exactly the same way. .. >> this is on a child 8 years of old at the time of his assessment in 2007. do you use a different approach when you examine a child instead of an adult? is there a difference in your approach? >> the difference in my approach would have been observing the child while he was -- he or she was in my office and talking

with the mother. getting information from her. >> all right. you gave a possible diagnosis or a ruleout diagnosis of possible oppositional deficit disorder. >> that's a typo. that should say operationally defiant -- oppositionally defiant. >> yeah. should this child have been tested for this before making this conclusion, or was your assessment that it was probably likely? >> when a ruleout diagnosis is made, you're not saying the child has this, you're saying there's a likely, or a possibility that the child has it, and, you know, possibly more testing, more formal testing should be done. >> all right. would you, please, turn to page 5. and this, which is the beginning of the medical assessment of the bills you do work-related

activities, mental, form provided you by mr. kahn's employees. >> yes, sir. >> this is identical to the form you use for adults. >> yes, sir. >> do you think this form's appropriate for evaluating children? >> well, do i think it now or did i think it then? >> answer both. >> okay, thank you for letting me. now, no. you have to understand like i've told you before, i had no idea of the significance of these forms, what they were used for, okay? then i thought nothing of it. i didn't think that it was irregular because i thought that the attorney who would be reviewing the forms -- like i said, i thought these were used in house. i thought that a paraleague or one of mr. khan's assistants filled these out, and they were just for his use. >> you didn't fill the xs out on this form, right? >> correct. >> does it strike you strange that a child 8 years old would

have a poor work ability to deal with stresses? >> the reason -- >> did he have a jobsome. >> no, of course he didn't. the reason that i went along with something like this was because, like i said, i thought the attorney was in his office strictly him seeing this form, nobody else x that he would -- and that he would understand, for example, follow work rules. what was the one you just said? interact with supervisors. i thought it was understood that the attorney would think, well, that means, you know, he's talking about teachers as opposed to a work supervisor. >> do they have a form for children? does social security evaluate children's mental capacity different than they assess those of adults? >> at that time i probably wouldn't have known. >> okay. >> i do now just from reading the report of mr.-- >> all right. so i will just summarize your

testimony and get you to say yes or no, if you would. you didn't fill out these forms. >> correct. >> on any of the cases. >> i did before -- >> on mr. khan's -- these cases. >> there was a time that i did fill them out, handwritten. >> i huh? and when did you stop? >> i cannot tell you an exact date. it was after i quit working private practice full time and made private practice more of a sideline. >> okay. and you signed the forms really without evaluating what was in -- >> without evaluating the forms? >> yes. i know you evaluated the patients. >> short answer would be, yes. >> all right. and when were these forms presented to you? >> these forms were usually presented to me after the evaluation was done. one of mr. khan's employees

would bring these to me along with the report, and i would sign them after -- >> after your reports were finished. >> yes, sir. >> all right. thank you. i have no other questions. >> thank you, dr. coburn. doctor -- senator levin. and then i'm going to come to senator height camp next -- heitkamp next. >> i'm sorry that i missed the previous questions, although i want to get one thing clear. dr. adkins, you were gwen forms, and -- given forms, and after an examination you said that the client was disabled mentally. you did your own examination. >> yes, sir. >> but on this form there was a lot of information that backed up your diagnosis, is that correct? >> that backed up my diagnosis?

>> your conclusion. >> yes, sir. >> there's a bunch of pages here on most of these forms, right? >> there's three, i think, for the average one or for the ones that i've looked at today. >> okay. three pages that presumably gave support for the conclusion, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> did you ever change any of those three pages? >> could you elaborate just a little bit in. >> well, there's three pages on the average, right? >> yes, sir. >> that support the conclusion. >> okay. did i ever change -- >> yeah. >> -- anything op these three pages -- on these three pages? >> right. >> not that i can remember, sir. >> so how many different clients or patients did you look at? as you do an evaluation on?

>> how many different -- >> yeah, from him, from this office. mr. khan's office, how many of his, of his clients did you do mental evaluations on about? >> during that time, the time in question, i think it's 2007 or 2006 to 2011 -- >> yeah. >> i have no idea, sir. >> well, how many hundreds? >> how many hundreds of people did i see? >> yeah. >> let's take a look. >> no, just from the khan office. >> just from the khan office? >> i think i had figured it out roughly. give me just a second, please. sorry.

here we go. um, on the average what i've got it boiled down to is about two a week. >> but how many total? you've got about five years there? >> it would be -- >> you said five a week for about 250 weeks, so that's about 1200, something like that? >> no. if you can give me a second, i can do the math on it and give you a rough. >> okay. we'll give you a second to do the math. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> that comes out to 568, sir. >> all right. now, did you ever change anything that you was presented to you? >> no, sir. >> 558 examinations -- >> 68, sir. >> i didn't mean to shortchange you. [laughter] >> 568 examinations, you never changed anything on those 568 forms? >> no, sir. not that i can remember. i can't remember one time ever changing them. i said i was here today to tell you the truth. >> it's an extraordinary acknowledgment. truthful, but it's an extraordinary acknowledgment if you didn't change one word of an

analysis that you're depending on for who you're signing, put it that way, you're signing your name to. >> the reason that -- >> let me ask you a different question. 568, how many did you find we were not disabled? >> i don't know. i'm sure the vast majority of them i found that they had significant depression issues or anxiety issues or pain issues, what have you. >> well, of the 568 examinations, how many about? we could check it. were there ten? >> probably not even ten. >> were there five? >> probably not five. probably zero. >> zero. i have no further questions. i'm done. >> thanks, senator levin. senator heitkamp and then senator mccain. >> again, i'm sorry i wasn't here for your testimony, but reviewing these documents, each one of these three-page documents that you signed your name to, you're now saying you

did not prepare those documents? >> correct, ma'am. >> what, you know, i'm not as familiar with ethical standards for people in your profession, but how does this square with ethical standards in your profession that you would just simply rubber stamp an analysis that somebody be else did -- somebody else did without adequately reviewing their current condition? >> at the time that i signed -- >> oh, no, just i want to know in your professional, you know, status what are the standards of your profession in terms of the ethical obligations that you had here? >> ideally, they are the ethical standards -- it was a mistake to

do it. >> was it unethical to do it? >> looking back on it, knowing now what they were for, yes. >> you've testified -- your testimony here, correct me if i'm wrong, is that you were not aware of what these were being used for. >> correct, ma'am. >> grow really, really -- do you really, really think that's something that has credibility here? >> i have to be honest. >> is that really a credible claim? >> yes, ma'am. at the time, i did not know that these were going in front of administrative law judges and that decisions were being made based on these forms. >> what did you think these forms were for. >> i thought these forms were used in-house at the attorney's office -- >> but to form the basis for what? why would the attorney be asking for these? were you aware --

>> i thought the attorney used them as a quick summary -- >> no. why do you think the attorney would even be concerned about these patients and their current mental or physical capabilities? when an attorney asks you for an evaluation and sign your name on these documents, what did you think they were going to be used for? >> i thought the report, the actual four or five-page report, i thought that was actually going to be put many front of a judge and that that was going to be looked at and read in its entirety. these documents, the rscs, i thought, did not leave the attorney's office. i thought they were used by him. >> so it was okay just to sign your name onto them without doing the ethical, doing the appropriate investigation? so it was okay as long as they were in the attorney's office, but not okay if they were going to be used in a court of law or in an administrative proceeding? is that what you're saying? >> that's what i thought at that time. >> do you still think that?

