2010 and received informal advice on that in august. each time the committee responded and provided mr. wrangle with formal guidance of how he could pay for legal fees in this matter relative to contributions and there is no prohibition on an individual using their own fees to retain counsel. under current house rules, it is not possible for mr. ragle to except pro bono representation, nor is it possible for the committee to compel his former counsel to represent him today. we are extremely troubled that they -- that his former counsel with your shortly after this hearing was noticed. i would note that the -- of these matters have been under

way for quite some time. the investigative subcommite completed its work and mr. frankel, the respondent, was provided with all of the evidence and materials on june 17 of this year and again with the notice of alleged violation formally on july 22 of this year. todayprepared to proceed and we recognize that mr. rangel has indicated that he does not intend to participate and it is his right not to participate in this matter as mentioned earlier. no conclusions as to the facts of this matter can be drawn by the fact that mr. rangel has decided not to participate in this hearing. unless there are further matters at this point, dodge neon >>

madame chair, mamet,? >> sure. >> since the first hearing opened in july, we have repeatedly asked that this committee proceed with this hearing as expeditiously as possible as requested by the responded. it is unfortunate that that did not happe and we are where we are today. i would agree with madame chair that it is also unfortunate that the law firm, for whatever reason, is not here today to represent mr. rangel. somehow, they got off the case after the hearing was scheduled. with that, i will yield back. >> thank you for tse comments. at this point, i would ask our counsel, mr. chisam --

>> madame cha, i would like to agree with mr. mccall. it is an astonishing display of professional irresponsibility for a law firm to be representing an individual, whether it is before this tribunal or another tribunal, to essentially drain the resources available to pay the firm into this for two years in the range of two million dollars, and then on the eve of the hearing, where his fate is in peril, they withdraw. it reminds me of bleak house, where the dickens character at the very beginning of the epic novel, there is a large estate and the book ends were all of

the resources of this state have been drained by the estate lawyer. none of the problems of the estate have been resolved. i understan that our rules prohibit us om taking action on that, but if this were a court of law, and a month before the capital case came to trial after two years of investigation, but would not be allowed to happen. i would agree with mr. mccaul in expressing my astonishment for them taking the money and then kicking thei client to the side of the road when it came time for the actual hearing. thank you. >> certainly, mr. butterfield? >> i, too, would like to associate with them.

it is fundamentally unfair to the respondent for council, after learning the date of the hearing, and on october 14, we did not to mentation from a lawyer asking permission to withdraw. th simplgave notice that they were of the case. that is fundamentally unfair. would not happen in my court and it should not happen here. we should at least promulgate a rule to prevent this from happening in the future. we should make sure ts firm explains tir conduct to the committee. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. we will turn now to mr. chisam. madame chair, i will renew my

motion to submit items one through 549 at this time. >> those items will be entered into the record. do you have additional motions? >> i do, madam chair. at this point, i would like to introduce what has been marked as exhibit 550, 551, 552, and 553. 551 is the exhibit of meal ruler. thus the affidavit -- >> the affidavit from ivan seinberg. we are prepared to call witnesses in this matter. throughout the course of

preparation and recent days, we have entered into -- witnesses have offered affidavits. in fact, and at least one of these instances, suggested changes to the language that we negotiated and we agreed to. at this time, i would move the admission of these. >> there is a motion to put those affidavits into the record. is there objection? if not, the items by unanimous consent will be put into the record. i would also note that we have received this morning a letter from congressman bobby scott along with a document entitled "minority viewpoint." without objection, those items will also be placed into the record. >> at this time, i would like to

call up and proceed with the motion that we noticed on november 8, 2010. >> each side has 20 minutes to argue this motion. at this point,e will ask if you would like to begin your arguments and? >> i would. the motion before you is 13 separate but nearly identical motions. those motions say that quite simply, it is time for you to vote. the affirmation supports -- the state's our case at length and argues on the uncontested facts in this record. each of the 13 counts in the

statement of alleged violation is ripe for a vote. more than six months ago, the respondent was provided notice of the charges against him. more than five months ago, he was given the documentary record as well as transcripts of testimony. on october 22, by direction of the cir, the committee counsel provided the exhibits to the respondent. he was afforded an opportunity to object and he did not. also on october 22, respondent was notified of the names of witnesses we intended to call. he was given summaries of their expected testimony and provided an opportunity to object. the respondent was given the opportunity torovide notice of any evidence he intends to offer and any witnesses that he intends to call.

he gave no such tice. provided the opportunity, the respondent has not contested the evidence. nor has he indicated that he intends to put on a case. simply, the record before you is the record. the facts are the facts. accounts are ripe for a vote. there are 13 cnts charged with the statement of alleged violation. one, improper solicitation. the violation of part 5 relating to the respondents through benefits of private donors under circumstances that reasonable persons might construe as influencing th respondent. a violation of the gift rule where respondents received private donors that gave to the center at the behest of the

respondents. count four, violation of postal service lost, for of using his frank to solicit private donations. a violation of the federal franking statute. in violation of house office building regulations for soliciting private donations on house property. counteven, a violation of the purpose law and how -- for misusing resources to solicit private donations. count a, a violation of the letter had ruled. violation of the ethics in government act. for failing to file full and complete financial disclosure statements. violation of clause 5 for

accepting a favor or benefit from his landlord in the form of his landlord's tolerance of the nonconforming use of a residential or rent stabilized apartment for campaign purposes. count 11, a violation of clause 2 for iling to uphold federal tax laws. cantwell, a failure to appear to both the letter and the spirit of the house rules. and calf 13, conduct not reflecting credit heavily on the house. the solicitations for the center. 1-8 relate to solicitations and of the center. the law is really quite simple. members of congress may not solicit unless they follow rules established by the house ethics committee.

the respondent could have lawfully solicited donations for the rental center, but it was only in his personal capacity. but he did not. the respondent has admitted that he used official letterhead to solicit. >> there has to be a penalty for grabbing the wrong stationery and not really doi the right bank. >> in addition to misusing his letterhead, the uncontested evidence shows clearly that when the respondents said over 100 letters that included a brochure requesting $30 million for the rangell center. they were taken as solicitations by donor at least one donor gave $25,000

based solely on respondents' letters. he used staff time and other official resources to create a list of potential donors. he he he used staff time and official resources to draft those letters and schedule appointments with potential donors to discuss funding for the center. he used his congressional frank consent solicitation letters. he created and a mail solicitation letters from the congressional office. he solicited donations from individuals, businesses, and from foundations with business and terest before the house as well as the ways and means committee. many contacted him and his staff about leglative and other official matters during the time in which he solicited.

in one case, with respect to aig, who responded said it would not be appropriate for him to meet with aig representatives to discuss the funding. he later met with aig officials to close that deal. aig did not of a because of the perceived risk. the respondent is soliciting gifts from david rockefeller who donated $100,000 home from his personal fund in tribute to the respondents. he indirectly received gifts from private entities and individuals or when they donated money to the center at his request and in his honor. the respondents received updates from of the city college and his staff on the status of funding for the rangel center.

he focused his energies and his hot on private-sector fund- raising. particularly after a $3 million earmarked that he would sell through along with other earmarks' in 2006. these facts are uncontested. they are in the record before you. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated counts 1-8 in the statement of alleged violation. the financial disclosure and tax issues, when the uncontested evidence establishes that the respondent repeatedly did not get his financial disclosure statement and tax filings correct. he has admitted as much. gosh when it comes to the

negligence of the disclosures and the tax issues, there is absolutely no excuse. >> and the papers fore you show the errors and omissions. on the facts here are the facts. the emissions are the omissions. and the inaccuracies are the inaccuracies. these facts are uncontested and they are on the record. they clearly and convincingly established that the respondent [unintelligible] it is nonconforming use of an apartment as a campaign office. in the uncontested facts show that the respondent least an apartment in the complex in harlem in his district in 1996.

he stated he was to use it for living purposes only. he did not. instead, he used solely and exclusively as a fund-raising office for his campaign committee and commercial use of violated the terms of his lease. commercial use of the property violated building code regulations and son-in-law's. he made no secret about his use of the apartment as a campaign office. heaid the rent with campaign checks and his staff sent females to the in-house counsel that oversaw evictions with his apartment address in the campaign office clearly noted. at the same time, the landlord was evting other tenants had an increased rate.

on the grounds of non primary residence. some of the tenants complained and. the office contacted the tenants and the landlord. the landlord had representatives that also met with the respondent about a new development project. the landlords tolerance of respondents's nonconforming use was a favor or a benefit to the respondent, particularly during the time that the landlord was evicting the other tenants for not using their apartments for primary residences. as part of his official duties, it might have created the appearance of impropriety. the respondent has said as much himself. >> what was the benefit? the benefit was that they were

not sensitive to the fact that there was appearances though i was being treated differently than anyone else. >> these facts are uncontested. they clearly and convincgly established that the respondent violated house council 10 of the statement of alleged violations. cal 12 and 13, the respondents axe in his accumulation of act violated both the letter and the spirit of house rules and oer laws, but his conduct did not reflect well on this house. the uncontested records -- the uncontested facts in the record before you clearly and convincingly established that the respondent violated both counts 12 and 13 of the

statement of alleged violations. finally, the respondent himself as noted that the allegations are serious. and that his conduct violated the rules. gosh i am prepared toet and try to let young people null and that you never get too late to recognize that these rules are for junior members as they are four senior members. and you can't get so carried awayith good intentions that you break the rules. the rules are there to make certain that we have some order, discipline, and respect for the rules. i violated that and i am apologizing for it. i don't think that apologies mean that it is -- is very seris. >> for these reasons and for

those stated fully in the written motion, we submit to you that there are no genuine issues as to any material facts in this case. as a result, the case is ripe for decision. we simply request that you grant each of the 13 motions and that you commit the matter forthwith tohe subcommittee for the libetion and for a vote on each count as alleged. >> i would note that this motion and all of the documents entered into evidence are posted in an committee's website effort to be fully transparent.

at this time, he would have been recognized to argue against the motion, but he is not president -- present. members of the committee who have questions will be recognized under the 5 minute rule. how do any members of the committee have questions at this time? >> we need to look at whether there is a material issue of fact in dispute. perhaps those serious allegations have to do with the respondent's alleged violation of the tax code given the position as chairman of the ways and means committee, charged with writing the tax laws for the nation. in the motion for rejection on

77, is a the respondent violated tax law by failing to report and pay on rental income in the dominican public. the spondent has admitted that he should have reported the income and from there on, you say that it is undisputed and he violated the internal revenue code. i want to look at some exhibits that you attached to see if there is any material issue in dispute. >> we have the opportunity to put exhibits on display of meers have questions about them. perhaps we can let that happen. the you need time to do that? i am sorry for interrupting.

>> essentially, it indicated that he failed to report on the original tax returns from 1998 until 2006. interestingly, he sent a letter to the dominican republic requting a contract bill. the ethics committee required disclosures, and while i enjoyed a good relationship, it would be politically embarrassing if i am unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings. when he testified before the subcommittee on the issue of the tax returns, he stated that he had misguided and inappropriate view regarding be in town because he had not received a check for direct income.

when the president testified, he said that the resort set statements every six months showing his income. if we could put up the exhibit number 82 on the screen. this is a letter from the resort. in the first paragraph, the statement shows a total ince of $2,604. next, i would like to put up exhibit number 540. this appears to be a letter written to the speaker nancy pelosi. he states that he, until this year, had not received anything

as of september 2008. i have not personally received proceeds in cash and he goes on to say that as chairman of the ways and means committee, who he is held to a higher standard of propriety. if we can turn to exhibit number 87. while he states that he did not receive this in come, i found exhibit number 87, he sent a letter and entered his signature to the yacht club asking them to please send the in come check to the account of charles frankel -- rangel. the documents in my view seemed to indicate other matter.

exhibit number 89, if i can be put up on the screen, he said he never received cash, but when i was reviewing the exhibits, i found this wire transfer directly from the yacht club as far back as 2002. in the statements from there in terms of the earned income is my understanding that they were sent every six months. these letters were written on official stationery, and on one hand, t documents seem to be done controverted. he seems to have some explanation as to why this was not earned income.

can you explain this discrepancy? >> the paper governments. the respondent did not report on his tax return, and come that he received. these documents, exhibit 86 and 87 show clearlyhat the respondent was told that he had and come and that he requested and told them where to send that money. that is unequivocal. he did make statements at some point that were not sworn in a letter to the speaker that suggested that he did not know.

there is no doubt that he did. the evidence in this record which is the paper here, shows that he knew and that he failed repeatedly to report his income. i would also note exhibit numbe 5. th was in 2000, and the respondents did not report and come -- income on his tax return. his amended fincial disclosure indicated there is between 20 $505,000 worth of and come. we don't have an amended tax return for that year. if you look at the highlighted portion, there was no income

derived from these assets during the year 2000, and it should have been noted in my financial disclosure statement. >> the committee worked with him to identify this, it seemed he continued -- >> he affirmatively stated that he did not have income and the documentsndicate that he did. >> i know that our time is limited, but i agree in his letter to thepeaker that as chairman, he should be held to a higher standard. >> do other members of questions at this time? mr. butterfield. >> let me go back to the question of council of i can do

that very briefly. beat you have any contact with the law firm that represented mr. rangel prior to october 7? about this case or the preparation of this case? >> in the ordinary course of events, i regularly taught to opposing counsel, and that was the case here. >> extensive contact with his lawyers. is that right? >> we discussed the case regularly. i want to be careful with wt i say because most of not all of those discussions were covered under the blanket of settlement negotiations, and largely would be -- >> you did have extensive

contact with this council, that would not be privileged, would it? is it true that the law firm simply withdrew from this case without asking permission to do so? gosh they filed a letter with the committee that withdrew. >> and they said that we are out of here and we're not representing this man any nger? >> i have the courtesy of a phone call shortly before that. >> and this w before -- after the date of the hearing was announced? >> it was closed. i would say yes. >> where specifically in the rules as a motion for summary judgment addressed? >> congressman, i know that we like to talk about this as a motion for summary judgment and i would like to put that matter to rest.

it is not really the same thing for a motion for summary judgment. and you should be able to fulfill your role. i am not asking as a matter of law. as manthings go, maybe we don't say anything. they are silent on this issue about what types of motions -- however. they do talk about the chair could be considered evidence. emotions are at the discretion of the committee and the subcommittee as to what -- >> you think it is inherent to entertain this motion? and did i understand you to say

that he did not respond to your motion for summary judgment? >> he has not responded in writing or orally, either. >> during your investigation of this matter, could you with some certainty determine who maintained his financial records? whether it is the chief of staff, his wife, an accountant? to maintain the records? >> within his family, records were kept most liky by his wife. his chief oftaff returns in 2000 and helps them with his financial disclosure report, he had held before then.

