recommendations what should be done. one of those recommendations was not to have a moratorium on drilling. not only of the deep water but also the very shallow water. they didn't recommend it. and yet this administration goes through and changes the report the way it's printed so that it makes it sound like these experts recommended a moratorium. they did not. but that's the way this administration wanted to manipulate that the american public believed so that >> in two weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio, and on c- span.org. watch and engage. next, a vice president of candidate paul ryan speaks at the aarp annual conference.

and congressional democrats talk about legislation that congress has not addressed this year. later house speaker john boehner gives a briefing to the press. >> all this weekend, "book tv" live coverage with two author interviews. and your phone calls, e-mails, tweets. debt schedule details at book t- get schedule details a booktv.org. >> paul ryan spoke about social

security and medicare and plans with presidential candidate mitt romney to protect the programs in the future. this is about 35 minutes. ♪ >> hello, everybody. how are you? thank you. appreciate it. jane, everyone here, i appreciate introduction and this chance to be with you in new orleans. you have had a busy convention. i know that many of you may time yesterday to volunteer around this great city. it was very much in the spirit of a group whose motto calls to the service of others. this country honors those who serve.

we have set aside today as a nation to remember those men and women in uniform who were taken as prisoners of war or went missing in action. to honor those who have endured hardship and to remember those who remain missing, i like to begin with a moment of silent prayer, if you will. i thank you for that. thank you for your kind hospitality this morning. life at 50 +. i am not there yet, but i am told that it will come before you know it. [laughter] i have given a good deal of thought to later seasons in life. not just as someone with his own family to look after, but as

someone with public responsibility as well. many in washington who have held office long before i came along made some big and fundamental commitments. it will fall on my generation to make sure that those commitments are kept. the challenges would be enormous under any circumstances. they are even tougher in a bad economy. many americans are wondering, will i lose my job before i am ready to retire? will the health and retirement security programs i have been counting on be there for me? what will happen to my savings if the value of the dollar keeps going down? what kind of nation are relieving to our kids? you are right to ask these questions. you are right to worry. years of anti promises by both political parties are threatening the security of our

economy. mitt romney and i share your concerns. we respect you enough to level with you. we respect all the people in this country enough to talk about the clear choices that we face on medicare, social security, and the economy, and the kind of country that our children will inherit. these are very serious challenges. sometimes the map can be a little bit overwhelming. -- math can be a little bit overwhelming. 50. -50 let's start with that. decade, a civil rights, vietnam.

-- jfk, civil rights, vietnam. the government was making promises to older americans. when johnson signed medicare into law, he pledged that no longer with older americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. no longer would families see their incomes and their own hopes eatten away simply because they are carrying out their deep obligations to their parents and two uncles and to their fans. -- aunts. their obligations to the old and young alike. we must honor both. our nation faces a turning point. government it is management is threatening both sides of his pledge. seniors are threatened by

obamacare, a law that would reel benefits in real-time from real people. young people are burdened by a growing debt. here is the good news -- by embracing common sense reforms right now, we can get ahead of the problem. we can keep promises that people have organized their lives around. if we reform medicare for my generation, we can protect it for those in or near retirement today. [applause] the first up to a stronger medicare is to repeal obamacare. it represents the worst of both worlds. [mixed boos and cheers]

i had a feeling very be a mixed reaction. let me be clear. first, it funnels billions of dollars out of medicare to pay for a new entitlement we did not ask for. second, it puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of medicare's future. let's talk about each of these in turn. you might not have heard this side of the story. you have heard a lot of claims and counterclaims about medicare. the president said this would strengthen the program. he said it would improve the program's solvency. ladies and gentleman, that is not true. the money was not walled off to stay in medicare.

instead, the law turned medicare into a piggy bank for obamacare. [crowd boos] you do not have to take my word for it. ask the chief actuary at medicare services. he works for the obama administration. his job is to look after your medicare. last year invited him to congress to answer a simple question -- if president obama's medicare cuts were used to pay for new spending in the obamacare, how can also improve medicare insolvency? his answer? they cannot. it is simple. you cannot spend the same dollar twice. his exact words -- it takes two says of money to make it happen. president obama never provided the other to strengthen

medicare. there it is. from the guy whose job is to know it. if anyone tries to tell you that obamacare and strengthen medicare, ask them -- where is the other $716 billion? [mixed reaction] medicare is going bankrupt. everyone understands this. even president obama said last year, "if you look at the numbers, medicare will run out of money. we will not be able to sustain the program the matter how many taxes go up." the disagreement is not about the problem. it is about the solution. you might have heard about the

approach mitt romney and i would take. i will lay that out for you. you probably have not heard much about what president obama will do. he does not talk much about what obamacare would really mean for seniors. anyone who understands the details nose why. -- knows why. he sets up something called the independent payment advisory board. it would be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats. the president said he would appoint experts, but none of the 15 are required to have any medical training. here is a thing -- as medicare spending grows, this board is required to cut its. unless congress overrides these cuts with a super majority vote, they automatically become law. think about what this means. i know aarp was involved in the

annual debate about the doc fix. back in 1997, both parties agree to a deal that included large reduction in fees for doctors who treat medicare patients. it soon became clear that these cuts would make it impossible for many doctors to keep treating medicare patients. every year, like clockwork, congress postpones the cuts. some of us learned a lesson from that experience. top down, bureaucratic cuts to medicare do not work. providers stop providing care. that is what happens. unfortunately, some democrats learned a different lesson. they never give up on their belief in the top down, bureaucratic cuts. but they did learn that these

