but you cannot do it if we don't have earmark authority. so the bill goes over to the senate. and because we can't get agreement between the two senators, then they sent it to the rules. they won't do an earmark because both senators have to agree. now, some people may do pet projects. but i was born and raised in the -- and my father was president of the press taryn for the state of california and one of the earlier discussions was what they were going to do about a wayward pastor. they didn't talk about burning down the church. they said they've got to get rid of that pastor. and they got rid of that pastor but that church is still there. so if you have people messing up with earmarks, get rid of the people. we've got people in jail right now because they misused earmarks. we have people, we didn't get rid of the congress because a combhan were to go awry.

the institution is at stake. when you've got people who work in their communities every day, i work with the port authority and they tell me this is what we need to happen so that we can do what's necessary to bring business into our state, that's not a pet project. when you put in a water system for people who have been living in communities where they can't drink the water, you do an earmark for them to get a new water system for the first time they're drinking water clean, safe drinking water, that's not a pet project. and now they're trying to bring infrastructure to communities that really need it. these are communities that have never had attention before by the federal government. so i think it's very unfair to label every earmark as a pet project, because every earmark i ever requested i put up in knee on lights. and i think if it's transparent, you put it out there on the internet, let people take shots at it, let

the communities that request it defend it, then that is a good thing to do. because when you go and visit these people they're telling you what their problems are. they've said we want you to help us get a water system, we want you to help us get a community center. in these rural communities. that's not a pet project of mine. i don't live in these communities. that is how i respond to my constituents. and i don't see that as being a bad thing. and if you're saying i can't do it, i'll going to have to depend pont the face of the bureaucrat up there and maybe that person will have some pity on you though this person doesn't know where you live or know this community that you live in. you're going to have to rely on that person. then i'll not doing my duty as a congressman and doing my duty up here. >> congressman we'll have to leave it there. thank you for being c-span's "newsmakers." >> thank you for having me. >> we're back with our

reporters. let's begin with what you heard about this new job for congressman clyburn. if i could start with you. >> it's going to have an office and staff. that doesn't sound like much in most parts in america but it means a lot in capitol hill. and that's something i didn't know. it looks like this is going to be a scommuneications component. and i felt one of the most important things we learned is that congressman clyburn expects a lot of the democrats to run again. and that's an important political marker already. >> he said he's already talked to a number of them and it sounds like this new role as assistant minority leader will allow him to get out of washington, go back to some of these guys who lost and prepare them to run again. >> he said he went to 42 different districts, he's never been to before, bleefs he's got a good communication element to his game that he can bring forward in various communities across the country. he says he likes to talk to rural folks about farming, used to be a farming commissioner.

so i see mr. clyburn seize this as an opportunity to get far away from the leadership table and communicate back and forth. and i think there's a lot of liaison roles. i spoke to members who said he may have a rose in leezing talk about what the spending choices are and some of the other caucuses within congress. so it sounds like he's very much got a communications component. >> there's an admission i think in the way he talked about what he intends to do and what didn't happen in the last two years that what democrats accomplished was not communicated well. and there's also that, at least in my ears when the republicans said you're no listening, democrats have begun to internalize that and they will go to lessons learned. and you do new tactics. >> he also made the argument that he can connect with voters better than some of these other leaders of his party.

what did you make of that? >> i thought it was very interesting. obviously, they're very focused on communication. when he listed speaker pelosi's strength he talked about organization, fund raising, just about everything other than communications. and when asked he said she's the spokeswoman for the party. so there's a belief that she was not effectively making the scace. but he took blame as well. he said the president has blame. they're looking for effective communicators. and it's interesting he immediately glommed on to something that mitch mcconnell said about making sure that obama is a one-term president and said that's not what you should be focused on. you should be fused on again getting the american people back to work basically. a quick reversal of roles where you've got the republicans talking about inside the beltway and democrats saying essentially what john boehner was saying all for the last two years, where are the jobs?

and so i think there's a fascinating and immediate reversal of roles going on tha we can see. >> let's talk policy. you asked about tax cuts. what did you hear? >> the fuzzieness continues. his preference is for the party and the president to stick to this $250,000 threshhold for family income and nothing above that as far as extending the bush tax cuts. when pressed, the senate may do something else. well, ok, the democrats still have not resolved within themselves what to do and how to proceed. and that's going to be their first big test in the post mid-term election era and the pre2012 reelection era f president obama. can he and democrats put together a coherent defensible defineable message on this tax issue and still i think the answer is muddled. >> and i think just jumping on that one thing i thought was amazing. he said it's not essential that they get this done before the

end of the year. and if they don't get the tax cuts dean it will be a deficit reduction package. i'm not sure that most folks making under 250,000 a year look at their taxes going up as a eficit reduction package. certainly there's a portion of the democratic caungcuss that believes that. i believe mr. clyburn has been talking to them lately, apparently not so much necessarily the sort of middle mainstream voter. >> and that were offered up as a potential talking point it would be sum airline rejected. the leadership. so maybe there are still things to be learned. >> it was certainly not the opening line of the president's weekly radio address this week. >> probably not. >> already thank you so much for being part of "newsmakers."

>> this week charles rangel appeared before a house ethics subcommittee facing 13 charges. following opening statements by the chair, zoe lofgren and ranking member michael mccall,

representative rangel requested the subcommittee postpone the proceedings until he could hire a lawyer. the committee then went into closed session to consider his motion. this portion is about 30 minutes. in the house, the committee on standards of official conduct is charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust. it is under that authority that we are meeting here today.

this hearing is authorized by house rule 11 clause 3 and committee rule 23. the purpose of this hearing is to determine whether any of the 13 counts included in the statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel had been proved by clear and convincing evidence. on june 17, 2010, a bipartisan investigative subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct adopted the statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel. representative gene green chaired the subcommittee. the ranking member of the full committee representative joe bonner served as the subcommittee's full member. representative bobby scott and dock hastings also served. the investigative subcommittee adopted the statement of alleged violations which includes 13 cnts. for each count the subcommittee concluded that there was

substantial reason to believe that representative rangel violated the code of conduct or a law rule regulation or other standard of conduct applicable to representative rangel's performance of his official duties or the discharge of his official responsibility as a member of the house of representatives. the role of an adjude catri subcommitt is determine at a hearing whether any count of the statement of alleged violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. the purpose of this hearing is to do that. however, it is important to bear in mind that the proceeding is a hearing, not a trial. attorneys from the committee's nonpartisan professional staff are the moving party in these proceedings. their role is to make a case for the statement of alleged violation adopted by the investigative subcommittee. at the adjude catri hearing the burp burpped rests with the facts violation by clear and

convincing evidence. representative rangel will have an opportunity to present his side of the story should he wish to do so. a respondent is not required to present a case in his defense and should representative rangel choose not to present a case, the subcommittee will not and may not draw a negative inference from that fact, as members of the subcommittee we are neither accusers nor are we defenders of our colleague mr. rangel. it is our job and our duty to act impartially as finders of fact and law. we are honor bound to do so without regard to partisanship. we are required to act honestly and fairly based on the evidence presented to us. in light of that role, i remind my colleagues that while this hearing is in rog and while the ethics progress continues for this matter we should continue to refrain from commenting on the facts of law or any other aspect of this matter. in conducting this hearing, the

subcommittee will follow the procedures established by the rules of the committee. the quorum required for the subcommittee to conduct any business is a majority plus one or six members. if at any time the subcommittee does not have a quorum, the chair may recess the hearing and may direct the clerk to contact the members who are not present. in addition, the chair can recess the hearing at any time as needed. the order of the hearing will be as follows. first, the subcommittee will hear argument on a motion noticed by committee counsel. each party will have 20 minutes for argument. i would note that unless he is under oath, any statements, questions, and arguments that representative rangel makes will not be considered evidence in this matter. members of the subcommittee will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the parties should they choose under the five-minute rule. following a ruling on the motion, committee council and

representative rangel will each be allowed ten hours to present their case including the time allotted for opening statements and closing arguesments. the order is established by committee rules. first, i would recognize committee counsel and then representative rangel who i gather since he is sitting by himself at the table may be representing himself. for any opening statements they wish to make. each party will be limited to one hour for their opening statements. each party would then present their case. the order for receiving testimony from witnesses and other pertinent evidence is also established by rule. committee counsel will present their evidence and call witnesses first. representative rangel will have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses called by committee council should he wish to do so. next, representative rangel will have the opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses should he choose to do so. committee counsel will have the