>> is a clear that different people perform different functions? one person might have filed his disclosure form and another person prepared his tax returns? >> that is a fair statement. >> in your investigation of this matter, d.c. any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption? >> i see no evidence of corruption. it is hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. the short answer is probably no. do i believe based on this record that congressman rangel took steps to enrich himself

based on his position in congress? i do not. i believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did and sloppy in his personal finances. with respect to the center, i think what is ironic to me is that he could have done this without seeking permission, without having to come to the committee and ask permission if he had only followed a few simple rules. the committee allows a blanket waiver for solicitation without having to ask for permission. he could hav done this right.

>> he did not use official resources and could have done this? there was some reference to earned income from other instruments that he received actual and come in from what i can gather, that income was reported on his tax return. it was simply not reported on his financial disclosures. >> i will go with sometimes. thereere variances throughout the entire time with respect to both what and how accurately amounts were reported. >> are there additional questions? >> part of the issue is that he

repeatedly leftff -- repeatedly left of assets from his financial disclosure of a material nature. there is an ing russia fund. it is not on his original. the next page, there are two other accounts, both of those on this amendment return, not on the original return. it is somewhere between 400,850 thousand of assets. would those be considered material to his financial statement? >> in general, underneath the structure the house rules, assets by definition are considered material.

they are to be reported. >> the the reason [inaudible] [unintelligible] >> if you ask him, it was attributed to slightly -- sloppiness. >> do we know where the source ofhese funds came from? his tax returns on don't appear to be super wealthy. the least for a number of years, [unintelligible] >> there is no indicatioas to why those same records were used.

in answer to your first question, there appear to have been, for what it is worth, and up-tk that results in the sale from 2004. >> that makes sense. his accounts back on the deal, we know for sure that he fired those many tax returns. >> fm 2004 forward. we know that we -- he attempted to pay the taxes. >> exhibit 66, we might go into it. we were told by a statue of limitations, was a totally?

>> they did not have adequate for the years that he did not file. >> protection is afforded? all of these cumulative repeated deficiencies, did you include that? >> i have no reason to believe -- i don't believe it is a defense at all. i believe it is a violation of the rule.

page 3699, this is a transcript from a press conference done by mr. randall in the house press gallery. really looking at the bottom of the page 3699. there we go. that is not its. is it 3699?

that was it, i'm sorry. this is mr. rendell speaking at the conference. i did not expect any special treatment because i am a member of conference. whater mistakes, if any, i have made. has a matter of fact, i truly believe that those in public service really have a higher obligation than people who vote for them -- this is a twisted final phrase, is this a correct copy of the transcript? >> that is my understanding. yes. i am a lawyer, congressman. >> with his lawyer were in here and said this is not a true and correct copy of the transcript, would we toss it out?

>> he produced this document to us. >> high yield back. >> to other members have questions they wish to ask? >> i will keep my questions as it relates to a specific issue. a few things. on page 74, you state that the evidence in the record makes clear that the respondent accepted a favor or benefits in the form of leasing the rent stabilized apartment for his campaign office. this violated the terms of his lease. the york city zoning regulations, new york city building code, in this particular box. could you describe more specifically the zoning and building regulations that were violated by his use of the

campaign office in a residential building? and secondarily, what is the significance about the commercial units above the first floor? >> the lease that was provided was for living purposes only. had i think that was for a reason. the reason is that every building in new york has what it is called a certificate of occupancy and what you can use a building for. the certificate of occupancy refers to as different as son- in-law's, and the bottom line comes to this. every unit above the first floor had to be used for residential purposes. if it wasn't, it would have violated the zoning restrictions as well as the building code.

agassi to the certificate of occupancy, and there are certain exceptions. there is some promise ability to use a residential unit for a business slong as you don't use more than 25% of the space for the business and you don't bring people into work. there is absolutely no circumstance that his use of this particular apartment would not have violated some law in new york. >> and the first floor issue? >> hobbes buildings, there are about six of them. you can live and shop in the same place. it is a large, a tall building. >> andhe other questions, if you could put up the exhibit number 5 away.

it is a copy of the original lease for the apartment that he signed for his campaign office. on the first page, he is tight as the tent. the tenant shall use the apartment for living purposes only and could only be occupied by either the tenant named on the lease or buy the immediate family. it seems clear that the respondent did not live in that particular unit. >> it is absolutely clear based on everything that we know that hesed that unit solely and exclusively as a campaign office. he had his staff go and there. they worked in there. he did not use its -- and he was quite open about it.

>> if you can put up the exhibit number 530. the evidence and testimony confirmed that this was used for the campaign office unit? >> before the investigative subcommittee, my recollection is that a witness indicated that this appeared toave come from the file for that unit. >> the person named on a lion is mr. randall's son. is there any evidence that his son lived in that unit? >> tre is no evidence to indicate that his son live

there. >> i have a series of questions that i intend to ask of mr. rangel's council which i will not do here. i will be happy to submit them for the record. i yield back. >> how do additional members have questions? mr. harper, be you have questions? >> earlier, you were asked by mr. butterfield of mr. rangel had received personal financial benefit or the issue of corruption. electable of the summary judgment if i could. is that available on the screen? >> i don't think we have that. >> if you could refer and

members of the committee references to page 59 of your motion for summary judgment. the first full paragraph, the first sentence says, the nation's to the center were a favor or benefit to the respondent. if i could drive down to the paragraph on page 59, it said the respondent also receive benefits for himself. the receive a place on the houses papers. i would ask, do those things, referring to the paragraph, do those have value? >> to answer youquestion directly, they do have value. the physical location for the center has ner been built. he has never donated his papers because he is still in congress.

do i think it has value? i absolutely think it has value. but is perspective and a little hard to msure at the moment. >> if we were talking about cash or monetary contributions, that has an exact value. but this does personally benefit mr. rangel, does it not? >> it would have. >> ii could refer you to exhibit 113. just by way of the infmation, it is an e-mail that is dated december 26, 2006 between shirley butler at the rental center, the former chief of staff and a number of other house staff. at the list of foundations that

was faxed the -- congressional stationery was used on these contacts, is that correct? >> can i take a look and see it before i answer the question? congressman, i don' want to mess this up. the question is -- i don't understand the question. >> i apologize. what are we at 136? how many letters were sent regarding the rangel center? were they all sent on congressnal letterhead and were they sent with house frank?

>> this exhibit shows a list of foundations to our knowledge. the record is pretty clear on this. everybody on the west got a letter. it was on the official letterhead. and we know that at least in the case of the new york stock exchange, which have evidence that the franc was used. >> one concerns to how to proceed on this motion whether we call a summary judgment or however you want to phrase it. while it is not specifically in the rules, what is the precedent for a motion like this being offered in lu of the oven a judicatory of varying- of an adjudicatorial hearing?

>> it would beore in lieu of taking live testimony. in terms of not taking on public testimony, i think there is ample precedent before the committee. but this is the hearing. the evidence is admitted at the hearing. we are essentially having a hearing. the motion simply states that based on the record before you, you can decide today and you can go back and talk about this case if he deliberate on a, you can argue about it, you can agree on that. thright now, you can get to a vote based on what you have before you. >> is this sufficient with the evidence that has been admitted with a summary judgment motion that we are able to make a decision? >> the fact that we have stated

are not all the facts in this case, we believe they are the material facts and they are ample to allow you to decide. we need in favor of the counts of 13 cots. >> are there further questions? >> did you investigate for comparison purposes, other members of congress who had raised funds for an educational institution? >> the jurisdiction of the subcommittee was limited to congressmen rangel. >> other members of congress have raised money for an educational institution that has been named after them.

correct? and you have no adverse nation about what members have done that and what circumstances it has been done? >> i don't find irrelevant. >> if i understand what you're saying, it is permissible for a member of congress to raise funds for an educational institute that will be named after the member? >> so long as they don't use of the resources -- official resources. >> an individual is allowed to solicit funds, and that includes from campaign donors or individuals that might have interest before their committee in order tostablish a nonprofit educational institution to be named after them? under existing rules and the

house of representatives and in the u.s. senate? >> under the committee's general waiver for solicitations for what you're talking about, that is generally true. but you cannot directly solicit, yes. >> the question here is the way in which he did that, rather than what is he actually did, is that correct? it is just yes or no on this, right? >> you are correct. >> they cannot u congressional letterhead, right? but they can send that letter to a corporation, to an individual who, whoever they seek to solicit funds from, correct? >> on personal letterhead, sure. >> in the fact that that individual might have interest

before a committee or jurisdiction is not a bar to them making that solicitation in the first place? >> that is correct. >> on the question of rent control, mr. randall -- rangel had [unintelligible] had multiple units on the sixteenth floor of the same building. >> most people think it is a pretty byzantine process of rent control in new york city, the department that is the substance of this inquiry was in force for several months. is indeed -- they paid the highest rate allowed under existing law?

>> the units are stabilized hall under new york law and he paid the maximum rent. >> and the landlord had a policy as to how it competed with rent- controlled apartments? >> [unintelligible] >> what we he here is a situation in which mr. rangel, his campaign paid a maximum rate under law for a rent-controlled apartment that had been left vacant for several months before his campaign rented it? is that right? >> the rent stabilization law is not at the landlord, this is the violation of zoning code. >> high-yield back. -- i yield back.

>> representative rangel was represented for a substantial bit of time, about two years. they filed a motion to dismiss at an earlier stage in the proceedings. inheir written brief, the motion was denied. but in their motion, they argue that the charitable contributions in connection with the center cannot be construed as an improper favor or benefits. and they went on to argue that the indirect benefits were not favors, they were integral parts the academic program. and the city college was a beneficiary, not mr. rangel.

if he had gotten permission and had solicited the the nation's in accordance with committee rules, would you argue that it was a benefit? >> if he had complied with committee rules, i do not believe that it would have been attributle to him. >> the argument really twofold, that the process was defective, and some sort of trance modication, -- transmogrification, it became a graph -- gift. i have trouble following that. >> i would flip it a little bit. the statute in the house rule,

the house rule on gifts essentially prohibits all gifts to members. it is blankets. there are exceptions. the solicitation ban is likewise a nearly absolute motion on soliciting donations. the house rules specifically provides that somebody else gives money to somebody else, and the member knew about it and requested it, that gift is attributable to the member. that is of the house rule. >> i understand that. but if it is an indirect gift, it would be in dict gift if you follow the rules of solicitation as well by your logic. all the people that we approved

for charities are violating the rule. >> the letters that you so very often sign contain language that talk about when the solicitation is approved either by the general waiver or by a waiver issued by the committee, the corresponding gift problem, that gift won't be attributed. >> let me ask you another question regarding the allegation that he received an improper gifbecause of the promise that he would have an office and there would be archiving of his paper this is something that i have never agreed with, but it is in our rules. if you recei something from a

public entity, it is specifically not a gift. so that if you go to the ucla game, if you sit with usc, you y for your tickets, but if you sit with ucla, you do not. how could this violate the gift rule if the gift rule specifically excludes benefits coming from the public sector? >> this is the indirect part of this gift. it is not in the provision directly of the office, it is how you get the money for the office. he solicited -- g. eisenberg gave $1 million in a match contribution for constructing that office.

i think whether you do it under the letter and spirit or all under the iirect gift rule, it is abundantly clear that that gift ought to be attributed to representative rangel and what not, in my judgment, be considered a gift when that happens from the university. >> let me ask a final question, i am just about out of time. the statement of alleged violation alleges that mr. riegle violated a clause 5 of the co of ethics. -- mr. rangel violated a clause 5 of the code of ethics. what about the aspectis it subjo purse or how do we read that statute? >> madam chair, the text that

reads as follows -- never discriminate unfairly by dispensing special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not. and never exam for himself or his family paper or circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his government duties. >> the reasonable person relates to everything after thee semicolon. >> this was left off the original one. >> i did not hear the beginning. >> i need to clarify something. my question was about assets not on the original financial statement. i mentioned the rush of funds, it was actually on both the rich and no financial statements at a value of $1,000-$15,000.

it is on the amended financial statements for $15,000-$50,000. >> thank you for that clarification. at this point, what is before us is not a proposal that we adopt this, but counsel's motion is that we decide that there are no material facts in dispute. that motion is something that i think we will want to discuss in closed session. we have heard the arguments. we have had an opportunity to ask our questions. unless there are further matters to come before us on that? >> thank you, madam chair. just a point of clarification. i'm hopeful this committee can come on a consensus on all 13 counts. however if the committee

cannot, that means there is an issue of fact remaining on those certain cancer we cannot agree on. if that scenario happens, do we proceed with the hearing with the live witness testimony? >> the motion before us is really to accept as proven all of the facts in the report. therere two questn before us -- the question of law, how we apply the law to those facts is separate. that is not covered by the motion before us. is that clear? >> i do think that if there are accounts that we cannot agree on, we may need to consider adding further evidence, having this hearing proceed on those remaining counts. >> i think if we do not -- the motiono accept the facts as proven or to fail, did you would

be correct. if we accept that none of the facts are in dispute, then we need to match those facts to the report and see whether it as a matter of law but that's report the allegations sent to us. >> i understand and 90. >> there is nothing further, we will recess to discuss this motion. and we will recess at least until 1:00, and we will try to give notice to the respondent and everyone else of the least 15 minutes or so before weome out in the public session. with that, we stand in recess.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a little bit more. does that work welcom to the nation's capital! it is a new day in america. the people of america spoke on november 2, right? >> yes! >> unfortunately -- and i know you're dying to hear this -- me in washington, d.c. have not listened to the new reality. are you shocked by that?