cuts are very unpopular. obamacare represents a first step in their new approach. they one to take responsibility for these cuts out of the hand of your elected representatives and give it to unelected bureaucrats. they want to let them make the decisions and let them take the heat. this is what this would mean -- the cuts would be so severe, they could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries. idea what actuaries a lot as chairman of the committee. -- i deal with actuaries a lot as chairman of the committee. this is what that means in english -- do not proceed with this plan. but president obama says to go forward, forward into a future

in which bureaucrats decided it was not worth the money. now you have heard the president's approach. let me tell you what mitt romney and i believe. if we are elective 46 days from when i think of medicare, i do not think of charts and numbers. my wonderful grandmother had alzheimer's. she moved in with my mother and i. she felt lost at times, but we did little things that made her feel loved. we had help from medicare. it was there, just like it is there for my mother today. my mother is with me today. she is a senior from florida. [applause]

at that time in my life, when my grandmother lived with my mother and me, that his one regret the closest. i am very proud of my mother. i am -- that is when we grew the closest. i am very proud of my mother. medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. we will protect and strengthen medicare for my mother called regeneration and for mine and for my kids and for yours. let me be clear -- it makes no changes for those in or near retirement. in order to save medicare for future generations, we propose putting 50 million seniors and not 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of their own health care

decisions. [cheers and applause] we want seniors to choose the cards that -- coverage for themselves. this financial support system is designed to guarantee that seniors can always afford medicare coverage with no exceptions. [applause] is been a senior wants to choose a traditional medicare plan, -- if a senior wants to choose a traditional medicare plan, she will have that right. [applause] we have seen this kind of reform work in medicare part d, the

part in prescription drugs. we have applied these lessons and approved upon theimprove up. medicare reforms, based on the choice and competition, go back to the clinton administration. experts from both parties helped form his plan. democrats in congress have supported these ideas. mitt and i studied these bipartisan ideas. we have looked at the numbers. we have not come up with a plan to save this program. we did the same thing with social -- we have come up with a plan to save this program. we did the same thing was social security. if we do not act, seniors will face across-the-board cuts in the heart of their retirement. that is current law. we know what to do.

mitt romney and i have put our own plan on the table. we will make no changes for those in or near retirement. for my generation, we can make this program solvent by slightly raising the retirement age time.m [applause] all that we need right now is leaders who have the political will to save and strengthen social security. when it comes to protecting this program, president obama has come up short. the president has no plan. leaving medicare as it is a means leaving it weaker. time and again, this president has ducked the tough issues.

he has put his own job security over your retirement security. [crowd boos] he said he would be willing to work with republicans, but he has not moved an inch closer to common ground. [crowd boos] when it comes to bipartisanship, it is easy to talk the top, but there is only one man who is running for president at walks the walk. that man is mitt romney. let me explain why. in a state where 87% of the state legislature was democratic, governor romney got results by reaching across the aisle. he brought people together and have solutions that had wide support. that is how he was able to turn a $3 million budget shortfall and to --into a $2 million

dollar rainy day fund. that is the kind of leadership we need if you're going to save and strengthen social security. [applause] protecting social security is personal to me. my dad died when i was 16. a social security survivor benefits helped my family. it helped me go to school. they helped my mother start a new career. when my dad died, my mom had recently entered her 50's like many of you. she got on a bus and rode 40 miles to go to school. she learned new skills to start her own small business. it wasn't just a new livelihood.

it was a new life. it transformed my mom from a widow in grief to a successful, small business woman. her work and gave her hope. it made our family proud. to this day, my mom is my role model. [applause] for people over 50, up retirement should give us a larger goal -- economic security is what we seek for all americans. the last four years have been especially hard on americans who are out of work, but not yet ready to retire. i have met men and women were close to giving up hope that they will ever be employed again. we have not seen a recovery this bad in decades.

for many americans, there has been no recovery at all. for people who find themselves without a job before the are ready to retire, starting are joining a small business, there is a promising way to bridge the gap. president obama's policy has made it hard for small businesses to thrive. the president likes to talk about how he is a chip in for a small business -- champion for small business. but the truth is, if he is elected, he would increase the tax rate for small businesses permanently. mitt and i think that is the wrong approach. we believe that it is the dreamers and entrepreneurs, the workers and their families and not the government, that built this economy. [applause]

they are the ones who will get it growing again and get america growing again. we are going to champion small businesses and workers they employed and not stand in their way. [applause] we have got a plan that will reform the tax code, to get rid of special interest loopholes, and limit reductions of that we can lower everyone's tax rate. it is simple, fair, and competitive. that is the tax code that families and small businesses deserve. that is how you get people back to work. that is the tax code you deliver. we will also repeal obamacare and replace it with real reform. that is also going to give businesses the certainty they need to start hiring again.

american workers and small businesses will start getting the respect they deserve. after all of their hard work, what they deserve is to hear the truth. yes, you did bill that business. -- build that business. [applause] there is another threat to our economic security, and that is our debt. it is hurting our economy right now. if we do not tackle it soon, it will tackle us. the president came into office and promised to cut it in half by the end of his term. instead, he added five trillion dollars to the debt and shrink credit rating. that means harsh cuts in benefits for those who depend on them, along with crushing tax increases. the federal reserve cannot keep

bailing as out for ever. they can offer as a short-term fix that comes at a long-term costs. it is our seniors who will literally pay the price. the fed's actions are having an effect on energy and food prices. it forces seniors to stretch their fixed incomes. all this money printing hurt savers. it hurts the future value of our money. seniors are bearing most of the risk. mitt romney and i will take america off of this dangerous task. we will bring back economic growth. we will cut and cap spending. we will restore america's aaa rating. we can do this. we still have time to get this right. when i think of the challenges that we are facing, i think of my mom. whether it is the career worker

who has to start over, the senior who relies on medicare today, or at the grandparents to wants to make sure that her grandkids and shared a stronger america, that is my inspiration. because i have had eight strong example in my own life, -- a strong example in my own life, i have the wisdom of the american people to solve these problems. for mid-career americans, let's put in a president that a champion of small businesses so people can go back to work. let's repeal obamacare. let's keep promises to seniors. let's strengthen our retirement and health programs so that they can count on them when they retire. let's and grow the economy so that we have opportunities to succeed. let's work to leave our grandkids with a debt free nation.

