name sake college center. the committee stopped short of calling rangel corrupt. >> i truly believe that i'm not being treated fairly. >> the 80-year-old harlem politician denounced the verdict and the process. >> i am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding. >> he walked out of the hearing monday when the committee refused his request for a delay. today the commit's chief investigator gets 30 minutes to explain the conviction. rangel's side gets 30 minutes too. potential punishments include a fine or reprimand or possible censure. the worst could be expulsion. >> i think you're running out of questions. >> nbc's luke russert following the proceedings. expulsion is off isn't it? >> the last time that happened was in 2002 for very serious

charges of racket tearing and money lawn dering. we'll see about noon as the sanctions hearing -- >> luke, let me interrupt you here. here's charlie rangel on the floor of the house prior to his penalty phase and it does appear he's going to address his colleagues there in the house. >> that's in the ethics, sanctions hearing, but that is big news if he's going to show up and provide defense for himself. this past monday he quite famously walked out of the trial saying he did not want to appear because he was without counsel. himself without counsel. that should be interesting to here his perspective. in a few minutes, blake chisolm, the prosecutor within this committee, contessa, he'll take 30 minutes to explain the charges against mr. rangel in which he believes should be the punishment based on those charges.

then mr. rangel will have up to 30 minutes to respond to mr. chisolm and feels why he shouldn't be sanctioned with a reprimand or fine or expulsion. sources believe it will be most likely a reprimand of mr. rangel. but that is not known. that decision will be made by the ethics committee after they hear both sides. they'll go into deliberation and deliver a verdict sometime possibly later today. the hope is to get the trial wrapped up by the close of business for friday. >> we're expecting to begin here. ranking member bonner, this has got to be an uncomfortable position for those who are colleagues of charlie rangel, a long-time member of their house. >> absolutely. it's a very difficult and ard uous process.

if you talked to anybody who served on the process before, it's long and painstaking hours. you are investigating your fellow members. a lot of times these members are your friends. charlie rangel has been in congress over 40 years. he has many long lasting relationships with people on both sides of the aisle. if you talked to a lot of republicans and democrats, they both say, we kind of like charlie rangel, always been straightforward with us behind closed doors and always willing to make a deal. what you're seeing today will be an uncomfortable moment if charlie rangel appears at the sentencing hearing where the verdict is delivered. you can see some sort of interaction like that.ç we have to say it is a surprise to see him there today. there's no indication he would show up.

i don't think it's an absurd thing to say that charlie rangel will make news when he decides to respond to the charges put against him. >> he insisted there was no wrong doing, even after the verdict against him in the ethics violations. and again, we're watching him in this hearing with the ethics committee. and this is the penalty phase of his procedure. and i should mention it comes long after the initial investigation began. i mean this has taken years and years. >> yes, contessa, this is the end of a two-year investigation. what's quite remarkable, the entire trial in terms of the process of calling witnesses and explanation comments, if you will, happen in about a day. to your investigation in a one-day trial, charlie rangel for over the past few months had been saying, please, i want to have my trial, would like to do it before my general election. the committee said no, we have to work to figure things out. there was a lot of question marks about whether democrats

were trying to intentionally delay that so it would happen after the midterms and it wouldn't be a factor. it turned out to be more about the economy. the one interesting thing, charlie rangel said it did not want it to go forward because he did not have counsel. a lot of fellow democrats said, no, sorry, you wanted this thing to come forward for so long, we're now giving it to you and now you want it to end? >> also, he knews had trial was scheduled to start that day. he had been without counsel for a period of time where there was time for him to retain. he said i can't afford it, i spent so much on legal fees already. as a member of congress he is neither intitled or allowed to accept free counsel. >> reporter: that's true. he cannot take pro bono legal help. there are a lot of questions about charlie rangel's money. a lot of folks saying he himself is not corrupt but it is the folks around him and his own

