realistic, then i think it is right to be what we've done since 2001. and this was a response to the event of 9/11, when it began. and then from 2006, never to stabilize the situation in other areas of the country. so provided we have a clear measure of objective, it is not overly. >> do think there are lessons to be learned for future situations where conflicts need to be resolved? what lessons speedy's i'm sure there will be many lessons to be learned, and some of them will require the wisdom of being able to look back on all of this in the future. to start with the lessons of the highest level, this country needs to put as much resources as possible into conflict prevention around the world. so as we can see how expensive

it is, how it costs us dear and human life as well as in financial terms, and in financial terms to engage in long-term substantia conflict. and i'm sure you would have heard what the prime minister has attempted up in more of international development, world conflict prevention. we are working very hard at the moment in the foreign office on the situation i yemen and sudan. that's why i am there, tomorrow i will cheer the u.s. security council on sudan about conflict prevention iwhat we are concentrate on. so that is one of the first lessons. they won the doubt the other lessons about how a military intervention should be handled, if it has to take place. there will be lessons from iraq. the chilcot inquiry is looking at at the moment. i'm sure therll be lessons about how many as well, about the initial deployment, and about many, many decisions taken

since then. but it is, i think, really we have to concentrate in the government in finding our way to success in this situation,nd that's got to be our prime concern. >> we do have a union in the foreign office that -- this will look at the results of the ira iraqi. >> i want to step back because i think that's one of the lessons that can be drawn from iraq as well. how people speak local languages. the last foreign affairs committee said the ability engage with afghans in key local language is crucial in afghanistan. we are concerned nearly eight years after intervening in afghanistan they still have no pashtun speakers. what is the situation in 2010? >> this is a vital importance for the foreign office, and it's

a wider subjected than the situation in afghanistan. we are a country noted for our language skills among our diplomats, when compared to many other nations of the world. but i was very concerned by the closure of the foreign office language, shool. i've been looking in recent weeks at the language arrangements in the foreign office that is quite, back together again and we have all the budgetary constraints on government that we have now. but i'm cting a critical eye over the current arrangements to see how they can be improved. then coming to the level of the specialism in this area, you're quite ight, the committee has highlighted before the small number of speakers of the relevant languages. karen pointed out on this one are depression that we do have some people who speak local languages, and we make a great use of interpreters.

can't give any more up-to-date figures than that, but i would point out, with a huge number of our diplomats who need to be deployed to a situation like this, and the inevitable human ed to overtake them quite quickly, it's unlikely we will arrive at a situation where a large proportion of those diplomats will become in the local images of afghanistan. i think that is realistic. karen, can you add to that? . .

>> and so it's very evident to me n my visits to iraq and i imagine the same would be true in afghanista >> i do see the point about that, although i was impressed we have some incredibly hard working people in afghanistan, and i am always enormously impressed, as i hope you were on your visit, by the utter dedication under very, very difficult circumstances. certainly, i think the committee is right to raise the point about the length of deployment. this has often struck me in the past looking at the length of service of the american military commanders in these situations who can go on for a very long time, although with substantial breaks back home. they organize it in a different way. but i am not averse to looking

at how we can improve this in the future. >> if i could get back to that, mr. chairman, just on the language speakers. because of the program the foreign secretary's mentioned in his fresh look at this, more people will be trained in afghan languages over the coming years, though it's obvious not something we can put right instantly. but the proportion of speakers in the embassy, we would call it a hard language, it's roughly equivalent to hard language speakers in our other postings. admittedly, afghanistan is more important, but it's certainly not disadvantaged because it's a conflict zone. >> are you able to give us a breakdown -- >> i can certainly do that, but i'm afraid i don't have it in my head. the additional advantage in using afghan interpreters in an attempt to be assuring to the local communities, the ministry has found it tends to build interest and confidence, so we

do rely on our staff quite considerably. on your point of not letting lessons be lost through continuity of posings, absolutely. we are trying to see if we can somehow link postings so that someone would do a rotation in afghanistan, come back to london and work on the issue, and conceivably even share a posting in afghanistan. what they came to realize are not just on young people who have no family attachments, but we do want to try to get more experienced diplomats there. more experienced diplomats tend to have families, so we need to try to get that balanced right as well. >> just a quick order -- >> [inaudible conversations] >> coming back to the 2014-' deadline when you say it's without question we will end, we will withdraw combat troops, we went into afghanistan because it was a fail state, and we thought that the terror attacks would come on to our own country if we didn't take action.

