guest: is interesting -- it is interesting. you are not getting the same level of screening at railways than you do at airports. i think railways, metro systems, buses, cruise ships, are just as vulnerable as airports. we need a method that is just as consistent that allows peoe to understand what it is they have to do as a condition of traveling. that allows passengers to have more of a bill of rights in that context. host: mary poses this questi and point of view. guest: i do not know that

answer. i know there is sometimes a revolvindoor in these agencies where high-level officials will be hired to, really, sell equipment and contractors and services -- contractor seices. i think there needs to be more insight. the house says they need more insight. this is one area where we need more insight so there are no abuses. host: joe calling us from upstate new york, rome, new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. i happen to be a psychotherapist. i have not heard any discussion of individuals who have been molested, people who have been

mistreated. people speak about disabilities but they often forget about mental health issues. i can imagine many of my own patients who would feel they have no choice, whether it is being exposed through the machine, have anyone touch them at all. when you come to an airport, nobody knows what your background is, what you are going through. i have not heard this addressed by anyone. i have been an advocate for 40 years in my own practice what i consider imptial parity for mental health individuals. i think this needs to be seriously addressed. we have a ball girl people who are amending their lives. vulnerable people who are amending their lives.

people are trying to cope with their lives and they have to go through this type of thing. i certainly hope the aclu and other organizations, many of which we belong to ourselves, will continue to advocate. this has gotten out of hand. i havpeople who are frhtened. guest: it makes complet sense. one of the things you should know is the tsa director says there is a policy not to search which isunder 12, reassuring in one sense but a concern to another. how do you stop a terrorist from putting materials on a child?

i think we need these random checks. we need machines we believe are going to be secure. i am not sure the machines we have are safe and secure and affective. it see like this whole practice needs a better explanation and complete process so people can understand what they are getting into and what their recourse is when they feel their rights have been abused. ho: the genie on the republican line. pennsylvania. welcome to the conversation. -- jeannie on the republican line. ller: i was just wondering if computer scientists and these

are people, they could just spray sometng on someone and if they had a bomb, it would show it. then everybody could just walk through. host: so they just blow up and we watch them? i am not quite sure -- the bomb would go off in the screening area? caller: no, on the person. guest: i think she is making that suggestion in humor. that would be a civil liberties crisis of even more magnitude, to be sprayed without any due process. i cannot get behind that idea, but i think they were making a humorous attempt. host: next phone call from detroit.

caller: good morning. i am a permanent fan of c-span. host: we are cut to hear that. -- glad to hear that. caller: as long as you keep on doing when you are doing, i will. i could be giving away a billion dollar business idea here. how about hazmat uniforms? everybody is talking about increasing aport sizes. you can increased them by making dressing rooms. guest: there is another idea that would be challenging. who would bear the cost of these hazmat uniforms? people are struggling.

the aclu is concerned about passenger safety, preventing terrorism. we are all struggling with this, but i think we can still do a better job than we are doing right now by having a process for complaints, having an explanation about why we are using machinery that, for example, does not scream for what is in body cavities. there was -- screen for what is in convities. saudi official whoist officia was found with things in his body cavity. host: are these scans, full body pat downs unconstitutional? guest: the courts have ruled

there is room for something known as administrative searches. if you are in an apartment building and your landlord needs to get in to make sure your kitchen is not on fire, these kinds of searches have been allowed, and courts have given latitude to airports for preventingxplosives from occurring at the airport, in danger in the aviation safety and security. -- endangering aviation safety and security. there are a couple of lawsuits out there challenging tsa on the ability to do this.