[applause] friends, it will be a long journey. we can make that journey only together. i asked you to join us in the months to come. your support and the programs you care about have been taken for granted long enough. let's take these challenges as americans. join us and help us. work with us. i know that we can get this done. thank you for your time. god bless. i would be happy to take your questions. [cheers and applause] thank you in. >> thank you, congressman ryan. we have hundreds of questions. i hope you can take it you before you leave us. this one comes from indiana.

why our social security and medicare the first thing that people look when deciding to balance the budget? are there other areas that can be restructured to enable savings? >> good question. and everyone here mean? ok. first of all, you have to cut spending in other areas. you have to grow the economy to get revenue to come in. it is these programs that become the primary driver of our debt. let me explain. by the year 2025, up three programs -- medicare, social security, and medicaid with interest consumer hundred% of all federal revenue. why? -- 100% of all federal revenue. why? do not forget that these

programs are pay-as-you-go programs. when you have 100% increase in your retirement population but only about 17% on the taxpaying population to pay for the benefits and the costs of medicare goes up about 8% per year, there lies your problem. that is why they need tothat isn place these kinds of reforms that get at the root cause of inflation. it's not about balancing the budget early. that's not what you do. it is about reforms for my generation so that we don't have a debt so that medicare and social security is there when we retire. the point we're trying to make is this. let's not have a european crash or debt crisis on our hands. you know what happens then? real cuts for real people in realtime.

that's what they're doing. young people cannot get jobs. what we're trying to do is this. get this economy growing. change it in a way that doesn't go bankrupt. that's the point. that is how you fix the problem. bipartisan ideas. >> a couple more questions. would you stabilize social security by increasing revenue, or limiting benefits, or a combination? >> so, mitt and i put a specific plan out here. we think that a tax increase on payroll taxes is bad for economics, bad for growth, and it especially hurts self- employed people. a self-employed person like a farmer or somebody working

their own business pay both tax andf the payroll r that hurts job creation and it doesn't get you the kind of revenues you need to fix the problem. if you put small changes now that don't kick in until people 54 and below retire, you can make the modest changes that make the program solvent for 75 years. --t we're say something saying is gradually raise that retirement age to reflect longevity in the future. and don't give wealthier people as much of an increase in their benefits as everyone else does. bring that bottom benefit up. this is a flaw in the social security system today. there are people that are below line.

brings up the minimum. so there is nobody below the poverty level. doing it this way helps us save this program for current seniors, preventing the 25% cut in 2033, and makes sure it is there when i retire. the younger you get, the less you believe you're going to get this program. we should restore the trust is going to be there for us when we retire. [applause] >> a last question. i think it was fairly similar to a last question the president took as well. lester asks, social security and medicare are too important for you to keep fighting in washington. what specific steps would you take to forge bipartisan compromise? >> it's the best question i could have been asked this entire time. first i think you might have heard the word voucher earlier today, right? that's a tested word designed

to scare today's seniors. here's what a voucher is. a voucher is you go to your mailbox and you get a check and you go buy something and you're on your own. nobody is proposing that. what we're proposing is an idea that i propose with a democrat in the senate last year. an idea that came out of bill clinton's 1999 commission to save medicare. what we're proposing is an idea that has traditionally been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. the reason i am so familiar with this idea is it works like the plan i have as a congressman, as a member of the federal employee work force. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options. you pick your plan and medicare subsidizes your premiums. if you're wealthy you don't get as much. sick as much.

-- as much. if you are middle you get the same that you get from medicare today and if you are poor or coverage. you get total out of pocket doing it this way, for my generation, saves it with no changes for people in or near retirement. the shame is, it has been supported since the late 1990's. because the president will not act on it. that's why it didn't pass. they are rooted in bipartisan ideas. here is what i have done on this issue. you can get to common ground on these problems if you treat people with respect without compromising your principles and the very existence of this plan to save and strengthen

medicare, a plan that has been supported republicans alike is proof that we can get this done this is precisely what we want to do. our plan is to win the election and work with those democrats who want to work with us to save this critical program. that's what we are trying to achieve. it's too important to take this for granted to play politics. these are the two most important programs the government has created. too many americans depend on it for their health and retirement security. the more we do nothing, the deeper the hole we dig. so that my generation can count on it and so that your generation will get it without any changes. if you wait, then it gets uglier. the solutions are that much harsher.

that is the point we're trying to make. >> congressman nick ryan thank you for joining us today -- congressman ryan, thank you for joining us today. [applause] >> here is a look at where the vice presidential candidates will be campaigning this weekend. saturday, paul ryan will travel to orlando and speak at the university of central florida. monday he will kick off eight tour in ohio at the veterans memorial hall. joe biden continues in new hampshire with his wife on saturday. >> president obama campaign in virginia today where he talked about mitt romney. here is a brief look.

