some members of this house went to george george during the recess and will he stop the violation in georgia. >> i will remember going there when the georgians were under so much pressure from the russians and standing up with them recognizing that georgia is a country that wants to be a democracy. it wants to be an economic success story. it wants to join nato. it wants to be able to look west as well as east and it wants to have good relations with its neighbor. i'm glad she's meeting with members of theorn georgian parliament and i'll certainly make my views clear on the issue of georgia if i visit and when i visit georgia this year. >> does my right honorable friend agree that the key challenge facing the national health service is how to convert this government's welcomed commitment to year on year

growth of real resources into improving productivity and improving quality of care for patients? and is not key to delivering that -- did he not lie in my right honorable friend's speech yesterday in his advocacy of more integrated and less fragmented care? and will he continue to build -- >> i think we've got the thrust of it. the prime minister. >> my honorable friend -- my honorable friend's support for the reforms is hugely welcomed and i know he follows these issues very closely. and it wasn't just he that welcomed the speech that i set out yesterday, also, i had expressed support from the royal college of nurses and royal college of nurses, the miller cancer sponsor and breakthrough supporters. and professional bodies in the health service whokz that this government is listening, is getting its changes right and will add the money that's required that only we are committed to with the reforms

that are necessary to make sure that the nhs can go on and thrive in the future. >> ian paisley. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware of the dastardly murders of senior police officers. and the subsequent public inquiry established in consultation between this nation's government and the irish republic of government. usual and that they cannot restrict the timing, the efforts and the monday so as we can get to the truth and find out how those two police officers were dastardly murdered? >> well, i will certainly look very carefully at the issue that the honorable gentleman raises. there are still on all sides in northern ireland and indeed in the republic huge concern about things that happened in the past where people want -- often they ask for an inquiry or a process but i think in most cases what

most people really want is the truth and i found with the issue of the salvo inquiry was not the 120 million and the five years. what most people want the unvarnished truth so they can come to terms with what happened in the truth. and i don't want more further open inquiries but i think there's more we can do to cover and be frank on the truth and that goes for all sides of this debate. >> order, 10-minute rule motion. >> here on c-span2, we'll leave the british house of commons now as they move over to other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7:00 am eastern while parliament is in session.

>> the -- >> on monday the senate confirmed white house deputy council donald verrilli to succeed justice elena kagan. listen to him argue in 2008 or discussing the rehnquist court in 2004. he's just one of the more 104 people you can watch online at our c-span video library. it's washington your way. >> the american bar association commission on homelessness and poverty hosted a panel where three formerly homeless people. and it was discussed by columnist barbara ehrenreich author of the book "nickeled and dimed." this is 40 minutes. >> so thank you, everybody, for

making day 1 of the forum a huge success. i've been at the law center now -- this week is actually my five-year anniversary at the law center. [applause] >> and to see the growth since the time that i started to where we are now is really incredible. and i'm excited to have been able to share it with you. this is only day 1 of the forum. day 2 is taking place on capitol hill tomorrow. so don't come back here in the morning. we have directions at the registration desk for those of you who need them. we're going to start the day at jones day law firm right off of capitol hill and then move up to the hill for a congressional briefing and congressional visits thereafter and so we're looking forward to that. again, directions are at the registration desk if you need them.

also, for those who may not be joining us have the evaluation sheets on the way out but keep them with you and turn them in tomorrow. so with that said, today we've heard from a lot of experts on housing rights issues from lawyers, from advocates, from government officials and from those who are directly affected by human rights violations. one of the key components of the human rights approach is elevating the voice of those who are directly affected by these violations to advocate for the remedies to the solutions to their problems. so while infusing these voices throughout the day on many of the panels we wanted to close today's events with a panel that gives the floor to them completely so we're excited to have them share their stories and their perspectives and tell us what we as advocates can do to ensure that people like them

are treated with the dignity and the respect that they deserve as human beings. we're also thrilled to have barbara ehrenreich, a master storyteller here to moderate the panel. barbara is a preeminent author and social commentator. her work has appeared in the "new york times," "the atlantic monthly" and "time" magazine. among her work examining the challenges of the american job market, is a bestselling 2001 book "nickeled and dimed: not getting by in america" and she op-eded several articles in the "new york times" including a column called "is it a crime to be poor: on the criminalization of homelessness in america." she's been a valuable partner of the law centers and we welcome her today as we present to you our final panel, voices of the streets. barbara. [applause] >> thank you very much, eric.

and i'm really glad to be here. i should say something about how i owner got involved on the law center on homelessness and poverty. and that was what i was working on a series for the "new york times" on 2009, in 2009 and on the effect of the recession on people who were already poor, which is something that had not occurred to the "new york times." they were busy talking about, you know, people who had have to cut back on their personal pilates trainer because of the recession. and so that's what i was talking with other people at the center and said, well, you know, educate me more or less. and they did -- well, i shouldn't say this, but i think they did a great job because they -- they introduced me to

people like scott on the panel here today and other people who are not here, people who have had the experience of living on the streets and, you know, you get to talk to them and know them slightly. this is not my first occasion of meeting and getting to know people who are in that situation. i've done that for "nickel and dimed" and what was always struck me most about the experience of homelessness from the outside, you know, as someone who has fortunately been in that situation is the amount of ingenuity it takes. it's just amazing. i have known people, you know, who worked full time and are homeless. and so there's so much that those of us who have homes to go

back to just don't have to figure out, like how -- showers? how are you going to do that? do you have a vehicle to stay in? do you have -- pardon the expression, a pee bottle. so many things require a lot of thought and preparation, intelligence and cunning to solve. not to mention the problems of what to eat and, you know, where you're -- you know, how you're going to manage that so that expressed me but then i think that's sort of heartbreaking thing is that one of the kinds of problems, one of the threats one faces as a person without a home is from other people. is from organized other people, is from law enforcement, sadly.