what will happen in a situation where thathappens again? do you rule out or does the coalition rule out putting troo on the ground situation -- what went as bad as it was previously? >> we're clearly aiming here to create a completely different scene in afghanistan from anything that prevailed in the recent past. i've given figures earlier for the anticipated strength of the afghan national security forces just by 2011, let alone by 2014. i've indicated how they're already beginning to be able to conduct the majority of the operations such as in the operations that karen was talking about earlier. and so our objective is, and it's an internationally-agreed objective, to create by 2014 a situation where afghan forces can lead and sustain their own operations throughout afghanistan. and it's consistent with that, therefore, for us to say what we've said about 2015 and to

believe that if we achieve those objectivewith regard to the afghan national security forces, we won't be placed again in the situation of 9/11. >> but the 2014-'15 deadlin is set regardless of the situation that you find whether afghan army and police are ready to take over, whether they're able to take over. so it's possible, didn't say it's likely, but it's possible that the situation may deteriorate. at that point would you rule out coalition troops being used again? this. >> this is a clear deadline. no one should be in any doubts about this whatsoever. let everyone's mind concentrate on this. the afghan government, our allies if necessary, this is absolutely clear what we've said about 2015. the prime minister was here, he would put it in equally trenchant terms. >> how would you stop terrorist attacks coming to te u.k. if we have a failed state again?

>> well, i commented about the situation in 2025 or 2035. we're trying to create the conditions here in which we don't have a failed state, in which we have a state with one of the largest armies in the world able to conduct its own affairs. at least to the extent of not being a danger to the rest of the world in be line with the -- many be line with the national security objective, the realistic objective that i set out earlier. i think that is a realist oibtive e -- realistic objective. >> thank you. >> can i just return to t issue of hearts and minds and the situation of civilian casualties, reports we've gotten many this committee e are casualties a going up, and this, in many ways, makes it easy for the taliban to make us look like an occupying government, etc., etc. history would suggest, you know, those countries, regimes that have militarily engaged with the

west in the past, the old system has survived. communism has survived, cuba, north vietnam, north korea, perhaps even china. it fosters a sort of feeling of mistrust which plays into the taliban's hands. is there anything we can do to break into this cycle? >> well, so much of what our military effort is directed at doing working with the provincial reconstruction teams is to break into this circle. as you know, the military strategy adopted at the highest level was redefined to be counterinsurgency involving the protection of the local population. isaf forces go to great lengths to protect local populations. they often take losses to protect local populations. the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the other side and they are caused by the ieds of the taliban and

others. so i think it's very important to remember that, that we are the forces safeguarding the civilian population wherever possible. and i think karen may have the figures here, but i think it is around 70% of the civilian casualties that are caused by taliban acttivities andeds. >> that's right. 70% ofhe casualties caused by the taliban, and the figure has gone up this year, but that's largely due toen increase in -- to an increase in the taliban attacks. i think it's helpful to point out that, of course, any casualty that is caused by isaf is accidental. it is regrettable, and we'v said so in the security council. as the foreign secretary said, we take all steps possible to minimize the risk that there will be accidental casualties, that the taliban, by contrast, actually go out and target civilians. >> we spent the last 55 minutes looking at afghanistan.

for the last ten minutes before go into the private session can we have a look at pakistan? mike. >> we've already asked you in the september your reaction to the prime minister's statement in india in which he referred to pakistan looking both ys and alleged that they werexporting terror to india, afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, or certnly it could be interpreted that way by the pakistanis. was he wise to make that remark in india? >> yes. a good foreign secretary will affirm the prime minister's always wise. [laughter] to make remarks. [laughter] anthen i think they were remarks which were wide ri supported and respected around the world, and it was said at the time by some commentators that that had damage relations with pakistan. i have to say in recent months relations between the u.k. and pakistan have been excellent.

