america. that's why he didn't have 100 votes on this republican side of the aisle for it. our leadership made a mistake in supporting it on that friday. just call them like i see them. it was a mistake, but that's where we are. we heard in the last hour about republicans who say my way or the highway. are you kidding me? we reached across the aisle during owe bamial care. insurance for people in your household under 26. we could do it for interest across state lines. there are a number of things we could agree on. insurance companies shouldn't be able to punish people. they have a pre-existing condition. when the insured has acted in good faith along the way and insurance messes them around. we are willing to work things out. they say we got the votes.

we don't need your votes. we don't want them. the truth is, we want democratic votes on the republican side. but we don't want to keep taking other people's money to give it away. i have heard in here so many times, jesus talked about helping other people. the orphans and widows. well, a lot of us belong to churches and we believe in doing that. that is what jesus said to do. but i can't find anywhere in the bible that says go ye therefore take somebody else's money, because you don't want to do your own, take somebody else's money and help the widows and orphans and other people. he said you do it. you help them. and when you do that, you're individually blessed. that's why jesus said it. he knew it would bless the giver more even than the one who receives the gift. and in fact you want a real example what did za keyas do after he met jesus?

he went and cut taxes. he was going to give a rebate, did to the people he wronged. you don't hear that around here. then to continue to hear our friends talk about ending medicare as we know it? that disastrous obamacare bill will end medicare forever. when you cut $716 billion, when you create this obamacare monstrosity, it's a government takeover of so many things, and it's disastrous. so, yeah, we are having to leave here and i'm not happy about it. i dew point want another c.r. passed. we should have demanded that this democratic majority at the other end of the hall stick around until they got a budget as the law requires them to do and don't leave until you do it and let's stay here and get it. i can promise my friends across the aisle that all we have to hear is any inclination that the democrats, controlled by harry

reid in the senate, as dictated by president obama down pennsylvania avenue, if they want to work a budget together and we can work these things out together, we can come back in a heartbeat. we'll be ready to go. but we saw with that supercommittee, just as i predicted in july of last year, they didn't want an agreement. apparently my friend talking in the last hour didn't know but pat toomey's made a proposal that would have caused more tax that is had to be paid by the wealthiest in the nation. that are already the top 18%, pay 39% of the taxes. well, if they get 39% of the income, they should. but they only get 13% income. but they wanted to pay more. here is a proposal in good faith by republicans we'll raise revenue, and it was reported here locally that, gee, some of the democrats said this may do the trick. we may get to an agreement now.

this is great. thanks for doing this. we can reach an agreement. then they go away and must have talked to harry reid and president obama and you can see the game plan. you got to go back and tell them we are not going to reach an agreement because our best help for winning the presidency and having control in the senate is if we tell america the republicans won't reach an agreement. they are a do-nothing group and i hope and pray people will look beyond that and see who really is the do nothing. we got jobs bills -- this ought to be a day of renaissance. this ought to be a day when the economy is booming. we now know we could be exporters of energy. we could be energy independent and export energy. but this president has a war against all of the energy below the ground that we could be using and exporting.

got a war against it. and he's in favor, as he said, for all of the above. that means wind and solar. guess what? the sun does not always shine. the wind doesn't always blow. so if that's what you want for energy, it means you have to have a coal plant, a natural gas plant, something that hydroelectric plant. then you have to have two or three times as many transmission lines because when you mandate wind and solar and they don't provide energy all the time, they can't, then you're going to have to have a source from somewhere. now we are doubling and tripling and going to force the price of energy to continue to go up. because we are going to demand solyndras and that kind of thing. so this administration can reward their cronies. well, we are at trouble within and without and i just want to remind my friends that it was in -- this was reported in "the new

york times" december 9, 2008. five charged in 9/11 attack seek to plead guilty. i'm quoting, at the start of what had been listed as routine proceedings monday, the judge said he had received a written statement from the five men dated november 4 saying they plan to stop filing legal motions and announce a confession to plead in full. they were pleading guilty. we got the transcript. muhammad admitted guilt. he admitted. he confessed to all kinds of other heinous crimes. and then this administration, president obama and eric holder, announced they want a new york city show trial that would have endangered new york yet again, as if they hadn't had enough trauma, and would have put a trial in there. so immediately these guys we are going to plead guilty, we can get a show trial in new york. these guys running things here

don't know what they are doing. what a disaster that would have been. as far as the great contribution, the great work that's been done in afghanistan, he took a war where we were making progress and here's the actual d.o.d. numbers. you see under commander g. bush there were 625 american precious, priceless men and women who were killed from october of 2001 to the end of 2008. 625 precious lives. bush goes out. president obama comes in. january of 2009, and by the end of august, there had been a subtotal of 1,474 additional american men and women killed under commander obama. not only that, 14,817 people have been wounded, americans had been wounded. lose an arm, lose a leg.

disastrous disabilities under commander obama as compared to the 2,638 terrible wounds inflicted on americans under commander bush. our president has been in command of 70% of the deaths in afghanistan that he's been commanding at the time. 84% of the wounds. one of the seal teams killed on august 6, 2011, they were in the briefing, they have said this publicly. one of the parents asked, if this was so terrible, this was such a hotbed, you knew it was a hotbed, a lot of american aircraft had been fired on recently, why would you allow this chinook to go? why wouldn't you send in a

drone? the answer from the general who was doing the briefing, they said was, because we are trying to win the hearts and minds in afghanistan. you're letting our seal team be killed when you are trying to win the hearts and minds? that's not the job of the military. the military's job is to go in, defeat an enemy, and come out. and we got to get back to that. this president has presided over 70% of the deaths in afghanistan. disastrous job. it's time to bring the president home as well as bringing our military home. we could just say what president bush did in october of 2001. we are going to let the enemy of our enemy be our friend. after this administration, the enemy of our enemy is our enemy to obama, but i have met with them a couple times this year. they are our friends.

they are muslim. they are our friends. they don't want to live under tyrannical rule of the taliban. they are willing to fight as they have and die with americans for that freedom. so we don't let a renegade group like the taliban who wants to destroy america. make no mistake the blind chic was the object of the -- sheik was the object by mandate named morsi in egypt. he said i want him released when i am elected president. just the day before, 9/11 this year, last week, you had the brother of the al kidial leader, who was saying he was ready to broker a deal that would prevent lots of violence. he also knew the day before that there was an obscure video, nobody can seen, wasn't going to inflame anybody, but he knew his buddies, the muslim brotherhood, the egyptian government, the egyptian television stations

would convert that, translate that into a language that would inflame people that they could get to do violence in the middle east, and they did. gee, the second day of that broadcasting, here he is saying i can broker a deal. and we'll work a deal out. this administration has offered to release other murdering thugs of the taliban and to sit down and talk. it's not the way you do foreign diplomacy. you reward our friends so others want to be our friends, and you punish our enemies so they don't want to be our unmes. this president has it backwards. he said they'll have a new look -- they'll look at me different because i'm the first president to have ever grown up in a muslim country. the years he spent in indonesia. well, wonder if that might be

true. maybe they will. maybe they'll want to be friends. the proof is in. the approval rating of the united states in those muslim countries where we have been is -- was 33%, which was terrible under president bush in 2008. and now under this president we see the report last week it's now 15% under this guy who was going to be our president and the muslim countries would love us. they don't. because in muslim countries the real people, the people that we really need to reach out to, not the leaders that hate us, but the real people, they respect a country who understands who is the enemy and who is their friend. they have no respect for a country that tries to do -- it would be the equivalent of a child, and i have been there on the schoolyard, picked on by bullies, i was little growing up, but i can tell you i had my nose bloodied many a time, you

don't win respect nor love from a bully by giving your lunch money or begging him to be nice to you. not only do they not love you, not respect you, they gain even more contempt for you. and that's what we are seeing happen. this president's trying to buy affection from people who were bullies, who were radical islamists that want to destroy us. you are not going to get love and affection, you get contempt. it helps them get other people to join in the fight against us. this president is doing great damage to us. and it's time to bring his presidency to a peaceful law-abidinging end with the election. things look tragic around the world unless we have a new commander in chief and a new leader who wants to rein in the spending. one thing i promise my

colleagues across the aisle, if you want to go back to that run away spending that was too much in 2008, that speaker pelosi presided over and harry reid had in the senate, when that ended in the last day of september, you want to go right back to that total amount being spent, i'm with you. i'm vote. i'll do it bipartisan and i'll bring a bunch of people with us and we'll bring down $1 trillion a year in spending. how about that? that's pretty bipartisan, isn't it? go back to a democratic budgets of 2008. i offer that. let's see how many democrats are bipartisan enough to take us up on that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for the balance of the time.

30 minutes. mr. mr. franks: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, nearly four years ago, barack obama was swept into office by the strength of his rhetoric, but the profound difference between mr. obama's rhetoric and the reality americans have actually lived under in his presidency is something every american has a profound responsibility to understand. mr. obama's rhetoric on jobs and the economy four years ago was, quote, we have to have a president who understands the essence of the american dream is a good job, unquote. but the reality under mr. obama's presidency is the highest sustained unemployment since the great depression. the percentage of people

participating in america's labor market under this presidency has fallen to 63.5%. that is the lowest rate since jimmy carter was president 31 years ago. manufacturing unemployment has fall ton its lowest levels since 1941. the number of unemployed americans eclipsed 15 million for the first time in history. the number of people forced to work part time for economic reasons eclipsed eight million for the first time in history. under mr. obama's presidency the average time it takes americans to find a job reached the highest total in the history of the statistic being measured. and for the first time in history, mr. speaker, over four million americans have stopped looking for work altogether. mr. obama's rhetoric on government spending and debt four years ago was, quote, america has a debt problem and failure of leadership.

that's irresponsible, that's unpatriotic, unquote. but the reality under mr. obama's presidency is that he had the first year he was in office, the first $1 trillion deficit in history. he's done that four years in a row now. mr. obama always loves to bring his predecessor, how the deficit for all of 2007 was $161 billion, mr. speaker. mr. obama increased the debt by that much in just one month. in 2007, the american -- america's debt to g.d.p. ratio was 62% according to the i.m.f. it will hit 100% this year. mr. obama spent nearly $1 trillion on a failed stimulus bill shortly after being re-elected. and then shoved a government takeover of our health care industry down the throats of the american people which is now projected to cost well over $2 trillion. he spent $3 billion on a cash

for clunkers program that went bankrupt the first week he spent $29 billion to bail out bear stearns and $300 billion to bail out city groop and $35 billion to bail out a.i.g., $10 billion to bail out union pension plans and $50 billion to bail out general motors. mr. speaker, under the budgets barack obama has already submitted to the congress, he will add more to america's debt than all of the outstanding debt of all the other 43 presidents in american history combined. mr. speaker, i wonder if we all understand where america is headed under this president. mr. obama's rhetoric on health care four years ago was, quote, we will work with your employer to lower your premiums by $2,500 per family, per year, but the reality under mr. obama's presidency was that the cost of american family health insurance per year has gone

from $12,680 per year to over $20,000 per year in 2012. that's before the enormous increases americans will inevitably see under obamacare. mr. speaker, the european socialist health care system is a nightmare, a bureaucracy of rationing and substandard health care. yet it is mr. obama's model for america. mr. obama's rhetoric on energy four years ago was, yet, creating a new energy economy isn't just a challenge to me, -- to meet, it's an opportunity to seize, an opportunity that will create millions of new jobs, new businesses, that sounded good. but the reality is that his much-touted green jobs economy never materialized. the administration force through the a $535 million loan for solyndra, a solar company backed by a major obama supporter and praised by mr. obama himself. the company filed for bankruptcy 15 months later.

after the administration intervened on the company's behalf leaving taxpayers on the hook. but far from learning his lesson a few months late -- later, the administration was again doling out billions more in loan guarantees to more solar companies, many of which had massive layoffs and went bankrupt osm the $9 billion the president has spent so far on green jobs, 910 new long-term jobs have been created. that's $9.8 million per job charged to the american taxpayer, mr. speaker. so much for his millions of green job. meanwhile the president has opposed actual progress in the energy sector, including continued efforts to block domestic drilling. the administration' seizure and closing of millions of acres of uranium rich land in my own district and the keystone pipeline project that would have created 29,000 jobs and in addition to attracting billions

in new investment to a strugology because ma economy. perhaps none of this should be surprising, coming from a president whose own energy secretary said, quote, somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of europe, unquote. mr. speaker, mr. obama's rhetoric on poverty four years ago was, quote, poverty is not an issue i just discovered for the purposes of a campaign. it is the cause that led me to a life of public service for almost 25 years. but the reality under mr. obama's presidency is that the income gap between rich and poor reached its highest level in over 40 years. in 2008, just before the president took office, there were about 39.8 million americans living in poverty. today that number is nearly 50 million. under mr. obama's policy, the american poverty rate hit the highest level in the 52-year history of the statistic being measured.

according to a report in the "washington examiner," the number of able bodied adults on food stamps doubled since mr. obama suspended the work requirement. more than 46 million americans are receiving food stamps, an increase of 2009 and it is higher than at any other time in american history. mr. speaker, mr. obama seems to believe that a dependent population will also be an obedient population and so dependency and deception have become the core essence of his presidency. president obama's rhetoric on foreign policy and national security four years ago was, many different things. but the reality under mr. obama was that he has broken promises to trusted allies and told the kremlin he will have, quote, more -- more flexibility to do what he they want him to do after he's re-elected. after the election.

iran publicly proclaimed their anxiousness to share the nuclear tech nothing they are working to develop and if iran successfully gains nuclear weapons they will give them to terrorists the world over. and you and i and our children and perhaps our children's children will live in the shadow of nuclear terrorism. yet president obama is actively working against efforts to secure even america's poorest southern -- porous southern border, which is currently an incredibly inviting target for terrorists looking to struggle -- to smuggle weapon into the united states. mr. obama pledged, quote, unshakeable commitment, unquote, to israel ice security but he turned down a meeting with israel's prime minister to appear on david letterman. he refuses to acknowledge jerusalem as israel's capital. mahmoud ahmadinejad said

israel's existence is, quote, a -- an insult to all humanity. ayatollah khomeini called israel a tumor that must be wiped out. yet mr. obama has expressed more open rebuke to israel for building houses in their own capital city than he has to iran for building nuclear weapons with which to threaten the entire human family. mr. speaker, i literally don't have time to thoroughly cover all of this administration's broken promises. he promised to hold televised debate forums over obamacare. that never happened he promised lobbyists, quote, won't find any job in my white house, end quote, but that happened at least a dozen times within the first month of his administration. he apointed more czars in his first administration in america than all the czars that ever existed in the history of imperial russia. he promised to reduce income

taxes for seniors on fixed income. he never even try. he promised not to sign anything without giving the american people a chance to review it on the white house website for five days. a little over a month into his term that section of the website was removed. he said the -- he has sued to make it more difficult for men and women in uniform to vote. while forcing thru government loans to failed green energy companies like solyndra, he stood in the way of domestic energy production, seizing hundreds of thousands of acres of resource-rich land and blocking domestic drilling for oil including iner a yass that were already open to drilling. the day he took office, a

gallon of gas was $1.89. it's now almost $4 a gallon today. mr. speaker, if america produced its own energy, and did not buy so much oil from the middle eastern countries, terrorists wouldn't have enough money to buy a box of sparklers to hurt this country. mr. speaker, i've tried to lay out the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of this administration. i have often heard it said in recent days that america faces a crossroads in the approaching election. but i'm afraid that's no longer the case, mr. speaker. i'm afraid america took the wrong fork in the road back when we elected barack obama four years ago and we are now heading rapid -- rapidly and precisely the wrong direction. he has nominated judges who ignore the constitution, he has proudly served as think most pro-abortion president in history he has forced

government-run health care down the throats of unwilling americans he oversaw the first downgrade of america's triple-a credit rating. he increased unemployment, increased the number of americans on food stamps, thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at failed program, he has weakened our military, blatantly attacked religious freedoms in america, allowed iran to advance their nuclear weapons program and while abroad he has continually apologized for america, betrayed our friends and emboldened our enemies. i'm afraid we see results of some of that even in recent days. i would suggest that his promise to fundamentally transform america was no bluff, mr. speaker. and if this is what mr. obama has tone in his first four year, how much more radical will his agenda be if he secures a second term and no longer has to worry about re-election? mr. speaker, for the sake of our children and our children's children, and for all of

america's most noble dreams and ideals, it is absolutely vital that we elect a president who will stand up and arrest this national free fall into which mr. obama and his radical leftist ideology have hurled america. may god give us all the wisdom and the courage to remember who we are as americans. and if there is still hope and time to be all that we recalled by -- to be all that we were called to be by god as a nation. we must not fail, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12 of rule 1rk the house stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> he said publicly he is

worried that mitt romney is going to drag him and others, republicans, down. what do you think? >> while over the last few weeks both campaigns have been into all other kinds of areas, what the american people want to know is what is the plan to get the economy going again and create jobs. the president's economic policies have failed. he cannot run on his record. he has to make this election about the everything other than his record. the mitt romney campaign needs to stay focused on their ability to create jobs and he does have a plan that will put americans back to work. >> when you came into your current role you said the house is going to work its will.

theirs a bipartisan group of farm-heavy district workers who are pushing you to give this farm bill on the floor. what farm bill will we see on the floor before the end of the year? >> we do not typically bills on the floor where we are expecting certain failure. in my opinion, having been a member of the ag committee for 15 years, is that the operation -- opposition from the left and the right have prevented us from putting the bill on. but we get back the house will take up the issue of the farm bill. i know what the next question is. what is it going to look like? >> what is going to look like? [laughter] >> when we get back, after the election, we will consult with our members and develop a

pathway for. it is too early to determine right now what kind of mood of members of going to be in. >> if the president wins, doesn't that mean you're going to have to raise taxes? >> no. raising taxes would threaten our economy with a loss of 7000 jobs. why would i be for something like this? i am not. our goal is to have tax reform and entitlement reform. we all know that these are probably going to both have to travel on parallel paths. it is important for our country to fix our debt problem and to have a tax code that is competitive in the worldwide economy and fairer for the american people. >> you have expressed concern about the sequestered. but me ask you a philosophical question about the sequestered.

i keep hearing republicans say we need to fix the sequester. are you saying we need to fix the sequester? the report yesterday said that the sequestered kicks in if it all of us. >> the sequester was designed to be ugly so that no one would go there. because the president did not help, did not lead and came to working with the super committee. senate democrats did not help. we end up with the sequester. it is like taking a meat ax to federal spending. no one on either side of the aisle believes this is an appropriate way to reduce the

role of government. that is why the house acted in may to pass a bill to replace the sequester, continues to sit in the united states senate. >> [inaudible] >> instead of them having this demonstration of the house steps, maybe they should of had it on the senate steps. the most important part of government is doing a budget. democrats have not done a budget for three and a half years.

when you think about the letter they sent to me about us doing our work, how about the 40 jobs bill sitting in the united states senate? the house is the only body to have passed a bill to stop all of the coming tax heights -- tax hikes. we have done our work. but senate democrats and the president -- where is their responsibility? where is their leadership? it does not exist. >> the sequestered may have been put in place because the expectation was bargaining was not going to be made here. there probably members of your caucus the like the idea of cutting domestic penny -- domestic spending. democrats like the idea of cutting defense spending. why not just let the

sequester take affect and see how it all shakes out? >> i am not going to speculate on what may or may not happen in the lame-duck, but i have not heard one member suggests that the sequester was a good idea. i have talked a lot of members from both parties -- i talked to a lot of members from both parties every day. >> why is mitt romney trailing in the polls in ohio? >> it has been a close race in ohio. i always expected it was going to be a close race in ohio. one of the things that works against romney in ohio is the fact that governor has done such a good job -- the governor has done such a good job of fixing regulations and attracting businesses in the state. the unemployment rate in ohio

is lower than the national average. it is four points lower than the national average. as a result, people are still concerned about the economy and jobs in a while, but it is not what you're seeing in other states. >> the thing congress is going to act to suspend the federal job reform? >> i do not know. i have not heard any conversations about it. we had a plan which passed last december to deal with this. i am sure there will be a conversation about it. i will look for a common way forward. >> do you think congress [inaudible] >> i suspect part of the investigation under way -- we

will take a look at that. we typically have marine detachment -- detachments at our embassies, it is not always the case at our consulates. i'm sure there'll be a review of that and a discussion about whether that is why is going forward. one more. [laughter] >> in april, he said there was a one in three chance republicans will lose. looking at the polls now, a trend in more democratic, what is your assessment? >> i continue to feel confident about house republicans' chances of holding onto a majority. we have done a good job in getting our incumbents in good shape. in august i was in 42 districts, have of them incumbents, the other half open seat and challenger races. we have got some good candidates out there.

we are playing offense. i always look at this year as trying to get our income that members and as strong a position as possible so we can use more of our researchers -- resources on offense. you'll see us play a lot more offense in a lot of democratic- held districts in the coming weeks. >> romney vs. obama -- who wins? [laughter] >> the house is in recess, subject to the call of the chair this afternoon. legislators have wrapped up business for the session. some of them are heading home for campaigning for the fall elections. we will have live coverage when lawmakers return here on c-span. in the interim, earlier today, house minority leader nancy pelosi was joined on the steps of the capital to discuss the congressional session and reiterate their commitment to

creating jobs and strengthening the economy. >[no audio]

