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. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> the house of representatives the end of the 3 1/33-792 century democratic rep charles rangel of new york. they found a 21-term veteran guilty on 11 charges of financial misconduct. at that vote, rep rebels but to the house for several minutes.

-- after that vote, charles rangel spoke to the house for several minutes. 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 reang of this resolution by the speake and that representative rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities of the u.s. treasury for any unpaidstimated taxes outlined in exhibition o-66 on income received from this property in

dominicarepublic 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 this body. having said that and having my opportunity to do what i wanted to do initially and that is to make certain that this body and this country would know that at no time has it ever entered my mind to enrich myself or to do violence to the honesty that's expected of all of us in this house. i think that has been proven and that has been what i'vbeen asking for and that's why i've admitted to mistakes and was 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 iruly 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 apologize 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 >> after speaking on the floor, a representative charles rangel met with reporters for 20 minutes.

>> i don't think i need to many talking points. wow. at long last this two-year nightmare is over. and as i stated on the floor, i am 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 devoted to their districts -- voted their districts with all 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, 60 years ago, i did not think i would be alive. as a matter of fact, as i said a november 6, i was pretty certain it was all over. but because i was able to survive the combat situation, i am here, i am strong, and i made up about not to complain about any events that have happened

because for my career, from a guy from lenox avenue who still lives on 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 this business about confidentiality. could not talk about the case. as most of you know, and i think i am correct in saying although i don't have council, i am not restricted by anything in talking about this case. as i said two years ago, i have not and never and there is not any evidence that i did anything

to enrich myself or anything corrupt or done anything to sell my office or sell the congress or anything that involved intent to deceive or avoid my taxes or any disclosures. of course, having too many people do too many things in terms of the staff and accountants and disclosures, which i signed. i relied too much on staff which, in my opinion, falls far below the standard that i set for members of congress. it was wrong. it was a mistake. there is no question that i was prepared then and now to not blame anyone but myself for the mistakes that i have made as it

relates 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 have not tried to have sex with minors. i did not steal any money. i tried to help city college. it has been hard for me to get some of the people in the press to say that out of the 13 charges, seven of them are related to win the event. -- to one event. if you have no intent to violate house rules as it relates to encouraging people to make donations to charities if yous perfectly legal

follow the rules. as i did.eak the rolule i did not try to get resources for me but public resources for public institution to encourage education. that one big mistake caused me to send out letters on my stationery, to get the names of foundations that were concerned with the educational projects, and not to ask them for money but you bet your life encourage them to meet with the people at city college. the ego in doing this because i wanted an institution named after me, if you photographers have enough pell left, i wish you'd go to 41st street where this institution would have dared my name. it is a broken down abandoned

for over 15 years brownstone that is in chains. it is not that i would have embarrassed the congress tor the ccny to have my name placed on it, but i was heartily campaigning to put my name 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 rent stabilization law. somebody in the press has to either read the law or contest the reporters or do something. i will spend a little time on that later. i don't think i will. i don't think it rises to the extent that reporters knowingly should be responded to by me publicly.

council said there was no violation of the rent stabilization block as it relates to where me and my family live. as been no violation of any law. as it relates to put a campaign office in the same building that i was in, the lease was between the landlord and the meat and if he put residents down there and i violated the lease, the testimony of my landlord would say that the apartment was empty and he wanted rent and the rent was paid by the rangel for congress committee. he was happy and gave permission for staff to renovate and do with campaign offices do. he had no complaints. the law was not broken as it relates to the rent stabilization laws. the benefit was not at all. it appeared as though i might have received a benefit.

read the language, please, because they say i don't receive a direct benefit but it appeared as though this arrangement was a favor or benefit to me. at no time did anybody nor was it alleged, receive any benefits from may and the ways and means committee or any legislation before the house. i guess i am still bound by some sense of confidentiality when i asked a lawyer. what happens in the proceedings before the statement of alleged violations cannot be discussed but the whole idea that they would say that they offered me an agreement that would accept the repudiation and i did not accepted and by arrogantly refused it, i hope, after i reminded the chairlady and you heard her say that a settlement

had been reached between me and that nonpartisan, bipartisan attorney and that the reprimand was recommended and charlie rangel side it. --signed it. what ever happened between the chief counsel and the rest of the members of the committee that he was negotiating with, i don't know and at this time i don't care. let me conclude by saying this -- had from the beginning this committee had reported that biggest mistake was being overzealous in trying to get money for scholarships, for poor and minority kids, to enter college in order to get

involved in public careers, that i was overzealous, i would have admitted that had he said, too, rangel was sloppy in that i depended on to the people which was basically my responsibility, i would have accepted that. for them to work for two years to come up with what i would have accepted 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 don't compare my conduct with the conduct of my predecessor, the late and a great legislator adam clayton powell, some of you know that he was unconstitutionally and 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 and the united states supreme court said that the only thing you have to be sworn in as a member is a residence and citizenship. they overturned that. but when i came to congress succeeding him, i could not find

anyone that did not like adam clayton powell. friends of his that voted to expel him were telling me that they want to be friends of mine because they appreciated and loved him. i asked how in the heck did he get kicked out by his colleagues if everyone loved him? his colleagues were not voting have they felt. they were voting how they thought their constituents would feel against them buried in the voting against palle would have been political suicide. i did that accepted then and i don't accept it now but i do know that there were any number of members who said what i have said to so many others. charlie, i love you, i am with you, i have always been with you, and i will stay with you as long as i can.

