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

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

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

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

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

witnesses because rangel admitted to wrongdoings with the disclosure and effect as related to other issues was established. so i do not know whether you were not on the committee, but if you have any information that i had the opportunity to call witnesses, you are making one big mistake. that was denied. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i will know that it will indicate that although a motion was filed, the chair did indicate that if the member wished to be heard that the ruling on the motion would be held in advance. the other members have questions? mr. mccall? >> that me say first that that was a tribute -- i was at a tribute last night, mr. lewis, to you. i want to commend you for your courageous x during the civil rights movement. i think a lot has been made of the issue of self interest and corruption and the chief counsel or prosecutor hasn't gotten

widely publicized for his comments that there was no corruption in this case. i guess i am a little confused. i guess it depends how you define corruption. mr. rangel, in your letter to speaker nancy pelosi, you stated, as chairman of ways and means i am held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree with that statement. sitting on one of the most powerful committees as chairman, to solicit corporations, foundations, lobbyists with business before the committee, to raise money for what i call a monument and had institutes to be named after yourself i believe it is a self-interested. people donate millions of dollars to have institutions named after themselves. in fact, mr. chisolm, and your

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

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

>> is that a question to counsel? >> that is a question to mr. rangel. >> had the witness is been called, mr. chisholm would have told do that city college came to me. had the witnesses and hear, it would of been made abundantly clear that i was not trying to criminally hide anything from the irs or congress. if you looked at the records of disclosure, you would see sloppiness would have shown that i was not hiding anything. it was just not properly recorded. and if intent is involved in corruption, then i think he should -- listen, there is nothing that i can imagine that anyone can make a contribution

to the city college and that somehow or other that matter would not be one that could possibly come before the congress. it is impossible. you and i discussed incorruption, am satisfied with the record that the investigatory committee established. and that would lead you to believe as a former prosecutor that never but never was there and it tends to hide anything from my constituents or from the irs. and so, to me, if you have to properlys uick this up to not abiding by the rules, that is serious enough, but i really think said it is a stretch to imply -- i do not want to get into a discussion. is it objective, and there are a lot of things that happened in life that i would think a lot

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

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

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

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

deductions and made for the taxes and depreciation of the property in the dominican republic? my accountant tells me it would of been at minimal. the only reason i did not go beyond that was because i wanted the case closed as it related to coming before the committee. if a part of your adjudication with me is the responsibility to do it, i did send not want to get involved legally and doing something in front of this committee -- i it is did not want to get involved legally and doing something front of this committee. every obligation i have, this was not reported. this is what i referred to the committee. i was prepared to do what ever the committee suggested to show there was no intent to evade or the law. >> those taxes from the early 1990's up until 2004, you have

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

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

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

and a censure, and a fine would be within the province of the committee, in complying with the committee roles. >> thank you. when recommending a sanction, is it a proper to consider the fact that mr. rangel refused to participate in the proceedings the other day? i had a number of questions i wanted to ask the responded that submitted for the record. can the committee consider his refusal to participate in determining the appropriate sanction? >> i think that this is an institution buthat judges itsel. and that your conscience, each member's conscience, and the variables that reflect on this institution may be considered

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

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

counsel, and you left. >> it was understood as the chair said that i did not have to come here during the proceedings. two, no one challenges the fact that i had expected to have counsel here. at third, no one could expect me to submit to questioning without a lawyer here. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has again expired. >> i just want to make sure that we are clear, and hope that mr.

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

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

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

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

institution, congressman, and the ultimate test for the institution is whether members be incredibly -- behave credibly.io that 13th count, as someone who loves the institution, was fundamental. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. i will just note, and we will come back after the vote, just to clarify, we did have all of the subpoenaed witnesses in the building. as i indicated on the record, we were prepared to proceed with the hearing if mr. rangel chose to do so, and not rule on the

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

>> the committee wl come back to order. >> would any other members seek to ask questions? mr. chandler is recognized for five minutes. other members to ask their questions. >> i know that protecting the integrity of this institution is extremely important, although i must say that some people would

question whether there is any integrity left to protect. that probably refers to one pay as much as it does the other. that being said, i think that the people of this country have an abiding sense of fairness and justice, and while they want to see their institutions protected, they also want to see justice done. i think that is a very important matter to most americans that i know. while it is easy, i think, to sit and judged and criticize, it is a bit more difficult to actually find it justice. we have to, in this ce, since this is a hearing on sanctions, it is very important that we find justice.