>> oh, no, ma'am. not now. >> and this is, it's just, it's hard to believe that you credibly did not believe that these would form the basis for some kind of legal proceeding. if a lawyer asks you to do that -- kind of hard, isn't it? if you're sitting where i'm sitting, wouldn't you think -- >> if that's -- yes. from outside looking in, yes, ma'am. but at the time, you know, i testified earlier at the time i was very young in practice. i didn't really -- and mr. khan's practice was very well known. it's well known in the area. >> it was well known that he did disability claims. >> yeah. very well known that he was a very successful attorney. so when these were brought to me and folks said, oh, yeah, hey, do you care to sign these, it never dawned on me that there

was anything less than legitimate about i because of the fact, you know -- >> but yet you're saying here that your ethical standards would have told you not to do this. never mind the legal standards. i can understand and appreciate where that might be sometimes confusing to people who don't deal with the law on a regular basis. but ethically the training that you received would suggest that you shouldn't just rubber stamp an evaluation someone else did. >> at that time it didn't seem unethical to me. >> okay. thank you. my time's up. >> that's my testimony. >> senator heitkamp, thanks. senator mccain. >> thank you. mr. adkins, i understand that there was a place actually in mr. khan's law firm where some of examination is done -- some of this examination is done. were you ever there? >> yes, sir, for a very short

time. for maybe two months, maybe less than two months. >> months? enter yes, sir. >> dr. amnesty, were you there? >> no. he requested me to come and do physicals in his office, and i said, no -- >> you said no? >> i said, no. >> but, mr. adkins, you did some of this right there in mr. khan's office? that in itself creates an appearance problem. did he ever -- what was your compensation for that? >> well, the compensation was the standard fee that we discussed a few minutes ago. it was $350, senator. >> and how long would you examine these people? >> hour, hour and 15 minutes, something like that it would take. >> and what was the compensation, the standard compensation per patient? >> $350.

>> did you, did you know judge adkins? >> judge adkins? >> excuse me, judge daugherty? >> no, sir. >> you didn't know him or judge andrews? >> no, sir. >> you never appeared before them? >> no, sir. >> dr. amnesty, did you? >> i didn't know personally, but i told investigators one time and while i was doing -- [inaudible] ms. sloan, jessica, somebody came from huntington, he want to see me. and i was at 9:00 they called me, and then i didn't go. and then at lunchtime again the staff came to me. so they took me to their office. the judge and -- [inaudible]

and david hicks, they're both on the table, they're eating chinese food. they introduce me. i was so busy with my practice, i just don't want to say no to him, so i went there. the office staff was there, i still remember the girl next to me standing, and she's serving the food for three of them. then the judge asked me where do you came from? i told them i came from india. then his assistant, david hicks, and judge -- they're talking about indian food. few minutes' conversation, and then i said i'm leaving, i have a practice. all the time, ten minutes, the girl was standing there, and then i left. but i don't remember the judge is daugherty or somebody -- [inaudible] but -- >> okay. if you're, dr. adkins, if you

were getting $350 per patient and you spent an hour with each one, you did pretty well for an eight-hour day. >> no, no, no, i wouldn't see eight patients a day, sir. >> well, he was referring as many as 35 per tranche of them, so i don't know who else was doing the examining. how many other doctors do you know were doing these examinations in mr. khan's law offices? >> to my understanding, dr. huff nagel did. >> all right. mr. chairman, and i have no additional questions. >> let me change the focus just a little bit before we excuse this panel. in your written testimony, i believe that both of you suggested some ways in which the social security disability program could operate more effectively with better oversight of the medical

evidence that's presented, and and i just want each of you to give us your single best idea, your single best recommendation to address this program so that it might be run more effectively with better oversight over the medical evidence that's presented. and, doctor amnesty, i'm going to ask you to go first. give us your best idea. >> as a physician, i've been here many years, and i don't have any legal medical problems. but in the medical school residency, i spend a lot of time. they never talked about the -- [inaudible] and all the disability of -- [inaudible] we learn during the practice. that's where physicians make mistakes. and the physician community and

the legal community completely different. we don't know what process going in the court, what process they're going on, what -- [inaudible] my impression, my recommendation, they should have the physician who want to do disability evaluation, they should register in the registry, and they should go through continuous medical education. and especially disability. that's what's happening in our other branches of social security like -- [inaudible] i do -- [inaudible] and for the last ten years i went to princeton, association conferences. there we meet -- [inaudible] ing and federal government

directors and physician community. they all sit together and discuss what is the legal problem, what's going on, and that brings a lot of inand -- input and where we were going wrong, where we should go. and also complain what their problems are that use a big beneficial for whoever evaluating that social security disability. >> dr. adkins, your best idea. >> it's hard for me to boil it down -- >> go ahead and turn your mic on, please. >> oh, my apologies. it's hard to boil it down to one, sir. can i give two or three? >> you can give two but just very brief. >> i agree with the doctor, education. anybody looking back on it, anybody who is going to be performing consultative examinations, i would highly recommend that they be educated regarding the process from beginning to end and that that education be continued possibly

in the form of ces. the second one would be review by government entities. of the forms and documents that are turned in on a regular basis. you know, this went for five years, 2006 to 2011. if i had known early in the process, i certainly would have brought it to a stop and apologized and said this won't happen anymore. >> all right. dr. coburn has one more question. >> one other question for dr. adkins. did at any time the social security system when they asked you to evaluate a patient send you a form pre-filled out? >> very rarely. >> prefilled out in. >> oh, i'm sorry, no, sir. >> dud they ever send you one that was pre-filled? >> no, sir. >> all right, thank you. >> any more questions from our, from our senators? okay. thankthank you, governor manchir

joining us. and with that, this panel is excused. thank you for joining us today. >> thank you for giving the time. thank you. >> you bet. >> now, more from the senate homeland security hearing on social security fraud. next, workers in the claims office where form former judge david daugherty allegedly funneled fraudulent claims for eric khan testified about what they witnessed. this panel is an hour and 20 minutes. >> i'd like now to call, invite our third panel of witnesses to the witness table for this evening's hearing. i'll just briefly introduce each of you. eric khan, attorney and owner of the khan law firm. mr. khan, welcome. thank you for joining us. judge david daugherty, a former administrative law judge with

the social security administration, and judge charlie andros, an administrative law judge at the social security administration appearing in his personal capacity. judge, judge daugherty, are you in the room? i'm told by our staff that judge daugherty seems to have left the room about two hours ago and has not returned. our practice in investigative hearings is to -- [inaudible conversations]

before i ask our witnesses to stand and take an oath to testify, i would note that a subpoena has been served to dr. daugherty -- rather, to judge daugherty and that we will, it's properly served and we'll be in consultation to decide what further accepts to take. that having been said, i'm going to ask our witnesses, mr. khan, judge andros, to stand and ask you to raise your right hand. gentlemen, do you swear the testimony you will give before this committee to be the truth, the the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i co. >> i do. >> thank you.

all right, mr. khan, do you have any opening remarks you'd like to give, please? >> [inaudible] >> all right. do you have any corrections to the statement of facts laid out in dr. coburn's opening statement or to the facts included in the staff report released by the commerce finish by the committee today? >> mr. chair, members -- [inaudible] i, my lawyer sent a letter on october 7th explaining the reasons that i am not going to testify today, and pursuant to that letter, i respectfully assert my constitutional right not to testify here today, sir. >> is it your intention, let me just follow up with that, mr. conn, is it your attention to assert your fifth amendment right in response to any question that might be directed to you by the committee today? >> it is, sir.