>> good morning. as you can see, democrats are probably standing on the steps of the capital saying we must face here until we take action to help the american people. we are prepared to stay in session to pass president obama's jobs bill, which can

create more than 1 million new jobs immediately. passed a five-year farm bill. 60 million agricultural jobs depend on it. extend middle-class tax cuts to provide certainty for millions of america's and help our economy. and to pass a comprehensive and balanced bill to address our fiscal concerns. to say to the world that we can get the job done, that we can work in a cooperative manner if we reduce the deficit to create growth and jobs. we are standing together to recognize that, since august 3 when congress adjourned and november 13 when we are called back into session, we will have been in session only eight days. that is just not right. democrats are prepared to stay

until we get the job done. that what we are elected to do, to get the job done. [applause] in closing, i will set that one of the most important issues we face in our country that is going to be decided in the election is the issue of medicare. the republicans in the house of representatives had voted six times to and the medicare guarantee. that will cost seniors 64 hundred dollars more -- 6004 hundred dollars more -- $6400 more. we will remove obstacles so they will have success. we know we have work to do.

that is why we must a year. now i will yield. [applause] >> thank you. " we are seeing this week -- what we are seeing this week is an end to a dismal congress. the gop has become an insurgent out liar in american politics. it is ideologically extreme. it is dismissive of the legitimacy of political opposition. republicans are leaving town with a stack of unfinished business that the public expects us to get done. chief among them are the need to create jobs and avert the fiscal cliff that would hit in january if congress fails to act. democrats have been ready to work with republicans to replace the sequester reached last

year. the republicans have walked away from compromise every time, insisting on putting tax breaks for millionaires ahead of a balanced solution. breaks foro help tax the middle class hostage to that cause. instead of wasting time on partisan messaging bills as we have done this week, republicans should have used this time to consider the senate's bipartisan farm bill. farmers across the country are facing the worst drought in decades, and republicans refuse to act. this is simply irresponsible, and republicans ought to come back and finish their work, not cut and run and walk away from the american people. [applause] shame on them for a banding main -- for abandoning our farmers, our economy, and families that need us to act. now i turn the microphone over.

let me say this about our office. we are fired up and ready to stay here and do the work for the american people. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. it is great to be introduced by the great state of south carolina. the republican majority in the house have put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the american people, and we see a continuation of that this week. the senate passed the middle- class tax cut, and the president has said that he will sign it as soon as it hits his desk, but the republican leadership refuses to bring it to the floor and allow it to be voted on. the only thing standing between the american middle class and

working people and their tax cut is republican leadership in the house and there to party. -- their tea party. congress should not leave without passing the middle class tax cut. [applause] as one of those people, the 47%, the middle-class, i am here to say that democrats are ready to work on behalf of the american people and to deliver the tax cuts the face of generally deserve. with that i am proud to yield to my friend john of connecticut. [applause] >> thank you, jim. i am proud to stand with our members who are prepared to stay and work at the job that were

sent here to do on behalf of the people that were sworn -- we are sworn to serve. this is personal. people back home cannot understand the work ethic of this congress. they do not understand why we are not staying here to get the job done. they have seen them come up over the last several weeks, perpetuate mf -- they have seen them perpetually a myth that president clinton so successfully dupont at the convention about work requirements. the only requirement about work is that republicans stay here and work instead of cutting and running. we are here to get the jobs bill in front of the american people. [applause] we want to work to get the job done, and that is why we rely on the great strength of our leader, how the air.

>> our chairman is fired up. every single member is standing here saying something to the american people. we are here to represent our constituents. we're here to represent all of the americans who want to get back to work and every single one of those americans that live in this country that believes that mitt romney was wrong to say only 53% of america account. we are ready to work for every american who wants to go to work. we are here to say to our colleagues do not cut and run. it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and show the american people that we can do this bipartisanly. it is not just american taxpayers and american workers and american farmers that are being left behind today. back in april, the u.s. senate passed by an overwhelming majority a bill to help women

fat suffer from domestic violence. the violence against women act passed by 68 votes in the senate, and it has been languishing since april in the house of representatives. every day in america it woman dies of domestic violence, and behind her is another woman, and behind air is another. three women in america die every day as a result of domestic violence. this house of representatives under republican leadership has been unwilling to put the violence against women act up for a but. it is not just american workers and american farmers and taxpayers were being left behind by those who wish to cut and run in this house of representatives. it is women who were fighting for their very lives. each and every member who are standing behind me is here to say we are ready to work for farmers, for american taxpayers, for folks who want to get back to work, and we are ready to

work for every american woman who say we want to have the respect we deserve and not be the victims of violence. past of violence against women act now. do not go home until you do it. we will do that if the republicans will said -- will stay. [applause] >> thank you, javier. i am proud to stand with my colleagues to say we want to stay. congressional republicans want to run away. you can run, but you cannot hide from your record and you cannot hide from what you want to do. i can understand looking at what they plan to do what they want to hide from the american people. but president obama and congressional democrats are going to make sure people hold those colleagues to -- hold our colleagues accountable. the president has said state and past the middle class tax cut. we need to make sure we extend tax relief to 90% of the

american people. a hundred percent of the american people -- about one hundred% of the american people would give tax relief. 90% of the american people would get full tax relief. 97% of all businesses would get tax relief. the republican position has been no, unless people like mitt romney and companies like to bain capital, unless they get a bonus tax break, nobody else in america can get tax relief. it is no wonder that they want to cut and run, especially when you look at their next plan. take a look at the romney/ryan budget. what do they want to do? another round of big tax breaks for very wealthy people like mitt romney at the expense of everybody else. if you're serious about dealing

with our long-term deficit, and the question is how you choose to do that. and if you provide another round of big tax breaks for people like mitt romney, it means you're going to cut seniors on medicare. give them a voucher the declines in value of. leave them paying the bill so they can give another round of tax breaks the folks at the top. education,s' investments in the future. i can understand in some ways what they are cutting and running, but we are not going to let them hide from their record and we're not going to let them hide from what they plan to do to this country because we are not going to take a u-turn back to the same failed trickle-down policies that got our country in such a mess to begin with. we need to move forward, and that is what our colleagues -- my colleagues want to stay here to do.

thank you. [applause] [chanting "work"] >> those remarks happened earlier today as the house least for the session to campaign for the fall elections. the house right now in recess subject to the call of the chair. members have wrapped up legislative business and will return in several weeks. lawmakers reserved an hour of time to speak about what they called the do-nothing republican college -- congress. it can watch that at c-span. org. mitt romney is releasing his 2011 tax returns. ahead of the release, it was

learned that romney earned almost $13.7 million last year and paid more than $1.9 million in taxes, an effective rate of 14.1%. you will be able to review his tax returns on our website assistant c-span.org. >> if you are trying to write a story about a country -- about a couple and what happened during and after their relationship, the lincolns offer as limitless possibilities. i used to think it was so unique because, working on abraham lincoln, one gets into that memorize -- mesmerized -- you do get mesmerized by this thing about lincoln. you start wondering why mary did not do this for lincoln. but unable to see in the world around me that there have been

other presidential lives, other women of privilege who have been accused of villainesses. -- and accused of illnesses. princess diana. was she not a daughter of privilege? was she not someone who had a core chip and put under scrutiny and criticized for her fashion? the parallels are interesting. >> this weekend on american history tv, katherine clinton on the life of mary todd linln. on our president's series on c- span 3. all this weekend, bookie the's national coverage of the national book festival. quick interviews -- with interviews and your phone calls, ets.ils, twe

c-span.org > >> i attribute my wanting to get more involved in politics to watching information on c-span. i love the information, the current events, the hot topics, things that come up,. . i love watching it and putting it up on my browser. >> cynthia watches c-span, created by america cost of cable companies in 1979, brought you that the public service by your television provider. pakistan's foreign minister today said the military in pakistan plays as much a role in the decisionmaking process as the pentagon when it comes to

foreign policy. he spoke at the council on foreign relations. this is about an hour. >> good morning, everybody. thank you very much for being here. i can assure we are going to provide you with a fascinating discussion. i also want to welcome the council of foreign relations members from around world war participating in this meeting by teleconference. but housekeeping of, please completely turn off, not just to vibrate, as i tend to do myself, your cellphone to avoid interference with the sound system.

this meeting is on the record. but me say how pleased i am to introduce this woman foreign minister. but i arrived in new york as our ambassador to the united nations, there were one hundred 83 tons of -- 183 countries in the u.s.. i asked by assistant to invite all of the women representatives to lunch. i thought there would be a lot of people there. when i got there, there were six other women. because i am an american, i formed a caucus and we call ourselves the g-7. [laughter] we worked together closely. when i became secretary of state, i created a group of foreign ministers. at that time there were 14 of us. now there are many more. i am very happy to be able to welcome it woman who is part of

that group. she is a powerful example of why having more women in senior government positions is so key. the first woman pakistan foreign minister, she is blazing a historic path for women in pass it san -- in pakistan. in a year speech in heated political rhetoric, she has continued to stress the critical role of dialogue and a policy can play in resolving regional and global policies, as sentiment many of us wholeheartedly share. we are fortunate to have this chance to hear from her concerning her perspective on pakistan/u.s. relations and other topics that may be on our mind. join me in greeting our distinguished foreign minister

friend. [applause] >> good morning but me say that it is truly a matter of privilege for me to be here and madam albright, for you to be chairing it is a great honor for me. the hope that pakistan will have emerging institutions which will guide us as we move forward. i would like to take the opportunity today to have a frank and honest discussion. increasingly, one is finding out coming in our days, most everything is on the record. even when you are off the record, you are pretty much on the record. [laughter] as we talk about pakistan/u.s.

relations and the emerging dynamics and what we're able to achieve together, i think it is important to first talk about pakistan itself. i have often said -- i find myself talking more about what pakistan is not about rather than what it is about. misperceptions about pakistan and pakistan's intent, about how pakistan is perceived, the misperception that so much clouds our real intentions and goals and objectives within the region and pakistan that sometimes it seems as if pakistan is on a suicidal trappe if you were to believe all of

the misconceptions. in order to talk about the potential in pakistan/u.s. relations, i think it is important to look at what pakistan is today. even more importantly but pakistan is marching towards. there is a lot of good happening within pakistan. a lot of institutions happening in pakistan. democracy is starting to develop. it is often ask how is democracy delivering in pakistan. let me speak to that. in the next few months, there will be the first transfer of power from civilian government under an election. this in itself is going to

hopefully creates democracy in pakistan. i no longer talk about civilian governments in pakistan. what has democracy been able to achieve? we have been able to go through three different majority- requiring constitutional amendments. one that we are particularly proud of is the 15th amendment to the constitution why was it important? it was a consensus constitution. not only was it acquired for all children to go to school, but it is now the responsibility of the state that all children

must go to school. this is our goals of site of the parliament. when it comes to matters of national interest, the political parties have come together to strive for a future that is better. but this amendment of the constitution will also do is direct -- pakistan was conceived to be a federation. over time, the 30 years under dictatorial ridge games, they found more and more centralization of power. i am proud to say that we have decentralized. we have the responsibility to teach our children and feed them and clothe them. and all of this chaos, pakistan

is marching forward with institutions like never before. an excellent example is the independent judiciary. sometimes it is not very helpful. we are proud of the fact that despite the many challenges some of these issues are faced with, the government has marched and strive to ensure that we have a free and independent judicial system in pakistan. one of the most interesting and free media anywhere in the world. i think that also creates a lot of hope for the future. i am now going to talk about the two things which define what democracy has been able to do in pakistan more than anything else.

the two areas in which the results are ready there. one of those areas is the honors above -- the ownership of the fight against terrorism. in 2008, the perception in pakistan was this was the western world's war and pakistan was biking somebody else's war. president anzari came in and give ownership to that war and that fight. this was a fight for the future of stability in the region and the future of our children. this was a 5 which was this was a fight which was killing our children. -- this was a fight which was

killing our children. we have lost 40,000 lives in the fight against terrorism. in the last 5 years only, we have that almost 352 bomb attacks from 2007 to 2012. pre-9/11, we only had one bomb attack inside pakistan. economic losses have been substantial. one hundred billion dollars -- $100 billion. what is most at risk is our way of life and the society we want to build. all of us collectively must continue to fight the mind-set which is prevalent among those who tried to destroy us.

in saying this, let me say that when we talk about the threats and the dangers and the challenges that pakistan faces, certainly a lot of other countries in the region face also, but the challenges pakistan faces today have become historical realities. it is the unintended consequences of the decisions made many years back. therefore pakistan is very aware of the decision-making of today and how we manage our foreign policy and our territory, which have consequences for the future. i want to share with you what is happening in pakistan today is some way -- is in some ways he left over from what happened in our region many years back. first of all, let's talk about

what happened over there. during the war in the soviet era, we all collectively chose to harnessed religious and what was then the jihad ideology. it was done on our soil. the arms and ammunition, the training that was given. as the strategy succeeded in afghanistan, some of us were able to move on. others, like pakistan, were left over with the mindset, but the training, with the arms and mbs.nition and bo and still today, after three

decades, we are still suffering from each one of those. we are suffering the consequences. the biggest challenge in all of this is the mindset that it created. how'd it has destroyed our society how it faces us with the biggest challenge we had to face. from the lessons we have learned from the past, it is important to apply some of those lessons as we look at the future. as a look at the challenges we face within the region, pakistan has grave concerns over what is going to happen. i'm going to talk about our relations with afghanistan and how we view our tennis and -- how we view afghanistan. let me talk about what we do not want for afghanistan. what is it that we do not want,

which is typically a ascribed to pakistan? it is not ambition but anxiety which drives are -- our interests in pakistan. we no favorites -- we have no favorites in terms of groups. pakistan as a sovereign equal. this is a big achievement. pakistan fears for instability in afghanistan because it permeates through the border directly into pakistan. there are 50,000 people which crossed the border every day. you can imagine the creation of

any instability -- the cre permeation of any instability. receipt relations with afghanistan which are based on the principle of stable, peaceful afghanistan. a sovereign afghanistan and independent afghanistan. we have no intentions or national interest to impose any government in afghanistan. but all of this is ascribed to pakistan typically is because of a hangover of the past. it is important that we're able to unload the past and move into the future because if you're not able to do that, we see ourselves inadvertently repeating the same mistakes. if the consequences -- it is the

consequences of not realizing reality as it existed. since i was talking about the ownership of the war on -- on terrorism, he cannot underestimate afghanistan. we are very concerned about the state of the stakte. what we want from the world and the 49 nations is that there is more security left behind as we go through an exit. since 2007, we saw a stream of

more than 5 million refugees pouring back into afghanistan. since then, especially since 2009, we almost see a reverse of that. that does not bear a lot of confidence. that does not look like we are achieving the goals that we set out for ourselves collectively. recently the incidents that we have had of a tax and the decision not to go through joint training, these are all the concerns of pakistan. these are huge concerns because to change our able - location or geography. we must insure the security situation in afghanistan is good enough for us to be able to build a peaceful and stable neighborhood. recently there has been

infiltration into pakistan ^ tory -- pakistan territory that be headed and started 17 of our soldiers. these are not signs which inspire a lot of confidence in the security situation in afghanistan. through the long border, we will have to face more challenges in the future. as we move forward, it is important that we are able to get out of [indiscernible] . i have said what is in pakistan's interested in what is not. let me say what i continue to be the primary national interest of pakistan.

peaceful and stable. not necessarily friendly, but peaceful and stable. we know from history that if there is not peace and stability in afghanistan, we may not be able to find our peace and stability. we might not be able to achieve the goals for our children that we wish to achieve. we considered to be in our core national interests to have a peaceful and stable afghanistan. what is the best possible scenario we can think of in 2014? it is that as an elective -- elections and transitions take place in afghanistan, they are able to demonstrate their strength through the election process, not for violence. that is a process we must be working towards. that is the immediate short-

term future. that we must work towards. i'm going to and by talking a bit about how democracy has delivered within the region. i talked about our relations with afghanistan, which have not been easy. i want you to concentrate on what pakistan is trying to do with afghanistan. when president anzari selected, he only in by that one foreigner to his inauguration. he was sending an important message. he was sending a message of respect and hating each other and said in another -- sending another important message that the most important capital in the world is not washington, d.c. or london or berlin.

it is where our future is linked. we have suffered through instability. we hope to benefit from peace and stability in afghanistan in the next three decades. we have an interest in insuring their stability in afghanistan. the other area i want you to concentrate on is what pakistan is trying to achieve within the region, what type of relations it is fostering in the region. one thing that is clear to us is that we may not be able to achieve peace if we do not find peace on our boundaries, on our borders, with our neighbors. over almost 65 years of our history, we have built on the house style -- the hostile

relations with afghanistan. the territorial disputes are also seen as problems. what is the way to be able to solve those problems? is it through war? creating a narrative of more hostility and the same narrative as the previous generations? no. the way to solve these issues is by building trust and changing the mindset. building up trust to be able to sit across the negotiating table and talk through these issues and find a lasting solutions. i will not underestimate the importance of finding those solutions. lasting solutions.

if not, we will not be able to disarm the naysayers. you have seen the government pursuing single-minded the contract -- the track of reaching out to our neighbors and treating each other with respect. we said we would not trade with india. this government was able to send a message that we would normalize trade with india. it is important to create an investment in each other's countries. it is important because we have to invest in building stakeholders in each other's future. we have to start looking at ourselves through a regional lands not separately.

it is regions which have emerged. for the you look at it the european region or south america. -- whether you look at the european region or south america. let's go to what we feel is important as we move forward with an our relations the u.s. less is said about what has worked over the last 60 years than what has not worked. the u.s. happens to be an investor in the future of pakistan. i went to your colleges. would you help us create is held in your on colleges and that is what we want.

as we move forward, we must also understand that we are a country that you happen to be the largest partner and investor. there are many things which unite us. there are many things of which we are stakeholders in each others future -- in each other cost of future. what we can achieve together in the region we have not done justice to. i feel we have not given ourselves a chance. the stated objective of the u.s. is peace and stability in afghanistan -- in pakistan.

why i talked about the regional approach was to give you confidence. you must not look at us through ens.rkey land you must look at us through the lens of today. the lens of today shows that of peace and stability. as we march on, we need to send each other messages. one of the goals of my trip here is to send that message. we want to make sure that in afghanistan, we are able to achieve together long, sustainable peace. that we were not able to achieve 30 years ago.

let's work together. let's put our resources to get it. let's not blame each other. let's find time to sit together and work through this together. as i said, this is something that is of primary national interest. what do the pakistani people look for? before anything else, the pakistani people look for respect. they looked to be treated as an equal. this is the respect we are striving to ensure is demonstrated in our relations with afghanistan. we might be the country with better institutions. we must treat afghanistan as a sovereign equal. that is what establishes confidence. that is what will give us a givedepth in -- strategic depth

in afghanistan. that will inspire confidence in pakistanis. there is also the use of unilateral strikes. what it does is, it makes it your work and not our work. it is important that this remains something the pakistanis are striving for for their own future and the pakistanis should be allowed to look at it that way. we expect the u.s. people to understand pakistan's priorities, concerns, constraints. sometimes, we are given overloaded capacities. we are expected to achieve on our side what other countries cannot achieve on their side. most importantly, we have been

for the strong message that came from the american people that came from the secretary. the lugar bill was an important milestone -- milestone. the message would be recognizing pakistan is a country that has gone through many challenges. what that will do it will build stakeholders in pakistan. it is needed to give the people who use violence as a means to express themselves an alternative. at the end of the day, it is all about providing alternatives. with those words, let me say

that i hope we have a more interesting discussion. it has been a pleasure. we hope that the biggest challenge in front of us today is what we can achieve together in afghanistan. as we strive toward that in building relations, we hope that afghanistan will not be left with security lacking. [applause] >> thank you very, very much for that clear and full statement. i am not a journalist. i have the same job you have. i know what it is like to come to another country and be subjected to an elite opinion making audience.

i want to get at some of the questions of what it is like to carry out full -- foreign policy for your country. you made a lot of news yesterday. among the things you talked about was the fact that you revealed that there would be confidential talks between the united states and afghanistan. can you tell us what you will talk about in these confidential talks? [laughter] >> as i said, i am goodlatte i am here. i am wanted to be in washington -- i am glad i am here. i wanted to be in washington. we are at a turning point. we have all learned a lesson. to do what we can achieve in afghanistan. it is important to put our

energies together and moved to see what we can achieve together in afghanistan. we already have a system by which afghanistan, pakistan, and the u.s., in the form of a core group, meets. they talk about whatever areas and whatever paths to follow to achieve peace and stability. we feel that with ties to the u.s. on a positive trajectory, we have been able to build enough confidence in each other to start discussions. madam albright, the concerns are the things i talked about. they are the ones we left behind three decades back. it is important that as we look

toward 2014, that we look to build an environment whereby all people feel they can express themselves through the political process. that is what we will do to assist our opponents -- our people. >> are they going to begin now? >> it is a work in progress. we have a bigger opportunity today than we had a few months back. >> i want to ask a few questions and turn it over to you. let me say this. first of all, i am among those americans that more pakistanis have died from terrorism that americans have died in other parts of the world. the question that people have is why isn't pakistan fighting terrorism more strongly? where do we diverge on the

message dealing with terrorism? why do we misunderstand each other so much? i think we do. one of the issues from my perspective is, you said it was important for respect. and yet, following events in pakistan and some of these statements, you see yourself as a country that is a victim. i wonder with that difference comes and what it is that we see different methods of fighting terrorism. >> the idea that pakistan has not done enough is a question that puzzles me. it is where the difference of view in each other comes from. i should have said this from the podium. when i said government would be able to take ownership of the fight against terrorism, one thing i want to share with you is that when this government

came to power, the percentage that was under government control was 37%. today it is 87%. we have two military operations and many other operations. to ensure that we have more and more areas that we have direct control of, we feel that the fight we have had with al qaeda has been successful. these are things we have been able to achieve. unfortunately, these are things we have not acknowledged often. we are continuing to find ways and means of improving our capacity to deal with this menace. it is a matter of capacity more

than intent. that is why my -- i am surprise. the intent is there. 6000 soldiers died. if you were not doing enough, how did 6000 of our soldiers died? -- died? what is sometimes incorrectly perceived is this over projection of capacity and pakistan's ability to do everything at the same time. what we have done against terrorism is a good starting point. the operations that you have, you will do. but the other important one is to be able to change the mindset.

