was our moral obligation, led only by the facts and all, 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 staff so they could know what they can and cannot 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 any inappropriate line. as the american people have witnessed this week and in recent months, as these rare, not unprecedented public proceedings have occurred, we have once again demonstrated that your elected representatives can deal with an obviously uncomfortable but absolutely necessary charge that comes to us from the constitution itself, which requires that each house of congress were cursed 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. i found it especially ironic and troublesome that on the very day that almost 100 newly elected members of the 112 congress 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, at one time was one of our most highly regarded colleagues. and yet he was showing so little regard and respect either for the institution dead heat has claimed to love or for the people of his district in new york that he has claimed proudly represent for more than 40 years. i do not pretend to speak for mr. rangel jose constituents. they have reelected him often without opposition more times

than many of the members of congress have been alive. but while mr. riegle 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, for 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 duty -- before he marched out of the hearing on monday, but even after the subcommittees' conviction of clear and convincing evidence on tuesday, mr. riegle stated -- mr. weigel

stated that this panel should not take into account his entire 40 years of service to the country 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. for the american people to bestow upon us the privilege of being there represented, 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, decision, and behavior of our colleague from new york's can no longer reflect either honor or integrity. as i noted earlier, i cannot speak for the people of mr. wrangell's district, but i do know this. for the tenants to qualify for

rent stabilized apartment in new york or any american city but could not get one because a powerful one -- a powerful man had for, there is something wrong with that. with a small businesswoman who did not pay her taxes for 17 years and had the irs 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 members of congress from california, who just a couple of years ago question 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 not have a problem if you did it, charlie rangel said on the house floor of july 19,

2007, because i don't think you have been around long enough to have your name on something to inspire a building like this. madame chair, it is painful for me to say this to a man i personally respect, but mr. riegle can no longer blanked anyone other than himself for the position he now finds himself in. not this committee, not his staff or family, not the accounts or lawyers, not the press. charlie rangel should only look in the mirror if he wants to know who to blame. i am not an attorney. as most of the members of this committee are as well as the respondents themselves. 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 chairman for this opportunity to offer a few heartfelt observations, and yelled back my time. >> i would doubt that other members of the committee who would like to submit opening statements will have 5 legislative days to do so. with that, i would now 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.

>> thank you, madame chair and members of the committee. the house oppose the authority to discipline its own members is explicit in the constitution. article one, section 5 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 be evaluated only on the case by case basis. it was for the very purpose of evaluating particular situations against existing standards and of weeding out baseless charges from legitimate ones that this committee was

created. respondent, on his own initiative, came to this committee and ask it to evaluate his conduct. the committee has. before you today are the findings of the judicatories subcommittee in the matter of representative charles b. rangel. that subcommittee found that 11 counts in a statement of alleged violation were proven by a clear and convincing evidence. the 11 counts relate to four general areas of misconduct. responded's improper solicitation of individuals and entities with business and interest before the house to fund at the charles b. rangel center for public service at the city college of new york and the use of official sources.

responses refusal to file full and complete disclosure statements for the years 1998 and 2008. respondents acceptance of a favor or benefit from his land or related to his use of a residential rents stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety, and respondents felt a 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 sanctions to recommend. the committee's rules provide at least some guidance in

determining sanctions. under those rules, the range of punishment is a reprimand, censure, or expulsion. the committee may also recommend a fine with the denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or amenity as a member if under the constitution, the house of representatives may impose such denial or limitation. the rules say that a reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, a 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 the expulsion, the

most recent in 2002. three times, the committee has recommended censure, the most recent being represented 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 member. 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. ly four have been censured. in the committee's history, it has issued five public letters of reproval.

two of those have been issued since 1997. the committee's president do not draw a clear line to determine an appropriate sanction in this case. on two counts, respondent has been found to have violated -- of the code of ethics for government service. the committee also found violations in the matter of represented robert sykes. in that men -- in that matter, including his intervention with state and federal officials. during the time he was assisting with that banks establishment, he also purchased 2500 shares of the banks privately held stock. based on that conduct, the committee recommended that represented sykes 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 represented george hansen. represented hanson had failed to report nearly $334,000 in loans and profits for 1978 to 1981 and had been convicted of four counts of making false statements. in that matter, the committee recommended the reprimand. the committee also found violations of financial disclosure requirements in the matter of represented robert sykes. in that matter, represented 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 done in an effort to withhold information from the

house or from the public. nonetheless it was found to be 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 ms. use of official resources in the matter of represented austin murphy. in that matter, the committee found that represented murphy permitted official resources to be diverted from his district office to his former law firm. the committee also found that murphy hadtive merkle retained a staffer who did not perform duties commensurate with his pay. based on those findings, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations or misuse of official resources in the matter of representative james traficant.

among other numerous by- elections' down against representative traffic, the committee down and 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 james traficant violations, including bribery, the committee recommended that he be expelled. respondent has been found to have violated tax laws. the committee also found violations for tax related conduct in the matter of represented newt gingrich. represented gingrich fell to sigyn follow legal advice, thus failing to ensure that the activities of his organization were in accordance with section 5 01 c3 of the internal revenue code.

