of wheat on his chess board. had he been able to make that contribution, of course, it would have consumed -- it would have consumed more than a decade of all the world's production of wheat. this is the exponential function. doubling it. so whenever you hear somebody say, we have so much of gas or coal or oil or whatever it is at current use rates, please calibrate that, what does it mean if we increase its use? and by -- and by the way, we'll be needing to use coal for things other than just coal and stoking a furnace and making electricity, we'd like to make oil out of it as germany did in world war ii and south africa did and you can make gas out of coal and if you use some of the energy from coal and convert it to a gas or liquid, if you have this 250 years and it drops to 85 years with only 2% growth

rate, it drops to 50 years if you use some of the energy converted to gas liquid and there's another interesting reality you will deal with, whether you like it or not, you will share your oil with the world. you can't avoid it. because if you were using the oil you produced from your coal, someone else will be buying the oil from saudi arabia that you might have bought. so the reality is that you will share it with the world. since we use 1/4 of the world's oil, what that means is that now there's 250 years of coal, reduced to 85 years, that's only 2% growth, reduced to 50 years if you use some of its energy to convert it with a gas or liquid and then it sthrinks to 12 1/2 years -- shrinks to 12 1/2 years as you share it with the world as you must because there's no alternative. if you use oil produced from your coal, someone else will buy the oil you might have bought

from saudi arabia or some other oil producing country. well, since the 198s to we have been -- 1980's we have been consuming some of this reserve because we've not found enough oil to meet our needs. now, this chart that you can see , the actual known amount ended in about 2005. and then you see the lighter shaded part on the other side, it shows their prediction. and they predicted that oil production worldwide was going to peak in about 2010. here we are. i think a little later we'll have some charts that show in fact that that was true. now, what happens from now on? you can make your own guesses to what's going to happen from now on. make your own assumption. we have still much of this reserve left that we can pump, fortunately. this amount that week of pumped here, just about this amount. we've got about this whole amount here covered by my hand

that we can yet pump. now we're going to find some more oil. the chart here shows an orderly downward progression because the more you find, the less there will be to find in the future. so the less you're going to find in the future. it will not be like that. it will be up and down like this. but it's going to be down and down because most of the large fields that will be found have been found. so you can make your own assumptions about where this is going in the future, by assuming how efficient can we get, how much conservation are we going to do, how much more oil will we find? but, you know, from this oil chart you can do a lot of predict being what the future is going to look like. this next chart is a quote from admiral rickover in this talk that i mentioned that he gave to

this group of physicians in 1957. there's nothing man can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel reserves. they were created by solar energy 500 million years ago and took eons to grow to their present volume. in the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last is important in only one respect. the longer they last, the more time do we have to invent ways of learning -- living off renewable or substantive energy sources and adjust our economy to the vast changes which we can expect from such a shift. now, of course we have done none of that. we and the world in general have behaved as if all you need to do to find more oil is to go look for more oil. and it will just be there. if the market conditions are appropriate. i love this next paragraph. as if ilfuels resemble capital in the bank. a prudent and responsible

apparent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass onto his children as much as possible of his inheritance. a selfish and irresponsible apparent will squander it and care not one wit how his offspring will fare. this is heyman rickover's statement. one might include looking at the behavior of our civilization. this is precisely what we have done. i have 10 children and 17 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. would it be ok if i wanted to leave them a little oil? we're leaving them a huge debt and wouldn't it be nice if they had some oil and gas and coal? now they will have stopped, but as we will see in future charts,

it will not be what they would like to have. this is a fairly new chart and it show what is i predicted, i said that i was a prophet those nearly 50 times i came to the floor. the last time about two years ago. then i was predicting that conventional oil was going to peak. and here they show it. this is the dark blue. look at it. 2010 it's peaked and they recognize that the world situation will not be meaningly different from that in the united states, that it's going to go down, down, down and here it goes. now they're making an assumption here that you may or may not agree with. i hope they are right. i doubt that they are right. because what they say here and this is crude oil fields yet to

be developed and this red is crude oil fields yet to be found and they believe that by 2030, that's not very far in the future, that by 2030 about 2/3 of all the oil that we will be using will come from fields yet to be developed and fields yet to be found. now there are many experts in oil that will tell you that this is a happy dream. that there is little chance that that is going to happen. now we have some other sources of oil. we have natural gas liquids and they see those growing. we have nonconventional oils and they will grow somewhat. these are heavy, sour oils, for instance, the kind that we get from venezuela. it's the oils that we get from the oil sands in alberta,

canada, at considerable expense of energy and environment and so forth. well, this damage chart produced two years ago would not have looked like this. because just two years ago the same people that give you this chart today would have had conventional oil production going up and up. so now there is a recognition that conventional oil production has in fact, as predicted by m.k. hubbard, peaked in the world. it peaked in our country in 1970. the next chart shows some detail of that peaking. there are two entities in the world that do a really good job of tracking the production of oil. they do not do as good a job in predicting the future of oil

production. they do a very good job in tracking how much oil is being produced. one of those is a part of our department of energy, the e.i.a., the other is a creature of oecd, the i.e.a. and you see those two curves here. and they both show essentially the same thing and that is in the three years before the recession, oil production was flat across the world. 84 million barrels, 85 million, 84 million barrels a day of oil production. now, pretty simple economics. with flat production and creasing demand, what happened to the price of oil? ah, here it is. now this chart only goes to less than $100, you remember when it went to $147 a barrel, a little bit later, just off this chart. well, now we have the recession

worldwide. the demand for oil dropped conspicuously. the price of oil momentarily dropped from $147 a barrel to less than $40 a barrel. the world's economy has begun to recover now and the price of oil is slowly inching up. we're somewhere, $85, near $90 a barrel. i'm reading a book brought to me by an oil scientist, engineer, from canada and he makes a prediction that i have been making so i with some additional confidence can restate that prediction. and that is unless we do something really serious about conservation and about efficiency and about husbanding the fossil fuels that we have

remaining, that the next recovery will be short lived. because as the world recovered it will demand more oil and there will not be more oil because we have plateaued. and so the price will go from $100 to $150 to $200 a barrel and the economy will be scretched. four years ago i led a could he dell of nine members of congress to china to talk about energy. i was stunned. they began their discussion of energy by talking about post-oil. now in our country and the congress here we have a lot of trouble thinking beyond the next election because it's really important that you get yourself re-elected. and business people have trouble looking beyond the next quarterly report because that better look good or the stockholders are really unhappy

and the board of directors may replace you if that doesn't look good. and so it came as quite a surprise to me that here are people that are looking a long way down the road. we're not post-oil yet. we're going to have -- by the way, i said we now know how long the age of oil is. it will be about 300 years. rickover said that in the 8,000-year recorded history of man, the age of oil would be a flip. he had no idea how long it would be in 1957 because we were then on the ascending part of the peak. but he knew that it was finite, he knew that it couldn't last forever. he knew that in the 8,000-year recorded history that age of oil, the golden age he called it, would be -- we now know how long it would be, about 300 years. we're 150 years into the age of oil and we're not running out of oil. there's a lot of oil left out there. at least much more oil to pump

as all the oil that we have pumped in the past 150 years. but for the future that oil will be forever harder and harder to get. more and more expensive. and we're now slipping down the other side of hubbard's peak. we talk a lot about hubbard's peak and here's -- we've talked a lot about hubbard's peak and here's some old data on hubbard's peak. and it went up in 1970 and then down. and you swree we are today, the actual is the -- and you see where we are today. the actual is the green squares there and we're now down to less than half the oil that we produced in 1970. and that's again from drilling more wells than all the rest of the world put together. i'm finding oil in alaska and the gulf of mex which -- mexico which we didn't expect to find. may i ask how much time we have

remaining? 29 minutes remaining. thank you very much. two other interesting things on this chart. hubbard's prediction was the little yellow triangles here. the actual production from the lower 48 is the green. if you add the oil we found, remember that huge find of oil in canada and alaska? and i've been there, i've been at the beginning of that four-foot pipeline. it was just a blip. just a blip. in the downward slip of hubbard's curve. now there are those of you who would like to convince you that m.k. hubbard didn't know what he was talking about because there is a huge difference, they will tell you, between his actual prediction and those green rectangles.

i think the average person looking at that would say, gee, he got it pretty close, didn't he? now a stat stigs looking at it might say, gee, he kind of missed it. but he predicted we would peak in 1970, we peaked in 1970. we now are about half of what we were producing in 1970.u%9 in 1 i mentioned when we put our first chart up, one chart that would be it and i think if you were on the second chart to give you some idea of the challenges we face, this will probably be that second chart. this is the world according to oil. and just imagine the world in which the surface area of a country is relative to how much

oil the country has. so the more oil the country has, the bigger it appears on this map. and the less oil a country has, the smaller it appears on this map and there are some things that are colored there and the coloring is who uses the oil. you can't read this, but the yellow is the biggest uses of oil. that's us. the blue is next biggest users and green next down the line. well, look at this chart. saudi arabia is pretty big. as a matter of fact, it's 22% of all the land mass in all the world. it's relative to how much oil it has and look at little kuwait there. it looks like a province on the corner of the map.

look at the oil. iraq, kuwait and look at iran there, it is a big oil producer. notice it's color. it's blue. it uses a lot of oil. the truth is that within a decade, iran will be an oil importer. if their domestic use continues at its present rate and do not increase their production. just looking at production in these opec countries, back when the world could produce more oil than it might use, if they produced extra oil, remember when opec got together and said it would reduce the production of oil so we can keep the

provides of. and they said the amount of oil you can pump is relative to a certain percentage of your reserves of oil. so opec countries wanted to pump more oil and they suddenly had more reserves of oil without finding any new oil. they looked at it again and they had more oil than they thought. well, having said that, they could then pump more oil. so we really aren't sure what the size of these countriesr but they are big, but aren't sure how big, because we aren't sure -- by the way, they pumped oil for 10 years and they have as much oil. there is a lot of suspicion of how much oil is there. and the size of the countries and the oil reserves is relatively what is shown here.

our first -- our biggest importer of oil is candidate after. until a -- canada. mexico has been replaced by saudi arabia. look at canada and mexico. they don't have any much more oil than we have. canada has way less than we have, maybe a third, half to a third, yet they are our biggest importer. they can do that because they don't have very many people in canada to use the oil. mexico, which has 2/3 as much as we, they were our biggest exporter of oil. we have the second largest amount of oil from mexico until recently. they have a lot of people that they can't afford to buy the oil so they are exporting the oil.

the second largest oil field in the world is in mexico. this is an interesting field. it was a mexican fisherman who brought his fishing nets until they were fouled of oil by the national mexican oil company. fishing nets are fouled with the oil and they said, where are you finding this much oil. he showed them and it was kind of bubbling out of the ocean and drilled there and for a number of years, it was the second largest oil field in the world. the largest is the oil field in saudi arabia. the oil field in mexico is in rapid decline following about 20 years, about 20% a year.

