UPDATE: The House voted 333 to 79 on Thursday to censure Rep. Charles Rangel, the veteran Harlem Democrat, after he was found guilty of 11 ethics violations last month.

“First, let me apologize to this august body for putting you in this very awkward position today,” said Rangel before the vote. However, he continued to argue that censure was too harsh a punishment for his violations.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked Rangel to appear in the well of the House after the vote, and read the resolution of censure aloud.

“I am convinced that when history of this has been written that people will recognize that the vote for censure was a very, very, very political vote,” Rangel said at a press conference afterwards.

Two Republicans voted against censure, including Rangel’s fellow New Yorker, Rep. Peter King.

UPDATE: On Thursday, the House ethics committee recommended Rangel be censured by the House for his violations.  Censure, the stiffest penalty short of expulsion, publicly reprimands a congressman on the House floor.

“The final decision on sanctions for violations of the House rules will be made by the full House of Representatives,” said Rangel in a statement posted on his website. “It would be inappropriate for me to comment regarding this matter.”

However, Rangel was visibly shaken after the decision and apologized to committee members. “I apologize for any embarrassment I’ve caused you individually or collectively,” he said.

In its statement, the committee also encouraged the House to adopt a resolution calling on Rangel to pay restitution. The House is expected to vote on the resolution after Thanksgiving.

Although a censure does not carry a criminal consequence, it is rarely used. The House last censured members in 1983 for inappropriate contact with congressional pages.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FROM Nov. 16

A House ethics subcommittee today convicted Rep. Charles Rangel of 11 ethics violations related to finances and fundraising. The 80-year-old Harlem Democrat, just re-elected to a 21st term, faces censure and possible reprimand from the House.

Rangel, who walked out of Monday’s hearing, questioned the decision of the subcommittee’s decision in a statement posted on his website. “I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions,” he said.

“I object to the proceeding,” Rangel announced Monday before leaving the proceedings. He argued that he did not have an attorney or the money to hire one. “I am very disappointed that the ethics subcommittee has chosen to proceed with the hearing knowing that I am without counsel,” Rangel said in his website statement.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), chair of the House ethics committee, was unmoved by Rangel’s arguments. The committee had advised Rangel in 2008 how to pay his legal bills, she said, and proceeded with the trial.

Rangel will likely keep his seat in the House and is not expected to resign, a decision that has left former opponent Adam Clayton Powell IV questioning the committee’s standards.

“This is an example of double standards: If anyone else was found guilty of any one of his crimes, they would’ve been put in jail,” Powell said.

“It’s a black eye for all elected officials — Democrats and Republicans,” Powell said. “The public is very cynical now, has lost confidence in the election process. People don’t want to vote anymore.”

Today’s conviction left some of Rangel’s constituents troubled.

“He made the mistake of representing himself,” said Martin Cook, who lives in Harlem. “It’s a shame because he had the people of Harlem supporting him.”

Harlem resident Eurydice Modupe said, “I’m not surprised.”

Others, like longtime Harlem resident Debra Sullivan, who voted for Rangel in this year’s elections, challenged the legitimacy of the committee’s decision.

“I don’t believe it,” Sullivan said. “They wait until the man is 80 years old to come up with this bullshit.

“This man did a lot for Harlem. I don’t buy it. I think it’s a way to kick him out, force retirement, disgrace him.”

Charged with 13 violations of House rules, Rangel had already stepped down from the chairmanship of the House Committee on Ways and Means earlier this year.

Rangel’s problems stem from a failure to report income from a vacation property in the Dominican Republic, and improperly soliciting donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

“All of Mr. Rangel’s theatrics aside, the facts were clear: Mr. Rangel violated numerous House rules and federal laws,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement. “Whether these violations were deliberate or inadvertent, the American people deserve to be represented by members of Congress who adhere to the highest ethical standards.”

She added, “Mr. Rangel should resign.”