host: we are talkingbout tsa pat downs and scanners across the country. a demonstration next wednesday. 42 million travelers on thanksgiving day. guest: the aclu supports people's first amendment rights to protest what we are not endorsing that particular protest. the protest is just an example of the outrage. tsa needs to be more sensitive to tell lovell of other rich people are feeling. host: conessman duncan hunter expressing that anger yesterday. >> frustration is deloping at the airports, and it should. frequent-flier is are upset about gettinghese frequent

doses of riation. parents are upset about being forced to have their children b repeatedr ha their children touched byn unrelated adult. there is already plenty of security at the airport but now we are going to spend $300 million to install 1000 scanners. this is much more about money than it is about security. the former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff represents rapiscan is selling these pieces of equipment to the government' to his former employer. the american people should not have to choose between having full body radiation for a very embarrassing and intrusive pat as ifvery time they applfly, they were common criminals. we need more common sense on this. host: yesterday on the house

floor, john duncan of tennessee. guest: this is really a bipartisan issue. ron paul issued legislation yesterday. the commerce committee yesterday was greatly bartisan in nature. the aclu is a 90-year-old nonpartisan organization committed to defending the bill of rights, civil rights, and we want to work with any member of congress who is concerned about this issue to make sure that we are safe and free. we can be both. we do not think the routine use of these scanners -- first of all, the science has not been independently verified for their safety. second, they do not show what is in body cavities. third, as congreman duncan said, are we getting to the

point where we are willing to spend every dime the goal of preventing a terrorist attack when we know we cannot prevent every attack? host: laura murphy started working for the aclu in 1993. mike is on the republican line. florida. caller: i know she will probably not like to hear my point of view, but she has talked a lot out the right issues, people are being forced through a radiation tunnel. then if we do not accept that, we have to go through a groping process. we have 2 million people flying every day in america. 2 million people every day are being subjected to a process that is no longer effective because the terrorists change

their tactics. the body cavity issue is clearly an issue. we have to get down to the basic thing that will fix this. that is called profiling. i know it ipolitically incorrect to do, especially for the aclu, but that is what we need. we do not need to subject to million americans, who are not the problem. let's let 2 million people off the hook and get a few people that we can profile and target, focus on tho guys, i keep them off of airplanes, and out of america. guest: i agree with 90% of what you said. the problem i have is with the profiling. i do not think it is effective.

most of the profiling people are doing is based on surname and appearance. most of the muslims in the united states is african- american i am african-american, seventh generation american, and i was stopped at the airport in geneva on the way back to the u.s. and a woman asked me, you have the last name murphy, are you sure you are not from ontario or morocco? i said, i am the seventh generation u.s. citizen. she said, you just do not look that way. my family is irish. you do not look irish at all. the profiling that is going on is very have handed. if you are developing a profile based on people's behavior, that is different. but if you are basing your profile merely on appearance,

religion, a country ofrigin, you are going to gather so many people who are not affiliated with terrorism that you wl be wasting law enforcement resources. host: e example from israel -- we can be diligent without being paralyzed from fear. they do a certain type of profiling in that country. guest: i cannot go into the criteria that they used. i know american friends and colleagues who have been detained in israel, who felt the profile and there was over the top. i do not know what the routine standards and protocols are, so i cannot say we should adopt that system. host: we are talking about body scanners and pat downs now in place at the nation's airports.

we are speaking to laur murphy of the aclu. caller: good morning. i would like to submit two things that will prove this entire tsa draconian searches are a necessary, if you would allow me. every time i hear mention of the christmas day bomber, it infuriates me that they do not go further, the "the detroit press" was held aboard by a state department agent. we are looking at a state-run terrorist organization, so that would sort of be a false threat.