look the venezuela. it dwarfs us. two, three times the amount of oil that we have. see if you can find europe on this map. here they are. tiny, tiny little countries. lots of people. dependent on somebody else. really remarkable thing though is china. they are blue over there. they are getting close to yellow. just a few months ago, china surpassed us as the largest co-2 emitter in the world. billion. look at india. a billion people in india. through the miracle of communications they know the benefits of an industrialized

society and they are demanding of their leadership those benefits. so there is a huge demand for energy in china and india and they have very little. russia, russia is the largest exporter of oil in the world. and most russians are too poor to use much oil and they are aggressively developing their oil fields and they are a major exporter of oil field. note the relative size of russia. kuwait is probably larger than russia, isn't it. you can imagine all of the geo political frictions are going to occur as the availability of oil is going to become less and less and the prices go up and up. what do you think will happen

with the demands and the tensions in the world? well, i said, if you had two charts to look at, the oil chart would be the first one and this would be the second one because there is an awful lot that you can conclude and surmise from this chart. now, this chart was implicit in the last chart that we showed you, but this shows it more dramatically. this left-hand bar is the top 10 oil and gas companies on the basis of oil production in 2004. that's a few years ago and it's a bit different now. gee, the big boys, the huge corporations that could have a

$1 billion profit, which is not huge, here they are. exxon mobil. royal dutch shell, bp, only 22% of the top 10 production. 78% of that is all in countries- owned oil facilities. saudi arabia, iran, mexico, venezuela and so forth. now the picture is even more distorted if you look at the right-hand bar, these are the top 10 oil and gas companies on the basis of oil reserves in 2004. the big actors in our country don't even show up on that chart. they own so little oil that they

aren't even the top 10 and don't exist. only one that is kind of not national and that's luke oil which is 2%. otherwise all of the reserves, the top 10 largest reserves, all of those are owned by countries rather than companies. i mentioned that i went to china, there were nine of us, to talk about energy and they began their discussion of energy by talking about poist-oil. that blew me away that they were thinking this far ahead. and had a five-point program. wasn't just the people concerned about energy. all the people we talked about in china was tuned into this

five-point plan. conservation. there is a lot of conservation. back in the arab oil embargo, we didn't have cell phones or internet, 1-800 numbers and there are were decals over the light switch, don't be fuel issue. do you remember the decals? do you see any of those things now? we knew then it was only temporary. i have a lot of trouble understanding our collective response to these two situations. back then, we knew it was temporary. we didn't have enough oil because the arabs didn't have enough oil. they were unhappy with it at the moment and wouldn't sell us the oil. we did rational things. we got more than one person in a car. we turned out the light switch and turned it up in the

summertime and down in the wintertime and i don't know why we don't have this kind of a response when oil is more than $80 and where there is a growing recognition that the world has reached its maximum production of conventional oil and we'll be more than lucky if we can find new oil to make up for the loss that we are going to have in conventional oil which slides down the other side of hubbert's peak. conservation, what is it? conservation is using a prius instead of a gas-guzzling s.u.v. . if you put two people in it, it is really conservation. i remember driving down the road in our pr inch us and we passed

an s.u.v. and we are getting six times the miles per gallon per person in this prius as that one person is getting in that s.u.v. we could immediately, almost immediately if we had to, if we had the will to drastically cut our use of energy for transportation. drive down the road and see how many people are in the h.o.v. lanes. look at how many people are driving one person in a pickup truck or an s.u.v. a bit ago, i was in france and i was looking for how many people were driving pickup trucks and s.u.v.'s for personal transportation. that trip, i did not see a single s.u.v.. the trip before that, i saw one. they weren't driving it. it was parked up in that church

up on the hill in the parking lot. as far as i can see, they don't even make in europe the equivalent of our passenger pickup trucks. they have some little trucks that are about the size of ours, but they aren't vanity trucks, but ugly little things that are really you till tarian. it's not something you would drive to get yourself back and forth to work. there are enormous opportunities for conservation. and then they say, domestic sources of energy and diversify as much as you can and that is what everybody is trying to do and many of those domestic sources would be alternative sources of energy. and the fourth one is very interesting, be kind to the environment. they recognize -- they recognize that they are a huge polluter but they have

900 million people in rural areas. that as i mentioned, through the miracle of communication, know the benefit of an industrialized society and they're saying, hey, what about us? and china, i believe, understands that if they can't meet the needs of those people, that they may see their empire begin to unravel the way the soviet empire unraveled. so they understand that although there's a huge environment consideration, that there's even bigger consideration on their part to supply energy for these 900 million people in rural areas. so they build a coal-fired power plant, one a week. i forget the number, a fairly large number of nuclear power plants that are presently under construction there. the fifth part of this is a really interesting one. international cooperation, they know that there is nothing

really meaningful than any single country -- that any single country can do. and so they plead for international cooperation. i was so impressed when they looked back over their shoulder on the way to the moon and you saw this little space ship that we call earth -- spaceship that we call earth and that's it. that's all there is. and there's nearly seven billion of us living on it. and so they recognize that this has got to be a global, international cooperation. but while they plead for international cooperation, they plan in the event that there won't be any. here is a chart of world energy picture in january, this is

2005. so they will have acquired some more oil since then. now you can see the little symbol here for chinese investment in oil and gas. they are buying oil and gas all over the world. and i asked the state department, why would they do that? because today it doesn't make any difference who owns the oil. we own only 2% of the oil and we use 25% of the oil. that's because we go through what is in effect a global market for oil and we bid, we get 25% of the oil. so today there is no advantage in owning oil. so why would the chinese be going around the world rapidly buying oil and gas? by the way, they almost bought an oil company in our country, you remember all the furor over that. when they almost bought that oil company.

here. well, at the same time china is buying gas and oil around the world, not just gas and oil, but they're also buying goodwill. what do you need? an airport? hospital? soccer fields? roads? watch the newspapers. watch the newspapers. at what china is doing as they go around the world buying this gas and oil. well, at the same time they are buying gas and oil around the world they are very aggressively building a blue water navy. a major concern of china is taiwan. a little country the size of maryland, 23 million people, we have about five million or so. 3/4 uninhabited because of mountains. i went to taiwan, you don't inhabit those mountains. they are really, really steep. china's over a billion people.

why are they so concerned about taiwan? i had the privilege of spending about an hour or so and we explored that. the concern of course is that if taiwan can declare its independence, so can a number of other provinces and they see their empire unraveling. and so i hope, pray please tonight that we can resolve taiwan issues through diplomacy rather than war. at the same time they are buying all this gas and oil and buying goodwill around the world, they're also aggressively buying a blue water navy. they don't need a blue water navy to protect their interests in taiwan. a brown water navy will be just fine there, thank you. i believe, i hope i'm wrong, i hope i'm wrong about a lot of things, by the way, every time i came to the floor, just about 50

times, and talked about peak oil, i said, i hope i'm wrong. because if i'm not wrong, the world faces some real challenges. by the way, that's not all bad. there's nothing so exhilarating as meeting and overcoming a big challenge. i mean, energy future that we face is a huge challenge. so i find it exhilarating. remember the exhilaration of putting a man on the moon? we need to have that same kind of exhilaration. what are we going to do so we can continue, not just us, but my 10 kids, my 17 grandkids and my two great-grandkids, so they can live as well as we're living? we're going to have to be very creative and innovative and we can do that in our country. i hope that the day does not come when china says, gee, guys, i'm sorry, but it's our oil and we can't share it. because we don't have enough for our people and we have a navy big enough to say that we're not going to share it.

i hope that day doesn't come. there are three groups that have common cause in solving three very different problems. but exactly the same remedy. and these three groo groups are forever harping at each other, criticizing each other's premise , instead of locking arms and marching forward. because the solution to three very different problems is just about exactly the same solution. one of those groups is the group that these statistics identify. these folks are really concerned about our national security. we have 2% of the oil reserves in the world, we pump that oil, i mentioned earlier, really

fast. we produce 8% of the oil. we have only 5%, a little less than 5% of the world's population, and we consume 25% of the world's oil, importing about 2/3 of what we use. now, what's the solution to this? the solution to this is to develop more of our own oil if we can but that's tough because we're now down the other side of hubbard's peak. so the ultimate solution to that is alternative. so now those who are concerned about national security want to free ourselves from dependency on foreign oil by using alternatives because of national security interests. a second group we've been talking about all evening, and that's those that are concerned that it just is not going to be there, and of course the solution to diminishing supplies of fossil fuels is to supplement

them with alternatives. and there's a third group we haven't talked about yet and i'm kind of a card carrying member in all three of there's groups and that's the group that's concerned about climate change. i don't know if they're right or wrong. but what i do know is that what they want to do about that is exactly the right thing to do from a national security perspective. it's exactly the right thing to do from a -- if you believe in climate change or peak oil, these three groups all have exactly the same solution to very different agendas. and what we ought to be doing is stop harping at each other's premise and simply lock arms. because whether you believe that excessive use of fossil fuels is changing the climate or not is irrelevant because excessive use of fossil fuels is certainly diminishing their supply and from our perspective, that's from the security perspective,

we don't have enough of them. so the solution to all three of these problems is more dependency on alternative fuels. we're near closing time and i just want to point out, we'll come back again, there are some wonderful quotes from these five -- four studies, but two of them -- two reports from one study. your government has paid for four different studies. all of them were prophetic. as i mentioned we're now historians because peak oil has occurred. but all four of these studies were saying, they were in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and your government didn't like the conclusions of the first one in 2005 and so they had another one

in 2007, another one in 2006 and another in 2007. they all said the same thing. the peaking of oil is either present or imminent. with potentially devastating consequences. we still aren't paying much attention to this, are we? with the world's economy still floundering and oil already at more than $80 a barrel, what do you think will happen to the price of oil when the world's economy really starts to come back? well, let's end our discussion here tonight, i've been pleased to spend these moments with you, talking about something that is very important to me, but i think even more important to my 10 kids, my 17 grandkids and my two great-grandkids. when we come back again we're going to talk about these reports and what they said and we'll have some quotes from these reports. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill.

the clerk: h.r. 4783, an act -- this act may be cited as the claims resettlement act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? a motion to adjourn? mr. bartlett: i move that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house is adjourned until 4:00

>> the u.s. house of representatives censured congressman charles rangel today for financial misconduct. over the next hour and a half, you will see that floor debate and hear from mr. rangel both on the floor and in a meeting with reporters. we will also open our phone lines for your reaction. after that, a senate armed services committee hearing on possible repeal of the "don't

ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays serving in the military. defense secretary robert gates is encouraging congress to repeal the policy. >> if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, it is likely ultimately to be imposed once again. we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator, will be a lot more benign than was saddam hussein. >> john burns, a longtime foreign correspondent for "the new york times," on the future of iraq, the night on "q&a". >> find great holiday gifts for the c-span fan in your life at our c-span stork breeder from books to be beedis, mugs,

umbrellas, and more. -- from books to dvds. >> that house has voted to censure democratic representative charles rangel of new york. the ethics committee earlier found the 21-term veteran guilty on 11 charges of financial misconduct. the last house censure was in 1983. this debate is a little more than an hour. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one hour. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from new york for purposes of debate only and for his control of those 30 minutes. of my remaining 30 minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the the gentleman from alabama, the ranking member on the committee of standards of official conduct, mr. bonner, for purposes of debate only and for

his control of those 15 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. lofgren: as chair of the standards of official conduct and the subcommittee in the matter of mr. rangel, i rise in support which calls for censure, article 1, section 5 of the constitution provides each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the concurrence of the members. the committee on standards is realming ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a matter befitting the public trust. this role of the committee to review allegations that a member has violated those standards, in this case after a lengthy and thorough investigation that spanned more than two years and 5,000-page report, the committee concluded that this member

violated those standards. we were charged with recommending an appropriate sanction to the house. the entire report has been available to members of the house and the public on the committee's web site and many portions have been publicly released since july. here is a brief summary of the findings of that report. in this matter, we found that representative rangel engaged in misconduct in four areas. mr. rangel improperly sole is ted individuals with business and interests before the house to fund the charles b rangel center at city college of new york. he misused official resources to make those solicitations for millions of dollars and improperly sole is ted funds from lobbyists and failed to file disclosure statements for 10 years and accepted the benefits related to his use of a rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office under circumstances that created an appearance of impropriety. and failed to report and pay

taxes on income he received on property he owned indom republic. his conduct in each of those four areas violated laws and regulations and rules of the house namely that he violated the gift and solicitation ban, a statute enacted by congress in 1989, violated clauses 2 and 5 of the code of ethics for government service, violated postal service laws and regulations issued by the franking commission, violated the rules of this house, violated the purpose law arbitration statute derives directly from the constitution, violated the ethics in government act and violated the internal revenue code. a bipartisan majority of your colleagues concluded that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation regarding these areas of misconduct were proved by clear and convincing evidence. we found his actions and aaccumulation of actions reflected poorly on the institution of the house and

brought discredit to the house. nothing we say or do here today will in any way diminish his service to our country or our gratitude for his service both in this house and as a hero of the korean war. but that service does not excuse the fact that representative rangel violated laws. he violated regulations, he violated the rules of this house and he violated the standards of conduct. because of that misconduct a nonpartisan committee staff recommended he be censured and the majority of the committee recommended censure and the committee voted that he be pay restitution to the taxing authorities. censure is a serious sanction and one rarely imposed by the house the decision to recommend that was not reached lightly. the committee considered the aggregation of representative rangel's misconduct. the committee concluded that his violations occurred on a continuous and prolonged basis and were more serious in

character meriting a strong congressional response rebuking his behavior. for the violation, the committee considered not only the amount of taxes he failed to pay over many years but the fact that he served at various times in influential position as chairman and ranking member of the ways and means committee. it brought discredit of the house with this member with great responsibility for tax policy did not pay his taxes for many years. some have questioned whether a recommendation of censure is consistent. it is true that the committee's roughly 40 years of experience, the house has censured four members. it is true that for precedent to be followed, a precedent must be set. we follow precedent, but we also set it. for example, nearly 30 years ago, the committee recommended that two members be reprimanded for engaging in sexual relations with pages. the house rejected the recommendation and instead censured those two members. it is possible that if that

situation were to occur again today, this house might not feel censure a severe enough action. many of this body pledged four years ago to create the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history. censure for this misbehavior is consistent with that pledge. at the hearing, the nonpartisan committee counsel said clearly that representative rangel's pattern of misconduct was sloppiness and said that did not excuse miss misconduct. in light of those considerations, a bipartisan majority of the committee concluded that it was appropriate to recommend to the house that representative rangel be censured. key decisions were made with bipartisan votes, not all votes were unanimous but each on the basis of a bipartisan majority vote. the purpose is not punishment but accountability and credibility. accountability for the respond ent and credibility for the house itself. where a member has been found by

his colleagues to have violated, that member must be held accountable for his conduct. representative rangel has violated the public trust. while it is difficult, actually painful to sit in judgment of our colleagues, it is our duty under the constitution to do so and accordingly i bring this resolution to the floor today. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. bonner is recognized for 15 minutes. mr. bonner: i yield such time as i may consume. this is a solemn moment for this house at a time in little under an hour all of our members will have an opportunity to make a statement with their vote. as such and because the rules allow the rules mr. rangel to defend himself against the recommendation of the committee and the committee's time is being evenly divided between the chair and the ranking member, i

want to inform the body that there will only be three members on this side of the aisle who will speak. i say this because there have been a number of members who have approached me even on this committee asking for time. but out of respect for all and especially in light of the rare nature of this debate, i intend to recognize our time only to myself, mr. hastings, the former chair of the ethics committee and our colleague who served almost two years on the investigative subcommittee as well as our colleague, mr. mccaul, who serves as the ranking member of the ajude ca tower subcommittee during that phase of that matter. if other matters care to have their views inserted into the record, we would have no objection. with that, i yield three minutes to the the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. mccaul: first, let me thank the gentleman from alabama for his leadership on this solemn occasion. this is this is an important day for mr. rangel, the congress and the american people. as ranking member in the rangel adjudicatory proceedings and as a former worker in the department of justice, i take this seriously. no member asked for this assignment. but we accept our responsibility here today for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity, and credibility of this great institution. the american people's confidence in us is at historic lows. they want their elected representatives accountable for their actions, just as they are held accountable as private citizens. today, we have an opportunity

to begin a new era restoring the trust of the american people. the committee agreed on 12 of the 13 counts, finding he violated multiple rules of the house and federal statutes. including the most fundamental code of conduct, which states a member of the house shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibility on the house. credibility is exactly what is at stake here. the very credibility of the house of representatives itself before the american people. most egregiously, the committee found that mr. rangel failed to pay his income taxes for 17 years. and this, while serving as chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of the nation. what kind of message does this send to the average working man or woman who plays by the rules and struggles every day to pay

their own taxes? mr. rangel also solicited contributions from corporations, foundations, and lobbyists who had business before his committee to build a school bearing his name. i've consistently opposed members of congress naming monuments after themselves. the committee recommends the most severe punishment available both on the facts and the precedent this sanction is both rare and historic. founding father john adams said that moral authority and character increases as the importance of the position increases. in his letter to the speaker, mr. rangel stated that as chairman of ways and means, he is to be held to a higher standard of propriety. i agree. mr. rangel failed to hold himself to this higher standard.

the american people deserve better. while i sincerely feel for mr. rangel as a human being, i feel more strongly that a public office -- may i have 15 more seconds? >> i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i feel strongly that a public office is a public trust and mr. rangel violated that trust. the speaker challenged us to enter into a new era of transparency and accountability. mr. mccaul: let us begin today, let justice be served, let us begin to enter into a new era of ethics to restore the credibility and integrity of this house, the people's house, and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from washington state, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is are recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my friend from alabama for yielding time. for over two years, i served on the investigative committee that reviewed allegations and evidence involving mr. rangel and we found a substantial reason to believe, which is what our threshold was, that violations occurred. because the facts of this matter are not disputed, i will not comment on the evidence. i will, however, comment on the length of the investigation and particularly a statement made by mr. rangel regarding the confidential work on the investigative committee. first on the length of the investigation, chairman green and i, when i was ranking member of the subcommittee, had every intention of completing the investigation before the conclusion of the 110th congress. but events intervened. in september of 2008, mr. rangel publicly pledged he would release in a timely manner a forensic analysis of 20 years of his tax returns and

financial disclosures. however, we did not receive the report until may of 2009, eight months later. then in december of 2008, serious new allegations involving neighbors industries resulted in the committee's unanimous decision to expand its jurisdiction. in august of 2009, amendments filed by mr. rangel to his financial disclosures raised serious new questions, resulting in the committee unanimously expanding the investigation once again. finally, after receiving the information long requested from him, the subcommittee completed its work and sent the statement of alleged violations to him on may 27, 2010. remember that date. now, on mr. rangel's statement, and here i'm going to be very crittle, mr. speaker. let me read a statement he made in an article dated june 6, 2010 in "politico."

i'm quoting mr. rangel now. i would normally believe being a former federal prosecutor that if the allegations involve my conduct as a member of the house and there's a committee with republicans and democrats there that you refer to the committee. and if they are so confused after 18 months they can't find anything, then that is a story. end quote. mr. rangel, in my view, had misrepresented the work of the subcommittee. why do i say that? because the comments he made were comments over a week after -- after -- the subcommittee had transmitted a detailed, confidential statement of allegations, acompanied with thousands of pages of documents to him. he knew the contents of the report. confused? there is no confusion. everything was in his possession he knew what the subcommittee produced and he deliberately misrepresented its contents. in fact, he was aware of the

subcommittee's work as early as december 15, 2009, when he testified before the committee. in addition, after he received this s.a.v., he subsequently met in executive session at his request two more times with his council. mr. speaker, i mention this because there was discussion of process in this matter. it is completely disingenuous to suggest that the subcommittee had treated him unfairly. mr. speaker, the investigating subcommittee completed its are responsibilities to the house and the american people in a timely, professional, and responsible manner. the facts supporting the 11 violations are not disputed. i will vote for the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. >> i reserve my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. rangel: first, let me apologize to this august body for putting you in this very awkward position today. and to the ethics committee, i do recognize that it is not a job that many of us would want to have. last week, as we were reading about the north koreans attacking the south koreans, i was haunted by the fact that on november 30, 60 years ago, i

was in korea as a young 20-year-old volunteer in the second infantry division. and on that occasion in subzero weather, 20 degrees below zero, the chinese surrounded us and attacked and there were hundreds of casualties, wounded and killed and captured. screams were heard, i was wounded, and had no thoughts that i would be able to survive. but god gave me the strength not only to survive though wounded, but to find my way out of the entrapment and for three days i had the strength to lead 40 of my comrades out of that

situation and we all were haunted by the fact that so many of my comrades did not survive it. i tell you that story, not for sympathy, but to let you know that at that time in every sense, i made up my mind that i could never complain to god for any events that occurred in my life. and that i would dedicate my life in trying in some meaningful way to improve the quality of life for all americans as well as as much as i could do for humankind. it is for that reason that i stand to say that i have made serious mistakes, i do believe rules are made to be enforced, i do believe we in the congress have a higher responsibility than most people, i do believe