the committee recommended that representative gingrich be reprimanded. the committee also found violations for tax related conduct in the matter of representative james traficant. income tax fort two years. he had been convicted of filing false tax returns. the committee recommended that representative james traficant be expelled based on numerous violations including underlying criminal conduct. respondent used the imprimatur and sources of his office to solicit money from individuals

and entities with business and interest 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, and noble goal and an admirable project. imagine for a moment how it would feel to be a start up non- profit struggling to find the funding needed to keep going. you have great ideas, but you need the money to fund them. you are not really sure of the best way to approach potential donors. you send letters to big foundations, to corporations, to well-known philanthropist. you don't get your foot in the door and your ideas do not get anywhere. the new see congressman rangel sendingettersut, 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. and how would that feel? think also about the students at the center. they have an interest in going into public service. they wanted do good and 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 servants ought to be? but it is more than all of that. respondent's position in congress matters, and everyone knew it. his staff understood it. the college understd 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 the 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 particular year mont response -- earmarked responded requested fell through. dell said in one form or other that when responded became chairman, it would help raise private 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 had business or interest before the congress.

just the appearance of that alone is striking, but how does it insured trust in government? the a judicatory subcommittee found that respondent's use of an apartment as an office for his campaign, in violation of the terms of the lease and york city zoning regulations and its building code was a favor or benefit to respond it that created an appearance of impropriety. think for one moment about one of respondents neighbors and constituents, one who may not have been as fortunate as him. maybe she lived there for 30 years and had to rent stabilized apartment. the landmark was seeking to evict her because they claim she was not using the apartment as

her primary residence. faced with a choice of buying groceries work facing a lawsuit, she simply decides to pack up and leave. imagine a few months later she discovers that respondent had an apartment in the building, but he did not use it as his primary residence. she also learned that staff knew about the office and that the landlord got rent checks and e- mail's with crandall for congress on them. she also learned that management could respondent's name on a list of special handling tenants. she learned the respondent and his staff met with the lamb are about a potential new real estate development deal, and she learned that when the press wrote about respondents 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 governments, and their prompt uncertain availability and imperious need. imagine how it feels to be one of your constituents who dutifully paid her taxes. maybe she is a waitress who earns much of her pay in tips. repairing her tax return is a real pain. takes a lot of time. she cannot afford an accountant and she sure does not like to file. she does not like paying, either, but she does it. and she reports all of our income, including those cash tips that 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 is responsible for writing the tax laws. she learns that he has not been

paying taxes on his dominican beach bill for 17 years. a member of congress who has a cpa to help him prepare and file his taxes, and still he did not 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 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 it's representatives are working to serve the public interest, not their personal interests. 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 of the ways and means committee, he had significant influence over critical an 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 have an effect on virtually every american. what does it say to the public when they learned that their tax laws, health care policies, and return in come were in large measure overseen by someone who shared such sloppiness and carelessness in preparing and filing his own financial disclosure statements. what with that alone due to the public's trust in government? is run over a door in the capital is a line by george washington. it reads, "this government, the

offspring of our own choice, on influenced, has the just claims 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." henry clay said, government is a trust and the offices of the government are trustees. 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 ethics rules has breached the public trust. when a member of congress violates the terms of that trust, he is subject to discipline by his colleagues.

as trustees of the public trust, each of you must consider the best interest 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 trust in its government. committee counsel submits that respondent's conduct, which violated house rules, laws, regulations, and other applicable standards, undercut the public's ability to have faith and trust in this institution. the subcommittee found that respondents conduct reflected poorly on the institution of the house and there are brought discredit to the house. disciplinary action in this matter is necessary. as to what that sanctions should be, the question is whether the

president adequately reflects the standards expected of members today. at least with regard to individual count, a reprimand would not be inconsistent with the precedent. of all lawyers fealty to precedent serves the purpose when the -- to the law and the institution. however, the fact is that the subcommittee's findings show that respondent of the course of conduct demonstrated a lack of attention and carelessness over a broad range of issues over a lengthy period time. his actions and his accumulation of actions as the subcommittee found, brought discredit to the house. his conduct served to undermine public trust in this institution. the subcommittee's findings, the nature of his misconduct, and

the effect his actions an accumulation of actions had on the public trust, when weighed against the presidents 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 misconduct effected so overtly with his stature and position. as a result, i respectfully submit that this committee should recommend to the full house that it take disciplinary action against responded and that this committee recommends responded with censured by the house.

>> we will not turn to mr. riegle. i see you have our colleague mr. lewis sitting next to you, and i would invite you to address us now. >> first let me say i cannot imagine the opera is that this committee has had. i know none of you would have volunteered for this service nor would you have believe that this case would have taken this long. 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 [unintelligible]

-- it that this has taken so long is that when dibble were talking about settlement -- the evidence that was not founded. as a matter of fact, one of the reasons why i was insisting on having the witnesses that testified in front of the investigatory committee was because they may not have changed the facts. they may not have been giving excuses for my behavior, but clearly, some of the things that have 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 charges of violating the house rules. a look at myself every morning, mr. bonner, and i have never blamed staff, my family, or anyone for my irresponsibly take your as it relates to violation of the house rules -- my irresponsible behavior. as a matter of fact, andou have clips of this as to what i have said, and no matter what sanction you finally reach, i will dedicate my life in trying to let other members and other members know that these rules are not there to punish. they are not there to protect the character and integrity of this congress, and whether they

are new members are 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 on 35th street, that i 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 or suggestion that i would receive any personal gain. there would not be even the suggestion of corruption, and had there been some suggestion