you know, and that a lot of thought has to go into how you survive that. maria tells me you've already been talking about it quite a bit today. the arrests in orlando this week, of three orlando residents not homeless people but people who were, you know, relatively, i guess, aflute or middle class but who were committing the crime in orlando, florida, the crime of sharing food with indigent people. just think about that. let that settle in. there's a lot of cities in this country, las vegas, middleton, connecticut, a variety of cities that have made it illegal to help people who are indigent and/or homeless. now, to me that is, you know,

like a violation of the basic rules of any major religion. you know, it's a moral slap in the face to anybody with any kind of moral compus. >> one of the things that people are having to navigate the laws, the law enforcement system that makes it illegal to do the most ordinary things such as stand in one place too long. loitering, sit on a sidewalk, god forbid. you know, litter which can mean flipping a cigarette butt on the sidewalk, you know, there is -- we seem to instead of having a system in place to help people, as they begin to lose ground

economically for one reason or another like job loss, foreclosure or illness, we seem to have in place a system that exists to kick people when their down. so they're down a little bit. they're down the slide and you kick them and push them down the next level. and i think it takes enormous courage and intelligence. and craftiness to survive as the people on this panel have done. and so i want to -- i want to turn this over to the real experts starting with you, linda barnes. and you're going to -- everybody is going to say a little bit how they came into that situation. and how -- what, you know, give people who are fortunate enough to have a home to go back to tonight, some sense of what that experience is. >> sure. again, my name is linda barnes.

sorry. sorry. my name is linda barnes. i am a washingtonian, born and raised here in washington, d.c. i now live in alexandria, virginia. my stint of homelessness was in the 1980s. i was an abused and battered wife and i had four years and it took me 10 years first of all to leave to get up enough nerve to leave my husband. but i finally did. and when i did leave, i found that i was homeless with four children. being on the street for a while with me children, i would say it's not me. and i would go back home and the cycle would start again, the beatings. so in order to keep a roof over my head at that time and for my children to have a roof over their heads i would stay and

endure the beatings. another couple years went by and i decided i can't do this any longer, you know, i'm not just hurting myself, i'm hurting my children as well. so one night, when my husband went to work, i packed up and i left again, with my four children. to make a long story short, it took a while. we stayed with family. we stayed in union station. we stayed quite a few places. back in the '80s it wasn't easy for a woman with four children to find a place that she could call a refuge and feel safe. we did stay with family, as i said. but it didn't last very long, you know, we were asked to leave. so we stayed here and there. at the time my children were in their subteens and they had friends' homes that they would stay over while i would just walk the streets sometime in the district. when my children became older and i was living with family, they came about, you know,

getting their own places and i finally obtained a job, customer service was what i did. i did very well. found a place of my own, my very first place of my own and years later found out that my youngest son had aids. i moved him with me, took him to the doctors every single day. this happened in 2000. this is where my second set came in with homelessness. i wound up having to take off to take care of my son. when my son passed away, i had to use my money, my rent money in order to bury my child because of the fact that he did not have insurance because his illness was there before he was able to get insurance. when i contacted my leasing office to let them know that i would not be able to pay my rent

the following month and maybe not the next month because i had lost my job i was asked to leave. i gave up my apartment. i sold everything in my apartment and wound up walking the streets of alexandria, virginia, with $400. i sold everything in my apartment, my furniture, clothing, everything for $400. all i left with was the clothes on my back and some clothing in my suitcase. i then walked alexandria, the streets of alexandria, as i said, and i would go into the embassy suites at king street to wash up. and after burying my child, i tried to get an apartment. was told that i could not get an apartment because i had given up an apartment. i tried to explain my reason for giving up my apartment. unfortunately, they didn't want to hear it.

so once again, i went -- i just gave up at that time and continued just walking the streets of alexandria with my suitcase until someone told me to go to social services. i then went to social services where i was helped and was sent to one of alexandria's community shelters there. i stayed there 90 days. i did obtain a job. unfortunately, i did not know that i had a right to housing. and everyone that i went to, to try to get housing, i was turned away because of the fact that i had given up an apartment and i was living in virginia at the time. well, to make a long story short, i finally did obtain housing because i went and applied for the housing choice voucher. when i obtained a housing choice voucher, i found an apartment in

oldtown, alexandria. there was a gentleman there who was the property manager. and i when i went to pick my voucher up he asked me, well, how many bedrooms are you looking for i said just one but, unfortunately, i've been turned down so many times, you know, no one is giving me a chance so he said, it's okay, you know, you have your voucher. you can move here. this gentleman allowed me to move into a one-bedroom apartment with my voucher and i have not been homeless since. i've also put together a nonprofit for homeless families while i was in the shelter, i put together provide incorporated which is a christian organization which helps not only homeless families and single men but senior citizens. i'm trying to get my 501c3 now and i've -- i have all of my paperwork. the only thing i don't have is my 501. i know what it's like to be homeless. i know what is needed. i've lived it.

i've walked it. and it's now time for other things to -- for people to know what is going on. it's hard for us to find apartments for some unforsaken reason, some reason that it was beyond our control, we've lost our homes. we've lost our homes. and it's not that we're looking for a handout. we're not looking for anything like that. we're just looking for others to just ask us. what is it that you need? we need attorneys. we need lawyers to come to the shelters and ask, what needs to be done? we can tell you what needs to be done because we know. we know what needs to be done. and the only way it's going to get done is if you step up and say you know what? i'm with you. i'm for you. i will help you. we're not looking for a handout. i've had a job ever since.