that senior members should act in a way as a model for new and ress experienced members. i do believe that there should be enforcement of these laws, there should be sanctions. but if you're breaking new ground, i ask for fairness. none of the presidents of the history of this great country has -- never in the history of this great country has anyone suffered a censor when the record is abundantly clear that in those investigations which i called for, the committee found no evidence at all of corruption. found no evidence of self-enrichment, found no evidence that there was intention on my part to evade

my responsibility, whether in taxes or whether in financial disclosures. and there's absolutely no excuse for my responsibility to obey those rules, i take full credit for the responsibility of that. i brought it on myself. but i still believe that this body has to be guided by fairness. and so that's all i'm saying. i'm not here to complain. i have too much to be thankful for. being from where i am and being where i am today and once again it's been awkward, especially for my friends and supporters, but i want to respect the

dignity of the community that elected me to serve them, i want to continue to serve this congress and this country and do what i can to make life better for other people and i think we all agree that in 40 years, i tried my darnedest to do that. so at this point, by unanimous, i would like to turn the remainder of the time that the chair has given to me to my fellow colleague, bobobby scott. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia may control the time. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i

served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter and descended from the subcommittee report and i rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution. i believe that under precedence of the house, imposingsen sure on one of our members for violating procedural rules of the house would be singularly harsh and unfair and without precedence. mr. rangel acknowledged his mistakes and he's asked to be punished fairly, punished just like everybody else similarly situated. accordingly, i believe punishment is appropriate but i believe censure is in appropriate. congressman charles b. rangel is a dedicated public servant and dedicated soldier who made outstanding contributions to the people of the united states and to this institution. yet he has has made mistakes which resulted in violations of the rule of official conduct for members of the house and he will be punished for those

violations. the question is, what is the appropriate punishment? we need not answer this question in a vacuum. congressman rangel is not the first member to violate rule ares of official conduct. we have ample precedence from which to glean the appropriate punishment. it's clear from the precedence of the house thatsen sure is not a fair and just -- that censure is not a fair and just punishment. the committee counsel during the hearing acknowledged those elements are not found in this case. furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendations for censure in this case is a violation of prior precedence. the point is made in the report on page 7, and i quote, although prior committee precedence for recommendation ofsen sure -- censure involves direct financial gain this committee's recommendation for censure is based on the

cumulative nature of the violation not direct personal gain. cumulative nature violations to support the committee's recommendation censure is without precedent. in the case of congressman george hansen, the committee stated that and i quote, it has been the character of the offenses which establish the level of punishment imposed new york city -- not the nature. neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant a censure. now eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that congressman rangel has violated are for raising money for the center at the public university in his congressional district. the program is to train young people to go into public service using his life experience as an inspiration. assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of

itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you are going to raise money for a local college. he openly assisted the institution clearly with nothing to do anything improper but he did violate the rules by not following proper procedures. once a determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts. one, he used the letterhead, two, he used the staff, three, used office equipment, frank mail, all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. that was a violation and what should the punishment be for raising money improperly? we have the case of former speaker newt gingrich and funded a college course aimed at recruiting new members to the republican party after he had been warned not to and found to

have filed false reports in 13 instances causing substantial delays and expense to the committee and did not lose his job as speaker. congressman rangel did not lie about his activities and he believed he was doing right, although he made mistakes and he received no prior warning as did speaker gingrich. yet congressman rangel lost his chair man shp on ways and means and faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand. another example of raising money involved former house majority leader tom delay. he was admonished for participating in energy company fundraiser which the committee found created the appearance of special treatment or access. mr. delay was cited for his partisan conflict in the textous house of representatives using resources of a federal agency, the f.a.a. and in an ethics

investigation that involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, used corporate contributions in violation of state law and improper use of official resources for political purposes as i think everybody is aware, recent news reports that mr. delay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a state law against corporate contributions and political campaigns and been found guilty, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences between five and 99 years in prison and yet the house did not censure mr. delay, nor did they impose a reprimand but issued a committee letter. mr. rangel has made mistakes and should be punished like everyone else in the past consistent with precedent. now on the issue of mr. rangel's rent stabilized apartment as a

campaign office, mr. rangel's landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. the committee records reflect, an attorney for the new york housing authority has testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. if somebody rented the apartment that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected, however the lease is permed. that's what the attorney said for the housing authority said. i don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's what he pleeved and landlord pleeved and the housing authority lawyer believed. let's talk about this apartment. it had been vacant for months. charlie paid sticker price for the rent, he passed nobody on the waiting list. this is not a corrupt scheme. to the extent there is a violation, let's punish him consistent with others who have had problems. earlier, it was found by the committee to have been paying

more than market rent for his campaign headquarters. the rent paid to family members who owned the building. he wasn't censured or reprimanded but received a committee letter. other cases of campaign violations have not resulted in censure. one example is the case of bud shuster for violation of house rules relating to campaign and other violations. he was found to have allowed a former employee turned lobbyist to communicate with him to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office and found to have violated the house rules and congressional staff for campaign purposes, to have made certain expenditures for campaign accounts for expenses that were not campaign or political purposes and yet he received a letter nofment a censure, not even a reprimand.

both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violation of the rules. the sanction for both was a letter of reprimand. there's the issue now of his failure to pay -- report income on rental property on property he owned in the come dominican republic and report those on his disclosure statement. some rental payments were reported on his disclosure so nothing to cover up. while he did not file all his reports properly, these do not warrant censure. mistakes are usually corrected with nothing more said. the only cases where there is a violation, sanction, for failure to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt coverup. for example, failing to file campaign contributions during

contrarygate or filing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. the committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or coverup. the tax issue, comment was made that he hadn't paid taxes for 17 years. if they are worried about those taxes, tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rent and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. it wasn't as profitable. he got a couple small checks and that was it. however, one of the bills paid was the mortgage and principal is income on which you have to pay taxes. whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedent. the only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this house in the history of the united states have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received.

that's it. all we ask is he be sanctioned like everyone else. since there is no indication that representative rangel tried to conceal, censure is not the just punishment. he hired an accountant to ensure that all of the matters have been cleared up. he knows he messed up and knows he will be punished and ask he be punished like everybody else. charlie rangel will be punished for his transgression, but neither the nature or cumulative impact has been the sufficient basis for censure nor has the level of one's position been the basis for sanction as we said in the case of newt gingrich or tom delay. both had multiple serious violations which were intentional with aggravation such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, nonch

of which are in this case. all the instances of censure, reprimand or other sanctions make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction. charlie is not asking to be excused for his conduct. he accepts responsibility. all we ask that we cite what has been done in the past and apply sanctions similar to those sanctions and based on the precedents, there is no precedents for censure in this case. i reserve the balance of my time. >> i yield five minutes to the the gentleman from new york, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. at the outset, let me express my respect for chairman lofgren, ranking member bonner, mr. hastings, mr. mccaul and all the

members of the ethics committee and their dedicated effort in this painful matter. i will vote against the censure resolution because i do not believe the findings warrant the severe penalty of censure. i studied hundreds of pages of committee documents, concluding the subcommittee findings, minority view, representative scott, report of the full committee and exhibits and correspondence. mr. speaker, censure is an extremely severe penalty. in the more than 200-year history of this body, only 22 members have been subjected to censure, none in more than a quarter century. if expulsion is equivalent of the death penalty then censure is life i am prisonment. i have no cases where charges similar to those against congressman rangel resulted in

censure. thus far, the penalty has been reserved for such violations on sexual abuse of minors. in congressman rangel's case, the committee's chief counsel said he found no evidence of corruption and the committee report itself said, there was no direct personal gain to congressman rangel. mr. speaker, my religious faith is based on scripture and tradition. my training as a lawyer has taught me to respect precedent. why today are we being asked to revert more than 200 years of tradition and precedent? there is no doubt that congressman rangel has violated rules of this house, but these violations -- there is no evidence of finding of criminal intent. as congressman scott pointed out, it was public record that charlie rangel was living in the rent stabilized apartment.

that was hidden from nobody. that was public record at his campaign headquarters. it was hidden from nobody. it was also public record that charlie rangel had the home in the dominican republic. it was public record that charlie rangel was trying to obtain funding for a public university in his district. nothing was hidden. so where is the criminal intent? that is why i strongly believe the appropriate penalty is a reprimand. why are we departing from tradition and precedent in the case of charlie rangel? certainly it can't be because of who he is or what he has achieved in his life. a kid from the inner city who emerged from very troubled surroundings to be a combat soldier and authentic war warrior who left his blood in korea, who worked his way through law school, who became a distinguished prosecutor in the united states attorney's office

and elected to the new york legislature and united states congress, where he has served with distinction for 40 queers. unless my republican friends get nervous, charlie rangel is a friend and colleague, we disagree on virtually every issue. i can't begin to tell you how many times charlie have gone at it and debated on local news shows back in new york. but they are very significant debates. but during that entire time, i never heard anyone question his integrity or ever seen charlie rangel treat anyone with disrespect, which is very unusual for somebody in his high position as many of us know, whether it be flight attendants, cab drivers, staff members or the guy on the street corner on 125th street. my colleagues, i know we can get caught up in media attacks and political storms.

but i am imploring you today to pause for a moment and step back, to reflect upon not just the lifetime of charlie rangel, but more importantly, the 220-year history of tradition and precedent of this body. let us apply the same standard of justice to charlie rangel that's been applied to everybody else and which all of us would want to apply to ourselves. i respectfully urge a vote against censure and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? mr. scott: i yield to the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. woolsey: i rise today in defense of the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel.