it is justice to the institution. it is justice to the people of this country, but it is also just as to someone who has been accused and found guilty. that being said, i would like to ask counsel -- it is my understanding, based on some testimony that i have heard, that there has been no finding that the respondent was guilty of any intent or factual instants of having personal gain. is that correct council? >> with respect to the findings, that is correct. >> now, in our jurisprudence system, in order to find

justice, one of the best ways that we have, maybe the best way that we have to determine what constitutes justice is the system of precedence, and what presidents have been set -- precedents have been set, what congresses before us have done in similar circumstances. am i correct that there have been four instances of censured? >> there are a number of more censures in the history of the house, dating back to the 1970's. >> let's talk about this committee then. this committee has recommended four centuries? >> correct. >> which of those did not

contain some elements of personal gain, of those four? >> just give me one second, i am sorry. the recommendations for censure were failing to report a $1,000 cash contribution, 11 counts of mail fra and aiding counts of false statements, accepting a loan of more than $10,000 from a person with direct interest in legislation -- >> personal gain in all instances? >> there were two matters in which the committee recommended a reprimand in which house

members were convicted of having sex with pages. >> well, we will not get into that. so, the others had personal gain involved in them, corct? i guess what i am asking you is, if we find censure to be appropriate in this case, would we be setting a precedent, or would we be following a previous previous precedent? >> there are not any cases that are squarely on a point here. you can line them up with different recommendations, but there is really not a case in

the committee passed that you can line up well with this case. to the extent that prevent -- precedent should be the guide, i noted that the times may be different than previous times in which the committee has considered censure. >> this takes us into the realm of and subjectivity. >> the gentleman goes the time has expired. is there anyone else who would like to ask a question? >> thank you to the committee and the subcommittee and the staff for all of your hard work. it does not go unnoticed. thank you very much. i have heard that this is a difficult case. difficult it is. it is difficult for me, first of all, because i have not had

staff or counsel to advise me as a member of this committee. the staff works for and wit the ranking chair and a member. members of this committee are instructed that we cannot discuss this matter or any matter in front of the committee with our personal staff. when i was on the supreme court in my state, iad an executive assiant who worked with me and for me every day and i depended on them greatly. i have not had the support in this case. that puts me at a tremendous disadvantage. the other thing that has made this case difficult is that we are judging not only a colleague, but a man who is 80 years of age has spent 40 years of his life -- that is one-half of his life -- in this institution. i did not know until a moment ago -- i was eating a chicken

salad sandwich and next to the chair in the cloak room. i looked up, and there was a portrait of congressman rangel that has been up there for years, depicting his service during the korean war. he was awarded a purple heart and a bronze star. that is the individual that we are judging. it also troubles me in this case that we are dealing with a respondent who has no legal counsel. that troubles me greatly. it troubles me that his lawyers, the day this hearing was announced, after that his council decided to withdraw from the case. i do not know the reason for his withdrawing. i can tell you that when i was a trial judge in my state, never ever what i have allowed council to withdraw on the eve of trial. that has troubled me greatly.

if mr. rangel d council today , there are arguments that could have been made. those arguments have not been made. it is not my responsibility to make those arguments for mr. rangel, but there are certainly arguments that could have been made. those arguments would have had a bearing on the sanction that we will ultimately impose a in this case. the president's -- the precedents of the house are critically important. it is my hope so we will make a decision based on precedents, not based on politics. the facts of this case do not warrant a center in my inion. -- censure, in my

opinion. i suggest that any conflict between these punishments must be resolved in favor of the respondents. centaur is extreme. it should be -- censure is extreme. it should be applied when the respondent has received personal financial benefit. that is not the case. committee council clearly stated that the evidence es not suggest corrupti. council has lived witthis case. knows it inside and out. has a distinguished career in public service. if he saw corruption in this case, he would have said so. the law establishes no corruption, and as judges we should be bound by this fact. we must not insert any legal

conclusions that would supplant the conclusions of the parties and the judicatory subcommittee. we are judges. we're not advocates. we must not lose sight of the fact that members of the house make contributions andonations to their favorite charities every day. mr. rangel fell short only because he failed to get permission to do so, and because he used official resources in making the solicitations. with respect to the failure to disclose, he has been acknowledged that he was sloppy in his reporting. but this record that we have before us does not show that his failing to disclose was intentional. i look forward to our deliberations and trust that justice and fairness will be our guiding star. thank you. >> thankou.