when i became homeless the first time, i had a job. i'm doing everything that i'm supposed to and it's by the grace of god i have not been homeless since that one gentleman took it in his heart to give me a place to call home. and now i'm trying to help others myself to do the same thing. show them what way to go, how to do it. but we can't do it alone. the organizations out there cannot do it alone. we need attorneys who will sometimes -- go to a shelter and find out what it is that -- what is it that your resident needs? what is it that they're having a problem with? i had an attorney do all of my paperwork for me pro bono. $8,000 worth of paperwork pro bono to get provide incorporated -- incorporated

which i am incorporated in alexandria. but the thing is now, it's not going to get done and homelessness is not going to go end unless we have people like you who are willing to step up and fight for something that is definitely our right, and that is a right to housing. [applause] >> well, thank you -- thank you for that, linda. and i think -- i'm going to be very interested to hear more about provide incorporated and what -- you know, it's amazing that you're going on to do that. let me now introduce g.w. rolls -- how did we met you? we're friends. >> at the mckinney -- >> oh, right. i know but we're also facebook

friends. >> yes. >> i want to point that out. >> yes, we are. >> and we have corresponded by email and you're coming to us from st. petersburg. >> st. petersburg. well, thank you. i don't want to tell my story and i'll tell you why. i was homeless from 19 -- excuse me, 2002 to 2007. i broke 2008, i think, briefly. and i'm a minister. i'm a pastor at a church named missy o'day which means mission of god. and i don't hide the fact that i was homeless because everybody knows that. and i was fortunate enough to get a job being me.

and being me incorporates me being -- having been homeless. and so i was -- and until probably the 15th of this month, i will still be employed as a vista. i conducted a speakers bureau called the faces of the homelessness where i recruit homeless and formerly homeless people to tell the stories, to create peer groups and let people we're the same as anybody else. as a minister -- now, don't get me wrong, i have one foot in a hotel and one foot on the banana peel so i could go tumbling down to the sidewalk anytime. but i always tell people, let's go from here. that is what i'm famous for.

i don't really want to hear their story because i know their story and i have probably a pretty generic story of homeless. my house burned down. i was is a sailor. i saved nothing. my house burned down, which wasn't my house i was renting. the red cross helped me for three days and they let me go out in the street. and it took me that much time in florida. i'm from ithaca, new york, but -- i mean, there's no home to go. first of all, i was orphaned when i was 3. second of all, i was maybe 40 at that time. and so there was no home to go to. and so i wanted to see what i could do about raising myself with my own hand and, you know, there's like various adventures in that, but as i say, let's go from here. and so if you see me and accept

me, accept me from here. and i was homeless for about seven years. let's go from here. i want to tell you guys three or four stories. i mean, i have a blog. and i write stories about people. i'm always with the homeless because i never left. i mean, when i got inside, i immediately went outside to take some sandwiches. i got evicted from a place for the first time for the first time in my life because i let somebody come and take showers and if somebody was really weary i would let them sleep in my house and the landlord just didn't go for it, me coming out of homeless, he just didn't want all these bums around his area. but, you know, let's go from here. and so i -- the day before

yesterday, which was sunday, i was walking in williams park. i left my hotel. i was walking in williams park and i saw this guy. and his name is mike. he's a homeless guy. i first saw him lying on the sidewalk. and in florida, it's very hot and so sometimes you lie in the grass but they have a terrible ant problem. they have a terrible red ant problem and so you can't always lie in the grass in parks or wherever you are. so sometimes you're just going to lie on the sidewalk. and so it's where i met him and i talked to him. he got friendly enough to ask me for a cigarette and i give him cigarettes and beer, you know. i drink beer, too. so i don't have any moral

judgment against people drinking bothe beer. anyway, i was going to church and i'll never forget the image of him laying on that sidewalk and i don't know how many of you know that. i'm from the street, you know, like i say, i hang out -- i used to when i was young, you know, so you have these boom boxes. you can't really put them on the sidewalk because the sidewalk will drain your battery. who knows that that the sidewalk drains batteries? the sidewalk drains batteries and so your battery will tend to die quicker if you -- if you put your boom box on the sidewalk. and i looked at that guy. he was about -- he's about 60 maybe, you know, but you can never tell how old people are in the street because they look

older and as i say, the sidewalk drains their energy out. so you walk by. i was going to church. he asked me for a cigarette. i gave him a cigarette. he looked kind of sweaty. it's florida so everybody looks sweaty so he walked to the other side of the park. i walked in the park and i was talking to somebody, and i see an ambulance. i didn't think anything of it because i had been talking with somebody for a while. and then i walked down there, and he's dead on the sidewalk. he's dead. he's dead. you know? they are arguing with people. people are arguing with him and,

you know, he was complaining about chest pain or whatever and they called the ambulance. 45 minutes. i don't know he had been out there that long but i had seen him so i must have been out there that long. and an ambulance didn't come. and by the time the ambulance came, he was dead. he was dead. he turned blue. and he turned black and ashened and he was dead. just maybe the sidewalk drained all the energy out of him, i don't know. i do know -- i remember of the emergency medical services came to ada friend of mine, and he said -- i got my cell phone and i called him and he was shaking and he said he felt like he was dying. and the mt says, you know,

homeless people are always dying. and so that probably was the attitude when they called and he said he's -- this guy is having heart palpitations and you better come because homeless people are always dying. .. >> williams park at between --