i appeal to my colleagues and your sense of fairness as you deliberate on this matter. censure is a very serious sanction. one step short of expulsion. only 22 times in the history of this body has the house censured a colleague and not once in the last 27 years. in the past this punishment has been reserved for serious acts of corruption, taking bribes, lying under oath, gross sexual misconduct, profiting from one's office. carelessness and minor rules violations have never been grounds for censure. far more serious ethical lapses than mr. rangel's have not met with seen sewer. for example, newt gingrich and tom delay. but they were not censured and in fact newt gingrich continued to serve as speaker of the house. mr. rangel has cooperated fully with the ethics investigation acting with transparency and

expressing regret and apologies for his actions. quite simply, mr. rangel's trance gregses and lapses in -- transgressions and lapses in judgment do not rise to the level of censure. fairness, my colleagues, demands that we vote no. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time? >> i yield one minute to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. tanner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tanner: thank you, mr. scott. i, too, have, as mr. king said, enormous respect for the ethics committee. it's a job none of us asked for and none of us want. it has to be done to protect the house of representatives. as a lawyer, i also believe in precedent and i have searched this record and find no activity involving moral

turpitude or any activity that could be classified as one with criminal intent. therefore, i think a -- an appropriate action that would protect the house as well as punish congressman rangel, would be a reprimand. i think that is the appropriate punishment commensurate with what has occurred here unfortunately. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. scott: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boss well, one minute. mr. boswell: thank you, mr. speaker. i concur with what was last said, i have great respect for the committee. nobody wants your job. i came here 14 years ago and

looking back on years that have gone by, i met charlie rangel as a colleague here and then i learned sometime after that we were fellow veterans and fellow soldiers. i realize that he had served with honor and distinction and a year ago last december, i lead a co-dell, we flew to korea and reflecting back on my time as a student, teacher, commander of staff college and read a lot of that history, the conflict i served in, as many of you, and i thought of charlie. and he was valorous and did his job. charlie's erred. we know that. i'm not going to repeat those things. he's erred. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

mr. scott: i yield the gentleman 10 more seconds. mr. boswell: he has erred and i think censure is too much, a reprimand is appropriate and he would accept that and i ask this house to recognize that in its history and do the right thing. i would support the reprimand. mr. scott: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gonzalez: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i, too, rise along with my colleague from texas to protect the integrity of this house. i simply want to do it in a different manner than the wording reflected in this resolution, which is not fair and is not just and i think we have an opportunity to still protect the integrity and reputation of this house but to do it in a fair and reasonable

manner you heard about all of the allegations but i want to quote from what transpired during that committee hearing, mr. butterfield states in all of the investigation of this matter, did you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption? and the prosecuting attorney, the one that may have recommended the censure, replied, i see no evidence of corruption. do i believe based on this record that congressman rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in congress? i do not. this is a chance for this house to rise to the occasion and to do the right thing. that's what furthers the reputation and the good name of this house by doing the fair and just thing. we are held to a higher

standard. that's why mr. rangel has admitted to his misdeeds. but since when, since when, do we forfeit the right to fair and just treatment? since when, when we take the oath as members of congress? i think not. we are a jury today and if you are a jury, you'd be admonished, do not let prejudice, bias, or sympathy play any part in your deliberations. but the truth is, we're a very different kind of jury. we worry that we are going to be scrutinized and whatever decision we reach today in our vote, may result in political criticism. that's the greatest fear. but we will overcome that and do the very best thing. thank you and i yield back. mr. scott: could the speaker advise me how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has 2

1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from alabama has 6 1/2 minute the gentlelady from california has nine minutes. mr. scott: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure.

some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of corruption and he did not believe mr. rangel was trying to enrich himself. what happened, according to the chief council was that he was overst louse in his dealings with city college and sloppy with his financial dealings.

censure is a serious sanction. the decision by the ethics committee to recommend censure was based on the cumulative nature of the violations and because the 11 violations committed by representative rangel on a continuous and prolonged basis merited a strong congressional response. what this ignores, however is that eight of the 11 separate counts all stem from one factor, mr. rangel's belief that certain advocacy for city college, an institution in his district, amounted to constituent service and constituted official action. second, he does not, as mr. bonner said, fail to pay taxes for 17 years. of course he paid taxes and filed every one of those years he did fail to report some income from a villa he owned because he -- can i have an additional 30 seconds? the speaker pro tempore: there is no further time. ms. woolsey: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields 30 seconds.

mr. nadler: he believed that money he never saw a check for was not reportable, he was wrong but it was one error, i ask my colleagues to reconsider this. a censure a punishment never previously imposed for this level of violation of house rules with no adequate explanation for the change in standards offends once sense of fair play and does not reflect credibility on the house. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: who seeks recognition. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bonner: may i inquire of the chair how many speakers she has remaining? mr. lofgren -- ms. lofgren: just mr. butterfield and my closing. mr. bonner: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bonner: this is a sad day

but a necessary day to complete a matter that should have been concluded with a public trial but mr. rangel walked out of that hearing. instead, we're left with a vote, an important vote not only for mr. rangel but equally a significant vote for this house as an institution. and for how we are seen by our employers, the american people. watching at home, some are probably looking on with curiosity of sorts as we dispense with this unpleasant yet constitutionally mandated responsibility to punish our own when necessary. in fairness, today eas actions may also confirm what many of us already know. that washington, d.c., truly is disconnected from the real challenges and worried that much of the -- and worries that much of the rest of america are facing every day. the angst of a father whose son is standing guard in some dangerous remote location in afghanistan, or the uncertainty of that single mom who was just

told this week that she had been fired. not only does she have to worry about whether she can afford christmas for her children but whether she can pay the car note or the rent without a job. all across america, these are the real life crises that our constituents are facing. yet here on the house floor, one of our colleagues is dealing with something that to him and i believe to all of us should be considered a serious matter and one that deserves our utmost attention. as i noted back on july 29, when the investigative subcommittee reported this case there is no debate but that congressman charles rangel has led a compelling life story, one that all of us can, including myself, can respect. he was a private as his autobiography says, left to die on the battlefield in north korea. he earned the purple heart and bronze star for bravery and he was a fatherless high school

dropout who went from pushing that hand cart in the streets of new york city to becoming one of the most powerful figures on capitol hill. we all know the story. but my friends, mr. rangel's life story is not why we are here. after all, every american has their own unique story to tell. regretfully, this is a day that does not have to be. if only mr. rangel had settled for the lesser sanctions that today he hopes this body will somehow consider during the course of the investigation, he was given multiple opportunities to settle. instead, he chose to fight on. declaring his innocence and saying the committee did not have a case. if only mr. rangel had paid his taxes as we are all required to do. as chairman of the ways and means committee, he certainly knew something about requiring americans to pay their taxes. but -- the ethics committee found by clear and convincing

evidence that mr. rangel failed to pay his taxes for 17 years, violating u.s. and state and local tax laws on income derived from his beach villa in the dominican republic. mymy friends, when you go back home this weekend, try explaining to your constituents that it's ok for a powerful member of congress, the chairman of the tax writing committee, to not pay his taxes, just don't ask your constituents to do the same. if mr. rangel had used the ethics committee as it is intended to be use, give advice and counsel on how we can use our names to benefit worthy causes such as creating a school for underprivileged minority students to encourage them to consider public service, there's nothing wrong with that idea. actually, it is rooted in the most noble of american missions, education. rather than finding out he can do it the right way and legally, mr. rangel instead chose to use both his personal and committee staff as well as

other official resources of his office to help solicit donations of up to $30 million each for a school and library to ensure his legacy. donations from some of the 100 biggest and wealthiest corporations in america, many of whom had direct interest before this very committee that he chaired. the ethics committee found by clear and convincing evidence that mr. rangel solicited those donations from the very lobbyists of those companies who were coming before his committee. as members of congress, we are all required to file financial disclosure statements. it's not easy to do and sometimes it's easy to make a mistake. but, again, this committee found on clear and convincing evidence that mr. rangel for 10 years failed to file his report promptly and they had numerous omissions, including the failure to disclose over half a million dollars.

ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, there's a lot to be said today and a lot has been said. keep this in mind as you consider the report of the only truly bipartisan committee that stands in this congress, the only one that's evenly divided and sent this recommendation of censure for you for your consideration. mr. rangel spent more man on the hill than all but five of our colleagues, and he's served his district for longer than 26 of our members have been alive. even so, this recommendation of censure was not made lightly and it was not made without respect for the totality of his life or the seriousness and number of charges for which he has been found guilty. it is a sad day, for sure, mr. speaker, but now the entire house has a responsibility to join the ethics committee in rendering your judgment.

i have no doubt that the people we work for will be watching with interest. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i yield to mr. butterfield, a member of the committee, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. butterfield: let me thank the gentlelady for the time. as a member of the committee, i rise today to oppose the pending motion. there's no question that mr. rangel violated house rules. for more than a year he's apologized for his misconduct. there is no evidence to say that he engaged in criminal or misconduct or violating his oath. the record shows that mr. rangel was approached by a citizen in new york to seek funds to establish an inner city school for disadvantaged youth and he did so. my colleagues, you must know

that it is not unethical or improper for members to raise funds for a charitable purpose. many of you do this every year, and it's a good thing. our rules simply require any member desiring to raise funds for 501-c-3 charitable purpose to refrain from using official resources. in this case congressman rangel improperly used official resources to make the solicitation. yes, that was a mistake. but it was not corruption. had he written a solicitation on anything other than official letterhead it would have been a different thing. the punishment in this case, in my humble opinion, should be reprimand or less. censure has always been reserved for extreme and outrageous conduct touching

upon corruption and intent to gain a financial benefit. as many of you perhaps know, i spent much of my life, my former life as a superior court judge. for nearly 15 years i made difficult decisions every day. in making difficult decisions the judge must first decide a baseline punishment and then adjust that punishment by weighinged a revating circumstances -- weighing aggravating circumstances in this case. the counsel in this case said he should be reprimanded. there are mitigating circumstances, my colleagues, that you should consider that substantially outweigh any aggravating factors that you may find. in deciding whether to round up the censure or round down to

reprimand, i ask that you consider his age, the bronze star, left on battlefield for dead, 40 years of service. he requested our committee to investigate these matters. he acknowledged mistakes at an early stage and he was willing to settle this matter without a trifmente he did not participate in the evidentiary hearing. some of you may see that as a negative, but failing to participate in the hearing essentially admitted the essential facts of this case, precluding a long trial. he could not afford counsel after spending $2 million. and we refuse to waive the rule to allow for pro bono counsel. over the years he's mentored democratic and republican members on this floor. and he's been a person of good moral character. these, my colleagues, are mitigating factors that support reprimand. i urge my colleagues to vote to reprimand our dear colleague.