and so i am relieved. my family is relieved. my community is relieved. my constituents that voted me an office overwhelmingly knowing the climate that was taking place down here, they are relieved. while i refused to answer any questions as it relates to the facts in this case, i will try to be respectful of your job and that is to ask questions and i will try to respond. i hope you don't think i am route if i doubt answer questions as it relates to the 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 civil and political prize. thank you for the courtesies you have extended to me, most of view, over the days, weeks, and years. i will take a couple of questions but you could understand why this has been along but de. >> two weeks ago, you said to me that you did not regret that you yourself referred to yourself the ethics committee in 2008. based on the outcome tonight on a very sound censure vote, but do you regret that now two weeks later? >> you would be surprised that my answer to a very, very good question. the answer is no and the reason

it is no is i could not think of any way to put to rest the newspapers and television accounts that i was a crook and stole money and i took bribes that i was breaking the law, that i was living unlawfully in an apartment, that i was taking apartment away from poor people, that i did not pay my taxes, that disclosure meant i had property that i did not want people to know. i knew that rules were violated but i also know that even though someone who i had more confidence in that i should have by letting them, i knew i would be ultimately held responsible. i really felt then that as a way felt up until centre was voted rangel had made mistakes in good conscience and without intense and without evidence

that i did anything to self in rich. i could have talked and said this until maybe i was blue in the face but what prove what i have had when the chief prosecutor looked over all of the evidence, listened to 40 witnesses, 30,000 pages of testimony, and enter to a question he said, no evidence of corruption, a self enrichment, rangel was guilty of overzealousness and sloppiness. it is not a heavy thing to ask. i wish the question was not raised but, no, i leave here knowing that everybody knows i am an honest guy. 1, 2, 3 and will not get up.

>> will use are about the rest of your term and will you run for reelection? >> cord pepper was an 80-year- old member of congress. a young reporter like you ask whether or not he was interested in a lucrative investment opportunity. claude looked the reporter in the eye and said," young lady, at my age, i don't buy green bananas." >> there has been criticism from the floor tonight essentially comparing you to the average american citizen who if they went through similar circumstances such as yourself they may be punished in a worse

way. what is your response to that? >> what neighbor are you from? >> "the washington times. >> this criticism came from the floor? the floor can't speak. who said what? >> i am asking what response to the criticism about -- a in averagedeal american citizens. isizens, i don't know what average. i don't think -- i will come back to you when you can't get a good question. >> after fighting this for two years and spending almost $2 million, do not wish you had taken the deal earlier? >> that is the same question. i was not offered a deal earlier and when i was offered a so- called deal, did you hear me say that the deal was worked out by

the council, nonpartisan council? did you hear that part? did you hear that i signed a deal? did you hear that someone else other than the rejected it? >> was it ever discussed? >> no, as a matter of fact i was asking for conclusion of the investigation four weeks and months and year. had they done that, we never would have run out of money. >> if anyone else had these kind of transgressions against them, they would go to jail. >> i don't believe that was said. don trump is an old friend and has attended receptions. he said i was the best culberson in the entire world. he has a flair for saying remarkable things. i will just accept the nice things he said about me. >> you said this was a

political budget. >> anything we do in the congress is political. >> do you think the members of congress who took both work voting what their constituents what advantage do rather than themselves? >> i thought i made that abundantly clear. >> you talked around it. >> i want to talk around it. i tried to give an analogy. people love adam clayton powell and they knew it was unconstitutional to take him out before he was allowed to set our they said that was too complicated to explain to their constituents back column. i really think that most of you know that if it is too complicated to explain, don't do it. there were many people, if you look and see the districts they came from, honesty prevailed because they thought their constituents wanted honesty and not something that would make someone look like they were

battered thou when in fact -- a better than thou. i am glad the facts came out for the whole country to judge. perhaps then the newspaper's might have a headline tomorrow morning "rangel found not corruption and self dealing." >> why would it be a political votes? >> you interrupted a point of trying to make. it is not the evidence. it is not my admission. it is the sanctions. come on, you understand that. >> when you come back here next week, do you believe you'll be

in any way diminished as a lawmaker? >> charlie rangel is charlie rangel. >> when you stood there in front of your colleagues, can you describe what you were thinking and what it was like? that is that happen to anybody in 30 years? >> do you have a license and psychiatrist? as you think i will discuss this with you? thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, today's headlines and your phone calls live on "washington journal." also live at the cost 30, the national debt commission votes on its final recommendations. -- live at 9:30, the national debt commission but of its final run commissions. in half an hour, we will look at the meeting of the president's debt commission. debt commission.