the floor and allow it to be voted on. the only thing standing between the american middle class and working people and their tax cuts is the republican leadership in the house and there tea party in parents. congress should not leave town without passing >> as one of those people, the 47%, the middle class, i am here to say that democrats are ready to work on behalf of the american people and to deliver the tax cut that day so generally deserve. i am brought to leave -- yield to my friend from connecticut. >> thank you. i am proud to stand with my

members who are prepared to work at the job they are sent here to do for the people who they are sworn to serve. this is personal. people back home cannot understand the work ethic of this congress. they do not understand why we are not staying here to get the job done. they have seen them over the last several weeks perpetuate a man that president clinton debunked at the convention about work requirements. the only requirement for work is that republicans stay here and work instead of cutting and running. we are ready to do the job that we are sent here to do. we are here to get a jobs bill in front of the american people. we want to get the job done. that is why we rely on the great

strength of our leader, the vice president of our caucus. our chairman is fired up. >> every member who is standing here is saying something to the american people. we are here to represent our constituents, all of those american, and every single one of those americans that lived -- we are ready to work for every american who wants to go to work. we are here to say to our colleagues, "do not cut and run. " it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and show the american people that we can do this bipartisan. it is not as american taxpayers are workers or farmers that are being left behind today. back in april, the u.s. senate

passed by an overwhelming majority a bill to help women who suffer from domestic violence. the violence against women act passed by 68 votes in the senate. it has been languishing since april in the house of representatives. every day in america a woman dies of domestic violence. behind her is another woman, and behind her is another woman. three women in america die every day as a result of domestic violence. since april, this house of representatives has been unwilling to put the violence against women act up for a vote. it is not as american workers. it is not as american farmers and it is not just american taxpayers that are being left behind that -- by those who wish to cut and run. it is women who are fighting for their very lives. each member who is standing behind me is saying we are here to work for farmers, american

taxpayers, for people who want to get back to work. for every single american women who is saying we want to have the respect we deserve and not be the victims of violence. pass the violence against women act now. do not go home before you do that. we will do that. but me introduce to you our ranking democrat. ." >> we want to stay. congressional republicans want to run away. you can run, but you cannot hide from your record. you cannot hide from what you want to do. i can understand looking at what they plan to do why they want to hide from the american people. president obama and congressional democrats will make sure that people hold our colleagues accountable. the president has said to congress, stay and passing

middle-class tax cuts. we need to extend tax relief to 98% of the american people. 100% of the american people would get tax relief on their first $250,000. 98% would get full tax relief. 97% of all past due businesses would get tax relief. the republican position has been, no, unless people like mitt romney, unless companies like bain capital get a bonus tax breaks, nobody else in america can get tax relief. it is no wonder that they want to cut and run. especially when you look at the next plan. look at the ryan-from the budget. but -- romney-line budget. what do they want to do? another round of big tax breaks for wealthy people at the

expense of everybody else. if you are serious about dealing with our long-term deficit, the question is -- how do you choose to do that? if you provide another round of big tax breaks for people like mitt romney, it means you will cut seniors on medicare. give them a voucher. it declined in value. leave them paying the bill so you can get a another round of tax breaks to people at the top. cut our children's educations. i can understand in some ways why they are cutting and running. we are not going to let them live from their record. we will not let them hide from what they plan to do to this country. we are not going to take a u- turn back to the same failed trickles down policy that got our country into such a mess. we need to move forward. i want to stay here to do.

thank you very much. [chants work] >> house speaker john boehner held his in of session a news conference. this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. there are nearly 40 of our jobs bills sitting in the united states senate. all part of our plan for american job creators that we have been working on all year. these bills cut red tape, remove

government barriers that make it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. there are bills to address our debt, expand american energy production and approved projects like the keystone pipeline. there are bills that stop the present's tax hike and fix the tax code. to bring more jobs home from overseas. these are good ideas, all passed with bipartisan support here in the house. president obama will not work with us to find common ground or urged senate democrats to take action. why? it is because democrats have failed to lead. they failed to lead on jobs. the unemployment rate has been over 8% for 43 consecutive months. they failed to lead on energy. everything from gasoline prices to groceries will cost more today. the president's defense suppression -- sequestration threatens our national security and his tax hikes threatens some

700,000 jobs and our country. while democrats have failed to lead, republicans have focused on jobs and keeping our pledge to america that we made nearly two years ago. the american people want government out of the way. they want spending reduced, less regulation on small businesses, a strong national defense, and more american energy production. that is the people's agenda -- a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. that has been our governing agenda. we promised to focus solutions for jobs in the economy. to reform congress and cut spending. we have kept our pledge. this is not a time for congratulations. it is not just our jobs bills that the democrats are ignoring. their failure to lead is a lot worse. they have not passed a budget in more than three years.

they have no plan to save medicare, no plan to stop all of the tax hikes, no plans to replace the sequester. they have threatened to do nothing and drive us off the fiscal cliff, which the congressional budget office has said will leave -- lead to a very deep recession. this is not leadership. it is negligence. president obama's excuse is, you cannot change washington from the inside. you actually can change inside from the inside. it takes courage, determination, and sincerity. that is called leadership. i have been here for 22 years. i have been involved in changing a lot of things in this town. from my days as a member of the gang of seven, closing the house bank, trying to get congress to run more efficiently and more professionally. how about the issue of earmarks? nobody thought we could ever get rid of.

i spent five years working to eliminate their marks. over the last couple of years, we have had the earmarks. you cannot tell me that you cannot fix washington from the inside. i have this belief that the president does not share my optimism about fixing this town. >> mr. speaker, your fellow republican running for senate in wisconsin, -- >> i am a house guy. [laughter] i am just teasing. >> i know you are. he is someone who said he is worried that mitt romney will drag him and other down-ballot republicans down. >> over the last few weeks both campaigns have been into all kinds of other areas. but the american people want to know is what is the plan to get our economy going again and create jobs.

the president's economic policies have failed. he cannot go out there and run on his record. he has to try to make this election about everything other than his record. the romney campaign needs to stay focused on jobs, their plan to create jobs, and commence the american people that he does have a plan. that will put americans back to work. they have done a pretty good job of it. >> mr. speaker, when you came into the current roll, you said that the house will work where there are not you bring up some bills on the floor that could fail. >> and we have. >> there is a bipartisan group of farm-heavy district law makers who are pushing you to get this farm bill on the floor. what a farm bill will we see on the floor before the end of the year?

>> we do not typically put bills on the floor where we are expecting failure. it has been my opinion -- having been a member of the ag committee for 16 years -- that the opposition from the left and the right here in the congress have prevented us from putting the bill on it because i do not believe there are 218 votes in the middle to pass the bill. i have made it clear yesterday, we get back, the house will take up the issue of the farm bill. i know what the next question is. well, what it is gonna look like? >> what is going to look like? [laughter] what is going to look like? >> will we get back after the election, we will consult with our members and develop a pathway for word. it is too early to determine right now what kind of mood members will be in or kind of opinions and will have. yes, sir. >> if the president wins, doesn't that mean you will eventually have to raise taxes?

>> no, raising taxes would threaten our economy with a loss of 700,000 jobs. why would i ever be for something like that? i am not. our goal is to have a tax reform and entitlement reform. we all know that these are probably going to both have to travel on parallel paths. it is important for our country to fix our debt problem and to have a tax code that is competitive with our worldwide economy and more fair for the american people. >> there are members of both parties expressing concerns about the sequester. let me ask you a philosophical question. republican saying, we need to fix the sequestered. republicans philosophically have been saying government should be out of people's lives. are you saying that if we need to fix the sequester, is there

some connection that people are tied to the government in the defense sector, and the small business committee put out a report yesterday saying if the sequestered kicks in, is that saying there is concern for a problem with people being tied to the government, even in your own party? >> the sequester was designed to be ugly. why? so that no one would go there. because the president did not help, did not lead when it came to working with the supercommittee, senate democrats did not cooperate, helping us meet the supercommittee function. we end up with a sequestered. the sequester is like taking a meat ax to federal spending. it is not -- no one on either side of the aisle thinks this is inappropriate way to reduce the role of government. that is why the house acted in may. they passed a bill to replace the sequester. it says in the united states senate. >> house across gathered on the capitol steps -- house democrats gathered on the capitol steps, chanting work, work, work, criticizing you for [laughter]

>> really? my friends across the aisle, who i have treated fairly. but they are saying this is the release the house has ever left during an election year. they should stay here to fix the problem. >> fix the problem? instead of them having the demonstration on the house ducks, maybe they should have had on the seven steps. it was sitting where a couple of years ago who said the most importance part of governing is doing a budget. senate democrats have not done a budget for 3.5 years. when you think about the letter that they send to me about us doing our work, how about the 40 jobs bills that are sitting in the united states senate? the house is the only body to have passed a bill to stop all the coming tax hikes.

the house is the only body that has passed a bill to stop the sequestered. we have done our work. senate democrats and a president -- where is their responsibility? where is their leadership? it does not exist. >> the sequester may have been put in place because the expectation was that some party -- some grand bargain was not going to be made here. there are probably members of your caucus the like the idea of cutting domestic spending. there are democrats like the idea of cutting defense spending. -- domestic spending. why not just what the sequestered take affect and see how it all shakes out? >> i will not speculate on what may or may not happen in the lame-duck.

i have not heard one member suggest that the sequester was a good idea. not one. i talked to a lot of members from both parties every day. >> why does mitt romney continue to drill in the post in ohio -- continue to trail in the polls in ohio? >> it has been a close race in ohio. it is going to be close race in ohio. i always expected it would be a close race in ohio, just like probably all of you. one of the things that probably works against romney is the fact that the governor has done a good job of fixing government regulations in the state, attracting new businesses to the state. our unemployment rate in ohio is lower than the national average. to see a full point lower than the national average. -- it is a full point lower than the national average. as a result, people are still concerned about the economy and jobs in ohio. it certainly is not like to see in some other states.

>> he spoke about the need to address the sequester and the lame duck in the year. will congress act to extend the jobless benefits seen as -- that is currently in place? >> i do not know. i have not heard any conversations about it. we had a plan that we passed last december to deal with this. i am sure there will be a conversation about it. we will look for a common way forward. >> to you think congress should investigate why there were no marines in libya and who made that decision? >> i suspect that part of the investigation under way will take a look of that. while we typically have a marine detachment at our embassy, that is not always the case when it comes to our consulates. i am sure there will be a review of that in a discussion about whether that is why is going forward.

i hope you all have -- >> back in april, you said there was a one in three chance that house republicans will lose. as you look at the polls now and all of the battleground polls are trending more democratic, what is your assessment now? >> i continue to feel confident about the house republicans' chances of holding onto our majority. we have done a good job getting our incumbents in good shape. in august, i was in 42 districts. with his-half of them incumbents, the other half were open-seat and challenger races. we have some very good candidates out there where we are playing offense. i have always looked at this year as trying to get our incumbent members in a stronger position as possible so we can use more of our resources on offense. that is turning out to be possible. you will see us playing offense in a lot of democrat-held districts in the coming weeks.

