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 afgha

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 en

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 en

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 en

they have been working hard to figure out the component parts, but adds cindy said, congresswoman lofgren's staff is ready to put the pieces together. i cannot tell you what his bill will look like, what senator schumer's bill will look like. what i can say it is all those pieces work together to ultimately come up with something that is hopefully, at least, something that we can create a foundation from. comprehensive immigration reform has to be broad enough to make -- give us the foundation to build more, but i do not think it will be done at that point. there will be a lot of issues that will not happen in the first go round that will need to be perfected, but me to do enough to turn immigration into something that is not so politicized and is more about really getting down to the problems. i wanted to address briefly some by pointing out, you cannot always tell what will happen based on one set of votes. in the dhhs appropriations bill for 2010, in the senate, and there were a lot of horrible amendments to make e-verify mandatory, inshore every inch of the fence was real, we get ensure

more like experts when we quote his research three-time representing the office of congresswoman zoe lofgren. i was told to talk a little bit about our personal connection to immigration. i think that's easy for me. i'm the only person in my family born in the united states. my family is from mexico did my grandfather was recruited to work here in the united states during world war ii. my father emigrated here. i sister and my mother emigrated in 1967. we have very different experiences for all three of those members of my family. in my entire professional life, i was looking back. i've always been around immigration law. i am proud that it has been so. someone asked me if i ever regretted been so focused on that. i said i did not do it on purpose. somebody just told me once to do what you love and everything will work out. i'm pleased to say that it has. we were told to give our perspective a little bit. it's hard not to speak personally about comprehensive immigration reform and what it means. i had the privilege to work on some of the most meaningful cases to me. i know it's the one place

at that time it received the support of both chairwoman lofgren and ranking member king, both of whom i would also like to thank. however, at that point there were some objections to doing a private bill in the other body, and so at the direction of the staff of the judiciary committee, both majority and minority, we attempted to do an amendment to the defense bill. however some of the people on the rules committee, while supporting the bill, did not feel it was germane to the defense bill which we also had to agree with, but we were doing that at the direction of others. but i also would like to thank congressman mcgovern, the gentleman from massachusetts, because hearing about this at the rules committee he took a special and personal interest in this bill also. we then passed the -- we introduced a general bill, once again working with the staff of the judiciary committee, who i would also -- whom i would also like to thank, and that bill was passed last month in the house, but we ran into some objections here, and that's why we are back here today on this private relief bill. hota

lofgren: thank you, mr. speaker. the immigration subcommittee which i chair held 17 hearings in 2007 to examine every aspect of immigration reform and one of the most memorable in the series of hearings was the hearing on the plight of undocumented young people who have been brought to the united states as children, including cam tren who tragically later lost her life in an auto accident. they grew up in the united states, attended american high schools, often knowing no other country as home, no language other than english, yet they were faced with the dead end once they graduated from high school. their immigration status prevented them from working, paying taxes, serving in the military. they could never get right with the law, even though they had done nothing wrong, the only thing they had done was to obey their parents. the dream act would allow these young people to apply for conditional immigration status with a series of conditions and would allow these young people to step forward, register, pay their taxe

the committee's chairwoman-- california democrat sow lofgren-- made the case on the house floor today. >> in making its recommendation, 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, merit ago strong congressional response rebuking his behavior. for violations related to the payment of taxes, 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 highly visible and influential positions as both chairman and ranking member of the ways and means committee. it brought discredit to the house when this member-- with great responsibility for tax policy-- did not fully pay his taxes for many years. >> woodruff: then it was rangel's turn. he defended his 40-year house career and insisted he never intended to do anything wrong. >> i stand to say that i have made serious mistakes. i asked for fairness none of the presidents of the history of this great country

lofgren for bringing this legislation to the floor. for 30 debate time minutes, we have heard the other side's arguments and so many of them have been filled with scare tactics and blatant inaccuracies . we have been working on this bill for nearly a decade. we have recently made a number of changes to make clear our intentions about who the bill should cover and who it shouldn't. nearly every speaker on the other side has used the term amnesty. think about that. amnesty, amnesty, amnesty. if you scare it enough, you can scare a lot of people against this bill. we are talking about a group of people who didn't do anything wrong. they didn't possess the intention to commit a crime or to cross the border illegally. they were brought here. this is a universe of people who deserve special consideration because the absence of wrongdoing is so clear and for that you are using the term amnesty? that's out jage rouseous. we hear scare tactics like chain migration. they say, once we give them this status will be able to petition for adult sibli

lofgren and lamar smith as well for your efforts in this regard and your diligence in getting this to the floor today. i also, madam speaker, want to thank the many adoptive families, members of the international adoption community and others who have worked behind the scenes to spur action today. thanks to this outreach of so many concerned americans, congress is finally doing the right thing here to help as many as 1,200 voiceless and vulnerable haitian orphans and their adoptive american families. we can now give these new families who have endured so much heartbreak and tragedy the comfort of thing their children's legal status is now in good order. many of us receive heartbreaking calls for help in the wake of the january 12 earthquake. american families in various stages, as we've heard, of adopting haitian orphans fear for the safety and security of their children. extraordinary work was done swiftly to evacuate these children and unite them with their new families on u.s. soil, yet instead of coming here as fully adopted u.s. citizens, these children did arrive under a legal s

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. he

we'll be joined during the trial lawyer our colleagues, and johnson, jim sensenbrenner and zoey lofgrenxtraordinary proceeding that says how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. i think this is a reflection of several things not the least of which the caliber of men and women who were nominated for the federal bench the vast majority of which occlude themselves with great distinction and not given cause for their removal from office. i think it's also a tribute to the confirmation process that is a good job in putting out those who are not suitable for the bench. and i also think it's a reflection of how infrequently the house believes this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning in discussing the standard for impeachment, the high crimes and misdemeanors. there will be time for that later. more than that, i think the members of this committee understand that standard better than i or anyone else could articulate. but i will share at least in my view one of the formulations i think the house and senate have arrived on in considering judicial impeachments.

waters: members also indicated they believe that our colleagues who led the ethics committee, zoe lofgren and jo bonner, fundamentally share our commitment to justice and fairness despite the circumstances which have led us here today. this is a view that i share as well. although the committee is built on secrecy and confidentiality, it should have the ability to be flexible and provide transparency in extraordinary circumstances. this is one such extraordinary circumstance when the house as a whole and the public need the committee to review information so we can have confidence in the process. those who know me know i am aggressive by nature and philosophy. i believe that it is important that we be relentless about our constant search for truth and justice. but here upon the advice of my colleagues whom i trust and admire, i'm not pushing for a vote on this resolution today. i'm -- in doing so, however, i'm requesting that the committee set the record straight on its own accord, in a bipartisan manner with the joint statement signed by the chair and ranking member as provided by its ru

i will be joined during the trial by our colleagues hank johnson, jim sensenbrenner and joe lofgren tour also assisted by some very able counsel, alan bern, market investor, and kirsten cohen are. at the outset, the house recognizes one extra day preceding this is, how seldom an impeachment is undertaken. i think this is a reflection of several things, none the least of which the caliber of the men and women who are nominated for the federal bench. and not given cause for the removal from office. i think it's also a tribute to the confirmation process that does a good job in setting up those who are not suitable for the bench. and i also think it's a reflection of how intricately the house believes that this extraordinary remedy is required. i won't spend much time this morning in discussing the standard for impeachment content of high crimes and misdemeanors. there will be time for that later. more than that, i think the mentors of this committee understand that standard better than i or anybody else could articulate. but i will share at least in my view one of the formulations i think

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 our rules simply require any member desiring to raise funds