that we could have negotiated whether or not we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to be that they were willing, as i am really asking is committed to do, to say what was not found, even know what was a legend still is being alleged by newspapers, reporters, by television reporters as it deals with rangel being a crook, being corrupt, i do not see any reason why, as 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. it was not 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 were already things said about me that i don't think, mr. bonner, you don't have to feel sorry for my constituents not knowing about it. the press took care of it, and i don't see where anybody on this committee did anything to clear records 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 need for that fourth apartment, that the apartment has been vacant as other apartments had been vacant throughout the building, and

that was the exception of this on wall mentioned by counsel. it was determined there is no violation of any agreement, since the person that the lease was made to said that he wanted me there, and that my leaving their would destabilize the apartments. but since you refer to the appearance of favoritism, i cannot get that subjective feeling about the appearances of people. but did not know i was on a special list. what did i gain as a result of being on that list, because -- 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 at testified would have shared with you how mistakes were made that i assume responsibility for. whether a lawyer, cpa, or accountant, signed the paper. but had i had the opportunity to have listened to the witnesses you have heard, i think perhaps the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person, but more in line with what was said. when mr. butterfield ask the question of the ethics chief counsel, do you have any evidence that -- of personal financial benefit or corruption?

he said i see no evidence of corruption in response to the question. dybbuks -- do you believe 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. this statement is nothing for me to be proud of. this statement makes me believe that a lot should have been done, and i recognize that an admitted that. but it would really help, and i don't think it is out of line if the committee did not say it before that you could put in that report no matter what you agree the sanctions would be,

that your member was not corrupt and did not seek and did not gain anything personally for the bad conduct that i have had. that is all i have ever asked when i referredhis whole thing to this committee. all i asked was that you make a point of investigating everything. i volunteered to have a forensic accounting for 20 years to look over taxes, to look over all the things that should have been done and directed all that, but that is not an example i would want to set for the members of congress. quite frankly, even though i came here prepared not to deal with the question of censure and the options you have had, i think that mr. chisam's list

below, i'll assume that when you go into executive session you would consider circumstances where members were personally enrich and where there was no question that the corruption existed. i brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share who i was. i felt awkward and giving self- serving statements crested dedicating my life to my country and this congress and to my community. i know that if i happened council here that they would say one thing and not antagonize any of the members of this community.

mr. bonner, are 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 the same token, the surrounding circumstances of what -- when i left that apartment, would there have been a subsidized apartment, the answer is no. these people that would have been looking for a subsidized apartment certainly were not looking for -- they asked if the apartment or break it, and i did not try to hide anything from anybody. again, that does not deal without it appears, even though the account their says i gave

the appearance that i was receiving a gift. i was overzealous, because i have dedicated my life to insuring that those who are not receiving education rebel to get it. there is the foundation, the scholarships in my name and those not in my name, because i know that the only thing between me as a high-school dropout and reran becoming chairman of the respectable ways and means committee was the gi bill in education. so overzealous is not an excuse, but i appreciate that mr. chisam demonstrated that it is an explanation and not an excuse

for my behavior. i hope you take that into consideration because it is not just the years in congress, it is the years i expect my grandchildren to be looking at, my community, and i hope you take all those things into consideration, and i ask now that you get an opportunity for john lewis perhaps to share some views of me over 50 years of friendship we have injured. >> mr. lewis is now recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, mr. ranking member, members of the committee. i want to first say that i am here to say just a few words about my dear friend, my colleague, my brother, charlie rangel. i must state up front that i don't know the facts in this case. i have known mr. arango for more

than 50 years. -- mr. rangel. he is a 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 his city of new york and the state of new york's. he is a hard-working public servants. when the call went out in 1965, to come to selma, alabama to help people who had been standing in unmovable lines, who could not register to vote, he came to selma and he walked with many of us, including dr. martin luther king, jr., all the way from selma to montgomery,

alabama for the right to vote. he sponsored and passed legislation to end of this is an evil system in south africa. he has always been a champion for those who have been left out and left behind. he has traveled the length and breadth of america for those who did not have a voice. my colleague, 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, madam chair, mr. ranking member, and members of the committee, for allowing me an opportunity to say just a few words. >> thank you, mr. lewis. >> if there are any members of the committee who have any questions i would be more than

happy to respond. >> i would turn now to the committee for guidance. the democrats have noted that we have recorded votes. i retract that statement. we will now go to the time in our proceedings when members may under the five minute rule ask questions that they may have. i will turn first to the ranking member, mr. bonner, 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 and came and marched with him in selma, alabama to help bring civil rights and justice for all. i was born in selma before that march, but i want you to know that that is one of the many proud parts of your legacy, and as someone who was born in selma, i am grateful 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 reject the facts, i did not, nor would i ever question your love of country. i did not question your love of the institution. i said that you have not so long proclaimed to love this

institution, and i 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 to your country and the honors and metals that it earned two >> i would like to thank you, mr. bonner. >> i do want to point out, though, and while it was clearly your prompt to on monday to make the statement about the lack of counsel and the frustration of not being able to set up an account and do what needed to be done so that you would be represented, i do want to point out that the a judicatory subcommittee, of which i was not a member, had the responsibility and my understanding, the commit to

conduct a trial to allow those witnesses that could have defended your record and your views to come in a public setting to have made those arguments for you or for the record. 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. i just did not want that assertion that the record could not have been more complete -- that was a decision that i certainly had no role in your >> can i respond?