cooperation between our two goths has been excellent -- governments has been excellent. so if there was disquiet in the pakistani government about that, it has been more than overcome by the work that we have been doing together since then. >> we've had evidence from a number of sources that say that pakistan doesn't fully cooperate with the u.k. on counterterrorism issues. what's your reaction to that? >>ell, there is a new demand for cooperation on counterterrorism operations, very much on an operational basis. and, again, i don't think -- i can't go into the details of that in public, but certainly i would say that the cooperation on counterterrorism with pakistan has substantially improved in recent times. >> would you say, however, that it's not yet as unconditional

and full as it might be? >> well, those things can be quite difficult to assess. it's often hard to be sure whether a country's giving all thinformation and cooperation that it could give. but nevertheless, i do stress, again, that we have, we have no currenteason for complaint about that, and the cooperation has improved. >> it was put to us in pakistan that the pakistanis would like some sophisticated equipment so that they're able to do the job themselves much more effectively. do we have concerns that w don't want to give certain equipment to pakistan because we're not quite sure where it might end up? >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> president zardari was complaining, he was saying he'd like to have access to the drone technologies. >> right. well, of course, the technology from this country is very carefully controlled, and we will look from it from a

friendly country and a requests, but i'm sure you understand how carefully we control those things. >> but the point was made to us, look, you're asking us to do a job out here on the northwest frontier, but you're not giving us the technology we need. is there a case of we could be doing more to help them on the military front? >> well, i think we will always be careful in selling advanced technology and to many nations around the world. and, of course, we will have to be careful in this case. >> can i just answer that we are getting by the e.u. export regime and some of the other regimes the foreign secretary was saying. president czar da by has been worried about the keg ration of equipment among the pakistani armed forces. some of that relates to very sophisticated technology, some of it is more basic. the ministry of defense got a review on what help they can

give to pakistan across the board, a i number of areasot just provision of equipment. >> the pakistani state or some of its agencies were involved in setting up the taliban in afghanistan. they did so at that time with western support. because they were used against the soviet union. how confident are we now that elements withi the pakistani state, in particular the isi, are willing and able to tackle those insurgents given their close historical links with them? >> well, i think we have seen a sharply increased willingness in pakistan to tackle insurgency in many different forms. and you're familiar, of course, th many of the military campaigns that they have undertaken and, indeed, the huge losses on the pakistani military have sustained. and i think it's very important, always, to recognize that.

and so pakistan, i think, has a state, the government of pakistan including its intelligence services can now see very clearly after some of the terrible terrorist incidents they have themselves experienced the importance of tackling insur yen si and instability. >> a they've lost lots of people against the pakistani taliban. the question is are they prepared to act against the afghan taliban which might be a kind of proxy for an organization of which they could still have some influence in the future? this. >> well, again i would sayhat the cooperation between our countries has improved in this area. but i would stress of course in a political settlement of afghanistan which we have been discussing earlier, the support and the active support of pakistan because of links that were established over a long time will be very important. >> >> is it a case of willingness or capability to take on the

afghan taliban? the pakistani military have bee pretty heavily involved though not totally successful in north waziristan, and yet we've still got baluchistan which is the main base of the afghan taliban. do you think it's a willingness and lack of capacity or do you think that it's [inaudible] well, the military capacity to deal decisively with every threat in that kind of terrain is, of course, quite difficult to come by. so i think that always has to be understood. this is one of the most difficult areas in the world, again, as you know very well know as a former defense secretary. one of the most difficult are in the world to control by military means. nevertheless, we have seen a greater increased willingness on the part of pakistan to confront

insurgencies on their own territories to take action against terrorist groups. so i tnk i would like to emphasize that rather than be critical today that we have seen very important steps forward in tackling terrorism by the vernment of pakistan and, of course, we want those to continue. >> -- [inaudible] but they point out to how many people they've lost in action and taken against the insurgency. they complain about the borders and the lack of border cntrol, and they highlight how many border control people they've got on the border between pakistan and afghanistan, and they highlight the difference between our forces and their own. is there anything we can do to make the border more secure than it is now by putting more

emphasis on the need to keep it tighter boundary than we've got at the moment? >> well, there may be over time. and, of course, there have been discussions about this between afghanistan and pakistan. which we very much encourage. again, it is following up a point i made to mr. ainsworth, this is one of the most difficult borders in the world to pole. in some cases there would be argument about exactly where it was. but certainly there have been international initiatives to improve cooperation on the borders, and we encourage those. karen, do you want to add to that? >> just to amplify that point, foreign secretary. the initiative that the canadians started about improving cooperation on the border between afghanistan pakistan, the international monitoring can help, and we're hoping the french will continue that under their g8 presidency, and there is something called e dubai process which also looks at the same issue on a slightly larger basis.