opportunity to cross examine any witnesses representative rangel calls. after, committee counsel may ask to present rebuttal witnesses as permitted by the chair. members of the subcommittee will also have the opportunity to ask questions of each party's witnesses under the five-minute rule unless otherwise directed by the chair. after all testimony and evidence has been presented, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be permit tted to make a closing argument. each party will be limited to one hour for their closing argument. members of the subcommittee will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the parties under the five-minute rule unless otherwise directed by the chair. at that time, the members of the subcommittee will then meet in executive session to consider each count included in the statement of alleged violation. the subcommittee will determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved the subcommittee would then report its findings to the full committee. if no count is proved, the full

committee will prepare a report to the house based upon the report of the subcommittee. on the other hand, if any one or more of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violations of proved, the full committee will conduct a sanctions hearing to determine what sanction, if any, the committee should recommend to the house. the allegations included of the statement of alleged violations are significant and we take seriously our obligation to conduct these proceedings fairly, impartially, and with the dignity and decorum befitting any proceeding before the house of representatives. this is a forum to discharge our responsibilities and our duties as set forth in the rules of the house and the rules of the committee. the hearing will be conducted subject to the rules and decorum of the the house of representatives and all participants will be required to observe all evidentiary procedural and other rules of the committee and rulings issued in this hearing. as i chair these proceedings, i plan to do so in the fairest

way possible to all parties involved as well as to the house. at this time, i recognize representative mike mccall, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his brief opening remarks. >> thank you, madam chair. as i stated at the opening hearing last july, this is an important day both for mr. rangel, for this committee, for the congress, but most importantly for the american people. and let me be clear. no member of this committee asked for this assignment. sitting in judgment of a fellow member and colleague is a very difficult thing for all of us to do but we accept our responsibility here today. we serve for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this institution often referred to as the people's house. the american people's confidence in us is at a historic low. they want their elected

representatives held accountable for their actions just as they are held accountable as private citizens. it is my sincere hope that these public televised hearings will help increase transparency and accountability and restore much-needed trust to the house as an institution. our responsibilities as judges in this matter is to be fair and impartial. there is no place for presumed guilt before innocence. in this process. and there will not be in this case. hearings of this kind are rare and historic. these hearings follow a 21 month long bipartisan investigation, an investigation that received sworn testimony from nearly 50 witnesses and over 28,000 pages of documents. an investigation that produced a 13-count statement of alleged violations. and over 500 exhibits that have

been placed on the committee's website. these allegations, if proven, would demonstrate that mr. rangel vile yate multiple provisions of the house rules and federal statutes. as judges, we mustetermine whether these allegations were proven by clear and convincing evidence. on numerous occasions the respondent mr. rangel has requested public hearings, a right that he is afafforded under the committee rules. today, this hearing faurds him the opportunity to be heard. and, as judges in this matter, it is our responsibility to make sure the process is both fair and dignified. and, as a former federal prosecutor in the public integrity section at the department of justice, due process is nothing new to me. it is guaranteed by our constitution, and it is the responsibility i take very seriously. so, as we prepare to hear the evidence against one of our

most ten yurd colleagues in the house, we need to ensure we have done everything we can to ensure the american people that we will handle this matter with the ut most professionalism and nonpartisanship we can. public office is a public trust. >> before proceeding, we see that committee counsel is present. mr. rangel, are you represented by counsel here today or are you representing yourself? >> madam chair, i would like an opportunity to make a brief statement as to why i'm here without counsel. and i want to recognize that i appreciate that . [inaudible] that we have a standard of conduct that is expected under

the congress. the reason i ask to [inaudible] this committee has suggested to me by letter that it would be possible fore to set up a legal defense fund. but this was two weeks ago. and now the procedure is moving forward without an opportunity to set up that fund. but far more important than that, to me it's a question of due prosess. not just for me but for any member of congress accused of anything they should have a lawyer. on several occasions i've spoken with the chair and i am reminded that october 22 the charle sent me a letter and

basically denied me the opportunity to get a lawyer for three reasons. one, because this matter has been going on for over two years. and because during this period of time i had counsel. so that is true. but it's not myault that it took two years before the statement of alleged violations was reported. and i would like to add that during this period of time, my lawyers were charging me while you were investigating. when the charges of counsel became over $2 million and i could not convince them that i would be able to pay, one of the lawyers said it would be $1 million for the hearing, they withdrew. the committee knew that they withdrew. so the argument that this has been going on for two years is

accurate but i don't see how it relates to me not being able to have counsel before here today. the second issue has been raised that [inaudible] i have been asking for this matter to be here. i have been begging that my colleagues and congress that my constituents and my family to have the opportunity to hear this. my family has caught hell as a result of what's been out there. all i ask for is when we develop these charges, when can people be exposed to what it is? and then really met with counsel. you have said before that there's been 40 witnesses that you've called who have indicated that there are pages of testimony.

i have not been able to explain my position ever because of the rules of confidentiality, because i have been restricted. but each time that i've asked for a hearing do any of you believe that i was asking for a hearing without counsel? and all i'm doing is asking for the opportunity to have counsel. i still feel strongly that the congress and the community should know what i have been charged with and what the testimony is. but by the same token, i had hoped that you would do it before the democratic primary. it would have been helpful if you had done it before the general election. but for whatever reason, when i made my plea on the floor when i had counsel, that was not done. and i would even add that when my opponent and critics were charging me with corruption and allegations of fraud, i really

had hoped and thought that this committee was not just there to find wrong doing or to say that one of your colleagues, there was no evidence of criminal activity, there's no bribery. i just thought that fairness would dictate that fairness would prevail. so the whole idea that i'm denied counsel because i've been screaming for a hearing, that really doesn't take away from the argument that i am being denied the right to have a lawyer right now because i don't have the opportunity to have the legal defense fund set up and because i can't afford another $1 million and can't even promise that to counsel. but, quite frankly, committee members, this is the third reason that the chair has given to me that pains me the most as

to why i'm not entitled to a delay, i'm not entitled to postpone this because this matter perhaps could not be resolved. [inaudible] >> you tell me that what fairness dictates that i've been denied due process, that i've been denied an attorney because there is going to be the end of this session? when we know that i would be entitled if we had more time? what does it mean that we have thanks giving, christmas, and perhaps congressional trips preparing for the next congress? how far does this go to a person not having counsel, not having due process because we don't have time?

well, i'm prepared to stay here to get counsel. [inaudible] what prevents us from doing that and as i stand before you i have no idea as to counsel's intent to proceed. a week ago. 80 bages of what can be considered summary judgment, i think would indicate that this committee may not be prepared to call witnesses. that this committee would ask that a judgment be made based on the admissions that exist. to me i'm not prepared to say that because of the limitation

of time, people even go through the process afforded. i hope that you interrupt me and tell me counsel that this is not so. but, on the other hand, if it did want to have the appearance of fairness, mr. mccall said that you've spoken with 40 witnesses or more. that there's 30,000 pages of testimony. am i inclined to know what they testified to? i've been given deadlines in terms of how to respond and what witnesses to subpoena. but i have been denied that opportunity. if the chair is suggesting that i conclude my remarks, then i would do that. but i would want you to know that i don't think it's fair that i participate in any type of proceeding if in fact what

you are basically telling me that the political calendar will not allow you enough counsel -- enough time to allow me to get a lawyer at this crucial point in my life. 50 years of public service is on the line. i truly believe that i'm not being treated fairly and that history will dictate that not withstanding the political calendar i am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding. i want to thank you for your courtesy. there's a lot of pain that i feel because i fought in wars, i've prosecuted in the u.s. attorney's office, i've served as a legislature in the state. i am so proud of my record in the congress. i love this congress. i love this country. i think i'm entitled to more than is being suggested today.

thank you so much for this courtesy. >> thank you, mr. rangel. before turning to committee counsel, i would just note for the record, and i will put into the record the exchange referred to by mr. rangel so this will not be a mystery to the public. but i would note that we were advised that mr. rangel's counsel withdrew a little over a month ago and further counsel has not been retained and that the committee has indicated an intent to proceed today. . .