>> what is your electoral college prediction? romney versus obama? who wins and how much? [laughter] >> the senate is in tonight at 11:30 p.m. eastern. that is followed by a vote on measures including final passage of a continuing resolution to fund the resolution -- federal government for six months. tomorrow on washington journal" david ingram speaks about fast and furious. the president of the economic policy institute discusses how american families are doing into a's economy. a retired colonel talked about

this week's cyber-based attacks at bankamerica and j.p. morgan chase. washington journal as high as 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> of this weekend with tv's live coverage of the national book festival with two days of author presentations and an interviews. starting saturday morning at 10:00 eastern and sunday at noon. live on c-span two. go to booktv.org. >> paul ryan spoke today at the aarp annual conference in new orleans. he talked about social security and medicare and his plans with presidential candidate mitt romney to protect the programs in the future and repeal president obama's health care

law. this is about 35 minutes. ♪ how are you? thank you. appreciate it. jane, everyone here, i appreciate the 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 math can be a little bit overwhelming. 2012 - 50. let's start with that. 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 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 we invited him to congress to answer a simple question -- if president obama's medicare cuts were used to pay for new spending in obamacare, how can they also improve medicare insolvency? his answer? they cannot. it is simple. you cannot spend the same dollar twice. his exact words, "it takes two sets 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 will 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 knows why. people do not like it. 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 that would mean -- the cuts would be so severe, they could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries. i deal with actuaries a lot as chairman of the committee. they tend to be mild mannered folks. when someone says something like that, 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 decide it is 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 now, 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 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 for

themselves. this financial support system is designed to guarantee that seniors can always afford medicare coverage with no exceptions. [applause] if a senior wants to choose a traditional medicare plan, she will have that right. our idea is to force insurance companies to compete with each other to better serve seniors. [applause] we have seen this kind of reform work in medicare part d, the part in prescription drugs. we have applied these lessons and improve upon them.

these and not just republican ideas. medicare reforms, based on the choice and competition, go back to the clinton administration. experts from both parties helped form his plan. -- this 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 -- 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 over time. and slowing the growth of benefits for those with higher incomes. [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. inaction today means sharp cuts tomorrow. 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. [mixed reaction] 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 into a $2 million dollar rainy day fund. he cut taxes 19 times and balance the budget in all four

years. 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 champion for small business. on the basis of a few tax measures that are temporary. 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. [mixed cheers and boos] 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 built 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 our country's 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. -- path. we will bring back economic growth. we will cut and cap spending. we will restore america's aaa rating. [applause] 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 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. as's take these challenges 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. >> 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? -- can everyone hear me? 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, three programs -- medicare, social security, and medicaid, with interest -- will have consumed 100% of all federal revenue. why? do not forget that these programs are pay-as-you-go programs. current workers pay for current

retirees. 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 to put in place the kinds of reforms. it is not about balancing the budget early. that is not what you do. it is about putting in the reforms for my generation so that we do not have a debt crisis. that way medicare and social security is there for my generation when we retire. let's not have a european crisis on our hands. the know what happens then? real cuts for real people in real-time. they are slashing health benefits for current seniors. young people cannot get jobs. what we're trying to do is this

-- to get the economy growing and help workers and help small businesses and guarantee the promise of these programs. we need to change it for my generation. in a way to make sure it does not go bankrupt when we retire year. that is how you fix this problem. there are bipartisan ideas to do it. >> a couple more questions. from minnesota -- would destabilize social security by increasing revenues and lower are limiting benefits? >> we put a specific plan on this. we think a tax increase is about economics and back for growth. it especially hurt self-employed people. a self-employed person like a farmer or some growing a business -- it is not a the kind

of revenues you need to fix the problem. if you put in a small changes , you can make the modifications that would make the program solvent for 75 years. what we are saying is to gradually raise the retirement age to reflect longevity in the future. we do not started until 2025, i believe. did i give wealthy people as much of an increase in their benefits as everyone else does. bring back revenue ought to increase -- there are some people who only live on social security that are below the poverty line. we do not want any american citizen below the poverty level.

during this helps us to save the program and make sure that it is there when i retire. we should restore the trust and the faith and the belief that it will be there for us when we retire. [applause] >> last question. i'd think it was fairly similar to another question. social security and medicare are too important for you to keep fighting in washington. what specific steps would you take to forge a bipartisan compromise? >> best question. first, i think you might have heard the word "voucher."

what we are proposing is an idea that i proposed to a democrat in the senate last year. it is an idea that came out of bill clinton's 1999 commission to save medicare. what we are proposing is an idea that has been traditionally supported by both parties in the past. i am familiar with this idea is because i have worked out this plan as a congressman, as a member of the federal employee work force. you cannot be denied. you pick your plan and medicare subsidizes your premium plan based on who you are. if you are poor or sick, you get total coverage. doing it this way, for my generation, saves it.

the sham of this idea is that this idea has been supported by democrats since the late nineties. and because the president and partisan blockades will not act on it, that is why it does not passed. it is rooted in bipartisan ideas. here is what mitt romney and i plan to do. here is what i have done on this issue and what he has done as governor of a democratic state. do not demean the opposite side. do not demigod democrats. invite them in to talk and solve this. you can get to common ground on these problems if you treat people with respect and without compromising your principles. it is a plan that has been

supported by democrats and republicans alike. we can get this done. this is what we want to do. our plan is to winning this election. we want to work with those democrats who want to work with us and say this critical program. that is what we are trying to achieve. it is too important to take this for granted. these are the two most important programs the government created. too many americans depend on it for the health and retirement security. the more that we do nothing, the deeper the whole that we did. the sooner that we act, the sooner we can fix this. if you wait, if you delay, it gets uglier. the solutions are that much harsher.

that is the point we're trying to make. thank you. >> congressman ryan, thank you for joining us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> here is a look at where the candidates will be campaigning this weekend. on monday, but he will take a bus tour in ohio at the veterans memorial and the convention hall. vice president joe biden will continue campaigning in new hampshire on saturday. president obama campaigned in virginia today where he talked about mitt romney. here is a brief look. >> i do not believe that we can get very far with leaders who write off half of the nation.

they are not interested in taking responsibility for their own lives. i do not see any victims in this crowd today. i see hard working people. [cheers and applause] some of you might be students trying to work her way through college -- your way through college. some of you might be single mothers like my mother and putting in over time to make a better let order kids. some of you might be seniors who have been saving up your entire lives for your retirement. soldiers to defend our freedom today. nobody believes that anyone is entitled to success in this country. we do not believe the government should be helping people who refuse to help themselves. but we do believe in something

called opportunists. we believe in a country where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded and everyone gets a fair shot and everyone plays by the same rules. that is a country we believe in. that is why i am running for a second term as president. [cheers and applause] >> tomorrow, the road to the white house coverage continues. president obama will be at a campaign rally in milwaukee. it is exactly one month before early voting begins in wisconsin. you can watch that rallied live on saturday at 6:40 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. after that, first lady michelle obama delivers remarks of the congressional black caucus foundation awards dinner here in washington. her remarks start live on saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern, also on c-span.

>> we have to crack down on china when the cheap. they manipulate their currency. -- when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. they still patents and designs. they have to understand that they cannot take away jobs on that basis. >> up rooting companies and sending them to china. pioneers. you cannot stand up to china when all you do is send them our jobs. >> what engage with c-span as a campaign boost to the november elections -- watch and engage with c-span as the campaign moves to the november elections. there'll be a town hall debate on october 16, tuesday. the final debate takes place on

october 22. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span radio, and on c-span.org. >> california congresswoman maxine waters was cleared of ethics violation charges today. part of her chief of staff and also her grandson, it is still under inquiry. her husband held stock in oneunited and served on the board of directors. the committee has completed 8 two-year investigation. --a two-year investigation.

>> 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 waters's 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 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. let me summarize the last steps we have taken. everyone in the room understand where we are and why we are here. 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. there is not sufficient evidence in the record to prove violations by a clear standard which is necessary before formal sanctions are recommended. we are prepared to accept that recommendation. pending the outcome of this hearing. 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. moore's knowledge of the conduct. this is because 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 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 prior to 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's 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 gentleman from kentucky and

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 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 2011. mr. martin conducted a comprehensive review of the due process allegations. this review, which was unprecedented in the committee's hisry, 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's 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's 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. moore the opportunity to comment on all of those concerns. i hope this will be a productive hearing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will now ask if any other members of the committee have an opening statement that they wish to make. they're being done, i will now recognize the outside counsel, mr. martin, for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, mr. ranking

member, members of this committee, we thank you for the opportunity to provide an opening statement in the matter involving maxine waters. in july 2009, the house of congressional ethics submitted a report to the ethics committee in the one hundred 11th congress concluding the representative waters may have violated house conflict of interest rules when she called the former treasury secretary to set up a meeting with oneunited bank. in light of the fact that representative waters's 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.

based on ms. waters' chief of staff. 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, oneunited 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 oneunited bank and he told her that he would handle the oneunited 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's 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 oneunited 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. moore said that e-mail to a -- mr. moore sent that e-mail to a financial services staffer stating, "oneunited is in trouble." outside council believes it is a reasonable interpretation that this e-mail is a specific reference to oneunited. 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 oneunited 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 oneunited. representative waters stated, and i quote, "we were only concerned about minority banks broadly."

they would invalidate issue and make a decision on how to proceed -- they would evaluate the issue and make a decision on how to proceed. as her chief of staff, mr. moore is her most trusted staff member. she should be able to rely on his recommendations. -- rely on him to follow her instructions. mrs. waters took the important step to instruct him not to assist oneunited. we recommend to this committee that the evidence does not support a finding by clear and convincing evidence that representative waters failed to supervise her staff. i will now address the evidence with respect to representative waters's chief of staff, mikhail moor.

-- moore. we cannot determine when ms. waters told mr. more not to assist with oneunited. for these reasons, recommend that the record does not support a finding with clear and convincing evidence that he in knowing violation of house rules or other standards of conduct to be proved against mr. more. nonetheless, you're outside counsel is troubled by the fact that his testimony raises substantial issues of credibility. >> first, he testified that he was underwear are representative waters has been a financial interest in one united at a subcommittee meeting in 2007.

representative waters said on record that her husband was both a board member of the minority bank and a stockholder in oneunited. she did this because she noted on the record that she believes disclosure is important. mr. more denied this portion of the statement. second, representative waters at disclosed for husband's stock holdings in financial statements. at third and most importantly, representative waters stated would haveoore's known about the stock holdings in oneunited. he misinterpreted the instructions from representative waters when she told him no specific assistance to

oneunited. you took that to mean that he was only afraid -- refrained from working on whenunited matters on one day and only that day. further, the committee testified that mr. moore told her that his office had a conflict of insurance -- in trust. it is our conclusion and recommendation that he understood the instructions from representative waters. >> given that ms. warren believes in a disclosure and that mr. moore would have known about at stake holding, we do not find it credible that he did not -- we find inconsistencies on other subjects in which we

reviewed. those are included in the outside counsel's report to the committee. we do not believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that he knowingly violated ethics rules, we raise the issue to his credibility in our report to allow the committee to consider whether it was a corporate for this committee to consider taking action against him short of a formal sanction. as noted in the report and by outside counsel, all from the terminations, including credibility determinations, our property left to this committee since it is a responsibility of this committee and not your outside counsel to make the ultimate findings and conclusions regarding this matter. we stick for the record, mr. chairman, should the committee decide to issue something short of a formal sanction, such as a letter of reproval for his actions in this matter.

we would agree that decision -- after dave's meeting. we believe that would be consistent with the findings in the report. thank you for the time to present this. >> thank you. 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 solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> thank you. please be seated. please state your full name. the procedure for the hearing will be as follows. you will make an opening statement if you wish.

outside counsel may question you. members may also ask you questions if they wish. you may make a closing statement. outside counsel and members will make closing statements if they wish. would you like to make an opening statement? >> yes. >> you may have 10 minutes for an opening statement. >> members of the committee, you have a report by an outside counsel by committee hired in 2011. since that time, the committee has committed approximately $1.3 million to its word. when the committee hired mr. martin, until the house of the outside counsel would allow any more independent review. along with key findings of his independent review our it is outside counsel's decision that representative waters did not violate any standards of conduct.

after the review of my conduct, outside counsel recommended that no formal sanction a referral to the floor of the house is warranted in this matter. the second report before you agrees with the recommendation. however, it by verges on the question of my actions applying unprecedented standards to the same testimony in which part led mr. martin's independent determination that neither the congresswoman nor i violated any ethics rules. but the committee and independent review have agreed with our long-held contention that both the meeting that representative waters held up were indeed proper. the committee is seized on two e-mails sent by me and to a staffer on the financial

services committee. neither of them asked for is a catalyst to any action on behalf of oneunited as is the basis for three violations of house rules. the claim is that i worked on behalf of oneunited and did so after i should recognize that his investment was a conflicting interest. i have repeatedly and consistently testified before the committee that i was not conscious of the investment in 2008. it played no role in my decision making process. that would make a knowing violation in possible. outside counsel has determined and recommends to the committee that it is not possible to determine by clear and consistent standards when the conversation between a

representative waters and her chief of staff regarding the conflict of oneunited occurred. this implies a 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 stance to meet and offend. -- defend. 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. ofcifically, in the matters 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 substantive 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 legislator. 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 that 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, prepared 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 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 appropriately 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 ve 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 forth 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 inure to your

benefit and that's why we have investigative subcommittees and adjudicatory 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 foley 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-freddie 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 yo >> 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 understanding of why she would tell you to stay out of it?