as i said in my room -- in my remarks, the only reason i wanted the counterman at the hearing was so that the witnesses would be able to come forward. the questions as to corruption and self-interest could be answered, that the landlord could tell you that he solicited meet. 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 a summary judgment in saying that there was no need for witnesses because i had admitted to wrongdoing would disclosure of the facts and that the issue was established. i don't know whether mr. bonner, if you have information that i had the opportunity to call witnesses, you are making one big mistake.

that was denied. >> the gentleman's time has expired. although emotionless pot, the chr would indicate that if the member wish to be heard, a ruling would be held. >> let me say first it was a tribute last night, mr. lewis, to you. i want to commend both of you, mr. bonner, your courageous acts during the civil rights movement. moving on to this matter, i think a lot has been made of the issue of self-interest and corruption and the chief counsel or prosecutor has been 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 pelosi, you stated as chairman of ways and means, i am

held to a higher standard of propriety, and 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 to me, and an institute to be named after yourself, i believe is of value and a benefit and is self interested. people who donate millions of dollars to have institutions named after themselves, and in fact, in the motion, you say the donations and resulting benefit were accepted under circumstances which might be construed a reasonable person's as influencing the performance of respondents governmental duties. is that not corruption? i guess it is how you define corruption here. i think reasonable people may

disagree on that interpretation. i have great respect for you, sir, but the failure to pay taxes for 17 years -- what is that? what is that tantamount to? we are all expected to pay our taxes, and you, of all people, as chairman of the tax committee, writing off for our country. what is the difference between that and mr. traficant, who did not pay taxes for two years, he was expelled from the congress and in censured? charles wilson, one of the more recent cases, received improper gifts and was censured. it is my understanding is that your recommendation here today is just for censure. >> that is correct. i want to make one thing clear. there is an understanding in the

opinion of the american people that we have the authority to somehow put people in jail or so forth. that is within a court of law, that is not within the jurisdiction of this committee. in fairness to you, mr. riegle -- mr. rangel, i would like some clarification, and i think the american people would like some clarification as to help soliciting money in an improper way from entities that have businesses before your committee, including lobbyists who build a monument to me, 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 both of them. >> had the witnesses been called, mr. chisam would have

told you that city college came to me. they were looking for the ability to use my name for this school. had the witnesses been here, it would have been made abundantly clear that i was not trying to criminally hide anything from the irs or from the congress. if you looked at the records of disclosure, you would see, sloppiness would have shown that i was not hiding anything, it just was not properly recorded. if intent is involved with corruption, -- listen, there is nothing i can imagine that anyone could make a contribution to city college that somehow or other that matter would not be one that could possibly become -- come before the congress. it is impossible. i am satisfied with the record

that the investigatory committee established. that would lead you to believe as a former prosecutor that never was their intent to hide anything from my constituents or from the irs. and so to me, if you are going to take this up to not properly abiding by the rules, which i admit are serious enough, that is serious enough, but i really think that it is a stretch -- i don't want to get into a discussion. there are a lot of things in life that i would think that someone's 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. >> on this side of, we did try repeatedly to get this matter -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would ask unanimous consent to give mr. chisam a minute to respond to the question, and that is so ordered. >> thank you. congressman, the other day i entered 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, 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. that is how i interpreted mr. butterfield question. >> the gentleman's time has again expired. >> the city college of new york came up with the idea of the rangel center for public servants, and they approached you with that >> i was sharing that experience with the president of city college. he asked me whether or not i knew what i was going to do with my papers or something to that of that. i told him that says: pal had

something there, that i could put my papers there. in the course of the conversation -- i think the record is clear in the investigative committee. even though i have not talked to the president or read his testimony and my lawyer told me i should not read the testimony of the witnesses because that would confuse me -- >> mr. rangel? >> i am is saying that they wanted me there more than i wanted to go to city college. there is also the question of they get there. the record indicates that no one in city college told me about a gift or an opera. they put it in. >> i reclaim my time, madam chairman. i am perfectly satisfied with the clarification that the way this thing came together. he retained a born sick

accountant to go through not all your financial disclosures but your tax returns for those 17 years. they estimated what your taxes would have been as best they could with the records available that you file your tax returns in that timeframe. most of those taxes told were beyond the opportunity for the irs 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. the question would have been at the taxes been paid and the deductions made for the taxes and depreciation of the property in the dominican republic, my accountant tells me it would have been minimal. the only reason i did not expose and go beyond that is because i wanted the case closed as it

related to coming before the committee. if a part of your adjudication would be a responsibility to do it, i did not want to get involved legally in doing something in front of this committee that made it abundantly clear. every obligation i had it -- this was not reported -- this is what i referred to the committee. i was prepared to do whatever the committee suggested to show i had no intent to evade the law. >> just to be clear, those taxes from the early '90s through 2004, you have not yet paid those. >> i paid whatever my accountant told me to pay to make certain that i was not behind in any taxes that i alluded. >> thank you, sir. >> and the jump in yields that.

