Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Committee Decides Charles Rangel's Punishment; Rangel Defends Himself

Aired November 18, 2010 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to show you some pictures in just a minute of Charlie Rangel as he makes his way -- these are live pictures now? OK, Charlie Rangel in just moments will get an opportunity to speak before the House Ethics Committee, which is convening at the top of the hour to discuss his punishment for violating House rules.

This is a man, a 40-year-long career recently reelected who is a hero in his district, Harlem, New York. What will he say? He has said I wasn't corrupt. Overzealous, yes. Sloppy, yes, but I wasn't corrupt. What will he say in his moments to come?

The hearing scheduled to start in minutes and there a live picture -- How dramatic is this? -- of the hearing room. Congressman Charlie Rangel, photographers snapping pictures. What must be going through his mind right now?

A number of options available to committee in term of a punishment, a fine. A censure, is that possible? Expulsion, is that possible? It is certainly possible, but what's likely to be the punishment?

So, we're going to get to our congressional correspondent, Brianna Keilar.

And let's just bring Brianna up as we watch these pictures.

And Brianna, this is a hearing that's set to get under way in a moment. This is pretty dramatic stuff as we watch it here happening live.

Your thoughts?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: This is pretty dramatic. You see him being pretty serious, I think, as he's reviewing his remarks. And it also makes me wonder, Tony, because he's going to have 30 minutes. His publicist told me that he's expected to use that 30 minutes. But he doesn't always stick to his prepared remarks. He speaks off of the cuff, and he definitely speaks in a pretty dramatic way.

HARRIS: He does. He does.

KEILAR: He really presses himself. He really does. And so we are expecting that this is going to be sort of -- you know, we say that Charlie Rangel has a flare for the dramatic, and this is such an important part of his career. He seems a little somber here.

He put out a written statement earlier that kind of struck me. He was talking about all of the different things that he's done over the course of his life, that he's gone from being a high school dropout to, ultimately -- and the chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the tax-writing committee. This is one of the most important committee posts in Congress.

And, of course, he recently stepped down from that post amid all of the fallout from these ethics -- these alleged ethics violations. And here we heard earlier from an Ethics Subcommittee this week that he is guilty on 11 of 12 of those counts of violating House rules.

So what are we waiting for now? This is -- if you were to call -- if this were to be like a court proceeding, this would be the sentencing phase.

They call it a sanctions hearing. And Charlie Rangel is there by himself, without a lawyer, representing himself.

HARRIS: Wow.

KEILAR: And he is waiting to see exactly what his fate is.

HARRIS: Yes.

KEILAR: Of course, the worst thing that could happen would be this committee saying that he should be expelled from the House of Representatives. We're thinking that's unlikely.

That's normally reserved for a member of Congress who has been convicted in criminal proceedings. Rangel certainly has not been. But then there's other varying degrees, whether it's censure, whether it's reprimand, maybe he could face a fine. But this is really going to be the moment where we hear him speak and we get to kind of see the situation unfold -- Tony.

HARRIS: Brianna, I've got to tell you, I can't take my eyes off this scene. What a tableau we're sort of witnessing here.

If you would, talk us through the order of business here. There is some business before Charlie Rangel begins his remarks.

KEILAR: Yes, we're going to be hearing from the top Democrat, from the chairwoman on the Ethics Committee, Zoe Lofgren. And she's going to be speaking maybe for a few minutes.

We'll also hear, I understand, possibly from the top Republican on the committee, Jo Bonner. And then I believe we may be hearing from Charlie Rangel first.

He's going to be able to put forth what's called an argument, and he has 30 minutes to do that. And again, his publicist says he's going to take that 30 minutes.

We'll also be hearing from the top lawyer on the Ethics Committee, Blake Chisam, who served as, for lack of a better term, I think the best way to understand it, is the prosecution in this. And let's remind people, this has been a long time coming, two years that Charles Rangel has been under investigation for a myriad of offenses ranging from not paying taxes on income he received from a rental villa that he owns from the Dominican Republic for -- and remember, this is a guy who was in charge of the tax-writing committee. Also for soliciting donations for a college center that bears his name, and soliciting donations using congressional letterhead, using congressional staff time, and doing so with companies that had business before his committee.