>> know! >> nancy pelosi is apparently going to be the minority leader for the next year. is that good? [appuse] we welcome her back in her agenda back because we know the american people have utterly rejected that big government, big spending, washington-knows- best approach. is that right? i thought so. and thank all of you for coming. i know some of you draw long distances. where the people from florida? where is georgia? >> pennsylvania. >> pennsylvania is right here. and the north carolinian is are here. i know that the commonwealth of virginia is represented. we even had people from up in new hampshire and new jersey, across this great country. thank you all for coming.

marilyn, i am sorry. i'm in big trouble, new york this year as well. thank you for coming because we set for the last year -- arizona, excusee. i'm sorry. i know americans for prosperity, we set for the last year this is not about one election, right? >> right. >> it is not about our short- term goal but genuinely taking our nation in a new direction toward freedom and prosperity. we know that is what this is about. and one of the questions that i heard most often on the road, whether in dover, ohio, or pittsburgh, pa. -- it did not matter where- people woke up and say, tim, do you think the republicans have learned their lesson from nearly 2000's? >> know! >> and my answer would be, whether they have not, we're

going to hold them accountable every single day. [applause] in that spirit, our first guest is here today. tomorrow is a crucial vote. these pork barrel earmarks of the very symbol of arrogance and corruption in washington, they really are. we have seen the people, the spending in the waste in the abuse of our tax dollars. i think tomorrow that the senate republican caucus is going to vote on motion by senator jim demint, our champion in the senate. [applause] i'll tell you something, tomorrow, the republicans in the senate are going to start answering that question, have we learned our lesson? are we going to go a different way? please welcome our free market ampion jim demint!

>> thank you. wow. thank you, thank you. as long as you are here, the people in these buildings, the buildings behind me, all over capitol hill, know that this is a government of the people and for the people and by the pele. that is something that had been forgotten here for years. last year we saw the power wrestled out of the hands of politicians and back into the hands of the american pple, and it is because of you and what you have done, all over the country, if people have sto up, they have taken to the streets, they have spoken o, they have said enough is enough. we have politicians quang in their bids going into the last election. [applause] and there was a reason for them to be afraid. everything has changed here in washington. i think people are listening. people like mike pence in the

house. and michele bachmann, who i think will be here. the house is going to lead the way and pass good legislation, bold legislation, the bold colors that reagan talked about that would inspire a letter -- if americans, that would demonstrate that we have gotten the message in that we believe in freedom in this country. if that was in that legislation to the senate. this time and set of saying no, we can say yes. we can challenge the democrats and the president to do what is right. as tim said, if this is just the beginning. 2012 is going to make what happens look small if we continue what we started here today. [applause] opt-in is right. if we cannot decide as a federal government that it is not our job to pay local -- paid local mall parking lots and build local museums, then we do not understand what constitutional

limited government is. if the senate republicans failed to pass the ban on earmarks tomorrow, obviously they have not gotten the message. i am optimistic that they have. there is a lot of pressure on some of them to cave in. but i think that you're going to see a bold new group of republicans. i was with a lot of them last night, and you helped send them. if people like pat toomey, marco rubio, rand paul randmike lee, and ron johnson, we have got people, young people, two of them 39 years old lowering the age in the senate by 10 years. [laughter] this is because of you, not of party organization. it is because one american at a time as realize that our future, our very freedom, everything we hope for is in the hands of individual americans, if not the people who vote in this day.

if we remember that, if we expand what you srted, if every day over the next few years, getting an average people engaged in what is goi on here, it will keep these people accountable. they will keep listening. we will have more voices speaking for you, and we will bring this country away from the edge of the financial klatt it is on, and restore a lot of the freedoms that we all believe in. the only reason i'm here today, and a lot of yothanked me on the way in, i'm here to thank you because what you have done has given us, my pants, michelle, others the per to change things. the only power we hit here in washington is the power of ideas and the millions of people standing behind them. thank you today. thank you for all you ever done. i'm here for you. >> areou guys with jim demint

on earmarks bill? by the way, i knew jim demint had a direct line, but did you notice that the sun came out? that is pretty impressive. i do not normally think of the term, congress and lehmann. i do, but i was a novice line. but starting today, nancy pelosi and harry reid are bringing back in the old, failed congress. they're going to try one last time, one last gasp to cram their agenda that has been repudiated by the american people. we're going to say no, aren't we? we're delighted to have with us one of the longtime leaders -- and i say long time in the sense of the last four for six years -- who has time and again cast the right road, whether it was

his own party or the democrat party, he did so with the confidence in our free market principles and in our nations, our founding fathers. and he is someone that we can -- that we can count on now. that is my pants. -- mike pence. >> i am from indiana. it is my high honor to welcome you back to your nation's capital. americans for prosperity, americans who attended tea parties and town hal prove that once again on november the second. this is still today the advent of the 21st century, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

[applause] we are gathered today to do two things. let me echo the eloquence of jim demint and rise to pay a debt of gratitude to you. and the tens of millions of americans that each one of you represent. they said that we could have a government as good as o people again, and you rose up and you demanded change. and it happened and we are grateful. [applause] but i alsoise today to tell you that at this very moment, our liberties themselves are once again at risk. this lame duck congress is limping back into washington, d.c. hungry for more spending, more taxes, more deficits, and more debt, and we are here to

say no more lame duck. it is not duck hunting session in indiana for couple of weeks. but the battle starts today. let me say to each of you gathered here today -- it is absolutely imperative that we role our sleeves up and focus on insisting that the change that america embraced on november 2 began today. and began in this congress. [applause] now the president and nancy pelosi argued tha november the sec it was all about a bad economy. -- that november 2nd was all about a bad economy, and about as failure to communicate.

[laughter] let me be clear on this point. i believe with all my heart that this year's election was a historic rejection of american liberalism and the obama-policy agenda. -- obama-pelosi agenda. the american people voted to change direction. and that new direction starts now. let us put our democratic colleagues on notice -- if you use this lame duck session to advance your big government agenda, you will be ignoring the will of the american people. >> that is right. >> if you use the lame duck agenda as a last ditch effort to promote your big government policies, deficits, debts, and liral social agenda, and you'll be proving that you just

do not get it and still are not listeningo the american people. [applause] and for my fellow republicans, let me say as we gather in this lame duck session in the coming weeks, there must be no compromise on ending the era of runaway spending. [applause] there must be no compromise on preventing a tax increase on any american. [applause] and there must be no compromise on our commitment to rooting it -- repeal obamacare lock, stock, and barrel. if we are gathered here today because the fight goes on. as the fight for freedom always does. we are gathered he today to demand that this congress in this hour practice the

principles of democracy and hear the voice of the american people. we also say with one voice, to those returning democrats and some republicans who do not heed the voice of the americ people in this november, but we will remember in the next november. [applause] thank you and god bls you. >> thank you, mike pence. american prosperity is a grass- roots organization with chapters across this country. for this next intduction, i want to introduce you to a gentleman that many of you virginians know, the state director for virginia, then marty -- ben markey.

>> we told them for the last 12 months that november was coming. we've got a message today, don't way? november is here! november is here. that message of responsible spending and not wasting our children's inheritance -- i have a son being born next month. he already owes the federal government $40,000. that should never be the case. one of those messages we were able to send, we have a lot of new conservative face is joining the britannia delegation in this new congress. one of them is no stranger to actually cutting the size of government. last year in the virginia general assembly, as majority leader, morgan creek that cut $400 billion of state spending. something that these guys across the road here ought to learn real quick.

he also sent a message that if you vote against your district and you vote for job-killing cap and trade legislation and kill those natural resources that we depend on in this country, that you are going to be replaced. ladies and gentleman, please griffith.organ breat [applause] >> thank you. it is great to be here carrying your message to the capital. and that message is one of accountabilityhen the district representative does not sten to the people. the people will replace him. >> that is right. >> sending your message that novemberas coming out there and we talked about the obama- pelosi policies, and we talked

about jobs, and you sent the message that you are accountable. i have to tell you, we're going through orientati now. it is very interesting and all inspiring to be here and know that i soon will take a seat in that building over there. it has been a long time since i was in high school. but when i was in high school, in salem, va., there was a poster on the walmy senior year -- if the picture of that building. it had a quote from alexander hamilton -- hear, sir, the people govern. >> amen. >> wsent a message to the congress that they should remember tt the people govern. i pull well understand and know that if i did not heed that message, november is always coming. and i pledge to you today and

henceforth that i will remember that it is here, sir, the people govern, and it is a government by, for, and of the people. i am glad that you helped to make sure that people knew had that -- they had the right and the accountability to hold their government accountable. and i wait and hope that i will be a person that you will all find approval of, and when the countability time comes in november new years from now, usa, morgan lived up to his word, his commitment to cut spendingnd to make sure that this government is doing what the people want, and do not ever forget, here, sir, the people govern. thank you. >> i do not know about you, but i still more confident with people like him voting then these lame ducks right now. what you say?

remember when they said conservatism and free markets, it did not work any more in new england? our message is only aouthern message. i a southerner and that is not bad. but this year that was proven to be untrue. you people ran across this country on an unabashed free market, freedom, lower taxes, less spending message and one across the country. another member-elect he did that is from new hampshire, the congressman. >> thank you, sam. i have to say i have been here since sunday. i feel like this is a bit of a family reunion. [laughter] it is great to see so many americans, so many people believe in liberty and freedom, so many peoe who believe that is your right and responsibility to come to our nation's capital and fight for the freedom that our grandfathers fought for.

that our kids and our grandkids desert, and that we all with light -- we would say in new hampshire, live free and die for. the last quarter years of my life, i spent as the mayor of manchester, new hampshire. i am very proud of what i did. i took one vote and turned it into cutting taxes, cutting spending, cutting ball rolling, cutting debt, cutting deficits, and actually got reelected. [laughte [applause] that message was t will of the people. it was the will of the people. and the will of the people has spoken again. this infamous freshman class will not let you them. we would join with you. [applause]

week feel you with us and among us. we will not let you down. we will make sure that we cut borrowing, that we cut spending, that we cut taxes, that we make sure we get d of obamacare. [applause] that we make sure your voices are always heard, now and forever, because this is our country, this is our capital, and it deserves a better governance. [applause] and i hope this is only the beginning. the beginning of a new america, and america that historians will say marked the change in time when every american rose up, beme part of the government, it change the government, to restore individual freedom, to respect the constitution, and to restore the 10th amendment. [applause]

i want to thank you hansard for givinge the opportunity to represent -- new hampshire for giving me the opportunity to represent them and that is what i'm here to do. i hope the weend gathering again and after this congress has concluded, we can mark of very special day where we honored the responsibilities and obligations that we offered each and every one of you. thank you all vy much. do not stop believing in our country. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have two of the members- elect a we wanted to hear from, who we think will be leaders in this class. the next is from the 18th district of ohio. i was there a number of times and there are great working folks in that district. there representative-elect is with us. please welcome bob gibbs.