is where the homeless hangout. it's their common center because they are not really allowed to go anywhere else. if they go anywhere else they're going to get arrested. but this man walked out of the store. he had a four pack of beer. they really don't sell sixpacks in florida because it's too hot so you will not last when it's a sixpacks '04 packs our preference. so the police arrested him for possession of alcohol. because he had beer. again, he was obviously a homeless guy. obviously, they had arrested him before. so i guess they had arrested him drinking, so this was a preventative measure. so they arrested him for the possession of beer for the thought that he was going to drink that beer. i guess they described it to you. they put him in the car and they handcuffed him, they poured his

beer out and they took him away. nobody said anything. i was thinking, well, if he was going to buy beer it must be illegal to sell it. so why don't you go in and arrest that guy because they will not go in the store and arrest that guy because homeless people are in florida where i am from, st. petersburg, florida, considered to be pests. and the energy drains out of them. they are always dying. and so, why bother? why bother with -- he will be out today, he will be out tomorrow. no bother. they are pests. 30 sample. third example that i'm going to say is, there's just something wrong. i thought there was something

wrong with the guy who died and his friends were -- they were going to kick these gm asses butts because his friends were totally upset. 45 minutes, he's dead. and the guy arrested for buying beer but nobody was arrested for selling beer, okay? because he was legally leaking out of the store. i thought that was weird. but i've got to tell you, this is the one that i think is real weird. the police asked me -- i have a love-hate relationship with the police, where as being a christian man i love my enemy, and the police pretty much hate me. but that's our love-hate relationship. but there are a couple of cops that i know, and they came into the park. i see everybody, i see

everything, i talked to everybody that want to talk to me. they were looking for this particular woman, and i knew her. i thought that maybe they had a warrant on her or something. i ain't snitching. seven years on the street i ain't snitching. i will deal with it myself if i have to. and so they were looking for her, the cops. they came back and looked for her again. somebody said, well, there she is. and the cops went to her, and i guess they woke her up. she had her stuff, you know, she was thinking they're going to take her stuff. and they said no, no. we just want to talk. and they told us homeless woman that her son had died in afghanistan. and she freaked out.

and there was no consoling her, there was no, just -- and i thought that was weird. because here's someone in the park, their energy runs out, they are always tired. it's illegal for them to drink beer. it's not illegal to sell it to them. this woman, here's this woman, her son is dying in afghanistan. and we go into williams park to tell her that her son is tight. i just think that it's weird. and i think that's a sad commentary for american society, and i think we can do better. so let's go on from here. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

sort of hard to go on from here when that someone -- you wrap that up. our -- nynex want to introduce scott lavell who i have met. is one of the people the national law center introduced me to when i was working on a series for the new times. and good to see you again. >> our you doing? how are you doing? i really didn't setting up your thinking how to start, and i said it like this. i will deal with a little piece of my life, going into what caused me to be homeless, some things that happened, and how i got out of the. i was instructed by my guardian angel to just say where you

start, where it's at, and there no end. i was first introduced to drugs and alcohol at the age of 11 years old. introduced to crime at the age of 15. did my first incarceration at 16. did my first homelessness about 1985, but it didn't last long because i got somebody to take me in. in 1996, i was arrested in virginia on distribution of cocaine. when i was released in 2003, well, let me backup admin. minute. while i was incarcerated, i lost my mother, my mother, my mother and my brother. and they died in north carolina so i didn't get to go see the

fear. i didn't get to go to the funeral, see none of them. when i was released in 2003 i had nowhere to go. so i end up joining a church over and alexandria, virginia, endless glory, and once i became homeless they let me sleep in the church. so after that went on for a while and i couldn't find employment because of my criminal history, they said hey, we are enabling new, you've got to go. so then i hit the streets of d.c. i slept on the streets of d.c. from 2005, 2004-2009, when i was blessed with a guardian angel. but when i come back to let you know where crimes and everything came in, my record kept me from getting a job. my homelessness kept me from

getting a job. but once i got the home, got the job, it worked out. we're going to back up and go into this long thing. i'm talking about it's not illegal for them to sell it, but it's illegal for you to have it outside. i was arrested one time in virginia, four times in one day. now, when they arrest you for drunk in public or in public, it's eight hours. how many eight hours is there in one day? but i was arrested four times in one day. and when i went to court the judge throws it out. he said how can you arrest this man four times in one day? and you supposed to keep them for eight hours. and there's only three-eight

hours in a day, you know? also living over here in the streets of d.c., the please mess with the guy sitting on the street with a soda bottle. there's something in the soda bottle, but a soda bottle. but that guy selling drugs over there, do it all day. why do you kick a man when he is down? why don't you try to help him up? pick them up, taking to a shelter. but the justice system focus on the homeless before they focus on anybody else. and they don't try to help you. they don't say hey, we will take you here, take you to detox. try to help a man out. but when i actually said i had a guardian angel, i want you all

to take that literally because i had a guardian angel that got me where i am at today. my mother and grandmother that died while i was incarcerated prayed for this to happen. really -- sadness. these are tears of joy because there's a lot of people that care about me. but it wasn't the justice system, you know. i've been arrested, my rap sheet will really go out that door. and most of it will be alcohol or drug related. but then guys out there selling drugs, they just get away with

it. and i thank god today, and i'm not a safe, but i thank god today that there are some people who care, and we need some more people that care. to step up to the plate. i think obama gave up to help the homeless in the united states. that money he gave up in the united states is not enough to help the homeless in d.c. and d.c. is not a big city. look at all the other -- let's just use los angeles, detroit, some of these other big cities. that is where we need you people to step up and say something to help. and as soon -- welcome even right now, even when i get a

paycheck, i go out and try to help somebody with some food or something. there was a guy -- well, the way i was found at am i guardian angel took me off the street is, right across the street, there is a gay guy came to me one night. he said, man, i do not want to be gay anymore. and i am cold. i was sitting in a wheelchair. i have a wheelchair. i was in a wheelchair, and god has blessed me to be out of my wheelchair. my doctor want me back in it, but i took my coat off and gave it to this guy. and there's a girl standing there with me, she said how can you take off your coat in the cold and give to somebody else? i said, well, first of all got told me to do it. second of all, i have another