And again, I think to just kind of look at the scene you're seeing here, we watched him earlier this week, Tony. He's very serious. Doesn't that sort of strike you, that he's very somber?

HARRIS: Yes. Yes.

KEILAR: I mean, when he walked into the beginning of his trial earlier this week, he had a smile on his face. It was that kind of quintessential, jovial Charlie Rangel. And we're seeing someone here who's being pretty serious and seems to realize, I guess, the heaviness of what could happen here.

HARRIS: Well, Brianna, I've got to tell you, there is so much we've got scheduled for the program today, but, again, I can't take my eyes off this and this scene, this solitary man in this hearing room walking around, talking to people, considering his remarks. Cameras whirling, and there he is without an attorney.

There he is as a single, solitary man. And I just am struck by what I'm seeing here.

And I wish I could read his mind. I wish I knew what he was thinking at this moment.

This was a hearing that was supposed to get under way five minutes ago. The members of the committee have not entered the room yet. They have to know at this point that Charlie Rangel is in the room. The dynamics of this playing out in such a way, I'm fascinated by it.

KEILAR: And that he is there all by himself.

HARRIS: Yes.

KEILAR: I mean, this is pretty -- that's pretty significant, that he doesn't have a lawyer.

HARRIS: John Lewis has just entered the room and is in our camera shot now. Wow.

KEILAR: Yes, and is sitting next to him. And I wasn't expecting that. But this is -- you know, one of the things that Rangel highlighted today is his past as a participant in the civil rights movement, and you see him there with one of his friends who also has this very important background. And so kind of getting some support there from this other very prominent member -- senior member of Congress.

But one of the things Rangel has -- that he protested this trial because of, was because he doesn't have a lawyer. And there's some sort of confusion as to how that all went down.

But he said he spent $2 million in legal fees over the last couple of years on his legal team, and that when he spoke to them and they talked about how it could be another $1 million worth of legal fees to take him through the remainder of this process, he said that he couldn't guarantee payment, and they decided to withdraw their services. The law firm has told a slightly different story, not really commenting, other than to say that they were trying to preserve their relationship, they didn't want to terminate their relationship with Rangel.

And Rangel said, I'm not going to sit here for this trial if I'm not going to have a lawyer. But, of course, that Ethics Subcommittee, Tony, decided to continue on, forge ahead.

They presented evidence in really about half of a day earlier this week. And then they deliberated for part of one day, part of another day. And then decided that he was guilty on 11 of those 12 counts.

But this is quite the scene. He's really a man playing the waiting game, waiting for the process. And look there on the left. You see across from him, that is Blake Chisam. That is the chief counsel to the Ethics Committee. So they're kind of there, staring across at each other as they wait for this to begin.

HARRIS: Yes. This gets to be -- to feel a little unseemly, frankly, here, Brianna. I mean, look, the hearing was to start at 12:00. The congressman was in the room early.

KEILAR: Here we go.

HARRIS: And -- OK. Here we go. Here we go.

And as the committee members take their place, would you tell us who is a part of this committee? And, again, just run through the order of business very quickly before we get down to business.

KEILAR: The woman you see right there, Zoe Lofgren, she's the chairwoman of the Ethics Committee. Walking behind her was Congressman McCaul, who is the ranking member on the Ethics Subcommittee that actually served as the jury to decide whether or not he was guilty.

But then to the left of Zoe Lofgren, you're seeing Jo Bonner. He is the top Republican. And those are the two that we're expecting to hear statements from as we begin this. REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT: I'd like the record to reflect that all 10 members of the committee are present, and to note also that the chairs are authorized to recess the committee at any time.

This hearing of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel will come to order. When I designated the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee to consider the statement of alleged violations in this matter, I noted that the Code of Government Ethics states clearly that a public office is a public trust.