to divide between the west and the east has to stop. we feel we are doing our part within pakistan. when you talk about why the misunderstanding, i think some of the answers to that are going to be given. it is interesting that you talk about a choice between being a victim and deserving respect. when the united states went through 9/11, the united states was a victim of 9/-- the victim of terrorism. your people were victims. 33,000 civilians have died. y000 law-enforcement agencie members have died. our life styles have changed.

imagine what it is for the less privileged in pakistan. imagine what it is for the 6000 soldiers who have died. you say ask what you are not willing to give to everyone. look at it as a collective effort and irresponsibility. if you look at it as a collective responsibility, you are able to understand everybody's capacity and enhance everybody's capacity. we have lost more at the hands of the trust deficit by dousing each other's intentions -- by adopting each other's intentions. -- by doubting each other's intentions.

we need to work together. aside from suffering from this big minutes, we certainly deserve respect for each other's sacrifices and what we are trying to build together. >> i will ask you to elaborate that a little bit. i thought of more of a victim in not controlling your policies. when i was secretary, i had to consult with the national security adviser, the pentagon, the secretary of treasury and the decision making process. you as foreign minister, how does it work within your decision making process so that you are able to feel that pakistan is a partner in a lot of the discussions -- certainly you are a victim of terrorism,

but a victim of other countries telling you what to do in your national security policy. one addendum to that would be, we can sit here and you will be meeting with secretary clinton and you can work out things you have in common, but there are events that happen that are difficult to absorb. what is the mechanism? can we think about developing a mechanism that deals with the crisis that brings questions into the decision making process and allows us to have that focus to say, we really do trust each other? >> first of all, the decision making process you talked about in you talked about as secretary had to get input. it is pretty much the same. allow me to say this on the record or off the record. i would say this on the record and off of the record.

the military in pakistan has no more rules than the pentagon in the u.s. i do not know what that means. [laughter] i say that with full confidence that the military in pakistan has as much as a -- of a role in the decisionmaking process as the pentagon. i would say a little less. in the last two years, if you look at what this democratic government was able to do -- we must not be able to look at them. i do not blame our people. i do not blame your people. the military operations and we were able to do was able to achieve rich dividends and it was done under the guidance of political leadership. it required the prime minister

at that time to consult all political leaders. that is the way it is done in any other country. we feel it is important that everybody takes care of a sphere. you alluded to respect and the effect upon relations. i think you are right on point. we must be seen as pursuing our own national agenda and our own national interests. if we can demonstrate that to the people of pakistan, we will have won this battle. when i said from the podium that if stability and peace in afghanistan is your reason for being in pakistan, i think it is completely in your national

interests. civility is an important national interest for pakistan. if there are any incidents, what is required is greater confidence. ,he many mechanism that exist the unintended consequences of the decisions we make and the decisions we do not make -- allow me to share with you. i do not think it had a good effect on the pakistani side when we lost 24 soldiers and it was a while before we were able on.ay, let's go it seems that that would leave a lasting impression. the other thing i would like to talk about -- you talked about what it will take.

i do not like u.s.-pakistan relations to only be looked at that way. we have to work together within afghanistan. what will plainly inspire trust and confidence is what we are willing to achieve in afghanistan. the goals in afghanistan are different than the goals we came to be talking about today. we need to know what it is we wish to achieve in the next 14, 18 months and work backwards. i am quite sure we will be able to achieve much more. >> we will take questions from the audience. will you rise and identify yourself? >> i am the lawyer in washington. i would like to quickly raise

the subject data on most people's mineds. the taliban. there is a suggestion that official sources in pakistan support the taliban against u.s. interests. i do not think that is true. what are your thoughts. second is the haqqani network. they are killing u.s. soldiers, that is the perception. what is the policy with respect to that? third, drawn strikes. i understand the concern of pakistanis that american drawn strikes -- drone strikes are a difficulty or pakistan. understand that from the united states perspective -- >> that is already a difficult question. >> you talk about afghanistan

and the haqqani network. there can be many entities and they are all the same. we have 5 million afghan nationals that live inside pakistan. we are responsible for the activities of some of them. we have no capacity to be responsible for the activities of 5 million of them. allow me to share with you clearly and categorically that pakistan, like any intelligence agency, to maintain contact -- we have contact with many of these groups -- making contact versus having control, that is not a thin line. it is already misunderstood. if we have contact with any

entities, the question is always, is he part of the political process? the presence of afghan nationals in pakistan -- we need to find serious answers for that. we need border control for assuring that people crossed the border in and out every day. i will take one minute to give you one example. i do not have good memories. we had a statement two days after i had a good meeting with secretary clinton. they said the haqqani network was an arm of the united states. what inspired that statement was

that intelligence was shared. there was some ammunition that was crossing the border and going into kabul. that information was shared with us and we were asked to apprehend. this was a 50 kilometer area within pakistan. we were unable to apprehend them. and over expectation of capacity. when it crosses the pakistani border and is 300 counters inside, and the pakistanis responsible -- 300 kilometers inside, are the pakistanis is possible for that? -- responsible for that? working together will help us move forward.

we have no love for any of the entities you mention. in an entity that uses violence as a means to kill afghans, is as much a threat to pakistan security and pakistan's national interests as those who use violence against our people. within this group, it gets very murky. it is hard to tell where one group begins and the other ends. the question of drone strikes is an important one. the argument with the states is that they are more accurate. it might be more accurate or efficient. we have to see what our goals and objectives in all of these fights and all of these wars is

to win the battle for concentrate on winning the war. our feeling is you have to win the war. you have to suffer from the consequences of what we did three decades ago. this is a re-emergence. we do not want to see anything happen in the future. the message that is sent to the pakistani people is that of united states unilateralism. that is not what it is. that is not the partnership we desire. we can engage the united states on this issue and others. the missing link was to give ourselves a window of confidence and see what we can achieve. i am confident that if we are able to give ourselves that

window, we would be unhappy with the lost opportunity of the last few months. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is michael. we have been talking a lot about trust and respect in creating indictment and capacities. we all know that an anti-islamic trailer was made a few months ago and it aired and we know the ramifications around the globe. your government gave a holiday to people saying it was a way to enhance security. some people say it may have the opposite effect. let me ask this question. you study in the united states. you lived in the united states. i suspect you know that the u.s. government is not anti-islam.

the president and secretary of state have put ads on your telephone -- television saying, wouldn't it be a good idea to go on television? you have a lot more credibility than we do with your people -- and say united states is a good country. they have a different culture and the first amendment. it may be difficult for us to understand, but we assure you they are not anti-muslim. ofldn't that create the sort mutual trust and respect you are talking about? >> to be quite honest, there are guilty different things that are getting mixed up in this particular problem. it.s admit we have to have a deeper understanding of each other's

culture. the mindset that is important in this law, let me disregard it completely. -- in islam, let me disregard it completely. i think we need to develop more understanding in understanding each other's sensibilities. i am happy to an i am no -- and i know my police have already done so. i was watching and i am happy to say that president obama, secretary clinton's timely words on this are appreciated. it is for that reason that in pakistan you do not see a reaction in the first week. there will always be forces that

will use these opportunities to get their own designs. you need to trust us with that. in declaring its politics, we think -- declaring it politics, we think we were able to handle it well. people would have had more of an opportunity to promulgate. the security measures the government was able to take to put king in -- by putting in all kinds of things in front of the population, we have been able to protect the people. it is our responsibility to do so. allow us the privilege of knowing how to deal with a situation. what i think is important is that we do not listen to people saying we are anti-americanism. this is against one person and it is against what he did.

i have no problem doing this. the united states governor response on this has been good. the president, secretary clinton, senator kerry, with whom i met yesterday, are clear on this. there are some deeper issues. we are trying to manage it. >> i am from the atlantic council and from monitor.co,. om. thank you for this opportunity. you talked about the 24 soldiers who were killed, but you did not mention osama bin laden and. we wanted to know how he lived all of that time in about a botched -- in pakistan without

the government knowing. what can you do to help americans feel they can participate and help pakistan when there is a real security threat to many of them when they try to go out in pakistani society? thank you. >> first of all, on osama bin laden, we had a commission set up that is investigating this matter. commission which is investigating this matter. it is surprising because even though today is the information age information travels quickly. but lands in pakistan typically do not make headlines. for instance, when osama bin laden, we first found that he was living in that compound, the reaction from pakistan's society was even more shocked

than you. a lot of intelligence was gathered. it is now clear that pakistan had no knowledge of it. we are awaiting the report of the independent commission. why we have not said or done anything on it is because we need to give the process time. that report is going to be out in october. once it is out, we will see what needs to be done about it. why do we need to talk about a -- why have we not talk about it? we need to give the independent commission time. what the treatment of the doctor, i think, is something that is of great concern to many americans. >> there is a serious communication gap and a difference of how we've you want people or the other. osama bin laden was no hero for pakistan. it is generally believed we do

not want to talk about some of them live in because we almost for harboring him. he was an enemy to us. because of his actions and his organization, more at the sunnis -- more pakistanis lost their lives than any other organization. the doctor did not know the task he was trying to do. he did not know he was going after osama bin laden. he was up for higher -- up for hire by anyone who was willing to pay him. terrorist organizations. workre using him to against your and our interests.

he was no hero. what we have to do is await the legal process to take its full course. as people who believe in the rule of law, i think we should allow the process. he does have many ways where he can go back and take those decisions back, appeal the process. he has many appeal processes. lastly, i am concerned about what this one man can do to the children of pakistan. his activity has insured that to day care givers and people who do work for polio are not welcome. because of this one single man's activity, polio today is an emerging concern in pakistan. i know we have people who make

the opinion and policy. opinion makers today have more importance than people like us. you just have to follow the opinion and deal with it. [laughter] i would urge you to not allow this one single man to be the demonstration of pakistan/u.s. relations. not to put us hostage to the future of this. i can assure you that he has an appeal process that is available to him. let it run its course let's take this man for what he was. >> one more question in the back. >> thank you very much. my question is, taking into consideration the pakistan role in the future with afghanistan

and the talent and, it is to jeopardize in or harming the efforts?thi we do not see any progress with taliban.th what is holding them back? >> something i alluded to earlier. let me talk about this from the beginning. i did not like to use the term "role." the term is facilitator. allow me to say that we feel rather strongly that these peace

deals cannot be brokered anywhere else. the terms and conditions of these peace deals have to be led. there is need for more dialogue within their society. typically we have seen efforts to impose terms and conditions -- the role pakistan comply is only one role. the role of facilitator. the future of iran/pakistan relations -- afghanistan/pakistan relations. we only have the interests of bilateral relations as a sovereign equal. there have been many misperceptions on what pakistan wants to do. i can assure you that as we go to the next two months and last two years and if you look to the

last two years, it can aspire lot of confidence in how pakistan expects to build its relations with afghanistan. what thank you very much. -- >> thank you very much. your country is likely -- lucky to have you as its prime minister. thank you all very much. [applause] >> tomorrow c-span costa road to the white house coverage continues with remarks from president obama -- cs and's road to the white house coverage

continues with remarks from president obama. recent polls have the present at 6% lead over mitt romney. president obama 1 wisconsin in 2008. it has 10 electoral votes. you can see that live tomorrow at 6:30 on c-span. after that, michelle obama remarks at the black caucus foundation awards dinner. her remarks start at 7:30 on c- span. but we have got to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. they still patents and designs. they have counterfeit goods. i know they want to be responsible partner in the role -- in the world of trade and commerce. they have to understand it cannot take away jobs on an unfair basis. >> he and the seven countries --

companies that operated here and went to china. pioneers. you cannot stand up to china when all you have done is sent them our jobs. >> watch and engage was seized and as the campaign -- with c- span as the campaign's move toward the elections. the first debate will take place on wednesday, october 3. audience members will get their chance to ask questions in a town hall debate on tuesday, october 16. the final debate on foreign policy will take place november 2. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c- span.org. >> i think there are a lot of anti-obama books out there. there are a number of books critical and defending the president. i do not want to be either one of those books. i want to describe an answer what i thought was the most

important and interesting questions. look at barack obama, -- barack obama as a character. he is a fish out of water. he has very little executive experience. his entire life is that the law professor's lectern, the u.s. senate, the illinois state house, at various meetings, but he has never been the guy -- at the front of the room making the hard costs. he has very little mention -- management experience. suddenly, he is president of the united states, leader of the free world, so my question is how does he do it? how does he decide? how does it make decisions and govern? >> richard miniter credits the president for many policy victories. the sunday, he will sit down and discuss his conclusions on "book tv."

>> in the u.s. capitol, it is a live shot. the house is back in session. we will go live here on c-span. so that completes legislative work for the u.s. house this week and most of this fall. members had to their congressional districts to campaign for the november 6 elections. as for now, the chamber will not be back in session until mid november. you can follow the house live here on c-span as always. meanwhile, over in the u.s. senate, a short while ago, majority leader harry reid came to the floor to announce an agreement to begin several roll call votes around 1130 -- 11:30 tonight.

then they will head home to campaign for the election. follow the senate live on c-span to. -- on c-span-2. also on capitol hill today, the house ethics committee heard a report on possible ethics violations. the report cleared miss waters of any wrongdoing but the committee has yet to vote on that. this one's about one hour and 14 minutes. >> this effort has been assisted by billy martin. mr. martin proceeded in two phases. first, he considered allegations and whether it one

hundred 11th congress had violated miss water's -- miss waters' rights. they concluded that her due process rights had not been violated. the outside counselor then moved to the second phase of his review, as substantive of view of the -- review of the conduct of misses waters. that review is now complete and we are attempting to reach a final conclusion on his recommendations and this matter in general. that is what brings us here today. everyone in the room understand where we are and why we are here. but me summarize the last several steps we have taken. after months of hard work by the outside counsel, his team and our staff, the committee has giving reason given careful scrutiny to the evidence. mr. martin made recommendations.

this recommendation is that we should not -- there is not sufficient evidence in the record to prove violations by a standard which is necessary before formal sentence -- sanctions are recommended. we are receptive to -- we are prepared to accept that recommendation. he has also made clear to this committee that he believes that certain actions of mr. moore are violations of standards and rules of the house on violations of interest. outside counsel does not believe the evidence on the record, without making credibility determinations, would prove mr. more's knowledge of the conduct. this is because mr. more has denied such knowledge, however, mr. martin has been clear about

his concerns regarding mr. moore's credibility. and he has asked the committee to make recommendations about whether any more action as appropriate. -- is appropriate. late last week the committee notified representative waters and mr. moore that we were close to issuing a report on this matter. we provided notice of the areas we were still considering and we informed them that, pursuant to house rules and an abundance of failure -- fairness, they would have the opportunity to have a hearing at their discretion prior to are reaching final conclusions about a report. we also informed them we were considering a letter -- whether a letter of reproval was appropriate for mr. moore's conduct.

the timeframe is more compressed than anyone wishes. however, this time frame is the only one that would resolve the matter as quickly as possible. , wemr. waters' request pursued this matter as soon as the outset council's recommendations were complete. because of the compressed notice in the schedule, we offered them the of virginity to request additional time but made clear this is the last opportunity to hold a hearing before the expected return of the members to washington, d.c. in november. on wednesday we provided representative waters, mr. m oore and their counsel a draft of the reports we are considering and a draft of a letter to mr. moore which is a public letter from the committee

stating that we believe that his conduct violated certain rules and standards but did not warrant a formal sanction or any further action. he has requested a public hearing. representative waters has not requested a hearing. none of these documents are final and no final vote or conclusion has been made in this matter. the committee takes this hearing very seriously and is open to having mr. moore persuade us that our conclusions are wrong. we hope that this will be a productive hearing. it will not be a debate but an opportunity for mr. moore present new information and arguments to address the concerns we have about his conduct an answer -- answer any questions members of the committee might have. i will now recognize my colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this committee is taking seriously its charge to resolve

the matter of representative waters fairly and expeditiously. this has been a long process, but i believe it has been a fair process as demonstrated by the lengths to which this committee has gone to ensure that every relevant facts and consideration is out of four -- is accounted for. the subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violation. the committee elected to recommit the matter to the osc to consider -- to the isc to consider evidence that was discovered late in the process. after the matter was returned to the isc for further investigation, serious charges were raised about the committee's decision making process these. before those charges were made publicly, the committee recognized the need to retain an

outside counsel to review them. due to changes in the committee's membership and staffing, there were not able to retain mr. martin to be its outside counsel until july, to about 11. mr. martin conducted a comprehensive review of the due process allegations. this review, which was unprecedented in the committee's history, concluded with mr. martin's recommendation that none of the conduct alleged by representative waters or others rose to the level of violation of his due process rights. the members had no role of any -- and we have no interest in providing cover. we considered mr. martin's conclusions and recommendations regarding the due process issues with an independent thought.

we unanimously found that the prior committee's conduct did not violate representative waters' due process rights. we authorized outside counsel to start the second phase of its work -- of his work. that involved conducting additional interviews and reviewing additional documents in order to recommend a resolution of the allegations in the matter. this effort was also unprecedented. the committee has never before retained an outside counsel to review it prior committee's work. all of these steps demonstrate the links to which the standing committee and waters' committee went to ensure the process would be fair and credible.

in reviewing the substance of the standing committee's prior investigation with the outside counsel's assistance, we exercised our independent judgment with no allegiance to that committee's process or findings. consistent with that commitment, we have granted mr. moore request to appear today. this is a complicated matter at a remarkable time in our nation's financial history. representative waters face the difficult balancing act between representing minority banks and avoiding a conflict due to her own financial interests. the committee is faced with the question of whether mr. moore's action to blur the line and placed the reputations of his employed member and the house of representatives at risk. if lines were crossed, we are concerned with the proper response in in the -- in any individual case. one of the most important

considerations is how seriously the employee at issue takes the allegations, the applicable rules and the house process. we must consider what level of response is necessary to deter similar conduct in the future. our commitment to fairness and integrity in this matter includes providing mr. more the opportunity to comment on all of those concerns. i hope this will be a productive hearing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will now ask if any other members of the committee have an opening statement that they wish to make. they're being done, i will now recognize the outside counsel, mr. martin, for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, members of this committee, we thank you for the opportunity to provide an

opening statement in the matter involving maxine waters. in july 2009, the house of congressional ethics submitted a report to the ethics committee in the one hundred 11th congress concluding the representative waters may have violated house conflict of interest rules when she called the former treasury secretary to set up a meeting with one united bank. in light of the fact that representative waters' husband was a former bird -- former board member and current stockholders in the bank, further investigation was warranted. an investigative subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violations. that sav alleged three accounts of this kind of -- of

misconduct. before the committee held a hearing on the matter, the matter was recommitted to the isc on the basis of newly discovered evidence and the -- and the congress ended without the committee taking further action on the matter. on july 20, 2011, my partner and i were retained as outside counsel to assist the committee and the one hundred 12 congress -- in congress to review the allegations. we were passed to review the record and provide a recommendation to the committee as to whether there was sufficient evidence to show that representative waters knowingly violated any house rules or other standard of conduct. in reaching our conclusion, we reviewed over 150,000 pages of documents, the transcripts of

over 40 witnesses, transcripts from 10 prior investigative hearings, and we rea interviewed several with assists. in order to make this recommendation, we had to determine if the evidence was sufficient to show that violation occurred in a clear and consistent -- by a clear and consistent standard. we recommended to this committee in a written report the covers almost 150 pages that the evidence in the record does not support a knowing violation of ethics rules or any other standard of conduct with respect to representative maxine waters by clear and convincing standard. weather, with respect to representative waters, we concluded and recommended that the committee determined that

when waters called to request a meeting, she believed she was acting on behalf of all minority banks which she believed had been seriously affected by freddie mae and fannie back. because the evidence supports that she was acting on behalf of a large group of banks, we found no evidence in the record to support that her phone call to arrange a meeting violated any house rules or any other standard of conduct. our report also recommended to the committee that sometime after the treasury meeting, which occurred on september 9, 2008, representative waters became aware that during that meeting with treasury, one unit ed bank requested money from the

treasury department as a buyback of its shares from freddie mae and fannie back. -- fannie mac. representative waters approached the committee to discuss better husband had been a member of the board of 1 united bank and he told her that he would handle the one united matter and she should stay out of it. the exact timing of this conversation is not clear from the record, but we believe that occurred at some point following the september 9, 2000 treasury meeting but prior to the circulation of the first draft of the economic -- emergency economic stabilization act on september 28, 2008. the record reveals that despite representative waters' correct determination that she should not be involved in any direct help for the bank because of

conflict of interest, her chief of staff continue to engage in official actions taken solely on behalf of 1 united bank and not the greater class of banks affected by the conservatorship. the first official act was an e- mail dated september 19, 2008. mr. more said that e-mail to a financial services staffer stating, "1 united is in trouble." outside counsel -- council believes it is a reasonable interpretation that this e-mail is in -- is a specific reference to one united. mr. more was aware that the bank might fail.