>> let me address the first "that is being used in the outside counsel's report. -- the first quote. when she was asked, she said yes, they knew about it. everybody knew about it. i was fully disclosed. my reading of that is not a determinative statement about whether i knew but if she had fully disclosed everything already. in the same way i do not think it is reasonable to expect all the newspapers and everyone to know, and barney frank, for that matter, who testified he did not know. that was not a determinative statement that she made, i believe. the second question was that i told the chief counsel on the financial services committee about the conflict. although i do not remember that conversation, one thing that troubles me about that statement in the record is that there is no base associated with it. it does not say when the conversation allegedly happened so it raises the same issue raised with all the other evidence around timing and that is a critical moment. there is a date associated, that's one thing. if there is no data associated, i think it raises the same issue that the rest of the evidence raises on that point, around timing, and whether or not i was aware. >> when representative waters ask you to stay out of it, what did you and for as to the reason why she would have directed you to stay out of it? >> i do not recall the substance of that conversation at this point. >> i thank the gentleman. do other members have questions? i will recognize myself, mr. more. -- mr. moore. one of the issues the committee is troubled by an deliberating about is the finding their representative waters on at least three occasions made it clear that she had a conflict than she intended to stay out of a matter of one united's assistance from the department

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

>> this is more of a comment. i do not know if they have changed their standard to this point, but during the zero c e interview, it was not transcribed. it was said that i was supposed to stay out of issues that day. >> let me enter in there and ask why she would instruct you to stay out of the broader issues at all. it would not seem there is any

conflict there. why would it apply just to that one day? >> frankly, i do not know why i made that statement. it was several years ago. the broader question for me is the two acts that the committee suggested ito were two emails, one that said they were in trouble and then i forwarded it to the financial services committee. even under the committee theory, in that circumstance, the standard that has been used before specifically in cases like this has been a member or staff communicating with federal agencies or with folks who had the actual power to do something on behalf of the agency they were allegedly communicating with. i do not see those two emails as causing or precipitating anything, being a catalyst, and i did not communicate anything to an outside entity like the treasury department who would have had the power to draft that request.

that is my challenge with that idea. i still go back to the fact that there has been no date or time unestablished about when the conversation happened with the congresswoman. >> when you were interviewed by outside counsel, in 2012, as opposed your reference to earlier testimony, you confirm that earlier testimony, did you not? you confirmed the earlier testimony that you had said that you thought the instructions you had received from congresswoman waters to stay out of the matter was for one day only and not to stay out of it. >> i would imagine i reiterated the testimony given. i'm not denying that i said that. what i said is that i was not clear what my thinking was behind making that statement.

>> we are troubled by the constructs that you had been ordered by congresswoman waters to stay out of the matter entirely for one day meeting all things but that would not apply to communications regarding things beyond one united after that without having any question or concern for why that would be, number one, and number two, we are reviewing the testimony and evidence before the committee regarding the nature of those actions and their connection to their subsequent email connections to one united. it still troubles us that you would say that i felt i was only required to stay out of this matter for one day and then could proceed to communicate whether it is about the broader matter or the more narrow matter with relation to one united. we will be the judge of what we think the totality of the evidence shows there. personally, i am not able to

understand how you would reach those conclusions and why you would not ask for further clarification and why you would feel that there would be a need on one day to stay out of this matter but not a need to stay out entirely. >> 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 refers to that. if we could do that, again, my credibility and my honesty is being impeached and when the testimony explicitly says the nba. >> we will take your comments hundred wiseman.

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

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

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

>> but it went to somebody. treasury was asked for but did dollars million. >> let me be clear about that. the letter that was sent on behalf of the nba that was sent to henry paulson, the solution that was outlined in the letter that preceded the meeting said that minority banks that were impacted should be given their money back. it was the solution that was suggested before the meeting happened, which the treasury department had in hand. whether i agree with the way in which was articulate it and who it was articulated by, it was not something that was not in conjunction with the letter they had sent previously. >> this goes to my concern. how big is the class? this is the reason i believe the secretary called congresswoman waters. this is supposed to be a minority bank meeting and only one united shows up. they then get down to the fact that there are only two nba members who have this particular problem. the same document without the one united stock is also forwarded to the financial services committee and i have a

copy of that if your interested as well. again, my concern is that i think there were two legislative tracts. to be in one crossways against the spirit and the letter of the role in the house, you do not have to be successful if you try to do something and does not work. that the not make it ok. likewise -- let me finish and you can respond. you not not run out of my head. anyway, i think there were two tracks to legislation.

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

again, whether or not the class question deals with the number of institutions, the number of shareholders, or the percentage of shareholders is something the committee has to grapple with. the second thing is, again, although the emails and the issues articulated here are looked at in a very narrow view, i did not ask to broaden them. the buyback question you're talking about was something that was not exclusive or individual to the nba, when united, or mr. foley. as early as the day of the conservatorship, they expressed their want, need, and aspiration for the buyback of preferred stock for all banks that had been impacted.

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

as members know, whether it is the nba, ica, or nba, they are made up of their members. they are not separate. it you can be the ceo of a bank and had a legislation of the same time. >> would the gentleman from ohio yield? mr. kellie testified before the outside counsel that he was a board member of 1 united bank and that he believed that you knew he was a board member of 1 united bank at the time of these discussions and communications going on related to one united's difficulties. >> i guess i would just say, again, i'm not denying that point, but what was asked? what was done?

and who did he say he was working on behalf? he was a board member, without question, according to emails and testimony, but he also testified he was not working on behalf those entities when he was communicating in that way according to what i read. >> i am advised by a committee of outside counsel that mr. foley actually put that back in writing to you in july 2008. at the time, you had been advised by congressman waters to stay out of this matter. subsequently you were advised to stay out because she had a conflict, in her mind, and in her testimony before the committee staff. that conflict was her husband's ownership of stock in one united bank. yet, the subsequent communications with mr. foley

would seem to indicate that, notwithstanding those instructions and your comments that you thought it was for only one day, you subsequently had communications with committee staff -- you could say would be for a broader purpose, but it clearly could be seen to be a communications related to 1 united bank and the reason why congressman waters ask you to stay out of the matter. >> i would raise two points. the email you are referring to about mr. foley saying that he was a board member of 1 united bank was in july 2008 and was a part of a reference of at least seven or eight legislative conversations around the downfall of fannie and freddie. i don't want the committee to suggest that i deny a long-term working relationship with mr. foley or that i received an e- mail. that's 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 would apply only to one united and i think the answer to that is absolutely not.

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

stay out of this matter. to then take your own and your rotation of with the matter was and how narrowly or broadly in applies still appears to us to have violated the injection you receive from congresswoman waters. >> i agree that, again, the work that i did in september 2008 was not on behalf of any one bank. the committee is contingent i was not doing anything on behalf of one united, i follow that injection. i also believe that, again, continuing to have a conversation about when i was instructed is very important. is difficult to say that i violated an instruction if you cannot say when it was. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> two points because the gentle lady from maryland has been waiting patiently.

>> let me interrupt for just a second and advise all members that we have of votes that have been called. it's our intention to return until all members have asked questions that they need to ask of you and we will give you full opportunity to respond. the gentleman from ohio. >> one of the worst things that can happen is when someone comes in and says they have google them before the meeting. you're exactly right. based upon his career, his training, his expertise, he is someone who is sought after in terms of giving advice. i think you hit the nail on the head. it is this had question. how many different hats can a person where? wendy have to say, i'm an expert in banking.

i want to help nba and icba, but i am a board member of one united. that's the center of this case, for me. there are times, again, in my opinion, where you, as a lobbyist, as a staffer, as a member, have to say, because of that hat, we cannot go there. >> if i may? thank you for that clarification. i would appreciate that clarification and i think the house without well. the house conflict of interest rules are interpreted by the action you are taking. i'd knowledge all of these has multiple people were wearing. might litmus test is what is being asked and what am i doing? if i would have been asked to write a piece of legislation that only applied to one united or another company, that would be something that would make the highly uncomfortable. i do not believe any other

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

it is clear to me that ms. waters knew that she had a conflict of interest and had made it clear that she understood that, that she spoke to the then chairman of the committee to separate herself from the matter, and that she directed you to stay out of it. you ignored your employee number. 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. >> let me address that in a few ways.

the first is that you said i ignored my members direction. outside counsel has established that we can establish when that conversation happened. that is a fact of the record. it's difficult for me to extend the idea that i ignored a direction when we have not established a time line. secondly, i would again suggest in my view -- and it could be wrong -- but the two emails that are referred to even after that direction do not violate that

direction, to send an e-mail that i would especially forward to mr. frank's office, the person designated to work on behalf of this entity. if i would have communicated with the treasury, the fdic, or someone and asked them to do something on behalf of one united, it would be a different conversation. i have to go back to the timeline because i think it's very important in establishing a time line to establish whether or not a directive was ignored.

they ought to talk about the actions taken after it. >> like mr. latourette, it is not important to me as a consideration that you're successful or approached the right entity to evaluate whether you have known or should have known about a conflict. again, perhaps we will have this deliberation, but if we were to accept your conclusion, i think we would have to revisit the conclusion that we have already made or that is in the report as to ms. water's adequate supervision of you. i will leave it at that. >> that i may respond? the first thing that i would say is that i have already on the record today knowledge that it may have been in court judgment for me to take that as an interpretation.

i'm not trying to city councilman did not give a clear direction when it was given. i have knowledge on the record that i may have exhibited poor judgment if my interpretation was only for that one day. i have a knowledge that. there's no question about that directive. the question still remains, and i would ask any member of staff for outside counsel to affirmatively establish when the confirmation -- the conversation happened and i ignored it. the record is replete dili saying it did not happen. my concern is that the committee has laid out the reason stanton violations -- that i use the office former personal gain, that i seek special favors, and that brought discredit on the house without establishing the facts. that is problematic. >> the vote on the floor has about five minutes remaining. the committee will stand in recess and we will reconvene immediately following the votes.

clucks the committee will reconvene. when we recessed, the members were in the process of being recognized to ask questions of mr. moore. at this time, i would ask the

members if any of them wish to be recognized for the purpose of asking questions. if not, mr. moore, we have agreed in advance and have given him notice of our intention to give you an opportunity to give closing remarks. i will ask the members one more time if anyone has any additional questions they missed -- they wish to ask. if not, we recognize you for your closing statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first, let me thank the committee for this opportunity. i think it was an important and informative discussion.

i learned some things and i hope i was able to clearly answer the questions that the member of this committee asked. -- members asked. the only final thing i will say is that it is my hope as the committee goes back and considers both the action to take and the violations considered that it does so in a manner that appropriately reflects the accusations that have been made. i am concerned and one of the reasons i came to this hearing was that after reviewing specifically the allegations, that the idea, again, that i used the office for personal gain, that i had dispensed personal favors for personal gain, and that i brought discredit on the house is of great concern to me. i do also recognize something that has been brought to light in this conversation, the varying concerns of the members and i appreciate those concerns. i will take them under indictment and major moving forward that those concerns are not only something bad i take

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

>> thank you, mr. moore. the chair now recognizes the outside counsel for his closing comments. >> mr. chairman, i would like to first correct something in the record that happened today. there was one statement earlier i made in this hearing, i previously stated that he had testified in a recording july 2012 that he thought he was supposed to stay out of one united matters, but only for one day. i have gone back and review that transcript. mr. morrison the following as a statement. "i took her conversation with me to me that i should not. there was no need to work on when united issues that day or the nba issues that day. i cannot remember how it was phrased, but i note that day was what the context was all about." that is the end of this statement. i would note that in his

statement, he never indicated the statement was incorrect or that he recalled things being different than now. i said earlier that he thought he was supposed to stay out of those matters and she did not limit that direction to one day, as he now seems to admit, then he even more clearly ignored that direction by continuing to work on matters for minority banks including one united after he was instructed not to. it is in my view the committee should properly consider both his testimony and his changing version of this conversation with representative waters in determining whether or not his recollections regarding what he knew and when he knew what are credible. if i may continue, in closing, mr. chairman, members of this committee, as were outside counsel, we have listened to the arguments advanced by mr. more today.

he has made many of these arguments previously to this committee and to the standing committee. in addition, he has made the arguments during prior testimony before outside counsel. 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.

