Maxine Waters Responds To Pending Ethics Matter
WASHINGTON - Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) addressed the media, during a press conference regarding the ethics matter pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Congresswoman Waters delivered an opening speech, her Chief of Staff presented some key facts and concerns, and she took questions from the media. The Congresswoman’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery are below:
"Good morning. Thank you all for being here today, especially on a Friday during recess. The press and the public have now had an opportunity to read the Statement of Alleged Violation, and have shown a lot of interest in the ethics matter that is now pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I am indeed eager to be able to have an opportunity to present my case, and that is why I have requested that the Standards Committee schedule a hearing as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the Committee has not yet specified a date for a hearing on this matter, and given the Congressional schedule it is possible that no hearing would be held for months, even after the November elections. Such a delay is unacceptable, considering that the investigation has dragged out for almost one year. It does not provide due process, it prevents my constituents and the American public from getting answers, and it delays me from being able to respond to charges spelled out in the SAV. I am pleased that the Committee released the SAV and related documents earlier this week, as I had insisted after waving my right to have the SAV remain private until the adjudicatory hearing. I have arranged this press conference to present my facts in the case and clear up ambiguities and misinformation. I recognize the transparency that I am providing may not eliminate an adjudicatory hearing. To reiterate, I am in fact anxious to share these facts with you and the public because I have not violated any House rules. I fully disclosed all my financial information as required by House rules – and in fact went above and beyond what was required by repeatedly disclosing my and my husband’s financial interests during Financial Services Committee hearings. Neither my staff nor I engaged in any improper behavior; we did not influence anyone; and we did not gain any benefit. We are here today because I believe my actions and the allegations against me are not easily understood. Today I want to be absolutely clear about one thing: This case is not just about me. This case is also about access. It’s about access for those who are not heard by decision makers, whether it’s having their questions answered or their concerns addressed. For the past 34 years I have served in elected office both at the state and national level, and I have made one of my top priorities opening doors and providing access for small, minority and women businesses. In fact, my advocacy and assistance in providing access for the National Bankers Association is why we’re here today. The National Bankers Association consists of 103 minority banks, and I have worked with this association and the concerns of their banks for many years: • I have spoken at their conventions on many occasions; My telephone call to then-Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson during the worst economic crisis this nation faced in 80 years was to provide access to the National Bankers Association, which was concerned about the fact that Treasury had placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship. It was represented to me that many minority banks had overleveraged their capital in Fannie and Freddie, and the association wished to know whether or not their members’ capital was lost or if the government was responsible for protecting the capital that they had invested in preferred stock. They had attempted to get a meeting with the Treasury Department, but had received no response. And so, they sought me out to assist them in setting up a meeting. The question, at this point, should not be why I called Secretary Paulson, but why I had to. The question, at this point, should be why a trade association representing over 100 minority banks could not get a meeting at the height of the crisis. Access. When I contacted the Treasury Secretary: • I did not suggest any solution to the problem of the National Banker’s Association; There has been a great deal of confusion over a conversation I had with Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank. The conversation I had with Chairman Frank was a conversation several weeks after this meeting had taken place and after the TARP program had been announced. OneUnited Bank was now raising questions about assistance from TARP. Because my office’s assistance to the National Bankers Association was strictly to provide access for a discussion about the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks broadly, and because there was no TARP program at the time of the meeting, I did not wish to get involved with OneUnited Bank about any individual assistance or about the new TARP program. Because my husband had once served on the board of OneUnited Bank and still held investments there, I felt they should seek assistance from Chairman Frank, a Representative from the state where the bank was headquartered, and someone with a record of commitment to the health of minority banks. It’s also important to note that no government agency or their representatives have said that I requested any special assistance or compensation for anyone or any institution, or that I influenced the TARP process in any way. There has also been a question about whether or not I instructed my staff not to get involved with OneUnited Bank and their interest in accessing TARP funds. My staff had only been involved in understanding the impact of the financial crisis on small and minority banks broadly, and assisting in setting up the meeting with the Treasury Department for, again, the National Bankers Association. I told my Chief of Staff that: • I had informed Chairman Frank about OneUnited Bank’s interest; So it’s not just about us. It’s about all those who lack access. I was honored to serve on the conference committee of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I’m happy to say that much of the legislation I authored – access for women and minorities; rights for shareholders; a more accountable Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and assistance for struggling and unemployed homeowners – were included in the final legislation that was signed by President Obama. I am particularly proud of the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion that will be set up at the federal government’s financial institutions such as the FDIC, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, among others, to deal with the historic lack of access that minority and women individuals and institutions have had in hiring, decision-making, contracting and procurement opportunities. And over the past year, I and the nine other Congressional Black Caucus Members of the Financial Services Committee have been meeting with the National Banker’s Association, the National Newspaper Publishers Association, the National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters, the National Association of Minority Auto Dealers, the National Association of Securities Professionals, and the National Bar Association, among others, discussing the plight of minority businesses, their lack of access to capital, and the lack of support from their government in banking, advertising, and consulting contracts. Access is key to understanding the scope of this case. This case is not just about them. This case is also about fairness. The fact that the investigative subcommittee ignored or disregarded key pieces of exculpatory evidence crucial to my case is extremely troubling. A truly robust investigatory process would have taken all the available evidence into consideration. I believe that if that had been done, we would not be here today. Fairness is also key to understanding the scope of this case. This case is not just about that. This case is also about my constituents and the American people. I have truly been touched by the outpouring of support from my constituents in Los Angeles and from friends in places like Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, New York, Illinois, Florida – even abroad. I know the way that the American people view Congress. They hear the talk of partisanship, of power, of money, of influence. For congressional critics, it’s easy to see a report of an ethics case and completely wash your hands of it all. But my constituents and supporters have seen the many inaccurate, accusatory portrayals of my work, and they know me better than that. And they’ve encouraged me to fight. I admit: there are some who do not believe in my philosophy or my methods. But no one should question my devotion to public service. Therefore, I am asking us all to pause for a moment, set aside our cynicism, and consider two things: These two things will provide context for my constituents’ and your judgment. My constituents demand that I stand up for the values they elected me to represent. In sum: No benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced: no case. I thank you again for coming today. Now my Chief of Staff, Mikael Moore, will present to you some of the key facts in the case, and address some of our concerns with the SAV. After the presentation, I will be happy to take your questions on the SAV and answer them to the best of my ability. I will ask you to keep your questions to the SAV and my experiences with the ethics investigation and process. I will not be entertaining questions about the supposed issue of race in this matter, or recent media reports that have nothing to do with my case pending before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Thank you.
• I have participated in hearings about their issues; and
• I have worked with our federal agencies on their behalf, including the Treasury Department, FDIC, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• I did not ask for any favors for the National Bankers Association;
• I did not ask for a meeting for any individual bank, including OneUnited Bank;
• I did not suggest who would be participants in that meeting;
• I did not attend that meeting; and
• There was no such thing as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) at that time.
• That we were only concerned about small and minority banks broadly;
• That Chairman Frank would evaluate OneUnited’s issue and make a decision on how to proceed; and
• Given the emails that the committee has offered as evidence, we communicated with each other clearly.
• the facts of the case; and
• my life’s work in trying to provide access to those who have been denied.