>> you are submitting your letter to the record. if there is anything i have said about that letter and all the conversations we have had, i

would think that notwithstanding procedure that fairness will allow you to say that this is a statement of how i feel as a person, as a member of congress, and as a citizen looking for due process for you can call it a motion but i can't enter the question. >> we appreciate that, mr. rangel. we will turn to the committee counsel to introduce your team and to make your motion for the admission of evidence. >> members of the subcommittee, rep rankle, my name is blake chisholm, i am the chief counsel. at this time, i would move to introduce exhibits 1-549 to the

record. >> is there objection? >> with all due respect, i am not in a position to pass judgment on what counsel is about to do. i have never known that this proceeding even existed. that is what he is about to do. any lawyer that i have talked with has said that this committee has no has >> if i may interrupt. we were notified as were you of this motion. i would like to make clear, however, that we will hear the motion, the argument from the committee counsel and whatever argument you may choose to make but that if you wish to be hurt in an opening statement, if you wish to proceed with witnesses, we will hold any ruling on that

motion in abeyance said that if you wish to be heard, we will hear you. >> i appreciate that. would that include the right for me to have a lawyer? >> you may hire whoever you wish as a lawyer. that is up to you. >> you have seen the record. $2 million already and i have been advised that this hearing could cost me another $1 million. you took away the opportunity for me to have a legal defense fund which would allow f a lawyer to come into the case. there is nothing i would not yield to for that purpose. you know that if you are saying that we cannot move forward, that restricts me from getting a lawyer not only financially but the legal defense fund that you suggested i would have would have no meaning at all if what you are saying, is there anything i can do within the roles of the committee that

would allow me to move forward with this -- >> >> i did not know until one week ago that this 80-pages would be the way you intended to judge my contact. one week ago! i can listen to what he is saying but does this mean that he is going into this procedure that i don't have council to guide me? >> if i may , irangel, if you could be seated, for clarification -- the respondent has inquired of the committee whether a fund could be created where contributions could be made for legal representation and has been advised by the committee that that is permissible. however, the retention of

counsel is up to the respondent whether you are two higher at your own expense, to your campaign committee or through a fund is your decision not the committee's decision. >> i agree with you 100%. all i am asking is for the time to get counsel. i have lawyers from washington, d.c. and new york who are willing to give me free counsel to be able to come here because they don't think i have been treated fairly and yet they say that if they do that, it violates all laws. i heard they could do it at reduced fees. if only we had time to develop the committee. you tell me i don't have time to do that. while you tell me that i can hire anybody and get anybody and not have a lawyer, you are also saying in the third part of your letter that time does not permit this matter to be

concluded before the end of this session. that is the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about. you tell me all the things i could do but you are not going to give me time to do no one can say that that is not the way this ends up. yes, i can do these things but you have to conclude this now and the next day and my 50 years of public service has to suffer because this committee has concluded that you must conclude this matter before this time and. all i am asking for is time to get counsel. you are saying now, i think, that you denied it before and you are denying it now. >> i gather that you do not object to the admission of the evidence that has been proffered by counsel and therefore -- >> i object to the proceeding

and with all due respect, since i don't have council to advise me, i will have to excuse myself from these proceedings. i have no idea what this man has put together. years that was given to me last week. i just hope that the history of this committee in terms of fairness would be judged for what it is. so, with all due respect, recognizing how awkward its for the members of this committee as someone who would like to reserve the right of members to be judged by their peers with counsel, i respectfully removed myself from these proceedings. >> madam chair, before the respondent leaves, may i ask additional questions? >> certainly. >> even though the responded did not specifically make a motion

to continue this hearing, id in his comments to be a motion to continue. i would like this committee to seriously consider a motion to continue. i would like for us to do it in executivsession and discuss among ourselves what the respondent has said because i take his contention very seriously. i know the importance of counsel especially in this environment. i will ask that we deem his statements to be a motion to continue and that we discuss it in executive session. >> all right, that is a request from one member, to have a discussion on your motion to -- >> i will make a motion to continue the proceeding and take it into closed session. >> we will go into closed session and have a brief succession -- session and we will return them there was a second to the motion?

>> yes there was. >> ok. >> i which i could make a statement that as you know, they have gone into a closed session to go for my remarks and i don't think there is anything i can say dependent on their response and my request.

the right of counsel. >> following the recess, the congressman did not return to the meeting room and they denied the motion to delay the hearing. blake chisholm presented the 13 charges against the congressman he. he saw no evidence of corruption by the congressman and that he was sloppy in submitting his financial statements. this is about one hour, 10 minutes.

>> the committee has decided not to canute tent -- to continue this matter. i would like to make a couple of comments regarding that decision. mr. frankl has repeatedly sought and received committee guidance on how he may pay his legal fees in this matter. mr. rangel asked for formal advice from the committee in september of 2008. in march of 2009 and again in october, 2010 and again in november of 2010. he received informal advice on that in august. each time, the committee responded and provided mr. wrangle with formal guidance on how he could pay for legal fees in this matter relative to contributions and of course, there is no prohibition on an individual using their own fees to retain counsel. it is not required that those fees be paid for by others.

under current house rules, it is not possible for mr. rangel to except pro bono representation nor is it possible for the committee to compel them to represent himself here today. we are extremely troubled that his former counsel withdrew shortly after this hearing was noticed. i would note that these matters have been under way for quite some time. the investigative subcommittee completed its work and mr. rangel, the respondent was provide with all the material in june of this year and again with the notice of alleged violations formally on july 22 of this year. we are prepared to proceed

today. we recognize that mr. rangel has indicated that he does not intend to participate and it is his right not to participate in this matter as mentioned earlier. no conclusions as to the facts of this matter can be drawn by the fact that mr. rangel has decided not to participate in this hearing. unless there are further matters at this point, i would like to turn -- >> i would like to make a comment. let me say that since the first hearing opened in july, the ranking member of the full committee and myself and the minority have repeatedly asked that this committee proceed with this hearing as expeditiously as possible as requested by the respondent. it is unfortunate that that did not occur.

we are where we are today i would agree that it is also unfortunate that the law firm for what ever reason is not here today to represent mr. rangel and somehow got off the case after the notice of hearing was scheduled. with that, i yield back them up thank you for those comments. >> i would ask our counsel, mr. chisholm -- >> madam chair, i would like to agree with likemccall, is an astonishing display of professional irresponsibility for a law firm to be representing an individual whether it is before this tribunal or other tribunals t essentially drain the resources

available to pay the firm thought and do this for two years in the range of $2 million which mr. rangel has paid and literally on the eve of the hearing, where his third fate is in peril, they withdraw. federer myspace of bleak house where the dickens character at the beginning is in the docket and there is a large estate and the book ends when the resources of the estate have been drained by the estate lawyer. none of the problems of the estate have been resolved for this is an astonishing thing. i understand that our rules prohibit us from taking action on that but if this were a court of law and one month before the capital case came to trial after two years of preparation and the lawyer with drew, a judge would not permit that to happen periantpermit that to happen.

kicking your client to the side of the road when it came time but a hearing is improper. >> mr. bader field -- -- mr. but terfield. >> it is fundamentally unfair for council after learning of the date of this hearing -- i believe the data appearing was announced by the chair on october 7 and on october 14 we did not get a communication from but lawyer asking permission to withdraw. they simply gave notice that they were off the case. that is fundamentally unfair. it would not have happened in my

courtroom when i was a trial judge and it should not have happened here. at the very least, we need to look at promulgating a role that would prohibit this from happening in the future and also we might want to look at where we can make sure that this firm explains their conduct to the committee. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. unless there are further members wishing to be heard, we will turn now to mr. chisholm who has a motion introducing evidence to the procedures. >> i would renew my motion to exhibits 1-549 at this time. >> unless there is objection from any party or member of the committee, those items will be entered into the record. do you have additional motions? >> i do. i would like to introduce what has been marked as exhibits 550,