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. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> tomorrow on washington journal, david ingram reduce the justice department's inspector general report on fast and furious.

lawrence mashal, president of the economic policy institute, discusses how american families are doing in today's economy. fredrik late in talks about this week's cyber based attacks at bank of america and jp morgan chase that kept those banks from doing business. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern of c-span. >> when i came here, i did not know what and ig did. my experience was as a prosecutor, we sell them ran into their law enforcement arms. it would be our agents. for a while i was doing mortgage fraud cases. i was dealing with the inspector general -- general from hud. but i did not know the big picture of what and ig his doing. when i got the job, i went around and met the different ig's. starting with his meetings and over the next couple years, i found the inspector generals , they are

supposed to be these years watchdog's looking out for waste fraud and abuse, had become or were often like any other governmental agency. their number one concern -- to preserve their budget. they were worried about clashing with management. they were worried about too much interaction with congress. it was a goal -- go along get along type of attitude. i kept hearing their three types of ig's. a lap dog and that was discouraged. it watchdog and a junkyard dog. when i was going to the confirmation process, i was told by the head of the finance committee that i needed to be like a junkyard dog. >> neal worked to uncover fraud

and abuse in the $700 billion tarp bailout program. more from his books sunday night at 8:00 on "q &a." >> i had to be to my wanting to get more involved with politics watching information on c-span. i love the information. i love the current events. i love the hot topics. i love watching it, pulling it up on my mobile device to >> she watches c-span on cox communications. created by america's cable companies in 1939. brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> congressional democrats held a briefing outside the capitol today. they 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 bush eric tax cuts -- bush era tax cut for those making less than 21 to $50,000 a year. this is less than 15 minutes. -- less than $250,000 a year. this is less than 15 minutes. >> good morning. as you can see, democrats stand proudly on the steps of the capital saying 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 which can create more than 1 million new jobs immediately. passed a five-year farm bill, 16 million agricultural jobs depend on it. extend middle income tax cuts to provide certainty for millions of americans and help our economy. and do pass a comprehensive balanced -- and to pass a comprehensive and balanced the 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 three are here standing together -- were are here standing together -- we will have been in session only 8

days. ight.s just not r 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] in closing, i will say that one of the most important issues that we face in our country that will be decided in the election is the issue of medicare. the republicans in the house of representatives have voted six times to end the medicare guaranteed. that will cost seniors $6,400 more as they get 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 those who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility. we remove obstacles to that said

they will have success. we know we have work to do. that is why we must a year to do it. now i yield to our distinguished mr. hoyer . >> thank you, madam leader. what we're seeing this week is a consulting and to a dismal congress. two distinguished political scientist and our country said this -- the gop has become an insurgent out later in american politics. it is extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of fact, evidence, spirit dismissive of the legitimacy of political opposition. republicans are leaving town with a stack of the unfinished business that the public expects us to get done. chief among them are creating jobs and averting the fiscal cliff. democrats have been ready to work with republicans to

replace the sequestered they imposed last year by reaching a big and balanced solution to deficits. however, republicans have walked away from compromise every time as those two political strategists said, insisting on putting tax breaks for millionaires ahead of a balanced solution. they have also held tax cut for the middle class hostage to that same cause. instead of wasting time, our partisan messaging bills as we have done this week, republicans ought to have used this time to consider the bipartisan farm bill. farmers across the country are facing the worst drought in decades. and republicans refused to act. this is irresponsible and republicans ought to come back and finish their work, not cut and run and walk away, the american people. [applause] shame on them. shame on them for abandoning our 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. but to stay here and do the work for the american people. -- ready to stay ehre and to the work of the american people. [applause] >> thank you so much. throughout the eentire congress, the republican majority in the house put their own political interests ahead of the interests of the american people and we see a continuation of that this week. the senate passed the middle- class tax cuts and the president has said he will sign it as soon as it hits his desk. but the republican leadership refuses to bring it to the floor and allow it to be voted

on. the only thing standing between the american middle-class and working people and their tax cuts is republican leadership in the house and their tea party adherents. congress should not leave town without passing the middle-class tax cuts. [applause] >> as one of those people, the 47%, the middle class, i am here to say that democrats are ready to work on behalf of the american people and to deliver the tax cuts that they deserve. i am proud yield to my friend from connecticut. >> thank you.

i am proud to stand with my members who are prepared to work at the job they are sent here to do for the people who they are sworn to serve. this is personal. people back home cannot understand the work ethic of this congress. they do not understand why we are not staying here to get the job done. they have seen them over the last several weeks perpetuate a myth president clinton debunked at the convention about work requirements. the only requirement for work is that republicans stay here and work instead of cutting and running. we are ready to do the job that we are sent here to do. we are here to get a jobs bill in front of the american people. we want to get the job done. that is why we rely on the great strength of our leader, the vice president of our caucus.

>> our chairman is fired up. every member who is standing here is saying something to the american people. we are here to represent our constituents, all of those american, and every single one of those americans that live. we are ready to work for every american who wants to go to work. we are here to say to our colleagues, "do not cut and run." it is time for us to roll up our sleeves and show the american people that we can do this bipartisan. it is not just american taxpayers and workers or farmers that are being left behind today. back in april, the u.s. senate passed by an overwhelming majority a bill to help women who suffer from domestic violence.

the violence against women act passed by 68 votes in the senate. it has been languishing since april in the house of representatives. every day in america a woman dies of domestic violence. behind her is another woman, and behind her is another woman. three women in america die every day as a result of domestic violence. since april, this house of representatives has been unwilling to put the violence against women act up for a vote. it is not just american workers. it is not just american farmers and it is not just american taxpayers that are being left behind by those who wish to cut and run. it is women who are fighting for their very lives.

each member who is standing behind me is saying we are here to work for farmers, american taxpayers, for people who want to get back to work. for every single american woman who is saying, we want to have the respect we deserve and not be the victims of violence. pass the violence against women act now. do not go home before you do that. we will do that. let me introduce to you our ranking democrat. >> we want to stay. congressional republicans want to run away. you can run, but you cannot hide from your record. you cannot hide from what you want to do. i can understand looking at what they plan to do why they want to hide from the american people. president obama and congressional democrats will make sure that people hold our colleagues accountable. the president has said to congress, stay and pass middle-

class tax cuts. we need to extend tax relief to 98% of the american people. 100% of the american people would get tax relief on their first $250,000. 98% would get full tax relief. 97% of all past-due businesses would get tax relief. the republican position has been, no, unless people like mitt romney, unless companies like bain capital, get bonus tax breaks, nobody else in america can get tax relief. it is no wonder that they want to cut and run, especially when you look at the next plan. look at the romney-ryan budget. what do they want to do? another round of big tax breaks for wealthy people at the expense of everybody else.

if you are serious about dealing with our long-term deficit, the question is -- how do you choose to do that? if you provide another round of big tax breaks for people like mitt romney, it means you will cut seniors on medicare. give them a voucher that declines in value. leave them paying the bill so you can get another round of tax breaks to people at the top. cut our children's educations. i can understand in some ways why they are cutting and running. we are not going to let them hide from their record. we will not let th hide from what they plan to do to this country. we are not going to take a u- turn back to the same failed trickle-down policy that got our country into such a mess. we need to move forward. i want to stay here to do. thank you very much.

[chants work] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> john boehner held his and a session news conference to talk about the farm bill and tax reform. this is about 50 minutes. -- 15 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. there are nearly 40 of our jobs bills sitting in the united states senate -- all part of our plan for american job creators that we have been working on all year. these bills cut red tape, remove government barriers that make it harder for small businesses to hire new workers.

there are bills to address our debt, expand american energy production and approved projects like the keystone pipeline. there are bills that stop the president's tax hike and fix the tax code. to bring more jobs home from overseas. these are good ideas, all passed with bipartisan support here in the house. president obama will not work with us to find common ground or urged senate democrats to take action. why? it is because democrats have failed to lead. they failed to lead on jobs. the unemployment rate has been over 8% for 43 consecutive months. they failed to lead on energy. everything from gasoline prices to groceries will cost more today. defenseident's sequestration threatens our national security and his tax hikes threatens some 700,000 jobs and our country.

while democrats have failed to lead, republicans have focused on jobs and keeping our pledge to america that we made nearly two years ago. the american people want government out of the way. they want spending reduced, less regulation on small businesses, a strong national defense, and more american energy production. that is the people's agenda -- a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. that has been our governing agenda. we promised to focus solutions for jobs in the economy, to reform congress and cut spending. we have kept our pledge. this is not a time for congratulations. it is not just our jobs bills that the democrats are ignoring. their failure to lead is a lot worse.

they have not passed a budget in more than three years. they have no plan to save medicare, no plan to stop all of the tax hikes, no plans to replace the sequester. they have threatened to do nothing and drive us off the fiscal cliff, which the congressional budget office has said will lead to a very deep recession. this is not leadership. it is negligence. president obama's excuse is -- you cannot change washington from the inside. you actually can change washington from the inside. it takes courage, determination, and sincerity. that is called leadership. i have been here for 22 years. i have been involved in changing a lot of things in this town. from my days as a member of the gang of seven, closing the house bank, trying to get congress to run more efficiently and more professionally. how about the issue of earmarks? nobody thought we could ever get rid of.

i spent five years working to eliminate their marks. over the last couple of years, we have had the earmarks. you cannot tell me that you cannot fix washington from the inside. i have this belief that the president does not share my optimism about fixing this town. >> mr. speaker, your fellow republican running for senate in wisconsin, -- >> i am a house guy. [laughter] i am just teasing. >> i know you are. he is someone who said he is worried that mitt romney will drag him and other down-ballot republicans down. >> over the last few weeks both campaigns have been into all kinds of other areas. but the american people want to

know -- what is the plan to get our economy going again and create jobs? the president's economic policies have failed. he cannot go out there and run on his record. he has to try to make this election about everything other than his record. the romney campaign needs to stay focused on jobs, their plan to create jobs, and commence the american people that he does have a plan. that will put americans back to work. they have done a pretty good job of it. >> mr. speaker, when you came into the current roll, you said that the house will work where there are not you bring up some bills on the floor that could fail. >> and we have. >> there is a bipartisan group of farm-heavy district law makers who are pushing you to

get this farm bill on the floor. what a farm bill will we see on the floor before the end of the year? >> we do not typically put bills on the floor where we are expecting failure. it has been my opinion -- having been a member of the ag committee for 16 years -- that the opposition from the left and the right here in the congress have prevented us from putting the bill on it because i do not believe there are 218 votes in the middle to pass the bill. i have made it clear yesterday, we get back, the house will take up the issue of the farm bill. i know what the next question is. well, what it is gonna look like? >> what is going to look like? [laughter] what is going to look like? >> will we get back after the election, we will consult with our members and develop a pathway for word. it is too early to determine right now what kind of mood members will be in or kind of opinions and will have. yes, sir. >> if the president wins, doesn't that mean you will eventually have to raise taxes? >> no, raising taxes would threaten our economy with a loss of 700,000 jobs.