>> well, given the fact that you intend to assert a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination to all questions asked of you by this committee, you're excused. >> thank you, sir. >> judge andros, you're recognized. welcome, please proceed with your statement. >> chairman carper and ranking member coburn, i just wish to state at the outset that i am here in a personal and not official capacity. the views expressed in my testimony are mine, expressed in my personal capacity as a private citizen. and this testimony i do not present, represent the views of the social security administration or the united

states government. i am not acting as an agent or representative of the social security administration or the united states government in this activity. there is no expression or implied endorsement of my views or activities either by the social security administration or the united states government. and i was asked to make that position clear to you before i testified. >> thank you. please proceed. >> i have heard a lot of testimony here today about my office, and i'd like to start by explaining a little bit how we changed our processes of handling cases. we recently -- by way of the social security administration -- recently adopted a electronic business

process to try and create a unified system for handling cases. as they came up from the social security district offices. huntington handles appeals from the huntington, west virginia, office, prattville, kentucky, and ashland, kentucky. so most of our work is actually done with kentucky cases. there was some discussion about scheduling mr. conn's cases and why we did it the way we did. after mr. conn's practice grew to the point it took up quite a bit of our dockets, it became hard to schedule. his cases -- he was a solo practitioner, and so we could only schedule the cases when he was available.

and this started to age his cases more than cases assigned to other lawyers. that other lawyers represented people. so what we decided to do, and i sent this up to my regional office and got permission to do it -- >> where is your regional office? >> in philadelphia, sir. >> all right, thank you. and at that time judge cristado was the regional chief judge. he later became the national chief judge and is still with the agency, i believe, as general counsel in boston. normally what we would do is when we saw that a judge had a case, a docket of cases scheduled, we'd bring from a case of what is called worked-up cases. they had been put into, the cases had been exhibittized, they'd been put into proper order. and we'd pull the oldest from

that list. that list was generated from master docket, pulling the oldest cases. what we found was that by assigning mr. conn's cases as they came in in rotation to every judge, it evened this out. there was concern expressed to me that mr. conn would be available for certain weeks and not available at others. and i felt to remove the possibility of him trying to be available when certain judges were available and not when others, i felt that if we assigned the same amount to everybody and kept them with everybody, then everyone would have about the same number of his cases. and that was approved, and that's what we did.

now, when we would schedule cases particularly for our presenceburg dockets, we looked at the age of the cases. and in some weeks that i was down in presenceburg, mr. conn would have two and a half, three days of cases which is roughly what his percentage of our cases down there would be. sometimes i'd go the entire week, and he wouldn't have a case down there. and that is as it varies with the age of the other cases, we always tried to do the older cases first. now, regards to the on the records, when we were -- when the commissioner set forth a series of plans to try and

reduce our backlog, one of them was to have judges review cases that were unpulled, in other words, not made ready for hearing, just raw cases that came up. so the pages may not be in order, the exhibits may not be in chronological order. to review those cases and see if there were any that could be done on the record with the view to getting the case to the claimant as soon as we can. you've heard a lot about pressure, and some of you have talk ad about the pressure that we're -- talked about the pressure that we're under. and i'd ask you to consider this: the administrative law judges are the only ones that see the claimants on a regular basis. we see how they are feeling, we see how this affects them. and for me personally, the major

pressure was to try and get that case done so that whether it's an allowance or a denial, they would get a decision. so part of the process was on reviewing for on the records. started back when we were still mainly a paper file system, and in conformity with that -- i keep forgetting the word, process, i told all of the judges in the office that if any of them felt that they had the time to go ahead and go to the master docket, the paper case in the master docket that had not been pulled yet, and they could review cases for on the record. and judge daugherty was the one who did this.

now, that's how that process started. one of the things that as the hearing office chief administrative law judge is that i carried the same workload as every other judge in the office. and so i had a full docket of my own cases to handle also. now, senator coburn brought up some things about -- and we talked about some things about what has happened. shortly after the newspaper article was published, i stepped down as the chief judge. so i have no idea or no knowledge of what management had done after that time, because i

just was not included in that information. but mr. conn was one of three or four attorneys that worked with judge daugherty getting files to him and getting new evidence put in the files for him to review. i know the committee and the investigation, which is very thorough, has primarily focused on that. but there were other attorneys who were submitting on the record decisions to judge daugherty also besides mr. comn. now, the details of how mr. conn filled out the rfcs and so forth, i had no idea existed until i read your report that

you graciasly furnished me -- graciously turn everybodied me -- furnished me a couple days ago. before we went to the electronic system that we have now of electronic files and electronic case control, we had started with what has been referred to as cpms which is, essentially, an electronic control system for all our files as they move through the office. cpms has gone through several iterations, several changes to it. in the beginning, i could tell that a case file had been assigned or reassigned, but with i could not tell by whom. i could tell that cases moved from one section to another, one

status to another, but i could not tell who made those changes. so when it was brought to my attention by mr. hall and by judge getlowe that judge daugherty or someone had moved cases to judge daugherty that had originally been assigned to them, i went to judge daugherty, and i asked him if he had been reassigning cases. and he said that he had. and i said did -- asked him, did you know that these were already assigned? because that was the program we'd set up, that they'd be assigned to us from mr. conn and not reassigned. and he said, well, i didn't know. so i sent out at memo -- another memo, an e-mail to the office staff. i believe that's one of them in the report. and i said, look, don't reassign

these cases. and i emphasized to judge daugherty, i said this has to be when they're assigned to a judge, that's it. he says all right, fine, i understand. quite a bit later, again judge getlow e came to me and i believe another judge came to me and said that they had found more. at this point i went to judge daugherty, and i said why did you reassign these to you? he said i didn't think they belonged to anybody. and what had happened was in the latest iteration of cpms, i believe, they moved where they put that in the file. so he said i didn't see it. i said, all right, fine, we'll take care of. i don't want you to reassign anything. if you have one that you're going to review on the record, go to the supervisor, have the supervisor look at it, and they

will reassign it if it's appropriate. he agreed. and then right before the story in the "wall street journal," judge getlowe came to me again and said, no, he's still doing it. and at that time i asked him for a list, looked at it, and i said -- talked to judge daugherty, and he said, oops, i must have done this. so those were the steps that i took; reminding everybody not to reassign it, specifically telling judge daugherty not to reassign cases. but the main purpose from -- >> judge, i'm going to ask you to wrap it up in about two minutes, please, so we can begin our questions. >> oh, okay. the main reason i wanted to do that was to keep the age of the cases between judge -- between eric conn's very large docket and the cases represented by

other individuals pretty much on the same level. so that we wouldn't age any cases. >> all right, thank you. let me start off by -- again, thank you for coming, thank you for testifying. and i want to ask you do you -- are you married? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any children? >> two. >> do you have any daughters? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i hi most of us up here have children, and i think except maybe for me, we have daughters. one of the guiding principles in my life, i suspect in the life of most of the people in this room, is to treat other people the way we want to be treated. as i understand it, you're chief judge, you were the chief judge. >> yes, sir. >> person in charge, the leader of this operation in huntington. and we've listened to the first

panel of witnesses talk about the way they were treated for a number of years. by those in charge, those in a position to do something about it. and i just want to ask you, how would you feel if your wife or your daughter were treated that way by their employer at their place of work? >> i would feel badly, but, senator -- >> would you do anything about it? >> i'd find out if there are who sides to the story. >> what is their motivation to risk a lot to come here and really to be involved, to agree to cooperate with the inspector generals? what is their motivation? >> on the -- >> and how do you square your behavior with the golden rule? treat other people with the -- [inaudible] >> i failed in a very large way on that. >> i'm sorry? >> i said, i failed in a very large way on that.

i don't agree with the statements made by ms. casher about the real -- carver about the retaliation. as i said, i don't know what's been going on since 2011. but before, particularly the information she gave about ms. goforth, i would respectfully request that a perhaps you get ms. goforth's side of that story. >> in delaware we have our social security disability operations headquartered in dove, our state capital -- dover, our state capital. and it's interesting when you look across the country at the number of cases that are approved or not, the number seems to run around 50%, maybe a little bit over 50% nationwide. ..