so these things will continue, we hope. >> while we were in islamrad, the pack -- islam brad, the pakistanis were pretty clear they wanted to be involved. do you think we can trust them to be in on this broker? [laughter] >> well, i hope that in the region, i hope all nationsn the region including pakistan will be able to play a supportive role in a political settlement. in afghanistan. t i think we should be careful about defining who is a broker in bringing about such a settlement. this has to be an afghan-led process of reconciliation. >> exactly. and do you think the comment on u.s./pakistan relations here. they seem to be at loggerheads. we picked up hostility to the unitedstates despite the fact that a substantial amount of aid is given by the united states to

pakistan. we've got a role here, at least i believe we've got a role here. do you agree that we could be encouraging afghanistan -- pakistan and the united states to communicate better with each other so they can then wo jointly towards a settlement? >> yes. i thk the governments of pakistan and the united states do communicateffectively with each other. it is very important for the united states and the united kingdom to explain to the people of pakistan what we are doing. and i strongly welcome the visits of fellow parliamentarians to pakistan. we have had, as i think was set out in memorandum sent to the committee, a large number of ministerial visits to pakistan under the new government, and on many of those visits we have gone out of our way to spend our time on the media in pakistan. i think i did an exceptional number of intervie on my visit to pakistan to explain to the

people of pakistan about t role of the u.k., about the the extent of the assistance we are giving with education in pakistan. since then, of course, britain is one of the countries that has led the way in responding to the disastrous floods in pakistan, and so i think the u.k. and the u.s. and our allies have to communicate that as effectively as possible. and alongside a close relationship with india, to buila long-term strategic partnership with pakistan. those things go indices pence my together. >> president zardari sa he wanted to address this committee, and we will facilitate th >> in a few moments, the opening

session of the charles frankel healing looking into allegations. "washington journal" levitt 7:00 eastern and we will have a representative blake of california. the house is in session for general speeches at two o'clock 30 eastern and back at 2:00 for legislative business. a couple of live events to tell you about today -- from dallas, we will show you the ground- breaking ceremony for the george w. bush presidential center at southern methodist resident -- center. speakers will be first lady laura bush, former vice president dick cheney, and former secretary of state condoleezza rice. that is on c-span 2 at 11:30 a.m. eastern. also on c-span 2 at 3:15 p.m. eastern, the senate and security committee and we will hear about air cargo security from the tea

s.a. administrator and the customs and border control commissioner. a subcommittee of the house at this committee adjourned last night without making a decision on the 13 ethics charges against democratic representative charlie rangel of new york. the congressman's vote early in the hearing but then left. the subcommittee's members accepted the chief counsel at evidence as uncontested. if the subcommittee find him guilty of any charges, the fall ethics committee will recommend sanctions. over the next half-hour, you will hear representative rangel's statement. ay after he left. i would like the record to reflect that all eight members of the subcommittee are present. this hearing of the adjudicatory subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct in the matter of representative charles b. rangel will come to order.

the constitution authorizes the house of representatives to discipline its members. in the house, the committee on standards of official conduct is charged with recommending and enforcing ethical standards that ensure that members and staff act in a manner befitting that public trust. it is under that authority that we are meeting here today. this hearing is authorized by house rule xi, clause 3, and committee rule 23. the purpose of this hearing to determine whether any of the 13 counts included in the statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative charles b. rangel have been proved by clear and convincing evidence. on june 17, 2010, a bipartisan investigative subcommittee of the committee on standards of official conduct adopted a statement of alleged violation in the matter of representative

charles b. rangel. representative gene green chaired the investigative subcommittee. the ranking member of the full committee, representative jo bonner, served as the subcommittee's ranking member. representatives bobby scott and doc hastings also served on the subcommittee. the investigative subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violation which includes 13 separate counts. for each count, the investigative subcommittee concluded that there is substantial reason to believe that representative rangel violated the code of official conduct, or a law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to representative rangel's performance of his official duties or the discharge of his official responsibilities as a member of the house of representatives. the role of an adjudicatory subcommittee is to determine, at a hearing, whether any count of the statement of alleged violation has been proved by clear and convincing evidence. the purpose of this adjudicatory hearing is to do just that. however, it is important to bear in mind that this proceeding is a hearing, not a trial. attorneys from the committee's