does any other member wish to ask a question? mr. welch. >> thank you, madam chair. this is an extraordinarily important case for the institution d for mr. rangel. the facts are relatively simple. there was improper solicitation. mr. rangel should not have used his staff and his office to solicit funds, even though the funds being solicited or for a private, nonprofit educational institution, something he has acknowledged. he should not have been solicitingefore someone who had business before his committee in congress where it was very apparent that there would be a conflict. we will come back to that in a moment. rent stabilization is something he was not entitled to and benefited by. the taxes, obviously, were due

and he did not pay them. mr. rangel has candidly of knowledge in eachase that his record keeping was sloppy, that he breached his responsibity. his defense is essentially not a defense, because failing to meet your oigation whether adipocere accident or intention does not abrogate your -- whether out of accident or intention does not abdicate your responsibility. members of this body to solicit or educational institutions that are named after themselves. i think that is something that should never have been allowed in this congress, but it was the manner in which mr. rangel did it that got him into this trouble. these are serious concerns, and the process by which we got here was long and complicated. i thought it cost a lot of

concern on theart of the american public. but that is essentially what happened. the question that we face is now sanctions. as mr. chandler said, we have an obligation to the institution to be fair to mr. rangel. the sanction will be serious, whenever it is. this committee will make its recommendation and the full body will make a decision. it is rare that a member of congress is called before the committee and then stands in front of the entire body, whether it be reprimand or censure, and have read before the congress of this united states and the people of the united states a recommendation of the public penalty. but caution, we are going to make our decision, but i would caution those of us on this committee and all of us in congress that this is not the end of it for the american

people. when we have the system where, in fact, corporations, individuals contribute money to each and everyone of us because of the position we have, and we try to make fine, calibrated distinctions between what is legitimate and what isn't, where do you draw the line in the eye of the beholder? the american people believe that with the enormous amount of money in politics, the fix is in one way or the other. we have to do everything we can to uphold the rules, regulations, and ethical standards of this institution. that requires us to call it as we see it as far as mr. rangel is concerned. that may do something to restore some public credibility, but it will not be the end of this, because when people who are working hard and trying to pay their bills, and they're looking

at those of us with i positions of responsibility to receive donations -- with high positions of responsibility to be received donations, they question whether this body is doing everything it can to work on their behalf. mr. rangel, let you lead an extraordinary life. yowere born on the wrong side of the tracks and fought her way to the right side of the tracks. you showed aptitude in the united states military. you spent the coldest winter, nearly died in korea. when you came home, it was colder sll. you could not get job because of the color of your skin. you pushed a car in lower manhattan. you have a wonderful marriage ended great family. you earned the respect of the people of harlem. you have been an inspiration to generations of people.

you find yourself now having lost the prize that you sought for so long, the chairmanship of the ways and means committee of this united states congress. you find yourself sitting where you wish you never were, before the ethics committee, and you will soon be standing before the entire congress. i just want to give you an opportunity to express whatever it is you want to say to the people of your district that i know you care so much about the have looked up to you for so long.

>> whatever else god has given me, i am deeply appreciative of the opportunity to serve. it has always been my goal to help people and to thank god for what he has given to me. i will leave the sanctions to all of you as it relates to fairness.

i just hope, no matter what you decide with the sanctions that you put in that report, charles rangel never sought any personal gain. please make certain that my name, not withstanding the imagination that some people may have, that there is no way to sttch this that i was a corrupt individual, that i brought shame to my family, to my community, to this congress, and certainly to the country. i have left it up to you as to what is there in terms of sanctions.

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

myself, and then i walk away, no matter what your decision, grateful that i have this opportunity to serve, and recognize that had it not been for god's gift in saving my life, i would not even be here today to talk with this body. thank you for the opportunity to express myself. i apologize for any embarrassment i have caused y individually or collectively as a meer of the greatest institution of the greatest country of the world. >> thank you. it appears we have moved into

the deliberation phase. if we go behind that door, then nothing said will be known. i am confused. we have that statement. >> we are padding number of statements made by members throughout the day. at this time, we will recess. thank you. >[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite rp. 2010]

>> i would just like to say 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 the staff and all the members and mr. riegle for being here as well. unless there are further comments to be made at this time -- i would recognize mr. rangel. >> i know how much discussion

went into this decision as i stated earlier, i hope that you can see a way clear for the record to make it abundantly clear at the record would indicate that any action taken by me was not with the intention to bring and a disgrace on the house, to enrich myself personally, or considered by counsel to be corrupt. that would be a great help to my family and my community. >> thank you mr. rangel. i would note that our report will be on the committee web site later this evening. with that, there are no further comments, the committee is adjourned. thanks to all who participated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking site and find our content any time

through the cspan of video library and we take cspan on the room with their digital bus, bringing our resources to your committee. -- community. clear available in more than 100 million homes created by cable and provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. later today, we will go to the federalist society annual convention. u.s. senator collect of utah and my pants are scheduled to speak. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and coming up this morning, the former iowa republican congressman joins us. in 1994, he led the house gop transition team after they won the midterm election and became the majority party. the majority party.