>> the srinivas ammisetty are through will be used as a model for some other parts in the country. but i come from a state where it's not uncommon for as few as one out of four cases to be approved. and it boggles my mind when i hear of administrative law judge who was apparently ignored -- is not too.

but for him to approve over 99% of the cases that come before him, over 99%, the lion's share apparently from one lawyer. and i think the person in charge of overseeing the operation where this occurred was you. and what did you do about it? >> under the administrative procedure act, and administer law judge has qualified judicial independence, and in the 27 years been an administrative law judge, i can honestly say that no one has ever come to me, either from my agency or even a member of congress, the senate or the house of representatives, and asked me to decide a case a certain way.

and i think that's an important concept. because as i mentioned to one of your staff, if he were, say, representing a family member angie walked into the room and sat down and a judge walks in and you had found out that someone had told him you were allowing too many cases, how would you feel about the hearing you're going to have? what i had done, and did with judge daugherty on one end of the spectrum, and another judge that was on the very low end of the spectrum, i said, look, i'm a manager for social security. i'm not going to tell you how to decide your cases. but if you look and you see that you are two standard deviations above the norm, or below the

norm, maybe it's time you take a step back, take a look at what you're doing, and see if you want to change it. at which point judge daugherty transmit us is chuck, i love you like a brother but i'm going to do this because that's what i think i should do. and that is about as far as i thought i could go. >> thank you. let me just interrupt you for a moment. staff has given me an exhibit, i think it's exhibit number 32, and it's called message -- exhibit 32, page one of nine, and can someone help -- again, it's exhibit 32, page one of

nine. let me know when you have it, please. spent i'll have to read in your book, sorry. sorry. >> exhibit 32, page one of nine. >> from judge -- >> that's correct. >> and i'm looking at, there's an e-mail chain, it looks like it began the bottom of the page but it seems to begin at about 2 p.m. on thursday may 19, and is from bill connolly and the subject is, heard about this, and below that we read disability claim judge has trouble saying no, near-perfect approval record social should program. and then up on the is the e-mail

sent about two hours later from judge helzberg. >> in fact i was the one it replaced judge helzberg, so we knew each other. >> it's an e-mail from him to you and the subject is heard about this at and there's only three words in his message to you. that says shame on you. shame on you with an exclamation mark. and your response, about a minute later it looks like, to judge helzberg is what can i say? judicial independence. >> yes, sir. >> him. >> for a person, for a judge that operates, not for you, but you are the leader and for you

to say in response to judge helzberg, shame on you, for you to say what can i say? judicial independence, i -- i can see where judicial independence is important. we all agree on that, but not when the numbers are like this. 99.5% of the cases that come before the judge, who is not here, approve me for the same lawyer and for you to say, what can i say? judicial independence. very disappointing. very disappointing. judge, let me turn to dr. cobu coburn. >> mr. chairman, i'm flabbergasted at what we've heard. i'm not a lawyer, so my deference is to you.

and the fact that you are one. multiple times you were noticed that judge daugherty was taking cases. you did nothing about it. you did nothing. you didn't stop it. it continued. you abdicated your responsibility as chief judge. you know, i'm sitting here thinking, you expect us to believe that judicial independence is the reason that judge daugherty had 99.7% approval rate? is that judicial independence, or is it fraud? and if you really think it was judicial independence, i think, do you really think it was judicial independence? is that your belief right now? >> my belief right now is that there is very little bad management of this agency can do about a judge's decision to

allow or deny a claim. >> that's a great point and that's one of the reasons we are having this hearing. because if you were telling us you're helpless, obviously judge helzberg didn't think he would be helpless without or he would have never sent you that e-mail. and what your testimony basically is you're helpless to fix the system. you about it to run out of control. you have great chances to stop this, and you didn't. and i don't know your motivation. i can't question it, but the fact is that facts are the facts. and what we've heard here today shows somebody wasn't minding the store. i'd like for you to go, if you would, to exhibit 10. if you can find that. >> yes, sir.

>> this is -- basically about changing case scheduling. and in a number you state that you suspect eric conn was form shopping. what do you mean by that? >> when i mention before that he seem to be available some weeks and not available others, at that time the huntington judges were on a pretty standard schedule. we do one week of hearings in huntington, spend a week in the office. and it was always the same week. so we knew when judge daugherty was going to be in there. so we scheduling clerk would call up and say, i need to schedule cases for such and such a week, he might not be available spent you would agree we've already got testimony that eric conn was form shopping just by the testimony has been here today. you would agree with that? that's a matter of fact before

this committee. no doubt in your mind? >> no, sir. >> you develop two tracks of cases, and you set one up for his and then you set one up for the other. and we heard what you said in your opening statement. the fact is, that was totally against agency policy. was it not? >> i believe that's what i asked for the deviation. >> but it was against policy, right? >> right. >> is there any culpability on your part from what we've seen come about from what's happened in this office? >> i don't understand. >> you set up a system that allowed this to occur. and the, you knew he was form shopping. >> right. >> and you ignored it once it really started happening. once you started moving cases to his own, and how do you know this cases were in there? i mean, we've developed the fact

that the only way he could have known is that he was told by mr. con means anti-social security numbers. that's the only way he could have gone into your system and rearranged and a signed those cases do so. he didn't know they were in there because they have not been found and brought up to date so you would see them on a list. >> i believe there is a report that is sent out from the district office when they transferred an electronic case to us. >> does that go to the judge's? >> no, what doesn't. >> know what does it exhibit on the way he could've known is have the names and social security numbers of those. we have numerous e-mails to you about this problem. nothing happened. i'm just asking, why didn't something happen? you ultimately as the chief judge were responsible for this. i'm just saying, sitting back listening to what you've had to say, you know, i'm obviously not a very good attorney giunta pretty good doctor.

but i don't think it passes your answers in terms of how this happened and how it came about. that's opinion and does not affect and i'm sorry to bore you with that. let me go to -- my staff ask you about, asked you about if you knew anything about trying to videotape sara carver. >> yes, sir. >> and you denied knowledge of that to my staff, did you not? >> i said i couldn't recall spent okay, you couldn't recall. it would seem to me if you're going to videotape somebody, you would have trouble not recalling that. but after the fact you in fact signed a statement saying in fact it did happen. is that correct? >> that is correct spent and you

were involved in it. >> yes spent you do recall that? >> yes. >> what was the purpose of that videotaping? >> ucf ms. carver -- to see if ms. carver was abusing things. >> did you have any reason to believe she was, and is it abnormal for a chief judge to go after somebody who works under them in that regard when judge daugherty abused his time all the time, nobody could ever find him in his office. what was the reason for that? >> there are some things that are not public record that i cannot talk about in a public hearing. , which is why suggested you may want to talk to ms. goforth. >> social security would've been here had it not been for legal wrangling, and they will be here. so we will get to that. as a judge, administrative law

judge of the united states of america, was your action proper in any way, shape, or form in terms of trying to work with a lawyer who has nothing to do with sarah, and actually what i would say is a conspiracy between you and mr. con? was there anything proper about the stick was not at all. >> was it ethical? >> new. >> okay. so when you tell us that you disagree with some of ms. carver's assertions as to the office of, especially in terms of ms. goforth, is that based on fact or is it based on opinion? >> that is based on discussions ms. goforth had with me when i was the chief judge and she was ms. carver's supervisor.