coat on the back of my wheelchair. so i put that code on. but two days later this guy told me he didn't want to be gay anymore, he wasn't gay anymore, and he turned his life around. so one of the things that i try to do right now is use my life as an example. now, if you all would see me walk appear and i was in a wheelchair, i was hit by two cars in one day. not at one time. and god has left me here to have a testimony to give somebody else. and i don't want nobody to feel sorry for me or pray for me. but god has me here, even up at the podium, for a reason. because my life is a testimony to help somebody else. and whoever is watching, whoever see me talking right now,

remember, the homeless, each one of y'all, i'm going to say this, y'all might laugh, but each one of the all our only that far from your homes. in the streets of richmond there was a guy, he was an architect year for all those big buildings that you see down in uptown richmond, and he slept right beside me on a bench. in the park right across from the daily planet. after years of making big money. and one day, his mind snapped and that was it. so, the only way through this homelessness is people got to step up. you know. they made a t-shirt about obama got osama. that ain't -- that's not even where we at right now. we got children out on the

street right now. and there's some young kids on the street right now are selling drugs to get their pants off the street, but that's the wrong idea. we spent a lot of money on the war right now. we need help here in the united states. we helping everybody else. we fighting everybody else, but the criminal justice system is not for the homeless. and the jails are so packed they are not keeping them in there. and if i remember right, a lot of the men on the street right now need help. the mental health, they don't have money to help us. i mean, because each one of us is saying anyway, you know? the thing i'm saying right now is we need some people to step up and help maria do her job,

because she is one of my guardian angels. but with that, i'm going to close. thank y'all. [applause] >> well, how much longer do we have for questions? okay. here are the experts. we just heard some very powerful testimony. we have been challenged morally come individually. we have been spoken to heart to heart here. please, any questions for the experts here. yes, sir. >> i have more of a statement. my name is rob robinson. i work with the national economic and social rights initiative. and take back the land movement.

and i want to thank linda, g.w. and walter were telling their story. it's important. as many other people know industry. i spent two and half years on the streets of miami homeless, and 10 months in the new york homeless shelter, so i certainly understand and feel your pain, and no definitely what you went through. but i think it's important that you tell your story. and movements begin with the telling of untold stories, and it's important for us having gone what we went through to be able to articulate that in a real way. so i encourage you to get in more forums and tell your story. i think there is, there's a problem within this country when we see homelessness just sweep it under the rug. i have seen it done many times done in d.c. but it washed in miami. me done josie on television, a beautiful arena, two blocks to the south as a homeless shantytown among the river tracks that i think g.w. you

know what i'm talking about. it would paint a totally different picture to the folks in his room. barbara, i want to thank you for bringing this story, bringing realism to the story, and mainstream media doesn't seem homelessness as a sexy issue or a real social ill that it is. rug in the press, that folks like you have made it real and put faces on it, and we thank you for it. so thank you, everybody. [applause] >> can i say something to that? thanks, rob. but he said that homelessness is not sexy. i broke a story recently that his international story. and it was -- what you're doing at she fights at st. petersburg is they were recruiting homeless people for $50, just to make it

brief, they would tie them up and they've had these scantily clad mixed martial arts experts, fighters and laundry football players like to kick the crap out of them for $50. if you yelled uncle before the eight minutes or 12 mr. swagger you did not get the $50. and so, i wrote it up. i was going to put it on the blog but it was horrific that i -- convince these people who are victims to get lawyers. once they had gotten lawyers and security, then i broke the story. "nightline" called me.

the daily mail of london, papers from new zealand, everybody was calling me. you know, for this story. two days later we had this conference called endless homelessness concrete solutions which maria was the keynote speaker. not one single reporter was there. and i called every, basically everybody who called me about "the associated press," everybody who called me about this shefights.net. you know, like germany. i got calls from all over the world literally, and i put into the test. i called everybody back and said we are having this conference, so i tried to tie it in. so things like this won't happen. not one reporter showed up. this she fights, 56 pages on google a generator. just google my name, g.w. rolle,

she fights. 86 pages. but for concrete solutions, not one reporter. so go figure. >> yes, this might be -- >> this is something that i really want you all to know about, and it slipped my mind totally. everybody -- the first day they see a homeless person they say hey, send them to it shelter. when you get ready to send somebody to the shelter, go in there and stay with them for one night. that's all i have to say. [applause] >> might be a little hard in this city where we are losing beds and homeless shelters faster than homeless people are being generated. am i right? one more comment? are made we should get ready for reception, refreshments, chance to mingle.

i really want to thank you, everybody on this panel. i think that this has been, you know, a nice start. maria started by education, a couple years ago. now i am already for a graduate degree. you have really, really and lighting does in many ways. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> we will have more coverage of afghanistan and u.s. policy when the senate foreign relations committee hears testimony from ryan crocker.