551, 552, 553. these are four affidavits. exhibit 550 is the affidavit of maurice greenberg, 551 is the exhibit of neil rugler, 552 is the affidavit of laurie slutzky, then at the do that -- affidavit from ivan slumberg. we would call 12 additional witnesses throughout the course of preparation and in recent days. we have entered into -- witnesses have offered affidavits. the respondent was given notice of those and provided copies and in at least one of these instances, suggested changes to the language which we negotiated and which we agreed to. at this time, i would move the admission of those affidavits in lieu of the live testimony of thos witnesses. >> there is a motion to put those affidavits into the

record. is there objection? if not, the items by unanimous consent will be put into the record. i would note also for the record that we have received this morning a letter from congressman bobby scott along with a document entitled " minority viewpoint." those items will also be placed into the record without objection? mr. chishiolm. >> i would like to proceed with the motion that we noted on november 8, 2010. >> the motion is a motion for some re-judgment as indicated earlier. each side has 20 minutes to argue this motion with the opportunity, if necessary, the extension of time on either side. at this point, we will ask mr.

chisholm if you like -- if you like to be in your argument on this motion. >> i would. each of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violations is rife for a vote. more than six months ago, the respondent was provided with knows of the intended charges against him. more than five months ago, he was given the investigative subcommittee's documentary record as well as transcripts of testimony. on october 22, 2010, by direction of the chair, committee counsel provided its

exhibits to the respondent. he was afforded an opportunity to object to those exhibits and he did not. on october 22, 2010, the respondent was notified of the names of witnesses we intended to call. he was given summaries of their expected testimony. he was provided an opportunity to object. he did not. the respondent was given the opportunity to provide noticef any evidence that he intends to offer. and and a witnesses including himself that he intends to call. he gave no such notice. the respondent has not contested the evidence. nor has he indicated that he intends to put on a case. put simply, the record before you is the record. the facts are the facts. the counts are rife for a vote.

there are 13 counts charged in the statement of alleged violations. in short, they are count one, improper solicitation -- count two, by listening clause 5 of the code of ethics for government service relating to the respondent's receipt of favors are benefits from private donors under circumstances that reasonable persons might construe as influencing the respondent duties. count three -- a violation of the gift rule for responded to receive indirect gets from private donors who gave to the rangel center at the behest of the responded. count four -- violation of postal service laws and franking commission regulations for using his frank to solicit private donations. count five -- a violation of the federal franking statute. cap six -- office and building regulations for soliciting private donations on house

property. count seven -- violation of the purpose law and house administration committee regulations for misusing official resources to solicit private donations. count eight -- violation of the letterhead rule. count nine -- violation of the ethics in government act. and house rule 26 for failing to file complete financial disclosure statements. kaftan -- violation of clause 5 of the code of ethics or government ethics for accepting a favor or benefit from his landlord in the form of his landlords tolerance of respondents non-conforming use of a residential rent- stabilized apartments for campaign purposes. >> account 11 -- for failing to uphold federal tax laws and other laws and legal regulations. count of 12 -- a failure to adhere to both the letter and to

the spirit of the house rules council retained -- conduct not reflecting creditably on the house. the solicitations for the rangel center in new york. the law is quite simple. members of congress may not solicit on less of a follow the rules established by the house ethics committee. the respondent could have lawfully solicited donations for the rangel center. he could do that in his personal capacity but he did not. indeed, the respondent has admitted that he used official letterhead to solicit. >> there has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationery and not really doing the right

thing. >> in addition to ms. using his official congressional letterhead, the uncontested evidence in this case shows clearly that the respondent's cent over 100 letters on official letterhead that included a brochure requesting $30 million for the rangel center. he sent letters on officials letter had that for taken as solicitations by donors and potential donors. at least one donor to the rangel center gave $25,000 based solely on the respondent letter. he used staff time and other official resources to create a list of potential donors from which he sent letters. he used staff time and official resources to draft those letters and to schedule appointments with potential donors to discuss funding for the rangel center.

he used his congressional frank to send solicitation letters. he created and mail solicitation letters from his d.c. congressional office. he solicited donations to the rangel center from individuals, businesses, and foundations with business and interest before the house. as well as the ways and means committee. those entities contacted him and his staff about legislative and other official matters during the period in which he solicited. in one case with respect to aig, the respondent said it would not be appropriate for him to meet with aig representatives to discuss the funding. he later met with aig officials to close that deal. aig did not donate because of the perceived headline risk.

the respondents listed in get to the center from david rockefeller who donated $100,000 from his personal funds in tribute to the respondent. the respondent in directly received gifts from private entities and individuals when they donated money to the center at his request and in his honor. e respondent received updates from both the city college and his staff on the status of funding for the rental center. he kept track of what was going on. he focused his energies and his time on private sector fund raising for the rangel center, particularly after a $3 million earmark that he requested which fell through in 2006. these facts are uncontested. they are in the record before you. they clearly and convincingly

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

inaccuracies. these facts are uncontested and they are in the record. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated counts 9 and 11 in the state of alleged violations. non-conforming use seven apartment as a campaign office. the uncontested facts show that they respond at least an apartment in the lenox terrace complex in harlem in his district in 1996. the police for the department stated he was to use it for -- the lease for the department stated he would use it for living only and he did not read instead, he used solely and exclusively as a fund-raising office for his campaign committees. the commercial use of that property violated the terms of his lease. more significantly, the commercial use of the property

violated building code regulations and zoning laws. the respondent made no secret about his use of the apartment as a campaign office. he paid the rent with campaign checks, his staff sent it out to the landlords in-house counsel over sought evictions -- who oversaw the evictions. at the same time, the landlord was evicting other tenants added increased rate. -- at an increased rate of non- primary residence. some tenants complained to the congressional office. that office contacted the tenants and the landlord. the landlord had representatives who also met with the respondent about a new development project. the landlords tolerance of the respondents nonconforming use

of his rent-stabilized apartment was a favor for a benefit to the respondent. that was particularly during the time the landlord was evicting other tenants for not using their apartments as primary residences. the respondent's interactions with his landlord as part of his official duties may have created an appearance of impropriety. the respondent has said as much himself. >> what was the benefit? the benefit was that the landlord was not sensitive to the fact that there were appearances. that i was being treated differently than anyone else. >> again, these facts are uncontested. they are in the record before you. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated count 10 of the statement of alleged violations.

cows 12 and 13 alleged that the respondent packs and his accumulation of facts violated both the letter and spirit of house rules. other laws and that his conduct did not reflect creditably on this house. the uncontested facts in the record before you clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated both counts 12 and 13 of the statement of alleged violations. finally, the respondent himself has noted that the allegations are serious, indeed very serus matters and that his conduct violated the rules. >> i am prepared to admit and try to let young people know that you never get too big to

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

to the subcommittee for its deliberation and for a vote on each count as alleged. thank you. >> thank you. i would note thathis motion and all of the documents entered into evidence are posted on the committee website in the effort to be fully transparent. at this time, mr. rangel would have been recognized to argue against the motion but he is not present andy has intention not to further participate. at this time, members of the committee who have questions will be recognized under the five-minute rule. do any members of the committee have questions at this time? mr mccall. >> thank you.

it is our role as judges to determine as a matter of law in this motion, we need to look at whether there is a material issue of fact and the dispute. the most serious allegations put forth in the sav have to do with the respondents' alleged violations of the tax code particully given the respondent's position as chairman of the ways and means committee. the committee is charged with writing the tax laws for the nation. a motion for summary judgment on page 77, you say the respondent also violated tax laws by failing for 17 years to report and pay on rental income on a beach below in the dominican republic barry responded as admitted that he should have reported the income. from there on, you say it is undisputed and that he violated the internal revenue code. i want to look at some exhibits

you attached to see if there is any material issue in dispute. on pages 38 and a 39, you provide a chart -- >> could use is banned for a minute? we have the opportunity to put exhibit on display of members have questions about them. perhaps we can let that happen. do you need time to do that? are we ready? give the exhibit number and they can go with that. i'm sorry for interrupting. >> you provided a chart, mr. chisholm on the beach vila that he failed to report on the original tax returns in 1996- 2008. he said a letter -- he sent a letter in 1996.