just negligent accounting practice that's have put him in this type ofç position. one comment that was said to me about charlie rangel. if he didn't have the money, why does he not sell the villa in the caribbean or get cheaper legal counsel. he claims to have paid $2 million to other lawyers. there are probably lawyers out there that would take him at a cheaper rate. he has been defiant to the end saying he did not want the lawyers originally. he is a graduate of st. john's law school, former assistant prosecutor in new york. he does have some legal experience. but he really has not practiced in a court of law for over 40-something years. to what legal and technical things he could bring to the table, it should be interesting. >> now, he's seated and we're waiting for this procedure to begin. let me run through some of the things that he did wrong, that

was the verdict from his colleagues on the house ethics panel that he broke the rules by using his office to solicit millions of dollars in donations for a non-profit center being erupted in the center. he was going around doing arm twisting to get people to do nature for that. that he was using a rent stabilized manhattan apartment as a campaign office. those are in short supply in new york city, highly sought after and it was a big problem for him that he was using one of these rent stabilized apartments. typically they cost less than apartments on market. failed to pay taxes to the irs on rental income that was earned from that villa in the dominican republic, what you just mentioned there. >> reporter: right. >> the subcommittee actually dismissed one charge, which alleged the donations to the rangel center because they said

there was already a similar charge on that and they found him guilty -- >> reporter: they combined it too. it's ironic, one of things blake chisolm, the prosecutor has said. if charlie rangel had wanted to, he could have solicited a lot of contributions to his center -- the problem was that charlie rangel was using his house staff, government tax funded employees as well as house stationary as well as having lobbyist within his house office on capitol hill, which is not allowed for that type of solicitation. which goes into the fact with the prosecutor said, look, a lot of this is sloppy accounting and sloppy practices. he's inherently corrupt. >> has charlie apologized even for sloppiness? >> reporter: at the time when he had to step down from the ways

and means committee, he lost the power of chairmanmanship that he took a trip that was funded by a lobbyist. he said it was not necessarily his fault. it was the staff around him but he said if i'm the leader of the ship, if you will, i should know everything that's going on. he stepped down from the ways and means committee because of that. he's not been very apoll gettic moving forward in the last weeks and month. he would assert the media was running this campaign against him. it was interesting under the statement of alleged violation, the charges against charlie rangel brought up in july, the fellow members went out of their way to say it was not the media out against mr. rangel. mr. rangel actually said some mistruths to the media on a few occasions. >> so stay with me here. now we're watching the hearing -- >> i want to say one thing. john lewis is seated next to charlie rangel there, just noticed on the monitor. he is a hero of the civil rights

movement contessa, very he is steamed member in congress, whether or not to be his counsel, i don't know. but it is an interesting to pick up on that john lewis is next to charlie rangel. >> we're working on that right now reaching out to the congressman's office to see why he's accompanying charlie rangel. and the chair is representative leftgren there's ranking member bonner. let's listen in forç a moment. >> under committee rules when a subcommittee rules one or more counts have been proven, whether to implement action and what form of sangs would be appropriate. the committee has the option to take disciplinary action on its own initiative or to recommend that the full house do so. the purpose of this hearing is

to allow both representative rangel and committee counsel to share their views with the member of the committee as to sangs would be appropriate in this matter. it is important to bear in mind the purpose is not punishment but accountability and credibility. when a member has been found by his colleagues who have violated our ethical standards, that member must be held accountable for the conduct. it is perhaps equally important that the outcome demonstrate the credibility of the house of representatives by investigating credible allegations of misconduct and sangsing conduct that is proven to violate that standard. we maintain the integrity of the house and public in this institution. the committee may recommend a range of sanctions. our rules provide general guidelines to follow, for

example, a legal of reprofl maybe issued on its own initiative. other sanctions require action by the full house. among these our rules indicate that reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure for more serious and expulsion for the most serious. both the committee and house itself are guideposd by the precedence of the house. the house only expel five members, three during the civil war and two after they were convicted of felonies. the rules are clear that findings of violations alone should not be the basis for recommending a sangs. we're required to provide both theç respondent and committee counsel the opportunity to share their views about disciplinary action. it is imperative we act in a fair and even-handed matter.