>> last year's dodd-frank financial regulation law institutes limits on the fees

that banks can charge for debit card transactions, known as swipe fees. montana senator has proposed an amendment that would delay the implementation of these regulations for one year. he and other senators talked about his amendment in the senate yesterday. this is an hour and 10 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i -- over the last month, mr. president, senator corker and i have worked with several senators who are concerned about the unintended consequences of the debit interchange amendment that the senate adopted last year. we voted against that amendment. we were concerned about the impact of those consequences on

folks, especially across rural america, who rely on their small banks and credit unions. the federal reserve's rules based on this amendment are about to go into effect, and the result is going to be bad for the small banks and credit unions and ultimately for the whole country, but especially rural america. even chairman bernanke admits the rule could result in some smaller banks being less profitable or even failing. i am proud to be joined in this effort by senators crapo, senator bennett, senator hague and several -- snoring hagan and several others, all who share my concern about debit interchange fee on local banks. senator corker and i began with the concern that local community banks and credit unions would end up being subject to the same one-size-fits-all regulation designed to address the excesses of some of the world's largest financial institutions. as i have said over and over and over again, those big wall street banks are going to be just fine. they have plenty of sources for

their revenue. no one needs to shed a tear for them. but the main street banks and the credit unions will not be okay if these rules are implemented. let me give you one example. community first credit union has two branches, one in mile city and one in ecalaka, montana. those two towns are about as far away from wall street as you can get. ecalaka is pretty far away from just about everywhere. but last year, the senate approved an amendment that was aimed at holding the big banks accountable for the fees they charge when you swipe a debit card at wal-mart. folks were promised that we would have a split system where big banks like bank of america would get one interchange rate and community first credit union would be able to get a higher rate. the reality is going to be quite different. without changes, the small guys like community first will not see this promised benefit. this so-called two-tiered system will not work under the current

law, and that's not my opinion. it's the opinion of the folks who regulate these small banks. what ben bernanke and sheila behr and others say is that market forces will inevitably push the rate down to the lowest level. that push has already started. retailers are seeking laws at the state level to give them freedom to deny purchases with debit cards that have a higher interchange fee. given the amount of money the big box retailers are putting in their lobbying campaigns, it is only a matter of time before they're successful. so what happens to the consumer who does their banking at a small community bank or credit union? these are the folks i am concerned with because they are the majority of montanans. unfortunately, they are going to get stuck with higher fees with no access to capital or even worse no banks at all. and let's be clear. if any single one of the regulators, whether it be the chairman of the federal reserve or the chair of the fdic or the comptroller of currency, had

told me that the interchange system proposed last year would actually protect small banks and credit unions, we would not be here, but that is not what happened. the chairman of the federal reserve said that without changes, the system that will be implemented on july 21 will cause small institutions, the kind of banks that serve most montanans, to suffer and some could even fail. the chair of the fdic said that unquestionably, these banks would be hurt, the credit union administrator agrees. perhaps they will make up for those losses by raising rates on checking accounts. maybe it will be higher fees when a small business comes in looking for a loan to expand or that will surely help the biggest banks to capture more of the market share at the expense of the smaller banks like community first. this week, we have a chance to stop and rewrite these rules before they hurt those small banks, before they hurt those small credit unions, before the

new rules hurt the consumers and the small businesses in rural america that prefer to do their banking business with the folks who know them and who are part of their communities. rural america is what i know. it is where i am from. and as i have watched consolidation in the agricultural industry and have watched rural america get smaller and smaller, i'm not about to let this happen in the financial services industry. fewer banking options in rural america is a death knell for is a death knell for rural r america and that is where we are headed today. one way to stop this from happening is for us to slow down and fix the debit interchange regulation so that the small banks that serve rural america don't get hit. we also know how dangerous it is to set a price for a product without understanding all of the costs that go into that product. small business owners certainly couldn't understand business if they didn't understand their own costs. likewise, if we're going to be

regulating debit interchange fees we need to understand all the costs associated with the debit transaction and debit programs. when we voted on this amendment this year, we thought we were voting to allow the federal reserve to consider all costs. however, the reality is that last year's interchange amendment limited the costs that could be included. some fraud costs were allowed to be included but others were not. some technology costs were included but others not. the result is a proposed federal rule that sets the debit interchange rate at 7 or 12 cents for all transactions. a level that most folks agree is too low. i'm sure that the big box retailers think that 7 cents or 12 cents is too high. in fact, they argued the rates should be closer to 4 cents. i've heard from many of my retailers in my home state as some of them have said the 12 cents is probably too low and they can understand that you absolutely can't set the price of doing business below the business that itst comes. if we're going to be regulating

this market, we need to do it in a way that's fair, that still directs the fed to determine what is reasonable and proportional but to give them discretion to look at all the costs to look at debit transactions. that does not mean executive pay. that does not mean the cost of a corporate jet or a special rewards program. all the costs will still need to be justified but the fed will not be limited arbitrarily in what they can look at. that is why my friend senator corker and i are offering this amendment today. this amendment is a compromise and that's how we do business in montana. we find the common ground and work together to do what's best. senator corker and i first proposed a two-year delay of the fed's rules to allow adequate time to study the impact on small banks and rewrite the rules based on what we learned in that study. the fells tells us now that it may be able to do this joint study within six months. so that is what our amendment proposes. just six months to study with the rules that will govern debit

interchange marketplace can protect small banks. in this amendment we outline the topics that the study should address including taking a closer look at all the actual costs associated with debit card transaction. the impact on consumers and whether an exemption for small banks as proposed in the interchange amendment last year will actually work. if after the study at least two of the agencies involved determine that the current rules don't take into account all costs, that the rules may harm customers or the exemptions will affect small banks and credit, then they will rewrite the rules considering all costs. that's one year, mr. president, to address our concerns and to make sure rural banks don't get wiped out by this rule. if the agency finds that the rules consider all costs, consumers would not be harmed and that the small issue or exemption will work, then the current rules pending would move forward and what about the

little guys? well, we put into place a process that will address any potential impact on small issuers. my contention that it would drive to the lowest rate since we cannot fully understand how the market until market interchange is interabandoning we direct the issue the fed a year after the rules are implemented and the fed has to present a report to congress and every other year the impact on small issuers. most importantly, the report will include recommendations for how to resolve any potential harm to small issuers and to enforce the exemption. this will help make sure that when congress acts, we will have the facts about how we would impact small banks. that means the regulatory process is over in 12 months. and congress does not have to revisit this issue. let me say it again. congress does not have to