>> i do not believe we can get very far with leaders to write off half of the nation as a bunch of victims. who think they are not interested in taking responsibility for their own life. i do not see a lot of victims in this crowd today. i see hard-working virginians. some of you may be students trying to work your way through college. some of you may be single moms like my mom. putting in overtime to see if you can provide a better life for your kids. some of you may be its senior citizens who have been saving for your retirement. somebody may be better and to serve the country. soldiers to defend our freedom.

nobody believes anyone is entitled to success in this country. we do not believe government should help people who do not help themselves. but we do believe that opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off, where responsibilities rewarded, where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody plays by the same rules. that is the country we believe in. that is what i believe in. that is why i am running for a second term as president. >> tomorrow, c-span's coverage continues for three marks from president obama at a campaign yvette to know what the. it is one month before early voting begins -- the event in milwaukee. it is one month before the voting begins. right after that, michelle obama delivers remarks at the congressional black caucus foundation awards dinner.

remarks are at 7:30 eastern also on c-span. >> we have to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. [laughter] [applause] they still patents and designs. i know they want to be responsible. they are going to have to understand they cannot take away jobs. >> he invested in companies that went to china. pioneers. you cannot stand up to china when all you have done is send them our jobs. >> watch and engage with c-span as the campaign moves toward the november elections. foreign policy will be the did -- the focus on debate no. 3.

it will take place on wednesday. audience members will get to ask questions at a debate on tuesday, the 16th. the final debate will take place the 22nd. and watched the single vice- presidential candidates debate. follow our coverage on c-span radio and online. >> maxine waters was cleared of ethics violations charges today. but her chief of staff still faces an inquiry. the house ethics committee determined there was no evidence that she pressured the treasury department to give a bailout to the minority owned bank, when united. her husband held stock in the bank and served on the board of director. the findings conclude a two-year investigation and is an hour and 40 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. -- representative 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 clear 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 -- mr. moore 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 is appropriate. nothing we are in can -- recommending are inconsistent with his recommendations, which we value and agree with. 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 fairness, they would have the opportunity to have a hearing at their discretion our reaching final

conclusions about a report. we also informed them we were considering 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. but mr. waters' request, we 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 -- the opportunity 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. moore 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 and answer any questions members of the committee might

have. i will now recognize my colleagues. the acting ranking member in this matter. >> 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 is accounted for. the subcommittee adopted a statement of alleged violation. the committee elected to recommit the matter 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. -- processes. 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. -- july 2011. 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

of the conduct at issue -- 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 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 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. now're being done, i will

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 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 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 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 congress to review the allegations. we were passed to review the -- tasked 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 reinterviewed several with assists. -- witnessess. in order to make this recommendation, we had to determine if the evidence was sufficient to show that violation occurred 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 -- rather, 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. -- fannie mac. 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

united bank requested money from the treasury department as a buyback of its shares from freddie mae and fannie mac. -- fannie mae and freddie mack. 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 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 -- mr. moore sent that e-mail to a financial services staffer stating, "one united is in trouble." outside council believes it is a reasonable interpretation that this e-mail is a specific reference to one united. 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. the e-mail contains an attachment which was a chart breaking down the investment in freddie mae and fannie mac. -- fannie mae and freddie mac. mr. moore followed up with a staffer by e-mail in and asking, "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 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, and i quote, "we were only concerned about 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. mrs. 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.

mr. chairman, i will address the evidence with respect to representative waters' chief of staff mikael moore. as indicated we could not conclusively determine from the record by clear and convincing standard when representative waters told mr. moore that he should not act on behalf of one united. mr. moore has testified that he was unaware of representative waters' husband's financial interest in one united bank at the time that he sent the emails. for these reasons, we recommend that the record does not support a finding with clear and convincing evidence that he -- that a knowing violation of the house rules or other standards of conduct can be proved against mikael moore. nonetheless your outside counsel is troubled by the fact that mr. moore's testimony raises substantial issues of credibility.

first, while mr. moore testified that he was unaware of representative waters' husband's financial interests in one united, at a subcommittee hearing on october 30, 2007, representative waters entered into the record a statement which indicated that her husband was both a board member of a minority bank and a stockholder in one united. she did this because she noted on the record that she believes disclosure is important. mr. moore denied knowledge of the portion -- of this portion of the statement where it addressed representative waters' husband's stock holdings. second, representative waters disclosed her husband's stock holdings m her public financial statements. third, and probably most importantly, representative waters herself stated that mr. moore would have known of her husband's stock holdings in one united. and finally, mr. chairman, mr. moore testified that he personally interpreted the

instructions from representative waters when she told him no specific assistance to one united. he took that to mean that he was only -- only to refrain from working on one united matters that day and that day only. the record is clear that representative waters met and instructed otherwise. further, the chief counsel of the financial service committee testified that mr. moore told her that his office had a conflict of interest and they were stepping back from the one united issue. it is our conclusion and recommendation that mikael moore up the the instructions and direction from representative waters. given that representative waters believes disclosure is important, and that she herself believes that mr. moore would have known of her husband's investment in one united bank, we find mr. moore's denial incredible and doubted the

credibility of his testimony generally. indeed, we found other inconsistencies between mr. moore's testimony on other subjects and the evidence which we reviewed. that is included -- that which included outside counsel's report to the committee. thus, even though we do not believe the evidence is sufficient to prove by clear and convincing standard that mr. moore knowingly violated the ethics rules, we raise the issues of mr. moore's credibility in our report to allow the committee to consider whether it was appropriate for this committee to consider taking action against mr. moore short of a formal sanction. as noted in the report of your outside counsel, all final determinations including credibility determinations are properly left to this committee since it is the responsibility of this committee and not your outside counsel to make the ultimate findings and conclusions regarding this matter. we state for the record, mr.

chairman, 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, evidence, or facts presented by mr. moore at today's hearing. mr. chairman, we believe that such action would be consistent with the findings of the report and i thank you for allowing me the time to present this. >> thank you, mr. martin. mr. moore, at this time, i would ask that you please stand and raise your right hand so that i may swear you in. do you elmly swear that the -- 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. >> thank you. and please be seated. for the record, would you please state your full name.