-- mr. moore was aware that the bank might fail. mr. moore forward an e-mail received from a special counsel who also served as the chair on the national bank association. e-mail contains an attachment -- an attachment which was a chart breaking down the investment in freddie mae and fannie mac. mr. moore followed up with a staffer by e-mail in and asking, "how did that meeting go back -- how to that meeting go?" -- how did that meeting go?"

it is our recommendation that these two e-mails sent by mr. moore were an effort to assist one united and not the greater class of banks. what we determined that these two e-mails were official acts taken by mr. moore to assist the bank, we're not able to determine if these eight males -- these e-mails% before or after -- these e-mails were sent before or after. it is clear that representative waters told mr. moore he should not specifically assist one united. representative waters stated, quote, "we were only

concerned about minority francs -- minority banks broadly." as her chief of staff, mr. moore is her most trusted staff member. she should be able to rely on his recommendations. mr. waters -- misses waters took the important step to instruct him not to assist one united. we recommend to this committee that the evidence does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that representative waters failed to supervise her staff. i will now address the evidence with respect to representative mikhailchief of staff, moor. e we could not conclusively determined from the record by clear and convincing stand when representative waters told

watersmoore he should not act on behalf of one united. we recommend that the record does not support a finding with clear and convincing evidence that a knowing violation of the rules or other standards of conduct can be proved against mr. moore. nonetheless, we're troubled by the fact that mr. moore's testimony raises substantial issues of credibility. first, while mr. moore testified that he was unaware of 'ssses waters' husband financial interests in one united, misses waters entered

into the record -- miss waters and into the record that her husband was a stockholder and board member of one united. she said she believed disclosure was important pearson -- was important. mr. moore night knowledge. representative waters disclosed her husband's stock holdings in her statement. representative waters stated that mr. moore have known of her husband's stock holdings in one united. mr. moore testified that he personally interpreted the instructions from misses waters -- misses -- miss waters. the record is clear that

representative waters instructed otherwise. the chief counsel of the financial services committee testified that mr. moore told her that his office had a conflict of interest and were stepping back from the one united issue. it is our conclusion and recommendation that he understood the instructions and directions from representative waters. given that representative waters believes disclosure is important, we found is that i'll incredible and that of his testimony in general. we found other inconsistencies testimony. moore's and other evidence we reviewed. it included the councils report

to the committee. even though we do not believe the evidence is sufficient to prove by a clear and convincing standard that mr. moore knowingly violated the ethics rules, we raise issues to mr. moore's credibility. as noted in the report of your outside counsel, all final determinations, including credibility determinations are left to this committee, since it is the constant -- responsibility of this committee to make the often findings and conclusions regarding this matter. we state for the record, should the committee decide to issue something short of a formal sanction, such as a letter of reproval to mr. moore for his actions in this matter, we would agree with that decision pending any new arguments, vince, or

facts presented by mr. moore at today hearing. we believe such action would be consistent with the findings of the report. by thank you for allowing me the time to present this. >> thank you, mr. martin. mr. moore, at this time, i would ask you to stand and raise your right hand so the chinese were you in. do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. the procedure for your testimony today will be as follows -- you may make an opening statement if you wish. outside counsel in council year -- may question you. members may also ask questions if they wish and you may make a

closing statement. outside counsel and members will make closing statements if they wish. would you like to make an opening statement? >> yes. >> you may have 10 minutes. you are recognized. >> before you you have two reports. the first is offered by the outside counsel, billy martin, and since that time the committee has committed approximately $1.30 million to his work. when the committee hired mr. martin, the outside counsel would rely on -- allow for an independent review. it is outside counsel's opinioned that representative waters committed no violations in this matter. after the review of my conduct, outside counsel recommends that no formal sanction or for all to

the floor of the house is warranted in this matter. the second report before you, written by the committee, agrees with the special counsel's determination that representative waters committed no violation. however, if the person -- diverges respect to my allegations. both the committee and the independent review have agreed with our long-held contention that both the meeting which represented of water set up at the treasury department on behalf of minority banks and all legislative action on behalf of small, minority, and community banks or proper. however, the committee has seized on two e-mails and the timing of those e-mails sent by me to a staffer on the financial services committee, neither of which asks for or is the catalyst to any action on behalf of one united. as is the basis for three

substantive violations on house rules. the claim is i work on behalf of one united solely and i should have recognized that ambassador williams' investment was a disqualifying interest. he is determining at what point i learned of this interest, more specifically when representative waters spoke about the matter and when she relayed that conversation to me. i have repeatedly and consistently testified before the committee that i was not conscious of the ambassador's investment on 2008 and that it played no role in my decision making process. which would make a knowing violation impossible. mr. martin's independent review of greece, stating "outside counsel has determined that it is not possible to determine by clear and convincing standard when the conversation between representative waters conversation occurred."

this is an impossible standard to meet and diverges from the committee's recent treatment of other matters -- other matters. specifically in the matter of jean smith and ethics committee member michael mccall's chief of staff, who violated the outside compensation rule. the committee found that although they violated those rules and possibly federal law, they did not do so knowingly. the committee did not venture to assume what they should have known, but properly relying on the evidence provided and what they did know. however, the committee has outlined three substantive allegations based on what they think i should have known. speaking specifically about my actions as they relate to

personal benefit, mr. martin says, "a outside council recommends the two actions cannot be proven by clear and convincing standard to rise to the level of a knowing violation of house rules or other standards of conduct relevant to using a member's office for personal benefit." although on its face, because i had no financial interest in one united, i am not clear what personal benefit i received and how the benefit was a crew to make, i would still like to address the charges. the committee asked, when considering whether not this kind -- conduct was breached, what was the member's or staff's

motive? when reviewing a member's motive, the committee asked when there was direct evidence has any such improper motive. this conduct is derived from the st. germain case in which the committee stated speculation about a motive is not evidence -- is not evidence. there is no direct evidence that the congressman had any such improper at -- improper motive. it would be inappropriate to attribute improper action to an individual based solely on efferent and speculation. the committee has shown no direct evidence of improper motive on my part, and therefore, seemingly according to president -- precedent, cannot show that i used my office for personal gain.

mr. martin suggested finding of in sports -- and influence should not infer the technique or personality of a legislator. instead, a finding of undue influence must be based on evidence that reprisal or threat was made. there is no such evidence in this case. the committee has also found that i brought discredit on the house, a charge that is troubling given the sacrifice made to serve the institution. the committee has used this as a dangerous catch-all. it has annoyed one of the key descriptors in the ethics manual which describes this provision. the manual states that interpreting -- in interpreting clause 1, when -- flagrant violations of the law that

reflect on congress as a whole which might otherwise go unpunished. there was no flagrant violation of a lot in this case. the committee or the house has invoked rule 23, clause 1 in investigating or disciplining members for, among other things, engaging in sexual relations with house patrons. i do not belong in this category. they have taken great care to question the credibility of my testimony and my integrity. i have never been interviewed by a single member throughout this process and my interactions have been limited to staff of the committee and outside counsel. during those interviews, i admit i have been a zealous defender of my member, her work, and the legislative philosophy which we work by. in that defense, i have been aggressive and sometimes contentious. this was not in any way meant to show a disrespect to the

institution or the committee, but to show the ultimate respect to the people for whom i come to work for every day. it is my hope that today we may have an open dialogue so that you may ask all of the questions and make an independent judgment as to my credibility and integrity. that is my prepared statement, but i have two minutes left so i would like to address statements by mr. martin. >> you have 10 minutes. proceed. >> i would like to address the question of what i knew and when i knew about the ambassador's investment. the first thing that was raised was about a hearing in 2007 were congressman -- congresswoman waters disclosed that her husband was a director at a minority bank. i submitted a video of that hearing to the committee that show that i was not present at that hearing and testified to my knowledge that what the

congresswoman was to enter into the record was a tight statement. she inserted into the wreckage -- into the record a handwritten statement that referred to her husband's investment which i was not aware of. i testified several times to the fact that i did know about the investment at the time. i have never been a part, until recently, of the congresswoman's preparation of her financial disclosures. those had been prepared by an outside accountant for the last 20 years. that was not one of the functions of my job in 2007 or 2008. i will and with that. >> thank you, mr. more. we now begin with the questioning. i will return -- i will turn to the outside counsel to ask if he has questions.

>> mr. chairman, i have no specific questions based upon states that. i will turn it back to the chair. >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> this is a parliamentary inquiry. i have been troubled, not by the process -- i am always impressed. unlike financial-services, appropriations, ways and means, nobody asks to be on this committee. it is not saw after. but because this is a hybrid, this particular committee, i have been troubled by the notion that it seems to me and was reinforced an hour earlier meeting today that perhaps mr.

moore, on procedural grounds would be more comfortable if there was an investigative subcommittee to move forward and look at this rather than disposing of this matter. i guess that would be my question to you. do you feel that based upon the where we are today in reviewing the documents and your observations that this process is appropriately concluded by the committee where we are done receiving your information together with the reports that mr. martin and his staff had prepared or are you of the opinion that you would be better served and it would be fairer to you if an investigative subcommittee look at it? >> may ask one procedural question? >> you cannot ask me. >> my first question would be, with the matter between myself

and the congressman be bifurcated? >> this committee, unlike other presidents -- other prece dents, it is my opinion based on the evidence, representative waters went above and beyond what was required of her in bed sheet issued the statement into the record, which you say were not present at in 2007. once she received a telephone call from treasury secretary paulson asking why only one united representatives were present at the september 9 meeting that she took immediate action and talked to representative frank and that she instructed you to stay out of the one united matter. from my standpoint, there is nothing left with representative waters. the only issue is whether or not

you think, based upon that this position, you think your rights would be better protected if you have the opportunity to have an investigative subcommittee review this matter. >> i will answer that in a couple of ways. the first answer is that i, too, had been troubled by this process, especially towards the end, as the committee has the knowledge we were notified on friday of the areas that issue and allowed to see the report on wednesday. that was the first time i was made aware of the charges against me. in conversations with the staff director of the committee, i raise this as a question. the interesting thing about it is that i would want the fall offered saturday to be

respondent in a panoply of back and forth. i do not know how about what happened given that the outside counsel has already determined that there is not evidence to prove the charges. i feel like we are in the gray zone. one of the issues i raised with the chief counsel is that the charges that are laid against me are very serious charges. without having the opportunity to push back on those charges, it leaves me in an uncomfortable space. that is the way i would answer the question. >> i appreciate that. is outside counsel's report a report any makes recommendations. it is not his job to make final determinations. that is the responsibility of the committee. it is his recommendation that it cannot be proven with clear and convincing evidence, but that does not mean that -- that is

why we have the subcommittees' because if we all reach the conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence, there is no point in having the additional committees. it is like someone having to jury trial when a jury is already decided what it wanted to do. what troubles me and why it might benefit you to request that path is that i do have serious questions based upon the testimony, the documents that had been received. let me give you a couple of examples. at first, when they ask your employing member to set up a meeting with the treasury, they had not conducted a survey of their members to determine how may banks were affected. after the meeting, secretary paulson called representative waters calland expressed concer.

two days after that, on september 11, the mba communicated with the treasury department of a document which you are copied on and said that there were only two who had this fannie/freddie problem. in addition, aside from your grandfather, who was a member of the board, the gentleman was also a member of the boy -- member of the board. that part of mr. martin's report is troubling to me, and i think that you might be better served by letting all of that stuff be fleshed out. >> may i respond? let me respond directly to the two points you raised. i will wait.

the first point is one of the things i talked about consistently and have provided information to the committee was that, beginning on september 7, not only the mba but the i cba and the american banks association were all talking about this situation. this was a situation where the american banks association said the 27% of all banks in the country had fannie/freddie stocks and were going to be negatively impact by the action taken on september 7. many of them were community banks, which is the area that 1 united bank fell in. in my view, all of the actions that were taken post the conservatorship or all with that context in mind. >> i have read your transcripts, and i understand that is your position.

i would suggest that my understanding of the rules of the committee and the house or that a member may act on behalf of an entity -- i was surprised by this to be honest -- a financial interest as long as it is in a broad class. what is troubling to me is that there is evidence that i think supports the conclusion that, while that may have been the case, that the letter from the mba on the 11th says we are only dealing with too -- in my mind, every bank in the country was affected by the horrible things that were going on and your grandmother is a fighter and a chairman of the committee i served on.

minority banks do not have a better champion then maxine waters. it appears in my mind there were two paths going on. on september 11, relative to the preferred stock buy-back -- and i am grappling. i just want you to know i am wrestling with that. i do not want to give you a bum advice. the staff has indicated to me that if there is an isc review, it could reveal evidence relative to represent of waters. i do not know what that means. that is what the staff said. >> two things to your point which i think are valid point and thank you for raising them. the first one would-be, on a broader scale, in their original

letters on the seventh, eighth, and night, they reference the idea of buy-bck. they wanted to know from treasury held the stock would be repaid and refreshed. secondly, in your question about the two banks, you bring up a very good question, which is what is the committee's definition of a class. there is no definition of a class. i would raise the graves case. although we have differing opinions about what the case says, what it does say is that mr. graves and his wife's investment was a part of a class. what they said was that if the actions that were taken only benefited those two companies, because of their minimal stock ownership, they would be part of a class. my question to the committee

would be how does the committee the fine class. if it is not graves, how you define it? and did converse woman waters -- congresswoman waters' husband's investment relate to the grace case? >> i have reviewed the gray's case and i find it distinguishable. i discussed -- i had discussions with the staff about what is a class. there have been cases where -- some things that are shocking to me and we need to change the rules around -- were a member have attained a road map for a road where they have property and they have found that it is not a problem. i am willing to accept that a class is 30 or 40 or bigger than that.

when you get down to two, that is at the center of what is problematic relative to your conduct in this matter. those are my questions. to my last question, is it your desire, would you think you are better served by this committee annsidering referring it to investigative subcommittee or would you like to us to deliberate and get it over with today? >> my heavy heart is around the idea that, whether it is a

letter of reproval or someone just saying that the idea that i knowingly and intentionally use the congresswoman's office for personal gain that i disrespected the house, it is a very difficult pill to swallow. the way that i had been trained and the philosophy would tell me, in a normal circumstance, to fight tooth and nail to the end, but in this circumstance i would say no. >> i appreciate that. this is a big deal. we're talking about your reputation and your members' reputation. this is a

>> the gentleman print kentucky, mr. yarmuth, is recognized. >> the issue of knowledge of a conflict or financial interest is critical ally this entire case. there was evidence presented in the outside counsel's report to the committee that we indicate, one, that representative waters said you would have been aware of the investment. secondly, there was a staff member on the services committee who said there was a conflict here. a question and i would pose independently when representative waters told you to stay out, did she come at that point, say why you were to stay out of it? what was your understanding of

why she would tell you to stay out of it? >> let me address the first "that is being used in the outside counsel's report. -- the first quote. when she was asked, she said yes, they knew about it. everybody knew about it. i was fully disclosed. my reading of that is not a determinative statement about whether i knew but if she had fully disclosed everything already. in the same way i do not think it is reasonable to expect all the newspapers and everyone to know, and barney frank, for that matter, who testified he did not know. that was not a determinative statement that she made, i believe. the second question was that i told the chief counsel on the financial services committee about the conflict. although i do not remember that conversation, one thing that

troubles me about that statement in the record is that there is no base associated with it. it does not say when the conversation allegedly happened so it raises the same issue raised with all the other evidence around timing and that is a critical moment. there is a date associated, that's one thing. if there is no data associated, i think it raises the same issue that the rest of the evidence raises on that point, around timing, and whether or not i was aware. >> when representative waters ask you to stay out of it, what did you and for as to the reason why she would have directed you to stay out of it? >> i do not recall the substance of that conversation at this point. >> i thank the gentleman.

do other members have questions? i will recognize myself, mr. more. -- mr. moore. one of the issues the committee is troubled by an deliberating about is the finding their representative waters on at least three occasions made it clear that she had a conflict than she intended to stay out of a matter of one united's assistance from the department of treasury and other subsequent legislation that may come about. you have addressed your knowledge of the public speech that she made. we also know that she had a conversation with chairman barney frank about this legislation, about this matter and that he had advised her that

she should stay out of this matter because of the connection of her husband to one united. the third was a statement that she told you that she had a conflict and that you should stay out of it. i think the part that troubles us is that in questioning by committee staff, you explain the that her order to you to stay out of it coming you interpreted that to mean for only one day. we are troubled by that and we would welcome your explanation for how you had come to that conclusion that if she had a conflict, why would it only apply for one day? and your subsequent actions communicating with the financial services committee staff regarding matters to one united would not violate would not violate the orders he gave you.

>> this is more of a comment. i do not know if they have changed their standard to this point, but during the zero c e interview, it was not transcribed. it was said that i was supposed to stay out of issues that day. >> let me enter in there and ask why she would instruct you to stay out of the broader issues at all. it would not seem there is any conflict there. why would it apply just to that one day? >> frankly, i do not know why i made that statement. it was several years ago. the broader question for me is the two acts that the committee suggested ito were two emails, one that said they were in trouble and then i forwarded it

to the financial services committee. even under the committee theory, in that circumstance, the standard that has been used before specifically in cases like this has been a member or staff communicating with federal agencies or with folks who had the actual power to do something on behalf of the agency they were allegedly communicating with. i do not see those two emails as causing or precipitating anything, being a catalyst, and i did not communicate anything to an outside entity like the treasury department who would have had the power to draft that request. that is my challenge with that idea. i still go back to the fact that there has been no date or time unestablished about when the conversation happened with the congresswoman. >> when you were interviewed by

outside counsel, in 2012, as opposed your reference to earlier testimony, you confirm that earlier testimony, did you not? you confirmed the earlier testimony that you had said that you thought the instructions you had received from congresswoman waters to stay out of the matter was for one day only and not to stay out of it. >> i would imagine i reiterated the testimony given. i'm not denying that i said that. what i said is that i was not clear what my thinking was behind making that statement. >> we are troubled by the constructs that you had been ordered by congresswoman waters to stay out of the matter entirely for one day meeting all things but that would not apply to communications regarding things beyond one united after that without having any question

or concern for why that would be, number one, and number two, we are reviewing the testimony and evidence before the committee regarding the nature of those actions and their connection to their subsequent email connections to one united. it still troubles us that you would say that i felt i was only required to stay out of this matter for one day and then could proceed to communicate whether it is about the broader matter or the more narrow matter with relation to one united. we will be the judge of what we think the totality of the evidence shows there. personally, i am not able to understand how you would reach those conclusions and why you would not ask for further clarification and why you would feel that there would be a need on one day to stay out of this matter but not a need to stay out entirely.

valid and that's a fair point. i don't know why i made the statements in that way, but i would still go back to the actions that were taken and the timeline of those actions. again, i would say i would concede it's a fair point that if that was my interpretation, as the record state, that it may not have been the best judgment call on my part. i do not think that leads to three violations and suggesting that i used the office knowingly for my personal business use, etc. i acknowledge that statement and it may have been made in poor judgment, but i think the timeline issue and not being able to establish the time line is a more important issue. >> mr. chairman, may i address that issue? >> the chair recognizes the outside counsel, mr. markham. >> in july 2012, regarding his

testimony, he did not at any time tell us in our interview when we had portions of the transcript available but he was referring to the national bankers association. he affirmed the testimony that he thought it was one day and one day only. that was critical in our review. it is not accurate that he indicated that it was the nba and it would have made a difference in our interpretation. that is not an accurate statement. >> may i address that, please? i would request that you just pull the testimony. if you polled the testimony, it refers to that. if we could do that, again, my credibility and my honesty is being impeached and when the testimony explicitly says the

nba. >> we will take your comments hundred wiseman. >> the chair recognizes -- >> oce does not transcribed their interviews with witnesses. there recorded as handwritten notes by staffers. subsequent to the waters case and other matters we have worked on, we have provided our own stenographer so that both and the occ and council could have an actual transcript of the testimony. that did not occur in the waters case. that was potentially the first case we had worked on. i do think it's important to emphasize that they are not a verbatim notes of what he said. i'm not saying they're not accurate to the context, but it is not a word for word transcription of his testimony. >> the gentleman for maryland is

seeking recognition and the gentleman from ohio has a follow-up question. i will recognize the gentleman from ohio first. >> going to the july 12th interview, i do not know if you have it lying around? i will read the answer that i would like to focus on on page 54 of your july 12th testimony. this is due to the conflict she mentions. for working knowledge was they had been asked for $50 million and the conversation was to that issue, and there was to be a response to that type of event

to work on. if you go back to september 9th, it was represented to treasury as minority banks, the nba talking about issues. this is the degree of for $50 million. it is for a buyback in fannie and freddie. later, the same document without the header, it says something to the extent that it was given to the treasury, a request for protection to divert the failure of one united due to its investment in gst-preferred stock. >> do need a copy of it? >> i do not believe that document was provided at the meeting. >> but it went to somebody.