reissue -- revisit this issue. and at the end of the entire process, there's still a regulated market for debit interchange fees. that's what the senate voted for last year loudly and clearly. and we preserved the regulated marketplace which is what senator durbin and others have been calling for. we will have regulated marketplace once we fully understand all of the costs with respect to debit transactions and the impact on tools on consumers and small issuers. that is what the majority of the senate voted for last year and that is what we will get. that it will be a regulatory framework that does not penalize small banks and kroounz and is fair by not setting prices below cost. when every banking regulator who has a role to oversee the debit regulation market tells that you congress has created a system that will not work in a way that was not intended, then we ought to listen. today's debit interchange market is not fair for some retailers

so i understand their desire to see a fix. but the answer is not to create a new system that is unfair to the small banks in montana and other parts of rural america. the amendment that the senate approved last year was designed to punish wall street. but the result may be the bank and the other banks all over rural america who will lose customers and potentially even fail. let's measure twice and cut once and do it quickly and make sure that we get it right and that if we're going to create regulations, we're doing it in a way that is fair and consistent with the intent. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. with that i yield the floor. >> mr. president -- >> the senator from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak favorably towards the tester-corn -- >> would i ask the senator from tennessee if he would mind yielding and indicating how long he might be speaking? >> 8 minutes max, 8 to 10.

>> thank you >> thank you. i do want to say my friend from montana has been a great partner in this effort. i know that lots of times people use a lot of rhetoric down here to talk about what's happening and the fact that anyone who might be proposing this type of amendment might be supporting wall street institutions but i think you can see my friend from montana is anything but wall street and certainly i think all of us are just trying to come up with a solution that makes sense. and i just want to give just a brief history. dodd-frank came to the floor last year. there were a number of amendments to the bill. one of the amendments that came to the floor was called the durbin amendment. it was an amendment that had had no hearings. and a lot of us, people like myself that are opposed to price fixing, what the durbin amendment said was that the fed was going to set prices on debit transactions were opposed to it. on the other hand, there were

numbers of people in this chamber that supported durbin because they were frustrated with where retailers were in their inability to negotiate prices with visa and some of the other companies. and so they thought that this might be a type of solution to that dilemma of not being able to have appropriate negotiations. i think what all of us have understood, regardless where they are on this issue now is that the durbin amendment didn't actually give the fed the ability to set prices as it relates to cost on debit cards. it only allowed certain costs. in other words, the incremental cost of a transaction. and i think the retailers that i know are very strongly supportive of the durbin language know they all tell me this anyway in private. they know they couldn't operate themselves under that same scenario. but they're just frustrated. and so what tester and i and others, mike crapo who voted for durbin, i might add, kay hagan who voted for durbin, senator

bennett from colorado who voted for durbin -- what people have realized is that the durbin amendment is way too narrow and doesn't allow appropriate cost to be set by these rates. and there are a number of rule of institutions and i have the same in my state and we all realize this is going to be highly detrimental to the financial system and so what we tried to do is come up with a compromise that works for both sides. as i mentioned, senator crapo, senator hagan, senator brown, senator carver, a you been in of individuals have gotten involved in this and have come up with a one-vote strategy. i know a number of people want to vote and get behind them. and i understand this is one of those issues where we got retailers on one side. you got bankers on the other side and you feel like in some way you're trying to deal, you know -- you're trying to pick between friends. what i think we're trying to do is just put a good, sound policy

in place. a place the retailer should be very happy because they are going to end up with a regulated market. something i don't support but i think the senator from illinois has been very successful in that front and basically the retailers went on this because they're going to end up with something that's regulated. they feel like they don't of the ability to negotiated with visa and other institutions and now the fed is going to set pricing and on the other hand, most senators in this body that understand economics, understand business also know that you cannot run a business if you're going to charge the incremental costs. it would be like a pizza parlor selling pizza literally and only being able to charge for the dough that it takes to make the pizza, not be able to charge for electricity, not be able to charge for the other things that it takes to run that particular place. and so i think we've come up with something that is a good

middle of the road solution. the fed is directed to consider, both fixed costs and incremental costs. it's something that any retailer or any business in america would want to be considered if they're being regulated. and so we've come up -- we also have come up with a solution that allows the fed to look back every two years and make sure that those smaller institutions that senator tester is so concerned about and i'm so concerned about, that the fed looked at those and ensures that every two years that these policies that are being put in place don't disproportionately negatively affect those institutions. if so they recommend, they don't prescribe they recommend to congress possible legislative remedies. as the senator mentioned, i think we should measure twice, cut once. i think this ends up putting this issue in the place that is fair. i'm feeling momentum building around this. i will say the senator from illinois is an outstanding,

outstanding legislator. i think he's done a very good job championing this issue. i don't think we'd be where we are in this issue without the efforts that he has put forth, but i think he realizes possibly that, you know, by not keeping in place all costs as it relates to the transaction, what you're really doing is limiting the availability of that to the public down the road. you limit innovation. you limit the amount of technology investment that goes towards these transactions. i hope very soon to be paying my bills by just swiping, you know, my electronic device in front of a cash register and i think we all see us moving towards this, but what -- what the durbin amendment in the form that it's in does basically say to these institutions, when you conduct these types of transactions, debit transactions, you're going to lose money every time you do it. and i don't think that's where we want to be. so again they're going to be for