>> i'm mikael moore. >> the procedure for your testimony today will be as follows. you may make an opening statement if you wish. outside counsel may question you. members also may ask you questions if they wish. and you may make a closing statement. outside counsel and then members will make closing statements if they wish. would you like to make an opening statement? >> yes. >> you may have 10 minutes for an opening statement. and you are recognized. >> members of the committee, before you, you have two reports. the first is a report authored by the outside counsel, billy martin, whom the committee hired on july 20, 2011, and since that time, the committee has committed approximately $1. million to his work. -- $1.3 million to his work. when the committee hired mr. martin it suggested to the public and the house that the outside counsel would allow for an independent review. among the key findings of mr. martin's independent review are it is outside counsel's opinion

that a representative waters did not violate any house rules or other standards of conduct. as such, outside counsel recommends that the waters committee find representative waters committed no violations in this matter. after -- and after the review of my conduct, outside counsel recommends that the waters committee find that no formal sanction or referral to the floor of the mouse is warranted in this marlte. the second report before you written presumably by the committee agrees with the special counsel's determination. that that rep waters committed no violations. however, it diverges on the question of my actions applying unprecedented standards to the same testimony which in part led mr. martin's independent determination that neither -- the congresswoman nor i violated any ethics rules. both the committee and the independent review have in effect agreed with our long-held contention that both the meeting which rep waters set up at the treasury department on behalf of minority banks and all legislative action on behalf of small, minority and community banks were indeed proper.

however, the committee has seized on two emails and the timing of those emails 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 of house rules. the claim is that i worked on behalf of one united solely and did so after the point i should have recognized that ambassador williams' investment was in the committee's eyes a disqualifying interest. key to the committee's theory is determining at what point i learned of this interest, more specifically, when rep waters and rep franks spoke about the matter and finally, 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 during september of 2008. and that it played no role in my decision making process which under the construction of this committee's argument would make a knowing violation impossible. mr. martin's independent review

agrees stating outside counsel has determined and recommends to the waters committee that it is not possible to determine by clear and convincing standard when the conversation between rep waters and her c.o.s. regarding her conflict with one united occurred. despite the clear finding the committee disagrees and applies the standard of not what i knew or what the evidence displays but rather what the committee believes i should have known. this i believe is an impossible standard to meet or defend and diverges from the committee's recent treatment of other matters before it. specifically, in the matters of jean smith, who received $500,000 in free legal services. and ethics committee member michael mccall, 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. instead, properly relying on what evidence they -- that provided and what they did

know. however, the committee has outlined in their draft report three substan active and knowing alleged violations based on what they believe i should have known, two of which claim that i use my office for personal benefit, despite mr. martin's finding to the contrary. speaking specifically about my actions, as they relate to personal benefit, mr. martin says the outside counsel recommends that the two actions taken by her c.o.s. solely on behalf of one united 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. the first two charges in the committee draft report allowing compensation to accrue to my personal benefit and dispensing of special favors dealt directly with using an office for personal benefit. although on its face, because i had no financial interest in one united, i'm not clear what personal benefit i allegedly received and how that personal benefit accrued to me, i was

still like to address the charges. according to mr. martin's independent review, as well as long-standing precedent r dent regarding personal benefit the committee asks when considering whether or not this concept is breached, among other things, what is the member's or staff's motive in taking the action, when determining a member's motive and taking official action, the committee asks whether there is direct evidence of the congressman or staffer has any such improper motive. this concept is derived from the st. germaine case in which the ethics committee sharply stated committee firmly believes that speculation about motive is not evidence. and there is no direct evidence that the congressman had any such improper motive. in light of the above, committee believes it would be inappropriate to attribute improper action to an individual based solely on inference and speculation. thus, does not reach this conclusion. the committee has shown no direct evidence of improper

motive on my part and therefore seemingly according to precedent cannot find that i used my office for personal gain. in addition, the committee has previously suggested that influence exerted in order to establish personal gain must cross the threshold of improper influence. on this point, mr. martin suggests, a finding of influence should not be based on pure inference or circumstance or for that matter, on the technique or personality of the legislate yosh. instead, a finding of undue influence must be based on probative evidence that a reprisal or threat was made. there's no such evidence in this case. the committee has also found that i brought discredit on the house. a charge which is extremely troubling given the sacrifices that i, like thousands of staffers, and members have made to serve the institution that we care so much about. in recent years the committee has used this as a dangerous catch-all to amplify member punishments. in doing this the committee has ignored one of the key

descriptors in the ethics mcdaniel which describes this provision. the manual states in interpreting clause one of the code when first adopted, select committee of the standards of official conduct of the 90th congress noted that this standard was included within the code to deal with "flagrant violations of the law that reflect on congress as a whole that might otherwise go unpunished." there was no flagrant violation of the law in this case. to date, the committee or the house has invoked rule 23, clause one, and investigating or disciplining members for among other things engaging in sexual relationships with house pages. i do not belong in this category. finally, the committee's draft report has taken great care to question the credibility of my testimony and in turn my integrity. the committee's questions of credibility, forthrightness and honesty are in part what compelled my presence here today. oddly, i have never been interviewed by a single member throughout this process. and my interactions have been limited to staff of the committee and the outside