It was our responsibility to determine whether Representative Rangel's conduct met that standard. It was our obligation to act impartially, as finders of fact and law. And the members of the subcommittee fulfilled that responsibility and met that obligation. We did so fairly, honestly, and without bias. The subcommittee did not prejudice the allegations against representative -- prejudge the allegations against Representative Rangel.

Indeed, the subcommittee did not find all of the alleged counts to be proven. But ultimately we found that his conduct failed to meet the ethical standards that apply to all members of the House. Those standards apply equally to those of us who have the privilege of representing our communities in the House for the first time, and to our most senior colleagues.

On November 16th of this year, the subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel determined that 11 of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violations in this matter were proven by clear and convincing evidence. Under committee rules when the subcommittee concludes that one or more counts have been proven, it becomes the responsibility of the full committee to determine whether to recommend disciplinary action regarding Representative Rangel, and if so what form of sanction 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 a member of the committee as to what sanction would be appropriate in this matter if any. As we begin it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the ethics process is not punishment, but accountability and credibility. Accountability for the respondent, and credibility for the House itself.

When a member has been found by his colleagues to have violated our ethical standards, that member must be held accountable for the conduct. But it is perhaps equally important that the outcome demonstrate the credibility of the House of Representatives. By investigating credible allegations of misconduct and sanctioning conduct that is proven to violate that standard, we maintain the integrity of the House and the trust of the public in this institution.

The committee may recommend a range of sanctions. Our rules provide some general guidelines to follow in recommending a sanction. For example, a letter of reproval may be issued by the committee 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 is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion is appropriate for the most serious violations.

Further, both the committee and the House itself are guided by the precedence of the House. For example, the House has in its history expelled only five members. Three for disloyalty to the Union during the civil war, and two after they were convicted of felonies. Our rules are clear that findings of violations alone should not be the basis for recommending a sanction. Instead, we are required to provide both a respondent and committee council with an opportunity to share their views about disciplinary actions.

In reaching our decision, it is imperative that we act in a fair and evenhanded manner. I note that today's hearing is open to the public. And although our deliberations will take place in executive session, our colleagues and the public will have the opportunity to hear the views of the parties regarding an appropriate sanction at this hearing.

Both Representative Rangel and committee council have previously been advised of the guidelines for this hearing. And as with any other phase of this process, the respondent may seek to waive this procedural step if he chooses. He's not required to be here or to address the committee.

Representative Rangel has chosen to be here today and he has the right to share his views on the appropriate sanction with us. And should he wish to do so, we will hear him out or his representative and take his opinion into consideration in our deliberations.

The parties will be each 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. And if they do so, those findings will be included in the record. As a general rule, witnesses are not permitted in this phase; however, if a written request for a witness is made, witness testimony may be allowed by a majority vote of the committee.

Neither party has to this point filed a written request seeking to permit witness testimony. After we've heard from the parties, members will be permitted under the five-minute rule to ask any questions they may have following the presentations. We will then adjourn to executive session where we will deliberate and by a majority vote decide what disciplinary action to recommend.

Our decision will be announced publicly and the basis for our conclusions will also be explained in a public report to the House of Representatives. With that, I would ask my colleague, the Ranking Member Jo Bonner whether he would like to make a brief opening statement. Mr. Bonner?

REP. JO BONNER (R), ALABAMA: 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 say for just a moment about what makes this so unpleasant.

I know for a fact that many newly elected member of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been welcomed to Capitol Hill by that bigger than life, radly voice of Charlie Rangel who would put his hand on their shoulder and say, "Welcome to Capitol Hill."

So before I go any further, I would personally like to thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member McCaul and all of the members of the Judicatory Subcommittee for the work that you completed earlier this week. Special thanks 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 for almost 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 of this committee if 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 matters that 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 they 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 that 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 bring 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 are arriving in Washington for their freshman orientation. In another room just a few steps away was a man who once wielded one of the most powerful gavels in town and at one time was one of our most highly regarded colleagues and yet, who was 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 reelected him often without opposition, more times than many of the members of Congress have actually 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 they, the voters in the 15th District of New York had an opportunity to choose their representative earlier this year.