the house ethics committee requires disclosure by members of congress of assets and unearned income. he enjoys a good relationship with the committee chairman, it would be politically embarrassing if you are unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings. yet when he testified before the investigative subcommittee on the issue of his tax returns, he stated that he had a misguided and inappropriate of view regarding the income because he had not received a check or direct income. however, when the president of punta cana testified, he said the resort sent statements every six months. this is exhibit number 82. you could put it on the screen. this is a letter to mr. rangel from the resort. in the first paragraph, it says the statement shows a total net

income of $2,604. next i would like to put up the exhibit number 540. this appears to be a letter written from mr. rangel to the speaker, nancy pelosi, and in this letter he states," until this year, i have not received personal cash proceeds from the sale of the unit in 2008. i'm not personally received proceeds in cash." " as chairman of the ways and means committee, i am held to a higher standard of priority." if you would turn to exhibit number 87. while he stays that he did not receive this income, i found in

exhibit number 87 that he sent a letter with his signature to the punta cana yacht club asking them to send the income tax for a beach club to his account. there seems to be some discrepancy in the record as to whether when we talk about earned income and whether there should be reported, the documents seems to indicate another matter. exhibit number 89, if that can be put up on the screen, when you said he had never received cash, i was reviewing the exhibits and i found as wire transfer directly from the yacht club to mr. rangel as far back as 2002.

the statements in terms of earned income or sent six months. i guess my question is -- and these letters were written on official stationery -- on one hand, the documents seem to be on controverted. and yet mr. rangel seems to have some explanation as to why this was not earned income. can you respect -- explain that discrepancy? >> ranking membermccall, the paper governments. it governs quite simply. the respondent did not report on his tax returns in come that he received. these documents, and exhibits 86 and 87, show an exhibit 95, show

clearly that the respondents was told that he had in, and that he requested punta cana and told them where to send the money. that is unequivocal. he did make statements at some point that or not sworn in a letter to the speaker, as you read, that suggested that he did not know. frankly, there is no doubt that he did. the evidence in this record, again, which is in fact the paper here, shows that he knew and that he failed repeatedly to report his income. i would also note exhibit number 5.

this was in 2000 and the responded did not report income for punta cana on his tax return. as amended financial disclosure indicated there was between $2,500.5000 dollars worth of encumber we don't have an amended tax return for that year. this letter, exhibit number 5 if you look at the highlighted portion, there was no income derived by us from these assets during the year 2000. that fact should have been noted in my financial disclosure statement. >> so the committee worked with him to identify this but it appears from the record that he continued to deny this? >> that's right. he affirmatively stated that he did not have income and the documents indicate that he did.

>> let me close. i agree with a mr.rangel in his letter to the speaker that as chairman of the ways and means committee, he should be held to a higher standard. >> two other members have questions at this time? >> mr butterfield? >> thank you. let me go back to the question of counsel, if i can do that briefly come mr chisholm. did you have any contact zuckerman law firm which represented mr. rangel prior to october 7 about this case, about the preparation of this case? >> in the ordinary course of events in my job, i regularly talk to opposing counsel.

that was the case here. >> you had extensive contact with this law firm, is that right? >> yes, we discussed the case regularly. i want to be careful in what i say simply because most of not all of those discussions were covered under the blanket of settlement negotiations. >> i am asking what they said or you said but you did have extended contact? >> yes, sir. >> is it true that the law firm simply withdrew from this case without asking permission from the committee to do so? >> they filed a letter with the committee to withdraw >> they filed a letter? >> they gave me the courtesy of a phone call assured her they

sent it. >> and that was ever the date of this hearing was announced by the chair? >> i believe so, yes. it was close in time. >> let me now speak to the summary judgment motion. where specifically in our rules is a motion for summary judgment addressed? >> i want to put that matter to rest. that is the closest analogy there is in the rules of civil procedure for what this is. it is not really the same thing as a motion for summary judgment. we are saying that the facts are not in controversy. as many things go with our rules, the rules don't say anything. they are in fact sort of silent on this issue about what types

of motions. however, the committee's rules do talk about that at these hearings, the chair may consider rulings on evidence and it specifically says motion. those motions are really at the discretion of the committee or the subcommittee as to what may be admissible. >> you feel it is the inherent authority of this committee to entertain this motion? .> that's correct the >> mr rangel did not respond to your motion for summary judgment? >> he did not respond in writing or orally. >> during your investigation of this matter, could you with some certainty determine who maintain a r mr.angel's financial records

whether it was his staff or his wife for an accountant? who actually maintained his records? >> there were several places the congressman -- within his family, the records were kept. most likely, by his wife. he had an accountant at times for his to. smactax matters. when his chief of staff returned in 2000, he helped them with his financial disclosure report. he had help from his staff before that. >> is it clear that different people performed different functions and his financial life? one person may have filed a disclosure form and another person prepares tax returns? >> that is a fair statement. >> in all of your investigation of this matter, do you see any evidence of personal financial

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

what is ironic to me is that he could have done this without seeking permission, without having to come to the committee and ask permission if he had only followed a few simple rules. the committee allows a blanket waiveror solicitation for 501c organizations without having to ask permission. both the college and its fund- raising event 5 and are01c3's. he could have done this or write to. >> he could of done this? >> that's correct. >> there was some reference to earned income ri froma's and other -- there was some reference to earned income ria's and that was reported on his tax return for it was simply

not reported on his financial disclosures. >> i will go with sometimes on that. there were variances throughout per entireiod with respect to what and how accurate the amounts were reported. >> thank you, i yield back them are there additional questions? >> thank you. pull up exhibit 22, please. part of the issue is that r mr.angel repeatedly left off page 5. he reputedly left cassettes of his financial disclosure of a material nature. back up one page, please. focus on the bottom. are isan ing russia fund that was on this amended disclosure

that was not on the original. the next page as two other accounts. both of those are on this amended return which was done by his forensic accountant but not on his original return. if you take the range between $400,000 and $850,000, or those crucial to his financial statements? >> in general, under the structure of the house of roles, assets by definition are considered material they are to be reported. >> did r mr.angel give any reason why these were left off? >> there were various statements. in general, if you ask him, he would likely attributed to sloppy mess >> do we know the source of where these funds came from. ?

this is a gentleman who has been in congress all these years and from his tax return, he does not appear to be super- wealthy. the apartment that he inherited from his family leased for a number of years, the records were available to report that on his tax returns. any rationale why those records were not used to prepare his financial statement? >> there is no indication as to why those same records were not used. in answer to your first question, there appeared to have been an uptick in assets that probably resulted from the sale of his brownstone in 2004. >> thank you, that makes sense. what with the taxes have been a p on theunta cana deal./

did he file the amended tax returns? >> we know he did from 2004 forward. >> he is that -- he paid the taxes associate with that? >> we know he attempted to pay the taxes but the irs has a unique ability to not accept money. >> the forensic accountants to report which is exhibit 66 shows that most of the taxable income came in the years that had a statute of limitation protection. rangel avail himself of that statute of limitation protection? >> they did not have adequate records for the years that he did not file. >> but he did not pay the back taxes prior to the two years that were not open under the statute? >> the short end n seriouso. >> in your discussion, did you

conclude that all of these cumulative and repeated errors in his financial statement or simply inadvertent or unintentional? did you conclude that? >> i have no reason to believe that he went out of his way to try to mess this up. >> you are so sl in thatoppiness is a defense? >> i believe it is a violation of the role. >> put up exhibit 541, please. it would be page 3699. this is a transcript from a press conference by a mr.rangel in the house press gallery. we will be looking at near the age3699.f the paid john369

let me just read that. that is not it. 3699? [no audio] that was it. this is mr rangel speaking at a press conference. i am prepared to make sure that i correct any records. those in the public service have

a higher obligation than people who vote for them. to set an example. is this a true and correct copy of the transcript from the press conference? >> that is my understanding. to the best of our knowledge, that is true. >> yes or no? >> why are you wearing? >> because i am a lawyer, congress and [laughter] . >> if mr. rangel's said this was not true, we would withdraw this. >> mr rangel affirmed that this was true. >> the gentleman yield back. two other members have questions they wish to ask? i will confine my questions to mr.chisholm. a few things -- on page 74 of

your summary judgment motion, you state that the evidence in the record makes clear that the respondent accepted a favor or benefit in the form of leasing a residential rent-stabilized apartment for his campaign office you said this violated the terms of his lease. it violated the new york city building code and occupancy. could you describe more specifically the zoning and building regulations that were violated by mr. rangel's use of a campaign office and residential building. also, what is the significance in this building about the commercial units above the first floor? >> the lease that was provided was for living purposes only. i think that was for a reason.