i note today's hearing is open to the public. although our deliberations will take place in executive session, our colleagues and the public will have opportunity to hear the views of the parties regarding an appropriate sangs at this hearing. both representative rangel and committee counsel have previously been advised of the guideline and as with any other phase of this process, the respondent may seek to waive this procedural stamp if he chooses. he is not required to be here or address the committee. representative rangel has chosen to be here today and he has the right to share his views on the appropriate sanction. we will hear him out and take his opinion into consideration in our deliberations. the parties will each be allowed 30 minutes to present their views to the committee. although they are not required to do so, they may submit written briefs for the

committee's consideration, if they do so, those findings will be included in the record. witnesses are not permitted in this phase, however if a written request is made, witness testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the committee. neither party has filed a written request for witness testimony. after we have heard from the parties, members will be permitted under the five-minute rule to ask questions they may have following the presentations. we will then adjourn to executive session where we'll deliberate and by majority vote decide what disciplinary action the two recommend. our decision will be announced publicly and the basis will be explained in a public report to the house of representatives. with that, i would ask my colleague, the ranking member joe bonner, whether he would like to make a briefç opening

statement. >> thank you, madam chair for the opportunity to say a few words. we're nearing the end of what has been a long, difficult and unpleasant task. and let me speak for just a moment about what makes this unpleasa unpleasant. i know for a fact that many a newly elected member of congress, on both sides of the aisle, have been welcomed to capitol hill by that bigger than life voice of charlie rangel, would had put his hand on their shoulder and would say welcome to capitol hill. so before i go any further, i would personally like to thank you, madam chair, ranking member mccall and all of the members of the subcommittee for the work that you completed earlier this week. specific things are also in order for the entire committee

staff. as well as those who were involved in the investigative phase of this matter which regretfully but unavoidably lasted only two years. individually and collectively, we have shown what the chairwoman stated on tuesday was our moral obligation. to act with fairness. led only by the facts and the law. as we attempt to discharge our duties. as most everyone in this room knows, the work at this committee is often mundane. and almost always done out of sight. we give advice and education to members of congress and their staffs so that they can know what they can and can't do to be in compliance with the rules of the house. we look into matter that's have come to our attention to see whether or not a member has crossed in any inappropriate

line. and as the american people have witnessed this week, and in recent months as these rare but not unprecedented public proceedings have occurred, we have once again demonstrated that your elected representatives can deal with an obviously uncomfortable but absolutely necessary charge thaç comes to us from the constitution itself. which requires that each house of congress maintains the responsibility to punish its members for breaking either the rules of the house or the laws of our land. for disorderly behavior and for bringing discredit to this, the people's house. as an aside, i found it especially ironic and troublesome that on the very day that almost 100 newly elected members of the 112th congress were arriving in washington for the freshman orientation.

in another room, a few steps away, was a man who once wielded one of the most powerful gavels in town and one of our highly regarded colleagues and yet who is showing so little regard and respect either for the institution that he has claimed to love or for the people of his district in new york that he has claimed to proudly represent for more than 40 years. now, i don't pretend to speak for mr. rangel's constituents, they have re-elected him often without opposition, more times than members of congress have been alive. but while mr. rangel has tried repeatedly this week to claim the unfairness of what has happened to him. in my mind the most unfair thing of all was that his constituents were denied an opportunity to know the findings of fact as determined by eight of his

colleagues, four republicans and four democrats before any, the voters in the 15th district of new york had an opportunity to choose their representative early this year. this process could have and should have been concluded earlier and as such it is my view that the committee failed the people of harlem and the 15th district of new york for this reason alone. before he marched out of the hearing on monday but even after the subcommittee's convention by clear andç convincing -- 40 yes of service to the congress as well as his military record. let me be clear. his distinguished military service is not up for debate. nor is it a relevant part, inmy view, of this deliberation.