>> thanks. i he to tell you, i love the sign. that is what it is all about, democracy in action. it is an honor to represent ohio's 18th in the people's house. when i ran in this great fight, i made aommitment of ohio's 18th that i would do three things -- cut deficit spending, cut the borrowing, roll back the tax increases, and reform. we have an absolutely to do that to bring confidence back to the private sector, so our employers will start hiring people and get back to work. that is what it is about. if we do not do that, it is a national security issue and it is an erosion our god-given constitutional freedom. number one priority, we're going to fix that. there is a quote here, nancy pelosi did not get the memo. she is trying to put forth the

linda -- the liberal agenda in e lame duck. you know what i think they ought to do? make sure that taxes do not go of january 1. number one. everyone, everyone -- taxes do not go up for anyone, ok? otherwise will have the largest tax increase in american history. i don't want you to think about what will happen if they do that. second, i don't think this lame duck congress will do it, but at the very minimum, in the next weaker so, they ought to repeal the burdensome regulations on businesses in the 1099 forms. that ought to go away. obviously they did not pass things like card check, inventing on local workers' rights, they do not pass t national energy tax. major taxes do not go up january 1 and take care of the 1099s so

that we do not put more burdensome regulations on our employers, and then go home. [applause] that is all they need to do. we will come back here in january where the real work starts and we will get this economy going and enhance our god given constitutional rights. if people are n economically secure, thais an erosion of our rights. we will make this country the greatest country in the world again. we will be a beacon forope and freedom and opportunity. thank you for being here. >> the congressman-elect's commons remind me of a rock-and- roll song. the song said, do not galway mad, just away. [laughter]

one state that did not quite get the message on november 2, i know we're struck by this, as california. however -- however the people of california did send a couple of folks that are thinking the right way. on economic issues and every other way. one of them is with us. i have known him for several years. it was a leader in the legislature there, which is tough in california. i know he will be a leader here. >> thank you, thank you. the fight continues on. the election is over but the fight continues on. make no mistake -- this is a fight. there are those that want to raise taxes. there are those that want to continue to increase spending, and the fight continues on.

as a congressman-elect, when i am sworn in in january, you have my word that i will continue this fight. in the mntime, i am still a farmer, i am still a small business owner, i am still a veteran. and this is a fight that we have to win. when they believe that no one is paying attention, the holidays are coming, we can sneak in a spending increase, we can sneak a tax increase -- now was when we have to fight harder than ever and make sure that they hear us. when those that do not believe that a tax increase will continue to kill our jobs, we have to make sure they hear us. i like everyone else want to thank you, but more than anything else, but fight continues on. we need to be ever so vigilant in this fight over the next two months. this lame duck session is unacceptable. if the think our tax are going

to be raised or spending will increase -- enough is enough. thank you. [applause] >> there are a lot partners in this conservative movement across this country. so many tea party birds, someone did you acted in your local tea parties, local 912, a local american for prosperity chapters -- thank you for what you're doing. we have several of our partners to this morning. this next lady is with the concerned women for america. sh has been leading spending revolt bus tours across the country. how many of you saw one? they traveled the country. they are great allies. please wcome penny. >> good morning and thank you for coming out.

there was a quiet murmur that started about 18 months ago. let me tell you, that murmur culminated on november 2 in a mighty roar. >> you bet it did. >> the concern was americans across the country, let their voices be heard. thank you for what you did. you went to the polls and make your voice is heard. we're going have to continue in that room. the otheside toes yothat what women really wants -- they want federal tax subsidies to pay for abortion. >> know! >> they tell you that women want handouts. what we really want is a responsible constitutional government. >> yes! >> one that allows private entrepreneur ship, one that allows the private sector to create jobs. we do not want a handout.

we won a job. >> that is right. that is right. >> with and care about the health care bill. women make 80% of the health care decisions ia family. we are responsible for the help of our families. this health care bill was extremely, extremely repulsive to us. we know it to be the failure that it is. we're going to continue on until we see it repealed. [applause] >> that is right. >> we have had at other times in history where we have seen this kind of governme spending and as high taxation the levs that it is that today. i would tell the president, look to jfk. he understands that you have to roll back a 91% tax rate, that it was choking the ability of the country to create jobs.

i would use that as an example for our president. i will close by quoting -- he quoted blondie, i am one of " ronald reagan. [laughter] ronald reagan said it so well. this is where someone from america is coming from. this is an issue about our children and our grandchildren. this issue is about our future and protecting our family. the ronald reagan said, freedom is never what -- ner but one generation away from extinction. it must be fought for, protected, and handed down for them to do the same. or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what was once like in the united states when men were free. thank you and god bless america. >> thank you, pending.

i agree, ronald reagan was a better quote- blondie. you've got me there. at americans for prosperity, where grass roots, but we have one of the best minds in the conservative movement on our side. you to hear from the cahill leads us on the policy front, and that is our vice-president, bill curtis. >> thanks, tim. thanks everyone for coming today. i think we have to -- rights that a huge enormous consequences for the direction of our country that will be decided right now, between now and the end of the year in this lame duck session. the first when you heard about from senator demint, the earmarks of a. to mark the senate republicans will be voted on whether japan pork-barrel earmarked request, like the bridge to nowhere, and museums. all these outrageous examples of pork. they have to ban earmarks.

any republican who does not vote to ban air marks will have a primary challenge. they will not get a free pass. we have to keep all the heat on them for this year martin vote tomorrow. the house will also vote this week. its critical ever republican member of the house needs to know that we wanted in earmarks as well. john boehner is leading the fight there and i think we will lead -- and win on the house side. that year marked by it is inside the republican conference in the house and in the senate. we have two huge consequential fights that the democrats can still control because they have cause zombie congressmanp their casting votes. the spending side and the tax bite. let me tell you -- if they get their way on spending, we're going to have eight trillion dollar omnibus spending bill that funds obamacare, the epa,

funds everything that we once thought. it will stop -- it will find everything that they wanted to fund but they could not get away with before the election, that will be in the omnibus spending bill. here is the thing. they only have 59 democratic senators right now. it will drop to 58 as soon as they stostalling and actually kirk who won his special election. they will need to republicans to do that omnibus bill. no republican better help them, no matter what pork they promise, no matter what spending, special-interest giveaways, and no compromise on spending. if we lose, they will have all the funding they need to move everything forward on obamacare , their wholregulatory agenda. even if we did funded, they will have all the money in this bill. we have to stop the omnibus

spending bill. no compromise, no on the bus spending bill. -- on the bus spending bill. the third crucial fight that i need is on taxes. we need to stop the largest tax hike in american history from taking pce in january 1. the democrats were derelict in their duty when they went home to campaign without doing anything to prevent this tax hike. the american people clearly spoke on this. we need to stop every single tax hike that is coming. wh it -- that means extend the current tax rate for everyone. no tax increases on investors and retirees and small businesses and the rich. none of that. no alternative minimum tax to slam the middle class with higher taxes. and no death tax. [applause] and i am going to need all of you guys -- when we finish, you need ttell your members of

congress all three of these things. no earmarks, no on the bus -- omnibus spending bill, no tax hikes. we have to keep this debt. my next friend, dick pattern. -- patton. >> welcome to date 319 note that taxes. this is the first time in 96 years of america has had no death taxes, but the government has not reached into in confiscated family property from one generation to another, disrupting family farms and family businesses. that is the good news. the bad news is that congress does nothing in 46 days, that death tax goes from 0% to 55%, the highest death tax on planet earth.

ooing] with that lower and lower and now we have no debt taxes. now that we're in the lame duck session and that that tax is before us, it is on the verge of skyrocketing in the future. in the very nea future. we need to let congres know that 55% debt taxes are not acceptable. 45% is not acceptable. 35% is not acceptable. we are heroes to kill the death tax. -- we are here to kill the dth tax. we have got all of these questions. that that tax kills 1.5 million jobs and americans. harms family businesses, it distorts the late between parents and their children. you can boil it down to this one question -- do we actually have

property rights or are we merely tax paying surface that somehow after a lifetime of hard work, after a lifetime of paying taxes, when this thing stops beating, the government confiscates our property as if they somehow funded to begin with? this is a huge setba. it occurred to me last week that the original american revolution was preceded by a tea party. [applause] alsoweek's revelation was presorted by tea party -- preceded by tea party. in the spirit of this, let me leave you with this -- no taxation without respiration. [laughter] >> a lot it came down from new jersey and pennsylvania this morning. thank you for joining us.

i do not thi -- we're not close to finishing up without steve lott and. >> thanks, tim. thank you everyone. thank you so much for getting up early this morning, or late last night, and getting in your cars to come here for the defense of liberty once again. it has been one year ago this weekone year ago today that many of you here and many others gathered for a code red health care rally to san nancy pelosi, harry reid, and barack oba a message. they did not listen to that message. they did not compromise or at least a consensus on their liberal agenda. they did whatever th had to do

to jam it through. and they paid the price. >> they sure did. >> thanks to you in your efforts, no one here has compromised on their commitments to liberty. we do not expect that from the new leadership in washington. we expect the democrat party, now still under nancy pelosi and harry reid, that the democrat party live up to their name and live up to the democratic will of the american people. they have spoken. and not violate that will in this lame duck session. but most of all, we expe the new leadership in washington, the republican leadership not to compromise their principles, not to advocate their police to consensus, but stand solid for the values for which we have fought.

if they do not do so, we will be back. we will be back. thank you. >> tha you, steve. god bless you, brother. thank you. thanks, steve. one of our best allies around the country in this fight is andrew langer. you maryland folks know him pecially well. he is at the institute for justice. please give him a warm welcome. >> i'm the president of the institute for liberty. not to take anything away from your organization. i want to begin on a humble nut. this is my second event of the date. had they began -- that began in maryland with people who are protesting the westboro baptist church. they showed up a solid the memory of a veteran of afpak last week.

5000 mark in showed up at in memory -- 5000 americans showed upn memory at that protest. and the drive home for me, what this movement is all about, each and every one of you stepping up and doing your part. history is not without this onic moment. we reached one of those today here and now in washington, d.c. we have a system in america where we had tw of major parties, a republican party built on principles of the democratic republic that we have, republicanism, separation of powers, federalism, limited government. and we have a party, the democrat party, that is supposed to be based on the will of the people, right? that is what democracys, all about the will of the people. and one would expect that democratic party toisten, when you? and yet here we are, because of

that irony. we're here because despite the fact that americans overwhelmingly came out -- and do not let them tell y otherwise. the narrative that they wanted to spread was that this was nothing -- you would think nothing was going on in washington. none of us ever came out to a tea party have been. but people were punisng the party in power for the economy. but we were, and why? because they did absolutely nothing to fix it and everything to exacerbate the problems at hand. and yet here we are, because they will not listen. and it does not matter if it is because they do not understand. what was that? we can come back again and they should understand that. because we have time and time again. and i will. [laughter] i said with tim that our work

did not end on election day and you know that. inis messages to everyone out there in the republic. our work began on election y. the hard work of turning back every bad thing thathe pelosi-obama agenda has done to america. we have started. thank you all for coming out. [applause] >> we have two members before we ask you to go and knock on doors across the capitol. the first is from the great state of texas. my wife's home state he is from the first district of texas. he has been one of the fighters in congress for. louis gohmert.

come up here. >> thank you. i would say thank you so much. i was originally asked by a reporter who did not know my heart about these t party groups. all of these groups, americans for prosperity, freedom works, that all these groups? and i responded, they are an answer to many years of prayer [applause] after this administration was brought into washington to join speaker pelos and majority leader harry reid and the people and april 2009ealized this is more runaway spending, this is more of government

taking away our rights, the people responded in april and said, we still want no deficit spending and we are going to get it. and as president and the speaker said, no, you cannot. and this group and these people said, yes, we can. and when this administration responded to the people who said, we want you to protect thisountry, if you took an oath to protect debt -- to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, ando not put up signs -- you get us and protect our own land. and this administration said, no, you cannot. but you said, yes, we can. and when this group said, we want the government to be what

it was intended in the constitution, serve us. this administration and the speaker said, no, you cannot. but you said, yes, we can. and when you responded by saying, you either give us responsible spending, non- deficit spending, and you live within the means that we provided, and you protect this country, you do not turn on our friends like israel, and you said if you do, wwill turn you out, they said, no you cannot. and you said -- >> yes, we can! >> and that is what hpened. and people who are not even bomb rubble, two months ago as her that they would be back here, said

you could not turn them out, and you did. but me tell you briefly because i love a look things that have been said. as a judge, it was breaking my heart to see women, single women with children being brought more and more to my card charge with the felony of welfare fraud. what aut -- to my court but the charge of welfare fraud. and some would say, just drop out, the government will send you a check. back in the 1960's, i think it was with the best of intentions, congress thought that the deadbeat dads were not helping. we will send you a check for every child you and have out of wedlock. and they said they were lured into this with no way to get out. >> they thought that eventually they would get an up checks to get out of the hole and they did not.

they would get aob and not tell the wealthier people and they will hopefully -- the welfare people and they will hopefully get away with it. that is a felony because they did not tell the welfare people about the job. i believe in keeping people accountable. what broke my heart is that this city, this congress, the president of the united states has continued to lure young women into a hole with no hope of gting out. the wonderful reform of welfare under obamacare, when in adjusted for inflation, income for women went up for the first time. you may not be aware that the repeal was in obamacare. it has to be repealed for the sake of all of these people across america. [cheers and applause] let's stop

incentivizing bad conduct and incentivize good conduct. when they say you cannot do it, you said -- >> yes weekend. >> back t work, but you very much. -- thank you very much. >> tre has been a lot of talk about leadership positions within the republican caucus. there has been a lot of talk about leader positions -- leadership positions within the republican caucus this past week. at americans for prosperity, we know who our leader is in the house. don't we? >> [cheers and applause] >> when we won a message in a

legislative battle or a political battle, we know who the leader is, don't we? >> [cheers and applause] we can think of no one more appropriate than our leader in the house, michelle bauman. -- michelle bachman. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. do you know that you are the people who change the world? you did that the first tuesday in november. [cheers and applause] interestingly, the sun is shining down on us today because you did it. you came at. he rallied.