>> and your testimony here today about perceived if not actual retributions against ms. carver? >> yes. >> and you discount those? >> since -- when i was no longer a hearing office chief judge, i don't know what the current management is doing. i was a line judge. i didn't discuss it. i couldn't discuss it. so i don't know what the basis was for their actions. >> thank you. i want to jump back to where we were just a moment ago. a number of people in the philadelphia regional office disagreed with your proposal when you tried to change, that's what you sought an exemption back to what we're talking about before. if we turn to exhibit 11, page three, at the top of the page, is this e-mail -- these e-mail states your whole proposal seems to be an attempt to accommodate mr. conn.

that's in the e-mail. >> i'm trying to find out. spent its page 11 -- i mean page three, exhibit 11. >> yes, i see that. >> isn't that the case? >> no, sir. the purpose of trying to do that was not to accommodate mr. conn. but was to try and make sure that he didn't try and get a disproportionate number of these cases before judge daugherty and say, not one of the other judges who had a lower allowance rate. and to make sure that we had the ability to schedule his cases so that they wouldn't age more than cases that were represented by other representatives. >> wasn't it the case that mr.

conn routinely if they got in front of a judge or headcases signed in front of a judge that a lot of times would try to reschedule cases so he could get a different judge? >> i don't know about anyone else, but he didn't do that with me. >> no know. i think our testimony that we took in our investigation showed that he tried the technique several times so that he could change what judge he was presenting in front of. >> are you not aware of that? >> i am aware that he would dismiss cases and reviled him, yes. is that what you're talking about? yes, i'm aware that. >> so you would dismiss cases in front of a judge he didn't think would give him a favorable outcome so that those cases could then be before judge daugherty? >> those cases were supposed to been reassigned to the same judge. >> did mr. conn ever withdraw the case before you during a hearing? >> during a hearing? >> yeah. >> i believe he had. >> do you remember the number?

>> i could estimate for you may be two or three in a docket of three or four days. >> all right. we will enter into the record the number of withdrawals before judge andrus totals in 2005, 25 and 2006, 52, and a 2007, 75, in 2008, 60, 2009, 60, and in 201069, and the 2011, 34. ask unanimous consent that he made a part of the record. without any objection, thank you. there was significant number of cases withdrawn in front of you. >> yes, sir. spent not one or two. not three '04, but hundreds spent i said one or two per

docket. >> and how many delegates would you typically had that mr. conn would be in? >> at least once a month, and he also had some cases in -- >> maybe 18 times a year? >> at least. >> so at least sometimes as many as six? >> on a docket. >> requested dismissals that were on a docket is that not a waste of your time? >> yes and no. >> i'm going to get to my point. can you tell this committee that you honestly believe that showed no inclination that there was anything nefarious going on with judge daugherty and eric conn? you had no belief that you, you had the suspicion that there was anything going on in this process where mr. conn was on the record, do multiple, multiple, multiple on the record

decisions, would rotate decisions out of the registry and put them on his own docket, eric conn, take cases from other judges that were eric conn, and reassigned into himself and you at no time had any suspicion that i was anything other than judicial independence speaks no, sir. i am not saying that. >> okay. so my next question is, is if you're not saying that, you had to have had some suspicion that things were not going in an ethical manner in relationship to mr. conn and judge daugherty. because she suspected him of form shopping. >> yes, sir. do you regret now not interceding and that? i mean, you know, there's no question administered by judges have independence. but they don't have independence that totally flout the rules and violate the law. you would agree with that? >> yes or. >> do you think he failed as a chief judge a managing judge

daugherty? >> i thought i had done what i was able to do. as far as that's concerned. i told judge daugherty not to reassign the cases. >> but he did anyway. >> he did anyway. >> regardless of what you told them. >> that's correct. >> so you had no administered capabilities that you could use outside of what used to change that situation. a totally to find a judge going directly against your order of reassigning cases, moving cases, taking cases away from other judges that had previously cited and then taken of them himself, changing the onset case speed changing the onset? >> when he would get the cases resigned he would send information and the cases would go back to the date at which, or change the date.

he would actually manipulate the system. >> the claim it would change the onset spent at the request of judge daugherty as we've heard here today. >> yes. >> all right. did you at any time take anything of value whatsoever for mr. conn conn his employees or his associates? >> he gave me some dvds that have been, movies that had been burned onto dvds. mr. conn also on occasion brought sandwiches to the office, to the inning office -- to the hearing office. >> that's the extent of any value? >> and the dvds were minimal, minimal value and well within the ethics standards, as far as accepting gifts. and ashton excuse me, senator.

>> that's okay. i didn't let you finish. >> and the food is also, we do get gifts of food from attorneys, which the office sometimes does. we provide, make that available to the entire office, or provide it to some food bank. >> well, you are not the only problem, profession with problems with it. i was a doctor and wouldn't allow the drug companies to bring anything into my template because i didn't want to be seen as implicit or bought. i've gone way past my time. senator levin. >> the report t that we released today describes a number of instances in which judge daugherty's improper practice of assigning on cases to himself

and taking on cases from other judges and assigning them then to himself was reported to you as chief judge. this issue was brought to your attention in 2005 and again in 2006, and in 2072 years after his first brought to the attention of another judge, the judge daugherty to the fact that judge daugherty was assign cases to himself and the judge brought the matter to your attention again in 2009. in 2011. ms. carver and ms. griffith also reported, they reported this behavior directly to you as well. now, are you saying as chief judge that you have no power to discipline judge daugherty? >> hearing office of chief judge has no power to discipline and administered law judge at all. >> do you have the power to recommend? >> yes, i do. >> did you? >> on that, no, i did not send

that up to the regional office spent how many of these cases did he actually withdraw from you? >> none that i know of. >> so he never took a case running? >> right. >> the you knew all these other judges, or how many aljs? >> it varies between five and eight others think so you get complaint after complaint after complaint. you knew they were true. you told them he had to stop it how many times come at least three times. he didn't stop it. in fact, you said trenton. >> that was the last. >> oops. >> the last time -- >> you are suspicious of it and you have gotten all these complaints from your colleagues, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 from your own staff.

and you're sitting here and saying, well, you'd enough power to do anything about it but you did have power to make recommendation and you didn't do that spend i did in 2011, senator. >> after it hit the papers. >> before it hits the paper. >> you knew there was something going on by then. >> i can't recall that. spent i think your staff recalled it. so 2011 when something is just about ready to pop, now you decide you're going to take some kind of action. i find this incredible. and your invocation of the term judicial independence, i find to be, frankly, despicable. judge, i'm looking you right in the eye. i have judges in my family. i know what judicial independence is.