counsel. during those interviews, and various interactions, i admit i have been zealous defender of my member, her work and the legislative philosophy which we work by. in in a defense, i have been aggressive and in -- sometimes contentious. this was not in any way meant to show a disrespect to the institution, nor the committee, but rather to show the ultimate respect to the people who i come to work for every day to serve. it is my hope that today, we can have an open dialogue so that you may ask all of your questions and make an independent judgment as to my credibility and integrity. that's the end of my prepared statement but i have two minutes left and would like to address three pieces that were raised by mr. martin. is that allowable? >> you have 10 minutes. proceed. >> so the first thing that i would like to address is on the question of when i knew and what i knew. about mr. -- the ambassador's investment. the first thing that was raised was about a hearing in 2007 where congresswoman waters

publicly disclosed on the dais that her husband was a director at a minority bank. i submitted a video of that hearing to the committee that showed that i was not present at that hearing and testified that my knowledge of what the congresswoman was going to insert into the record was a typed statement which referred only to the ambassador's position as a director at the bank. the congresswoman at a time unbeknownst to me inserted in the record a handwritten statement in addition to that typed, preprepared statement which referred to her husband's investment which i was not aware of. i have testified several times to the fact that i did not know about the investment at the time. one of the reasons is that i did not -- have never been a part up until recently, until after this, frankly, of the congresswoman's preparation of her financial disclosures. those disclosures have been prepared for the last 20 years by an outside accountant. and that is -- was not wurnt functions of my job -- one of

the functions of my job in seven certain or 2008. so i'll end with that. >> thank you, mr. moore. we will now begin the questioning and i will turn to the outside counsel to ask if he has questions. >> i have no specific questions based on mr. moore's statement. unless i turn it back to the chair. >> the chair would now ask if members of the committee have any questions of mr. moore. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> mr. chairman, this is more a parliamentary inquiry than it is a series of questions. there may be some questions. but i have been troubled not by the process. because this has been -- i'm always impressed. and mr. moore, you know, unlike financial services, unlike appropriations, unlike ways and means, nobody asks to be on this committee.

it's not a sought after committee assignment. but because this is a hybrid, this particular committee, i have been troubled by the notion that it seems to me, and i think it was reinforced in our 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 this matter. and so i guess that would be my question to you, mr. moore. do you feel based upon the -- where we are today, your review of the documents, and your observations, that this process is promotely concluded by the committee when we are done receiving your information together with the reports that mr. martin and his staff have prepared? or are you of the opinion that you would be better served and it would be fairer to you if an

investigative subcommittee looked at this case? >> may i ask one procedural question on that specifically? >> you can't ask me. you can ask -- >> i'll direct my question. before i answer that question my first question would the matter between myself and the congresswoman be bifurcated in that circumstance? >> well, i would leave it up to the legal experts. but this committee, unlike other precedents, the gingrich case, the rangel case, some guy in pennsylvania where members have been found liable for the actions of their staff even when they didn't know what the staff was up to. it's my opinion based upon the evidence, we haven't reached a final conclusion, that representative waters went above and beyond what was required of her in that she issued a statement into the record which you say you weren't present at in 2007. once she received the telephone call from treasury secretary paulsen 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. so from my standpoint, there's nothing left with representative waters. and the only -- the only issue is -- and i'm not the legal beagle up here. but the only issue in my mind would be whether or not you think based upon that disposition, you think your rights would be better protected if you had the opportunity to have an investigative subcommittee review this matter. >> i'll answer that in a couple of ways. so the first answer is that i too have been troubled by this process, especially toward the end. as the committee has acknowledged, we were notified on friday of the areas of issue -- at issue and allowed to see the transcript, i mean, the report on wednesday. and so that was kind of the

first time that i was made aware of the "charges" against me. in conversations with the staff directed to me, i did raise this as a question. >> right. >> i guess the interesting thing about it is that yes, i would want the full opportunity to be a respondent in the panoply of back and forg that that provides. but i don't know how that would happen given the outside counsel has already determined that there's not clear and convincing evidence to prove any of the charges. and so i feel like we're in a gray zone. one of the things that i raised with the chief counsel was that the charges -- the charges that are laid against me, 23-3, clause 5, and bringing discredit, are very serious charges. and without having the opportunity to push back on those charges, it leaves me in a very uncomfortable space. and so i guess that's the way that i would answer. that's the way i would answer the question. >> and i appreciate that. i would say that outside

counsel's report is a report, and he makes recommendations. it's not his job to make the final determinations. it's the member of the committee. and his recommendation or observation that it can't be proven by clear and convincing evidence would innure to your benefit and that's why we have investigative subcommittees and add judetory subcommittees if we reach the conclusion that there was clear and convince being evidence there's no point in having those additional committees. like pretending that -- somebody have a jury trial when the jury already decided they wanted to do. so i'm interested in your response. and i think that what -- what troubles me and why it might benefit you to sort of request that path is i do have serious questions based upon the testimony, the documents that have been received, and let me just give you a couple of examples. at first, when the nba -- your

many employing member to set up the meeting with treasury, they hadn't conducted a survey of their members to determine how many banks were affected. after the meeting, as i indicated, secretary paulson called, representative waters and expressed concern that hey, how come only one united people were at the meeting? and then the day -- two days after that, on september 11, one united -- excuse me, the communication with the treasury department and a document on which you were copied that it's not a whole range of banks. it's two that have this fannie- freddie problem. one united and a bank in texas. and aside from your grandfather who was a member of the board, a gentleman by the name of leander foaley iii was also a member of the board and their correspondence back and forth with mr. foley. and so i -- you know, i have to tell you that part of mr. martin's report is troubling to

me. and i think, you know, that you might be better served by letting all that stuff be fleshed out. because -- go ahead. >> may i respond? >> yeah. sure. >> so let me respond directly to the two points that you raised. wait. >> ok. sorry. >> the first point is one of the things that i've talked about consistently and i provided information to the committee was -- is that beginning on september 7, not only the n.b.a. but the icba and the american bankers association all were talking about this specific sheriff. this was an ongoing issue where the american bankers association, in addition to what the n.b.a. survey said that 27% of all banks in the country had fan i-freddie stock -- fannie-fredi stock and would be negatively affected and 85% of that 27% were community banks which is the area that one united bank fell in.