let him know he must be sanctioned for his carelessness, but let him know that this house understands fairness and justice and legal precedence. a censure is not justified in this case. i thank you, madam chair, for the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, i want to just make a couple of brief comments before turning back to mr. butterfield. first, although the issue of two members in 1983 being censured for sexual misconduct, as has been mentioned, historically, censured has been used a variety of times including the very first time for insulting the speaker of the house, insulting the house, mr. john chandler, by introduction of a resolution by containing unparliamentary

language. mr. hunter, mr. holbrooke using unparliamentary language. so i think it is important to at least have that history. i just want to say one other thing. we do not discuss the executive sessions, liberations of the committee, but i feel obliged to note since i think a misimpression could be had that in fact mr. rangel did sign a settlement effort, and the committee was unable to reach a settlement agreement with mr. rangel earlier this year. now, it may be that the committee and the house could do a different sanction. mr. scott identified several members and former members and staffers who are either still serving sentences in prison or still in court, being tried or an ongoing proceeding for misconduct. i think it is precisely because of that failure to put members

of this body and the american public first demand a higher standard that the committee on a 9-1 vote recommended this sanction. we need a higher standard. mr. rangel himselfs a acknowledged that we need a higher standard. process is about protecting the integrity of the house as much as it is about sanctioning an individual who has violated the rules. the nonpartisan committee counsel recommended this on a 9-1 vote. the bipartisan committee recommended this. this is a wrenching decision for us all. it is not with any pleasure at all that i stand here today presenting the committee's report. and finally, it is for each and every one of us to sort through our own conchuss, mindful of the obligation we have first and foremost to the american people to protect the integrity of the house as we decide what to do. each of us must cast a vote

that we think is right, and i will respect each member who does that. and with that i would turn now to and recognize mr. butterfield for the purpose of offering an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will yield back time for debate. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, may i be heard for purpose of offering an amendment? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i have a motion to amend at the desks. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. strike be censured and insert be reprimanded. strikes paragraph 2 and 3 and redesignate 4 as paragraph 2. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: mr. speaker, i move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the amendment and the resolution. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted.

ms. lofgren: mr. speaker. mr. bonner: mr. speaker, i move for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes this is a 15-minute vote. >> the house of representatives then voted 333 to 79 to censure charles rangel of new york. after the vote, rep rankle spoke to the house for several minutes -- representative rangel spoke to the house for several minutes.

kindly aear in the well? by the adoption of house resolution 1737, the house is resolved that representative charles rangel of new york be censured. the representative will present himself in the well of the house for the pronouncement of censure. that representative charles b. rangel be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the speaker. and that representative rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities of the u.s. treasury for any unpaid estimated taxes outlined in exhibition o-66 on income received from thisroperty in dominican republic and provide proof of payment to the committee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york asks unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. without objection, so ordered. mr. rangel: i fully recognize that constitutionally this body has the full jurisdiction to determine the conduct of one of its members. my predecessor suffered because they didn't allow him to be a member before they decided that he should be expelled. but notwithstanding that, we do know that we are a political body and even though it is painful to accept this vote, i am fully aware that this vote reflects perhaps the thinking not just of the members but the political side and the constituency of is body. having said that and having my opportunity to do what i wand to do initially and that is to make certain that this body and

this country would know that at noime has it ever entered my mind to enrich myself or to do violence to the honesty that's pected of all of us in this house. i think that has been proven and that has been what i've been asking for and that's why i've admitted to mistakes andas prepared to do what i've done. i understand that this is a new criteria and a breakthrough in order to teach somebody a higher lesson than those that in the past have done far more harm to the reputation of this body than i. but i just would want all of you to know that in my heart i truly feel good. it's not all the commitments that are made to god in 1950. a lot of it has to do with the fact that i know in my heart that i'm not going to be judged by this congress but i'm going

to be judged by my life, my activities, my contributions to society and i just apogize for the awkward position that some of you that are in. but at the end of the day, as i started off saying, compared to where i've been, i haven't had a bad loor,ter speaking on the fou representative charles rangel spoke for about 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> down in front.

>> everybody in? time is not my friend. let's go. >> at long last, this two year nightmare is over. and as i stated on the floor, i'm fully aware that the constitution dictates that the members of the house will dictate the conduct of its

members. hardly anything in there about fairness, but we do know that this is a political body, and i am satisfied that members of voted their districts, with all of the political implications of what a vote in support of a lesser sanction would be politically back home. having said that, as i said on the floor at the conclusion of the reading of the censure, that 60 years ago i did not think that i would be a lot. matter of fact, as i said on november 6, i was pretty certain it was all over. but because i was able to

survive that combat situation, i am here, i am strong and i made a vow not to complain about any events that have happened to be cuts, for my career -- that it happened, for my career, for a guy from lenox avenue, i have not had a real day that is worse than the one i had on november 30, 1950. it is really difficult to explain what pained me so much during the two years. most of it was all of this business about confidentiality. that i could not talk about the case, and as most of you know, and i think i am correct in saying even though i do not have counsel, that i am not restricted by anything in talking about this case. but as i said two years ago, i

have not and never, and there is not any evidence that i did anything to enrich myself, that i've done anything corrupt or done anything to sell my office or to sell the congress, anything that involved intent to deceive or to avoid my taxes or any disclosures. of course, -- in the course of having too many people doing too many things in terms of staff and accountants and disclosures, which i signed -- are relied too much on staff, which, in my opinion falls far below the standard i set for members of congress appeared it was wrong. it was a mistake and there is no

question i was prepared and then and now to not -- not to blame anyone but myself for the mistakes that i made as related ts to disclosures. but i think history would show that a different standard has been used in this case, where i did not curse out the speaker, i did not try to have sex with minors, i did not steal any money, i tried to help city college, and it has been hard for me to get some of the people in the press to state that out of the 13 charges, seven of them are related to one even. you do not have to be all lawyer to say that if you do not have any intent to violate the house

rule as it relates to encouraging people to make donations to charities, which is perfectly legal, if you follow the rules, but if you break the rule and think as i did that it was official for me to try to get resources, and not for meat, but public resources for a public institution to encourage education -- and not for me, but public resources for a public institution to encourage education. to send out letters on my stationery, to get names of the foundations of that were concerned with educational projects. not to ask them for money, but to encourage them to meet with the people at city college. as for the ego and doing as a because i wanted institution named after me, i wish you'd go

to 141st street, where this institution would have worn my name. it is a broken down brownstone that would have been in chains. it is not that i would have embarrassed the ccny are refusing to have my name placed on it, as far as receiving any benefits, it is too late to ask you to read the findings because it is abundantly clear that council, after two years, said there was no violation of the run civilization lot prehominid somebody in the press -- run stabilization law. and saidhas tin the press

something, but i do not think it runs to the extent that reporters that blye knowingly should be responded to by me, but i will say that council stabilization law as relates to me and my family, there has been no violation of any of us. the lease was between the landlord and need. if she put resident down, resident was down there, and at least in the testimony of my landlord would say, the apartment was empty. in the charlie rangel for congress committee he did what campaign officers do. he had no complaints. the law was not broken as it relates to the rent

stabilization laws. it appears as though i might have received a benefit. please read the -- read the language, though. it appeared as though this a range of was a favor or a benefit to me. at no time did anybody, nor was it alleged, receive any benefits from me or any piece of legislation before the house. what happens in the proceedings before the statement of alleged violations cannot be discussed, but the whole idea that they would say they offered me and agreed to accept the

repudiation and i did not accept it. by arrogantly refused it. and i would hope -- by american league refused it. and i would hope that a settlement -- i arrogantly refused it. i would hope that a settlement is reached. whatever happens between the chief counsel and the rest of the members of the committee that he was negotiating with, i do not know the cause at this time. i do not care. let me conclude by saying this. had from the beginning this committee reported that biggest mistakes being

overzealous in trying to get scholarships for poor and minority kids to enter college in order to get involved in public careers, that i was overzealous, i would admit it -- i would admit that. had he said that rangel was sloppy in as much as i read -- relied on to many people for things that are my responsibility, i would have accepted that. for them to work for two years to come up with what i would have expected in two days, i guess, somehow i have to be thankful for. but i am at rest with myself and i am convinced that when the history of this has been written that people would

recognize that the vote for was a very, very political vote. and even though i do not compare my conduct with the conduct of my predecessor, the late and great legislator adam clayton powell, some of you know he was unconstitutionally expelled. because even though the congress has the right to judge the conduct of its members, adam clayton powell was expelled before he had an opportunity to become a member of the united -- and the united states supreme court said that the only thing you had to be sworn in as a

member was residence and citizenship. and they overturned that. but when i came to congress succeeding him, i could not find anyone who did not like adam clayton powell. friends of his that voted to expel him were telling me they wanted to be friends of mine because they appreciated and loved him. and i asked, how in the heck did he get kicked out by his colleagues if everyone loved him? his colleagues were not voting how they felt. they were voting how they felt their constituents would feel against them and some have said that voting against powell would have been political suicide. i do not accept that and i do not accept it now. but i do know there were any number of members that said what i have said to so many members,

that turley i love you -- that charlie, i love you, i'm with you. i've always been with you and i'm going to stay with you as long as i can. and the night was that night. so, i am relieved. my family is relieved. mike and unity is relieved -- my community is relieved. my constituents who voted, they are relieved. i refuse to answer any questions as relates to the facts in this case. i will try to be respectful of your job, and that is to answer -- to ask questions and i will try to respond. i hope you do not think enroute to -- i'm rude if i do not

answer a question as relates to facts because i have to find out specifically how i can speak to the press and enjoy the privileges of the floor, which my predecessor made a big mistake in dealing with a lot of things publicly that he could not prove, and therefore, paid a severe price. thank you for the courtesies that you have extended to me, at least most of you, in the days, weeks, and years. i will take a couple of questions. i hope you understand why this has been a long day. >> two weeks ago you said to me that you did not regret the fact that you, yourself referred yourself to the ethics committee in july. based on the outcome tonight and a very sound censure vote here,

do you regret that? >> he will be surprised at my answer to a very, very good question. the answer is, no, and the reason is note is because i cannot think of any way to put to rest the newspapers and television accounts that i was a crook, that i stole money, that i took bribes and was breaking the law and was living unlawfully in an apartment, that i was taking a permanent way from poor people, that i did not pay my taxes, that disclosure meant that i had property that i did not want people to know. so, i knew that rules were violated, but i also know that even though someone who i have more confidence in that i should have violated, i am ultimately responsible for it.

and i ultimately felt then, as i did up until the center was voted, that rankled -- up until the censure was voted, that rangel made mistakes. i can applaud this on its face or whatever, but what proved what i have when the chief prosecutor -- what proof would i have when the chief prosecutor looked over the guidance, listened to 40 witnesses, -- looked over the evidence, listened to 40 witnesses, looked over thousands of paper and said, no evidence of corruption. charlie rangel was guilty of sloppiness.