non-partisan, professional staff are the moving party in these proceedings. their role is to make a case for the statement of alleged violation adopted by the investigative subcommittee. at the adjudicatory hearing, the burden of proof rests with committee counsel to establish the facts alleged in each count of the statement of alleged violation by clear and convincing evidence. representative rangel will have an opportunity to present his side of the story, should he wish to do so. a respondent is not required to present a case in his defense, and should representative rangel choose not to present a case, the subcommittee will not and may not draw a negative inference from that fact. as members of the adjudicatory subcommittee, we are neither accusers nor are we defenders of our colleague, mr. rangel. our job is to act impartially as finders of fact and law. we are honor bound to do so without regard to partisanship or bias of any sort. we are required to act honestly

and fairly based on the evidence presented to us during the adjudicatory hearing. in light of that role, i remind my colleagues that while this hearing is in progress, and while the ethics process continues for this matter, we should continue to refrain from commenting on the facts, the law, or any other aspect of this matter. in conducting this hearing, the adjudicatory subcommittee will follow the procedures established by the rules of the committee. the quorum required for the adjudicatory subcommittee to conduct any business is a majority plus one, or six members. if at any time the subcommittee does not have a quorum, the chair may recess the hearing, and may direct the clerk to contact the members who are not present. in addition, the chair can recess the hearing at any time as needed. the order of the adjudicatory hearing will be as follows. first, the subcommittee will hear argument on a motion noticed by committee counsel.

unless he is under oath, any statements, questions, or arguments that representative rangel makes will not be considered evidence in this matter. members of the subcommittee will then have an opportunity to ask questions of the parties, should they choose, under the five- minute rule. following a ruling on the motion, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be allowed 10 hours to present their case, including the time allotted for opening statements and closing arguments. the order is established by committee rules. first, i will recognize committee counsel and representative rangel or counsel -- who i gather since he is sitting by himself may be representing himself. each party will be limited to one hour for opening statements.

the order for receiving committee counsel will present witnesses first. representative rangel will have the opportunity to cross- examine witnesses called by committee counsel, should he wish to do so. next, representative rangel will should he choose to do so. committee counsel will have the opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses mr. rangel calls in his defense. after representative rangel finishes his case, committee counsel may ask to present rebuttal witnesses, as permitted by the chair. members of the subcommittee will also have the oortunity to ask questions of each party's witnesses under the five-minute rule, unless otherwise directed by the chair. after all testimony and evidence has been presented, committee counsel and representative rangel will each be permitted to make a closing argument. each party will be limited to one hour for their closing argument. members of the subcommittee will then have the opportunity to ask the five-minute rule, unless otherwise directed by the chair.

at that time, the members of the adjudicatory subcommittee will to consider each count included in the statement of alleged violation. the subcommittee will determine by a majority vote of its members whether each count has been proved. the adjudicatory subcommittee will then report its findings to the full committee. if no count is proved, the full committee will prepare a report to the house, based upon the report of this subcommittee. on the other hand, if any 1 or more of the 13 counts in the statement of alleged violation are proved, the full committee will conduct a sanctions hearing to determine what sanction, if any, the committee should recommend to the house. the allegations included in the statement of alleged violation are significant. we take seriously our obligation to conduct these proceedings fairly, impartially, and with the dignity and decorum the house of representatives.

responsibilities as set forth in the rules of the house and the rules of the committee. the adjudicatory hearing will be conducted subject to the rules and the decorum of theall participants will be promptly all evidentiary, the committee and rulings issued in this hearing. any breach of decorum by hearing and to proceed in opening remarks. hearing. this is an important day, both committee, for the congress, but most importantly for the american people. as a member of this committee and a former federal prosecutor

-- sitting in judgment is a very difficult to do. we accept our responsibility for today. we serve for no other reason than to protect the honor, integrity and credibility of this institution often referred to as the people's house. the american people's confidence in us is a it an historic level. it is my sincere hope that these public, a televised hearings will help increase transparency and accountability and restore much-needed trust to the house as an institution. our responsibility as judges in this matter is to be fair and i.

