you going to pay? the tricky part for the democrats and the white house is to make clear what they want to do, they want to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthy. just like they said on the campaign trail six years ago. it's not a democratic policy but so easy for republicans to frame this as an across-the-board tax cut and as we know from walter mondale and george bush 41. raising taxes is a good way to lose. >> let me conclude, congressman kevin mccarthy said if the democrats control but much more narrow, he contends there could be a fight for the speakership within the democrats. it may not be nancy pelosi. have you heard talk along those lines? >> there are always rumors to that fact. it's not entirely clear that will happen. a lot of republicans are trying to drum up a controversy on the democratic side. if the democrats lose their majority, certainly i think pelosi may face a face for the minority leader position with steny hoyer or any other ambitious lower ranking lawmaker. her days may be numbed if top leadership of the democrats want cold onto the majority. >> let's say that that does happen and the republicans in a year which many people thought would take control, could you see a fight for congressman boehner's position? could there be a fight within the republican leadership? >> potentially. eric cantor and john boehner, while they get along publicly, i'm not sure they are best of friends and there is some rivalry there. but i think that cantor may -- it depends on what eric cantor has in mind for his own political ambitions. 2012 there is a senate race against jim webb in virginia and may throw his hat in the rining ring for that or he may want to put out his name for a perspective v.p. slot. i'm throwing out speculation. those are all things that i'm certain they will be calculated as to whether or not boehner needs to be challenged. >> let me ask you over the white house, the longest serving cabinet member is defense secretary gates. as to any sense he will stay or step down or are there others that may leave the white house? >> we will start seeing significant movement within senior staff after november because it's an exhausting job. but also, they are going to have to ramp up for the campaigns and decisions as to who goes where, chicago or washington, to run the re-election effort. secretary gates, i can't imagine how worn out he is especially while fighting two wars. he hasn't given any indication he is leaving immediately but i think he will hand the keys over to someone else. >> our journalists, thank you both for joining us here on "newsmakers." thank you and have a good day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> daniel webster used to use it. >> harry truman in 1939 when he said he hated this movie and at the time harry truman was seen as a senator from kansas city and i wonder if he didn't think at that point at least that the movie was looking at him and his relationship with the political machine back home. tonight on washington movies and his book "u.s. congress" tonight on c-span. >> monday, secretary of state hillary clinton delivers a speech on the global health initiative a centerpiece on obama's foreign policy and expression of u.s. values and leadership in the world. secretary clinton will describe the global health initiatives core principles and calls on governments, organizations and individuals to join the united states in pursuing a sustainable approach for delivering essential health services to more people. live coverage on monday at 11 pisme 30 a.m. monday on c-span. >> new york democrat charles rangel said tuesday he is not resigning despite 13 charges of ethical wrongdoing. the former ways and means committee chairman told the house that he made mistakes, but that he is not corrupt. congressman rangel made his comments from the house floor in between votes when most of the members were there. it's about a half hour. re re-- i retire or remove myself from this body and i've always tried to play by the rules and i cannot think of anybody that has encouraged me to speak here . and i want to thank all of you who are concerned about me for saying that, you know, a guy's a fool to represent himself as some of the people have said. but i have been losing a lot of sleep over these allegations and my family and community. some of these rules that they have is that i'm restricted by confidentiality, but for years i have been saying no comment, no comment, no comment to a lot of serious allegations because i could not comment and i would refer them to the ethics committee. and when the ethics committee finally brought out their statement of alleged violations, it was a long list of things, and somehow the chairman of the subcommittee of investigation indicated that i had received a lot of offers to settle this thing so that it would not cause embarrassment to my democratic friends. and that i'd been offered a reprimand. and a lot of people kind of felt that sounded like a wonderful opportunity to remove this so that i could leave the congress with some degree of dignity. why, even some people said that the president had suggested that his life might be made easier if there was no charlie rangel, so-called, scandal. but i interpreted it another way. i think when the president said that he wanted me to end my career in dignity, he didn't put a time limit on it, and i would think that his concern would be that if any member of the house of representatives has been accused of serious crimes or allegations that somehow within the process, even though -- there has to be some process in which the member has an opportunity to tell his constituents, his family and his friends what he didn't believe. so when the chairman of the investigating committee said i have been offered a settlement reminded me of something that i will devote my retiring years the science and education, which is the major thrust of my attempt here, is that those of you that come anywhere near criminal court, we have a terrible thing that happens throughout these united states and that is that someone gets arrested for a very serious crime and they get their lawyer and the lawyer explains that i think it's better that you plead guilty to a lesser crime. he says, well, i'm not only not guilty but i don't even know what's involved here. they said, listen, we're not suggesting if you plea guilty if you're innocent, but i think you ought to know this judge if you're found guilty is going to send you away for 20 years. on the other hand you have no offenses, you're a first offender, and if you could just