i leave here knowing that everyone knows i'm an honest guy. 1, 2, 3 and we knocked it off. >> will you serve out the rest of your term? and if so, will you run for reelection? >> culpepper was an 80-year-old member of congress, and a young reporter like nine asked him whether or not he was interested -- like you asked him whether or not he was interested in a lucrative opportunity and he looked the reporter in the eye and said, again lady, -- young lady, at my age i do not buy green bananas. [laughter] >> there has been criticism from

the floor tonight, essentially, comparing you to the average american citizen who, if they went through similar circumstances to yourself, they would be punished in the worst way. any response to that? >> what people are you from? >> "washington times." >> this criticism came from the floor? and they said what? but i'm just asking what your response is to the criticism comparing you to the average american citizen. >> i'm not a psychiatrist. i do not deal in average american citizen. i do not know what is average. i will come back to you when you think of a good question. >> after spending almost $2 million, to you not wish you may

a deal earlier? >> don't you understand this is the same question? i was not offered a deal earlier. and when i was offered a so- called deal, they do not hear me say that the deal was worked out by the council? did you hear that part? did you hear that i signed a deal? did you hear that someone other than he rejected it? >> -- other than me rejected it? >> [inaudible] >> no, in fact, i was -- if there was investigation for weeks and months and years, have they done that, we would not have run out of money. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not going to comment. dolle trump is an old friend. -- donald trump is an old

friend. he has said at times that i'm the best congressman not here, but in the entire world. he has the ability to say remarkable things. anything we do in the congress is political. >> you think that members of congress were voting what they thought their constituents want them to do rather than the facts? >> i thought i made that abundantly clear. >> you just talked around it. >> i don't want to talk around it. i tried to give it an analogy. they know it was unconstitutional for them to kick him out before he was allowed to sit. but they said that was too complicated to explain to their constituents back home. and i really think that most of you know that if it is too complicated to explain, and do not do it. but there were a lot of people

that, if you look at the districts that they came from, in a lot of cases the votes on the floor prevailed because they thought their constituents wanted wanted -- honesty and not something that makes them look like they were better than thou when, in fact, it related to someone else other than them. that is why i'm so pleased that the facts came out for the whole country to judge. i might have a headline tomorrow morning, "rangel found not guilty of corruption and double dealing." >> you admitted to so much already. >> you interrupted a point of was trying to make. that's ok. it is not a vote. it is not the evidence. it is not my admission. it is the sanctions.

come on, you understand that. we've got to knock it off. >> when you go back to congress, do you believe that because of your censure you will be diminished in any way as a lawmaker? the moment of censure, when you stood there in front of your colleagues, can you describe that? it is not something that happened in 30 years. >> to you have a license in psychometry or someplace i can go to discuss this with you? -- do you have a license in psychiatry or some place i can go to discuss this with you? thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we want to hear from you now on the house imposing center on

congressman charlie rangel. the numbers are on the screen. our first call is from howard, idaho, hello there. >> my first question from congressman rangel is, how many years does he think i would be in prison for evading taxes for 17 years? a despicable. host: thanks for your call. today was only the 23rd time in history that a house member received center. from lexington, ky. what do you think about what happened today? caller: 08, i'm sad. i'm really sad about what happened today.

i do not think he deserved the punishment. i think that he was treated unfairly compared to the actions of other house of representatives members. host: in what way? caller: it was a bit harsh, i think. i really think that if he was white he would not have gotten the same treatment. host: i'm sorry for cutting you off. a republican, from cleveland, tennessee. caller: i found representative rangel incredibly saltininsulti. and i find it interesting that he cannot see the irony in smirking while he cannot understand the common american

while he is elected to represent the common american. and i was certainly like to know what he thinks about snipes being voted to prison today. host: the house voted 333 in censure.in favor of cente jeremiah on the line. can you turn your tv down? caller: hang on a minute. host: we do not have much time. what is your comment? caller: why did it take so much time? how did he have 17 years of tax evasion and why are they bringing it up now? why is he not getting punished for that, too? host: thanks for calling in. mary from washington springs, wyoming. go ahead. caller: i do not think he was

treated right because he probably did not know how to fill out his taxes. his staff might have filled out his taxes and i do not know why they would make that illegal. host: a lot of people would say that he was chairman of the ways and means committee, which had jurisdiction over money matters. john, go ahead. caller: he was an actual slime ball. he basically gloated in front of the reporters. host: what did you see that made you think that? what kind of gloating did you see? caller: just the way he talked.

he talked down to people. what kind of psychological degree the you have? he talked around all of the questions. he never answered anything straight forward. host: a democrat from baltimore, amy. hi, amy. caller: i would like to say i think what was handled -- handed down to charlie rangel was very, to me, it was a reaction of -- he should have been treated more fairly. if a white person can do the things that they do and a black man gets in the position that he got in and served his country for all of those years, i mean, let's stop this tit-for-tat and taking in stuff like that.

let's be honest. he should not have gotten the attention that he suffered tonight. when you talk about people doing corruption and things of that nature, look at all of the big mortgage giants that exist and stole and have done everything they possibly could have done in these situations that we are in today and nobody is pointing a finger. a lot of people that should be in jail are still walking around and serving in senate office, and the white house and everywhere else. and nobody is saying nothing. it seems like it's getting to be really unfair. if we want a white world, then let's make a wide world. but do not treat black people as if they are in huma huma -- as if they are inhuman.

host: kim from manchester, connecticut. caller: i saw nothing but arrogance. i saw nothing about black or white. i saw a man speaking arrogance. he talks down to all of us common folk. arrogance, arrogance is all i could see. host: now we are going to sarah, brooklyn, new york. caller: i do not think that he is arrogant. i really think that he was treated unfairly. if you are going to judge everyone under the same rules and regulations, then do so. you cannot treat some -- you know, let them off the hook and then others give serious sanctions to. i do not think the punishment fits the crime. i do not think it has anything to do with race. vale,

virginia. what is your comment? caller: i believe and everybody being treated fair, and the person who called our president a liar to the whole world, and he got nothing. and here, this man has been dragged through everything for two years. but this person, the congressman from south carolina, i mean, he called the president -- he is respected the chair. he is respected the president in front of the whole world and he did not get nothing. but i'm not cloaking for roundy's. -- rahmness. -- if wrongness.

if turley weight -- if charlie rangel was wrong, then it was fair. host: next caller. what do you have to say about charlie rangel? caller: if a man is guilty, he is guilty. we need to stop looking at other and start looking at character. what he actually did, if he did it, it has nothing to do with his color. but for him to get on tv and act the way he did and talk to the people the way he did, he did not make himself sound like someone who was innocent. he made himself some like someone who was guilty. and he did not want to talk about it, so he tried to avoid it and he did not talk to people who were honest and giving him the chance to correct and tell his side of the story. host: our last call is from brian in manhattan, new york.

hello, brian. caller: i think that charlie rangel was treated very poorly. i have met him a few times and i've seen what he's done for the poor people here in the city. he is very well loved. ben stein wrote an article about him last week and on television he said he was an american hero. ben stein was a lawyer and an advocate. i have met charlie so many times and people love him. i think he got 80% of the district voteless last year. -- a vote this last year. i think he is very humble. i think he might have been overextended with some of these things. he may have had too many staff members.

host: we appreciate your time. that is all we have time for tonight. thanks for your calls. if you missed any coverage of charlie rangel today, go to c- span.org. >> in a few minutes, a hearing on the repealing of the don't ask, don't tell policy. and in a few hours, an extension of the bush era tax cuts. and the center of a house representative charlie rangel rears just before 5:30 a.m. eastern. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mike malone testified on capitol hill today. -- mike mullen testified

on capitol hill today. >> good morning everybody. of the committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the department comprehensive review of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. we will hear from secretary gates and chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen, as well as the cochairs of the department working group on this issue, defense department general counsel, jay johnson, and general carter hamm.

tomorrow, we will hear from the vice chairman of the joint chiefs and the service chiefs on this report. to examine this issue, the department launched an unprecedented effort to seek the views of our troops and their families. mr. johnson, general hamm, your approach in the report that you have delivered is evenhanded and respectful. you were given a very tough job. your performance is of great value to our country. it yesterday's hearing -- excuse me, today's hearing is part of the committee's own review of this issue. which has been before us for nearly a year. secretary gates and admiral mullen testified at a friday hearing on this policy on february 2. each of the service chiefs were asked for their views on an

annual hearing in the defense budget in march. and on march 18, the committee heard testimony from outside experts and testimony in support of as well as opposition. both the house of representatives and his committee have approved legislation that would repeal the statute underlying don't ask don't tell if the president, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the joint chiefs certify to congress that all of the following conditions have been met. a, they have considered the recommendations contained in the working group report and the report proposed plan of action. b, the department of defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell. and third, the implementation of

of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. upon such certification, repeal would take effect after 60 days. a time during which congress could review the department's action. this provision is included in the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2011, approved by this committee, and it is my hope that the senate will shortly take up this legislation. the requirement for the certification by the president, secretary of defense, and chairman of the joint chiefs is a key element of this legislation, as it ensures that a repeal of this policy would be conducted in an orderly manner with adequate opportunity to

prepare for a change. this 60-day requirement were included in an attempt by this alberta. the report before us provides important new evidence that the time for a change has come. it demonstrates that for the vast majority of our troops, this change would be no big deal. they believe that we can open our military to service by gay and lesbian service members who would no longer have to conceal their sexual orientation, and that we can do so without reducing our military effectiveness.

a large percentage of troops say they have already served with gay and lesbian co-workers who were affected coal workers of their units. -- affective co-workers of their units. i would add that if referendum were the basis for those who could serve, president truman would not have integrated the armed forces in 1948. and when as the working group points out, 8% or more of service members opposed racial integration. and in this case, while there has been a referendum, in working groups review gives us persuasive evidence that repeal is not a problem for most troops. as the cochairs rogan this report, "if the impact of

repeal is predominantly negative, that would have revealed itself in the course of our review." a change in policy, while needed, will not be without challenges. it the report provides important and useful recommendations to address those challenges. these recommendations focus on the importance of leadership, training, and education, and i support that focus. but in my view, one of the most striking findings of this report relates to the experiences of service members themselves. an overwhelming 92% of troops who have worked with a gay or lesbian co-worker say there was no negative effect on their units. the message here is that when troops have actually worked with someone that they believe is gay or lesbian, they learn that

those troops can get the job done. as the report states, "both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when service members have the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general, unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension." the report also states that, "much of the concern driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay service members were to be allowed to be open about their sexual orientation and we conclude that these gay and lesbian service members and are permitted to be open about their sexual orientation are exaggerated and not consistent with the reports of many service members." , in other words, real-world

experience is a powerful antidote to the stereotypes that are in major source of discomfort that some feel about ending the don't ask, don't tell. repeal of this policy would bring our military in line with some of our closest allies, including great britain and canada. the department's review found that resistance to openly gay and lesbian service members among troops in those countries was much higher at the time they changed their policies then it is in our military today, but they change their policies. and as the working group found, "the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption." most importantly, ending this discriminatory policy is the right thing to do. don't ask, don't tell is an

injustice to thousands of patriotic americans who seek only the chance to serve the country they love without having to conceal their sexual orientation. anyone who believes that maintaining this policy is necessary to preserve our military's fighting effectiveness should read this report. time and time again and throughout our history, our military has overcome obstacles to reflect the diversity of american society. and in doing so, our military has helped strengthen the fabric of our society while keeping us safe. we can and don't ask, don't tell, and maintain our military strength, respect our troops and their families, allow patriotic americans to serve their country without regard to sexual