you cannot, you cannot say that somebody who is engaged in, as this lawyer was, 99.9% of these cases, one way after stealing cases from other dockets, and you knew about it, that you invoke or you didn't invoke as an excuse judicial independence. you know, as a lawyer, as a nephew of a federal judge and a cousin of another federal judge, i find your invocation of judicial independence to be something which, frankly, you ought to be ashamed of as a lawyer. it's got nothing to do with judicial independence but it's got something do with whether not you have abdicated your role as chief judge in that area, that region to do something

about an intolerable situation. that's what it's about. and abdication on your part. you can't have any other name. from my view. e-mails, you send out e-mails, this behavior can't be allowed, but you didn't stop the practice nor did you bring it to your administrative agencies, your region, somebody who could do something about it. and here's what you did. instead of acting to stamp out this activity, these misdeeds that are going on under your mess. -- under your nose. 2001, your office supervisor sent you a memo, exhibit 55 if you want to look at it at your office supervisor you a memo noting that judge daugherty missed three rescheduled

hearings. take a look at exhibit 55. >> yes, sir. >> may 10, 2001. he missed three hearings, yet he later took credit for having worked those hours. then in 2002, you are alerted by judge kemper that judge daugherty appeared to be signing in each morning and then immediately leaving the office for hours at a time. that's the next exhibit there, exhibit 5 56. so here's what judge kemper tells you.

when i sign in today i noticed that judge showalter and sign in at 7:15 and directly under her name was judge daugherty's initials, properly showing that he had signed in at the same time. when i drove by the third avenue entrance at 7:35 i noticed his car was parked in a handicapped spot them and after parking my car and coming to the front entrance i noticed that his car was gone. i spoke to judge showalter about this and she assured me that he was nowhere in sight, when she signed in at 7:15. at exactly 8:10 showalter went downstairs and inform me that his car was still gone. this is the usual procedure he follows every day. when judge peers is here to usually signs in at 6:30. no one signs in earlier about 7:15. daugherty wil was fine and direy

below judge bears his name. at the same time of 6:30. if you speak to judge paris i'm sure he will tell you that he never sees daugherty when he comes in. so daugherty is signing in, coming in at the same time as these two judges but they never see him. now, he goes on, one of us will be sending you periodic e-mails to show you this pattern of cheating, cheating on time and attendance. which, by the way, judges get low, and i have consistently informed you about through the years. is that true? if they consistently inform you about that cheating pattern? >> yes. >> can do something about

cheating? >> is that judicial independence? can get somebody there to do something about cheating? this is 2002. >> that's what i said up to the regional chief judge spent and the chief judge -- >> judge cristaudo. >> and did what? >> i believe on that instance he talked to people in central office, the national chief judge and nothing was done. spent what did they do speak with nothing spent to get a reply? >> no your skin so you wrote the chief judge -- >> i will my regional chief judge. >> who is still there thank you still in the agency. >> and that, and he did nothing after being informed that your colleagues, set by a number of other colleagues, judge daugherty was said to be cheating on his time. you never heard back? >> not anything specific. >> nothing in general? >> he said, when i spoke to

judge cristaudo he said he forwarded to the national chief judge and that's the last -- >> you never followed up to say hey, guys, i never heard back what's going on? >> that's correct spent so you never followed up? >> no. >> in 2002, exhibit 59, take a look at that. says this is from frank cristaudo. >> right spent that's the frame -- the same judge speak with yes. >> you said you never heard from him. so here's exhibit 59. 2002. charlie, that you speak with yes or spent you've often mentioned that judge daugherty goes to comply with time and attendance rules but we ask you to monitor his time and to deal with any failures. please let me know the status of his compliance with the time and attendance rule.

only but actually documenting incidents of unapproved absences will be any opportunity to take action for such abuse. therefore, i'm asking you to monitor the timesheet and whereabouts of judge daugherty but if you cannot be located in his private office or elsewhere in the office environment you should leave a note in his office asking him to see you as soon as he returns. you, of course, should keep detailed notes the document trees of absence and times you left no touring but this is a very specific response, isn't? >> yes or. >> did you do that? >> yes, sir. >> so you took all these notes and kept track of judge daugherty when he wasn't there and followed his patterns of cheating? >> when -- >> and then you send these notes, didn't you, to judge cristaudo? >> what i did was when he would come, when i couldn't find him, i left a note spent left a note of? >> in his office. >> and then you kept track of

all the times and did you then tell judge cristaudo? >> right spent you send them all this information, hey, i have done what you told me to do. >> no. judge daugherty came to me and explain where he was. he would either fill in, give me a lead slip to account for the time -- we're talking -- >> to you're saying he didn't -- you're saying he didn't persist with the abuse of time? >> there were times that he would leave and not indicated on a sign that she and i bring that to his attention, and a time, sign-up sheet would be corrected, and/or he would give me a leave slip. >> did he also sign in when he didn't actually sign -- when it actually wasn't there? did that pattern continued? that he was putting his initial under some judge is time for showing up that he wasn't there? there? did i continue?

>> not that i was able to see. >> you were just told -- usage or chief judge, you're supposed to keep track of it. >> right. i don't get in at the same time he does spent but you could check with all the judges who came at a time that they signed in and then if judge daugherty was there you could ask him if this pattern continued. you could have done that? >> yes, sir. >> but you didn't spend no, sir. spent but your chief judge you said you never even responded, who did respond -- >> this was on, that response was on a different incident. spent this isn't an incident to use it according to cristaudo have often mentioned that judge daugherty often fails to comply. more than one incident. and as you, they directed you, they directed you what to do. the first time he is absent without a privilege, them a leave slip, cautioning. awol a sussman and disciplinary

action. it's very important to document each instance with notes and copies as well as a summary of each incident. if he persists with the abuse of a time and attendance rules, with a record you will have great we will seek disciplinary action against him. well, did you? >> no. >> then take a look at him exhibit -- take a look at exhibit 59 spent i thought that's what we were on. >> i'm sorry, exhibit 61. >> that was three years later. this is frank cristaudo.

who is the valerie? >> she was the regional management officer. spent subject, judge kemper in complaint about lead abuse by judge daugherty. thanks and i agree something needs to be done to i directed judge andrew busch obligations to do that use either unwilling or unable to handle the situation. boy, that's an understatement. there's been some discussion -- let's see. i'm way over my time. there's been some discussion today, judge, about a plan by you and mr. conn to discredit the whistleblower, ms. carver

who we heard from order today with the goal of having ms. carver disciplined or fired. and as part of this plan you mentioned to mr. conn that ms. carver was probably not actually working on days she worked from home. you mentioned it. you brought it up, is that you? >> yes. >> now, why did you bring that up? this is a woman who works for you. >> yes, sir. >> so now you are telling mr. conn that she probably is not actually working the days that

she worked from home. in other words, she's allowed to work from home on certain days, but you told conn that she probably was not actually working on those days. why did you do that? tried again. you have a couple seconds now to try to figure out why you would do that. >> senator, that came up in a conversation, and quite frankly i don't recall the specific reason that i have said that. we were discussing how ms. carver always seems to be wanting everyone else to follow all the rules, but -- >> you're just talking to ms. carver, talking to conn, your staffer, doesn't seem to be following all the rules. it comes out of the woodwork.