treasury was asked for but did dollars million. >> let me be clear about that. the letter that was sent on behalf of the nba that was sent to henry paulson, the solution that was outlined in the letter that preceded the meeting said that minority banks that were impacted should be given their money back. it was the solution that was suggested before the meeting happened, which the treasury department had in hand. whether i agree with the way in which was articulate it and who it was articulated by, it was not something that was not in conjunction with the letter they had sent previously. >> this goes to my concern. how big is the class? this is the reason i believe the secretary called congresswoman

waters. this is supposed to be a minority bank meeting and only one united shows up. they then get down to the fact that there are only two nba members who have this particular problem. the same document without the one united stock is also forwarded to the financial services committee and i have a copy of that if your interested as well. again, my concern is that i think there were two legislative tracts. to be in one crossways against the spirit and the letter of the role in the house, you do not have to be successful if you try to do something and does not work. that the not make it ok. likewise -- let me finish and you can respond. you not not run out of my head. anyway, i think there were two

tracks to legislation. one which your employer was working very diligently on and did make it into tarp one, section 103, some paragraphs 6 providing relief for smaller banks with $1 billion or less in assets. certainly one united would benefit from that. that is the big it class. when it came to this $50 million asked, there were specific draft the legislation passed back and forth between the treasury coming your office, and mr. foley that dealt solely with preferred stock buyback. that did not make it in to tarp, but, again, it is the class. >> i would say two things. obviously, i am sensitive to class questions. again, whether or not the class question deals with the number of institutions, the number of shareholders, or the percentage

of shareholders is something the committee has to grapple with. the second thing is, again, although the emails and the issues articulated here are looked at in a very narrow view, i did not ask to broaden them. the buyback question you're talking about was something that was not exclusive or individual to the nba, when united, or mr. foley. as early as the day of the conservatorship, they expressed their want, need, and aspiration for the buyback of preferred stock for all banks that had been impacted. the concept was not something that was individual. there's one other thing i should say about my legislative process as a staffer. ultimately, i evaluate the problem that is articulated, the solution that is articulated to

solve that problem, and what the broad impact nationwide will be on that solution. i do think one of the challenges in dealing with people you work with on an everyday basis, whether or not you back on their behalf or non, is figuring out when to say -- i do not know how that happens, when people you work with on an ongoing basis on legislation. we fully in his testimony said that he was not hired by one united, the national banking association, or anyone else. mr. foley is a well-known minority banking expert. i'd knowledge that there are multiple roles that exist in this instance and i would welcome guidance from the committee on house staff is going to deal when multiple roles are at play. as members know, whether it is the nba, ica, or nba, they are

made up of their members. they are not separate. it you can be the ceo of a bank and had a legislation of the same time. >> would the gentleman from ohio yield? mr. kellie testified before the outside counsel that he was a board member of 1 united bank and that he believed that you knew he was a board member of 1 united bank at the time of these discussions and communications going on related to one united's difficulties. >> i guess i would just say, again, i'm not denying that point, but what was asked? what was done? and who did he say he was working on behalf? he was a board member, without question, according to emails and testimony, but he also

testified he was not working on behalf those entities when he was communicating in that way according to what i read. >> i am advised by a committee of outside counsel that mr. foley actually put that back in writing to you in july 2008. at the time, you had been advised by congressman waters to stay out of this matter. subsequently you were advised to stay out because she had a conflict, in her mind, and in her testimony before the committee staff. that conflict was her husband's ownership of stock in one united bank. yet, the subsequent communications with mr. foley would seem to indicate that, notwithstanding those instructions and your comments that you thought it was for only one day, you subsequently had

communications with committee staff -- you could say would be for a broader purpose, but it clearly could be seen to be a communications related to 1 united bank and the reason why congressman waters ask you to stay out of the matter. >> i would raise two points. the email you are referring to about mr. foley saying that he was a board member of 1 united bank was in july 2008 and was a part of a reference of at least seven or eight legislative conversations around the downfall of fannie and freddie. i don't want the committee to suggest that i deny a long-term working relationship with mr. foley or that i received an e- mail. that's nothe question. even to the point about the buy back provision and other provisions in the language, the question i would ask the committee is if there is any contention that any one of those legislative language dissent

would apply only to one united and i think the answer to that is absolutely not. there was no legislative language that would apply only to one united. in the same way, if we can see that section 103.6 along for a broad class was ok, i would also suggest in the buyback provision, if it applies to a broader class and not unique to a specific bank that it passed the same muster. >> ltd. say this and then i will yield back to the gentleman from ohio -- let me just say this. let me just say that the troubling matter here in the station with the case, as you have decided, is that in your case, congresswoman waters, your employer, and shrek did you to stay out of this matter. to then take your own and your rotation of with the matter was and how narrowly or broadly in

applies still appears to us to have violated the injection you receive from congresswoman waters. >> i agree that, again, the work that i did in september 2008 was not on behalf of any one bank. the committee is contingent i was not doing anything on behalf of one united, i follow that injection. i also believe that, again, continuing to have a conversation about when i was instructed is very important. is difficult to say that i violated an instruction if you cannot say when it was. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> two points because the gentle lady from maryland has been waiting patiently. >> let me interrupt for just a second and advise all members that we have of votes that have been called. it's our intention to return until all members have asked

questions that they need to ask of you and we will give you full opportunity to respond. the gentleman from ohio. >> one of the worst things that can happen is when someone comes in and says they have google them before the meeting. you're exactly right. based upon his career, his training, his expertise, he is someone who is sought after in terms of giving advice. i think you hit the nail on the head. it is this had question. how many different hats can a person where? wendy have to say, i'm an expert in banking. i want to help nba and icba, but i am a board member of one united. that's the center of this case, for me. there are times, again, in my

opinion, where you, as a lobbyist, as a staffer, as a member, have to say, because of that hat, we cannot go there. >> if i may? thank you for that clarification. i would appreciate that clarification and i think the house without well. the house conflict of interest rules are interpreted by the action you are taking. i'd knowledge all of these has multiple people were wearing. might litmus test is what is being asked and what am i doing? if i would have been asked to write a piece of legislation that only applied to one united or another company, that would be something that would make the highly uncomfortable. i do not believe any other legislative language applied to only one company. >> i appreciate that. you come across much better in person than you do in writing.

[laughter] >> the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be brief. mr. moore, you have argued here there is insufficient evidence to prove that you knew that your employer, ms. waters, at a personal financial interest. i believe the actions that you took subsequent or in the context of these meetings and the mail exchanges really strains the notion of credibility. they did not know or should not have known about her interests. in particular, ms. waters direction to you to stay out of it, any objection which you confirmed before our outside counsel that you thought that

only meant one day simply strains credibility. it is clear to me that ms. waters knew that she had a conflict of interest and had made it clear that she understood that, that she spoke to the then chairman of the committee to separate herself from the matter, and that she directed you to stay out of it. you ignored your employee number. toi'm sitting here listening you, i'm wondering that if we were to accept your conclusion that to stay out of it only meant one day, we would then have to go back and reconsider whether ms. waters in fact did provide the kind of supervision that she is obligated to provide.

i do not find that. i find her direction to you as a reiteration of that by several sources very credible which is why your statements, both here and in our record, strained so much credibility that i believe you either knew or should have known by september 19th that there is a conflict of interest by your employee number. >> let me address that in a few ways. the first is that you said i ignored my members direction. outside counsel has established that we can establish when that conversation happened. that is a fact of the record. it's difficult for me to extend the idea that i ignored a direction when we have not established a time line. secondly, i would again suggest in my view -- and it could be wrong -- but the two emails that

are referred to even after that direction do not violate that direction, to send an e-mail that i would especially forward to mr. frank's office, the person designated to work on behalf of this entity. if i would have communicated with the treasury, the fdic, or someone and asked them to do something on behalf of one united, it would be a different conversation. i have to go back to the timeline because i think it's very important in establishing a time line to establish whether or not a directive was ignored. they ought to talk about the actions taken after it. >> like mr. latourette, it is not important to me as a consideration that you're successful or approached the right entity to evaluate whether you have known or should have known about a conflict.

again, perhaps we will have this deliberation, but if we were to accept your conclusion, i think we would have to revisit the conclusion that we have already made or that is in the report as to ms. water's adequate supervision of you. i will leave it at that. >> that i may respond? the first thing that i would say is that i have already on the record today knowledge that it may have been in court judgment for me to take that as an interpretation. i'm not trying to city councilman did not give a clear direction when it was given. i have knowledge on the record that i may have exhibited poor judgment if my interpretation was only for that one day. i have a knowledge that. there's no question about that directive. the question still remains, and

i would ask any member of staff for outside counsel to affirmatively establish when the confirmation -- the conversation happened and i ignored it. the record is replete dili saying it did not happen. my concern is that the committee has laid out the reason stanton violations -- that i use the office former personal gain, that i seek special favors, and that brought discredit on the house without establishing the facts. that is problematic. >> the vote on the floor has about five minutes remaining. the committee will stand in recess and we will reconvene immediately following the votes.

clucks the committee will reconvene. when we recessed, the members were in the process of being recognized to ask questions of mr. moore. at this time, i would ask the members if any of them wish to be recognized for the purpose of asking questions.

if not, mr. moore, we have agreed in advance and have given him notice of our intention to give you an opportunity to give closing remarks. i will ask the members one more time if anyone has any additional questions they missed -- they wish to ask. if not, we recognize you for your closing statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank the committee for this opportunity. i think it was an important and informative discussion. i learned some things and i hope i was able to clearly answer the questions that the member of this committee asked. -- members asked. the only final thing i will say is that it is my hope as the committee goes back and considers both the action to take and the violations

considered that it does so in a manner that appropriately reflects the accusations that have been made. i am concerned and one of the reasons i came to this hearing was that after reviewing specifically the allegations, that the idea, again, that i used the office for personal gain, that i had dispensed personal favors for personal gain, and that i brought discredit on the house is of great concern to me. i do also recognize something that has been brought to light in this conversation, the varying concerns of the members and i appreciate those concerns. i will take them under indictment and major moving forward that those concerns are not only something bad i take heed to but that the rest of my staff and anyone else i come into contact with.

as i conclude, i just want to be clear that this has been a tough process for both me and the congress woman, for our office and constituents. i am glad, excited, encouraged, that this is coming to an end. i want to think the committee for having the foresight and courage to employ outside counsel. i would like to thank the outside counsel for the work that was done and thank all of the staff of this committee for the work that they have done. i know that in battle, sometimes. back and forth, but at the end of the day, i hope the committee recognizes that i respect the institution, i respect the process, and more so respect that process the new committee has put in place to bring this matter to a close. >> thank you, mr. moore. the chair now recognizes the outside counsel for his closing comments.

>> mr. chairman, i would like to first correct something in the record that happened today. there was one statement earlier i made in this hearing, i previously stated that he had testified in a recording july 2012 that he thought he was supposed to stay out of one united matters, but only for one day. i have gone back and review that transcript. mr. morrison the following as a statement. "i took her conversation with me to me that i should not. there was no need to work on when united issues that day or the nba issues that day. i cannot remember how it was phrased, but i note that day was what the context was all about." that is the end of this statement. i would note that in his statement, he never indicated the statement was incorrect or that he recalled things being different than now.

i said earlier that he thought he was supposed to stay out of those matters and she did not limit that direction to one day, as he now seems to admit, then he even more clearly ignored that direction by continuing to work on matters for minority banks including one united after he was instructed not to. it is in my view the committee should properly consider both his testimony and his changing version of this conversation with representative waters in determining whether or not his recollections regarding what he knew and when he knew what are credible. if i may continue, in closing, mr. chairman, members of this committee, as were outside counsel, we have listened to the arguments advanced by mr. more today. he has made many of these arguments previously to this committee and to the standing committee. in addition, he has made the arguments during prior testimony before outside counsel.

main pointmoore's today is that we could not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he knew representative waters of's financial interests in one united in september 2008 or will establish the date in which she directed him not to work on one united matters. in fact, he started his testimony today by reading a line from our report to the committee stating that we could not establish the date of direction for representative waters by clear and convincing standards. but he did not read the very next sentence which we believe puts that in context which states, "nonetheless, there is evidence to allow their representative waters's chief of staff should have known of a conflict prior to that conversation."

further, our report and i reiterate today that the committee is not required to establish clear and convincing evidence of a violation of house rules in order to issue a letter of reproval. that evidentiary standard is reserved for censure and a reprimand in which the full house has to vote. as i have stated, it is the outside counsel's view that you can issue a letter of reproval if you believe on the committee's view that the totality of the evidence and his credibility that there is sufficient evidence to conclude a violation occurred. outside counsel believes that there is sufficient evidence in this matter. indeed, the committee could reasonably find his credibility is even less now than before this hearing started on two key points. he appears to have changed his testimony today when confronted with evidence that contradicts

his earlier statements. those points include mr. mark's nowledge-- mr. moore's knowledge that mr. foley was a board member and his admission their representative waters told him to stop working on when united matters and did not limit that instruction to just one day. that is a difference in testimony. accordingly, should this committee decide to issue a letter of reproval for his actions in this matter, based on the committee's view of the totality of the evidence and his credibility, we would agree with the committee's decision and we believe such a letter is indeed consistent with our findings as reflected in our report to this committee. thank you. >> thank you, mr. martin and. before recognizing the ranking and no. -- member, mr. yarmoth,

does any other member have a closing statement they would like to make? >> this does not have a lot to do with mr. moore, but one thing that has come out of this matter for me is that the full ethics committee needs to take a look at and review the roles of the house on conflicts. i have been horrified that some things are permitted under the rules. this question of hats is really troubling me. i do not think you did anything to enrich yourself, but it is an appearance. quite frankly, you are a lineal descendant of someone who owns a stock. sometimes you just have to go that extra mile to avoid even the appearance. i think we need to address that in a rules change and make sure that people do not on wittingly do something that i have no intention of doing. i appreciate your testimony today. i found it to be eliminating.

i thank you. >> any other members of the committee have a closing statement that they would like to make? if not, i will now recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. thank you, mr. chairman. before we close and return to executive session, i would like to thank all the members of the committee, particularly the republican members who have been appointed only for this process and also to thank outside counsel and his co-counsel, and the staff of the committee for an exhaustive process for what i consider to be a very thorough and fair process. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and i want to share his observation and i agree that this committee

has worked in a non-partisan fashion to address these issues. we still have some work to do. i want to paint the outside counsel, chief counsel, the staff of the committee, and members to have put a tremendous amount of time and thought into this proceeding. one of the most -- i now recognize myself or my closing comments. one of the most important functions of the ethics committee is to ensure that the house community gets saturated device by which they can determine their course of conduct. we must make clear to everyone who may hear this testimony that his understanding of the rules as almost entirely incorrect. it directly contradicts the clear guidance given to the community both in the manual and by our professional staff every day and should not be followed by anyone seeking to avoid in permissible conduct. specifically, the manual, the last version of which published

in spring 2008, provides that a member may vote on legislation, even if the legislation benefits only one entity, which the member owns stock in, but it is clear that this is true only in decisions to vote. it goes on to state that the guidance regarding acting on behalf of a single entity does not apply to other official acts such as advocating or participating in an action by a house committee. that is a direct statement. emanuel statement -- -- the manual states a degree above and beyond that involved in voting and a member of decision whether to take any such action on a manner that may affect his or her personal financial interest requires added circumspection. the manual further states " whenever a member is considering taking any such action on a matter that may affect his/her personal financial interests,

the member should first conduct -- contacted the ethics committee." it is clear that we should understand he is incorrect that when he says as a legislator he can send a request for assistance in a matter in which his employer. member has an interest. this demonstrates the next point that must be clarified. he has repeatedly claimed that the committee must prove that he had a personal interest in one united as opposed to his employer. member and grandparents. all staff and members should take a very clear note that it is not necessary that an employee, such as mr. moore, a personal interest in the conflict. it is impermissible for staff to engage in conduct that they're employing member may not engage in. this principle is addressed in the manual and has been repeated by the committee on numerous occasions. therefore, there can be no

question that the approximately $350,000 that representative waters may have lost had when united failed as the relevant interest that makes any official action, including advocating for the assistance with a committee or other office, clearly impermissible. finally, he has come up with a series of factors, such as his motive, which months -- which must be established. again, he is incorrect, and the house community must understand the committee takes impermissible actions seriously and will act with the appropriate response to prevent all actions which are impermissible under the rules regardless of motive. motive may matter in some instances in determining an appropriate resolution to an actual violation, but it is not the only factor that will be considered and not necessary for an action to be impermissible. finally, the record should be clear mr. moore did not contact

the ethics committee for guidance. if he had, we would have given him a clear and unambiguous guidance that he could not send the emails in question and he could not take any official action to assist one united uniquely. if he had sought and followed that advice, we would not be here. it is clear representative waters understand his role herself, but when her staff have any questions they should always call the committee for advice and guidance. that is what we're here for. let me also comment on the observations on the gentleman from ohio. i agree with him network needs to be done in this area to make this very clear, both in terms of education and for the house to take a serious look at the conflict issues with regards to ethics. i do not think that should color the rules that are in existence

now and their relevance to the actions taken by congresswoman waters and mr. moore. that is for us to deliberate on, and we will do so. we will consider your testimony here today along with all of your previous testimony before the committee and the materials you submitted. when we have reached its final conclusions and would hamper -- we would file with the house. i will ask the gentleman from kentucky if he has a motion. >> i move the committee recessed this hearing and return to a legislative session. >> is there a second to that motion? the second is made. is there a discussion on the motion? they're being none, all those in favor of the motion of the jobs and a kentucky? opposed it?

the vote is unanimous. the committee will stand to reconvene in executive session. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> a busy day on capitol hill. they only will dabble in four short pro-forma sessions. members know had to congressional districts to begin campaigning for the november 6th election. all of the house live on c-span when members return. harry reid came to the floor to announce an agreement to begin several roll-call votes around midnight tonight including passage on federal spending to keep the government operating until march 27th, 2013.

after the votes are complete, senators will head home until after the november elections. senators will return the week of november 12th. follow the senate on c-span2, tomorrow, c-span's "road to the white house" continues with remarks from president obama's campaign rally in milwaukee. one month until early voting begins in wisconsin and polls have indicated he has a 6% lead over romney. he won wisconsin in 2008. they have 10 electoral votes. you can see that rally live at 6:40 p.m. eastern on c-span. after that, first they michelle obama delivers remarks at the congressional black caucus foundation awards dinner here in washington. her comments are live at 7:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span.

last night, a massachusetts republican senator scott brown and democratic challenger elizabeth warren faced off in the first of four televised debates. according to the cook political report, it is considered a tossup. this is almost one hour. >> the evening and welcome to the massachusetts senate debate. i'm john keller, political analyst, welcoming our listeners on news radio 1030 and our viewers online and across the nation on c-span. a special hello to our spanish- speaking viewers on univision. buenos noches. we have the incumbent scott brown, former state senator, elected in january 2010. and the challenger -- elizabeth warren of cambridge, a professor at harvard law school, making

her first run for elected office. the brief court about our format. i will be asking questions formulated by us and of yours who submitted them to cbsboston.com you'll have 90 seconds to manta the same question to you can compare their answer side-by- side. they will take turns going first. we will begin an open time of rebuttal and the debate during which they are free to question and address each other directly. the only hard and fast rule is the talking over each other, no filibustering, and obey your moderator. with that, let's begin. by prior arrangement, mr. brown will take the first question. before we get into policy issues, let's get something out of the way. at times during this race, each of your campaigns as appeared to question the character of your opponents. is your opponent's character an issue in this race? >> before i answer that

question, thank you for holding this event, wbz. i want to thank professor warrant for coming out and i want to think the viewers for participating as well. i have been in the senate for 2.5 years. i have been married 26 years, and besides that and the birth of my kids. our senator has been the best thing in my life. character is important. she claims she was native american, a person of color, and because you can see she is not. she had an opportunity to make a decision in her career when she arrived to harvard claiming she was a native american. clearly she's not. that being said, i don't know and neither did the viewers know whether she got ahead it as a result of that checking of the box. the only way we will find that out is to have her reese really

we do have her release our personnel and harvard records showing she did not have an advantage that others were entitled to. you have to pass a test and that is one of character, honesty, and truthfulness. i believe as do others that she failed. >> mr. brown, thank you. ms. warren, is your opponent's character an issue? >> thank you very much for inviting me. i'm excited to be here. this is my first time doing something like this. senator brown, good to see you here. i which is going to start by saying that i think senator brown is a nice guy. what this race is about. the issues. that's what is important, not when someone says something some time but how they vote. senator brown wants to raise an issue about my character, then i will play an out there. when i was growing up, these

were the stories i knew about my heritage. i believed my mother, my father, aunts and uncles and i never asked anyone for any documentation. i did know this about my parents. my mom and dad loved each other very much. my father's family said i could not -- cannot get married because my mother was part delaware and charity. my three brothers and me, that is a big part of the separation in her family. i never used it for getting into college, getting into law school. people who have hired me for my jobs have all made clear they did not even know about it until long after i was hired. it is out there with the story is. what i want this race to be about is the issues, not about my family, but the families across the commonwealth of massachusetts who are very affected by this race. >> rebuttal?