this is an investigation that received testimony from more than 50 witnesses and over 28,000 pages of documents. an investigation of alleged violations. ov 500 accidents have been placed on the committee's website. these allegations have proven that mr. rangel violated statutes. as judges, we must determine where the selling -- whether these allegations will proven by clear and convincing evidence. mr. rangel has requested public hearings, a right that he is afforded under committee rules. today, he is given the opportunity to be heard and it

is our responsibility to make sure the process is both fair and dignified. as a former federal prosecutor in the public integrity section of the department of justice, due process is nothing new to me. it is guaranteed by our constitution and it is a responsibility that i take very seriously. as we prepare to hear the evidence against one of our most tenured colleagues in the house, we need to make sure that we have done everything we can to show the american public that we will handle this matter with the utmost professionalism and non-partisan ship that it deserves. we can never forget that the public office is a public trust. >> the gentleman yields back. before proceeding, we see that committee counsel is present, mr. rangel, are you represented by counsel here today or are you representing yourself? >> madame chair, i would like to

make a brief statement. [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] -- this has been going on for over two years and because during this time, i have had council. it is not my fault that it took two years before the [inaudible] during this period of time, my lawyers were working while you

were investigating. when the council was paid two million dollars, it could be $1 million for the hearing. the argument that this has been going on for two years, i do not see how it relates to me. the second issue has been raised [inaudible] i have been asking for this matter [inaudible] my family has caught hell.

when can people be exposed to these charges? [inaudible] you have indicated that there were pages of testimony. i have not been able to explain my position ever because of rules of confidentiality. each time i have asked for a hearing, do you think i would ask for a hearing without counsel? i was just asking for the aperture to to have counsel and i think that the community should know what i have been charged with.

[inaudible] it would have been helpful if you would have done it before the general election. for whatever reason, when i had council, that was done. when my oonent and critics were charging me with corruption, i had hoped [inaudible] [inaudible] the whole idea that i have not had counseled because i was [inaudible]

i do not have the opportunity to have a legal defense and since i cannot afford another million dollars, i can't even promise that to counsel. quite frankly, there is a third reason that the chair has done that pains me e most. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

i would be entitled if we had more time. [inaudible] what prevents us from doing this? as i stand before you i have no idea how counsel intends to proceed. 80 pages of what could be considered a summary i think would indicate that they may not

call witnesses. that this committee would ask that a judgment be made based on [inaudible] i have had a lawyer to look at this. to me, [inaudible] >> mr. mccaul said that you have spoken to 40 witnesses or more. 30,000 pages of testimony. and my supposed to know what they will testify to?

i have been denied that opportunity. if the chair is suggesting that i can make my remarks, then i will do that. but i want you to know that i do not think it is fair that i participate in any type of proceeding if, in fact, you are basically telling me that the political calendar will not allow you and of time to allow me to get a lawyer at this critical point in my life. 50 years of public service is on the line. i truly believe that i am not being treated fairly and that history will dictate that, notwithstanding the political calendar, i am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding

and want to thank you for your courtesy. i have prosecuted in the u.s. attorney's office. i have served as a legislator in the state. i am so proud of my work in congress, i love this congress and i love this country. i think i am entitled to more. >> thank you, mr. rangel. before turning to committee counsel, i would just no for the record, and i will put into the record the exchange referred to by mr. rangel so that this will not be a mystery to the public, but i would note that we were advised that mr. rangel's council withdrew little over a month ago and further council has not been retained and the

committee has indicated an intent to proceed today. >> madame chair, would be appropriate to ask you a question? >> i listened to what mr. rangel have to say very carefully. it troubles me that he is before the committee without counsel. are we going to consider his statement as a motion to continue this hearing? >> is that a motion to continue mr. rangel? >> i do not know -- first of all, my role here is as the respondent. i am not here representing myself. i have been a lawyer long enough to know that it is very, very unwise for any person, a lawyer or judge, to be his own lawyer at a proceeding like this. i am not in a position to make a

motion unless we are talking about fairness and if someone is contradicting anything that i say. notwithstanding the fact the use limited your letter for the record. if there is anything i said about that letter and all of the conversations we have had, i would think that notwithstanding procedure, that paris would allow you to say that this is a statement of how i feel as a person and a member of congress and as a citizen that expects due process. you can call it a motion, and i cannot quite frankly answer that question. >> we appreciate that. >> we will turn, now, to committee counsel to introduce your team and make your motion for the admission of evidence. >> madame chair, ranking member