also, the entire terrorist threat is not as big as we are led on to be. not to say that it is not a problem. but the international >> in which five terabytes of film was released from 9/11, which completelylasted the government's story out of the water, if talking about bombs in the basement. if we need a new investigation. this is where it all stems from. host: i will stop you on that point. did you want to respond? guest: not really. people have a lot of observations. some stories are rooted in faual discrepancies, and some are conspiracy theories. it is the job of the government

to sort these things out. it is the job of the informed public i would urge people to go to the website and type in tsa complaint, and look at some of the documents. host: going back to israel, one of our viewers is saying so what, millions of people should be effected because the left does not want to profile? it goes back to the issue of what the alternatives are. what is left to try to make sure people on the plane are safe? guest: i think a lot of the investigation of suspected terrorists goes on well before they get to the airport. the government has enormous tools to engage in wiretapping and surveillance, and sometimes they have gone too far to put under surveillance peaceful

groups that are concerned about animal rights, or anti-war protesters. so, there is a kind of profiling that is legitimate, that is rooted in probable cause, that is effective. . there is the ham-handed, mass, deal-by-association, religion, or skin color, that is proving to be ineffective. even your top national security officials will tell you that as an effective use of government resources. host: the head of the transportation administration testified yesterday, and was asked a lot of questions about the airport procedures. here is more from his testimony. >> the use remains optional for travelers, but the quality is not. we to make sure for everyone, l of the traveling public, not

when they get on that plane, they have the high confidence that everyone else on that flight has been adequately screened. if everyone else wan to make sure i have been adequately screened. that is what we come down to invest the balance between privacy and security. host: laura murphy, an issue you talked about earlier. guest: i think tsa has a lot of good people here. it is not about being a bad guy or a good guy, it is about having the right balance, and we think they are out of balance, that they do not protect security and privacy to the best of their ability. host: a couple more minutes with our conversation. up next is joe on the phone from san diego. caller: i am a first-time caller. i wanted to comment on something

i do not hear many people speaking about in regard to the christmas day bomber. in my opinion, the original airport securitye had in place before the body scanners came into play was effective because the thing that prevented him from being able to explode his device was that he was not able to get a detonation device on the plane, along with the explosive compound he had in his underwear. people do not talk about that. our security was working. i do not think these full-body scans will prevent compounds like that from making that on the plane anyway. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think you raise a good point. i also think, as with the attempted bombing in times square, citizen alertness, and citizen engagement on that airplane, was also crucial to

making sure that bomber was not successful. host: our next call is bob on the republican line from arkansas. six of long time listener -- caller: i am a long time listener. it is the first time i have gotten through. i have a comment i believe that terrorists have already won by making does go through all these hoops, and my prediction is the next bomber will have all bombing in a bobby -- body cavity. we will be hiring pathologists at a screening place. host: ok, bob. laura murphy? guest: he has a point. host:ill, from arizona.

caller: i am a retired federal police officer. i think the lady from the aclu should check the policies. i know police officers have to follow procedures for searches. what i am seeing at the airports is an exact reversal of that. now, i do not know why the government should be able to do it one way for criminal activities, and then be able to turn around because you are standing at an airport. host: thank you, bill. guest: that is the way it feels, that people are being treated like criminal suspects. there is not the program

protocol -- appropriate protocol to go through preliminary steps before people are subjected to this invasive groping. the problem has been that airports have been given greater latitude. basically, you are forced to sign away a certain level of your privacy once you purchase a ticket. host: if you say no, and refuse to go through the scanners and have a pat down, what happens? guest: there is a case where a man refused to go through the body scanner and the pat downs, and he attempted to leave. he is being threatened with and $11,000 fine. that was passed at the senate committee hearing yesterday -- asked that the senate committee hearing yesterday. that report is getting a lot of

attention. that is ecisely what we want to know -- what happens if people leave the airport? the psa officials are alleging he agreed to the search wednesday entered the airport area. we do not agree with that. we think that is going to an exeme. if you do not wt to fly, and you make a decision that you do not want to go through what you see your fellow passengers go through, you should have the right to leave without being interests of research. host: tony is joini us from san juan, pr, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. one of the comments that some people continue to repeat, and i travel a lot of luck -- around the globe. they keep comparing profiling

and all of that nonsense. there are 200 to 300 people traveling in israel. you cannot cpare the 5 million to 10 million people traveling in and out of the u.s.. 47,000 flights a day, compared to maybe one dozen flights. people keep comparing the u.s. with a smaller country. anyway, other than profiling, they should look into the root causes. they are alienating two billion people. they areausing them to become