This process could have and should have been concluded earlier and as such, it is my view that the committee failed to 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 conviction by clear and convincing evidence on Tuesday, Mr. Rangel stated that this should -- that this panel should now take into account his entire 40 years 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 relative part in my view of this deliberation. For when the American people bestow upon us the privilege of being their representative, it is both a matter of tradition and protocol that the position also carries with it the title of honorable.

Sadly, Madam Chair, it is my unwavering view that the action, 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 --

HARRIS: So let's do this -- let's break from this hearing for just a moment, sneak in a quick break, and come back.

We're back in a moment.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: OK. Live pictures now from Washington, D.C.

The House Ethics Committee right now convening a hearing to discuss the punishment for Congressman Charlie Rangel for violating House rules.

Let's bring in our congressional correspondent, Brianna Keilar.

I should mention that Reid Pillifant is with us here in New York. He is a writer for "The New York Observer." There's Reid.

But first to you, Brianna, boy, just a moment ago, some tough words from Representative Bonner of Alabama. KEILAR: Yes, this really struck me. And keeping in mind, he is the ranking Republican on this. So you're certainly expecting to get a partisan flavor from his comments. But it struck me as certainly more partisan than we've heard from him before.

I actually remember during one of the first hearings having to do with Congressman Rangel, Jo Bonner was pretty forgiving and just kind of lamented that this is someone who is very respected. But it really struck me.

He referred to Rangel as someone who was at one time one of his most highly regarded colleagues, yet he has little respect for the institution he claims to love and for the voters of his district, who, we should say, Tony, just unanimously -- or not unanimously, but overwhelmingly re-elected Rangel to his 21st term in Congress.

HARRIS: Yes, that's a good point.

And Reid, we were talking about it just a moment ago, one of the lines from Jo Bonner was, "Look, the people of the 15th Congressional District of New York should have had an opportunity to know the decision of this committee before they went to the polls."

But you were making the point the folks in this district are well aware of the charges and allegations.

REID PILLIFANT, "NEW YORK OBSERVER": Yes. This is an investigation that's been going on for two years. And a lot of the facts have been out there. And while they may not have known the committee's decision, they certainly knew what the allegations were and decided to overwhelming re-elect him in any case.

HARRIS: Would it have made a difference for the people of his district to know the decision?

PILLIFANT: From people that I've spoken to in the district, community leaders there, there's a real sense that Charlie Rangel is a victim in this case.

HARRIS: Really?

PILLIFANT: Yes. There's a real sense of victimhood here. I talked to Hazel Dukes on Monday. She said this was a witch-hunt. And so it seems unlikely to me that this verdict would have swung a lot of votes in a different direction.

HARRIS: That's interesting.

Let's open up Brianna's mike again for just a moment.

And Brianna, what are we hearing now? I'm assuming that -- yes, go ahead.

KEILAR: This is the chief counsel. In essence, the prosecution.

This is Blake Chisam. He's the top lawyer for the Ethics Committee, and he is the one who presented the facts against Rangel. He's the one who has been pursuing this case for so long. And again, this has been going on for two years, so this is what really is his argument during the sentencing phase.

HARRIS: OK. Let's have a listen.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BLAKE CHISAM, CHIEF COUNSEL, HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE -- financial disclosure statements for the years 1998 through 2000.

(INTERRUPTED BY LIVE EVENT)

CHISAM: Two of those have been issued since 1997. The committee's precedence do not draw a clear line to determine an appropriate sanction --

HARRIS: So let's do this -- let's sneak in another quick break.

We are standing by waiting to hear from Congressman Charles Rangel. At his side, Congressman John Lewis. The House Ethics Committee meeting right now to determine a punishment for Charles Rangel for violating House rules.

