mr. chisam heard, i think that perhaps the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person but more in line when mr. butterfield asked a question of blake chisam, the ethics chief counsel, do you have any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption? and blake chisam asked, i see no evidence of corruption said blake chisam in response to representative butter field's question. do you believe that based on the record that congressman rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in congress? no. i believe that the congressman quite frankly was overzealous in many things he did and sloppy in his personal finances. this statement is nothing for me to be proud of. this statement makes me believe that a lot should have been done and i recognize that and admitted that. but it would really help and i don't think it's out of line, if the committee did the same before that you could put in that report, no matter whatç y agree the sanctions would be, that your member was not corrupt and did not seek and did not gain anything personally for the bad conduct that i've had. that's a

mr. chisam, you were asked earlier by mr. butterfield if he had received personal financial benefits on the issue of corruption. i would like to polo the summary judgment if i could, page 59. is that available on the screen? >> i do not think we have that. >> mr. chisam, if you would like to refer to page 59 of your motion for summary judgment. the first full paragraph, the sentence says, "donations to the rental center where a benefit to the respondent." it's like a drop down to the fourth paragraph on page 59 it said, "the respondents received benefits for himself. he received a place to house papers i would ask, do these things refer to papers that have a value? >> they do have a value in my judgment. the physical location for the center has never been built. he has never donated his papers because he is still in congress. do i think it has value? absolutely. it is a little hard to measure at the moment, but i do believe those would have a value. >> and if we're talking about cash from monetary contributions, that has an e

mr. chisam would have told you that city college came to me. they were looking for the ability to use my name for this school. had the witnesses been here, it would have been made abundantly clear that i was not trying to criminally hide anything from the irs or from the congress. if you looked at the records of disclosure, you would see, sloppiness would have shown that i was not hiding anything, it just was not properly recorded. if intent is involved with corruption, -- listen, there is nothing i can imagine that anyone could make a contribution to city college that somehow or other that matter would not be one that could possibly become -- come before the congress. it is impossible. i am satisfied with the record that the investigatory committee established. that would lead you to believe as a former prosecutor that never was their intent to hide anything from my constituents or from the irs. and so to me, if you are going to take this up to not properly abiding by the rules, which i admit are serious enough, that is serious enough, but i r

mr. chisam heard, i think that perhaps the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person. but more in line with what was said. when mr. butterfield asked the question of blake chisam, the ethics chief counsel, do you have any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption ? and blake chisam asked, i see no evidence of corruption, said blake chisam, in response to representative butterfield's question. do you believe based on the record that your -- that congressman rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in congress? no. i believe that the congressman quite frankly was overzealous in many of the things he did and sloppy in his personal finances. . this statement makes me believe that a lot should have been done and i admitted that. but it would really help and i don't think, if the committee didn't say before that you could put in that report no matter what you agree the sanctions to be that your member was not corrupt and did not seek and did not gain anything personally for the bad conduct that i've had. that's all i've ever asked when i referred

mr. chisam heard, i think that perhaps the atmosphere would not be that i was a bad person. but more in line with what was said. when mr. butterfield asked the question of blake chisam, the ethics chief counsel, do you have any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption ? and blake chisam asked, i see no evidence of corruption, said blake chisam, in response to representative butterfield's question. do you believe based on the record that your -- that congressman rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in congress? no. i believe that the congressman quite frankly was overzealous in many of the things he did and sloppy in his personal finances. . >> i assume that when you go into executive session, you compare when people were personally enrich and when there was no question the corruption existed. i brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share who are was. i felt awkward in giving some serving statements as to how i've dedicated my life to my country and to this congress and to my community. and i know that if i had council he

mr. chisam. madame chair, i will renew my motion to submit items one through 549 at this time. >> those items will be entered into the record. do you have additional motions? >> i do, madam chair. at this point, i would like to introduce what has been marked as exhibit 550, 551, 552, and 553. 551 is the exhibit of meal ruler. thus the affidavit -- >> the affidavit from ivan seinberg. we are prepared to call witnesses in this matter. throughout the course of preparation and recent days, we have entered into -- witnesses have offered affidavits. in fact, and at least one of these instances, suggested changes to the language that we negotiated and we agreed to. at this time, i would move the admission of these. >> there is a motion to put those affidavits into the record. is there objection? if not, the items by unanimous consent will be put into the record. i would also note that we have received this morning a letter from congressman bobby scott along with a document entitled "minority viewpoint."

mr. chisam. madame chair, i will renew my motion to submit items one through 549 at this time. >> those items will be entered into the record. do you have additional motions? >> i do, madam chair. at this point, i would like to introduce what has been marked as exhibit 550, 551, 552, and 553. 551 is the exhibit of meal ruler. thus the affidavit -- >> the affidavit from ivan seinberg. we are prepared to call witnesses in this matter. throughout the course of preparation and recent days, we have entered into -- witnesses have offered affidavits. in fact, and at least one of these instances, suggested changes to the language that we negotiated and we agreed to. at this time, i would move the admission of these. >> there is a motion to put those affidavits into the record. is there objection? if not, the items by unanimous consent will be put into the record. i would also note that we have received this morning a letter from congressman bobby scott along with a document entitled "minority viewpoint."

mr. chisholm to introduce your team and to make your motion for the admission of evidence. >> on a chair, ranking member mccaul, members of the subcommittee, representative rangel. my name is blake chisam and chief counsel for the committee. to my right is deborah morris, counsel to the committee. into my left is donald sherman, also counsel to the committee. at this time, madam chair, i would move to introduce exhibits one to 549 into the record. >> is there objection? >> well, madam chair, if it pleases, with all due respect, i'm not in a position to pass judgment on what counsel is about to do. i've never known that this proceeding even existed of summary judgment if this is what he's about to do. any voyeur i have talked with have said that this committee has no history at all. >> if i may interrupt, mr. rangel, just to clarify this, we were noticed, as were you as this motion. i would like to make clear, however, that we will hear the motion, the argument from the committee counsel and whatever argument you may choose to make, but that if you wish to be heard in an opening statement, if you wish to proceed with witnesses, we will hold any ruling on the motion in advance so if you