enemies. some of the callers use the muslim names. thank you, ms. murphy, for your work. guest: i appreciate your coents. i dthink there is a great deal of alienation going on by the desire on the part of some leaders to ascribe guilt by association, religious association, country of origin. a lot of people are fleeing totalitarian regimes when they come to the united states, to make a better life, to participate in our democracy, to get away from terrorism, and we cannot have a system where we are not able to distinguish those individuals because we do risk alienating people, and really increase in our safety concerns. host: one last tweet from a

dealer. so, now, americans are guilty until proven innocent? guest: it feels that way, and i think the good news about this country is that we are capable of correction and making improvements. we live in a robust democracy. people are complaining. legislators are getting involved. the aclu has a website. in the search area, put in tsa complaint, and you will get a forum. we are looking at this. this is a dynamic situation. it is time for the public to weigh in. host: laura murphy, thank you as always for being with us. guest: steve, thank you, and i want to give you a copy of the aclu constitution for the entire

>> up next, house republican leaders talk to reporters about their priorities. them president obama on general motors' initial stock. later, a hearing on the government's home mortgage modification program. on tomorrows "washington journal." jim joined as. he led the transition team after they won the midterm elections then sarah wartell on things president can do to expand their agenda without being congress' approval.

then they discuss what states face a big drop added the medicaid program. later, the annual convention. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span from the. >> the competition is in full swing. 8585 or a man and the idea it did make a -- make a fight or a minute video. there is $50,000 and total prices begin for all the roles. go online.

house republicans met this week it begins next the official john boehner is speaker. he will assume next year. spot went leadership's pop to others. this spoke to reporters for 15 minutes burda. >> bid morning. united.cans are mor we have the new majority. this is not about us. is about the american people.

the american people are in charge. this focuses on the priorities of the people. republicans have made a pledge to listen to the american people and focus on their priorities. we are going to focus on treating the ups and reforming congress. we will fight to a less costly federal government. today republicans adopted in a rock band that shows the we are listening in serious about ending business as usual. we hope the president will work with us on all of these priorities. i want to say how proud i am of the leadership team.

we have a team to represent the broad consensus of our party. we are very energized to assume their responsibility. we realize the public has given us a second chance, a golden opportunity to live up to the expectations that the voters have for this party. we are going to be a result of giving congress.

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

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

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

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

we were raising our family. we recognize the legislation that was passed, the real ramifications that come on families. we were trying to keep our doors opened. we ran campaigns we plan to deliver results. we are united. >> on the campaign trail, i also heard owners tell me that they cannot pay higher taxes prevent they are struggling to keep their budgets to get their

praetor -- to gather. please come and gather a working. our commitment is a look into the american people. >> i guess verlaine to ask some questions. >> mcconnell said he would try to block it by the end of the year. are you an alignment with this? >> i think it is a shame they did not pass a budget or any appropriation bills. now we are left with nothing but bad choices. we have been operating since october the first.

we made it clear that we are interested in less spending. in september, the spending bills was about the right size. i am more focused on cutting spending them what type of peoples i am in. >> do you think this is inappropriate for the violation? do you think the house should vote? >> i believe and the ethics committee process. is the only bipartisan committee, five members surveyed committee. they have come to an agreement on.