>> well, we were talking about "the wall street journal" article, and that she had met, or he had related to me that i believed she had met with some people and the reporter. >> some of the people who had also blown the whistle, right? judge kemper, is that right of? >> i believe that's correct. >> and they met with a "wall street journal" reporter about judge daugherty. and so, then you told the ig that he was not happy with sara carver. who was not happy with sara carper? >> mr. conn spent so now mr. conn was not happy about your employ, so you say, hey, she is supposed to be working at home on these special days where she's allowed to work at home, and he said, difficult to prove

that. the only way she could be disciplined is if there was a video sent to her supervisor. so eric conn said he would be willing to hire a private investigator to check, is that right? >> that's correct. >> and then you say, you told him that sounds like an idea. and then eric on give yo you a note, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> for sara's knees, did she work for you? >> sandy. >> sandie nies, did she work for you? >> at that time i wasn't the chief judge so working for me was -- >> but he did you know? >> yes. >> and so that note was for you to give to center, is that correct? >> yes. >> and you didn't? >> yes. >> and that note had a cell number or a contact in eric

conn's office, and you gave it to sander, right? >> yes spent she said she would call the person when she knew that sara carver was not -- in other words, will and choose wilmostly working at home, righ? >> yes. >> how do you justify -- >> i don't. it was a very stupid and wrong thing to do. >> i've got more questions but -- [inaudible] >> i want to understand if i can how agencies come in this case -- in this case, huntington could be rewarded, its employees

reported for meeting or exceeding their goals. if senator levin here, or dr. coburn or any other colleagues pass is 10 times more pieces legislation, they don't give any more money. their staff probably doesn't either. my understanding is that when the huntington operation, and, frankly, others like it around the country were struggling to overcome a backlog that the word went out in these cases, and people are pretty good at moving cases, judge daugherty, and i'm wondering if, how reducing the backlog, moving a lot of cases

quickly, did that make anyone in the huntington office reserve some -- receive some kind of cash bonus? if my understanding judges did not. >> judges cannot spent just explain to us, i want to understand the financial incentives that might flow from this. >> there are two contracts -- actually there's -- there are two, with the national treasury employees union, which covers the attorneys in the office. there's a contract that covers the non-attorney staff. and then there is also a procedure for management employees, which does not include -- as an initiative launch edge i can get no performance onboard.

the awards for asg be changed in about 2006 i believe when they had a new contract. and that depended on a performance rating that went from pass/fail to a numerical rating. and that was given by the supervisors, the first line supervisors. the performance awards for the management team which are the group supervisors and issuing office director were all handled through the regional chief judge's office. now, the office i believe, two or three years in a row, got a deputy commissioners team award from deputy commissioner scolari. i believe that was one of them, maybe his predecessor, i'm not sure.

>> what happened -- what would trigger that, that performance award, that recognition? >> a deputy commissioner citation? >> that sounds like a big deal spent it's a plaque and a coffee mug, or a plaque and a little star. that's given through the deputy commissioner's office. my office doesn't have any -- >> i understand. give us some idea, to whom the performance award, monitor performance award might be paid. just give us some ideas, is it a couple hundred dollars? >> something along that, two to $500 but i believe the exact amounts i've noticed seen in the report that i reviewed it, and i don't remember the exact amoun amounts. but those are, as i said, awarded by the regional chief judge's office. and i do make recommendations to them, as the chief judge i made

recommendations. >> recommendations as to who would receive -- >> yes. >> the performance, monitor performance award? >> just to would receive it. not how much. >> and how much? >> i believe it is either the regional manager office or regional -- i'm not sure who of their made the final decision. >> so could be a couple hundred dollars, it could be a couple thousand dollars in some cases? >> i don't think it would be thousands. i may be wrong but as i said, i remember seeing something reference to that in your report. >> i'm not a lawyer but i'm not even a doctor. like dr. coburn here, but i've always been interested in a financial incentives motivate agencies. some of my friends are lawyers to go off to work and law firms, sometimes after serving in the congress, go off to become

rainmakers. not that they're going into the courtroom to be a trial lawyer all over again but in the folks that are able to bring in business. was judge daugherty something of a rainmaker for the huntington office? >> i see your analogy. let me try and speak let me just ask, is there something to say that but for his performance in the moving all these cases more than twice the national average, even though 99.5% in one direction, but for that, moving that many cases that fast, is it likely that the huntington office would not have seen the recognition that it did? >> if judge daugherty had only done the 500 cases a year that

they have asked a judge to do, except for two or three years, the huntington office would have met all of its performance goals. so during one point of time, it was necessary that those cases get out so that the goals would be met. most of the other times if you just done the normal amount that any of us did, we still would've reached our performance goals. >> but for those three or four years when his throughput make a difference, did that trigger directly or indirectly the performance award? >> the monetary awards? i don't believe so. >> all right. all right, senator levin, i'm

going and just a few minutes to turn this over to you. go ahead. >> i just wanted to see if i heard the answer to the chairman's last question. be the a o'jays get monetary award? >> no, never. >> leaned back to this action that was taken against ms. carver, did judge daugherty know what you were doing? >> i believe judge daugherty did not. i think he was out of the office. he had left. and i believe he had retired. >> when my staff -- not my staff, both staff interviewed you, both staffs i guess, maybe our chairman staff may be an exciting event, when the staffs talk to you, you said that there

was no plan to have ms. carver followed. yet that was within a month or two after the decision was made to follow her. was it not? you talk to my staff, or our staff again, excuse me, our staffs in june 2012? >> yes. >> when did you suggest that she be videoed? wasn't that in early 2012? >> yes. >> so early 2012, you participated in this. there was, you told our staffs just a few months later that there was no plan to have her followed or videotaped.

>> i remember talking about it, and from what they come what we were talking about, i thought the question was whether i was directly personally involved in the videotaping. and i believe what had happened was that was at the end of a very long day of going over quite a few of the things you discussed with me, and i was not sure of the details and i didn't want to give the wrong information. >> did you say to our staff, quote, i survey did not get involved in sara carver's flex the place. did you say that? >> i believe i did but that was regarding the videotaping. i did not do any of that. >> i didn't say you take into is a quote i certainly didn't get involved in sara carvers flex

the place. where you involve? >> i have talked to mr. conn about doing that and -- >> talked to him. you suggested it. >> i don't believe i suggested it. >> you just said a few minutes ago. you said that in order to take us met up we would have had the videotape. >> right. that is -- >> how is that for suggesting? >> icy which are getting out. videotape, yes, i brought that up. the idea i, we were talking and -- >> and you had the phone number. how is that for involvement with the truth of the matter is, is it not, judge andrus, that you were involved in sara carver's lexi place issue? and the effort to prove that you violated the rules of lexi place

to you were involved, is that not true speakers yes, but i thought the question was that they were talking about was the actual videotaping itself. >> you also were asked the following question. did you ask sandy to call conn's office and for them when sara carvers flexiplace. you remember which entered? >> yes spend what did you and your? >> yes no. you said not that i recall. >> again, this was -- when i was -- when he started talking about this i had no idea this was coming, that this is going to be discussed. >> that's called lying. >> i didn't recall enough of the details to want to give them

inaccurate information. so that's why i couched it in the way i couched it. i didn't -- >> you didn't give them accurate information to you said you couldn't recall it. very, very recent information. and then you were specifically asked, did you give her the cell phone number of one of k-9s employees to melinda. do you member your answer? >> no serve. >> what was? >> what is it no? >> oh, i did -- when i went back to huntington and was able to go through the whole process again, -- >> what is your answer no? >> yes, i did give her a phone number. >> but after i longtime, your answer was not that i remember. that's closer to the event when you talk to the ig.