when the american being be stoe the privilege of being a representative, it is a matter of tradition and protocol that the possession also carries with it the title of honorable. sadly, madam chair, it is my unwaivering view that the actions and decision and behavior of our colleague from new york can no longer reflect either honor or integrity. as i noted earlier, i can't speak for the people in mr. rangel's district. but i do know this. for the tenants who call filed for a rent stabilized apartment in new york at any american city but couldn't get one because a powerful man had four, there's something wrong with that. for the small business woman who didn't pay her taxes for 17 years and had the irs breathing down her back, i can only

imagine how she would have liked to have had the chance do help right the tax code of this country and make it less burdensome and simpler for everyone else. and for the still relatively new member of congress from california who just a couple years ago questioned whether or not it was a appropriate to be building a monument to me, i will never forget the arrogance of the response. i was on the floor that day. i would have a problem if you did it, mr. rangel said to mr. campbell on the house floor on july 19th, 2007, because i don't think you've been around long enough to have your name on something to inspire a building like this. madam chair, it is painful for me to say this to a man i personally respect. but mr. rangel can no longer blame anyone other than himself for the position he now finds himself in.

not this committee, not his staff or family and not the accountants or lawyers, not the press. mr. rangel should only look into the mirror if he wants to know who to blame. while i'm not an attorney as most of the members of this committee are as well as the respondent himself, i know and i believe we all know that it should not take either a law degree or legal dictionary to tell us the difference between right and wrong. it is up to each one of us to determine the level of punishment for the discredit mr. rangel has brought to this house. and i thank too the chairwoman to offer the opportunity to offer heartfelt -- >> madam chair, i have an opening statement i intended to deliver and as ranking member of the subcommittee that brought

this forward, i would ask this be entered into the record. >> gentleman maz unanimous consent that his statement be submitted into the record. without objection, it is so entered and i would note that other members of the committee who would like to submit opening statements will have five legislative days to do so. with that, i now would ask mr. chisolm to make his presentation on the issue of sanctions to the committee. you'll have 30 minutes to make that presentation beginning now. mr. chisolm? >> thank you, madam chair, ranking member bonner, members of the committee. the house's authority to discipline its own members is explicit in the constitution. article one section five its members tore disorderly

behavior and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. when a member has been found to have violated the standards that govern his conduct, it falls to this committee to recommend to the full body an appropriate sangs. >> hearing now from the prosecutor who brought the case against charlie rangel in the house of representatives, convicted of 11 counts of ethics violations. this is the penalty phase. a bit of a surprise to see charlie rangel sitting there. he's sitting there today and got a real tongue lashing from the ranking member joe bonner of alabama who just reprimanded, i would say pretty harshly, his colleague in the house, representative charlie rangel of new york. we continue to follow the proceedings. charlie rangel will have 30 minutes to react to the verdict and try to influence the penalty

phase of this particular ethics trial. we'll take a quick break here and be right back. [ advisor 1 ] what do you see yourself doing one week, one month, five years after you do retire? ♪ client comes in and they have a box. and inside that box is their financial life. people wake up and realize i better start doing something. we open up that box. we organize it. and we make decisions. we really are here to help you. they look back and think, "wow. i never thought i could do this." but we've actually done it. [ male announcer ] visit ameriprise.com and put a confident retirement more within reach. [ exclaims ] ...with...stage presence. ♪ a new phone with dolby surround sound speakers. only from at&t. rethink possible. a new phone with dolby surround sound speakers.

if you live for performance, upgrade to castrol edge advanced synthetic oil. with eight times better wear protection than mobil 1. castrol edge. it's more than just oil. it's liquid engineering. until the combination of three good probiotics in phillips' colon health defended against the bad gas, diarrhea and constipation. ...and? it helped balance her colon. oh, now that's the best part. i love your work. [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health.