forget about this thing and explain later what happens. so he continues to tell the -- his lawyer that, hey, i'm willing to admit what i've done wrong and i've done some things wrong but i shouldn't have to -- anyway, he says, listen, we would never tell you to quit or resign. we are telling you that it would be easier for us that this is not an issue. but knowing the president, as i do, i think he believes dignity means that everybody is entitled to be judged for allegations against them. we come back to this house because the speaker has called us here in order to make certain that we provide resources for governors and mayors to maintain our teachers and our firefighters, and rangel's not on the schedule for anything which is ok because i know that the members of the committee, they work hard, it's a selfless job. god knows i wouldn't take it. i respect the time that they placed on this. and it's been almost two years, but i have a primary that takes place a couple days before they even thought about meeting. and then i found out from my lawyer that even when they meet on the 13th of september there is no trial date then. and so i don't want to embarrass anybody. as a matter of fact, those people that believe that their election is going to be dependent on me resigning, i like to encourage them to believe i think republicans have given you enough reason to get re-elected and they continue to do something. but quite frankly, i think -- a lot of people don't know but when the -- well, i don't want to be critical of the ethics committee because my lawyer said you can't make them -- you can't get annoyed with them because there still may be room for a settlement. and i thought about it. and, well, when i found out that one of the republicans that will be sitting on what they call the adjudication committee had made remarks condemning me for my contributions to the city college that it was a rangel thing, an ego thing, and a corrupt thing, and he was going to judge me, i asked my lawyer. i said, how can they do that? he said, well, the ethics committee can do whatever they want. i said, well, do me a favor. i've paid close to $2 million. i continue to owe you money. and you're telling me that you have no idea when there's going to be a hearing. and every time i talk with you, i said, do me a favor on friday, let's see what happens today in terms of reaching out to settle this thing because i can't afford to be represented by counsel. each and every day the expenses build up, and i think that i have an obligation to younger members of congress to be able to tell them, if you couldn't raise the $2 million, you're out of business no matter what the allegations are. because no one's going to read the defense. and, of course, just the allegations by themselves with -- by themselves would be out of business. i am here because i could afford lawyers for close to two years, but everyone would know that there comes a limit. so i told them, just put everything on hold. see what happens when we meet here. and guess what? nothing happened. there's no agenda. so what they're saying is that, while the ethics committee will be leaving to -- for members to be able to work in their districts and to get re-elected and i'm having a primary that i have to wait until after my primary to find out when the ethics committee intends to have a hearing. and then that hearing comes just before, maybe, the general election. there must be something wrong with the rules because people would advise me that i could only hurt myself by coming before this committee. nobody has tried to protect the integrity of the congress with two years -- almost two years of investigation to say the mistakes that rangel has made should be public and should have been public earlier than now. and i couldn't say anything because i didn't want to offend and don't want to offend the ethics committee, but the ethics committee won't even tell me when i'm going to have a hearing. and, hey, people concerned about me, i'm 80 years old, i don't want to die before the hearing. and i think my electorate are entitled to finding out who their congressman for 40 years is. who am i? am i corrupt? what did they offer me? and i want to be a role model for new members and tell them the mistakes i made so they don't make. and so there are a list of foundations that specialize in providing funds for education. so i'm convinced that the president wants some dignity in knowing that not only my -- am i one of his strongest supporters, but i know that you know that unless we able to provide education for every child that's there, almost by any means possible, that our nation's national security is being threatened by foreigners. that our ability to be ahead of the curve in terms of trade, and nobody is more supportive of the president in trade, clear up some of the things in the korean bill so you don't hurt us, clean up a little corruption and violence in colombia and move on with the thing. so the whole idea is really me trying to have some dignity in making certain that america is stronger. now, the thing is that in the haste of sending out hundreds of letters, never asking for a penny but still suggesting we should meet with these people because i knew that i would hope that they would convince them to provide money. now, a lot of people have done that. doesn't mean it's right. but the rules have changed. and so there has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationary and not really doing the right thing. but it's not corrupt. it may be stupid or neglect but -- neglect but it's not corrupt. -- neglijent but it's not corrupt. the benefit is that you have a legacy with your name up there. well, we should go to my website to take a look at my answers. this is a broken down building that you have to run away from if someone's going to put your name on it. but it's still there. then they say that i would receive a luxurious offer. the sworn testimony was. they never told me. who in the heck needs an office with 40 years of service in the congress in a broken down building? and then they said, hey, we just put it in there so we encourage people to put it in there. they said the name. they thought was not a benefit to me, but a benefit in order for them to get money. so i can't imagine why in the cause of all of these things that government personnel didn't buy stamps -- well, if you think of them as official and you're wrong, then i violated the benefits. then at the end of the day the inferences are very serious and mistakes can be made and they shouldn't have -- these things shouldn't have