. phone, you kept it running. you were so persistent. you recruited for office and he donated to people running for office. he persuaded. you brought your friends. you brought your enemies. he brought anyone you could bring out to the polls and you have turned this country upside down. there is a chapter in american history books were written just with your name on it. and every year, about this time, there is always the story about who is the man of the year, who is the one of the year. i want to give my nomination. it the tea party are the people

of the year for 2010. [cheers and applause] because the tea party is nothing more than recreating the spirit of 1776 and it is a lot of and it is walking across -- is alive and it isalking across the united states and is here in the capital today. we have so much to be faith baus thankful for. americans for prosperity have been a faithful friend to all of us. the reason this movement is so extraordinary and has compounded so many people in the mainstream medias because this is reality. this was not astroturf. this was not a group of toothless total is --

hillbillies who had no idea what they were talking about, these were angry, hateful people. these are the nicest people you would ever want to meet. every time you see a rally or a meeting, it resembles a family reunion more than it did the hatfields and mccoys, dn't it? [applause] after one of the rlies this summer, you could not find a piece of litter on the national mall. not only are you great people, your needs. -- you are neat. your givers. your not takers. -- you are givers, you are not takers. one thing that you so a fully understood -- so thankfully understood is that it was not

compassion to steal from our own children. you understood that very well. you understood that it more represents a gangster government when government takes over one private industry after another. week, we ran -- to read a headline that the chinese government is looking to buying into government motors going forward. you have one government buying a private corporation and another government coming in. does that mean that the american taxpayer will now have to prop up shares? this is insanity economics. this is not representative of who we are. we are better than that.

[applause] and we are better as a country because we have sent in a new batch of recruits, over 80 strong, who may actually read these bills once they get here. i think they really will. there will be a new sheriff in town and this share of will listen to the american people. if we do not, then you had better turn us out, too. because it is all about fidelity. fidelity for the declaration of independence. the glorious mission statement that tells us who we are and who to. we were put here on this earth by a creator. we know that if was not the

people in the capital that ge us our rights, it was a creative that give us our lives -- our rights. even if they think they can, they cannot. these are in alienable rights that only a creator gives. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. we are all created equal before that heavenly magistrate. to that end, we are here to remind those that often think that they are better than us, but they are not. they are servants of the people. we are here to remind them in the waning hours, as the shadow falls on speaker policy -- weaker nancy pelosi's gavel, are here to remind them as we

did at the ballot box not so subtle lee on the first tuesday of november that we are the keans and queens of this nation. when we are the sovereign, and you serve us and you listen to us. how egregious it would be after the people spoke of that they would take it upon themselves to pass more legislation that would bankrupt the nation, that would increase taxes which would mean $1.2 billion taken away out of the pockets of real people in my district and get sent to the peop of washington d.c. who spent more than that before they have their morning coffee. i would prefer toee that $1.2 billion left in the hands of people in st. cloud, woodbury and stillwater and districts all

across the country. leave it where it will do me good. [applause] if they decide that they are going to change the tax policy and have the largt tax increase in american history, it will mean that in my district, to thousand jobs will be lost. -- two thousand jobs will be lost. they said they would create two million, 3 million, 4 million jobs. how many jobs did they lose? millions and millions of jobs. how would prefer to be here to talk about where we find more people to fill the jobs and have wagegoing up so high because prosperity is so high. this is americans for prosperity that are hosting this rally today because we are

americans for prosperity. [cheers and applause] and we can have that again. i am an unashamed disciple and promoter in free-market enterprise in this country. that is what this nation was founded upon, upon free enterprise, not about an ever- growing bureaucracy. that is what we have seen with obamacare. justice weekend, it was reported that only 111 waivers have been issued. this is an admission of failure by the white house today may not be admitting it, but their actions are admitting it. we see universities and unions

and favored cpanies are getting waivers? what is a waiver? it is an exemption. exemption? obamacare is a cost of driving failure. we were told that we have to pass obamacare. we could not wait. we could not even read the bill. we cannot even take thtime to debate it. because president obama promised us that it would drive down the care. he promised. he promised. i stood there on the floor of the chamber, and many of you were out here demonstrating against this bill. onunday, march 21, i stood on the floor and the final speech have the speaker of the house and other democrat members say to the american people that we

would save 1.3 trillion dollars if we passed obamacare. let's see where we are at. they saithat we would increase jobs, not lose jobif we pass the stimulus. it did that work? >> no. >> they said that we would save money, not lose money if we passed obamacare. did that work? >> no. >> sike to. -- strike two. they said we wouldave quantitative easing if the federal reserve was printing money and now they are saying that we will print an additional $600 billion. they say that will lower inflation. they say it will lower interest

rates. ok, can i sell anybody a bridge in brooklyn? >> no. >> strike 3, they are out. i want to thank you for what you have done but i also want to inspire you. inspire you that america's days are not over. we have already seen the first step in taking our country back. we are going to keep our pedal to the metal so to speak. not only in this lame duck session, because we cannot afford to have any more out of control spending. we cannot afford to he been out of control tax increases this is the first -- tax increases. this is the first that of taking our government back in 2012. i fully agree with the democratic tons -- pundits and pollsters that are calling on president obama to not one for a second term.

-- run for a second term. i believe we just witnessed a referendum, even though president obama denied it when he said that the election had nothing to do with his policies, i think the american people felt quite differently. let's not have this any longer be about politics. let's have this be above personality. let's have this be about the people of this country getting back to work. we need to focus on prosperity. turned and focused, not on washington, take the mirrors of washington and turn around and looked out at the greatest country that has ever been constited in 5000 years of recorded human history. look at o people.

look at our greatness. for the very fact of revering those came before us and who sacrificed and bled and died for us. for them, for their memories. so we do not desecrate their memories. back to a sound financial footing and do what we know is true. for those that are in generations yet born, let's put this nation on a solid financial footing. let's do this right today. i want to thank all of you who are hereoday. i want to think americans for prosperity. this really is a new and glorious day. the sun is rising, the sun is not setting. to a rising sun, we will continue to inspire moving foar

[cheers and applause] >> mhele bachman! >> usa. usa. usa. usa usa. >> listen, you are here. let's make sure of a couple of things. let's go knock on some doors today. senate republican leader mcconnell needs to hear from you about these earmarks. that the lame- duck does not move us backwards.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> silence for the right honorable, the lord mayr. [applause] [applause] >> my late lord mayor, your grace, my lord chancellor, prime minister, mr. speaker, your excellence, your lord, chief commoner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of our two sheriffs, fiona wolf and -- we welcome you to the gildhall. thank you for joining us as your first time as prime minister. [applause] [applause] >> we gather here tonight in the

remarkable symbol of the city, guildhall. the hall of history, a place of commerce and cooperation. next year we will celebrate the 600 anniversary of the present building, the third to stand on this site. guildhall honors the cities men and women, people of all backgrounds and classes who have dared, dreams, worked, and struggled, and to build a great nation. it is a site of living history and one of the most powerful symbols of our country. we gather here as part of the passage from responsibility from one lord mayor to the next. a process that extents back to 1189. and the 683 time the articles of the great and ancient office had been exchanged. tonight's dinner is in honor of the late lord mayor, nick.

he has left an legacy of contributions, especially through his actions to increase commerce and trade between the city and other countries. he's also been a champion of philanthropy, helping numerous organizations, especially through his pitch perfect initiative. his wife claire has been a model lady, supporting the lord mayor in so many worthwhile causes in her own right. [applause] [applause] >> this is my happy duty to remind the gathering of the late lord mayor's achievements. one of which was running the new york city marathon. that is an achievement that lord mayor will not be repeating.

[applause] >> on behalf of my wife barbara and myself, on behalf of the civic and business, and behalf of the citizens and london, many thanks to the late lord mayor for a lovely job done. [applause] [applause] >> the late lord mayor often spoke of preparing for the future. one year ago in his speech before you, he asked that we undertake a long-term vision for the city. mindful that our task is to get the right balance between looking at the problems of the past and finding a way to solve those that we face in the future. i agree. the city must settle for nothing less than a great and sustainable future. we are world leaders in culture, commerce, industry, education, and innovation. we must continue to outtry and

explain our vision for the future to embrace and shape that future to make this our time of achievement and progress. our choices now, right now, will

>> the world will see london as never before. created, organized, welcoming, and tolerant. the world will see a multicultural nation with one the most diverse capitals. they must see a model of progress, decency, social justice, and political decorum. they must see a city of financial stability for exciting future open for investment. and a city that meets it's obligations to those in need. frankly, in the financial markets, the world is already watching. looking to the city of london for leadership and stability, reassurance, and responsibility, transparency in the highest levels of provety. we have ju survived a shattering shock of a worldwide recession. it has been turbulent and difficult. during the turbulence, that has been some who have predicted a

slow agonizing death for the city. claiming that we have been over taken by events and our competitors. these are premature and they are also wrong. this is a city that has a strong and steady heartbeat. our workers are amongst the best in the world, reliability, productive, and well trained. we have visionary and dynamic leadership throughout the city. this is a city that's energetic and hard at work 24 hours a day. we know the city continues to provide national and international leadership. it contributes 60 billion pounds each year. 60 billion pounds that pays for schools, hospitals, roads, and much more. even in the difficult year, of 2009, net exports of the uk financial services were the second highest, covering 50% of the cost of imported goods from

abroad. 41 billion pounds. and exports will be vital to our continued recovery. a recovery that will depend on trade and investment. these are the city that is will fund the trade in investment. the city can do all of this and more. we had the right products to our meet our present challenges. we lead the world in insurance, sustainable finance, public/private partnerships, foreign exchange and more. and private, you see our great strength in guildhall tonight, the men and women who are the city who give the city it's life, it's verdict, and it's resilience. together we can influence the history of our future. places of history that can make

history again by providing opportunities, jobs, and hope. the market was one silent and direct. now is a vibrant place where people gather, people make a living, children play, voices carry, we have made a neighborhood and a community. this can happen anywhere in london. we must dream large and cast aside skepticism. and one way we can do this is through renewed and better infrastructure. we must do more to maintain and improve our city's infrastructure. that is a perennial challenge. commerce flows into the city and out. through our roads, railways, bridges, and air force. they are depended on and determined by infrastructure. we must member that infrastructure pays for itself. one pound spent on construction

brings two pounds 84 back into the economy. 92% of which is spent in the united kingdom. infrastructure is more than investment. it's a powerful engine of economic and social change. prime minister, that's why we are delighted that the government's decision to go ahead with the cross rail and to continue the upgrade the two. [applause] [applause] and the city can also lead the world in environmental responsibility. our economic growth if responsible and ecofriendly requesting a -- ecofriendly can be a model for the world. we will be conscious and environmentally aware. if we do this, we will create jobs, good jobs. in doing so, we will help to

save our planet. london must be a leader in green technology and environmental friendly practices. this is our chance to be creators and innovators. and maybe we can be a bit old fashioned too. i hope that some of you rode a bike here tonight. [laughter] >> they are more than transformation, they are a message for our care for the environment. we have much to do. we face demanding challenges inn the rapidly changing world. we must create the right conditions for startups and new enterprises. we must convince more businesses to locate here and final the balance in achieving intelligence and regulation. we need to find the right mix of

predictability and taxation. we have to build a sound, prudent, and working relationship with brussels and the g20. ensuring our partners honor their commitment as the country is doing. otherwise, we risk losing as an competitive edge. we must build solid and lasts bridges to the world. and if immigration is to be capped, we must find a way for the city's international firms to bring in the talent that they need. we must not reach a tipping point where the uk's well established businesses find the perceived or actual risks, drive them out. that would be a tragedy for the uk. and for the world. we also have to be aware of those who have been left behind in our society. a stronger economy, will provide more opportunity to people living on the margins. and i applaud you prime minister

and the coalition government for your vision of the big society. this is in tune with the thoughts of our countries which still touch the lives of millions every year, providing help and support for the young, the old, the disabled, a superb armed forces, reserves, and cadets. the city corporation also played it's part in creating sustainable communities and supporting those in need, for example, through it's charitable arm, the city bridge trust and by establishing and supporting academies in isington, and hackley. my challenge to city is ask what more we can do. the private sector has an increasingly role to play. especially at this time. one way to help is through charitable appeals, like one

called bear necessities. [applause] [applause] >> building better lives. yes, i think i rather like the name. you probably saw the large bear in the lord mayor's show. this will principally support two charities supporting youngsters and people effected by natural disasters around the world. it is one way to help. for me charity appeals are a vital part of my work as lord mayor, as with the late lord mayor. it is work for us all. this is a time of choice. and a time for choosing. choices about our city, our economy, and our environment,

enormous challenges. let us make a powerful, positive, profound difference in the coming year together. thank you. [applause] [applaus . ause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> praise silence for the prime minister. :

what will tonight's dinner be like? i said i don't know darling, i haven't been to one of these before. but i have seen seating plans, and i can tell you that you will be sitting next to someone in an even more glamorous outfits then you are. [laughter] sheer tights, an immaculate week. i think she was expecting naomi campbell. but instead she got kenneth glock. [applause] you are something of a new arrival. i just hope your arrival into office was slightly smoother than mine. [laughter] in fact my abiding memory of those five days in may was the

very last day, when there was something of a rush to get to buckingham palace and as i left buckingham palace, having seen her majesty on my way to number 10 downing street, i was desperately trying to remember the words i wanted to say on the steps of number 10 downing street. but just at that moment, my phone rang and an aging relative on the other line said, i've been watching the television darling and died knew you would be free to have a chat. [laughter] now i have just come back from visiting two of the fastest growing economies the world. china, with average growth of nearly 10% a year for the last three decades and korea, which in 1960 had a gdp of only twice that of zambia, but which today

has a gdp 40 times higher. in seoul i was at the g20, bringing together not only the united states and china but also brazil, south africa, india, russia. beijing and seoul replied advantage points to reflect on the huge changes sweeping our world. the rise of new great powers, the shifting balance of economic power and the tensions of globalization. this interconnected world, the world of restless markets so well represented here in this room tonight, is creating huge new opportunities for the countries that are able to seize them. but this very same interconnectedness is creating new and more diverse threats to our security.