-- the gentleman yields back. >> this relates to the issue of corruption. i do not know it is the place for mr. chisholm to determine the corruption of mr. rangel. that is up to the american people. what we are here to deal with today is under the various violation of account. 11 of those 13 counts have been proven. we are here today to deal with the issue of sanctions, whether it be a censure, a reprimand, or a fine. my question to mr. chisholm, you did not recommend a fine. i am just curious to from mr. riegle, if he paid those delinquent taxes, did you pay fines, penalties, at interest at the time? quest i paid whatever my

accountant told me to play. i have always had an accountant. i had won in new york. whenever they said i should do to amend the returns i have done. that is true of disclosure as well as the irs. it by just might add, as a former prosecutor, you know that of the 13 allegations, i think for or five of them derive directly from the fact that i improperly used congressional stationery and with the intent that it was the right and proper thing to do, then all of the things that it happened on government property i am reclining my time. >> i am sorry. >> mr. chisholm, you recommended

censure, but not a fine. >> congressman, my ultimate recommendation is 8 censure. in historical terms, i think that would be remarkably insignificant on its own. i also noted in my remarks that under the president's -- under the precedents, the case could fall between a reprimand or a censure. it would not be inappropriate to find a sanction in that range. it is obvious, given the committee's rule, that there are limited options in how you would get between a reprimand, -- a reprimand and a center periods -- and a censure. . is it appropriate to consider the fact that mr. rangel refused to participate in the

proceedings the other day? i have a number of questions i want to ask the respondent. but can the committee consider his refusal to participate in determining appropriate sanctions? >> i think that this is an institution that judges itself and that your conscience, each member's conscience and the variables that reflect on this institution may be considered as you see fit. obviously, i deal with the charges that have been found. i deal with the proceedings, and based solely on the charges and

what was found, it is my recommendation for a censure. >> in the history of this institution, has a member ever been disciplined for such a large number of violations? if so, what is the case history? >> i think my recollection is that there were eight found counts -- charles h. wilson. >> that is the most you are aware of? >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. yes, sir? >> on the question of not participating, i would like to respond.

>> if i could, mr. rangel, i would note before recognizing mr. harper that the chair did note during the hearing that the respondent is not under our rules required to participate. >> but he said council. since i did not have counsel, i thought i could respond. >> the gentleman is given and other minute so mr. randall can answer that. >> we walked out of the hearing, i have some questions i was going to ask you or your counsel. >> i want to make it clear that i understood i did not have to come here during the proceeding. two, no one challenges the fact that i had expected to have

counsel here. thirdly, nobody could possibly suggest that i submit my cell to examination without a lawyer here. fourth, i am prepared to answer any questions you have as it relates to anything you think might influence your decision. >> at thank you, mr. rangel. the gentleman's tide has again expired. when we were set for the hearing the other day, the witnesses were here and under subpoena. is that correct? >> i think i misspoke a minute ago. jacket was a ninth ballot counts. i wanted to clear that for the record.

mr. harper, yes. we had witnesses here and available and were very prepared to proceed. >> it is my understanding that had mr. rangel not what out that those witnesses would have been called and we would have heard that testimony. am i correct in that? this motion for summary judgment would have been held in advance. >> that is correct. >> if it please the court, may i tell counsel what i was told? council voted on summary judgment. halite in the world when i have had the time -- hal in the world what i have had the time to cross-examine witnesses? >> we will let mr. harper finished his questions. i will give a brief interplay on

that point. then we will recess to vote. o return and finish our questions and go into deliberations. >> as you look at the allegations, excluding the ones that dealt with violating the letter and spirit of the house rules and conduct reflecting his credibility on the house, but the others that were uprooted by clear and convincing evidence, are there any one or two that stood out as more serious? >> i think there were three. ount,inancial disclosure can't decal related to the and paying of taxes, and the solicitation

and the circumstances in which the solicitations were made, particularly the misuses of official resources weighed heavily in my decision. >> of those three, is there one that stood out more than the other two? >> as i said, the financial disclosure and the taxes pieced together and given his position as the chairman of ways and means committee and the effect that had on the public trust caused me to recommend censure. >> if i could also ask, if you consider cows 12 and 13, cal 12

being the charge of violating the letter and spirit of the house rules and the conduct reflecting this -- reflecting the house, how did that affect your recommendation? >> the finding that the respondent's conduct reflected discredited bleat on the house -- discredited the house, if you lookt the weight cases are typically disposed of. this is about the institution, congressman, and the ultimate test for the institution is whether members behave creditably. that 13th count, at least there

is a perception, is fundamental. >> madam chair, with that i yield back. >> i will just met, and we will come back after this vote, to clarify, we did have all of the subpoenaed witnesses upstairs in this horrible little room. 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. when he declined, as was his right, not to participate, we went up to tell the witnesses that they could go home. that is the way that happened. the committee will be in recess until after the vote.

i would ask members to promptly return after the votes or concluded. -- after the votes are concluded. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> when we left for the vote, we were in a questioning mode under the five minute rule. i think mr. harper had just finished his questions. i would now ask, do any other members wish to ask questions? mr. chandler is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i know that protecting the integrity of this institution is extremely important, although i must say that most surveys i am aware of would put in question if there is much for integrity -- if there is much integrity left to protect. that being said, think the people of this country have an

abiding sense of fairness and justice. 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 in judgment and criticized, it is a bit more difficult to actually find justice. we have got to, in this case, since this is a hearing on sanctions, it is very important that we find justice and it is just as to the institution, it does justice to the people of this country, but it is also justice 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 instance of having personal gain. is that correct, counsel? i am asking you about the findings. >> with respect to the findings, that is correct. >> okay. 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 precedentce, what precedences hd