the reason that lease provides that is that every building in new york, particularly the ones that have a certificate of occupancy tells what you can use a building full. that certificate of occupancy for this building refers to different zoning laws and the bottom line comes to this -- every unit above the first floor of the building had to be used for residential purposes. if it was not, it would have violated the zoning restrictions as well as the building code and that gets you to the cert of occupancy. there are certain acceptance. there is some permits ability, to use a residential unit, for a business so long as you don't use more than 25% of the space for the business and you don't bring people in. there is absolutely no circumstance that mr. rieangel's

you can live and shop in the same place. it is a large, it's "building. the first floor could have a dry cleaning store or restaurant. >> if you could put up 500 a, a copy of the original lease said representative rangel sign for his campaign office. on the first page, he is listed as a tenant. it lists, "the tenant shall use the apartment for living purposes only and can only be occupied by the tenant named on the lease or buy immediate family." it is quite clear that the

respondent did not live in that particular unit. >> it is absolutely clear based on everything that we noted that he used that unit solely and exclusively as a campaign office. he had his staff in there. no one from his family slept there. he did not use it and he was a rather open about that. >> if you could also put up exhibit number 530, a copy of the rental location form. again to mr. chisam, did the evidence in the testimony confirm this form was used for the campaign office unit? >> before the investigative

subcommittee, my recollection is that a witness indicated that this appeared to have come for the file for that unit. >> the person named on the line to occupy that unit is stephen lang goal, mr. rangel's son. -- randall -- stephen rangel, his son. during the relevant time period, he lived on 64th. >> thank you for that response. ibis serious question i intended to mask of that mr. riegle's council. i'll be happy to submit them for the record, madam chair. >> those questions will be submitted for the record. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. do additional members have questions?

whoever wants to. mr. harper, do you have questions stocks >> yes, madam chairman. thank you. mr. chisam, you were asked earlier by mr. butterfield if he had received personal financial benefits on the issue of corruption. i would like to polo the summary judgment if i could, page 59. is that available on the screen? >> i do not think we have that. >> mr. chisam, if you would like to refer to page 59 of your motion for summary judgment. the first full paragraph, the sentence says, "donations to the rental center where a benefit to the respondent." it's like a drop down to the fourth paragraph on page 59 it said, "the respondents received

benefits for himself. he received a place to house papers i would ask, do these things refer to papers that have a value? >> they do have a value in my judgment. the physical location for the center has never been built. he has never donated his papers because he is still in congress. do i think it has value? absolutely. it is a little hard to measure at the moment, but i do believe those would have a value. >> and if we're talking about cash from monetary contributions, that has an exact value. this, indeed, does is benefit mr. riegle?

>> it would have. -- does this benefit mr. rangel? >> exhibit 113 is an e-mail string dated november 2006 between charlie rangel's former chief of staff and members of house aff. i would ask you on that linkhe list of foundation that was it faxed, congressional stationery was used. is that correct? >> can i take a look at this e- mail before i answer that question? congressman, i do not want to mess this up.

the question is -- i do not understand the question. >> let me clear this up. look atize, but let's exhibit 136. how many letters were sent regarding the center darks i want to know if they were sent on congressional letterhead and were they sent using the house friday? if you need to review that for a moment, please do. >> this exhibit shows a list of foundations. i think the record is pretty clear that everyone on this list got a letter. it was on official letterhead. we know that, at least in the

case of the new york stock exchange and leon panetta, we have evince that the franc was used. we look at how we will proceed on this motion, this summary judgment or however you want to phrase it. while it is not specifically within the rules, what is the precedent for a motion like this being offered in lieu of an adjudicatory meeting? >> the way the motion is the style that is not in lieu of a hearing. it would be more in lieu of taking live testimony. in terms of not taking live, public testimony, i think there is ample precedent before the committee. this is the hearing. this is offered at the hearing. the evidence is admitted at the hearing. we are, essentially, having a hearing.

the motion simply states that based on the record before you that you can decide. you can decide today. you can go back and talk about this case. you can deliberate and argue or greed. , breyer can right now get to a vote based on what you have before you. >> said it is your opinion of chief counsel that this is sufficient with the evidence being admitted along with the argument a summary judgment motion that we are able to make a decision? >> congressman, the fact that we have stated are not all of the facts in this case. we believe they are the material facts in this case and they are ample enough to allow you to decide, in our judgment in favor of all 13 counts. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you. are there further questions? mr. welch? >> thank you.

did you investigate for comparison purposes of the members of congress who had raised funds for an educational institution? >> congressman, the jurisdiction of the subcommittee in this committee, the adjudicatory subcommittee, was limited to congressman rangel. >> here is the question. other members of congress have raised money for educational institutions that are being named after them, correct? >> yes. >> you have no information about what members have done that and under what circumstances it has been done? >> i do not find it relevant. >> if 5 understand what you are saying, it is permissible for a member of congress to raise funds for an educational institute that will then be named after the member of congress.

>> that is correct so long as they do not use official resources, their letterhead, and the host of things explained. >> this may not be a great idea for us to allow in the congress, but if an individual in the converse is allowed to solicit funds, including from campaign donors or individuals that actually may have an interest before committee in order to establish a nonprofit educational institution named after them under existing rules in the house of representatives and in the senate, that is permissible for members of congress to do? cracks under the general waiver for solicitations for the time divinities were talking about, that is generally too. you cannot solicit a lobbyist. >> the question with respect to mr. riegle is the way in which he did that rather than what he actually did.

is that correct? >> you are correct. >> ok. if a member wants to solicit funds, they cannot use congressional letterhead, correct? >> yes. >> but they can send the letter to a corporation, an individual, whoever they seek to solicit funds from, correct? cork from personal letterhead, sure. >> the fact that person or individual may have an interest fore the committee jurisdiction on which they said board chairman is not barred from the making solicitation in the first place? >> if it is a 5 01 -- 501c3 that is correct. >> on rent control, i understand representative rangel had a rent-controlled apartment in this building, correct?

>> he had multiple units on the 16th floor. >> in this investigation, i think most people think it is a pretty byzantine process of rent control in new york city that the apartments that is the subject of this inquiry was vacant for several months before he rented it. >> that is correct. >> they did in fact pay the highest rate allowed under the existing law. >> that is correct. the units themselves are stabilized under nework law to pay the maximum stabilized rate. >> did you inquire that the landlord had a coherent policy as to how they treated their rent-controlled apartments? >> yes. the process changed over time to read the relevant. in how they dealt with their stabilized units. >> basically what we have here is a situation where

representative rangel, his campaign, paid the maximum rate under law for a rent-controlled apartment that had been left vacant for several months before his campaign had rented it. is that right? >> that is correct. they did not violate rent stabilization laws. this is a violation of the occupancy code. >> no further questions and i yield back. >> i have a few questions, if i can. representative rangel that have counsel for a substantial period of time, more than two years. one thing they did was to file a motion to dismiss this at an earlier stage in the proceedings. i would add the motion was denied. in their motion, they argued

that the charitable contributions made to the city college of new york in connection with the rent-a- center cannot be construed -- rangel center cannot be construed. the indirect benefits were not favors. there were integral parts of the academic program and the city college was the beneficiary and not representative rangel. if mr. rangel had got in position and solicited these donations in accordance with committee rules, would you argue that it was a benefit to representative rangel? >> hertie complied with committee rules, i do not believe the donations he solicited from private entities would have been attributed to him. >> the argument is two-fold that

the process of selling -- of solicitation was defective, but in some trans-modification because of the error in solicitation it became a gift. i'm having trouble falling that. -- following that. do you have citations? >> are would flip that a little bit. the statute in the house role, basically the house rules on gifts essentially prohibits all gifts to members. there are exceptions. the solicitation ban is, likewise, a nearly absolute prohibition on soliciting donations.

the house rules specifically provides that if somebody else gives money to somebody else but the member knew about it and requested it that the gift is attributable to the member. it is an indirect gift. that is under the house will. >> i understand that. if is an indirect gift, it would be an indirect get that you follow the rules and solicitations as well by your logic. all the people we have to approve to solicit for charities are also violating rules according to your argument. >> the letters that you often signed contain language on how when the solicitation is approved by the general for a waiver issued by the committee that the corresponding gifts, it will not be a treated so long as the solicitation is proper.