A quick break. We're back in a moment.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: So, we're watching out of Washington D.C. The House Ethics Committee convening a hearing now. We're in the sanction phase of the process now. House Ethics Committee trying on determine what the sanction will be for Congressman Charlie Rangel violating 11 House Ethics rules.

With us here in New York is Reed Pilifont. He is a writer for "The New York Observer." And our congressional correspondent Brianna Keilar is watching, as well from Capitol Hill.

And Reed, you spent time with Charlie Rangel recently. The weight of all of this, is it clear, is it apparent, is on his shoulders? Is he wearing it?

REED PILIFONT, "THE NEW YORK OBSERVER": Absolutely. There's an old joke that Charlie Rangel was unavoidable for comment on almost any story. And walking with him down the hall of the Ravern (ph) building on Monday, he said almost nothing, gave the shortest possible answers. This is a guy who has always been extremely charismatic. And it's clearly, clearly weighing very on his shoulders.

HARRIS: Yes. Does he believe he is corrupt? In listening to him over the last couple of months and all of his public statements on this -- or does he believe that he is in fact using his words he was overzealous, he was sloppy, but not corrupt? PILIFONT: There's no question he doesn't believe that he's corrupt. On Tuesday, his office sent out a press release essentially saying that in about five or six paragraphs, and also included a C- Span clip where Blake Chisham, who's serving as the prosecutor in this case, was asked if there was evidence of corruption, and Chisham essentially said no. So, Mr. Rangel's camp is very much trying to trying to hammer home the point that he's are not allegations of corruption, per se.

HARRIS: Brianna, for folks just joining us and taking a look at this ISO on Congressman Rangel, boy, it was stark the beginning of this hearing. Congressman Rangel arriving early. Certainly arriving before the committee members took their place.

And take a look at this scene. Brianna, if you would, walk the audience through this extraordinary period of time before the hearing got under way.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the reason that it is so extraordinary is it is just everything that you're seeing on Charles Rangel's face as he's standing there and it appears talking to -- or he's talking at least to -- I don't know if it's one of his associates and getting all of the members of the press taking photos of him.

But he's so somber here. We even saw him earlier this week at the beginning of the trial, he came in typical Rangel. Even throughout all of this, you know, he's snapped at reporters at times, he's been short as you heard Reed say. But throughout all of it, he's kind of peppered the whole thing with his personality, which is to be very jovial, to talk to reporters at times. Although, yes, has he been telling us a whole lot? No. He'll still talk to us without really revealing a lot.

But I think here you're seeing a different Charlie Rangel where you're seeing weight of what's going on here. And I think it was laid out pretty clearly by members of this committee and also by the prosecution, the chief counsel to the Ethics committee. You heard Blake Chisham say that in the 40-year history of this committee, only 16 times have there been sanctions. This does not happen every day. This is a very big deal.

HARRIS: Yes. And an opportune moment for the camera to widen out a bit. In those initial moments, Brianna, it was literally Charlie Rangel, standing as this solitary figure and pacing the space around this hall, this room. And then - and you commented, you were surprised to see John Lewis join him.

KEILAR: Yes, I was surprised to see him. I'm actually trying to figure out how that came to be because that wasn't what I was expecting to see. But when Rangel put out a statement earlier today, and this is what one of the things that the top Republican on the Ethics committee hit him for, saying his 40 years of public service.

But not just that. His military record. Remember, this is a Korean War veteran, a very accomplished veteran. And he was saying in the statement, Rangel did, that this should be considered and Jo Bonner, the top Republican, said, no, it's not relevant. That's not in dispute, we're talking about your behavior here as a member of Congress.

So, yes, John Lewis sitting down next to him. One thing he highlighted in this letter, Tony, was the fact he was a participant in the Civil Rights movement, and really his role in that. So, then you see John Lewis take a seat next to him, someone who is so accomplished certainly in his own right in the Civil Rights movement. He's quite a figure here on Capitol Hill, and to have someone sitting next to him because he doesn't have a lawyer, it's true.