that defies that was found on a plane at the east midlands airport, which we now know was a viable and dangerous bomb, rich in native in the yemen and was carried to the uae, to germany on to britain en en route to america. today, threats originating in one part of the world becomes threats in all parts of the world. as you are only too aware in the city comes to threats from cyberattacks has increased exponentially over the last decade. with last year alone accounting for more than half of all malicious software threats that have ever been identified. all of the shows how fast our world is changing, how much britain's interest depends on the interest of others and why we need to maintain a global foreign-policy because our national interests are affected more than ever by events well beyond our own shores.

now our national interest is easily defined. it is to ensure our future prosperity and to keep our country safe in the years ahead. the key question -- quest is how do we best advances national and just when the threats on the opportunities are evolving so fast before our eyes? now there are some who say that britain has embarked on an inevitable path of decline, that the rise of new economic powers is the end of reagan's influence on the world, that we are on some of fast zero-sum game in which we are bound to lose out. i want to take that argument head-on. britain remains a great economic power. show me a city in the world with stronger credentials than the city of london. show me another gathering with the same lineup of financial, legal, counting, communications and other professional

expertise. you know even better than me that written is a great trading force in the world. whereever i meet foreign leaders, they do not see it written shuffling apologetically off the world stage. on the contrary. they respect our determination to get our economic house in order so that we can remain masters of our nation's destiny. they can see the immense advantages of doing business with britain. we are already ranked first in europe for the ease of doing business and we intend to become the first in the world. we are cutting our corporation tax to 24%, the lowest in the g7, we are creating one of the most competitive corporate tax regimes in the g20, cutting the time it takes to set up a new business and scrapping the needless red tape and excessive regulation that has held us back for too long. there is no reason why the rise of new economic powers should lead to a loss of british

influence in the world. and neither is there any reason why our military power should be diminished. we have the fourth-largest defense budget in the world and remain one of only a handful of countries with the military technological and logistical means to deploy serious military force around the world. and on the day after remembrance sunday, i know everyone in this room will want to pay tribute to all those who have served and continue to serve our country. [applause] in terms of our role in the world, the truth is that many other countries would end the the cards that we hold. not only the hard power of our military but our unique inventory about their assets all of which contribute to our political weight in the world.

our global language, the intercontinental reach of our timezone, our world-class universities, the cultural impact around the world of the bbc, the british council and their great museums. the civil service and diplomatic service which are admired the world over for their professionalism and their impartiality. one in 10 of our citizens live permanently overseas, reflecting our long tradition of an outward facing nation with a history of deep engagement around the world, whose instinct to be self-confident and active well beyond our shores is in our dna. we said at the heart of the world's most powerful institutions, from the g8 to the g20, the nato, the commonwealth of the u.n. security council. we have a deep and close relationship with americans. we are strong and active members of the european union, the gateway to the world's largest single market. few countries on earth have this powerful combination of assets

and even fewer have the ability to make the best use of them. what i have seen in my first six months as prime minister is it written at the center of all the big discussions so i reject this thesis of decline. i firmly believe that this open networked world place to britain's strength that these vast changes in the world to me that we do constantly have to adapt. let me turn to -- we need to sort out the economy if we are to carry the weight of the world. economic weakness at home translates into political weakness abroad. economic strength will restore our respect in the world and our national self-confidence. so the faster we can get our domestic house in order the more substantial and credible our international impact is going to be. but we also have to be more strategic and hardheaded about how we go about advancing our

national interest. in recent years, we have made too many commitments without the resources to back them up, and we have failed to think properly across government about what we were getting ourselves into and how we would see it through to success. so in iraq, there was no plan for winning the peace. in afghanistan we fail to think through properly the implications of the decision to deploy into home on province in the summer of 2006. as a new government we should learn the lessons and make changes. i am not suggesting that we turn the country's entire foreign policy on its head. as leader of of the opposition i've always made clear to foreign leaders that there was a great deal of common ground between the policies of the government and the opposition. we want an active foreign-policy that is staunch in its support for democracy and human rights as we have been for example in arguing for the release of the

rights of the burmese people and was made a fantastic site on our television screens over the weekend to see. [applause] we want to foreign-policy that his vigorous in its efforts to address climate change which poses such a threat to humanity and which can only be dealt with by nations coming together. we will continue to build our special relationships with america. it is not just special, it is crucial because it is based on solid and practical foundations such as our cooperation on defense, counterterrorism and intelligence. but in other areas where we believe that britain's interest require a change of course, we should lose no time at all in adjusting the national tiller accordingly. i want to highlight three areas this evening.

first, we must link our economy up with the fastest growing parts of the world, placing our commercial interests at the heart of our foreign-policy. second, we must take a more strategic, and more hardheaded approach to our national security and apply that to our mission in afghanistan. third, we must focus more of our budget on to building security and preventing conflict. let me take each in turn. first a more commercial foreign-policy. this is not just about making britain an attractive place to invest. it is about selling britain to the world's too. some people think it is somehow grow brief to mix money and diplomacy. i say what it is harder than ever for our country to earn a living way to mobilize all the resources we can. today, we trade more than with brazil, india and turkey

combined. we are not made the nearly enough of the opportunities. that is why one of the first visits i made as prime minister was to india. the second fastest growing major economy in the world. i have also been to turkey which is growing at 11% this year and just last week i took one of the biggest and most high-powered delegations in our countries history to china. next year i plan to visit her cell and russia. we are also rebuilding our relationships with the countries in the gulf. they feel strong links with britain but have felt somewhat sidelined in recent years. i'm delighted her majesty the queen will visit the uae in armonk next week and i will be make in my own visit early next year. this is in just about what the monarch ministers arrived to. is about what our ambassadors, diplomats are hard-working staff at you kpi. is what all of them do day in and day out in every country in the world. i have told them every time anyone representing britain

needs a foreign counterpart forever how short a time i want them walking into that room armed with a list of things they are there to deliver for our country. others do this. we should too. when it comes to the european union we have shown in recent months how we are constructive and firm partners using our membership at the e.u. to defend and advance you can trust. and i can promise you this. we will stand up at each and every turn for our financial services industry and the city of london. london is europe's preeminent financial center and with this government i am determined it will remain so. [applause] next, bring a more strategic approach to defending our national security. we set out for the first time a national security council which

met on the first day of the government and hazmat we ever since. foreign foreign-policy, defense policy, domestic wolesi, development policy, all the decision-makers are pursuing disparate missions in different parts but sitting around a table together asking what is best for britain and working out how we can gear up the government machine to deliver for our national security. our first priority was to set a clear direction for military and civilian mission in afghanistan. the fact remains that we are still the second-largest second largest contributor to the nato-led force of 10,000 troops there, most of them in the most difficult part of the country. we are not there to build a perfect democracy, still a model society. we are there to help afghans take control of their security and ensure that al qaeda can never again pose a threat to us from afghan soil.

a hardheaded time-limited approach based squarely on the national interest. in august we transferred british forces out of sangin to enable them to concentrate in greater numbers in the central helmand where the bulk of the population lives and to share the burden more sensibly with u.s. forces across the province as a whole. i said our combat forces will be out of afghanistan by 2015. [applause] a truly strategic review of all aspects of security and defense. this was long overdue. it has been 12 years and for war since the last one. we started with a detailed orders of our national security. we took a clear view of the risks we face then we set priorities, including a new focus on meeting on conventional threats from terrorism and cyberattack. we then take a detailed look at

the capabilities we will need to deal with tomorrow's tragedies. yes we made some tough choices. we had to too given the budgetary mess we have inherited that we have ensured that our magnificent armed forces will always have the kick they need for the threats they face weather today in afghanistan or in the world of 2020. we will be one of the few countries able to deploy a fully equipped brigade sized force anywhere in the world. with the joint strike fighter in typhoon the raw air force will have the most capable combat aircraft money can buy backed by a new fleet of tankers and transport aircraft. the navy will have a new operational aircraft carrier, new type 45 destroyers and seven new nuclear-powered hunter killer submarines, the most advanced in the world. and we will renew trident our ultimate insurance policy in an age of uncertainty. my determination is that britain will have some of us modern and flexible armed forces in the

world, but our security does not depend on our military forces alone. that is why we have also given party to investment in our counterterrorism capacity and new programs to improve our resilience against cyberattacks and ensuring that our world leading intelligence agencies are able to maintain their brilliant work in disrupting threads and in keeping our country safe. and there is one more area where despite the economic pressures we face, this new government has been determined to hold firm our commitment to spend 7% of our gdp on a bike 2013. we will meet that target and for good reason. our aid program, like the activities of the myriad of charitable aid organizations, literally save thousands of lives. it helps prevent conflict which is why we doubled the amount of our age budget spent on security

programs in countries like pakistan and somalia. and for millions of people, our aid program is the most visible example of redden's global reach. it is a powerful instrument of our foreign-policy and profoundly in our national interest. that means pursuit of our national interest has been at the heart of everything i have said this evening. our foreign policy is one of hardheaded internationalism. enabling britain turn its way in the world, more strategic in its focus on meeting the new and emerging threats to our national security and firmly committed to upholding our values, depending britain's moral authority even in the most difficult of circumstances. above all, our foreign policy is more hardheaded in this respect. it will focus like a laser on defending and advancing britain's national interest.

that concept of national interest is of course as old as our nation itself, and i am conscious of the many prime ministers who have stood here before me and set out britain's national interest as they sought. many of them would have confronted circumstances even more perilous than those which face britain today but few perhaps one of dough or their world that is changing so fast. from beijing to seoul, from washing to two san paulo leaders must work out what it all means to their country and where the national insurance lies. when some people look at the world today, they are quick to prophesy dark times ahead, difficulties for britain. our foreign policy runs counter to that pessimism. we have the resources, commercial and cultural, to remain a major player in the world. we have the relationships with with the most established powers and the fastest-growing nations that can better fit our economy, and we have the values, national

values that swept slavery from the seas, that stood up to fascism and communism, that helped spread human rights around the planet that will drive us to do good around the world. with these drinks in our armory we can drive prosperity. we can increase our security. we can maintain our integrity. we are choosing ambitiously. far from shrinking back, britain is reaching out and far from looking back starry-eyed on a glorious past, this country can look forward clear-eyed