>> let me ask you another question regarding the allegation that he received an improper gift because of the promise he would have an office in their reedy archiving of papers and the attendants to that. in the house, and this is something i have never agreed with, but if you receive something from a public entity, it is specifically not aid violation of the gift. rolls said that if you go to the ucla-u.s. see game, if you sit with u.s. see, you have to pay with your tickets, but if you sit with ucla, you do not. the city college of new york is a public entity. how does this violates the gift rule if the gatt rules specifically excludes benefits

coming from the public sector? >> madame chair, this is the indirect part of the gift. it is not in the provision directly of the office. it is how you get the money for the office. here, congressman rangel solicited exclusively a person who gave $1 million in the match contribution for the purpose of naming the office and the construction thereof. i think whether you do this under the indirect group -- indirect rule, it is abundantly clear the gift ought to be attributed to representative rangel and is not, in my judgment, to be considered a gift when it happens from the university. >> let me ask a final question. i am just about out of time. the statement of alleged

violation alleges that he violated a clause 5 of the code of ethics for government service. what this committee counsel interpret the legal standards and specifically the reasonable person aspect of the standard to be specifically if the benefit that representative rangel received with respect to the lenox terrace apartment, how do we read that statute? >> madame chair, the text of that reads as follows. >> never discriminate unfairly getting special privileges or favors for anyone for the four enumeration or not. another except for himself or his family benefits under circumstances which may be construed by reasonable person as influencing the performance of a governmental duties. >> of the regional person relates to the second? >> yes, everything after the

semi-colon. >> do you have any follow-ups? >> i want to clarify. >> we left off the original financial statement that included the amended? >> i just need to clarify something. my question was about assets not on his original financial statement. i mentioned the ing russia fund. and was on the original financials damon for a value of $1,000-$15,000. it is on the amended return at $15,000-$50,000. that was a different issue. i did not mean to confuse. >> thank you for the clarification. at this point, what that -- what is before us is not a proposal that we adopt the s.a.v., but the council's motion is that we

decide that there are no material facts in this dispute. that motion is something that i think we will want to discuss in closed session. we have heard the arguments. we have had an opportunity to ask our questions. on less there are further matters before us on that -- yes, sir? >> fortinclarification. i hope the committee will be ableo come to a consensus on all 13 counts. however, if the committee cannot, that means there is an issue of fact remaining on those the council can agree on. if that scenario happens, do we proceed with the hearing with a live witness testimony? >> the motion before us is really to accept, as proven, all of the facts. there are two questions before

us, how we allied the law to those facts as a separate question that is not crushed -- covered by the motion before us. is that clear? >> i do think that if there are accounts that we cannot agree on that we may need to consider having further evidence and having the hearing proceed on the remaining counts. >> i think the motion to accept that the facts are as proven were to fail than you would be correct. if we've except that none of the facts are in dispute, then we need to match those facts and see whether as a matter of law is the facts support the allegations sent to us. but >> i am disband. thank you. >> if there is nothing further, then we will recess to discuss

the motion. we will recess at least until 1:00 p.m. we will try and give notice of that least 15 minutes or so before we come out of public session out of fairness. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tuesday, congressman rangel was found guilty on 11 counts of ethics violations by the house adjudicatory subcommittee by clear and convincing evidence. the house ethics committee then convene a sanctions hearing to decide on the punishment for

each violation which could include a reprimand or a fine. the recommendations will then be sent to the house for a floor vote. this is 10 minutes. >> the adjudicatory subcommittee has met for a number of hours to consider the 13 counts of alleged violations and has reached the conclusion. count one [inaudible] count two has been approved by

clear and convincing evidence. count three, conduct in violation of the [inaudible] we were unable to reach a conclusion by clear and convincing evidence. count four, conduct and violation which may be found in violation. count five, violation of the statute, the committee finds that conduct was covered in the interpretation of the statute [inaudible] count six, conduct and a violation, we found it a violation by clear and convincing evidence. count seven, we find in

violation by clear and convincing evidence. count eight, conduct violation of the letter had ruled, the committee found that was proven by clear and convincing evidence. count nine, conduct in violation of the ethics in government act of house will 26, financial disclosure provision, we found a violation by clear and convincing evidence. count 10, conduct in the violation of the ethics of government service relating to lenox terrace, conviction buy clear and convincing evidence. count 11, violation of the code of ethics for government service clause two, we find conviction buy clear and convincing evidence. count 12, conduct in violation of the code of conduct, a proven by clear and convincing evidence.

count 13, conduct in violation of the code of conduct reflecting this creditably upon th house, we find the majority found that to be proven by clear and convincing evidence on a vote 7-1. i would notes this does conclude the deliberations of the administrative subcommittee. i would notes that our deliberations are covered by rules seven of the committee on standards of conduct which prohibits discussion of our deliberation publicly and requires us to keep the confidentiality of our session. i would ask members of the public to respect our obligations relative to these rules. before asking the ranking member if he would like to make a brief comment, i would just like to conclude by saying that none of

the members of this committee are volunteers. this has been a difficult assignment. it has been time-consuming. we have approached our duties diligently, and that includes every member of this subcommittee. we have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law. i believe we have accomplished that mission. i give thanks to each of the members who have worked so hard to do the right thing as well as the staff who has worked extraordinarily hard, many, many hours to present this case to us. with that, i would like to turn to the ranking member for any brief comments he may have. >> thank you, madam chair. let me first say that as you mentioned, no one asked for this assignment.

sitting in judgment of a fellow member, a colleague is very difficult, but i believe that all of the members of this subcommittee have held themselves in a very non- partisan, professional manner. i hope the dignified manner will restore credibility to the house of representatives. as you mentioned, madam chair, we were able to reach consensus on 12 of the 13 counts with count three being a split vote for-4. count 13 about reflecting credibility on the house and dishonor, i am hopeful as we move forward with this matter into the next phase that at the end of the day we will be able to begin in an era of transparency and accountability, and new era of ethics that will restore the credibility of this

house, the people's house. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman yields. technically it was 11 of 13 because we ruled 5-4. i would like to note next procedures. we will be meeting briefly just to approve the report that will go to the full committee. after we recess from this session, i will be contacting the ranking member of the full committee so that we can schedule the sanctions hearing which is the next step in this process under our rules. we will certainly give notice of that. >> may i make a clarification. we did achieve consensus. >> you are correct. with that, we will recess to the closed session this afternoon to briefly go through the language and thinking to all

of you.

>> will help people voted be made public? >> no.

thank you. work on thursday the house ethics committee met to discuss sanctions. congressman rangel made a comment during the meeting. later, following a closed-door meeting, the committee of issued their statement about a censure for congressman rangel.

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

and will come to order. when i designated the members of the adjudicatory 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 as a public trust. it is our responsibility to determine whether representative rangel's car -- conduct that that standard. it was our obligation to act impartially as finders of fact and law. the members of the said committee fulfill that responsibility and not that obligation. we did so fairly, honestly, and without bias. we did not prejudice the allegations against representative rangel. indeed, the subcommittee did not find all of the alleged accounts to be proven. ultimately, we found his conduct failed to meet the ethics and standards that apply all members of the house. those standards apply equally to those of us have the privilege of representing their communities for the first time

and to our most senior colleagues. on november 16th of this year, the subcommittee, in the matter of representative rangel, determined that 11 of the 13 counts of the statement of alleged violations were proven by clear and convincing evidence. under committee rules, when the said committee concludes that one more cats have been proven, it becomes a responsibility of the full committee to determine whether to recommend disciplinary actions regarding representative rangel and, if so, what form of sanctions would be appropriate. the purpose of this hearing is to allow committee canceled -- council to share what would be inappropriate for sanctions. the purpose of this process is

not punishment but accountability and credibility. accountability for the despondent and credibility for the house itself. when a member has been found to have violated ethical standards, that member must be held accountable for the conduct. it is perhaps equally important that the outcome demonstrates the credibility of the house of representatives by investigating credible allegations of misconduct in sanctioning conduct that has proven to violate the standards, we maintain the integrity of the house, the trust of the public, and this institution. the committee may recommend a range of sanctions. our rules provide general guidelines to follow in recommending a sanction. for example, a letter of reproval may be issued by the committee on their own initiative. other sanctions require action by the full house. among these, our rules indicate that reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is a corporate for more serious

violations, and 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, for disloyalty to the union during the civil war and two doctor convicted of felonies. -- two after convicted of felonies. instead, we're required to provide committee counsel with an opportunity to share their reviews about disciplinary actions. in reaching her decision, it is imperative that we act in a fair and evenhanded matter. this meeting is open to the public, and although our deliberations will take place in executive session, our colleagues in the public will have the opportunity to hear the views regarding appropriate sanctions at this hearing.

