during the subcommittee markup, ms. moore and i articulated our land for going forward with the legislation -- our plan for going forward with the legislation and invited suggestion from industry and other concerned parties. we were very pleased with the genuine engagement of the parties from across the industry and they're willingness to generously share their time and experience, effort and knowledge with us. all of these contributions ultimately produced a better and stronger amended bill. we believe that this new version of the bill addresses the points raised since the subcommittee markup and while maintaining our broad coalition of bipartisan supporters. this new bill preserves the federal fiduciary standard and removes the blanket status exemptions while still maintaining a bright line municipal advisor position. it protects issuers by establishing clear lines for rules and for municipal advisor activity and provides clarity in the marketplace. in addition to the amendment substance, i'm very proud of the process, what

ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker. by expressing my deepest appreciation to the manager of this bill, mrs. biggert, representative biggert, and also a co-sponsor of this legislation, in addition to representatives bachus and waters, a bipartisan initiative. as mrs. biggert has indicated, this study was originally included in the flood insurance bill that passed the house that was later dropped for reasons of expediency. it was not controversial. in negotiations with the senate. i believe that a community-based flood insurance option may eventually provide a wonderful cost-saving option for communities within the framework of the overall national flood insurance program. the potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. h.r. 6186 would require fema to study a voluntary community-based flood insurance option and examine how much -- how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program. the idea is to study group flood insurance policies for a national flood insurance

ms. moore: i respectfully raise a point of order against h.res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426 parena of the congressional budget act. it contains a waiver against all points of order against consideration of the bill, including a waiver of section 425 of the congressional budget act which causes a violation of section 426 a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentlelady from wisconsin and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes of the date on the question of consideration. following debate, the chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of dispose of the point of order. the chair recognizes the the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i raise this point of order not necessarily out of concern for unfunded mandates although there are some in the underlying bill under consideration here today. h.j.res. 118 and h.r. 3409. rather, i am here today because this is

if ms. moore used a pair of pliers, she would have chipped a male.m sorry. who are you? >> martina garretti. >> janet montgomery stars in the new drama called "made in jersey." she plays a working class woman who becomes an attorney at a top new york law firm. janet was actually made in england. you wouldn't know it from that jersey accent. i can't wait for people to hear you speak. go ahead, janet montgomery. >> hi. >> i know i've seen you in "entourage." i think it's so interesting the character you play with who you really are. >> well, it's totally different obviously accentwise. i think a lot of martina, the reason people responded to me, my manager was like this part is perfect for you. >> why did he think it was perfect for you? she thought there was a lot about the character that worked with me. regardless of the background of the accent and being a lawyer, she thought that there was something that i could bring to this character. >> you know what else i thought was interesting? that part of your interview was by skype. i'm thinking you had t

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 mswarren 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 repro

ms nbc. instead large sectors of the press are refusing to cover the film. they're pretending that it does not exist. >> cenk: there is a difference between your movies and michael moore'sre full of crap. you said he had a dream where he talked with his father. he never knew his father. and that he was going to have these ideas that he got from his father about destroying america. you're a full-blown lunatic. and unfortunately people in this country buys into this crap. did de souza get press glunches' talking about a world in which america has no nuclear weapons this at a time when china are adding to their arsenals. >> cenk: let's talk about that for a second. >> okay, sure. >> cenk: so first of all if we have 1500 nuclear weapons we can destroy the world over 10 times 100 times. this reduces our impact. fascinating. we're about six-to-one ratio over our closest competitor. jesus, how many money do you need us to spend on nukes before your friends who are defense contractors are happy enough. >> desousa has been embarrassed on every show he has been on. i don't know if he wants more press conference. get a load of what bill maher did to him. >> this these are dreams t

moore, you have argued here there is insufficient evidence to prove that you knew that your employer, mswaters, at a personal financial interest. i believe the actions that you took subsequent or in the context of these meetings and the mail exchanges really strains the notion of credibility. they did not know or should not have known about her interests. in particular, ms. waters direction to you to stay out of it, any objection which you confirmed before our outside counsel that you thought that only meant one day simply strains credibility. it is clear to me that ms. waters knew that she had a conflict of interest and had made it clear that she understood that, that she spoke to the then chairman of the committee to separate herself from the matter, and that she directed you to stay out of it. you ignored your employee number. -- member. as i'm sitting here listening to you, i'm wondering that if we were to accept your conclusion that to stay out of it only meant one day, we would then have to go back and reconsider whether ms. waters in fact did provide the kind of supervision that s

moore, you've argued there is insufficient evidence to prove that you knew your employer ms. waters had a personal financial interest, but i believe that the actions that you took subsequent or in the context of these meetings and e-mail the exchange's streams the notion of credibility that you didn't know about her interest. in particular, ms. waters direction to you to stay out of any suggestion which you a firm on the record before the outside counsel you thought that only meant one day strains credibility. and it's clear to me that ms. waters knew she had a conflict of interest and she made it clear that she understood that and that she spoke to the chairman of the committee to separate herself from the matter and she directed you to stay out of that and you ignored your member. i levesque as i am listening to you i wonder if we were to accept your conclusion that to stay out of it only meant when they we would have to go back and reconsider whether ms. waters did provide the supervision that she is obligated to provide. i don't find that because i find her direction to y