been set, and what previous congresses have done. there had been four instances of censure in the past? is that correct? >> the numbers i gave earlier all relate war or matters that came out of the committee itself. there are a number of more centers dating back to the 19th century. let's talk about this committee then. this committee has dealt for instances of censure? >> i believe that is right. >> 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 in 1978, failing to report $1,000 cash contribution he received. a representative that was convicted of 11 counts of mail fraud and 18 counts of false statements. charles h. wilson accepted loans from a person with direct interest in legislation. >> personal gain in all those instances? >> the other two matters -- there were two matters in which the committee recommended reprimand. that was for having sex with pages. >> we will not get into that. those other three would sound as close to this case as ending. they had personal gain involved

in them, correct? i guess of what i am asking you in essence is if we find censure in this case would we be setting a precedent? or would we be following a previous president? >> as i said, i do not think that the president -- i do not think the presidencedent followa line. you can take certain celts and line them up with recommendations. it is not one you can line up well with this case. to the extent that president should be the guide -- to the extent that precedent should be the guide, the times may be

different than previous times in which the committee has considered. >> which takes you into the realm of such activity. >> yes it does. >> the jump in's time has expired. would anyone else like to ask a question? >> let me thank you, madam chair. let me thank all of you for your hard work. it does not go unnoticed. i thank you very much. i have said this week that this is a difficult case and difficult it is. it is difficult for me, first of all, because i have had no staff or counsel to advise me. all of this on this committee know that the staff works for and with the chair and the ranking member. in fact, members of this committee are instructed that we cannot discuss this matter or any matter pending before this

committee with our personal staffs. we are left to sort of fend for ourselves. that has made me very uncomfortable. when i was on the supreme court in my state, i had two law clerks and an executive assistant work for me every day. i depended on them greatly, but i have not had that kind of support in this case. i am at a tremendous disadvantage. the other thing that has made this case difficult for me is that we are judging not only a colleague, but a man who is 80- years of age, had spent 40 years of his life -- one half of his life in this institution. i was eating a chicken salad sandwich next to the chair in the cloak room in the house representatives and fortuitously i looked up on the wall and there was a picture of congressman rangel that has been up there for several years which was depicting his service when he was in the korean war.

i looked up and read that. at the conclusion of the article id talked about him being awarded a purple heart and a bronze star. that is the type of individual we are judging. it also troubles me in this case that we are dealing with the respondent who has no legal counsel. that troubles me greatly. it troubles me that his lawyers, after this hearing was announced, and his council decided to which all of the case. i do not know their reasons for which rolling. when i was a child judge in my state, never would i have allowed the council to which all the eve of trial. that has troubled me greatly. if mr. riegle had council today and earlier this week, there are arguments that could have been made by counsel, but those arguments have not been made and it is not my responsibility as a member of this committee to make these arguments for mr.

riegle, but they are certainly our domestic could have been made. they could have had a bearing on the sanctions will ultimately impose on this case. the presidents of the house are critically important and skilled kelso could have highlighted and compared other cases that the committee has dealt with. it is my hope that will decide sanctions based on precedent, not based on politics or public opinion or even the lack of a lawyer. the fact that this -- the facts of this case do not warrant a censure, in my opinion. i respect also buzzing like to make such a recommendation, but even council says the punishment decision is a difficult and ranges from reprimand to censure. any conflict between these two punishments must be resolved in favor of the respondent.

censure is extreme. it should be resolved for connaught where a member has to write personal financial benefit. that is not this case. we are judges, madam chair. we are about the loss of the case. in response to my question on monday, council said this does not suggest corruption. kelso has lived with this case. he knows it inside and out. he has a distinguished career of public service and he, based on my observations, is a legal scholar. if the sow corruption in this case, he would have said so. as judges we should be bound by this fact. we must not insert any legal conclusions that would supplant the conclusions of the party and be a judy core subcommittee. we are judges. we are not advocates. finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that members of the house get churchill donations

every day. mr. rangel's 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 value to disclose, it is clear that mr. riegle was sloppy. he has the knowledge that. he was sloppy in his reporting and record-keeping, but this record we have before us does not establish that his failing to disclose was intentional and done for an improper purpose. i looked over to our deliberations and trust that justice and fairness and presidents will be our guiding star. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. does any other member wish to ask a question? >> thank you, madame chair. this is an extraordinarily

important case to the institution and, of course, for mr. rangle. the facts are relatively simple. there was improper solicitation. mr. riegle should not have used his staff or his office to solicit funds even though the funds being solicited work for a nonprofit educational and institution, something he has acknowledged. he should not have been soliciting from entities who had business before his committee in congress. there was very much an appearance there would be a conflict. i will come back to that i get a moment. the red stabilization is something he was not entitled to. he benefited by it. the taxes were due to the federal government. he did not pay them. mr. randall has candidly acknowledged in each case that he breached his responsibility and his defense is this is late not a defense because failing to do so to meet your obligation,

whether it is by accident or red -- or bad record-keeping, is not a defense. he is saying, and kelso is a green, that he did not solicit any money for his personal benefit. as mr. but bill indicated, members of this body to solicit for educational institutions. they are named after themselves. it is a practice that should have never been allowed in this congress. it was a -- it was the matter in which she did it that got him into trouble. these are serious concerns. the process by which we got here was long and complicated because a lot of concern on the part of the american public. that is essentially what happened. the question that we face is now sanctions. as mr. chandler said, we have an obligation to the institution