HARRIS: Yes, yes. For a moment there, we were wondering would he stand alone on this day? And then we saw John Lewis. Reed, let me ask you, the good and the bad straight out -- the good and the bad of Charles Rangel.

PILIFONT: The obvious good is how much money he's brought back to his Harlem district. Mayor Bloomberg was on Capitol Hill on Tuesday and was asked about this. Said that Mr. Rangel had been essentially a good public servant, had brought a lot of money back to New York City, and said that personally he woud like to see him stay, that he did not want to see him resign.

The bad is obviously this moment, the fact that he omitted that he was chair of a committee that is supposed to write tax policy and that he was making, you know, at the least, omissions on his own taxes. So, people are still trying to -- I guess it's up to the voters now to sort out the --

HARRIS: And it's interesting. All of this happens, Reed, you know, you would have to say he was an 80-year-old man, in the twilight of his congressional career. There wouldn't seem to be a lot of time to write the next full chapter.

PILIFONT: And I think that's what you're seeing here. He's very focused on his legacy at this point. I think he know that's doesn't have much time, and I think that by not sitting through the process, he's able to sort of take it on his own terms, do his best to manage the PR a little bit. And I expect him to get up here and talk about his service over the last 40 years and sort of not sit through the undignified part of the proceeding to the extent that --

HARRIS: Brianna, do you want to add on to this?

KEILAR: I think one of the thing that's interesting, talking about the good and the bad. Just to kind of follow on what Reed said, you can almost in these proceedings, it's the nexus, perhaps, of the good and the bad of Charles Rangel. One of the things that he got in trouble for was soliciting donations for the Rangel Center, which is at the City College of New York. It is a center that is supposed to attract young minority students or young people of color to be attracted to public service and to get them into that. You can imagine in Harlem this is something that is considered so noble, the purpose of this center. And yet the way that he went about it, which was described by the prosecution and also by Rangel himself as overzealous, that he was soliciting donations from companies that had business before the House Ways and Means committee, a very powerful committee that, he was using congressional staff to do it, congressional letterhead. That in some of his other affairs, he was using his franking privileges, which is basically free postage that members of Congress have.

So, even though you've heard the prosecution say, OK, I don't believe that he's corrupt here, he's been sloppy in this. You're kind of seeing I think the collision there of how he's trying to do things and he moves ahead and yet getting himself into trouble with it.

HARRIS: Okay. Let's do this. Brianna, stand by. Reed, stand by with me here in New York. A quick break. We're back in a moment. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: "I wasn't corrupt. Overzealous and sloppy maybe, but not corrupt." That is the argument from veteran New York Congressman Charlie Rangel. We'll hear that in his own words again, I suspect, shortly. As you know, the House Ethics Committee is convening right now to discuss its punishment for violating House rules.

And we are expecting to hear from Congressman Rangel shortly. He's joined by Congressman John Lewis, who is on his left. I suspect we'll hear from both men shortly.

Let's check in with our Brianna Keilar. She's on Capitol Hill, and she's watching this with us. Red Pilifont is with us here in New York. He's with "The New York Observer."

And Brianna, if you would, bring folks up to speed with where we are, what's going on at this moment.

Reporter: This is the beginning of the sanctions hearing. This is in essence the sentencing phase for Rangel. He's already been found guilty of 11 of 12 House violations.

And what we're looking at right now is he is awaiting his chance to speak, and we're hearing right now from what is really the prosecution, the top lawyer to the Ethics committee. Tony, you said - you mentioned that Rangel has said "I'm not corrupt." And we've even hurt this from the top prosecutor, who's speaking.

But Blake Chisham just said something right now to really speak to that. Because he said sloppiness isn't a defense. I still believe there are violations of House rules here. He said, "What does it say to the American people that the person who is sitting on the committee" -- that's the House Ways and Means Committee, the tax writing committee that oversees the regulation of their income, of their retirement savings - "what does it say to them when it's being overseen by someone who is practicing as much carelessness as Rangel has?" Because remember, among other things he failed to pay taxes on income he got from a rental property. So, this is really, I think, is crystallizing the point that Chisham is trying to make here.