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

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

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

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

had objected a meeting with the new members. it is a contradiction? >> i wonder if you can help us understand the discussion we are having? >> we have obligations on our point. >> president obama announce that the federal government is on track to recoup all of the

investment in general motors after they returned to the new york stock exchange with an initial public offering. this is five minutes. >> that afternoon. today we had details of the recession that took another step to becoming a success story. gm launched itself as a public company, cutting the government stake by nearly half the bill american tax payers are now

positioned to recover more in my administration invested in gm. that is a very good thing. last year we told the management that if they made the decisions necessary to make themselves more competitive, the ones requiring fresh leadership, then we would stand by them. because they did, the american automobile industry that has been a proud symbol of american manufacturing for a century and help to build our middleclass is once again on the rise. there in the midst of their strongest amounted drucker. gm announces best quarter for over 11 years. most importantly, american workers are back at the assembly line.

they were prepared to throw in the towel. independent estimates suggested that had taken the step and given up, we would have lost more than 1 million jobs across of 50 states

it also would have resulted in devastating areas across the this was not an acceptable option to throw up our hands and quit the bill -- and quit. we do not give up when times are tough. we do what is necessary to move forward. we have a lot of work to do. we secured the american dream with their children and grandchildren. i'm confident we will continue making progress. we will get through this tougher and stronger. i had faith in the ability of our automobile workers. i faith in the american people

to presser beer. -- to preserve rare persevere. i want to embarrass a couple of people. we are key members of the team that helped to engineer this rescue of gm and chrysler. it then had not been for these gentlemen, and a lot of people might have been out of work. we are proud of them. they are all looking sheepish. thank you very much, everybody.

>> in 1994, he left the transition team after a of a collection and became a majority party then things president can do to expand. in debt without getting the approval, there is -- getting the approval of conagra's. -- congress. leader, we will go to the society's annual convention. by coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern. craigslist saturday, tune in american history tv offers confirmation on the civil war

with prominent historians continue perspective on the impact of the war. the coverage starts saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern. in telling the american story every weekend on c-span3. >> not a hearing on the modification program proposa. >> this will come to order. good morning from the island like to thank our members on housing. hong this hearing is to pump the

study of the mortgage servicing industry to obey the law and to live up to its goal of preventing foreclosures. it is about the aftermath of what happens when industry is broken and when our regulators did nothing to pick up the pieces. there was lost paperwork, and correct information, incorrect numbers, and lies. in the recent allegations of

foreclosure fraud does not surprise me at all. i believe we are seeing foreclosures for the same reason we are seeing problems with home owners unable to receive home modifications proposed a. it is in their interest to foreclose. they want to foreclose as quickly as possible no matter the consequences this is the reason why the treasury department designed the program. it is supposed to remove that incentive by pangs servicers to modifyknown to bahi -- loans. it is long enough for the banks to improve their balance sheet s.pc

on may 30% have obtain permanent modification. where crates are virtually unchanged since this time last year when half for supposed to be in full swing. and they are not meeting their goal of making it the foreclosures. there is evidence to suggest the operation sort have produce systemic and damaging consequences for the nation's homeowners of rebuilt. i'm concerned about reports that many promissory note and never been properly transferred. with al, services and is there favorable taxes.

the oversight council should access the extent to which imposes a significant risk. a broken knock industry means that they are likely denied the process, do they get the runaround. they read faxed paper work. they were told diskette paperwork. investors are growing dissatisfied. some of them are suing

originators from misrepresenting their original loan packages. some are an easy that services .o not have standing zapats i want to know problems which have been apparent for years. what do they tend to do to fix these problems? i would like to recognize our subcommittee's ranking member. you will be doing that today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the cannot lose sight that it is a cut wrenching experience for any homeowner. it is our job to remove that commotion and analyze the

foreclosure problem. the average process takes 16 months. in homeowner can live 60 months without making a single mortgage payment. homeowners are making money by renting out their homes. we can agree that that is probably not appropriate. i have yet to hear any victims who have been convicted by meeting the impeachment. if they attempted contact homeowners 100 times before they make a foreclosure actions. there is no doubt they should be accountable. all it is inexcusable for any employees to sign off on affidavit without reviewing each case file out the bellhops --

filed. cheering this progress is built upon. with all that being said, i'm concerned it is being used as a toll to slow down the process. the lawyer see an opportunity to extract fees support are seeking for foreclosures. because of these actions, they have slowed significantly. in florida, listings have jumped 24%.

it prevent the market from clearing. it is costing some banks as much as $100 million per month. but they have increased the servicing cost calendars. correspond khobar wars will face hundred dollars in additional fees that is not right.