>> our two witnesses are here. foreign secretary, would you like to say anything at the start? >> no rb, i think it may be hell if we get on with the questions. >> i want to thank you and your officials for making the visit to afghanistan and pakistan. it was a very good visit and the people went the extra mile for us and it is much appreciated. can i extinguish between as it is often put to us that the al qaeda and taliban are being

grouped together when, as you know, they are very different beasts. the government justifies its intervention in afghanistan if they were not there al qaeda would return to afghanistan as a competitive threat to national security. but a number of our witnesses have disagreed with this premise. what evidence have you got to suggest that al qaeda, not taliban but al qaeda, would return to afghanistan? >> it is impossible to have direct evidence of something that would happen in a hypothetical session, but we have the experience of what happened before, before 2001, when much of afghanistan was effectively either ungoverned space or taliban governed space. we foe in those circumstances al qaeda were able to set up their training camps and bases there. based on that experience there

must be a reasonable suspicion the same thing would happen again particularly in circumstances where al qaeda felt under pressure in other areas. so, it would be a rational observer who said they knew this would not happen. and it is fair to set out in the conditions that president carter has set out for political settlement in afghanistan that taliban and others associated with them should renounce al qaeda and renounce violence. >> president carter actually says he doesn't think they would return. >> well, it is all of the conditions he has set and he set that condition for a good reason. >> could you answer the question regards to military situation, the question that was posed on wednesday last week, and that is

successful counterinsurgency operations in the past, have suggested that not one of the preconditions, ctrol of the borders, high density levels, credible government, support the majority of the population exist in afghanistan. so why do you think the military in particular is so optimistic they can achieve a successful outcome? doesn't beg for more assessment? >> it remains in any realistic assessment phenomenally difficult task. the task we're engaged in in afghanisn. some of the fact is you quite rightly described, nevertheless, all of those factors are being addressed at oneay or another. the build up of the afghan national security forceis very substantl, as you know, and as you will have sen on your visit

to afghanistan. the afghan national army is not 144,000, 10,000 ahead of where they were meant to be at the time. the afghan national police is stronger than was anticipated now. the attrition rate in terms of people leaving these sources is diminishing. the legitimacy of government and operation of government and a province like helmand seems more widely accepted that it was a year ago, or two years ago. so progress is being made in many of these parameters. even cooperation of the countries, the afghanistan-pakistan transit trade agreement working with regional neighbors is an area of greater strength of the afghan government than before. so they all remained very difficult, every parameter remains very difficult. but i think it's fair to argue that there in case, progress is being made in all of these ways. so success remains very

difficult. in afghanistan, bu it is by no means impossible. >> one of the thgs that has played our presence in afghanistan is the over optimistic assessments since our progress there. we are all please obviously the more realistic situation there now, although some of us need to be more realistic. but does this suggest in the path of the military, the driving strategy, as opposed to politicians? >> well, to take several parts of that, because i gree, sometimes it hasn't been an overoptimistic effect before we are tryng to avoid that, learning the lessons was happened in the past. i go to the first of our quarterlreview. it was in the week where your committee was visiting

afghanistan, and i apologize for that, because of the pending review of the previous week and my visit in the middle east the following week. i will try to capture in the caching next time, the course of the review. but i hope, i think it was regarded by the house, a frank assessment of where we are and not so stating what is being achieved by showing theprogress as we made in several areas, and much more needed to be done, for instance, in the area of corruption and governance. and we'll carry on in that vein with our assessment. not encouraging false optimism, but not being blind to good news either. because there are those, there are often more successes to talk about than featured daily in our media. so i think it's important, pefully we are getting that right, getting realistic in our assessment. what were the military driving -- you may need to wreck that --

u have directed it to one of the officials who served in the last government, but to members of the last government more than to the current governnt, it's very important on an issue like this that military and political leaders work well together. that olitical decisions are well informed by military assessments, otherwise of course politicians can make rash decisions without sufficient military awareness. but i think now the way in the u.k., we have our own national security council, the chief of defense staff, heads of intelligence agencies sitting together on this and other subjects, on a very regular basis. that we have the correct balance and have decions are made. >> can we just explore very briefly the extent to which perhaps counterinsurgency operations are undermining our political goals?

will happen is half some military, politicians must provide -- a negotiated settlement i think, and here the military seem to be trgeting taliban leaders as the decapitation policy in place. do you think that is constructive for a negotiation settlement? and what extent can the u.k. actually influenced the u.s. in its approach to the taliban in the sense that these publicly they have been reluctant to negotiate? >> sthe u.k. can in the passionatenfluence the u.s. the prime minister goes to great deal. i'm heading to the unid states where today. this is top of the list of my topics to discuss with secretary clinton. and we have a multitude of contacts at official level and between our intelligence

agencies, and so on. but i do very much agree that it is impotant to keep the taliban under maximum military pressure, and, indeed, to intensify the pressure in the coming months if we are to come to a negotiated political settlemt, ultimately. so i would, in fact, set the premise of a policy of your question, that conducting combat operations against the taliban redu, reduces the chances of a political settlement. i think military success and intensified military pressure is an important component of bringing about a settlement. the taliban should expect tensified military pressure, and even greater pressure on them in the coming months in the out of a political settlement. >> and finally, do you accept that when a negotiated settlement takes part and takes

ho, it will have to obviously reflect reality on the ground, on negotiations with taliban, negotiations with regional warlords, et cetera, but is it not possible to have a gotiated settlement and still retain the ability to take on al qaeda perhaps using special forces, should they ever returned? what i'm trying to get to hear is, sptting time between the taliban and al qaeda. there's no doubt that reconciliation, negotiated settle as he take place with the taliban. that doesn't mean we have to make peace with al qaeda. and kelly not engineer, not be on the demand, where but at the end of the day we retain the litary capacity to take on al qaeda, should they ever returned, while progressing the negotiation settlement with the taliban and order to engineer some sort of success?

>> well, yes, i would hope that is possible. it's highly unlikely, it's possible in the foreseele future to negotiate peace with al qaeda. that would be fundamentally against the believes of qaeda. it may be possible to do so with taliban, or with the parts of the taliban. we don't know whether that is possible. but it is certainly desirable under the right conditions. and now one of the conditions i refer to are your that president karzai has set alongside respecting a constitutional framework and renouncing violence, is cutting ties with al qaeda. so yes, such a settlement would require a distinction to be made between those who are reconciled and thoswho are committed to al qaeda. >> fonseca, if i may. i think one factor when looking at the prospects that you gave is the level of pipe support for

the taliban which is around 10%. so it varies. in different parts of the cotry. i think the other thing we need to consider is that parts of the insurgency have active links with al qaeda now, not necessarily inside afghanistan, but certainly links emanating from pakistan. and if one looks at president karzai's conditions about renounng links with al qaeda, i think what also would love to see security council resolutions and suffice of 9/11 that you'll find the taliban gettng up al qaa, a step the taliban didn't take. so that the real questions about to what extent what is taliban assurances that would be capable of being carried out? >> thank you. >> the nature of this insurgency, we understood from what we were were talking, there are three different insurgencies

in the haqqani network, and there is the pakistani-based palestinian. maybe there are more. perhaps. is it your strategy to get all three of those components into a political process, or are you trying to split them and get some of them on the basis of that, and at least reduce the clash of the conflicts going on? >> well, we're trying to create the conditions for a -- the military campaign is a very important part of that for a reason i was referring to earlier. if not within our control who wants to enter into a settlement. whether all of those groups and for the groups or any of those groups ho wish to do so. that is up to them to decide whether they wish to be part of that settlement. so wemight wish for however many groups to be enrolled, but,

so we will see how the circumstances develop. >> finally, in your earlier answer, he referred to the growing training of the support of the afghan national security forces, either virtually none sovereign posturings in those agencies and that the only pashtuns are from the eastern and north of the countryspeak with a remains the case that the southern pashtuns are way underrepresented in the national security forces. a few percentage i think of afghan army, 3%, although more than 40% of the army would be pashtuns of other origins. so when you say the only other pashtuns are from other areas, you talk about -- yes, that remains a weakness. it's an important one to address over time, and, but it has to be seen against the context of the

very rapid buildup of the afghan national security force is, and a huge in improvement in the training of officers that we've seen over the last year. >> secretary, do we have a contingency plan if we get through to 2015, we -- how we going to contain and manage the situation in 2015 if the counterinsurgency strategy doesn't work? >> well, of course we're working very hard to make sure it does work, and remember that a key component of this is the forc that we're talking about. that the afghan national security force is will be over 300,000 strong by the endf next year. nevermind by 2014. the training of officers in the afan national army is up to

700% over the last year. now, this is a very important consideration. this is an army becoming much larger than ours. that i think is crucial, that buildup is crucial to the afghanistan, whatever happens, so that afghans can lead and then take their own security operations from 2014, in line with president karzai's objective, a respective of arriving at a political settlement. so you c think of that as the next line of defense after international thought i spent on trainon train on train on train -- [inaudible] >> well, we made it very clear

statement perhapnot being involved in combat operations in 2015, although that does not preclude the manner in a training role, for instance. but yes, i think the long-term outlook, if they were to be no political settlement, is the afghan national security forces become large enough to be able to hold their own in afghanistan. that does not mean there would be a peaceful afghanistan. it does neither would be an afghanistan where the government would run wide enough for the government to be able to resist being overthrown by force. >> will we be asking from the british military, that troop numbers, 2013, in 2014 -- [inaudible] >> also in the national security

council, of course. that is now the core of an which such matters are decided. so yes, the prime minister will certainly, secretary of defense will set forward the plan for the next few years. it's quite hard to foresee at this point the level of resources and the nature of activities regarding 2013-2014. of course, it is clear that we should have a larger and larger training role, and as you know, the defense secretary has announced movement of more than 300 personnel into a training role just in the last eight months. but yes, the security council will examine the plans for our deployment overtime. >> if i may, that is on the agenda of the national security council over the next few months. and troops will be linked obviously. >> can we then just get exactly what the 2015 deadline is?

what is a? when is it? exactly -- >> the prime minister and i have stated it, by 015, we will not be enged in afghanistan in combat operations, or in anything like the numbers that we have there today. and as i was saying to mr. stewart, does not mean that we will notbe there in other forms in training wrote and so on, but i don't want anyone to underestimate the clarity, or view the clarity of it. and the prime minister said that very clearly in meeting. and that is what we will stick to. >> when? 2015? that is 12 months longer. there's a general election in may 201, isn't it a? >> i don't think -- >> january 2015? >> i don't think that's correct to try and hone in on the actual

day in 2015, particularly since we're sitting here in novembe november 2010. this is quite a long way away. in fact, it is further in the future as you all well know that our whole operation and how month are in the past. so it is a long time into the future. but we don't anticipate in the new future setting a particular month or week. >> who took the decision? >> the decision is taken by ministers and the national security council in the cabinet led by the prime minister. >> taken in the national security council speak was taken by the prime minter in consultation. [inaudible] >> yes. >> who were you consulting? >> a four he made his announcement. [inaudible] >> i'm sure he was consulted, but i can't sure when everyone was consulted. >> loo i mean, we are there as rt of a coalition force with

very significant part. and we always try to be good partners, have a, as a country in the coalition, activities and international affairs. no conceivable possibility that that will be changed, let's say, in a nato discussion takes place about the need to change because deadlines are not being met. american request, because we simply can't get in position. or the afghan national army, afghan national security forces are capable of standing up on their own. no conceivable way that that is going to be ordered. it's set. it's finished. that's it. it's a deadline. we will not be changing any circumstances. >> it won't be changed at the prime minister has been very clear about that. it is a change of politics. there are several changes. we have double operations for the troops.

redeploy away from certain areas of helmand to concentrate on otr areas. you know, several changes in policy on afghanistan, and yes, this is one of the and people can argue advantages and disadvantages to a. mr. ban has done that as well on the floor of the house. we will make the most of the advantages of this policy. it is clear toall concerned what our intentions are, what we're going to do by 2015, to our allies, to the afghan vernment, and we don't want anybody to be any doubt abou that. there are other alliesn nato who also stated specific timing so the deployment of their forces. we will buy that had been in helmand for most long, 50% longer than the entire second worlwar, and we feel it right to say that by then we will not be engaged in combat operations. >> this is a big change of policy, isn't it?

[inaudible] we were halfway out before the change of government. this is the change, really. >> is an important change and is a change we will stick to. >> why did we think that was helpful? we did it to put pressure on the karzai government, but didn't take the pressure off the taliban, off the insurgents? >> i think insurgents will find in line with our earlier discussion that they are under intense pressure over the coming months. there is no relaxaon in the british or coalition military. in fact, since it's only recently as you know, really all the forces of the commanders have been available in afghanistan and that pressure will intensify over the coming months. and even over the comi years when that is added to the increasing role of the afghan there should -- afghan national

security forces that they are quite wrong to conclude that anybody can relax, that everybody on the other side can relax in any way, because we've made an announcement about 2015. a it does mean with absolute clarity for the afghan government that they know that is the length of our combat commitment. our allies know that, too. and there are advantages to that, as well as of course the arguments against it that others have put. >> i was ever going to say that the summit takes place later this week will endorse the 2014 target date for transition and all of nato's efforts will go into making sure that hapns. >> i mean, that's been known for quite some time. other nations, the dutch, canadians are leaving in

response, there was some indication that would have to be a plan between now and 2015. how are we going to do this, the withdrawal of other nations? there are relative means. the dutch in the canadian our very, very significant contributors. >> yes. and i certainly hope some of the countries will be able to sustain some substantial training growth. >> we've been discussing that with them, and it would be highly desirable, given the extent of canada's cod division over the last few years, if they are ableto do that. i think that would be very welcome. we have been discussing that with the canadian government. there are, as you say, a growing number of nations overall, although not all make military country vision, since there are at the moment 48 coributing nations, there are more at the

moment than there have ever been. i thought that can easily be overlooked. but in the cases of canada and the netherlands, a good deal about their notice, intention. but from an operational point of view, given the increase of the forces from the united states and seven other countries, the operational gaps will be filled. there is no doubt about that. >> foreign secreta, you've touched on the fact there is a lack of trade in afghanistan, something that was quite apparent in both the police and army, the afghan army, the quality of training is at a time the people will ask a train, and others, was a very of small amount of time. can you explain why that's the case? and secondly, it would seem that a way of change between 22014

and 2015, not just, but the quality of training, because when we talked, f example, the pakistani generals, they said they were quite impressive, though as to what we're doing is creating can improper, not troops because of a small amount of time that has been given to the trainers and troops. unit, many of the afghan police were being returned, where had no idea of the job they intended to do. their pay at one stage was so poor that it was below the living wage which encouraged theft and extortion. can you just explain to us about the policy now, why we spend billions of pounds that we haven't got such good records in training? >> it remains a huge challenge, i mean, you are quite right to highlit a.