in the house of representatives the ethics committee entering the penalty phase of a trial for charlie rangel, convicted of 11 ethics violations. there he sits, arms crossed. the 80-year-old representative fromç harlem, new york, now facing pun ibment. the prosecutor who brought the case against him in the house now taking his time to explain the conviction. we'll listen. >> the committee's precedence do not draw a clear line to determine a appropriate sanction in this case. on two counts, respondent has been found to have violated clause five of the code of

ethics for government service, the committee also found violations of clause five in the matter of representative robert psychs. in that matter, he was active in promoting the establishment of a bank including his intervention with state and federal officials. during the time he was assisting with the bank's establishment, he also purchased 2500 shares of the bank's privately-held stock. based on that conduct, the committee recommended that representative sikes be reprimanded. respondent has been found to have violated the financial disclosure requirements. the committee also found that in the matter of representative george hansen. he had failed to report nearly $334,000 in loans and profits and had been convicted of four

counts of making false statements. in that matter, the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations of financial disclosure requirements in the matter of representative robert sikz. in that matter. he failed to disclose ownership of two stocks. the committee specifically stated that in neither instance does it appear that the failure to report was motivated by an effort to conceal the financial holding from the members of the house or the public. nonetheless, the committee stated that a failure to report was deserving of a reprimand. respondent has been found to have violated laws and regulations pertaining to the ç misuse of official resources. this committee also found violations for misuses of official resources in the matter

of representative austin murphy. in that matter, the committee found that representative murphy permitted official resources to be diverted from the district office to his former law firm. the committee also found that ghost voting had occurred and that representative murphy retained a staffer who did not perform duties kmis rat with his pay. the committee recommended a reprimand. the committee also found violations for misuse of official resources in the matter of james traffic kant. among other numerous violations found against him, they found had he directed members of his congressional staff to perform personal labor and services related to his boat and his farm. taking into account all of representative trafficant's

violations, including bribery, they recommended that he be expelled. respondent has been found to have violated tax laws. the committee also found violations for tax related conduct in the matter of representative newt gingrich. he failed to seek and failed to follow legal advice, thus failing to ensure that the activities were in accordance with the internal revenue code. the committee also found that representative gingrich should have known that information transmitted to the committee was inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable. based on that conduct, the committee recommended that representative gingrich be reprimanded.

they also found that representative trafficant failed to report anç pay income tax for two years. representative trafficant has been convicted of filing false tax returns. the committee recommended that he be expelled based on numerous violations including underlying criminal conduct. >> you're listing to blake chisam, this is the staff director, also served as the lead prosecutor in the trial against charlie rangel and a trial that again, ended with 11 convictions of ethics violations. let me bring in our congressional correspondent luke russert. you're sitting there listening to charlie rangel or listening to blake chisam go through members of the house of

representatives that have been re rr rerepri manneded. >> he got reprimanded in 1997 before he left congress. he used government funds in the teaching of a college course. it seems that he most likely will recommend a reprimand which is the original subcommittee recommended a few months back. he's going through the different types of violations that happen all throughout the years and said this type of penalty -- violation, penalty which is a reprimand. it is less serious in the house then a censure, hasn't been one of those since 1983. it is still significant and would be the first one in over 13 years. this is something that charlie rangel would probably not risk losing his position in the house if he were to want to run again

in 2012. what we can be assured, charlie will not be kicked out or expelled by any means. >> he says he is guilty of breaking rules and laws. how come there has not been civilian action against charlie rangel? >> reporter: that's an interesting question that a lot of us around capitol hill ask. how come this is not put forward in a civilian court. often times, contessa, as you will see a representative getting in civilian court trouble. in this case it started with a call to the office -- newly created office, congressional -- sorry about this. created by nancy pelosi, the office of official ethics, outside of the house congressional ethics committee. they were the ones who then referred this case to going here. it was rumors that had been picked up. started by the new york post and "new york daily news" saying

that mr. rangel had not exactly been forthright in terms of paying taxes in the dominican republic. why there's no civilian interaction? that's a good question that a prosecutor in new york might have a case if they wanted to pursue. >> expulsion, pretty much all members have said it's off the table. you heard the chair of the committee, congressman lofgren who say there's only been five who have been expelled. we continue to follow the penalty phase for charlie rangel of new york. quick break here and we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] don't let aches and pains in the morning

slow you down. introducing bayer am. its dual-action formula delivers extra strength pain relief, plus it fights fatigue. so get up and get going with new bayer am, the morning pain reliever.