.

>> thank you. i was going to wait for the next panel but since this issue just came up, i wanted to ask somebody about it. for quite a while i've been asking and questioning the office about launches that some are now labeled as foreclosure millings. to this day, i haven't really gotten the answer to why there are so few launches and this

obviously continue -- law firms and that obviously continues to be a problem and i introduced a bill last february to require the inspector general to report to congress on this matter. an and then october and november, the "washington journal" reported about the florida law firm that has employees and foreclosure last year. that firm allegedly -- notarized documents and employees signed files without reviewing them. is there anything more that you can tell me? >> i can tell you those companies have been expanding their network of law firms in particular in the state of florida and have been capping the share of business going to any one firm so there is progress in that way. i believe we have gotten back

if, we had not gotten back to you with all the answers to your question, i would make sure that we do. provide some information for you with regard to the changes taking place. over the course of this year, the oversight of law firms and the expansion of the networks at each company. >> do you think we should have the inspector general report to congress on this matter? >> that would be your call, not mine, but i would be happy to cooperate. if i had the new inspector general on any inquiries that he has. >> is that a request that you're making? >> yes. >> without objection, that request is due in court and we would expect other response. do we have a time frame? >> two weeks. >> two weeks. >> is that understood? >> i will get back to

congresswoman biggert in two weeks. >> some members may have additional questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in writing. the record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these witnesses and place their responses in the record. this spaniel now dismissed. i would now like to call on our second panel. thank you very much. -- panel is now dismissed. i would like to call on our spebled second panel. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house ethics committee yesterday called for new york congressman to be censured for financial misconduct and

fundraising violation. that is next on c-span. we'll get reaction to the ethics case on this morning's "washington journal" and get a trial update for tom delay. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. >> this saturday, tune in as american history the tv offers a day long symposium on the civil war live from the national archives with historians giving new perspective on the impacts of the war. coverage started at 9:00 a.m. eastern. telling american story, every weekend only on c-span 3. >> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power, even though they may give it up for principled reasons, >> in the final volume of this award-winning trilogy on

theodore roosevelt, edmund morris looks at his bull moose run for president. >> thursday, the house ethics committee recommended that congressman charles rangel be censured for ethical misconduct. the most serious punishment they can give a member short of expulsion. the matter will now go to house for a vote.

>> the committee, the standards committee, will come to order. i would like the record >> the committee will come to order. comm time. this hearing of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of representative charles b. rangel will come to order. when i designated the members of the judetory subcommittee to consider the statement of

alleged violations in this matter, i noted that the code of government ethics states clearly that a public office is a public trust. it was our responsibility to determine whether representative rangel's conduct met that standard. it was our obligation to act impartially as finders of fact and law. and the members of the subcommittee fulfilled that responsibility and met that obligation. we did so fairly, honestly and without bias. the subcommittee did not prejudice the allegations against representative, prejudge the allegations against representative rangel, and indeed, the subcommittee did not find all of the alleged counts to be proven. but ultimately, we found that his conduct failed to meet the ethical standards that apply to all members of the house. those standards apply equally to those of white house have the privilege of representing our communities in the house for the first time and to our most senior colleagues. on november 16, of this year,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the committee specifically stated that in neither instance, does it appear that the failure to report was motivated by an effort to conceal the financial holding from the members of the house or the public. nonetheless, the committee stated that a failure to report was deserving of a reprimand. respondent has been found to have violated laws and regulations pertaining to the misuse of official resources. this committee also found violations for misuses of official resources in the matter of representative austin murphy. in that matter, the committee found that representative murphy permitted official resources to be diverted from his district office to his former law firm. the committee also found that ghost voting had occurred and that representative murphy retained a staffer who did not perform duties commensurate with his pay.