>> you are a nice woman, too. i know you are a good teacher and a hard worker. this is about character. this is about something that could be answered very easily. all she needs to do is release for personnel records and she has refused to do so. i think that speaks volumes. this is about issues out as well. this race is clearly about issues. when she references that i do not go all the way they want me to, yes, i will not vote with republicans or the democrats all the time. i am the second most the bipartisan center. there is no monopoly on good ideas. there are good republican and a good democratic ideas. >> response. >> let's just be clear. this is my family and it's not going to change. let's also be clear about how i got hired. he was selected by ronald reagan to be the solicitor general, the

top lawyer in the united states and here is a person who headed up hiring at harvard. he says he didn't not know about it. nobody did until long after i was tired. "the boston globe" as interviewed two dozen people involved in hiring me over the years. the people have hired me to have -- has spoken. i did not get an advantage because of my background. this is about family. i cannot and will not change who i am. i am who i am. if we're going to talk about character, that's a central part of it. >> thank you. the only way to set this record straight is for you to release your personnel records. that will say in great detail whether you checked the box to get an advantage and taken advantage away from someone who would have been entitled to it.

you refused to release your records and i think that speaks volumes. >> senator brown, i think it has been made clear that the people who hired me are the ones who have said whether or not they even knew about my background. the question has been asked and answered. i think the senator just doesn't like the answer. >> to have both in your piece on that. we're going to move on. >> we learned that the massachusetts economy learned jobs -- lost jobs in august. there is this question that was submitted. how and where will but most new jobs be created next year in massachusetts? what will you do in the senate to spur the creation? >> that is a great question. jobs is a central issue. the question is we need to have both a long-term plan for jobs, which has to do with leveling the playing field so that people

have the chance to compete and create jobs. in the short run, we have work that needs to be done and people who need those jobs. we should put them to work. that is why i was very surprised and senator brown voted against three jobs bills in a row. there were jobs goals that would have put people to work in massachusetts. it would have prevented the layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers all across the commonwealth. many of the jobs were in construction, which is a sector that has been particularly hard hit. we need to get people back to work so that families have paychecks and small businesses see more customers coming in.

that is how it works. i want to go to washington to fight for jobs. >> thank you. 90 seconds on the commonwealth. >> thank you. i appreciate the question. i have been working on jobs. it was a bipartisan rejection. there were objections put up on power points. there were rejected by both democrats and republicans. they recognize that taking money out of hard-working businesses and individuals and giving it to the federal government is not a good idea. i will not be part of that. the jobs plan i have been working on it has been very clear. it would have affected our contractors who are doing work with the federal government. that is gone as part of my effort. there is a new way to create

jobs. i saw the new opportunity to skate and raise up to $1 million on line and have investors. we could lay it into more opportunities for job creators. we also -- the third vote i took was a jobs bill. we did it without raising taxes. that is the key. foressor roland's proposal taxes would take more money out of folks is wallets and pockets. -- warren's proposal for taxes would take more money out of folks' wallets and pockets. >> response. >> work has been spotty. this is three jobs bills that

would have supported jobs here in the commonwealth of massachusetts. how would they be paid for? they would have been paid for by a fraction of people making more than $1 million per year. i do not understand. we have put people back to work. we have more work that needs to be done. >> response. >> maybe you should still be richard that businesses are afraid because of your policy. that is something that people

watching will have to pay for. the national federation of independent businesses say that those policies would cut 700,000 jobs. 7000 right here in massachusetts. the criticism i you hear from professor warren is that i do not want to raise taxes. guilty as charged. i do not want to raise taxes. i want to protect the people, everyone who is listening. >> i want to be clear about the tax number the senate has come up with. this is not a real. he made up these numbers. what i do know now that he has raised a question of taxes is that the senate has voted to less taxes on hard-working families. there was a bill in the senate. what it would do is extend tax cut for 98% of families in massachusetts and 97% of small

businesses. senator brown voted no. why? there were not enough tax breaks for the top 2% and the top 3%. this is an example of whose side do you stand on? are you holding out or are you hanging in there for the top 2%? >> response. >> with all due respect, you are wrong. you are misrepresenting my record. the only person in this race that is hurting the middle class and wants to raise taxes is professor warren. she said she would not have supported obama's compromise built that took care of unemployment benefits. she said she would not have supported that because of the increases -- because of the facts that we did not taxed more on high earners. she would have been the one taxing the middle class people. once again, this is about

700,000 jobs. i did not make this up. these are things that you have said. you want another one trillion dollars out of social security. we could go on. >> response. >> i am sorry, but these numbers are made up. we know how senator brown devoted. we are talking about bills that he voted on. taxes would go up for a 98% of families in the commonwealth. last friday, senator brown when on the radio and when asked if it, woulddown to get extend tax breaks for 90% of families or vote no and let it go up because there are no breaks for the top 2%? senator brown said, let me make this crystal clear, i will vote to let taxes go up for everyone.

i will make it crystal clear, i will not vote to increase taxes on working families. not ever. >> a brief and final word and then i will move on. >> bottom-line, what she is referring to is the fact that we already have a tremendous amount of tax revenue in washington right now. when she talks are raising taxes and the fact i will not raise it, i will not raise taxes on the job creators of small and medium-sized businesses and corporations. i will fight for every taxpayer. her criticism of me is that i will not raise taxes. that is an accurate criticism. >> brief moment. >> i will make clear that he said he would not let the 2% and -- he said if there

whatno tax breaks for the o is americans -- we cannot do that for small businesses. >> i want to move on. >> very briefly please. her tax policies would cut 700,000 jobs. 1700 in massachusetts. these are independent groups who have analyzed and pointed this out. i will protect hard working men and women, the job creators who are getting up in the middle of the night and protecting those interests. >> 19 seconds and then we will move on. >> what i am talking about is

what he said in his own votes last week. he said he will lead taxes go up on 98% of families in order to protect tax breaks for the top 2%. >> we will stay on economic policy. we can return to these topics as the debate goes on. this coming at new year's day might not be a happy one if nothing is done to steer us away from the so-called fiscal cliff. it includes mandatory budget cuts that could cost massachusetts close to 40,000 jobs in defense industry. i do not think anyone argues that the tax policy alone will forestall these cuts. correct me if i am wrong. what other specific ideas do have for avoiding the economic hit? 90 seconds. >> thank you.

we of expiring tax cuts that have been in place for 12 years. we have sequestration. a lot of the debt ceiling is coming out. there is a complete lack of tax certainty. people are scared. there are many things that we could be doing. instead of sitting, we should be working on these things right now. we need to step back from sequestration. we need to reform our tax code and look at how we do military spending. need to look at the corporate tax code and lower corporate tax rates to make us more competitive. we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. we cannot spend and spend our way out of this. the difference between me and professor warren is that she wants to raise taxes. she could argue and step back from her comments, but everyone

is reflecting on her comments of trillions of dollars of taxes. as i said, 700,000 jobs would have been lost. bottom-line, the only way we are going to get this done is to work together in a bipartisan manner. i am the only one in this room right now that will be doing that. and the second most bipartisan senator. >> thank you. ms. warren, ideas for avoiding the cliff? >> we do have to avoid the cliff. it will take a balanced approach. this is the big difference between senator brown and myself. i believe we need to make cuts and cultured subsidies. we need to make cuts in our defense budget. we need to end the war in afghanistan. we need to cut fraud and abuse out of the system. we also need to ask others to

pay their fair share. we should not be subsidizing for big oil companies. they made millions in profits last year. millionaire should pay taxes at the same rate that their secretaries do. senator brown voted against that. he has said that he will -- 97% of small businesses unless there are tax breaks for those of the very top. this is really about taking a balanced approach. it is a serious problem. we need to get serious about this. if we're not willing to do both, it is more of the same -- gridlock and more danger for our economy and for our families. >> rebuttal.

>> we have an opportunity in massachusetts for people who want to pay their fair share and even more than their fair share. is essor warren's taking her first approach. it is usually the ones for dealing the loudest about paying more -- it is usually the ones who are yelling the loudest about paying more. if we want to talk about subsidies and loopholes and deductions, let's have that conversation. i are ready to close the subsidy. the key is to do it together in a bipartisan manner. >> rebuttal.

>> the oil industry made millions of dollars in profits last year. senator brown devoted that taxpayers would be subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars per year. i think it is wrong. i would not do it. the same for the buffett rule. billionaires paying a tax rate lower than their secretaries, i think it is wrong. senator brown says it is ok. he protect the loopholes for the billionaires and to let taxes go up on families. this is serious. this is how the senate has voted. it is not in the interest of working families in massachusetts. i want to go to washington and do better than that. >> she fails to point out that the oil votes, those were

rejected in a bipartisan manner. both republicans and democrats rejected those approaches. we are in a recession. people are paying more at the than doubled. when you pay that oil bill, it will be skyrocketing. when you change a policy in that middle of the term -- the first answer every time -- she is obsessed with raising taxes. >> response. >> he has voted that millions of taxpayer money should go to the oil companies. this is really about how we will solve our financial problems. giving breaks to those at the

top who are making billions of dollars in profits, that is not how we solve a financial problem. that is not how to get the economy started again. this is the real difference between me and the senator. yes made it clear that he stands with the subsidies for the oil companies and breaks for that millionaires and special folks getting special deals and not for working families or businesses. >> final thoughts. >> there is only one person who is not willing to raise taxes and the thing is i do not want to take more of your taxes and put it in a piggy bank and give it to professor warren to spend in washington. we waste hundreds of billions of dollars of your tax money. you have heard what happened in texas. $300 billion of medicare fraud. that should be a discussion we

have. wind, cold, we made and all of the above approach. we are in an energy crisis right now. people are spending so much at the pump. the keep finger-pointing with the haves and the have nots. we need to work together. >> what they discovered is that my approach, such as balance, is 67% more effective than senator brown will the market approach. we cannot do this by cutting more. but he is saying is to protect breaks for those at the very top and raise it on working

to pick up es. we cannot do that. we cannot do that in massachusetts, and we cannot do that in america. >> 10 seconds each. >> let's get rid of the myth that ms. warren is a tax cutter. i've never voted for a tax increase. that is only one person who wants to spend your hard earned bonnie, and that is ms. warren. >> i am speaking from economic analysis. it is 67% more effective at cutting the deficit. why? we need to take a balanced approach. >> thank you. we will take a quick break. take a simple water and relax. stay with us.

>> welcome back to the massachusetts sense debate from the student in boston. -- senate debate from boston. i would like to expand on abortion rights. ms. warren, you go first. the current supreme court is one of the oldest in the past century in terms of the average age of the justices. it is like that to our wins this election will have multiple nominees to the bocourt. would you ever apply any other witness to a judicial nominee? 90 seconds. >> i would not. the way i see this is that roe

v. wade is second law. women should be able to count on this. i am concerned about how senator brown has a voted. when elena kagen came up, she was a pro-am towards women. she was is solicitor general of the united states. she was a top american lawyer. which was nominated to the supreme court -- when she was nominated to the supreme court, i was surprised when scott brown voted against her. >> thank you. mr. brown, 90 seconds. >> i am sorry i did not vote for your boss. i know that you and justice kagen are very close. a judge needs to have good judicial own character and good temperament. they need to have some corporate or judicial experience. that is a reason why i did not

vote for the justice kagen. i hope she does well. i hope she proves me wrong. i have been fighting for women's rights since i was six. my mother was being abused by one of my stepfather's. i have been fighting as a teenager in the same way by protecting others from the abuse of my stepfather. i will look pro -- i will oppose any judge trying to change roe v. wade. i am working on them women and's the dutch women's runs act. we agree on those issues. i am all for it. >> and think it is important to talk about the senator's record. senator brown has voted against

equal pay for equal work. senator brown is someone who jumped out there and co- sponsored a bill to block the insurance coverage for birth control. senator brown is someone who voted against the pro-toys woman. he has been endorsed by not -- pro-choice woman. he has been endorsed by anti- choice grips. the women in massachusetts deserve senators that they can count on all the time. >> response. >> thank you. you need to stop scaring women, professor. i have been fighting for women since i was 6-years-old. i will fight for the rights of catholics if fight for their faith. i want people to have contraception and care. i have a wife and two daughters.

i will continue to make sure they have their care and coverage, but i will not take women up against the church and state. there should be a conscience exemption that allows catholics in particular and hospitals that practice faith to have the ability to not provide certain care and coverage for the commonwealth. >> first, let's talk about the amendment that ron was co- sponsor. it was not about a religious freedom question. but this was really about is that any insurance company or any employer can raise any vague or moral objection to covering any preventive services,

including birth control. this was an open invitation to say to employers of any stripes to say to insurance companies that you can knock out birth control coverage for women. that is what the amendment said. senator brown voted for it. he was a co-sponsor. he fought for it. >> go ahead. >> once again, you need to stop carinschering women. it protects women of faith because they have a conscience exemption and we need that in massachusetts. we protect women and allow them to get the care and coverage that they deserve. we also protected the churches and hospitals and people of faith who wanted to protect their faith. i have a house full of women. of course i want them to get

fair pay. when the boston globe and the u.s. chamber of commerce agreeing -- i will not give an early christmas for the plaintiff lawyers and make sure that over regulate our businesses and kill jobs. i agree with the globe, i hate to say this. >> response. >> let's be clear about the language in the amendment. it does not say "religious." it talks about any vague or moral objection. the employers and insurance companies -- i do not think that is what senator kennedy fought for. it is not appropriate for senator gramm to characterize senator kennedy's work -- senator brown's to characterize as senator kennedy wal-mart work in that way.

>> go ahead. >> we both support roe v. wade. i will make sure that catholics are not pitted against faith. second, on that women's writes in a fair pay, we have laws on the books. we want to make sure it is in a fact. anyone who feels that they are discriminated against can bring action. i agree with them. we can do better. i will not allow plaintiffs lawyers to go into businesses and take more the hard earned money. >> brief remarks. i want to move on. >> senator brown can say all he wants, but he has voted. he was the co-sponsor of the amendment. women need some of the can depend on not some of the time, but all the time. >> let's move on.

mr. brown, you will go first. under what circumstances would you vote to authorize american military intervention in the affairs of another country? does our involvement in afghanistan to your criteria or not? 90 seconds. >> thank you for the question. i am working in the pentagon right now. it is something i think about on a daily basis. i am one of the ranking members in the services committee. these are things that think about on a very regular basis. when we send our men and and then off to work, -- and women off to war, it is one of the toughest decisions to make. i support the withdrawal. any time we send people off to work, we need to make sure that a few things are in place and

that our national -- are in place because our national security is at stake. there are a lot of troubles brought the world. we need to make sure that we are involved in the process. we need to do a full understanding as to why been we are doing things and make sure we go forward and do it together to unify this country. there are a lot of things happening overseas that are unsettling right now. i know i am running out of time. i will come back if that is our right. >> thank you. criteria for intervention and afghanistan. 90 seconds. >> this is a first question for me. all three of my brothers served in the military. i know what families feel when someone is deployed overseas. it is hard on everyone.

however military is amazing. they get anything done that we ask them to do. we have to be careful of what we ask them. when we see direct threats, will we have a plan? we need a plan and how were granted take it forward and a plan of how we will exit. we need to have the whole plan will we get out there. there was a approach used by secretary clinton. she says that we use defense, the bombing, and diplomacy. -- we as defense and diplomacy. she has helped us around the world. >> rebuttal. >> i want us to thank your brothers for their service. i would love to have an opportunity to speak with them.

please convey that to them. on this issue, we can have a nuanced approach. that is key. when dealing with iran, we need a nuanced approach. president obama understood that in the beginning. he has drawn a harder line, and that is a good thing. our biggest challenge for our ally israel is to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. we will be working on another resolution to draw that line in the sand and no -- let iran know where we stand. we have stabilized -- destabilized their currency, but we need to do more. >> response. >> with iran, it is clear -- we cannot have a nuclear iran. i think president obama has done a first-rate job of getting out there and using that tools and

working with other countries to bring affected the sanctions against iran. he has made clear that he is taking nothing off of the table. that is the way to go into negotiations. that is the best way to work with our ally, israel. i am still working to have president obama be the commander in chief and not mitt romney. >> it first of all, i agree with you. i think secretary clinton is doing a great job. she is a bright storm in the administration. i appreciate her hard worker, especially what is happening in libya. she is a tireless worker. with that said, israel is one of our greatest allies in the region. we need the prime minister to make sure that we can communicate. i have visited israel. the amount of stress that country is under, there is no

one -- the want to make sure that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. >> response. >> we have a very special relationship with israel. their faith in the u.s. is of utmost importance to us. it is important because we need an ally in that region that is democratic and one dedicated to the rule of law. there has been a bipartisan approach. it does work for both party administration's. it is not something that should be politicized. what this is about is who you think should be commander in chief. i want to see president obama stay as commander in chief. i want to work with him. >> i will move on to our next

question. we will start with ms. warren. academic researchers report that the u.s. has more than 100,000 janitors with college degrees. 16,000 degree holding parking lot attendants. evidence that some say that not everyone should be going to colleges. do you agree or disagree? what ideas for higher education do you have? >> when we see people who have college diplomas and have jobs that do not require it, sometimes that is because we have an economy that is not yet strong. we're not producing enough jobs. we have not been making the investments in our future. i want to be clear about this. i have met kids all over the commonwealth of massachusetts. they have done everything we have asked them to do -- they work hard and they get their diplomas.

now they are in in student debt and cannot find a job and have you back in with their parents and are starting to run out of hope. that cannot be the kind of economy we build. we need better educated workforce. we need people who are educated in math, engineering, and science. we need to build a strong future. this is how we build a future in america. the notion that we had in another direction is wrong. this is about priorities and making the right investment is dead of investing billions in subsidies for big oil. -- instead of investing billions in subsidies for big oil. >> rebuttal. aboutre you're talking is the high costs of education. i had a daughter who graduated.

i understand. what is the driving factor of education? the driving factor is the costs. professor barnard did is one class -- warren act teaches one class a and makes over $100,000. no wonder costs are high. we should have transparency at colleges and universities to make sure that we know what we are paying what we write that check. i am happy to make sure that we have student loans that are blow. what was her initial comment on that? let's raise taxes on the small business owners. i chose to draw a line in the sand. we passed a bill that did not raise taxes on the small

business owners. we see the $6 billion so that they could hire and expand. that is another difference. the first thing every single time is to raise taxes, and that is the number one criticism that she has of me because i will not raise taxes. >> rebuttal. >> as a teacher, i make over $18,000. i know what this is really about. this is about public universities and access. i went to a public university. i paid $50 per semester at a college in order to get my college diploma. how could you do that? back then, america was investing in kids. it was investing in public education and creating opportunity for everyone. it was the american dream. i want other kids to have the american dream. senator brown talks about

raising interest rates on student loans. the do you know how we would pay for it? this is keeping interest rates low for students by closing a loophole and senator brown wanted to protect every loophole for the big guys and said no. >> response. >> she is misrepresenting the vote and not telling you the truth. this is a direct tax on the backs of small business owners. if you are a small business owner, the closing of the loophole would take more of your money and put it in her piggy bank so she could take it to washington. we drew a line in the sand in a bipartisan way. we did not want any additional costs to the taxpayers.

we also put out a bipartisan bill to create jobs. we have three for one. if she had her way, she would have raised taxes on you. >> rebuttal. int heid dieraw a line sand. -- in the sand. he wanted to protect millionaires and billionaires instead of our kids. this goes back to the same basic question -- whose side do you stand on? look at the vote. he is always standing right over there with the millionaires and billionaires and the big companies. he wants to protect special breaks for them and let it fall on the working families. >> go ahead. >> you are misrepresenting the

information. when you talk about whose side you're on, i am on the taxpayer side. you had a choice to make in your career, and you chose to side with one of the biggest corporations in the united states -- travelers insurance. i hope that workers are watching right now. she denied benefits in an effort to protect big corporations. there is only one person in this debate who is protecting corporations. she has a history of it. >> response. >> i have been out there working for families and people who have been injured by big corporations. i have been working for people who have been injured by asbestos. that is why i want to go to washington. i want to go to washington to fight for working families.

i want to fight for small businesses. i am not a professional politician. >> briefly. >> she had a choice, and she did not vote for the victims. if she fought for the corporations. they paid for thousands of dollars. you denied people and said that -- you talk about fighting for the little guy, you fought for the biggest insurance company in our country. >> a final word. >> that is not true. the boston globe has looked at this. it has written about it. i have been out there for working families and working people. i am there to fight for working people. >> you have to ask the best as victims if the have gotten their money. -- abestos the times if the have

gotten their money -- victims if the have gotten their money. >> a senator brown does not want to talk about his vote. >> we will move on to what might be the final question because time is wasting. mr. braun, you will start. -- brown, you will start. d believe climate change is real? if so, should the government be doing something about it? >> yes, i believe it is a real. there is a combination of man- made and natural. we do not have a common policy in. -- climate policy. we need and all in one approach.

for the union guys listening, she is denying union jobs and making sure to stabilize the costs of the palms. -- pumps/ i could go on and on. we need to find a balance. you cannot just have one or this and that. she is in favor of putting wind turbines in the middle of our greatest treasure. that is not right. they will pay more in their daily costs. that is not right. >> ms. warren. >> senator brown says he is about a balanced approach, but he is not. our energy sector in massachusetts has to fight an

uphill against the oil subsidies. senator brown has helped tilt it for oil companies that works against clean energy is. the keystone pipeline, that will not produce nearly as many jobs compared to investing in clean jobs. that is where massachusetts has a real advantage. i want to stop on this one for a minute. this one is real important. he has been going around the country and saying that they need to contribute to his campaign. this race might be for the control of the senate. what that would mean is that if the republicans take over the senate, jim would become the person in charge of the committee who oversees the environmental agencies. called the who is

environmental who. -- hope. i do not understand how we can talk about going in that direction. >> rebuttal. >> you're not running against jim, prof., but me. the tax credit makes our energy producers more competitive. i supported that. i support wind, solar, hydro, a true all of the above approach that you do not do. we cannot continue to give money to people who want to kill us. we can do it together. i will make sure that if we look at the so-called energy producers, we need to sit down in a room in a bipartisan manner and find a way to do it so that it will not get passed over at the people at the pump.