and we have an obligation to be judges and fair to mr. rangel. the sanctions will be serious whatever it is. this committee will make its recommendations and the whole body will make the decision. it is rare that a member of congress is hauled before the committee and then stands before the entire body, whether it be reprimand or censure, and has read before the congress of this united states and the people of the united states a recommendation of public penalty. but i would caution -- we will make our decision on that -- but i would caution those of this -- those of us on this committee and congress, that this is not the end for the american people. when we had a system where corporations and individuals contribute money to each and every one of us because of the position we occupied and we

thought try to make fine distinctions between what is legitimate and what is not -- where you draw that line is in the eye of the beholder. with the an enormous amount of money in politics, the fix is in one way or another. we have to act as a body to do everything we can to uphold the rules, regulations, and ethical standards of these institutions. that requires us to be very strict. that may do something to restore some public credibility, but it will not be the end of it because when people who are working hard and are trying to pay their bills and look at those of us who have high positions of responsibility and to receive donations, the big part of the process, they questioned what it is this body is doing.

mr. riegle, i want to give you one opportunity, because i did this is important to you. he led an extraordinary life. you're born on the right side of the track -- you're born of the wrong side of the tracks and work your way to the right side of the tracks. you invested in the united states military. you were in a brutal war. despite a brutal winter and almost died in korea. you could not get a job because of the color of your skin. you push a cart in lower manhattan. you have a wonderful marriage and a great family. you have earned the respect and esteem of the people of harlem. if you had 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 in a place you wish you never were, before the ethics committee.

i just want to give you the 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.

i was bared in korea. what ever else dodd has given me, i am deeply appreciated -- -- whatever god has given me, i am deeply appreciated of. i have tried to help people. i thank god for what he has given to me. i leave the sanctions to all of you. i apologize for what i have caused you. i hope no matter what you decide in the sanctions that you put in that report that jut rangle never sought any personal

bank -- never sought any personal gain. please make certain that my name notwithstanding the imagination that some people may have that i was a corrupt individual and i brought shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the country. i have left it up to you in terms of sanctions. i recognize that you cannot deal with issues that are not before this committee. it is totally unfair what has

happened to me, my community, and my family. counsel knows it. all of you know it. it is not your responsibility to correct them, but they will continue to call me a crook and a charge me with being corrupt. i hope no matter what you decide in the sanction that you might see your way clear to say that this member who was honored to serve with all of you is not corrupt. there is no excuse for my behavior and there was no intent for me ever to go beyond what has been given to me as they salary. i never attempted to enrich myself. i walk away and no matter what your decision grateful that i had this opportunity to serve

and recognize that had it dada been for god's get a saving my life, i would not be here today to talk with you. thank you for this opportunity to express myself. i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused you individually or collectively as a member of the greatest institution in the country in the world. >> they keep. the gentleman's time has expired. there are no further requests for questions. >> just for clarification, based on the comments of the last three speakers, it appears we have moved into the deliberation phase of what we are going to do. if we get behind that door, nothing said back there will be known. i am a little confused.

i am not sure what the deal is. >> we have had a number of statements made by members throughout the day. at this time, we will recess to deliberate as indicated. thank you.

hy >> the committee on standards will reconvene to report that after much deliberation the committee voted 9 to 1 to recommend that mr. rangle be censored by the house and be required to pay restitution for any unpaid taxes as referenced in exhibit 66 in our report and to transmit to the full house of these recommendations. that concludes the committee's deliberations and obligation in this matter. i would just like to say this,

that we have worked hard together in this matter in a way that has been quite wrenching. we are satisfied to be concluded and we do thank all of the staff at all the members and mr. rangel for being here as well. unless there are further comments to be made at this time, i will recognize mr. rangel. >> i know how much discussion went into this decision, but as i stated earlier, i hope you can see your way clear for the record to make it abundantly clear that the record will indicate that any action taken by me was not with the intention to bring any disgrace on the

house or to enrich myself personally or considered by counsel to be corrupt. that would be of great help to my family and my community. >> thank you, mr. rangel. our report will be on the committee website later this evening. with that, if there are no further comments, the committee is adjourned. thank you to all who participated perio. >> the house beckett's the committee recommended that congressman rangel receive a censure, the most serious

congressional discipline short of expulsion. the vote was 921. -- the vote was 9 to 1. the house is expected to take up the censure motion after thanksgiving. >> this saturday, june in as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the civil war with prominent historians giving a new perspective on the domestic and international impact of the war. corporate start saturday at 9:00 a.m. history on american history tv telling america's story every weekend on c-span3. >> now a discussion on airport screening procedures and privacy issues. from "washington journal," this

is 30 minutes. welcome laura murphy, as the washington legislative director for the aclu. thank you for bei here. this headline basically says it all, "the denv post" -- the head of the tsa testified on capitol hill yesterday. here is a portion of what he had to say. >> if ur questions do i understand the sensitivities of people? the answer is yes. will i change the policies? my answer is no. latest efforts have forced us to do this. i will not change policies. host: how do we deal with safety, security of passengers, and your civil-rights?