why would i ever be for something like that? i am not. our goal is to have a tax reform and entitlement reform. we all know that these are probably going to both have to travel on parallel paths. it is important for our country to fix our debt problem and to have a tax code that is competitive with our worldwide economy and fairer for the american people. >> there are members of both parties expressing concerns about the sequester. let me ask you a philosophical question. i keep hearing republican saying, we need to fix the sequester. republicans philosophically have been saying government should be out of people's lives. are you saying that if we need to fix the sequester, is there some connection that people are tied to the government in the defense sector, and the small business committee put out a report yesterday saying if the sequester kicks in, is that saying there is concern for a

problem with people being tied to the government, even in your own party? >> the sequester was designed to be ugly. why? so that no one would go there. because the president did not help, did not lead when it came to working with the supercommittee, senate democrats did not cooperate, helping us meet the supercommittee function. we end up with a sequester. the sequester is like taking a meat ax to federal spending. it is not -- no one on either side of the aisle thinks this is inappropriate way to reduce the role of government. that is why the house acted in may. they passed a bill to replace the sequester. it says in the united states

senate. >> house democrats gathered on the capitol steps, chanting work, work, work, criticizing you for [laughter] >> really? my friends across the aisle, who i have treated fairly, but they are saying this is the release the house has ever left during an election year. they should stay here to fix the problem. >> fix the problem? instead of them having the demonstration on the house ducks, maybe they should have had on the seven steps. it was sitting where a couple of years ago who said the most importance part of governing is doing a budget. senate democrats have not done a budget for 3.5 years. when you think about the letter that they send to me about us doing our work, how about the 40 jobs bills that are sitting in the united states senate? the house is the only body to have passed a bill to stop all the coming tax hikes.

the house is the only body that has passed a bill to stop the sequester. we have done our work. senate democrats and a president -- where is their responsibility? where is their leadership? it does not exist. >> the sequester may have been put in place because the expectation was that some grand bargain was not going to be made here. there are probably members of your caucus the like the idea of cutting domestic spending. there are democrats like the idea of cutting domestic spending. why not just what the sequester take affect and see how it all shakes out? >> i will not speculate on what may or may not happen in the lame-duck. i have not heard one member suggest that the sequester was

a good idea. not one. i talked to a lot of members from both parties every day. >> why does mitt romney continue to trail in the polls in ohio? >> it has been a close race in ohio. it is going to be close race in ohio. i always expected it would be a close race in ohio, just like probably all of you. one of the things that probably work against romney is the fact that the governor has done a good job of fixing government regulations in the state, attracting new businesses to the state. our unemployment rate in ohio is lower than the national average. it is a full point lower than the national average. as a result, people are still concerned about the economy and jobs in ohio. it certainly is not like to see in some other states.

>> he spoke about the need to address the sequester and the lame duck in the year. will congress act to extend the jobless benefits seen as [indiscernible] -- that is currently in place? >> i do not know. i have not heard any conversations about it. we had a plan that we passed last december to deal with this. i am sure there will be a conversation about it. we will look for a common way forward. >> to you think congress should investigate why there were no marines in libya and who made that decision? >> i suspect that part of the investigation under way will take a look of that. while we typically have a marine detachment at our embassy, that is not always the case when it comes to our consulates. i am sure there will be a

review of that in a discussion about whether that is why is going forward. i hope you all have -- >> back in april, you said there was a one in three chance that house republicans will lose. as you look at the polls now and all of the battleground polls are trending more democratic, what is your assessment now? >> i continue to feel confident about the house republicans' chances of holding onto our majority. we have done a good job getting our incumbents in good shape. in august, i was in 42 districts with his-half of them incumbents, the other half were open-seat and challenger races. we have some very good candidates out there where we are playing offense. i have always looked at this year as trying to get our incumbent members in a stronger position as possible so we can use more of our resources on

offense. that is turning out to be possible. you will see us playing offense in a lot of democrat-held districts in the coming weeks. >> what is your electoral college prediction? romney versus obama? who wins and how much? [laughter] >> they are in recess until after the presidential election. they return for business the week of november 12 when you can watch live coverage on c-span 2. >> of this weekend, live coverage of the national book festival from the national mall with two days of presentations and interviews including walter isaacson and david maraniss. live on c-span 2. to discuss details at booktv.org.

>> paul ryan spoke today at the aarp annual conference in new orleans. he talked about social security and medicare and his plans with presidential candidate mitt romney to protect the programs in the future and repeal the health care law. this is about 35 minutes. [applause] >> hey, everybody. how are you? thank you. appreciate it. jane, everyone here, i appreciate the 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 math can be a little bit overwhelming. 2012 - 50. let's start with that.

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 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 we invited him to congress to answer a simple question -- if president obama's medicare cuts were used to pay for new spending in obamacare, how can they also improve medicare insolvency? his answer? they cannot. it is simple. you cannot spend the same dollar twice. his exact words, "it takes two

sets 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 will 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 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 that would mean -- the cuts would be so severe, they could jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries. 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 decide it is 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 now, 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 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 for themselves. this financial support system is designed to guarantee that seniors can always afford medicare coverage with no exceptions. [applause] 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 improve upon them. 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 over time. [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 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. hasident obama's policy made it hard for small businesses to thrive. the president likes to talk about how he is a 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 built 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 our country's 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 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, three programs -- medicare, social security, and medicaid, with interest -- will have consumed 100% of all federal revenue. why?

were going from 180 million seniors in one generation. programs. 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 to put in place the kinds of reforms. it is not about balancing the budget early. that is not what you do. it is about putting in the reforms for my generation so that we do not have a debt crisis. that way medicare and social security is there for my generation when we retire. let's not have a european

crisis on our hands. the know what happens then? they are slashing health benefits for current seniors. young people cannot get jobs. what we're trying to do is this -- to get the economy growing and help workers and help small businesses and guarantee the promise of these programs. we need to change it for my generation. that is the point. that is how we fix this problem. there are bipartisan ideas that can be done to do this. >> maybe a couple more questions. charles asks, would you stabilize social security by increasing revenues, lowering or limiting benefits, or a combination?

>> we put a specific plan out here on this. we think a tax increase on payroll taxes is bad for economics growth. a self-employed person like a farmer, they appeared both sides of the payroll tax. it does not give you the kind of revenues you need to fix the problem. if the but small changes now that do not kick in until people who are 54 or below retire, you can make modest changes that make the program solvent for 75 years. what we're saying is gradually raise the retirement age to reflect longevity in the future. it will not start until 2025. do not give wealthier people as much of an increase in their benefits as everyone else does. bring the bottom and the fed up to at least poverty line. this is a flaw in the social security system today.

there are people who live on social security who are below the poverty line. do not give a higher income person as much of an increase that helps bring the minimum benefit up so there is no senior citizen in america below the poverty level. doing it this way helps us save the program not just for current seniors, but it makes sure is there when i retire. the younger you are in america the less you believe you will get this program. we have to restore the trust that it will be there for us when we retire. >> last question. 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 is the best question i could have been asked the entire time. i think you might have heard the word voucher earlier today. that is a poll tested word designed to scare seniors. here is what a voucher is. you go to your mailbox and you get a check and you buy something and you are on your own. nobody is proposing that. but we are proposing is an idea that i proposed in the senate last year. it is an idea that came out of bill clinton's 1999 commission to save medicare. an idea that has traditionally been supported by democrats and republicans in the past. the reason i am so familiar with this idea is because it works like the plan i have as a congressman. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options, you cannot be denied. you pick your plan, and medicare

subsidizes your premiums based on who you are. if you are wealthy you do not get as much of a subsidy. you are poor or sick, you get total out of pocket coverage. doing it this way saves it with no changes for people in or near retirement. the shame of the idea is, this idea has been supported since the late 90's -- the late 1990's. these ideas on social security, they also are writed and bipartisan ideas. here is what mitt romney and i are trying to do. here is what i have done on this issue in congress, what he has done when he was governor of a democratic state. do not mean the opposite side. do not demagogue democrats. invite them into a coalition to

work with us, to talk, and then to solve the problems. you can get 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 trim medicare, a plan supported by democrats and republicans alike is existence of a plan that we can get this done. our plan is to win this election, the magnanimous, and work with democrats who want to work with us to save this critical program. that is what we are trying to achieve it. it is too important to play politics. these are the two most important programs government has created. too many people depend on it for their health and retirement security. the more we delay, the more we do nothing, the deeper the whole that we did. the sooner we act, the sooner we can fix as a my generation can actually count on it.

so that your generation will get it without changes. if you wait, if you delay, the solutions are that much harsher. that is the point we're trying to make. >> we all too rare for joining us today. -- we all 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 a bus tour in ohio. joe biden continues in the new hampshire with his wife jill biden. president obama campaigned in

woodbridge, 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 the nation as victims. they think they're not interested in taking responsibility for their own lives. i do not see a lot of victims in this crowd today. i see hard-working virginians. some of you may be students try to work your way through college. some of the baby single mothers like my mom, putting in overtime to see if you can provide a better life for your kids. some of you may be senior citizens who have been saving for your retirement your whole life. some of the baby veterans who served this country bravely. soldiers to defend our freedoms

today. nobody believes that anybody is entitled to success in this country. we do not believe the government should be helping people who refuse to help themselves. but we do believe in something called opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off, our responsibility is 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. [cheers and applause] >> tomorrow, wrote to the white house coverage continues with remarks from president obama at a campaign rally in milwaukee. see the rally alive saturday at 6:40 p.m. eastern on c-span. right after that, first lady

michelle obama delivers remarks of the congressional black caucus awards dinner in washington. her remarks star live at 7:30 eastern also on c-span. >> we have to crack down on china when they cheat. they manipulate their currency. they still patents and designs. they have confidence. another one to be a responsible partner in the world of trade and commerce, they have to understand they cannot take away jobs on an unfair basis. >> investing in companies that uprooted from here and went to china. 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 to toward the elections.

foreign policy will be the debate of -- will be the focus of debate no. 3. audience members will get a chance to ask questions on tuesday the 16th. the final debate on foreign policy will take place the 22nd. watch the vice president debate october 11. >> maxine waters was cleared of ethics by listen charges today. her chief of staff, who is also her grandson, still faces an inquiry. they determined there was no evidence that representative waters pressured the treasury department to give a bailout to the united -- the minority on the bank. the committee findings concludes a two-year investigation and is one hour 40 minutes.