but representative rangel and committee counsel have previously been advised of the guidelines for this hearing. as with any other case of this process, he chooses to waive this procedural step as he chooses. he is not required to be here. he has chosen to be here today and he has the right to share his views on the appropriate sanctions with us. should he wish to do so, we will kill him or his representative out and take his opinion into consideration in our deliberations. the party will be allowed 30 minutes each to express views to the committee. they may submit written briefs for the committee's consideration. if they do so, those findings will be included for the record. as a general rule, witnesses are not permitted. however, if they were written request for witnesses made, witness testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the committee.

neither party has, to this point, has ceased to move forward. >> members will be permitted under the five men in to ask any questions they may have following the presentations. we will then adjourned to in executive session where we will deliberate and by a majority vote decide what disciplinary action to recommend. our decision will be announced publicly in the basis for conclusions will also be explained in a public report to the house of representatives. with that, i would ask my colleagues, ranking member jo bonner, if he would like to make an opening statement. mr. bader? >> thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. we are nearing the end of of what has been a long, complicated, and difficult past. let me speak for just a moment about what makes this so

unpleasant. i know for a fact that many a newly elected member of converse, on both sides of the i/o have been welcome to capital hill by the larger than life voice of charlie rangel who has put his hand on their shoulder and said, "welcome to capital hill." before i go any further, i would personally like to thank you, madam chair, ranking member mccaul, and all the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee for the working completed earlier this week. is special things are also in order for the entire staff as well as those who were involved in the investigative phase of this matter which unavoidably lasted for almost two years. individually and collectively, we he shown with the church

woman stated on tuesday was our moral obligation. , to act in 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 they can now with the can and cannot do to be in compliance with the rules of the house. milliken to matters that have come to our attention to see whether or not a member has crossed any inappropriate line. as the american people have witnessed this week, and in recent months, that these rare and not unprecedented public proceedings has yet occurred that we have, once again, demonstrated that your elected representatives can deal with an

obviously uncomfortable, but absolutely necessary charge that comes to us from the constitution itself. bridge requires that each house of congress maintain 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 breen discredit to this, the people's house. as an aside, i found it especially ironic and troublesome than on the very day that almost 100 newly elected members of the 100 of congress are riding in washington for their freshman orientation in another room just a few steps away was a man who once yielded one of the most powerful gavels in town. and one time he was one of our most highly regarded colleagues. yet, he was 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 has claimed to from the represent for more than 40 years. now, i do not pretend to speak for mr. rangel's constituents. the him reelected him often without opposition, more times than many of the members of congress at action been alive. while representative 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 republicans, four democrats before they come to the voters of the 15th district of new york had an opportunity to choose their representative early this year. this process could have, and

should have, concluded earlier. as such, it is my view the committee failed the people of harlem in the 15th district of new york for this reason alone. before he marched up of the hearing on monday, but even after the said committee conviction buy clear and convincing evidence on tuesday, representative rangel stated that the panel should now take into account his entire 40 years of service to congress as well as his military record. then me be clear. his distinguished military service is not up for debate. nor is it irrelevant parts, 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 hon.. sadly, madam chair, it is my

unwavering view that the actions, decision, and behavior of our colleague from new york can no longer reflect either honor or integrity. as i noted earlier, i cannot speak for the people of his district, but i do know this. for those who qualified for rent stabilized apartments in new york or any american city, but could not get one because a car phone man had more, there's something wrong with that. for the small business woman who did not pay her taxes for 17 years and had the irs freezing -- breathing down her back, i cannot imagine how she would have liked to have the chance to help write the tax code of this country and make it less burdensome and simpler for everyone else. for the still relatively new member of congress from california who just a couple of

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

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 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 representative rangel has brought to this house. i think the chairwoman for this opportunity to offer a few heartfelt observations and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam chair, i have an opening statement that i had intended to deliver. as ranking member of the subcommittee, i would simply ask this be entered into the record. >> the gentleman has unanimous consent then his statement submitted into the record and without objection, it is so entered and oregano that other members who would like to submit

opening statements will have 5 legislative days to do so. with that, i will now ask mr. chisam to make his presentation on the issue of sanctions to the committee. you will have 30 minutes to make that presentation beginning now. mr. chisam. >> thank you. the house's ability to discipline their own members are explicit in the punch and -- in the constitution. each house may punish their members for disorderly behavior. with the concerts -- concurrence of two-thirds, expellee member. when a member has been found to have violated the standards that govern his conduct, it falls to this committee to recommend to the full body an appropriate

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

the improper solicitation of individuals and entities with the business and interests before the house to find the charles rangel center for public service at the city college of new york. and his misuses of official resources to make those solicitations. fileesponded's failure to a full and complete financial disclosure statements for the years 1998-2008. the respondents acceptance of a benefit from his landlord related to his use of a residential rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. also the respondents failure to report and pay taxes on his dominican village. the said committee found that the 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 proxy 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 fine or the denial of any limitation right, power, privilege, or and unity of the member, under the constitution, the house of representatives may impose such denial or limitation. the rules say that a reprimand is appropriate for serious violations. the censure is for more serious

violations. expulsion is for the most serious of violations. this committee, in its 43-year history, has recommended that the house impose sanctions 16 times. four times the committee has recommended the expulsion. the most recent being former rep traffic into in 2002. the most recent recommendation of censure was in 1980. nine times, the committee has recommended reprimand. the most recent was former speaker of the house gingrich in 1996. on three occasions, the full house has declined to follow the recommendation of the committee. in two cases in which they recommended reprimand, the house determined to censure the members. in one case, the committee

recommended censure, but the house instead impose a reprimand. during the history of this committee, only eight members have been reprimanded. only four have been censured. in the history, the have issued five public letters of approval, two of them have been issued since 1997. the committee cresson is to not draw a clear line to determine an appropriate sanction in this case. on two counts, the respondent has been found to have violated a clause 5 of the code of ethics for government service. the committee also found violations of clause 5 in the matter of the one representative where representatives sykes 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 establishment of the bank, he also purchased 2500 shares of the bank's privately held stock. based on that connaught, the committee recommended that rep sikes the reprimanded. the respondent has been found to have violated the financial disclosure requirements. the committee also found violations of disclosure requirements in the matter of representative george hansen. rep hanson had served -- failed to record nearly three and a $34,000 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 robert sykes.

in that matter, rep sites failed to disclose ownership of two stocks. the committee specifically stated that in neither instance did it appear that the failure to record was motivated by an effort to conceal the financial holdings from the members of the house where the public. nonetheless, the committee stated that a failure to report was deserving of a reprimand. the 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, it was found that rep murphy had official resources diverted from his office to his former law firm. the committee found that had

occurred and that represented the murphy retained a staffer who did not perform duties to mr. with his pay. based on those violations, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations for the misuse of official resources in matter of james trafficant. he had members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor and services related to his boat and form. taking into account all of rep violations, they recommended he be expelled. the respondent has been found to have violated tax laws. the committee found violations

for tax related conduct in the matter of representative newt gingrich. he failed to ensure that the activities of his organizations were in accordance with section 501c3 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 connaught's, the committee recommended that representative gingrich the reprimanded. the committee also found violations for tax related conduct in the matter of representative james trafficant. the delta report and pay income tax for two years. -- he failed to report and pay income tax. he had been convicted of filing

false tax returns. the committee rep -- recommended he be expelled based on numerous violations including underlying criminal conduct. the respondent use the resources of his office to solicit money from individuals and entities with the business 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 one moment how we would feel to be a start up non- profits struggling to find funding needed to keep going. you have great ideas, yo