welcome back,ç i'm contess brewer. we continue to follow the penalty phase of the trial for charlie rangel facing house ethics violations. there you're seeing him taking notes as the lead prosecutor in

the case against him, blake chisam is talking to the committee about what other members have faced in the past in terms of punishment. the so-called barefoot bandit pled not guilty to charges for stealing to planes and flying without a license. more problems with qantas, they need to replace as many as 40 of them. a plane wreckage was spotted 100 miles north of anchorage. tiger woods announced his arrival on facebook with a what's up, everybody. he wrote an oped for news week. lawmakers are up against a big job, trying to tackle our crushing national debt. 66% say they voted for their candidate because they wanted to cut spending.

yet the new nbc news wall street journal poll says 70% don't like the cuts to medicare and don't likes go on and on. john harwood, chief washington correspondent and political right for "the new york times." how do you cut spending if everything you propose to cut people don't like. >> i guess governing is harder than campaigning. republicans are going to find that as they take over the house. if you look at the subgroups. whose most uncomfortable? core republicans. it's going to be a challenge for the newly elected to reconcile the general desire for spending cuts with the reality if you're going to cut deeply, you've got to go after popular things like medicare and social security and defense. and you may have to go after revenues, that means tax

increases too. >> when we look at the other information from the pollsç he, we see 32% of americans think we're on the right track. that's pretty abysmally low. if you look at the approval ratings, 47% think of him favorably, 47% think unfavorably. what changes? what does the election really change? >> reporter: it hasn't changed a whole lot yet and people will be watching and waiting how the new leaders perform and how the new republican house gets along with the president. what we saw is that 60% say it's a positive thing that they have divided power between democrats and republicans. on the other hand you see three out of four saying they expect a period of division and no compromise. so the public i think, peter hart, our pollster said it's

designed realism. people are hoping for better things, not sure they are going to get them. >> thank you for joining us today. we continue to keep our eye there on the other end of the mall and capitol hill where we're watching charlie rangel in the house ethics committee room listening now to the charges against him, the explanation from the lead prosecutor about what other punishments have been in the past and faced a real tongue lashing from joe bonner who had harsh words for his colleague there on capitol hill. we'll rejoin this hearing after the break. concerning the medicare part d changes this year. so she went to her walgreens pharmacist for guidance and a free personalized report that looks at her prescriptions and highlights easy ways for her to save. because norma prefers her painting to paperwork. see how much you can save. get your free report today. expertise -- find it everywhere there's a walgreens.

get your free report today. bankers are known to be a little bit in love with themselves.. trust me. are we going up? we can get the next one. i'd like to get your advice on hedging - risk... exposure. what makes us different? for 300 years we've chosen to focus on our clients. what a novel idea.

le anhis day starts thwith his arthritis pain.. that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.

the long time representative of harlem new york now listening to the lead prosecutor explain the conviction against him on 11 ethics violations. and rangel will then have a chance to defend himself and speak. now it appears it's about to happen. >> first, let me say i can imagine the aukwardness this

committee has had in its deliberation over the years and i know none of you would have volunteered for this service nor would you have believed that this case would have taken as long that it did take. and i understand that. the second thing i would like to say that i hope mr. bonner and his statement did not imply my lack of love for my country or this congress. one of the reasons why i had -- that this has taken so long is because when people were talking about settlement, never was the evidence that was not founded as relates to the allegations ever mentioned. as a matter of fact, one of

reasons why i was insisting on having the witnesses that testified in front of the investigatory committee because was they may not have changed the facts. they may not have been giving excuses for my behavior, but clearly in view of some of the things that has been said today by counsel and mr. bonner, they would have given an explanation for my faulty behavior as it relates to the very serious charge, charges violating the house rules. i look atç myself every mornin mr. bonner, and i have never blamed staff, my family, or anyone for my irresponsible

behavior as it relates to violation of the house rules. as a matter of fact, i have said it publicly and you had clips of this as to what i've said. and i -- no matter what sanction you finally reach, i will dedicate my life in trying to let younger members and other members know that these rules are not there to punish, they are there to guide the members to protect the character and integrity of this congress. and whether they are new members or older members, they have a responsibility to do just that. i would have hoped however, that the atmosphere in which i dealt with the landlord, 40 on west 45th street, that i dealt with