>> first included allegations of the investigation and the 111th congress violated represent of waters due process rights. they unanimously found that rip waters due process rights had not been violated. they then moved to the second phase of his review, which is a substantive review of the conduct of representative waters and her chief of staff. that review is now complete. we are attempting to reach our final conclusion on this matter in general. everyone in the room, do you

understand why we are here? with me summarize the less steps we have taken. after months of intense and hard work by the outside counsel, recommendations were made based on the question in a subcommittee on this matter. because there is not sufficient evidence in the record to prove violations by clear standards, which is necessary before formal sanctions are recommended to the house of representatives. we are prepared out come the -- pending the outcome of the hearing. it has been made a perfectly clear to this committee that he believes specific actions of mikael moore are violations.

we do not believe evidence on the record without making credibility to prove mr. moore's knowledge by clear and convincing standards. this is principally because mr. more has denied such knowledge. however, mr. -- he has recommended the committee make its own credibility determination to decide if any other action is appropriate. to be further clear, a thing we are considering is inconsistent with mr. martin's recommendation, 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 in this matter. we informed them that pursuant to house rules and in an abundance of fairness, there would have the unprecedented

opportunity to have a hearing, public or private at their discretion prior to reaching a final conclusion with the report. we informed them we were considering a letter of approval is appropriate for the conduct. the timeframe for this process is more compressed than anyone wishes. however, this time frame is the on the one that would meet the goal of resolving the matter as quickly as possible. consistent with his request. we set this hearing as soon as the outside counsel's investigation was a reasonably complete. we had the opportunity to further review the recommendations and ask sufficient questions of mr. martin. because of the compressed notice and schedule, we provided them an opportunity to request additional time before a hearing but made clear this is the last opportunity to hold a hearing

before the expected return of the members of washington, dc adapter november. on wednesday we provided them access to a graph and reports we are considering as well as a draft and a letter for approval for mr. moore stating we believe his conduct violated rules and standards but did not want a formal sanction or any further action. mr. moore has requested a public hearing. to be clear, and none of these documents are final and no final conclusion has been made in this matter. the committee takes this hearing very seriously and is open to having mr. moore persuade us that the conclusions we are pursuing are wrong. we hope this will be a productive hearing. this will not be a debate but an opportunity for mr. moore to address the concerns we have

about his conduct and to answer any questions the members of the committee have that. with that, i will not recognize my colleague from kentucky and the active rending member, mr. yarmuth. >> this has been a long process. i believe it has been a fair process as demonstrated by the links to which this committee has gone to ensure every relevant fact and consideration is accounted for. the standing committee on ethics and panels and investigated subcommittees' adopted a statement of alleged violation. the committee elected to recommit the matter to the isc to consider evidence discovered late in the process. none of the members here today was on the committee and the.

or had any role in the matter of the 111th congress. after returning to the isc, serious charges were raised about the investigative and decision making processes. even before there were made publicly, the standard committee recognized the need to obtain an outside counsel to review them. due to changes in the committee's membership and staff and including the resignation of chief counsel, the committee was not able to select and retain him until july 2011. mr. martin conducted a careful and comprehensive review of the due process allegations raised by both representative waters and the committee itself. this review that was unprecedented in the committee's history concluded with a recommendation that none of the conduct alleged by representative waters or others rose to the level of a violation of representative waters due

process rights. this committee's members had no role at issue in the process review. we have no interest in protecting our providing cover for the standing committee's actions in the 111th congress. with as considering mr. martin's conclusions and recommendations regarding the due process issues, we found the prior committee's conduct did not violate mr. water's due process rights. only after we reach that decision did we authorized outside counsel to start the second phase of the work. that and bawled reviewing all of the evidence gathered in the 111th congress as well as conducting additional interviews and reviewing additional documents in order to recommend a resolution of the substance -- substantive allegations in the matter. this effort was also unprecedented. the committee has never retained an outside counsel to review procedures.

all of these steps, the refusal of all members of staff involved and representatives, the hiring of outside counsel in the form of a new committee focused entirely on this matter demonstrates the lengths to which the standing committee and waters committee went to ensure that the process would be fair and any decision would be credible. in reviewing the substance of the standing committee's prior investigation with the outside counsel's assistance, we again exercise our independent judgment with no allegiance to the committee pose a processor findings. consistent with the cabinet, we have granted the request to appear today and address the concerns regarding his conduct. this is a complicated matter at a remarkable time in our nation's financial history, he faced a difficult balancing act between representing minority banks and avoiding a conflict. the committee is faced with a

difficult question of whether actions board of that line. if lines were crossed and violationsif lines were crossede 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. they're being done, i will now recognize the outside counsel, mr. martin, for his remarks. >> mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, members of this committee, we thank you for the opportunity to provide an opening statement in the matter involving maxine waters. in july 2009, the house of congressional ethics submitted a report to the ethics committee in the one hundred 11th congress concluding the representative waters may have violated house conflict of interest rules when she called the former treasury secretary to set up a meeting with one united bank. in light of the fact that representative waters' husband was a former 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 andard 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 water'' 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 understood 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 solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> 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 house is warranted in this matter. 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 substantive 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 legislator. 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 that 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, prepared 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 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 appropriately 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. the my opinion based upon 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 forth 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 inure to your benefit and that's why we have investigative subcommittees and adjudicatory 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

mr. hoyer: thank you, mr.

and so this 112th congress convulses to an ugly end of its time before the national elections. all of us must be sad and the american people are angry and sad that this congress has been so inattentive to the needs of the american people. mr. speaker, today house republicans are leaving town and will not return until after the november elections. two very respected political scientists, not democrats or republicans. one representative of a more conservative think tank and one a more liberal think tank have written a book about the dysfunction they have seen in this congress.

mr. mann and mr. ornstein, quoted by many reporters from many journals from all different perspectives. they said this -- we have been studying washington politics and congress for more than 40 years and never, never have we seen them as dysfunctional. in our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. today, however, said these two respected political scientists and observers of washington, today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the republican party. they went on to say that the g.o.p. has become an insurgent outliner in american politics. it is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science.

and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. that is the nub of the problem. our republican colleagues are leaving without getting their work done. and i say their work done. without getting our work done. the work of the american people. comprehensive jobs bills, middle-class tax cuts have not been extended. farmers are left on their own to face the worst drought in decades, the worst drought in decades and a farm bill reported out of the republican committee lays unconsidered by this floor. reported out of their committee from their majority and they haven't brought it to the floor while farmers remain in

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

committee that's passed a farm bill on a bipartisan basis, democrats and republicans working together to pass that bill, and the house leadership, who has the authority to bring this bill to the floor, won't do it. that's the first time in the history of the house of representatives where a farm bill passed by the agriculture committee has not been brought to the floor for a vote. and mr. speaker, we could defend each and every one of us on both sides of the aisle a vote of conscience whether it was yes or no on the farm bill. none of us can defend not even taking a vote on the farm bill. that decision is not within the authority of any individual member of congress. that is the decision that the majority leader and the speaker of the house have the authority to make. and the refusal to bring this bill to the floor will be

absolutely an indictment of congress' inability to do its job. america needs a farm bill. this congress needs to do its job. we got the time to do it. we should act. that bill should be brought to us for a vote, and i yield back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, that is an example of the dysfunction and inability and unwillingness to compromise of which mr. ornstein and mr. mann spoke. i now yield to my friend from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: i thank minority whip hoyer who has led us so expertly well on this floor. you cite the many failings of this do-nothing republican congress. it is tragic that we will leave home -- for home now and not get the work of the people done and will not respond to the needs of america. that is such an unjust outcome. we know that a middle-class tax cut has been passed in the

senate. the president said he would sign it. we need that measure. we need that measure done so as to provide for confidence in the american economy. what we need right now is that sort of boost, that booster shot can do a lot for growing sales for businesses out there. the aggregate demand for goods and services driven by relief for the middle class via a tax cut is important. the violence against women act that was re-authorized in the senate, failed to come to this floor. postal reform. overwhelmingly approved by the senate. fails to come to this floor. the farm bill, which is important to all of upstate new york. i know our members from the upstate delegation, from the new york delegation are greatly disturbed by the do-nothing republican congress. minority whip hoyer, thank you for leading us in this congress. we have not earned a six-week recess until election day without having done the people's business. we need to stay here, get the people's work done, build america's economy, go forward

with progress and provide for the results that america so desperately needs and it's a shame that this do-nothing republican congress has now called halt to all business on this floor for the next several weeks. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments, he's absolutely right. just for the knowledge of all our members, the senate did pass a middle class tax cut. making sure that 98% of our taxpayers would not get any increase in their taxes on the first of january. that bill is over here. it has not been brought to the floor. yacht -- notwithstanding the fact that i believe every one of us believes that those taxpayers ought not to get an increase. there's broad bipartisan support but i won't be brought to the floor. in the violence against women act, to ensure that women and families are not summitted to

violence, it passed 68-31 in the united states state. postal reform passed 62-37 in a bipartisan rote in the united states senate. not paying attention to here. but the farl bill, which passed which 64 votes, almost 2-1 in the united states senate on a bipartisan vote with 16 republican senators voting for it, has not been brought to this floor. and yet we walk away. we walk away from the american people. i now yield to my friend from illinois, the gentlelady from illinois, january schakowsky. ms. shah cusky: i thank the gentleman so much for -- ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman so much for yielding and for pointing out how languishing in the house of representatives are many pieces of legislation that have passed the united states senate in a bipartisan way with a democratic majority but here in the house, where we have a republican majority, and as you pointed out, some of these bills have passed their own

committees, led by republicans, are still not being considered on the floor today. so we're going to adjourn. and we will not meet again for almost two months. the earliest adjournment before an election in over 50 years. republicans are going to turn off the lights in this chamber, shutting down debate on matters of serious consequence to americans and the economy. shame on them. we should be staying and dealing with those bills. they have voted, for example, time after time, to repeal obamacare and protect tax cuts for the wealthy and rich corporations that have taken no action on preserving tax cuts for the middle class. for 9 % of american taxpayers. -- 98% of american taxpayers. or taken any action on the violence against women act which passed the senate on a bipartisan vote of 68-31, always passing for the many

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

serious drought in southern illinois, our farmers are waiting for drought relief but they're not going to get it from this congress. and most importantly, while republicans have found the time to vote again and again to end the medicare guarantee, making it harder for seniors to choose their own doctors and raising the cost of health care for seniors by over $6,000 a year they haven't found the time to bring a comprehensive jobs bill to the floor. one that deals with making it in america. an industrial policy that would actually put americans back to work right here at home. millions of hardworking american people are still looking for more than just talk about jobs. over a year ago, i introduced the emergency jobs to restore the american dream act to create more than two million jobs and put people back to

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

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

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

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

but whether you're 65 and expecting medicare, living under medicare right now, you will see a reduction in benefits. whether you're 55 or 45 or 35 and you're paying into medicare, want medicare to be there in the future, they are threatening that promise of medicare. they are deliberately working and have voted to end medicare as we know it. we've seen that time and again. the republican, not just leadership, not just mr. ryan, but most of the republicans, not all of them, have voted for this. rather than guarantee benefits under medicare, the republicans will leave seniors on their own to buy benefits that they can afford or not. the voucher will be inadequate to buy medicare benefits as they exist now, costing seniors about $4,600 more per year. they threatened their fellow seniors as well in nursing homes by voting for a third of a cut in medicaid that affects really the costs our seniors in

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

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

nancy pelosi of california. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. hoyer. i appreciate you yielding and your leadership in bringing us together on the floor of the house. we are in after hours, it is only 12:00:40, but it's after hours on a friday afternoon. that is in the context that we left here on august 3, we're not due back until november 14, and yet we have had only eight legislative days of work in that period of time. i thank u thank you for calling that -- i thank you for calling that delinquency of duty, dereliction of duty, to the attention of the american people. we have work to do. it's not as if our work is finished. as you had indicated, there's critical expiring legislation that has passed even in the senate yet republicans have blocked the vote in the house, whether it's middle income tax relief, postal reform, violence against women, farm bill, and

then of course initiatives proposed by president obama to create jobs and our economy. i wanted to -- i was so pleased to hear what you are you are -- our colleague congresswoman schwartz had to say about medicaid because really, our names are all on the ballot in this year's election but really what is at stake is medicare. medicare, medicare, medicare. as you said, distinguished whip hoyer, they offered nothing except to raise costs to seen quors for getting less as they phase out medicare. i wanted to talk about another subject, though. it's a larger issue that i hear this question bandied about. you hear people say, are you better off now than you were four years ago. the republicans. -- the republicans have the nerve to pose that question when if you look back to four years ago, this very week, mr.

speaker, you would know that we are indeed fundamentally and unquestionably better off as a country today. this fall, again, this week, four years ago, september 18, to be exact, but this week, there was a meeting in my office when i was speaker of the democratic and republican leadership of the house and of the senate. gathered together to hear a report from the administration that was very alarming. mind you, september 18, 2008, the secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, described for us a financial system in imminent danger of total collapse. chairman bernanke at that same meeting, chairman of the fed, told us if we didn't act immediately we would not have an economy by monday.