guest: they are not mutually exclusive. we are never going to have a system that is 100% foolproof. we have to make decisions as a nation to select programs that are effective. the aclu has concerns about the effectiveness and about civ liberties, when it comes to these pat downs, and when it cos to the body scanners that are a virtual strip search. since the end of october, the tsa has been involved in very aggressiveat downs. a lot of people have found them to be offensive. even some senators on the panel had been subjected to these pat downs and felt uncomfortable by them. think the tsa should select the least intrusive measures but also understand people have a concern about their privacy as

well as safety. host: what would those measures be? guest: first of all, we have to understand that what we have in place is not foolproof. the body scanners do not detect liquid, plastics that are held close to the body. the christmas day bomber who had something in his underpants. these scanners may not detect that sort of thing. we need to have equipment that we think is really going to protect people and search them carefuy and observe their privacy. host: if you look at the patterns of safety getting on the plane, there was the shoe bomb, we have to take our shoes off, the underwear bomber, and now this.

it seems they are figuring out how to avert the problem and keep passengers safe. guest: yes, but they are in a reactive mode. in 2004, there were some russian women who put some explosive devices under their coats. then the tsa adopted an intrusive pat down. american fliers became outraged. they backed away from tt. we cannot get into a situation where we have the scrutiny of the moment that is reactive. we need scrutiny that is thorough, fair, but effective. i do see on the part of tsa this reactionary thing. as you said, first it was sho, then body grouping, we are back on that again. we have to make up our mind. a lot of the security that takes place at airport happened well in advance of arriving at the

airport. we have to improve cargo screening, baggage screening. we cannot have a bunch of machines that cost $200,000, an additional $150,000 to train people on, that effectively will not find the underwear bomber. host: the headlines today showing some of the backlash about these new regulations. the question is how you thread the needle between safety and security and als avo being treated like a criminal. >> right, they are very invasive. i have gone through them, members of congress have, they are upsetting. women have to understand, if you wear a dress, they have permission to put their hand up your dress. their breasts will be touched.

men have to understand that their fans will be turned down at the waistband to look at things being held underneath the clhes. this is upsetting for people who have been victims of sexual assault, people who do not believe in this type of thing because of religious beliefs. we have a complicated system and we have to ask yourself, is this the most effective way to ensure our serity? host: these are some pictures from denver airport. again, how do you thread the needle, how do you make sure that someone does not have a bomb hidden in a private part, which has happened? what is the solution? guest: people need to understand what the rules are before they ge to the airport. i do not think tsa has done an adequate job of telling people about these screening devices. there have been questions raised

about the safety of these scanners. aiine pilots are concerned about repeatedly going through these screening devices and being exposed to radiation. i think it is a difficult challenge. i am not saying we have the perfect solution but i can tell you machines who do not find what the underwear bomber had are not solutions either. host: we will get to your phone calls. you can join the conversation by twitter or by sending us an e- mail. anita from mississippi. good morng. caller: good morning. this is my first time calling. i thought you all were diriminating ainst mississippi. this is what i have to say. i have no problem with the path down, no problem going through the machine.

i have a problem with people who abuse thaauthority. i flew from washington, d.c. into mississippi. the young lady told me, you have to go through a pat down. she said i had to go to the machine. i was fine with all of that. i went through the machine, i turned around. i turned the way they told me to turn. then when i came through, she said she had to pat me down. i missed my flight because of that. i even had to take my bra off. i exposed almost all of my body thinking that this would rush me through and i still missed my flight. she was not nice about it at all to the point where i sat down and i called my congrema i got her name and that number.

i have no problem going through the machine. this particular person was mean. she was not nice at all. guest: the aclu has received ov 400 complaints in the last two weeks. if you go to aclu.org, we are looking at what we can do. tsemployees are not being properlyrained on these scanners. the inspector general said these individuals are not being properly trained, so incidences like this one can happen. they are under a lot of pressure. it is a tedious job.

they are concerned about their exposure to radiation. they are concerned about whether or not management will back them up when ty do intrusi searches. there needs to be much more public education, more training, and we need rules and guidance that are publicly published that tell us what the tsa is and is not allowed to do, and also gives the public records. we do not believe the tsa has adequate complaint mechanisms, and that is why the aclu is being overrun with complaints. host: a follow up on that. when e-mail asks why there are not changing gloves between pat downs. they could be spreading disease. guest: when you are talking about millions of travelers the day, you have 400 of these scanning machines, virtual strip

searches. they are not in every airport. you have crushes of people try to get through security. i do t understand the situation with the gloves. i would urge viewers to complain to their members of congress, but also to fill out the aclu.org tsa complaint form. host: next phone cl from a landfill lakes. -- lando lakes. caller: what about people with disabilities? i have a disability where i have a pouch on the outside of my body. i would never go near any of these searches. it would be modifying. i know i am not the only one in this situation. -- it would be mortifying.

how is it going to work if these people do not even have proper training, the mail before about not changing gloves? what wil be the protocol for people like me with disabilities? asked that glad you question. mastectomy scars, pinel implants, all of that can be seen by these scanners. we need to make sure that these images are not retained. in the u.s. marshals service, for example, images were retained, thousands of images of people going through courthouses. we need to make sure tsa is not keeping these images. people with disabilities have also been complaining to the

aclu, especially if they are in wheel chairs, they are going through extraordinary delays being patted down, being separated from their wheelchair. we are taking your complaints and we are analyzing them, but the aclu alone does not have the power to amend the government practices. we want to work with congress to look into tsa practices to see that they are respective of people's civil liberties. as i said before, that is not mutually exclusive. host: we have some new followers on our twitter page. we urge all of you to log on. we urge all of you to log on.