and then you were informed, your past, you were aware of calls being made to melinda about sara carvers flexiplace. you asked specifically that question, and your answer, to remember your answer? >> i believe i don't recall spent no. not that i know of. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> i guess that's, i'm done. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. >> thank you. and we want to thank, dr. coburn, we want to thank your staffs for two years worth of work that brought us to this hearing today. i want to thank our witnesses. we especially want to thank our first panel of witnesses for making the trek here, and for risking a lot to be here. >> mr. chairman, i think probably dr. coburn come if he were here he would ask that this matter now be adjourned, recess or adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> we are going to have another

hearing. the panel that we hoped to be, therefore, social street administration estimates are government is up and running again, shut down so, want to convene a hearing and complete these deliberations at least for now. and we expect doctor doherty to be your. doctor, judge daugherty to be here again at that time. outing today discusses, actually deeply troubling findings regarding a program that he it think we all would've else is critically important in our country because it supports americans were unable to work and, but to have at least a life and have access to health care through medicare or medicaid. it's an important program, it's a needed program, and it's a program that is running out of

money. and within the next year or two it's going to run out of money entirely. and one of the ways to better ensure its there for folks who need it in the years to come is to look at how we're operating this program whether in west virginia, kentucky, virginia or anywhere else and ask this question, if it isn't perfect, how do we make a better? how do we make it better? we in congress have a responsibility, a shared responsibility, and responsibility to make certain that the efforts that we've talked about here to prevent fraud waste or abuse, our efforts that are joined in a whole lot of people, not just in washington, not just on this committee, but folks around the country who are working in the menus to do the work on a daily basis to receive the applications for disability, decide on them, to adjudicate them, and to move on.

but however the story ends up, we're going to make darn sure that the folks get a fair shake when they're applying for these disability awards.

we're going make sure that the folks who are running these programs abide by the rules, and that to the extent we can that people -- what is the right thing to do and doing it? we have leaders in place. huntington and other places to make sure that is going to be the case. the record will be open forric for another 15 days until october 22nd 5:00 p.m. submission of statements and questions if the record. with that, this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] today a look at the humanitarian situation in syria. senator bob of pennsylvania who cosponsored legislation to provide humanitarian assistance to the syrian people speaks in an event hosted by the national press club. see it live starting at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. the heads of african affairs

for the state and defense departments testify today on capitol hill about the situation in somalia. it's live starting at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. the crsh span video archive is the true modern record of congress. they are amazing. the video library is amazing. you can view and share c-span programming any time. it's easy. here is how. go to c-span.org and go to the video library to watch the newest video got most recent tab. click on what you want to watch and press play. you can also search the video library for a specific topic or keyword or find a person, type in their name, hit search, and go to people. got bio page and scroll down. you can share what you're watching and make a clip. use the set buttons or handle tools. adds a tight and discrepancies --

-- the c-span video library, searchable, easy, and free. created by the cable tv industry and fund bid your local cable or satellite provider. ♪ a live picture this morning from the step of the supreme court just across the street from the u.s. capitol as the high court prepares to hear oral arguments in the case of couchen v. the federal election commission. and -- super packs. the folk rallying outside here outside are opponents of the plaintiffs. they are in favor of the law as it stands today. we do expect to hear from the attorneys who are taking part in today's case a little bit later. while we wait for the u.s. senate to gavel in at 10:00. we'll watch the scene outside the court this morning.

♪ ♪ keep your eyes on the prize hold on ♪ ♪ keep your eyes on the prize ♪ ♪ hold on ♪ [applause] >> yeah! [applause] hold on! >> keep your eyes on the prize ! hold on! >> good morning, good morning, and thank you for being here today. my name is marching baker. i'm executive vice president of people for the american way. i'm honored to be one of the co-hosts today. it is so incredible to see everyone here. are we ready to rally for democracy? [cheering and applause] inside the court, right now, one wealthy man is asking for

permission to pour even more money directly in to political campaigns, but we're here too. we have a different ask. we're asking the justices to protect the integrity of our democracy. we're asking them to protect the voices and votes of we the people. we're here representing tense of millions of americans around the country to make it clear that we do not want our democracy put on the auction block! we're here today saying loud and clear our democracy is not for sale! say it! our democracy is not for sale! we're here to say to americans across the country thank you. thank you for all you are doing to lift up this issue.

your hard work, your passion, your persistence, are inspiring. because of you, we can and we will have a democracy that is of, by, and for the people. there's a movement building across the country. it's a movement to tackle the corosive and corroding influence of money on our democracy. the remedies we seek are many. they reinforce one another. we need to amend the constitution, to overturn what the supreme court has already done. we need public financing of campaigns. we need meaning of the disclose sure laws. and we need to insist that shareholders and not corporate ceos make decisions about whether and how much to spend on elections. [applause]

[cheering and applause] there are real remedies that real people are organizing and moblizing to support right now. we are in this together, we will prevail! we've got a great lineup of speakers today from student to small business owners to movement leaders and congress people and some of the lawyers in the courtroom today. they have important stories to tell about the challenges average americans confront in a democracy where policy decisions reflect the access an influence that the wealthy can buy. so we're ready to get started, but first, i want to introduce our co-host for today, my friend and colleague from u.s. -- [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, marching. >> my name is claire i'm the democracy advocate. we're so thrilled to be co-hosting this event today with

people for the american way. and to have all of the involvement of the wonderful group that stand here with us. four years ago, the supreme court heard a case called citizens united v. program elections commission. the court's decision in the case dealt a huge blow to dpm. what is different about today from four years ago is all of you. citizens united and the resulting big money in the 2012 elections awoke a sleeping giant. the american public that understands when enough is enough. we understand that when corporations can hide election spending, that something is very wrong. we understand that when 32 super pac donors can match $3.7 million small contributors that something is very wrong. we understand that when even in light of the problems, the supreme court is hearing another

case that can take us further down this road. something is are a very wrong. we understand they have real world problems and issues on the people we care about most. we hear from students and -- retire years when they young people and seniors lose. you'll hear from environmentalist who understand when coal and oil exec tyes can make multiple dollar contributions to candidates, that more pipelines will be built, more mountains will be blown up, and the clean energy future our planet desperately needs will continue to be denied. you'll hear from workers who understand that in a world where management -- writes the rules for government rather than the people writing the rules for management, families lose their basic preace and livelihoods. you'll hear from civil rights leaders, speaking for those who

have already had their right vote threatened or stripped by this court this year, and to understand that increasing the role of large donors in elections further disfranchises those who have the right to be heard equally in our democracy. the difference between citizens united and today is all of you. the people who stand behind us and the millions more across the country who stand with us. together we can and will make clear that in america, in a democracy, the size of your wallet should not determine the volume of your voice. [applause] thank you so much for standing with us today. it's going to be a lot of fun. let me introduce the first speaker of the day. craig l. wright is the vice president of montgomery county counsel, and the maryland state director of people for the american way foundation young

elected officials networking. welcome, craig! [cheering and applause] >> good morning, everyone. my name is craig i'm the vice president of montgomery county counsel in maryland. i want to thank the people more the american way for inviting me to speak today about topic that is extremely passionate. i am truly, truly passionate about this issue. i think it's extremely important for us to talk about the topic for this morning, which is fairness and democracy. in our election process took a serious blow when the supreme court found in the citizens united case corporations could spend as much money as they want on the political campaigns as long as they didn't give it directly to the candidates. i fear directly behind me that the court may again, take another step in the wrong

direction by declaring all limits unconstitutional in this case. the young minority elected officials, let me tell you this is extremely troubling. while our president was fortune enough to get very large combination of small donations that helped him to raise billions of dollars for his% -- presidential campaign, the reality is young minority candidates throughout the country are routinely outfed and; therefore, denied the ability. we will leave our coverage of the rally at this point. you can continue to watch it live online at c-span.org. a little bit later, attorneys arguing the case are expected to speak to the media. you can see it live online at c-span.org. directly opposite this, across the street. the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to begin the day. we expect to hear more debate and discussion on the government shut down. news indicating that majority leader reid allowing a bill on the debt increase.

we could see work on judicial nomination. live to the floor of the u.s. senate as they gavel in this morning on c-span 2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, we praise you that although we have merely a feeble hold on you, you have a mighty grasp on us. use your mighty hands to lead our lawmakers to your desired destination, making them