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

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

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

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

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

you are so correct in studying the statistic of the dow, having doubling. it's up about 105%, 110%. the standard & poor's is up more than double, and the nasdaq is up more than double over those years. in january of 2009, i'm sure most people tragically remember, we lost 818,000 private sector jobs that month. last month we gained 92,000 jobs. is there anybody that could say a loss of 818,000 jobs isn't a lot worse than the gain of 92,000 jobs? 92,000 jobs is not enough. we need to do more. the president offered a jobs bill. it has not been brought to this floor. notwithstanding the fact in the pledge to america we said this was going to be a transparent congress that would be allowed to work its will. that bill has not been brought to the floor. we have gained straight more jobs, 4.6 million jobs to be

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

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

commentary to the people of our land. i appreciate all the good work that congressman hoyer and my other colleagues do in trying to address the critical challenges that we face our nation today. our house republican colleagues have left town to focus on the election. but in the meantime we have unfinished business with unfinished business on comprehensive jobs, big and balance budget solutions to the deficit, tax cuts for middle class, the farm bill, which i want to speak to, and the violence against women's re-authorization act as a co-chair of the victims of crime caucus especially disheartening. let me say folks in america who farm and put the food on america's dinner table are wondering just why, just why we can't get a farm bill. it is one of the most bipartisan things we ever do here in congress. 2008 we had a bipartisan farm bill when we had the majority.

president bush vetoed it. we overrode his veto twice. today we have a farm bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate by a vote of 64-35. it made cuts because we have to make cuts and we have to be fiscally responsible. $23.5 billion less than the farm bill of 2008. in the house, as a member of the house ag committee, we voted a comprehensive bill out, 35-11. we made cuts because we have to make cuts. in a number of the areas we made similar cuts as we did as the senate. $20 billion in farm programs. we made additional cuts in nutritional programs, which are part of what would normally be worked out if regular order was allowed to take place. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman will yield? and he may know this better than i because he works so closely with the ag community, but over 70 farm organizations

and farmer focused organizations came to town just a week or two ago and all said, pass the senate bill. not because they believed it was perfect but it was a bipartisan bill that they believed would bring relief to farm country and give some certainty to the farming community. i think i'm correct on that and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. costa: the gentleman is correct. we had over 70 farm organizations from the american farm bureau, the national farmers union to the, as we say, the barnyard coalition that represents all of the poultry and beef and cattle industries because they understand that a farm bill is a safety net. and without it we don't have a farm policy, we don't have a food policy for not just american farmers, ranchers and dairymen, but for the consumers who each night enjoy the highest quality produced with

the safest quality than anywhere in the world. let me say two things. the dairy industry, we've had a drought in the mid west that has devastated a whole host of the farm community and what is one of the ways that the farmers, ranchers and dairymen are able to produce next year's crops? well, they get loans. they get loans from banks and from production credit associations. what are those loans made of? they're based upon the value of their farm and how they're lempled and based upon a farm bill, a farm bill that provides the ability to ensure that there's a safety net and that there is crop insurance. and without a farm bill we don't have any crop insurance. without a farm bill we don't have that safety net. and so with the overwhelming bipartisan support we have in the senate, the bipartisan bill that voted out of the house ag committee, it seems to me we ought to let the process work. so i would urge my colleagues to come back, to come back and let's do the people's business on all of these issues.

the violence against women's re-authorization act, the crime victims caucus every day is focusing on protecting women and their families throughout this country, and that is also a tremendous bipartisan piece of legislation that we always act on. again, we're not doing the people's business. i yield back to my colleague and the gentleman from maryland who is so correct bringing this to the attention of the house, because, ladies and gentlemen, we ought to be about doing the people's business. i yield the balance of my time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from california for his leadership, not only for farm country, but for all people in this country, on behalf of getting people back to work, making jobs available and making sure our farmers are secure and particularly for making sure that we address the epidemic of violence perpetrated against family members, i thank the gentleman for his leadership. and now i yield to somebody who is as strong a voice as we have in the house on behalf of

working men and women in this country, lynn woolsey from the state of california. ms. woolsey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for leading this special order. mr. speaker, yesterday we were debating work requirements under the tanf program. well, after we've all listed the issues that the republicans have refused to address in this congress, we can say that we know a bunch of people who should be subjected to a work requirement. they take home a lot of federal dollars. they're actually on the public dole, but they don't seem to be doing very much work, and i'm talking about the do-nothing republicans in this congress. i don't blame them for wanting to hurry home for the campaigns because a lot of their jobs must be in jeopardy. on the other hand, when they

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

record low approval ratings. but, mr. speaker, most disappointing of all to me is the republican congress' failure to lead on the issue of national security, war, and peace. while we are on recess, the war in afghanistan will turn 11 years. 11 years and more. more than 2,000 americans are dead. thousands more are wounded. the taxpayers are out more than half a trillion dollars. all for a policy that continues to undermine our national security goals instead of advancing them. while our brave service members are putting life or limb on the line in afghanistan, don't get a recess. when we adjourn they will continue to be very much in session. their district work period is in districts in afghanistan where the taliban is poised to strike.

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

safely. the country faces huge challenges. our people are crying out for leadership and the majority wants to turn out the lights and actually they have gone home. americans desperately want the congress to do something. something to create jobs and jump-start the economy. something to create peace and security, but the congress -- the republicans in congress have gone home. they have left the work site. they are gone. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments and i yield to my friend, suzanne bonamici, who is such an effective state legislature -- legislator, was overwhelmingly elected in a special election and every day since that election has been working hard on behalf of hardworking men and women not only in oregon but throughout this country. i know she's disappointed we are walking away from our

responsibilities. i yield to my friend. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, mr. hoyer, for bringing to the country's attention the work left undone. when i arrived in congress just a little more than seven months ago, i brought pretty strong message from my constituents back in oregon. and that's that they want us to overcome the gridlock. they want us to get our economy back on track and support policies that create new jobs. of course no one expects this to be an easy task that's why i was encouraged when people said that's why we are here. unfortunately these conversations have now been kicked down the road for another day -- actually another month while too many of our constituents back home are now facing unemployment, their homes are under water, their childcare costs are rising. several of the colleagues have talked about the failure to pass the farm bill. this typically bipartisan legislation became a staging ground for a fight over nutrition assistance to people who are struggling. now, that bipartisan senate bill

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

something everyone in america should know about. we should be staying here representing the best interests of our constituents, helping to put this country back to work. thank you again, mr. hoyer, for yielding and for bringing this important issue to everyone's attention. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. i want to recognize the distinguished gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan, who has been such a leader on so many of these issues. mr. carnahan. mr. carnahan: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this issue as this congress shuts down. it was harry truman from missouri who coined the term do-nothing congress in 1948. but that congress was 10 times more productive than this republican congress of 2012. to call this congress a do-nothing congress is an insult to the do-nothing congress of 1948. so we are leaving today,

earliest this congress has ever left to campaign in an election year in 52 years. look at how disconnected this congress has been from the urgent needs of the american people. 30% of the bills passed were for the purpose of attaching someone's name to a building. we voted to repeal the affordable care act 33 times. the republicans passed 30 jobs message bills that didn't do a thing to create jobs. they voted so often to restrict women's freedom and access to health care that one female republican lawmaker said, quote, are you kidding me? how many times are we going to vote for this, unquote. and we have voted on the romney-ryan plan to end medicare -- end the medicare guarantee and increase cost to seniors by $6,400. it's no wonder this republican

congress has the lowest approval rating ever. there are urgent priorities on the table that many have talked about here today. the middle class tax cuts. the farm bill. the violence against women act. and responsible deficit reduction and president obama's jobs bill. this republican bill wall of obstruction is wreaking havoc on this country, it's leaving a trail of dysfunction, and now republicans are running for the exit door. to cut their own police losses, they are shutting down this people's house without getting the work done. this congress should be here. our democratic leaders have made it clear. we are ready to do that work. people will be the judge. again, i yield back and thank the gentleman from maryland for his leadership on this order. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

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

session, very few committee hearings, very few markups. so even the do-nothing congress, as my friend from missouri said, even the congress that harry truman called the do-nothing congress was much more productive than this one. so why did the majority close up shop and head home until after the election? well, the answer i think is pretty clear. they want to campaign and they have decided with their dismal record they need a little more time to campaign. a little time to explain why they cast 302 votes to limit protections for clean air and clean water. and good land. they need a little more time to explain why the farm bill to help the areas that have been hit by drought, to help the farmers that need crop insurance, hasn't been passed. to be sure it's going to be hard to campaign on the record that

they have compiled and maybe they need a little extra time. we don't need extra time to hear from our constituents about their needs. and what they want us to do. i stand with my friend, mr. hoyer, and all of us on this side of the aisle to return to washington any day, any night to do the work that the american people hired us to do to be their representative. i thank my friend. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend for his very compelling comment. i know that, mr. speaker, you have heard us speak and the members have heard us speak and one might say, well, these are democrats speaking about the nonproductivity and nonattention to the people's business of this congress, but some years ago, just a few years ago, four years ago the republican party, our friends on that side of the aisle, nominated john mccain to be their president. what does john mccain say of

this congress? the worst since 1947 statistically. the worst ever as far as unconcerned. senator john mccain told reporters wednesday when asked to assess this congress. that was september 19, 2012, just a few days ago. bipartisan observation. this walk away congress is the least effective in which i have served and i have been here for 31 years. i want to yield to my friend who came to congress the same year i did. who unfortunately is leaving, one of the great leaders of sh congress and responsible for putting the referee back on the field so we will not have another financial meltdown that plunged this country almost into depression, the distinguished member from massachusetts, barney frank. mr. frank: i thank the democratic whip and i thank him for the leadership he provided during his years as majority leader when we were able to do some things that -- we are talking about what this congress

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

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

coming together and doing things in this complex society that cannot be done by the private sector. it is an extremism. it's not lazyness. it is extremism that grips the republican party so they are not able to discharge their normal functions of government. and by the way, there's one particular action -- inaction that i want to stress. it has to do with fannie mae and freddie mac. when my republican friends are out of power, they know exactly what to do about housing. when they're in power they forget. it's a peculiar form of apple nearbyia. from -- amnesia. from 1995 to 2006 they controlled the congress and did nothing, nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac. we came in 2007 and took action and put them in a conservatorship and stopped them from losing money. the next step was to go forward with replacing them. we said that we would do that. we did financial reform first. the republicans said in 2009 and 2010, you must do reform of fannie mae and freddie mac.

and we thought financial reform came first because we already stopped the bleeding. then they came to power in 2011 and they've done nothing, and the reason they've done nothing about fannie mae and freddie mac and the reason they've done nothing about the post office and agriculture and didn't do anything about the highways is very simple. they're a party torn between extremists and people who are afraid of extremists, people who will not take them on. mr. speaker, who will not bring an agriculture bill to the floor that might very well pass because he's intimidated by his own tea party extremist wing which rules him. they could not come forward with housing legislation because what a majority knows should be done to put in some kind of federal private cooperation without the mistakes we've made in the past, they couldn't get the votes for it because their extremists had a veto over it. last point, mr. whip. i want to talk a little bit about bipartisanship. in 2007, things began to buckle in our financial system. and i as chairman of the committee worked closely with

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

recall. george bush, republican president of the united states, hank paulson, republican secretary of the treasury, and ben bernanke, who i think is neither republican or democrat, but appointed by the republican -- mr. frank: he is republican but three times appointed by george bush to -- mr. hoyer: and came to us the country is in trouble, at risk of going into a depression. we need you to act. and who acted? the democrats in a bipartisan response to president bush. who walked away? 2/3 of the republican party, the president's party. 2/3 of them walked away, and as a result we failed the first time. we came back and added another 30 democrats, 172, and the republicans couldn't even get to 100 to support their own president to keep this country out of depression. ladies and gentlemen, two years ago, as the previous election approached, election unveiled the long list of pledges. their pledge to america reads, and i quote, plan to create jobs and economic uncertainty

and make america more competitive. must be the first urgent domestic priority of our government. so first we offer a plan to get people working again. that's what they said. we are still waiting for that plan, and we have walked away. 21 months later, republicans have not offered a comprehensive plan to create jobs and boost competitiveness, nor have they allowed democrats to bring major items, make it in america, expand manufacturing, create jobs, give good-paying jobs with good security to americans and then down to agencies and job creators and small businesses that service those manufacturers. when president obama proposed his plan, the american jobs act, which economists say would have expanded by a million or million and a half jobs, republicans blocked it outright, not brought to the floor, not given the vote. instead of making jobs their priority, it seems to be last on their to-do list.