>> senator brown is for moving the playing field. he wants the clean energy to compete against subsidized energy. that makes it harder to start and clean energy. this might be the race for control of the u.s. senate. it is not just about senator brown of's vote. this is about all the votes of the republicans. jim would become the person who would have supervision over the environmental protection agency. his as global warming is a hoax. this matter is in the race for control of the senate. >> i was the second most bipartisan and senator in the senate. can you imagine 100 professor warrens down there and placing

blame on others? also give that mentality of not working together and telling you that you did not bill backed. -- build that. she would vote with their party 100% of the time. when asked, she said, i do not know what i would disagree with my party on. >> we're almost out of time. >> think about whose side he stands on. he has made it clear with his own votes -- subsidizing subsidies for rural industries and raising taxes on the middle class. senator brown cannot have it both ways. he is raising money from republicans all over the country and saying if he wins,

the republicans can take control of the senate. >> we are out of time. thank you, mr. brown. thank you, ms. warren. thank you. thank you for joining us. i do not forget to go to the polls and vote on election day on november 6. i am jon keller. thank you for watching. >> we need to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. [applause] they still patents and designs and have counterfeit goods. they want to be a responsible partner in the world of trade and commerce, but they will have to understand that they cannot take away jobs. >> you need money? he has taken jobs and scented to

china. -- send them to china. you cannot stand up to china one of you have done is send them to china. >> international issues and foreign policy will be the focus of debate three. audience members will get their chance to ask questions on tuesday the 16th. the final debate on foreign policy will take place on the 22nd. also watch the vice- presidential debate is on october 11. follow the race on c-span, c- span radio, and c-span.org. >> democrats called for republican leadership to keep the house in session in order to settle outstanding bills. after the speech, the house

plans to return for short sessions until after the november 6 election. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> this 112th congress convulses to an ugly and in a storm before -- in its time before national elections. us must be sad and the american people are angry and sad that this congress has be so inattentive to the needs of the american people. mr. speaker, today house republicans are leaving town and will not return until after the vember elections. two very respected political scientists, not democrats or republicans. one representative of a more

conservave think tank and one a more liberal think tank have written a book about the dysfunction they have seen in this congress. mr. mann and mr. ornstein, quoted by many reporters from many journals from all different perspectives. they said this -- we have been studng washington politics and congress for more than 40 years and never, never have we seen them as dysfunctional. in our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. today, however, said these two respected political scientists and servers of washington, today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the rublican party. they went on to say that the g.o.p. has become an insurgent outliner in american politics. it is ideologically extreme,

scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science. and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. that is the nub of the problem. our republican colleagues are leaving without getting their work done. and i say their work done. without getting our work done. the work of the american people. comprehensive jobs bills, middle-class tax cuts have not been extended. farmers are left on their own to face the worst drought in decades, the worst drought in decades and a farm bill reported out of the republican committee lays unconsidered by

this floor. reported out of their committee from their majority and they haven't brought it to the floor while farmers remain in trouble. we've not re-authorized the violence against women act, and we have not passed a postal reform bill. i am glad to take this special order, mr. speaker, to say to the american people that we're prepared to stay. we're prepared to stay and work on these bills, and i'm going to talk about some of these bills but my colleagues are heres well. i first want to yield to the former president of the senate of vermont for his observations as we leave this town. my friend, mr. welch from vermont. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. you know, on the farm bill, we got the worst drought we've had in 50 years. we've got people who need nutrition programs. we've got farmers who need certainty about what the price of our programs are going to be, future is going to be.

we have livestock farmers that are in desperate straits because of t drought, and we got a senate that's passed a farm bill. we got a house agriculture committee that's passed a farm bill on a bipartisan basis, democrats and republicans working together to pass that bill, and the house leership, who has the authority to bring this bill to the floor, won't do it. that's the first time in the history of the house of representatives where a farm bill passed by the agriculture committee has not been brought to the floor for a vote. and mr. speaker, we could defend each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle a vote of conscience whether it was yes or no on the farm bill. none of us can defend not even taking a vote on the farm bill. that decision is not within the authority of any indivual member of congrs. that is the decision that the majoty leader and the speaker

of the house have the authority to make. and the refusal to bring this bill to the floor will absolutely an indictment of congress' inability to do its job. america needs a farm bill. this congress needs to do its job. we got the time to do it. we should act. that bill should be brought to us for a vote, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, that is an example of the dysfunction and inability and unwillingness to compromise of which mr. ornstein and mr. mann spoke. i now yield to my friend from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: i thank minority whip hoyer who has led us so expertly well on this floor. yo cite the many failings of this do-nothing republican congress. it is trag that we will leave home -- for home nownd not get the work of the people done and will not respond to the

needs of america. that is such an uust outcome. we know that a middle-class tax cut has been passed in the senate. the president said he would sign it. we need that measure. we need that measure done so as to provide for confidence in the american economy. what we need right now is that sort of boost, that booster shot can do a lot for growing sales for businesses out there. the aggregate demand for goods and services driven by relief for the middle class via a tax cut is important. the violence against women act that was re-authorized in the senate, failed to come to this floor. postal reform. overwhelmingly approved by the senate. fails to come to this floor. the farm bill, which is important to all of upstate new york. i know our members from the upstatdelegation, from the new york delegation are greatly disturbed by the do-nothing republican congress. minority whip hoyer, thank you for leading us in this congress.

we have not earned a six-week recess until election day without having done the people's business. we need to stay here, get the people's work done, build america's economy, go forward with progress and provide for the results that america so desperately needs and it's a shame that this do-nothing republican congress has now called halt to all business on this floor for the next several weeks. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments, he's absolutely right. just for the knowledge of all our members, the senate did pass a middle class tax cut. making sure that 98% of our taxpayers would not get any increase in their taxes on the first of january. that bill is over here. it has not been brought to the floor. yacht -- notwithstanding the fact that i believe every one of us believes that those taxpayers ought not to get an increase. there's broad bipartisan

support t i won't be brought to the floor. in the violence against women act, to ensure that women and families are not summitted to violence, it passed 68-31 in the united stes state. postal reform passed 62-37 in a bipartisan rote in the united states senate. not paying attention to here. but the farl bill, which passed which 64 votes, almost 2-1 in the united states senate on a bipartisan vote with 16 republican senators voting for it, has not been brought to this floor. and yet we walk away we walk away from the american people. i now yield to mfriend from illinois, the gtlady from illinois, january schakowsky. ms. shah cusky: i thank the gentleman so much for -- ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman so much for yielding and for pointing out how languishing in the house of representatives are many pieces of legislation that have passed the united states senate in a bipartisan way with a

democraticajority but here in the house, where we have a republican majority, and as you pointed out, some of these bills have passed their own committees, led by republicans, are still not being considered on the floor today. so we're going to adjourn. and we will not meet again for almost two months. the earliest adjournment before an election in over 50 years. republicans are going to turn off the lights in this chamber, shutting down debate on matters of serious consequence to americans and the economy. shame on them. we should be staying and dealing with those bills. they have voted, for example, time after time, to repeal obamacare and protect tax cuts for the wealthy and rich corporations that have taken no action on preserving tax cuts for the middle class. for 9 % of american taxpayers. --98% of american taxpayers.

or taken any action on the violence against women act which passed the senate on a bipartisan vote of 68-31, always passing for the many years that the violence against women act has been enacted. it's always had bipartisan support. we haven't passed the wind production tax credit which again would mean jobs for americans in an industry that has just been developing right now, that's so important to our environment, and for people, for instance, in my state of linois and in iowa and other mid western states, we haven't passed the doctor fix making sure that medicare reimbursements to doctors don't drop by 27%. we haven't dea with sequestration, which would have a devastating impact on investments that create jobs and protect low income people. there's been no action on the

post office reform or the farm bill which has been mentioned but in illinois where we have a serious drought in southern illinois, our farmers are waiting for drought relief but they're not going to get it from this congress. and most importantly, while republicans havefound the time to vote again and again to end the medicare guarantee, making it harder for seniors to choose their own doctors and raising the cost of health care for seniors by over $6,000 a year they haven't found the time to bring a comprehensive jobs bill to the floor. one that deals with making it in america. an industrial policy th would actually put americansback to work right here at home. millions of hardworking american people are still looking for more than just talk about jobs.

over a year ago, i introduced the emergency jobs to restore the american dream act to create more than two million jobs and put people back to rk in the most straightforward of ways, by hiring them. my bill would put people to work in critical areas to our communities and or economies like teachers, cops, firefighters, health care workers, school construction and maintenance workers. and over a year ago, president obama sent to congress the american jobs act, which incorporated parts of my bill and also would provite tax credits to small businesses and yet another tax credit and assistance to state and local governments to prevent layoffs of critical workers. independent experts estimate that president obama's american jobs act would create up to 2.6 million jobs. but the republican do-nothing congress brought neither of these jobs bills to the floor. no. they are every day sabotaging

every effort to actually help create jobs and to make it in america. democrats truly do want to stay to fight for jobs, for the economy, for farmers, for taxpayers, for battered women and it's time for the republicans to join us. thank you, mr. minority leader, for leading us in this effort and i urge all of our republicans to join us in staying here. thank you. mr. hoyer: i thank the distinguished member from illinois, ms. schakowsky for her comments. nobody fights harder for working seniors in this congress than january schakowsky and no one is sadder that we have been so lacking in attention to the issues of concern to those folks. i want to recognize allyson schwartz of the state of pennsylvania, a great lear, member of the ways and means committee, trying to work on behalf of jobs and growing our

economy. i yield to mfriend from pennsylvania. ms. schwartz: thank you, mr. hoyer. you've been speaking every week on the actions we ought to be taking to protect our seniors, deow our economy and making sure our children have a great future. you speak eloquently about that every week. i'm pleased be able to just join you in calling attention to the fact that we do have serious economic and fiscal challenges in this nation and instead of coming together, trying to find common ground, trying to find that agreement so we can solve these problems for the -- that the american people are asking us to do so solve the problems, the republicans have been doing nothing, trying to roll back, move us backwards and in fact republicans as we know just decided to recess and head home. we know the republicans, yet again, have madtheir choices, their priorties, their values very clear, not only to us but our constituents, but really

all americans are seeing more clearly what the republicans' choices have been. they are determined to dismantle the progress we have made and continuously try to roll back what accomplishments we have made and to take our country back to a failed economic ada that's hurt so many americans. their goals, the republican goals, are stunning and we have seen them every week on the floor of congress for the last year and a half, almost two years. repealing health care reform and eliminating the benefits for seniors and access to affordable coverage for miions of americans, repealing financial regulatory system, eliminating consumer protections on doing environmental regulations and threatening clean water and clean air, ending medicare as we know it, reducing the federal government at any cost. that has been the goal. i want to mention quickly two things thayou're going to talk some more about, on medicare i fought so hard on medicare, we all have.

the republicans have been absolutely clear about this. their willingness to undo medicare for all seniors, i mean, i've said this before, but whether you're 65 and expecting medicare, living under medicare right now, you will see a reduction in benefits. whether you're 55 or 45 or 35 and you're paying into medicare, want medicare to be there in the future, they are threatening that promise of medicare. they are deliberaty working and have voted to end medicare as we know it. we've seen that time and again. the republican, not just leadership, not just mr. ryan, but most of the republicans, not all of them, have voted for this. rather tn guarantee benefits under medicare, the republicans will leave seniors on their own to buy benefits that they can afford or not. the voucher will be inadequate to buy medicare benefits as they exist now, costing seniors about $4,600 more per year. they threatened their fellow seniors as well in nursing

homes by voting for a third of a cut in medicaid that affects really the costs our seniors in nursing home. any of us who have loved ones or visit nursing homes know that these are people who really require a great deal of care. this is the agenda of the republicans. and instead of tackling what we are willing to do together, middle class tax cuts, they're holding hostage to tax breakers in wealthiest 1% or 2%. won't move forward on that sort of certainty on many of the issues facing us, at the end of the year, that fiscal cliff many of us talk about, not doing the kind of work that these to be to the get done to create that certainty to protect medicare, to fail to make strategic investments to make sure that the tax policy is fair and we do fiscal policy for our nation in the right way, the fair way, the responsible way, the achieveable way. i thank you for this special order and i am calling on

republicans to meet these challenges for our nation and to do that together. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments, no one works harder on health care and delivery of health care to all our people but particularly concerned about health care for our seniors and how ironic it is that the pledge that the republicans made was to repeal and replace -- i'm going to talk a little bit about that. but there has been no replacement. on the one hand, they want to eliminate the guarantee that dicare gives to people to have the security that health care will be available to them, and on the other hand, offer nothing to replace it. no alternative. except increase substantially the cost of those seniorin the time of need of health care. so i thank the gentlelady for her work, i thank her for her leadership on this very, very critical issue. i now am pleased to yield to the distinguished minority leader, the former speaker of

the house, who has been instrumental in ensuring affordable health care is available to all of our people, nancy pelosi of california. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. hoyer. i appreciate you yielding and your leadership in bringing us together on the floor of the house. we are in after hours, it is only 12:00:40, but it's after hours on a friday afternoon. that is in the context that we left here on august 3, we're not due back until november 14, and yet we have had only eight legislative days of work in that period of time. i thank u thank you for calling that -- i thank you for calling that delinquency of duty, dereliction of duty, to the attention of the american people. we have work to do. it's not as if our work is finished. as you had indicated, there's critical expiring legislation that has passed even in the senate yet republicans have

blocked the vote in the house, whether it's middle income tax relief postal reform, violence against women, farm bill, and then of coure itiatives proposed by president obama to create jobs and our economy. i wanted to -- i was so pleased to hear what you are you are -- our colleague congresswoman schwartz had to say about medicaid because really, our names are all on the ballot in this year's election but really what is at stake is medicare. medicare, medicare, medicare. as you said, distinguished whip hoyer, they offered nothing except to raise costs to seen quors for gettinless as they phase out medicare. i wanted to talk about another subject, though. it's a larger issue that i hear this question bandied about. you hear people say, are you better off now than you were four years ago. the republicans.

-- the republicans have the nerve to pose that question when if you look back to four years ago, this very week, mr. speaker, you would know that we are indeed fundamentally and unquestionably better off as a country today. this fall, again, this week, four years ago, september 18, to be exact, but this week, there was a meeting in my office when i was speaker of the democratic and republican leadership of the house and of the sena. gathered together to hear a report from the administration that was very alarming. mind you, september 18, 2008, the secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, described for us a financial system in imminent danger of total collapse. chairman bernanke at that same

meeting, chairman of the fed, told us if we didn't act immediately we would not have an economy by monday. this is a thursday evening. you remember, mr. hoyer, you were there. if we do not a immediately we will not have an economy by monday. how on earth can people who perpetrated that situation on our country have the nerve to turn around and ask that question? at the end of the meeting, we all went out in a bipartisan way and spoke to the press, and i said at the time, time is of the essencend then congress would act. trying to li the confidence in our financial situation. despite a president's -- presidential election seven weeks away at that time, it was no time fo partisanship. the crisis demanded that democrats and republicans work with president bush to rescue

our economy from depression, or as chairman bernanke said, from not having an economy four days later. in the days ahead, our country confronted the worst financial crisis since the great depression. the cost was staggering more than $8 trillion lost in household wealth, and thousands losing their homes to foreclosure. nonetheless, theepublicans voted with president bush to restore confidence in our markets and the -- the democrats voted with president bush to restore confidence in our markets and the republicans walked away from their president. we continued to take actions to reduce spending, to address the -- what was inevitable from the policies of the eight years previous to the november, 2008, election. we continued -- when we took

majority and president obama was in office, we took action to create jobs, put people in -- keep people in their homes and passed dodd-frank. the toughest piece of legislation. and with it the most historic for the firsttime, protection for american consumers. in that bill. all of it fought vigorously again by the republican. so now we have president obama and we have a republican congress. under president obama's leadership we have added private sector jobs for 30 straight months compared to losing 700,000 jobs when he entered office. the auto industry, which was facing extinction and the loss of over one million jobs in that industry is again competitive and tiring and thriving. the dow jones average, which is one reflection of the security of tens of americans of the american -- millions of the american investors and pricing

is doubling for housing. the dow jones has doubled. we still have work to do to continue the american recovery. if the republicans had cooperated at all with president obama in the last two years, we'd be much farther down the road to recovery. we cooperated with president bush, but they would mott offer an ounce of collaboration to president obama, a our economy has paid the price. we have reaped the benefits of some what happened during the two years when we were in majority and president obama had -- in the first two years of his term, but so much more could have been with some cooperation from the republicans. so we get back to the question. are we better off this week in september than we were this week four years ago? well, you be the judge.

i know america's families are hurting. we want to do more to create jobs, etc., and we have to have bipartisan cooperation to do that. the republicans have resisted that. from that standpoint, yeah, we can do better. but from the standpoint ofhis country being with a state where the financial -- there was a financial crisis, we are on the verge of a total collapse, where the chairman of the fed told us if we did not act immediately, we wouldn't have an onomy by monday, yes, we are fundamentally as a country better off, and therefore the prospects for the future are better for all of america's families. and that's what we are here to work on, the future. too bad our republican colleagues have cut and run from town, but we stand ready to welcome them back to work in a bipartisan way, to make concessions, to get the job done for the american people. and i thank you, mr. hoyer, for giving us all the opportunity

to express that view on this subject today. mr. hoyer: madam leader, i thank you for your leadership. you are so correct in studying the statistic of the dow, having doubling. it's up about 105%, 110%. the standard &oor's is up more than double, and the nasdaq is up more than double over those years. in january of 2009, i'm sure most people tragically remember, we lost 818,000 private sector jobs that month. last month we gained 92,000 jobs. is there anybody that could say a loss of 818,000 jobs isn't a lot worse than the gain of 92,000 jobs? 92,000 jobs is not enough. we need to do more. the president offered a jobs bill. it has not been brought to this floor. notwithstanding the fact in the pledge to america we said this was going to be a transparent congress that would be allowed to work its will.