and so and my view, all of the actions that are taken post the conservatorship are with that context in mind. >> and i've read your transcripts. and i understand that that's your position. i would suggest to you that -- my understanding of the rules of the committee, and the house, are that a member may act on behalf of an entity in which they -- i was surprised by this to be honest with you. a financial interest. as long as it's in a class. a class -- a broad class. and i would -- i would -- so what's troubling to me and why i think an i.s.c. may -- i want your opinion on this -- is that there is evidence that i think supports the conclusion that while that may have been the case, that the letter from the n.b.a. on the 11th says we're

only dealing with two. and in my mind, every bank in the country was affected by the horrible things that were going on. and your grandmother is known as a champion and a fighter. i served on that committee for 14 years. and minority banks don't have a better champion than maxine waters in the entire congress. and perhaps the country. but it appears that -- in my mind only, and i don't know what my colleagues think, there were two paths going on and that is helping everybody. but then on september 11, relative to the preferred stock buyback, there's two. and that -- that's -- i'm grappling and i'm wrestling with that. and i've been handed a note by the staff just so i don't give you bum advice. >> ok. >> but the staff has indicated to me that if there is an i.s.c. for you, it could reveal evidence relative to

representative waters. and i don't know what that means. >> i understand. >> that's what the staff said. >> i understand. so if i could, two things. to your point. which i think are valid points. and thank you for raising them. the first one would be on a broader scale, speaking back to what a.b.a. and the icba said in their original letters on the 7th, 8th and 9th and referenced the idea of a buyback and how the fannie mae and freddie mac stock would be repaid so that idea is not an individual idea and secondly, your question about the two banks bring up a very good question. which is what is the committee's definition of a class? and i think that there is no definition of a class. >> right. >> specifically what i would raise is that -- i would raise the graves case. and although we have differing opinions about what the graves case says, what it does say very specifically is that mr. graves and his wife's

investment was a part of a class, even if it was in the two individual companies where they had an investment. so what they said was that if the actions that were taken only benefited those two companies, then they still -- because of their minimal stock ownership that they would be part of a class. my question to the committee would be how does the committee define class? if it's not the -- if it's not graves, how do you define it? and did congresswoman waters' husband's investment compare favorably or how did it compare to the graves case? >> and i know i'm probably at the end of my time. but i've reviewed the graves case. i've reviewed the other precedents. i'm aware that argument. and personally i find the graves case distinguishable. and you should know that i've had a rather active discussion with the committee and the staff about what is a class. and there have been cases where again, some things that are shocking to me, and i think we need to change the rules around here, where a member has obtained an earmark for a road

project on which they own property. and they found that it's not a problem because there's 30 other properties on the road. that's nuts to tell you the truth. but i'm willing to accept that a class is 30, that a class is 40, that a class is bigger than that. i have to tell you when you get down to two, that's really at the center of what's problematic relative to your conduct in this matter. and i think -- anyway, those are my questions. and to my last question, is it your desire to -- would you think that you are better served by this committee considering referring it to an investigative subcommittee or would you like us to deliberate based upon the reports you've reviewed, your statement today, and what you've shared with us and basically get it over with today?

>> yeah. my -- my -- my -- my heavy heart really is around the idea that whether it's a letter of reproval or someone just saying it, the idea that i knowingly and intentionally used the congresswoman's office for personal gain, that i disrespected the house is a very difficult pill to swallow. and as you can probably tell, the way that i've 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. >> ok. and mr. chairman, i appreciate that. this is a big deal. we're talking about your reputation, we're talking about your members' reputation and this letter of reproval

business is something that got invented the last time i was on the ethics committee and the delay matter on the medicare part d vote. and it's the reason i got thrown off. yeah, this committee, a number of years ago. so this is sort of a hybrid. but i appreciate your answers. and i appreciate your conclusion. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. are there other members who have -- yes, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmouth, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. moore, clearly the issue of knowledge of a conflict or financial interest is critical in this entire case. there was evidence presented in the outside counsel's report to the committee that would indicate one, that representative waters, she exclusively said that you would have been aware of the investment. secondly, there was a staff member on the financial services committee who said you

told her that you had a -- that there was a conflict here. and then a question which i would pose kind of independently is when representative waters told you to stay out of it, did she at that point say why you were to stay out of it? or what was your >> ok, let me address the first quote from the report. my honest assessment of backed when she was asked was, they knew about it. everyone knew about it. i was fully disclosed. my reading of that is not a determinate statement of whether or not i knew, but that she had fully disclosed are ready. i do not think it fully reasonable to expect all the

newspapers and everyone to know, and barney frank, for that matter, but testified that 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 committee about the conflict. i do not remember the conversation. one of the things that troubled me about that statement on the record is that there is no date associated with it. it does not say when that conversation allegedly happened. it raises the same issue that it raised with all the other evidence around the timing. that is a critical moment. if there is a did associated with that that is one thing. it raises an issue that the rest of the evidence raises on that point on time 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 -- oce interview, it was not transcribed. it was said that i was supposed to stay out of issues that day. does not contextualized. -- it was not contextualized. >> 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? what? sorry, >> 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. >> i think that's a valid and 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 -- pulled the oce testimony, it refers to that. to the nba. 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. -- under advisement. >> 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.