those people that listed foundations that could make recommendations for city college to receive a grant, that they would have been able -- or that they were able and did testify that in all of this there was no request or suggestion that i would receive any personal gain. there would not be even the suggestion of corruption. had there been some suggestion on whether or not we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to me they were willing as i'm really asking this committee to do, to say what was not found, even though it was alleged and still is being alleged by newspapers,ç

reporters, television reporters as it deals with rangel being the crook, rangel be corrupt, rangel gaining, just -- i don't see any reason why if this committee pointed out those things. yes, i wanted my community to know what i had done. i wanted to be judged publicly. and i admitted wrong doing to my committee. and it wasn't my fault that this committee decided to have this hearing on the eve of my primary or the eve of the general election, but god knows it was enough derogatory things said about me that i don't think mr. bonner, that you have to feel sorry for my constituents not knowing. the press took care of it and i don't see where this committee or anyone did anything to clear

the record as to what i did not do, even though i humbly recognize that what i did do was serious enough for this committee to continue its investigations. you know, i am not here to retry the case. but even you, mr. bonner, might think it would be fair to point out that the record would indicate that the landlord solicited me for the fourth apartment, that the apartment had been vacant as other apartments had been throughout the building, and that with the exception of the zoning law mentioned by counsel, it was determined there was no violations of any agreements since the person that the lease was made to said that he wanted me there. and that my leaving there would have destabilized the apartment. but, again, since you refer to

the appearance of favoritism, i can't get into that subjective feeling about the appearances of people. i did not know i was on a special list. and i don'tç think anyone has said what did i gain as a result of being on the list. if there was appearances, it was with the staff. and in any event, again, the fact that for 17 years taxes were paid to dominican republic has nothing to do with the facts in this case as it relates to my conduct, but i would believe that the accountant that testified would have shared with you how mistakes were made that i assume responsibility for because whether as a lawyer or cpa or accountant, i signed the paper. but had i had the opportunity to

listen to the witnesses that 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 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 all i've ever asked when i referred this whole thing to this committee. all i asked was that you make a point of investigating

everything. i volunteered to have a forensic accountant for 20 years to look over taxes and look over all of the things that should have been done and corrected all of them. but that is not an example that i would want to set for the members of congress. and quite frankly, even though i came in here prepared, not to deal with the question of censure and the options that you've had, i think that mr. chisam's list of when this committee has saw fit to give reprimands, i assume when you go into executive session you would compare how other members were treated under circumstances where they were personally enriched and whether there was no question that the corruption existed.

i have brought my friend here, john lewis, because i wanted him to share who i was. i felt awkward in giving self-serving statements in how i dedicated my life to my country and to congress and to my community. and i know that if i had counsel here that they would say one thing, don't an tag nies any of the members of this committee. but mr. bonner, i really was surprised that you could deal with the questions that dealt with my love for myç congress d my country and my district as well to talk about testimony that you found as factual that

was not disputed by me but by the same token, the surrounding circumstances of whether i had left that apartment, would there have been a subsidized apartment left there, the answer is no. these people that would have been looking for a subsidized apartment certainly wasn't looking for it there. their apartments were vacant. i didn't try to hide anybody from anybody. it doesn't deal with how it appears, even though there's an account there saying that i gave the appearance that i was receiving a gift. again with ccny, i was overzealous because i've dedicated my life to trying to make certain that those people that were not exposed to procedure education could get it. and there's the rangel fell

fellowship that the state department runs there. scholarships in my name and those not in my name because i know that the only thing between me as a high school dropout in korea and becoming chairman of the awesome and respectable ways and means committee was the gi bill and education. so overzealous is not an excuse, but i appreciate mr. chisam demonstrated that it is an explanation and i've been excused for my behavior. and i hope you take that into consideration because it's not just the years i've been in congress. it's the years that expect my grandchildren to be looking at, my community, and i hope you take all of those things in consideration. and i ask now that you give an oppo