that bill has not been brought to the floor. we have gained straight more jobs, 4.6 million jobs to be exactly correct over the last 30 months while 4.4 million jobs were lost in 2008 alone. are we better off gaining 4.6 million as opposed to losing 4.4 million jobs? and we've had 12 straight quarters of economic growth. the last four quarters of 2008, in the last administration, was a net 13% decrease in g.d.p. yes, mr. speaker, the leader is correct. we're better off today, but we could be much better off and we ought to be better off if we hadn't walked away from a jobs bill. hadn't walked away from investin in an infrastructure bill that gave certainty. we didn't even bring that bill to the flr. walked away from making sure that the health care bill works properly. walked away -- and i am going to recognize mr. costa: walked

away -- recognize mr. costa: walked away. i want to yield to my friend -- i know that ms. woolsey is next. mr. costa, could he go next on the farmers andhen i'll recognize ms. woolsey? he knows the pain that is going on i farm country and he knows how terrible it is to walk out of the house-passed bill out of the committee and i yield to my friend who is such an active member of the agriculture committee and such a proponent of farm country, not only in california, which he represents, but throughout this country. mr. costa. mr. costa: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman from maryland for yielding the time. we ought to be about doing the people's business and walking away today, as we are for the next 46 days to focus on

elections when we ought to be focusing on the people's business, is a very sad commentary, a very sad commtary to the people of our land. i appreciate all the good work th congressman hoyer and my other colleagues do in trying to address the critical challeng that we face our nation today. our house republican colleagues have left town to focus on the election. but in the meantime we have unfinished business with unfinished business on comprehense jobs, big and balance budget solutions to the deficit, tax cuts for middle class, the farm bill, which i want to speak to, and the violence against women's re-authorization act as a co-chair of the victims of crime caucus especially disheartening. let me say folks in america who farm and put the food on america's dinn table are wondering just why, just why we can't get a farm bill. it is one of the most

bipartisan things we ever do here in congress. 2008 we had a bipartisan farm bill when we had the majority. president bush vetoed it. we overrode his veto twice. today we have a farm bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan suprt in the senate by a vote of 64-35. it made cuts because we have to make cuts and we have to be fiscally responsible. $23.5 billion less than the farm bill of 2008. in the house, as a member of the house ag committee, we voted a comprehensive bill out, 35-11. we made cuts because we have to make cuts. in a number of the areas we made similar cuts as we did as the senate. $20 billion in farm programs. we made additional cuts in nutritional programs, which are part of what would normally be worked out i regular order was allowed to take place. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman

will yield? and he may know this better than i because he works so closely with the ag community, but er 70 farm organizations and farmer focused organizations came to town just a week or two ago and all said pass the senate bill. not because they believed it was perfect but it was a bipartisan bill that they believed would bring relief to farm country and give some certainty to the farming community. i think i'm correct on that and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. costa: the gentleman is correct. we had over 70 farm organizations from the american farm bureau, the national farmers union to the, as we say, the barnyard coalition that represents all the poultry and beef and cattle industries because they undetand that a farm bill is a safety net. and without it we don't have a farm policy, we don't have a food policy for not just american farmers, ranchers and dairymen, but for the consumers

who each night enjoy the highest quality produced with the safest quality than anywhere in the world. let me say two things. the dairy industry, we've had a drought in the mid west that has devastated a whole host of the farm community and what is one of the ways that the farmers, ranchers and dairymen are able to prode next year's crops? well, they get loans. they get loans from banks and fr production credit associations. what are those loans made of? they're based upon the value of their farm and how they're lempled and based upon a farm bill, a farm bill that provides the ability tonsure that there's a safety net and that there is crop insurance. and without a farm bill we don't have any crop insurance. without a farm bill we n't have that safety net. and so with the overwhelming bipartisan support we have in the senate, the bipartisan bill that voted out of the house ag

committee, it seems to me we ought to let the process work. so i would urge my colleagues to come back, to come back and let's do the people's business on all of ese issues. the violence against women's re-authorization act, the crime victims caucus everyay is focusing on protecting women and their familieshroughout this country, and that is also a tremendous bipartisan piece of legislation that we always act on. again, we're not doing the people's business. i yield back to my colleague and the gentleman from maryland who is so correct bringing this to the attention of the house, because, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to be about doing the people's business. i yield the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from california for his leadership, not oy for farm country, but for all people in this country, o behalf of getting people back to work, making jobs available and making sure our farmers are secure and particularly for making sure that we address the epidemic of violence perpetrated against family

members, i thank the gentleman for his leadership. and now i yield to somebody who is as strong a voice as we have in the house on behalf of working men and women in this country, lynn woolsey from the state of california. ms. woolsey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for leading this scial order. mr. speaker, yesterday we were debating work requirements under the tanf progra. well, after we've all listed the issues that the republicans have refused to address in this congress, we can say that we know a bunch of peoe who should be subjected to a work requirement. they take home a lot of federal dollars. they're actually on the public dole, but they don't seem to be doing very much work, and i'm talking about the do-nothing repuicans in this congress. i don't blame them for wanting to hurry home for the campaigns

because a lot of their jobs must be in jeopardy. on the other hand, when they get there they might find their constituents pretty frustrated that they haven't done their jobs and they have not met their responsibilities. every single day that we're here my colleagues across the aisle have put forward bills that have no hope of becoming law and exist only to promote republican talking points. . time and time again they have chosen gridlock and confrontation. they haven't lifted a finger to pass the president's job pack -- package, even though it contains many ideas the republicans supported in the past. they want to destroy health care reform instead of building on it. they refuse to work with democrats on education issues. failing to invest in our children, our children who are 100% of our future.

they haven't done a thing to support e middle class and give them hope for the future. it's no wonder the congress has record low approval ratings. but, mr. speaker, most disappointing of all to me is the republican congress' failure to lead on the issue of national security, war, and peace. while we are on recess, the war in afghanistan will turn 11 years. 11 years and more. more than 2,000 americans are dead. thousands more are wounded. the taxpayers are out more than half a trillion dollars. all for a policy that continues to undermine our national security goals instead of advancing them. while our brave service members are putting life or limb on the line in afghanistan, don't get a recess. when we adjourn they will continue to be very much in

session. their district work period is in districts in afghanistan where the taliban is poised to strike. some of the most dangerous places imaginible. -- imaginable. the war isn't morrallly -- morally reprehensible irresponsible. they have barely blanked arch eye when it comes to billions and billions of dollars in misplaced war appropriations. when is the congress going to catch up with the american people? certainly not between now and the election because we have gone home. the people we work for know that it makes no sense to continue military op passion that is doing more harm than good. creating more terrorists than it's defeating. making us less safe, not more. the american people have made it abundantly clear, the want us

to be here. they want us to be debating this war. they are done with this war. they want us to vote to bring our troops home. safely. the country faces huge challenges. our people are crying out for leadership and the majority wantto turn out the lights and actually they have gone home. americs desperately want the congress to do something. something to create jobs and jump-start the economy. something to create peace and security, but the congress -- the republicans in congress have gone home. they have left the work site. they are gone. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments and i yield to my friend, suzanne bonamici, who is such an effective state legislature -- legislator, was overwhelmingly elected in a special election and every day since that

election has been working rd on behalf of hardworking men and women not only in oregon but throughout this country. i know she's disappointed we are walking away from our responsibilities. i yield to my friend. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, mr. hoyer, for bringing to the country's attention the work left undone. when i arrived in congress just a little more than seven months ago, i brought pretty strong message from my constituents back in oregon. and that's that they want us to overcome the gridlock. they want us to get our economy back on track and support policies that create new jobs. of course no one expects this to be an easy task that's why i was encouraged when people said that's why we are here. unfortunately these conversations have now been kicked down the road for another day -- actually another month while too many of our constituents back home are now facing unemployment, their homes are under water, their childcare costs are rising. several of the colleagues have talked about the failure to pass the farm bill.

this typically bipartisan legislation became a staging ground for a fight over nutrition assistance to people who are struggling. now, that bipartisan senate bill has some amendments that were added -- that will help farmers in my district and across this country. we should be able to vote on that bipartisan bill that passed the senate. and as others have mentioned, we are going to go back to our districts and face our constituents who are expecting so much from us. but we did not extend the production tax credit for wind energy. that's a problem in my district. i have companies that are waiting for that. they may now be facing ditional layoffs. that policy has long been a bipartisan policy, supported by many to develop the wind industry in this country. that's going to be hard for us to explain to our constituents. so, mr. hoyer, thank you. there's so much that we can do and should be doing to get our

economy back on track. congress is not doing our job. this failure to pass bipartisan commonsense legislation is something everyone in america should know about. we should be staying here representing the best interests of our constituents, helping to put this country back to work. thank you again, mr. hoyer, for yielding and for bringing this important issue to everyone's attention. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. i want to recognize the distinguished gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan, who has been such a leader on so many of these issues. mr. carnahan. mr. carnahan: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this issue as this congress shuts down. it was harry truman from missouri who coined the term do-nothing congress in 1948. but that congress was 10 times more productive than this republican congress of012. to call this congress a do-nothing congress is an insu to the do-nothing congress of

1948. so we are leaving today, earliest this congress has ever left to campaign in an election year in 52 years. look at how disconnected this congress has been from the urgent needs of the american people. 30% of the bil passed were for the purpose of attaching someone's name t a building. we voted to repeal the affordable care act 33 times. the republicans passed 30 jobs message bills that didn't do a thing to create jobs. they voted so often to restrict women's freedom and access to health care that one female republican lawmaker said, quote, are you kidding me? how many times are we going to vote for this, unquote. and we have voted on the romn-ryan plan to end medicare

-- end the medicare guarantee and increase cost to seniors by $6,400. it's no wonder this republican congress has the lowest approval rating ever. there are urgent priorities on the table that many have talked about here today. the middle class tax cuts. the farm bill. the violence against women act. and responsible deficit reductn and president obama's jobs bill. this republican bill wall of obstruction is wreaking havoc on this country, it's leaving a trail of dysfunction, and now republicans are running for the exit door. to cut their own police losses, they are shutting down this people's house without getting the work done. this congress should be here. our democratic leaders have made it clear. we are ready to do that work. people will be the judge.

again, i yield back and thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this order. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials on the top erik of this special order. i -- topic of this special orr. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. as we have heard the gentleman from maryland say many times, representative is not just a title, it's our job description. we need to hear from our constituents and our constituents have told us over and over again this year what they want. they want middle class tax relief. they want a farm bill. they want the postal service fixed so it can pay its bills.

they want passage of the violence against women act. it's a long list of things that they feel we can do to help americans. we have had an opportunity here from people because the leadership had us -- sent us home a month and a half ago where we could hold town meetings while they allowed us to do nothing here. we heard from our constituents very clearly. not just from a small segment, not just from a few special interests. not just from a few percent for whom everything seems just fine, thank you, but we heard from all sorts of americans who say, help. please, get to work. you heard this is the least productive congress in a

generation, in a long generation. and that's by design. the majority sets the schedule. they schedule very few days in session, very few committee hearings, very few markups. so even the do-nothing congress, as my friend from missouri said, even the congress that hay truman called the do-nothing congress was much more productive than this one. so why did the majority close up shop and head home until after the election? well, the answer i think is pretty clear. they want to campaign and they have decided with their dismal record they need a little more time to campaign. a little time to explain why they cast 302 votes to limit protections for clean air and clean water. and good land. they need a little more time to explain why the farm bill to help the areas that have been

hit by drought, to help the farmers that need crop insurance, hasn't been passed. to be sure it's going to be hard to campaign on the record that they have compiled and maybe they need a little extra te. we don't need extra time to hear from our constituents about their needs. and what ty want us to do. i stand with my friend, mr. hoyer, and all of us on this side of the aisle to return to washington any day, any night to do the work that the american people hired us to do to be their representative. i thank my friend. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for his very compelling comment. i know that, mr. speaker, you have heard us speak and the members have heard us speak and one might say, well, these are democrats speaking about the nonproductivity and nonattention to the people's business of this congress, butome years ago, just a few years ago, four years ago the republican party, our

friends on that side of the aisle, nominated john mccain to be their presiden what does john mccain say of this congress? the worst since 1947 statistically. the worst ever as far as unconcerned. senator john mccain told reporters wednesday when asked to assess this congress. that was september 19, 2012, just a few days ago. bipartisan observation. this walk away congress is the least effective in which i have served and i have been here for 31 years. i want to yield to my friend who came to congress the same year i did. who unfortunately is leaving, one of the great leaders of sh congress and responsible for putting the referee back on the field so we will not have another financial meltdown that plunged this country almost into depression, the distinguished member from massachusetts, barney frank. mr. frank: i thank the democratic whip and i thank him

for the leadership he provid during his years as majority leader when we were able to do some things that -- we are talking about what this congress didn't do. i suppose in some ways we ought to be happy because some of what they said they wanted to do would have about totally destructive. this is the party that let the financial community run riot for years when they had both the white house and both houses of congress. did no regulation so that we got the worst recession in 80 years, near dression, because of their irresponsibility. and they were threening to undo it. unfortunately, they were able to accomplish one thing. one of the things we did was to give the full regulatory agencies the power to regulate derivatives. a serious, obscure, powerful instrument that was the major cause of our crisis. while they were not able to repeal the rules, they were able to reduce the funding of the agencies that have to deal with this complex matter to where

they have not been very effective. that's one of the things they were able to do. undo by financial stealth what we tried to get done. . there may be some implication they are not willing to work hard. now, let's be very clear. th reason we have such a dismal record here is not beuse they are lazy, our republican colleagues. it's morebecause of a word which rhymes with lazy which the rules will prohibit me from using. the problem is with this. in 2010 a significant number of republicans were elected who do not understand the importance of governance and a free enterprise society in which there has to be a private sector creating goods and services and a public sector that works with it. that's why we have no postal bill, although the senate passed one, why we have no agriculture bill, why they couldn't pass a highway bill and had to be dependent on the

democratic senate to pass one so they could catch on to it. they simply do not understand the importance of our copping together and doing things in -- coming together and doing things in this complex society that cannot be done by the private sector. it is an extremism. it's not lazyness. it is extremism that grips the republican party so they are not able to discharge their normal functions of government. and by the way, there's one particular action -- inaction that i want to stress. it has to do with fannie mae and freddie mac. when my republican friends a out of power, they know exactly what to do about housing. when they're in power they forget. it's a peculiar form of apple nearbyia. from -- amnesia. from 1995 to 2006 they controlled the congress and did nothing, nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac. we came in 2007 and took action and put them in a conservatorship and stopped them from losing money. the next step was to go forward with replacing them.

we said that we wod do that. we did financial reform first. the republicans said in 2009 and 2010, you must do reform of fannieae and freddie mac. and we thought financial reform came first because we already stopped the bleeding. then they came to power in 2011 and they've done nothing, and the reason they've done nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac and the reason they've done nothing about the post office and agriculture and didn't do anything about the highways is very simple. they're a party torn between extremists and people who are afraidf extremists, people who will not take them on. mr. speaker, who will not bring an agriculture bill to the floor that might very well pass because he's intimidated by his own tea party extremist wing which rules him. they could not come forward with housing legislation because what a majority knows should be done to put in some kind of federal private cooperation without the mistakes we've made in the past, they couldn't get the votes for it because their extremists had a veto over it. last point, mr. whip. i want to talk a little bit

about bipartisanship. in 2007, things began to buckle in our financial system. and i as chairman of the committee worked closely with mr. paulson. in 2008, the bush administration came to us and you know what they wanted? you remember. a stimulus. that terrible word, stimulus. george bush, that radical, and ben bernanke, his appointee of the fed, and hank paulson, secretary of the treasury, said let's do a stimulus. this democrat leadership worked with them. then speaker pelosi negotiated. and then later on when the economy began to collapse because of financial dissolution, hank paulson came to us and asked for cooperation and we gave him cooperation. from 2007 to 2008 we had a very bipartisan approach in the economic crisis, and then one thing happened, barack obama became president and bipartisanship disappeared because extremis took over the republican party, first they were in the minority and now they're in the majority and nothing happened. i thank the gentleman.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would remind him, the leader talked about it, 's talked about it. mr. speaker, i i will you will recall. george bush, republican president of the united states, hank paulson, republican secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke, who i think is neither republican or democrat, but appointed by the republican -- mr. frank: he is republican but three times appnted by george bush to -- mr. hoyer: and came to us the country is in trouble, at risk of going into a depression. we need you to act. and who acted? the democrats in a bipartisan response to president bush. who walked away? 2/3 of the republican party, the president's party. 2/3 of them walked away, and as a result we failed the first time. we came back and added another 30 democrats, 172, and the republicans couldn't even get to 100 to support their own president to keep this country out of depression. ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, as the previous election approached, election unveiled

the long list of pledges. their pledge to america reads, and i quote, plan to create jobs and economic uncertainty and make america more competitive. must be the first urgent domestic priority of our government. so first we offer a plan to get people working again. that'shat they said. we are still waiting for that plan, and we have walked away. 21 months later, republicans have not offered a comprehensive plan to create jobs and boost competitiveness, nor have they allowed democrats to bring major items, make it in america, expand manufacturing, create jobs, give good-paying jobs with good security to americans and then down to agencies and job creators andsmall businesses that service those manufacturers. when president obama proposed his plan, the american jobs act, which ecomists say would have expanded by a million or million and a half jobs, republicans bcked it outright, not brought to the

floor, not given the vote. instead of making jobs their priority, it seems to be last on their to-do list. it's the first concern for millions and millions of americans and for our side of the aisle. mr. speaker, let me read another excerpt from the republican pledge. with commonsense exceptions for seniors, veteranand our troops, we will roll back government spending, putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. however, over the last 21 months, republicans have torpedoed every serious attempt to reach agreement on deficit reduction. why? no revenues from the very wealthy in america. not because we don't like the very wealthy, not because we want to penalize the very wealthy, but because we need to keep our country on a financially secured path. and those of us on this floor can contribute a little more to

that effort. push to the extreme by their tea party wing house republicans early on embraced an our way or no way that made compromise impossible. refusing to accept any solution that included revenues or that ended unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. that's why the middle-class tax cut passed overwhelmingly in the united states -- while passed by a majority in the united states senate, languishes here unconsidered which would keep 98% of america from any concern about having their taxes increas on january 1. why? to protect the 2%. how sad. in pursuit of their extreme budget agenda they pushed our country to the brink of default , for the first time ever the most credit worthy nation on earth being downgraded by the standard & poor's rating agency. to avert that default,

republicans insisted on creating the sequester that so many of them now lament. it was their creation and in fact in their cap, cut and balance bill, what the default positions they take? sequester. meanwhile, led by chairman paul ryan, republicans passed two budgets that would end medicare as we know it, end the guarantee, end the security that gives to people who are seniors and going to be seniors, gut social programs that keep millions out of poverty and doesn't balance over the next 30 years. i want to when i talk about this, susan collins, republican member of the united states senate, i showed you john mccain, mr. speaker, she says it was very frustrating to have worked on legislation that really matters to our country like the cybersecurity bill and legislation to save theostal service and just have them gather dust. in other words, she worked in the senate across the aisle

with democrats and sent that bill here, both those bills, and we have not acted. we have walked away. in their pledge they say we offer a plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act with commonsense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting american jobs. both of those objective, mr. speaker, we have made our point. walking away has been the practice of this congress. not getting the work done has been the practice of is congress. how lamentable it is for the american people. but as president obama said, they have a choice. may they make it well. and i ye. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has eired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the

gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm spinning a bit after hearing my friends across the aisle. i heard our former speaker ask about whether we're betterff now than we were four years ago . and actually ask howan people who perpetuated is economic disaster ask that question and it was amazing because former speaker pelosi and i were on exactly the same wave length. she was asking, are we better off now than we were four years ago, and i was thinking the same thing that she was.

how could people who perpetuated this economic disaster ask that question? but she asked it any way. heard our friends talk about theeconomic disaster. some of us remember back into e early point of the 21st century when there was an effort by first term president bush, george w. bush, calling for reform of fannie and freddie and i seem to recall my friend from massachusetts who resisted such reform. fact, there were people here on the democratic side of the aisle thatesisted such reform. they prevented such reform. there were members on the republican side -- not all of

them -- but there were members who were calling for reform of fannie maend freddie mac. but it didn't happen. and in fact our friends across the aisle were in control of the house and senate fr four years. in 2005 and 2006 as a freshman, i often heard our colleagues across the aisle asking how we could do such a terrible, terrible thing of spending $100 billion to200 billion more than we had coming in. little did we know -- and they were right. they were right. we should not have been spending $160 billion more than we had coming in. the democrats were right. and because republicans did not stay true to what we were promised, our leadership just

wouldn't dig in and stop it even though we had a republican president. we had a republican president. don't want to hurt his feelings. we spent $160 billion more than we had coming in. so the american public weren't thrilled what they heard from the democrats but they figured they'd give them a chance. so november, 2006, democrats, whhad promised to end the deficit spending, took over and the deficit spending, rather than coming under control, went out of sight. they passed the dodd-frank bill. it has historic overregulation of community banks.

now why would a group who is so upset with wall street pass legislation that devastates community banks that are closest to the community, know the borrowers the best, that had been the real foundation of this country, why would ty strangle out community banks with this massive overregulation? it really doesn't hurt the massive big banks. . well, someone said years ago, follow the money. and if you look at the money that is -- has been coributed to campaigns for many years, you find out that the wall street executives and immediate family normally donate aboutour times

more to democrats than they do to republicans. now, the wall street executives have to endure being called fat cats by a democratic president, but they know perhaps it's a wink and a nod, i'll call you fat cats but i'm going to destroy your competition. we'll get rid of the community banks. we'll strangle them with overregulation. they can't make loans. we'll threaten them through the fdic and the regulators to permit them from making loans that they know it's a good reliable people that have never missed a payment, we'll threaten them not to do that and we'll choke them out and the only people that would be left are the big investment banks on wall street that got us into the big mess in the first place. so if you follow the money and follow the contributions, you find out, gee. democrats talk about wall street as ithe republicans, but they are four times more -- there are four times more democrats on wall street as executives than there are repuicans.

what a shock. because they talk a good game i thought for so long that wall street executives must be republicans the w the democrats talk. not so. president obama got four times more contributions from executives and immediate family than did a guy namejohn mccain. we look further. what about jobs. how about when we have a disaster by british petroleum who has been allowed to operate in the gulf coast with nearly -- with 800 or so egregious safety violations, but that's ok. according to the obama administration, they didn't want to step in. and at the very time deep water horizon had blown out and this administration, the obama

administration, should have been all over them. they -- the executives of british petroleum wer negotiating with the democrats to be the on big oil company that rolled out support in favor of cap and trade. i said i wouldn't use the term crap and trade anymore so i'll avoid saying that. they had a big oil company that was willing to come out and support cap and trade. so certainly this administration and the democrats in the house and senate wouldn't want to do anything too detrimental to british petroleum because they are going to come out on our side. that meant that they ended up actually believing b.p. when they said we'll get it under control. they didn't get it under control. so then there was this bipartisan group of experts, peer reviewing what was going on in the gulf coast. and they came back with a report