it's the first concern for millions and millions of americans and for our side of the aisle. mr. speaker, let me read another excerpt from the republican pledge. with commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops, we will roll back government spending, putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. however, over the last 21 months, republicans have torpedoed every serious attempt to reach agreement on deficit reduction. why? no revenues from the very wealthy in america. not because we don't like the very wealthy, not because we want to penalize the very wealthy, but because we need to keep our country on a financially secured path. and those of us on this floor can contribute a little more to that effort. push to the extreme by their tea party wing house republicans early on embraced an our way or no way that made

compromise impossible. refusing to accept any solution that included revenues or that ended unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthiest in our country. that's why the middle-class tax cut passed overwhelmingly in the united states -- while passed by a majority in the united states senate, languishes here unconsidered which would keep 98% of america from any concern about having their taxes increase on january 1. why? to protect the 2%. how sad. in pursuit of their extreme budget agenda they pushed our country to the brink of default , for the first time ever the most credit worthy nation on earth being downgraded by the standard & poor's rating agency. to avert that default, republicans insisted on creating the sequester that so many of them now lament. it was their creation and in fact in their cap, cut and

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

in their pledge they say we offer a plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act with commonsense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting american jobs. both of those objective, mr. speaker, we have made our point. walking away has been the practice of this congress. not getting the work done has been the practice of this congress. how lamentable it is for the american people. but as president obama said, they have a choice. may they make it well. and i ye. -- and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

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

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

but it didn't happen. and in fact our friends across the aisle were in control of the house and senate for four years. in 2005 and 2006 as a freshman, i often heard our colleagues across the aisle asking how we could do such a terrible, terrible thing of spending $100 billion to $200 billion more than we had coming in. little did we know -- and they were right. they were right. we should not have been spending $160 billion more than we had coming in. the democrats were right. and because republicans did not stay true to what we were promised, our leadership just wouldn't dig in and stop it even though we had a republican

president. we had a republican president. don't want to hurt his feelings. we spent $160 billion more than we had coming in. so the american public weren't thrilled what they heard from the democrats but they figured they'd give them a chance. so november, 2006, democrats, who had promised to end the deficit spending, took over and the deficit spending, rather than coming under control, went out of sight. they passed the dodd-frank bill. it has historic overregulation of community banks. now why would a group who is so upset with wall street pass legislation that devastates

community banks that are closest to the community, know the borrowers the best, that had been the real foundation of this country, why would they strangle out community banks with this massive overregulation? it really doesn't hurt the massive big banks. . well, someone said years ago, follow the money. and if you look at the money that is -- has been contributed to campaigns for many years, you find out that the wall street executives and immediate family normally donate about four times more to democrats than they do to republicans. now, the wall street executives have to endure being called fat

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

democrats talk. not so. president obama got four times more contributions from executives and immediate family than did a guy named john mccain. we look further. what about jobs. how about when we have a disaster by british petroleum who has been allowed to operate in the gulf coast with nearly -- with 800 or so egregious safety violations, but that's ok. according to the obama administration, they didn't want to step in. and at the very time deep water horizon had blown out and this administration, the obama administration, should have been all over them. they -- the executives of british petroleum were negotiating with the democrats

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

there are nearly 40 of our jobs bills sitting in the united states senate -- all part of our plan for american job creators that we have been working on all year. these bills cut red tape, remove government barriers that make it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. there are bills to address our debt, expand american energy production and approved projects like the keystone pipeline. there are bills that stop the president's tax hike and fix the tax code. to bring more jobs home from overseas. these are good ideas, all passed with bipartisan support here in the house. president obama will not work with us to find common ground or urged senate democrats to take action. why? it is because democrats have failed to lead. they failed to lead on jobs. the unemployment rate has been

over 8% for 43 consecutive months. they failed to lead on energy. everything from gasoline prices to groceries will cost more today. the president's defense sequestration threatens our national security and his tax hikes threatens some 700,000 jobs and our country. while democrats have failed to lead, republicans have focused on jobs and keeping our pledge to america that we made nearly two years ago. the american people want government out of the way. they want spending reduced, less regulation on small businesses, a strong national defense, and more american energy production. that is the people's agenda -- a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda. that has been our governing agenda. we promised to focus solutions for jobs in the economy, to reform congress and cut spending. we have kept our pledge. this is not a time for congratulations.

it is not just our jobs bills that the democrats are ignoring. their failure to lead is a lot worse. they have not passed a budget in more than three years. they have no plan to save medicare, no plan to stop all of the tax hikes, no plans to replace the sequester. they have threatened to do nothing and drive us off the fiscal cliff, which the congressional budget office has said will lead to a very deep recession. this is not leadership. it is negligence. president obama's excuse is -- you cannot change washington from the inside. you actually can change washington from the inside. it takes courage, determination, and sincerity. that is called leadership. i have been here for 22 years. i have been involved in changing a lot of things in this town. from my days as a member of the gang of seven, closing the house bank, trying to get congress to run more efficiently and more professionally.

how about the issue of earmarks? nobody thought we could ever get rid of. i spent five years working to eliminate their marks. over the last couple of years, we have had the earmarks. you cannot tell me that you cannot fix washington from the inside. i have this belief that the president does not share my optimism about fixing this town. >> mr. speaker, your fellow republican running for senate in wisconsin, -- >> i am a house guy. [laughter] i am just teasing. >> i know you are. he is someone who said he is worried that mitt romney will drag him and other down-ballot republicans down. >> over the last few weeks both campaigns have been into all

kinds of other areas. but the american people want to know -- what is the plan to get our economy going again and create jobs? the president's economic policies have failed. he cannot go out there and run on his record. he has to try to make this election about everything other than his record. the romney campaign needs to stay focused on jobs, their plan to create jobs, and commence the american people that he does have a plan. that will put americans back to work. they have done a pretty good job of it. >> mr. speaker, when you came into the current roll, y said that the house will work where there are not you bring up some bills on the floor that could fail. >> and we have. >> there is a bipartisan group of farm-heavy district law makers who are pushing you to get this farm bill on the floor.

what a farm bill will we see on the floor before the end of the year? >> we do not typically put bills on the floor where we are expecting failure. it has been my opinion -- having been a member of the ag committee for 16 years -- that the opposition from the left and the right here in the congress have prevented us from putting the bill on it because i do not believe there are 218 votes in the middle to pass the bill. i have made it clear yesterday, we get back, the house will take up the issue of the farm bill. i know what the next question is. well, what it is gonna look like? >> what is going to look like? [laughter] what is going to look like? >> will we get back after the election, we will consult with our members and develop a pathway for word. it is too early to determine right now what kind of mood members will be in or kind of opinions and will have. yes, sir. >> if the president wins, doesn't that mean you will eventually have to raise taxes?

>> no, raising taxes would threaten our economy with a loss of 700,000 jobs. why would i ever be for something like that? i am not. our goal is to have a tax reform and entitlement reform. we all know that these are probably going to both have to travel on parallel paths. it is important for our country to fix our debt problem and to have a tax code that is competitive with our worldwide economy and fairer for the american people. >> there are members of both parties expressing concerns about the sequester. let me ask you a philosophical question. i keep hearing republican saying, we need to fix the sequester. republicans philosophically have been saying government should be out of people's lives.

are you saying that if we need to fix the sequester, is there some connection that people are tied to the government in the defense sector, and the small business committee put out a report yesterday saying if the sequester kicks in, is that saying there is concern for a problem with people being tied to the government, even in your own party? >> the sequester was designed to be ugly. why? so that no one would go there. because the president did not help, did not lead when it came to working with the supercommittee, senate democrats did not cooperate, helping us meet the supercommittee function. we end up with a sequester. the sequester is like taking a meat ax to federal spending. it is not -- no one on either side of the aisle thinks this is inappropriate way to reduce the role of government. that is why the house acted in may. they passed a bill to replace the sequester. it says in the united states senate.

>> house democrats gathered on the capitol steps, chanting work, work, work, criticizing you for [laughter] >> really? my friends across the aisle, who i have treated fairly, but they are saying this is the release the house has ever left during an election year. they should stay here to fix the problem. >> fix the problem? instead of them having the demonstration on the house ducks, maybe they should have had on the seven steps. it was sitting where a couple of years ago who said the most importance part of governing is doing a budget. senate democrats have not done a budget for 3.5 years. when you think about the letter that they send to me about us doing our work, how about the 40 jobs bills that are sitting in the united states senate? the house is the only body to

have passed a bill to stop all the coming tax hikes. the house is the only body that has passed a bill to stop the sequester. we have done our work. senate democrats and a president -- where is their responsibility? where is their leadership? it does not exist. >> the sequester may have been put in place because the expectation was that some grand bargain was not going to be made here. there are probably members of your caucus the like the idea of cutting domestic spending. there are democrats like the idea of cutting domestic spending. why not just what the sequester take affect and see how it all shakes out?

>> i will not speculate on what may or may not happen in the lame-duck. i have not heard one member suggest that the sequester was a good idea. not one. i talked to a lot of members from both parties every day. >> why does mitt romney continue to trail in the polls in ohio? >> it has been a close race in ohio. it is going to be close race in ohio. i always expected it would be a close race in ohio, just like probably all of you. one of the things that probably work against romney is the fact that the governor has done a good job of fixing government regulations in the state, attracting new businesses to the state. our unemployment rate in ohio is lower than the national average. it is a full point lower than the national average. as a result, people are still concerned about the economy and jobs in ohio. it certainly is not like to see

in some other states. >> he spoke about the need to address the sequester and the lame duck in the year. will congress act to extend the jobless benefits seen as [indiscernible] -- that is currently in place? >> i do not know. i have not heard any conversations about it. we had a plan that we passed last december to deal with this. i am sure there will be a conversation about it. we will look for a common way forward. >> to you think congress should investigate why there were no marines in libya and who made that decision? >> i suspect that part of the investigation under way will take a look of that. while we typically have a marine detachment at our embassy, that is not always the case when it comes to our consulates. i am sure there will be a review of that in a discussion about whether that is why is going forward.

i hope you all have -- >> back in april, you said there was a one in three chance that house republicans will lose. as you look at the polls now and all of the battleground polls are trending more democratic, what is your assessment now? >> i continue to feel confident about the house republicans' chances of holding onto our majority. we have done a good job getting our incumbents in good shape. in august, i was in 42 districts with his-half of them incumbents, the other half were open-seat and challenger races. we have some very good candidates out there where we are playing offense. i have always looked at this year as trying to get our incumbent members in a stronger position as possible so we can use more of our resources on offense.

that is turning out to be possible. you will see us playing offense in a lot of democrat-held districts in the coming weeks. >> what is your electoral college prediction? romney versus obama? who wins and how much? [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the u.s. senate passed a continuing revolution to fund the government for six months. they are now in fall recess until after the presidential election that returned the week of november 12. to date on washington journal, reuters correspondent david and gramm refused justice department's report on fast and furious. lawrence mashal, president of the economic policy institute, discusses how american families are doing in today's economy.

and a retired colonel talks about the cyber attacks at bank of america and jp morgan chase second banks from doing business. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. next, or in governor -- using a model where doctors are paid based on overall outcome is not each procedure. it is part of the affordable care act. from the center for american progress, this is just under an hour. >> as a person who is for the health policy for over a decade, i've been said that the governor is a hero for all the work he has been doing for decades.

as many of you may know, cap has devoted a lot of time and effort to the issue of lowering health care costs because we see this as an issue for the federal budget but also state budgets, employers, employees, and basically an issue of america's competitivenesss over the long term. so we have devoted a lot of resources to looking at new ways for us to lower health care costs and one of the great innovations of what states are doing. today governor kitzhaber is going to talk about his leadership in developing new innovations in the medicaid program and using the medicaid program itself as a driver for reducing health care costs. this comes at a time when states are really struggling with rising health care costs that is really putting pressure on medicaid budgets. so his work is vital to that. cap about a month ago released a series of ideas encapsulated in a new england journal of medicine piece.