orientation, and uphold the principle that service and advancement in our military are based on merit alone. again, i thank the witnesses for their impressive work and i call upon senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me also thank our distinguished witnesses for their service to our nation. i know that many people in our defense department and our armed services devoted countless hours in the preparation of this report. especially general hannahan mr. johnson. i would like to thank them -- general hammaren and mr. johnson. i would like to thank them for their work. the proposed repeal of the common law -- of the law, and read -- commonly referred to as don't ask, don't tell is no

different among the u.s. military, as the pentagon's report demonstrates. however, i think we can agree on a few facts as we begin this important hearing. we can all agree that our military today is the most effective, most professional, and arguably the most experienced force that our nation has ever had. we can all agree that we appreciate an honor the service of every american who wears the uniform of our country, as well as their families, especially during this time of war, regardless of whether they are straight or gay. and finally, i think we can all agree, and i certainly would, that is capable professional force of ours could -- and i emphasize could -- implement a repeal of don't ask, don't tell if ordered to, just as they so ably and honorably do everything else that is a cast of them. what i want to know and what is

the congress's duty to determine is whether or not we can -- is not whether or not we can repeat this law, but whether or not we should. is the fundamental issue that has to be determined by congress. it has to be answered carefully, deliberately, and with proper consideration for the complexity of the issue and the gravity of the potential consequences for our military and the wars in which we are engaged. the defense department has had 10 months to complete this report and the rand study that accompanies it. together, these reports and documentation contain over 1000 pages of data and material and analysis. the analysis committee received it 36 hours ago and my staff and i are still going through it and

analyzing it carefully, including the more than 72,000 comments that our service members provided to the working group. what i can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered in this report, troubled by the fact that this report only represent the input a a a 28% of the force who received a questionnaire, including completing out numerous members of the military in combat areas. that is only 6% of the force at large. i find it hard to view that as a fully representative sample set. but i am nonetheless waved the contents of this report on their merits. what appears clear up this time is that the survey and anecdotal data underlined this report did not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is no surprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue.

for example, i recognize that of those surveyed who report having worked with a gay or lesbian service members, 92% said their units' ability to work together was not negatively affected. among those in army combat units, 89% of respondents felt that way. 84% of respondents in marine combat units. however, we also learned that of those surveyed, 30% of the total, 43% of the marines, 40% of army combat units, and 50% of marine combat units believe that a repeal of the law would have a negative impact on their units' ability to "work together to get the job done." furthermore, 67% of marine and nearly 58% of army combat units believe the repeal of the law

would have negative consequences on unit cohesion and a field environment out at sea. this is supplemented by comments like these, "i believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. we are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more destruction -- distraction. this issue should be addressed at the appropriate time and that is not now." i believe that it is demonstrated in the study that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more questions there are about what impact the repeal of don't ask, don't tell would have on the ability of these units to perform their missions. these issues trip not be considered lightly, especially considering how much, that our forces are facing. additionally, i am concerned about the impact of a rush to

repeal one even this survey has found such a significant number of our service members feel it would impact the military effectiveness. as we move forward with our discussion on this matter, i hope that everyone will put aside political motives and agendas. i also hope that everyone on both sides will refrain from integrity. hipeople's finally, i hope there will recognize this is focus -- focus on our military and its effectiveness, not on broader social/issues at large. this is a complex issue that could have repercussions on our force as it is in gage in its 10th straight year of sustained combat, but a force that is performing exceptionally well. at this time we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product

of careful and deliberate consideration. i'm not saying this law should never change. i'm simply saying that it may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by congress. it for of all the people we serve -- for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibility is to the men and women in our armed services cannot -- armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain, members of the committee, this past tuesday, the department released the high level working group report dealing with the issues of the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law, and based on those findings to develop implementations for recommendation. the report's findings reflect nearly 10 months of research and

analysis, along several lines of study, and represents the most thorough and objective review ever of this issue and its impact on the american military. first, the group reach out to be forced to better understand their views and attitudes about the potential repeal of the don't ask, don't tell law. this out reach was not a matter of taking a poll of the military to determine whether the law should be changed. the president of the united states made his position on this matter clear, a position i support. our job at the department of defense has been to determine how to best prepare for this change should the congress change the law. nonetheless, i thought it critically important to engage military members and their families on this issue.

ultimately, it will be they who will determine whether or not such a transition will be successful. this out rich included a survey of questionnaires answered by tens of thousands of troops and their families, which mr. canson and general hammare address in more detail. as a result of a survey, more than two-thirds do not object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform. with the exception of some combat specialties, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, though disruptive in the short term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that may have feared and predicted. second, the working group also examined the early all of the potential changes to the department's regulations and policies. as the cochairs will explain, the majority of concerns often raised in association with the repeal of dealing with sexual conduct, fraternization, marital

or survival benefits could be governed by existing laws and regulations. existing policies can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. the key to success, as with most things milli terry -- military is training, and above all leadership up and down the chain of command. third, the working group looked at the impact on the change of the law on military readiness, unit cohesion and other issues critical to the force. in my view, getting this category ready is the most important thing we must do. the united states armed forces are in the middle of two overseas campaigns, a complex and critical drawdown in iraq, and a war in afghanistan. the working group concluded that overall, and with thorough preparation, there is little

risk from repealing don't ask, don't tell. however, as i mentioned earlier, the survey data shows a higher proportion of between 40% and 60% of those troops serving in predominantly all male combat specialties, mostly army and marines, but including special operations and formations of the navy and the air force, predicted a negative impact on repealing the current law. the chiefs will have the opportunity to provide their expert military advice to the congress tomorrow, as they have to me and to the president. their perspective deserve serious concernattention and consideration as it reflects decades of sentiment of many senior officers. in my view, the concerns of combat troops as expressed in the survey do not present any

insurmountable barrier to a successful repeal of don't ask, don't tell, which can be done and to be done without imposing a serious risk to military readiness. however, these findings to lead me to conclude -- i do leave me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required to avoid disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on those who are serving at the tip of the spirit in america's wars. -- the tip of the spear in americans wars. a series of steps must take place. the last step by the secretary of defense and chairman of jemaah -- joint chiefs. the new laws and regulations must be consistent with standards of readiness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. now that we have completed this

review, i strongly urge the senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of the year. i believe this has become a matter of some urgency because as we have seen in the past few months, the judicial branch is becoming involved in this issue, and is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray. should this happen, there is the real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat, by far the most disruptive and in imaging scenario i can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance. therefore, i believe it is important, as senator mccain put it in his opening remarks that the question of whether the law should be repealed is a matter for the congress to decide. i believe the change should come through legislative means,

that is, legislative reform from the review does completed. by means of a process that is well prepared and well considered intimidation. above all, a process that is representative toof the people of the united states. given the circumstances, those who choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice in the courts. i believe we should push ahead for repeal before the force can -- before the force can be prepared for change. we can work on training and leader development and that provides a solid road map for a successful implementation for repeal. the department has already made a number of changes to regulations that when existing in law, provide more exacting procedures for separating troops

for suspected homosexual conduct, changes that added more common sense to a dangerously legal -- dangerous and legally fraud process. this is the second time i have dealt with this issue as a leader in public life. a prior case being at cia in 1992 when as director, i ordered that openly gay applicants be treated as all other applicants. that is, whether as individuals they met our competitive standards. that was and is a significantly different situation in circumstance and consequence than that confronting the armed forces today. the use of gays and lesbians has changed considerably during this time and has grown more accepting since the don't ask, don't tell was first enacted. feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide starkly not only in society as a

whole, but among uniformed ranks as well. for this reason, i would ask that as congress takes on this debate, for all involved to resist the urge to lower our military and their families into the politics of the issue. what is called for is a careful and considered approach, an approach that to the extent possible welcomes all for qualified and capable to serve their country in uniform, but one that does not undermine at a pace or dogmatism those attributes that make the u.s. -- out of haste or dogmatism those attributes that make the u.s. military the strongest in the world. thank you. >> thank you. admiral allen. >> my personal views on this issue remain unchanged. i'm convinced that repeal of the law governing don't ask, don't tell is the right thing to do.

back in february when i testified to the sentiment my also said that the men and women of the unit -- of the armed forces could accommodate such a change, but i did not know it for a fact. now i do. what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. repeal of the law will not an unacceptable risk to our military units. families will not encourage our loved ones to leave this service in droves. i do not discount for a moment the findings of the johnson/hamm .urvey i do not find the concern's trivial or inconsequential. nor do i believe we can afford to ignore them. we would do well to pay heed and move forward in a deliberate and

measured manner. whatever risks there may be in the repeal of this law, is greatly mitigated by the fear of implementation plan included in this study. the time to carry antonette effective, plan and inspirational leadership. these are the things that i know for a fact. inow let me tell you what i believe. i believe our troops and their families are ready for this. most of them already believe they serve for have served alongside gays and lesbians, and knowing means a lot. those who said they knew are more consistently positive in the assessment of the impact of repeal across all dimensions -- cohesion, effectiveness, retention, even privacy concerns. our families feel the same. most of our spouses no levies one gay lesbian and very few of them believe -- know at least

one day or lesbian and very few of them believe repeal the law would detract from the service. i have served in the military my whole career. i went to war with them off the coast of vietnam. i knew they were there. they knew i knew it. and what's more, everyone in the crew knew it. we never missed a mission and never failed to deliver an ordinance on target. readiness was not an issue. what made us a crew was team work and focus on a combat mission. back then, of course, it was a different time. society on the call was not accepting and as tolerant as they are now. we had not speak much of how little it matter that the sale next year was gay. but america has moved on. and if you look closely i think he will find the american

military is by and large ready to move on as well. should repeal occur, some soldiers and marines may want a separate shower facilities. some may ask for different berthing. some may even quit the service. we will deal with that. but i believe, and history tells us, that most of them will put aside personal declivities for something larger than themselves and for each other -- personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other. there is a bond brought by a common threat of the in a jeep -- enemy, and by the threat of peril. numerous soldiers have died willingly, writes jay glenn gray in his book, not for country or daughter or religious faith or any abstract good, but because they realize that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves they will expose

their companions to greater danger. it is those greater dangers that still motivate the heroism and combatship our troops provide today. that is why i believe that it will have less impact than some critics. in fact, it may be the combat arms community that proved most effective in managing this change, disciplined as they are. it is not only because our young ones are more tolerant. it is because they have far more important things to worry about. nonmilitary spirits would seem to bear that out. in no instance was their widespread panic or mass resignations or wholesale disregard for discipline and restraint. some will argue we are different, of course.