based on those violations, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations for misuse of official resources in the matter of representative james traficant. among numerous other violations found against representative traficant, the committee found that he had directed members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor and services related to his boat and his farm. taking into account all of representative traficant's violations, including bribery, the committee recommended that representative traficant be expelled. respondent has been found to have violated tax laws. the committee also found violations for tax-related conduct in the matter of representative newt gingrich. representative gingrich failed

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

criminal conduct. respondent used the imprimatur and resources of his office to solicit money from individuals and entities with business and interests before the congress, and before the ways and means committee in particular. he was soliciting to create and establish a center that would encourage young minority students to consider entering public service, a noble goal, and an admirable project. imagine for a moment how it would feel to be a startup nonprofit struggling to find a funding needed to keep going. you have great ideas. but you need the money to fund them. you aren't really sure of the best way to approach potential

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

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

it was clear respondent would become chairman of the ways and means committee, the college started to get larger contributions. the donors, they had business or interests before the congress. just the appearance of that alone is striking. and how does it help ensure trust in government? the adjudicatory subcommittee found that respondent's use of an apartment as an office for his campaign in violation of the terms of his lease and new york city zoning regulations and its building code was a favor or a benefit to respondent. that created an appearance of impropriety. think for one moment about one of respondent's neighbors and constituents. one who may not have been as

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but clearly some think that it's been said today, by counsel and mr. bonner, they would have given an explanation for my faulty behavior as it relates to the very serious charge, charges, of violating the house rules. i look at myself every morning, mr. bonner, and i have never blamed staff, my family, or anyone for my irresponsible behavior as it relates to violation of the house rules. as a matter of fact, i have said it publicly and you had clips of this as to what i've said. and i, no matter what sanction you finally reach, i will

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

any personal gain. it would not even be a suggestion of corruption. and had there been some suggestion that we were negotiating as to whether or not we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to me that they were willing, and really asking this committee to do, to say what was not found, even though it was alleged and still is being alleged by newspapers, reporters, by television reporters, as it deals with rangel being a crook, rangel being corrupt, rangel gaining, just -- i don't see any reason why, if this committee pointed out those things, yes, i wanted my

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

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

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

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

this statement makes me believe that a lot should have been done and i admitted that. but it would really help and i don't think, if the committee didn't say before that you could put in that report no matter what you agree the sanctions to be that your member was not corrupt and did not seek and did not gain anything personally for the bad conduct that i've had. that's all i've ever asked when i referred this whole thing to this committee. all i asked was that you make a point of investigating everything. i volunteered to have a forensic accountant for 20 years to look over tax and look over all of the things that should have been done and corrected all of them, but that is not an example i would want to set for the members of congress, and quite frankly, even though i came in here prepared not to deal with

the question of censure and the options that you had. i assumed when you go into executive session you would compare how the members were treated and where they were personally and where there was no question that the corruption existed. i have brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share who i was. i felt awkward giving se-serving statements as to how i dedicated my life to my country and to this congress and to my community.

and i know that if i had counsel here that they would say one thing but mr. bonner, i hope that you can deal with the dwheas dealt with my love for my congress and my country and my distribute as well to talk about testimony that you found as fact chal that -- district as well to talk about testimony that you found as fact spnch ual and the circumstances when i left that apartment, a subsidized apartment, left there, the scenes no. these people that would be looking for a subsidized

apartment certainly wasn't looking for the apartment -- the apartments were vakeant. i didn't try to hide anything from anybody. nybody. but again, that doesn't deal with how it appears, even though there is an account there saying that i gave the appearance that i was receiving a gift. and again with ccny, i was overzealous, because i have dedicated my life to trying to make certain that those people that were not exposed to the proper education could get it and there's the rangel seles of that the state department runs -- scholarship at the state department runs. because i know that the only thing between mean as the high school -- me as a high-school dropout and korea and becoming

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

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

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