mccaul, members of the subcommittee, rep rangel. my name is blake. i am the chief counsel. to my right is deborah morris, counsel to the committee, and to my left is donald sherman, also counsel to the committee. at this time i would like to introduce evidence number one through 549 for the record. >> any questions? >> with all due respect, i am not in a position to pass judgment on what counsel is about to do. i have never known that this proceeding even existed in summary judgment if that is what he is about to do. any lawr that i have talked to said that the commiee -- >> if i may interrupt mr. rangel, just to clarify, we weren't notified, as were you

come out of this motion. -- as were you, of this motion. we will hear the motion, the argument from the committee counsel and whatever argument you may choose to make, but if you wish to be heard, in an opening statement, we will hold any ruling on that motion in abeyance so that if you wish to be heard, we will hear you. >> i appreciate the chair. would that include the right for me to have a lawyer? >> you may hire whomever you wish as a lawyer. that is up to you. >> you have seen the record. two million dollars already, and i have been advised that this hearing coul cost another million dollars. you have not allow me to have a defense fund which would allow me to have a lawyer come into the case. if that is what you are saying,

there is nothing i would not yield to for that purpose, but you know that if you are saying that we can't move forward, then that restricts me from getting a lawyer, not only financially, the legal defense fund would have no meeting at all. if there is anything that i can do within the rules of the committee that will allow me to move forward with this, i would not object to just procedure. but i did not know until a week ago that this 80 pages would be the way you intended to judge my conduct a week ago. so, i can listen to what he is saying, but does this mean that he is going into this procedure, that i do not have counsel to guide me? >> if i may, mr. rangel, if you could be seated. for clarification, the

respondent has inquired of the committee whether a fund could be created where contributions could be made for legal representation and has been advised by this committee that that is permissible, however, the retention of counsel is up to the respondent, whether you are to hire rick at your own expense, for your campaign committee, or through a fund, it is your decision, not the committee's decision. >> i am just asking for time to get counsel. i have lawyers from washington d.c. and new york that are willing to give me free counsel, to be able to come here because they do not think that i have been treated fairly, but they say that if they do that as a gift, it violates the law. i heard that they could do it

for reduced fees, if only we had time to develop the committee. you're telling me that i do not have time to do that. well you tell me that i can hire anybody and get anybody, or not have a lawyer, you are also saying that time does not permit this matter to be concluded before the end of this session, and that is the nuts and bolts of what we're talking about. you are not going to give me time to do it. i do not think anyone can say that this is the way it ends up. yes, i can do these things, but you have to conclude this now. my reputation, 50 years of public service has to suffer because this committee has concluded that he will conclude

this matter before this congress ends. all i am asking for is time to get counsel. time to get counsel. and i think you are saying now that you denied it before and you're denying it now. >> i gather that you do not object to the evidence that has been proffered by committee counsel. >> i object to this proceeding and with all due respect, since i do not have counsel to advise me, i am going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings because i have no idea what this man has put together over two years that was given to me last week. i hope that this committee, in terms of fairness -- [inaudible] with all due respect and understanding how awkward it is

for members of this committee, as someone who would like to reserve the right to be judged by their peers with counsel, i respectfully removed myself from these proceedings. >> madame chair, before he leaves, and ask an additional question? >> gessler. >> even though the respondent did not make a motion to continue, i would like this committee to seriously continue the motion to continue. we can discuss among ourselves what the response it has said. i think he is taking this very seriously. i serve as a judge and i know the need for counsel, especially in this environment. >> that is a request from one member to have a discussion on

the motion -- align >> i make a motion to continue the matter. >> we will go into our closed session and then we will return. >> was there except to the motion? >> yes there was. >> there was a second to the motion. all right.

>> i wish i could make a statement, but as you know, they have gone into recess. i do not think that there is anything that i can say. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] caller: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> is because congressman rangel of the meeting, they met for several hours in closed session without reaching a decision on the charges. if the subcommittee fines the

congressman guilty of any of the charges, the fall at the committee would recommend sanctions. c-span will cover the at this committee when the members of reconvene later today. in a few moments, this morning's headlines and your phone calls live on "washington journal." and the house is on session for general speeches at 12:30 eastern with legislative business beginning at 2:00 eastern. and in 45 minutes, we will be joined by democratic representative chaka fattah from pennsylvania and arizona republican jeff blake. it and number of issues including the lame-duckession, the future of ear marks and gop control of the house. and we will look how higher education has been affected by the elected