i don't want to say in any way that this is an easy process, although we achieved our objectives on traing. there are improvements have taken place in recent time. [inaudible] [bell ringing] >> one of those is the pay of the afghan national is being increasednd improved. your quiteight on one of the difficult has been, that is the more attractive for people to do other things. afghan national police souders has been increase. training programs has been improved. and recruitments than has generally exceeded the target. and i mentioned briefly the trition rates before. the average attrition rate has gone down to 1.4% a month in the

case of the afghan national police, which is is a series improvement of how it was in past years. there is also increased attention being given to the training of noncommissioned officers and officers, which, of course, are key to the quality and to the leadership that is necessary. so people are not in the prase that you have given. i mentioned some of the figures, were given more in increase of the ncos in the afghan is up 70% sie november of last year, and officers of 175%. so that will lead over time to policy, any other important thing that is happening is a partnering of afghan national with briti troops. most of them were, british troops going forward is in partnership with the afghan national security forces.

i pointed out in my review statement to the house three weeks ago how the operations conducted recently have been led by the afghan forces, for the first time in a very significant way. and so i think as you have all sides of improvement. there is a level of training, the same level you could get in a european or american army, well, no, it is because your the emphasis is on driving as rapidly as possible. but you can see from the figures on giving, the quality of training, the quality of training, and the way in which the troops and afghan forces then gain experience alongside nato troops, all gathering pace in improving. >> one thing about afghan troops are taking the lead in operations in around kandahar, and that is qite successful. >> 50% of the oprations have been led by the afghan national

forces themselves. >> just to make the point, foreign secretary, since we've been there, people responsible for the training and troops in afghan were complaining bitterly about the lack of resources even now as we speak. can i just moved onto, talk about the police, the government itself. one of the important things of the afghan people have to face in own government, we heard an ful lot about corruption, about malpractices of the afghan government. what have we been doing, what can we do in the future that will build on faith in their own, the afghan people in their own government? >> this is one of the areas where much more progress needs to be made. by the way, i wasn't i doing in my career and that everything was fine of trading that the problem was passionate every major huge challenge that i take nothing away from -- [bell ringing] [inaudible]

>> your quite right to say that training requires increase exponential attention. but on governments, on corruption, a greater effort needs to be made. that some prress is being made, some of the commitments into the time of the kabul conference in juy, our being met. and we've seen over the last few months some of the afghan ministers and declare their assets i public. we have seen a great improvement and transparetransparency. for instance, in the military of mine, more than 100 new contracts were placed openly on the internet for people to examine. that is the kind of practice which may help to combat corruption in the future. so certainly some progress is being made. neveheless, we have seen

anything surrounding the kabul bank and other institutions, very depressing news. and so we do call on the government of afghanistan to make greater progress in this area, and to continue to try to win the support of domestic and international opinion. >> i heard your statement in the house of commons as i was present, and i thought a very franklin. you touched on good governance and again now. what precisely do we mean by good governance? how can -- how do you feel it is succeeding in getting good governance? for instance, being respect for human rights, respect for women's rights?

and i would hope maybe that's topics you might raise with secretary of state clinton if you see her, because obviously she is very concerned. what does good government mean to you? >>hat's like a wide philosophical question, but to begin with in afghanista it means the basic things that we take for granted here like government being present at all. and here i think we can see some of the progress that is being made. there are 10 district governors installed in helmand, for instance, compared t only five in europe who are able to operate. there are 26 afghan ministries, now represent in lush car. so government is more present and certainly very difficult areas ofthe country like element that was a year or two ago.

i think a second requirement is in the area we have just been addressing of people being able to have confidence. that it is not corrupt, that works in the interest of the people. there is much more to do, afghanistan remains them to the bottom of the scale on international for levels of corruption. and has improved a little bit. i think on the world index for doing business, for ease of doing business. it is improved to 160th in the world. instead of 168th. [laughter] it has moved in the right direction. it is moving in the same way and corruption as well. so we see a little bit of progress there. and then it means those other things that you're talking about, i've yes, respect for minorities, respect for human rights, including women's rights. and as you know, quite a lot has been done in that it the united

kingdom strongly encourages that and has funded projects which do encourage women's participation in afghan society and politics that they may be an answer to one of your questions a couple weeks ago that i pointed out, the improved participation of women in the peace jerker, in june, but there's also been an increase participation by women the recent parliamentary elections. ani think it's very important that we continue to encourage these things so that it becomes part of the fabric of afghan society. before and during the time a clinical summit is created. >> you may be aware of the age of foundation poll which measures a number of things. were the thigs that measures is the conference of the afghan people in their government. this has got out 5% over five years. it's only 47%, but the trend is upward. >> probably more than many governments in the world.

[lghter] >> just returning to questions, just for clarification. 2015 deadline, that applies to secretary forces as well, all combat troops speak with we don't have a comment as a former defense secretary kno. >> so, it's not clear as to whether or not it applies to special forces speak what's on the giving you an edge that i may give you a clear and deliberately. [inaudible] >> to the united states is the most important power in coalition, but there are lots of reports about internal divisions within the u.s. administration. and we heard in private, many places, people saying, and it's also in the record publicly about what this is referred to incoherent and contradictory decisions within the u.s.

administration. how committed it the u.s. to reconciliation as a strategy eak with the united states is committed to reconciliation. and they're very much also committed, as we are, as i answer to are the questions, to intensify the military pressure on the taliban. those things are not mutually opsed goals for the reasons i get our gear. they go together, the chances of reconciliation are increase by an effective military campaign. is there often a debate within the u.s.government about this or other foreign policy issues? yes, there is a. of course, the united ates is the kind of society and governmental system in which any debate about foreign policy often serves in public that you would expect that are such as important as this to always have unanimous agreement in advance of any discussion. but the united states is in favor of the process of

reintegration and reconciliation. >> but is the u.s. in favor of the same approach of this government, which seems to be we should be working on reconciliation now? as opposed to a few which seems to be qui strong held b some in the u.s., that you need to change the balance before you go down that road. >> well, sometimes this is an academic argument, of course. because it's not possible to commend the timing of a political settlement. that will be important for the military effort to continue and tointensify, i believe to make that settlement possible. nevertheless, i would say, to answer your question, there is a disagement here between the leadership of the u.s. and u.k. governments. the prime minister and the president discussed such isses regularly, and they are in strong a cord about it. and we do discuss it, intend to discuss it privately rather than through giving speeches directed

at each other, which i think is the right way for close ales to deal with it. but we are not engaged in an argument about this at the moment. >> would you agree that the u.s. needs to be directly involved in discussions with the taliban, in order to get a solution to this situation? >> this has got to be an afghan led process. there is no doubt about that. an afghan led process will bring reconciliation in afghanistan. we facilitate that process. we think it is appropriate. >> youean the u.k.? >> i mean the u.k., but unisys also has agreed to the policy and is in the same position. but it has to be, it has to be an afghan-led process. >> are they facilitating as well just we? >> they agree with our policy. >> that was not my question. >> he has said -- president

karzai contact and provide practical assistance, andhat in clue to the u.s. as well as other isaf members that. >> i that we're going to get a better answer than that. [inaudible] >> no, i guess you it's the same policy as we have. >> but insurance of contacts and what's being done to try to contact element within the insurgency of t taliban, i it the case that the u.s. is actively engaged in that process at this time? >> i think, i know we will have a private session later, mr. chairman -- [inaudible] >> i don't think it is right to go into public about any operational details of these matters. >> foreign secretary, i would like to ask you about the hearts and minds of the afghan people. there's like 10% support.

[inaudible] the society has stated it is one of a series things of afghanistan in many rescts, the united kingdom and its allies are losing the war -- is about to? spent i think we are to be able to do better. in the coming months and years, and communication, and the strategic communication of what our objectives are, how we are achieving them, how the nation's of isaf and, indeed, the afghan government are working together. i think it has been one of the

weak areas in recent years, and i think it needs further attention. we are giving attention to that end the national security council, from theuk's point of view. i recently raised it with the nato secretary-general, someing that requires better international coordination as well. so yes, it is a weak area, and conflict indications is a vital consideration. both of our own countries, and of the country where that conflict is taking place. so i think there is room for improvement. now, at's not to sayhat quite a bit has been achieved. as in so many of these fields there remains enormous challenges, but some progress has been made. particularly in the creation of a more vibrant media in afghanistan and the axis of in afghanistan to news outletsin a variety of sources of information, that they have at

their disposal. all of those things ave improved, but yes, i think more attention is needed in this area. you're quite right to raise this question. the first part, i think, go back to the first part -- >> you said support for the taliban in afghanistan was 10%. i was interested at all if you thought that it was increasing, decreasing, or stable,0%? >> i don't know whether we have any figures on that. polling is not an exact time in --'s. we don't have a poll which shows is whether it has gone up or down in certain areas. and in some areas it is high an 10% and a some areas -- [inaudible] >> how can youay it's 10%? is increasing? are we losing the war on hearts and minds? as a good example, afghans think about we are going --

[inaudible] >> there wasn't a poll. there has been very service, but let's think of other ways of, if you look at how many, of course, the area which were privately concerned with, where british troops are concerned, in -- hundreds of people make their ways to the district center every day up from a trickle previously. in other areas, over 800 locals, a few months earlier, that would've been impossible. so these are not polls, but their indications of how life on the ground can change come and winning over people. still again, an enormous

challenge in helmand. but considering that we have 135,000 children enrolled in schools across the province, which is a 250% increase on last year, it indicators like tha is some indication of how normal life has changed for the people on t ground. and that may then ive some indication of whether they have confidence in what is happening. >> it seems to me that this is international attention. through diplomatic means, the diplomats in afghanistan, short-term, for any bit period of smalltime, they are oddly very shielded from whatever the afghan people, how can it be

expected to win the hearts and mis from the taliban and local villages of that country speak as we work a lot of several different levels, diplomats in kabul e engaged in making sure that media throughout the country understand what we are doing. but, of course, i think it would be wrong to say that diplomats and others, the people who work for instance, in provincial reconstruction team, are working based in flash car, are working daily at local and -- lashkar gah, daily and local problem. deal with locals and other elders about every issue concerning local society and the services provided. and that is a fundamental part of winning over those hearts and minds. karen, do you want to add the details of that work. >> certainly some our diplomats and colleagues in the stabilization unit go out and facilitate local shura helping

to find transfer, help in getting people together, if ask him helping people to run a meeting. and they are out there everyday in places like lashkar gah. one of the areas that we find if you like the local authority ally has to compete with the taliban is in the area of local justice. the taliban have these motorcycle course that they provide justice very quickly. so a lot of our records and those of others goes into helping the local community stand up, which might think up of as traditional justice s that people can get decisions quickly. people suffer from intimidation from the taliban. when asked people what their main concern is, security comes out as one of, the major concern. so that's what we're engaged in. is trying to provide security for local areas so that they can go about their noral business. for example, in kandahar major general nick carter, his team

were involved in building houses and ofces for the district governor so that they could do their business, protected from intimidation. and the foreign secretary was saying, we can increase in the number of people coming to the district governor, the provinciaprovincial government rather than the local warlords to help. >> we often hear from diplomats, who are only there for a short period of time, didn't even know the language. [inaudible] >> many of the diplomatic corps don't know the language. >> well, it an ideal world everyone would speak the local language, but that would require being able to repair hundreds of diplomats long in advance. of course, these are difficult postings where people serve usually for a year in kabul, with the option of another year, or six months in lashkar gah

with an option of another six months. they ar difficult hardship posting so it is difficult to turn over the personnel pretty regulate. so they have a disadvantage with new people that have to learn local culture and get to know the local leaders. i think you can see that is the only practic way in which we could do it spent excuse me, we do have a couple of speakers in each place in lashkar gah and in kabul, and we have some very good locals who are bilingual. >> thank you. >> general calell in his presentation, commanding the training, points out that he's already quoted 250 tes short, we'll be five on a traders sure that within a year we will be 900 trainers sure. the united states is looking for more support and training.

at the same time,. [inaudible] can we not be looking adequate opportunity here to sht more and more towards training? >> we have done so, of course, already, the defense secretary mentioned order, the defense defense secretary sent well over 320 more u.k. personal with the devoted entirely to training. and it doesn't matter, this will require a l more resources by the improvements made over the last year. i think it's an important topic for a nato summit that is comg up at the end of this week. of course, the prime minister, defense secretary and i will attend. so yes, needs more attention. doesn't mean that over time or other british troops may be engaged in training quite well, there is a serious possibility of that, but we have to do that working with our allies, coordinating with our allies. and so all that we can announce

for the moment is that figure. >> foreign secretary, the public in this country rather think we have taken on more than we can chew in afghanistan. do you think we have been overambitious? do you think our ambition should have been more modest? >> i think our ambition is our right one, provided we understand our ambition is our own national security. and that our objective is to achieve a situation in afghanistan where afghans can conduct their own affairs without presenting a danger to the rest of the world. that does not mean we necessarily arrive at a situation when every valley in afghanistan is entirely peaceful. where there are no difficulty in the governance of afghanistan, where it has reached a point where it's not 190th on the corruption league, but 10th or 20th.