HARRIS: But you understand - I think we also understand why Charles Rangel is pushing so hard against that label because that's what sticks. That's what - "Charles Rangel corrupt" is what sticks. That ends up being what is a part of the legacy. That ends up being what is written about in the newspapers. It becomes the bold headline. So, I think we understand why he is pushing so hard against that label sticking.

PILIFONT: Right, I think he doesn't want this to be the first line in his biography going forward. And it's a tough thing to overcome. At his age, it's unclear how many more years he'll have to serve and sort of put this behind him, so I think he's trying to do everything he can right now.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: OK, let's do this. Let's dip in just a bit to find out where we are in the proceedings and maybe we'll duck out. But let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BLAKE CHISAM, CHIEF COUNSEL, HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE: The nature of his misconduct and the effect his actions and accumulation of actions had on the public's trust when weighed against the precedence of this committee suggest that something more than a reprimand but less than a censure would not be inappropriate.

That said, we cannot ignore the fact that respondent was at relevant times either the chairman or ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee. Nor can we look past the fact that so many elements of his conduct intersected so overtly with his stature and his position.

As a result, I respectfully submit that this committee should recommend to the full House that it take disciplinary action against respondent and that this committee recommend respondent be censured by the House.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you concluded, Mr. Chisam?

CHISAM: Yes, Madam Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will now turn to Mr. Rangel. And I see you have our colleague, Mr. Lewis, sitting next to you. And I would invite you to address us now.

REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.

First let me say, I can imagine the awkwardness that 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 this long, that it did take. And I understand that. The second thing, I would like to say that I hope Mr. Bonner (ph) in 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 us so long is because when people were talking about sentiment, never was the evidence that was not founded as relates to the allegations ever mentioned.

As a matter of fact, one of the reasons why I was insisting on having the witnesses that testified in front of the investigatory committee was because 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 charges of violating the House rules.

I look at myself every morning, 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're there to guide the members to protect the character and the integrity of this Congress. And whether they're 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 at 40 West on 33rd 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 everyone the suggestion of corruption.

And had there been some suggestion when we were negotiating as to whether or not we could have avoided this hearing, if someone had said to me that 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 newspaper reporters, television reporter, as it deals with Rangel being a crook, Rangel being corrupt, Rangel gaining, just -- I don't see any reason why if this committee pointing out those things.

Yes, I wanted my community to know what I had done. I wanted to be judged publicly. And I admitted wrongdoing 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 there 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 recognized 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 that fourth (ph) 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 council, 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 referred 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't think anyone has said what did I gain as a result of being on that list because if there was appearances, it was with the staff.

In any event, again, the fact that for 17 years taxes were paid to the 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 assumed responsibility for, because whether as a lawyer, a 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 (ph) asked the question by Chisam, the ethics chief council, 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 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 of the 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 I admitted that. But it would really help, and I don't think it's out of line, if the committee didn't say it before that you could put in that report no matter what you agree the sanction 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 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 look over taxes, to 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 other 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, well, I assume that when you go into executive session you would compare how other members were treated under circumstances where they were personally enriched and where 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 sub 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 here that they would say one thing, don't antagonize 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 my Congress and 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 would I have left that apartment, would there have been a subsidized apartment left there, the answer is no.

These people that would have been looks for a subsidized apartment certainly wasn't looking for it there if the apartments were vacant. And I didn't try to hide anything from anybody. But, again, that 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. And 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 proper education could get it. And there's the Rangel Fellowship that the State Department runs. There are scholarships in my name.

And that was 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 not an excuse 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 I 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 opportunity for John Lewis perhaps to share some views of the over 50 years of friendship that we've enjoyed.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: By unanimous consent, Mr. Lewis is now recognized.

REP. JOHN LEWIS (D), GEORGIA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ranking member, members of the committee, I want to first state that I'm here to say just a few words about my dear friend, my colleague, my brother, Charlie Rangel.

I must state upfront that I don't know the facts in this case.