your answer is on page 54, beginning on line 15. 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. the document was presented to the officials. this is the degree of for $50 million. -- oneunited asked 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. that same document -- >> 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. -- $50 million at that meeting. >> 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. and oneunited asked for $50 million. 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. that does 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. -- big 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. -- oneunited 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 -- mr. foley 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. i welcome guidance on that point. >> would the gentleman from ohio yield? >> sure. >> 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. >> yes. >> 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 not the 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 -- that was said would apply only to one united and i think the answer to that is absolutely not. there was no legislative language that wod 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. then i will yield back to the gentleman from ohio.

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 -- instructed 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 -- instruction 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. -- instruction. 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. returnr intention to 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. that is not a good thing to me. i googled mr. foley. 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. -- hat question. how many different hats can a

person where? -- wear? wendy have to say, i'm an expert -- when they 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. that is what is troubling. >> 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. tsd 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. i am glad to ask for this hearing today. 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. -- member. as i'm sitting here listening to 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. -- employee member. >> 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the comittee 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. one of mr. moore's main point 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 knowledge-- 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.

>> the senate is in tonight at 11:30 eastern for a half hour of debate. that is followed by votes on several measures including final passage of a continuing resolution to fund the federal government for six months. live at senate coverage tonight on c-span 2. in two weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c- span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. watch and engaged. next house democrats talk about legislation that house democrats have not addressed this year followed by john boehner's press briefing. a later paul ryan at the aarp's annual convention. tomorrow on "washington journal," david ingram reviews the fast and furious report.

lawrence mishel discusses how american families are doing in this economy. cedric leighton talks about the attacks at chase and j.p. morgan banks that kept them from doing business. >> when i first came down to washington, my experience was as prosecutor -- we seldom occasionally would run into their law enforcement arms. for a while i was during mortgage fraud cases. i was dealing with the inspector general from hud. i did not know the big picture what and ig was doing. when i got the job. one of the first things i did was go in around and meet the ig's. over the next couple of years, i found that the inspector general's, they are supposed to

be these fears and watchdogs looking out for waste, fraud, and abuse. we reject the were often like any other governmental agency. -- they were often like these other governmental agencies. they were worried about clashing with management. they were worried about too much interaction with congress. it was a get along type of attitude. i kept hearing over and over again there were three different types of ig's. a lap dog, a watchdog, and a junkyard dog. i think ultimately what was going through the confirmation process i was told that i needed to be like a junkyard dog. >> neil barofsky worked to

undercover fraud and abuse in the tarp bailout process. sunday night on "q &a." >> i attribute to me wanting to get more involved with politics by watching information on c- span. i love the information. i love the current events. i love the hot topics, things that come up. i loved pulling it up on my mobile device. >> thaihevia browder watches c- span. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> congressional democrats held a briefing outside of the capital today. the called on republicans to keep the house in session in order to pass the farm bill, the

violence against women act, and an extension of mush. tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year. -- bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year. >> good morning. as you can see, but democrats are standing proudly on the steps of the capital saying that we must stay here until we take action to help the american people. we are prepared to stay in session to pass president

obama's jobs bill that can create more than 1 million new jobs and immediately. pass a five-year farm bill, 1600 agricultural jobs depend on it. extend middle income tax cuts to provide certainty for millions of americans and help the economy. and to pass a comprehensive balance -- a comprehensive and balanced a 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 to reduce the deficit to create growth to create jobs. we are here standing together to recognize that since august 3 when congress adjourned and november 14 when we are being 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 is what we are elected to do, to get the job done. [applause] just in closing i will say that one of the most important issues that we face in our country that is going to be decided in the election is the issue of medicare. the republicans in the house have a voted six times to end the medicare guarantee. that will cost seniors more as they give tax breaks to people making over $1 million a year of $160,000. that is not right. democrats are committed to reigniting the american dream to build ladders of opportunity for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, and take responsibility. we remove obstacles to that so

they will have success. we know we have work to do. that is why we must they here to do it. i am pleased to yield to mr. steny hoyer. >> thank you madam leader. what we are seeing this week is a and to a dismal congress. two distinguished political scientists and our country said this. the gop has become an insurgent out liar in american politics. it is ideologically extreme, this massive 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 could set to hit in january if congress fails to act. democrats 7 ready to work with republicans to replace the

sequester the imposed last year by reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits. republicans have walked away of compromise every time as those two political scientists have said insisting on putting tax breaks for millionaires a head of a balanced solution. they also have held tax cuts for the middle class hostage to the same cause. instead of wasting time on partisan messaging bills like we have done this week, republicans ought to have used the 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. republicans ought to come back and finish their work, not cut and run and walk away from the american people. shame on them. shame on them for abandoning the farmers, our economy, and families who need us to act. let me turn the microphone over

to my friend, the assistant leader -- let me say this about our caucus. we are fired up and ready to stay. we are fired up and ready to stay here and do the work for the american people. thank you very much. >> thank you. it is great to be introduced by a friend born in the great state of south carolina. throughout the entire 112th congress, the republican majority in the house have put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the american people. we see a continuation of that this week. the senate passed the middle- class tax cuts, and the president has said that he will find it as soon as it hits his desk -- sign it as soon as it hits his desk but the republican leadership refuses to bring it to