happened. but i can't walk away and have you guys doing your campaign because i'm annoyed and the action is out there calling me corrupt and no one is coming forward saying rangel is not corrupt, rangel didn't make a nickel. no witness ever said there was preferential treatment given. and one guy that had an issue before the senate, staff, republicans, everybody said it never came before the house but they keep putting it down there. and guess what? it was the district attorney of new york for over 40 years that suggested that i meet with him because he was in the education fill an tropic business in addition to having business in the senate which republicans and democrats say never came to the ways and means committee. and staff certainly can prove it. i don't know how far they'd go in making a mistake, but you have to be very careful members making certain when they change the rules that you know what happens. and i'm prepared to say, i'm sorry for any embarrassment that has caused. another issue has to do with having an office, a congressional office in the building that i live in. . people say that's taking advantage, rent control, stabilized apartment. nobody has said that the ethics committee never found for stabilized apartment. no one said i broke any laws. no one said that the apartment that they considered two had always been considered one at the least. no one said that 10 years ago there was an apartment, one bedroom apartment that i got from my family, political friends, i no longer have. but the concern was how do you explain the congressional office? let's read the lapped lord's testimony. he said he was 20% vacant. that he needed money. that he knew that the checks were paid by the congressional committee. that the mail came in rangel for congress. and that the lawyers have told him and the officials of the city and state of new york that there was no violation of any law or rules. and what was the benefit? the benefit was that your colleague and friend was not sensitive to the fact that there was appearance as though i was being treated differently than anyone else. but the landlord said he didn't treat me any differently. no one said that they did treat me differently. but i have to admit that i wasn't sensitive to anything because i never felt then that i was treated any differently than anybody else. so that ends the apartment thing. but i plead guilty of not being sensitive. now when it comes to the negligence of the disclosures and the tax issues, there's absolutely no excuse that's there. when accusations were made, i hired a forensic accountant and told them to check out what the heck is going on because i want to make certain that when i stand up and speak that it's true. well, after i found out it was far more serious than the accusations, i then referred it to the ethics committee. it wasn't as though someone tracked me down, the i.r.s. or the clerk of the house, i filed the correct papers. and the tax that is were paid -- taxes that were paid an accountant might say that had my accountant recognized that this 2,000 down payment for a house in the dominican republic that was promised to be paid off in seven years would be a complete failure, and if indeed they did not give me one nickel but whenever they thought they were making a dollar or two they reduced the mortgage, then there's no question you don't have to be a tax expert to know that if you didn't report that income, that was -- notwithstanding the fact if you had done the right thing you had no liability bass the taxes that were paid -- because the tax that is were paid to the dominican republic would have been deducted and with depreciation i would have no liability. having said that, is that an excuse that's worthy? of course not. the fact that there was negligence on the part of the person that for 20 years did it and the fact that i signed it, does not really give an excuse as to why i should not apologize to this body for not paying the attention to it that i should have paid to it. but there is no, not one scintilla bit of evidence that the negligence involved in the disclosures, that there was some way to hide from the public what i had. because the value of the property they would say was $25,000, 100,000, whatever it would be that it didn't make any sense that i was trying to disclose 2 -- it. why did i take the floor today? i haven't found one lawyer that said i should do it. i haven't found one friend that said i should do it. but i thought about it. if the lawyers are going to continue to charge me, and i don't even know when the hearing's going to be, and i can't tell them i want one and not six lawyers, i don't want to offend the ethics committee. they are doing the best they can. but, hey, i'm in a position -- the speaker pro tempore: members and their staff will please take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman may resume. mr. rangel: that, hey, i'm 0 years old. all my life has been from the beginning public service. that's all i have ever done. been in the army, been a state legislator, been a federal prosecutor, 40 years here. and all i'm saying is that if it is the judgment of people here for whatever reason that i resign, then have the ethics committee expedite this. don't leave me swinging in the wind until november. if this is an emergency and i think it is, to help our local and state governments out, what about me? i don't want anyone to feel embarrassed, awkward. if i was you i may want me to go away, too. i am not going away. i am here. and i do recognize that -- i'm not saying there's any partisanship in this because if i do all the people that have been accused of accusations, i'm in a close district, and i -- they were republicans, i would give a couple of moments of thought to see whether or not, especially if i didn't have anything to work with to get re-elected, i would say, hey, take a look at these republicans. they have been accused. but i don't really think that the unfairness of this is to me. i don't take it personally. i'm thinking about all of you. the president wants dignity. let's have dignity in this house where the ethics committee means something and that none of you, if the newspapers say anything, will have to wait two years before you can say, no comment. even in addition to that -- and in addition to that, once they make the accusation, they have no business making any mistakes and saying that i didn't cooperate. i got papers with my signature on it. i got papers that said i tried my darnest. i got papers where my lawyer tells me had ever reason to believe that the full com