unintended consequences. whenever there's a bill that's the size of dodd-frank that passes, surely, all of us can come together to figure out more commonsense ways of solving problems like this when they arrive. i would have to say that i really like the way this body is united states iffing arou -- ar this issue and everyone realize that this policy is detrimental. we have people on both sides of the aisle that have tried to work together. we've got three iterations of corker-tester and try to get it into the middle of the road that takes into account the concerns of retailers and takes into concern the small credit union, small banks around this country are going to be devastated as regulators have said. we talk about regulatory overreach in this body. this is a case where we've given the regulators the ability to regulate and they're saying,

please don't make us do this. this is really bad policy. that rarely happens in washington. but it's happened on this case. so out of -- out of respect for the tremendous amount of work that so many people have put into coming up with a slightly better solution than the senator from illinois who worked so hard on this issue put forth originally, i would just ask every member to please, whether you end up voting with us or not, and i hope you will -- please sit down for 10 minutes, just 10 minutes and allow your staff to at least explain -- i know a lot of people have made commitments 10 days ago, a week ago to be on the other side of this. but i think most people haven't seen the last iteration that puts this in the middle of the road, that keeps debit cards regulated but gives the regular layer -- regulators to at least assess the cost when it

functions. with that, mr. president, i thank you for the time to talk about it. i thank the senator from illinois who looks like he's getting ready to speak. i thank him for the way that he's conducted himself. as a matter of fact, i think we come up with such a great solution, i would hope that the senator from illinois would consider being a cosponsor. and with that, i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from illinois. >> to my friend from tennessee, not a chance. [laughter] >> so my wife over the weekend in springfield i would like you to clean the garage. well, i decided to clean half the garage. it's a compromise. she said who did you compromise with? that's what we're faced here. senators corker and tester come to the floor and say, we have a compromise. who did you compromise with? it wasn't with the people who were affected by these debit card fees. no. they compromised among the banks. the banks all sat down and said, let's work this out among us because we're talking about real

money here. and that's their compromise. it's not a compromise. what is this all about? the average person listening to this debate are thinking, what are they fighting over there in the united states senate? this bipartisan battle? what we're talking about here is something we all kind of carry out in our wallets and purses these days, a debit card. and if i take this card and go to a local restaurant -- well, let's use a different one. if i went to a local convenience store and said i want a pack of chewing gum, wrigley's because that's based in chicago. here's my debit card and they take the debit card these days and they swipe it and they complete the transaction. what you don't know but the merchant knows is he just lost money on that because it cost more to the merchant selling the good to process the piece of plastic than they could possibly

profit on the goods they're selling. and so you wonder how did it reach this point where the use of this piece of plastic cost so much? it reached that point because the big giants of credit cards, visa and mastercard, said to merchants and retailers all across america, if you want to accept plastic at your place of business, then you're going to pay us is swipe fee every time that piece of plastic goes through the reader. and how much is that swipe fee? it turns out it's 1.10% on average. it doesn't sound like a lot. but it is. the banks that issue these cards receive each month none of swipe fees from all across the united states from convenience stores, restaurants, hotels,

charities -- if you gave a donation to red cross because the terrible thing that happened in joplin, missouri and used your debit card, guess what? visa and mastercard got a percentage of it. the amount you thought you were giving to the charity, college bookstores, you name it. every time you swipe these, it ends up generating each month on average for the banks across america $1.3 billion. each year more than $15 billion in swipe fees. and what did the merchants have to say about how much they were being charged? nothing. take it or leave it, buddy. you don't want to pay the swipe fee, don't take plastic. so over the years, as you might expect, the merchants and retailers said, this is a rotten deal. not only is this an invisible charge that we have to add to the cost of doing business on everything, we have no control over the it. we're faced with paying the swipe fee or not accepting

plastic and in this day and age, imagine how long you'd last in many businesses if you didn't accept debit cards. so four or five years ago, i called for a study. what is a reasonable amount to charge? and i was opposed, naturally, by the banking industry. they put out an all-points bulletin, kill the durbin study of debit fees. they didn't want to study it. all the study can do is put the spotlight on them. they don't want that to happen. so we waited and we waited. and last year we had the wall street financial reform bill. and i sat here patiently on the floor saying i want to offer this amendment to finally come up with a reasonable way to regulate this fee which is not a product of competition and isn't transparent or disclosed. well, the vote finally came along. and after 25 amendments on wall street reform, they decided,

this vote wouldn't require a majority. it would require 60 votes. super majority. okay, i'm ready to live with it. we called it and we won. 64 votes in favor of our position. well, it surprised a lot of people. it sure as heck surprised the banks. they didn't think that that this senate on a bipartisan basis would hold them accountable for the fees they're charging on the debit card. so what do we say in the law? the federal reserve, a nonpartisan bank-regulating agency would have the authority to determine what is is a reasonable and proportional fee for swiping the card. and that fee would go into effect this july, july 21st, a year -- one year after we passed the law. and we said in the meantime, anyone who has any thoughts, ideas or comments, send them to the federal reserve.

they got 11,000-plus comments. everybody had an idea. some of them didn't like the law. some didn't. on and on. and so they came out with a preliminary report, not a rule, a preliminary report in december. do you know what they found? they found that the average charge per transaction in the united states was 44 cents and the average cost to the bank for processing the debit transaction about 12 cents. about one-fourth, so the plot thickens. throughout that the banks issuing these cards are not only charging this invisible fee. they're dramatically overcharging. merchants and retailers and guess what, mr. and mrs. consumer, all of us, too. we pay it. we pay it in additional charges. even if you go into that store to buy the package of chewing gum with cash, the price has been raised because they are expecting you to give plastic

instead and you pay more. so then the battle is on. whether or not the federal reserve would issue this rule establishing a more reasonable fee, swipe fee, for these debit cards. and it is a big battle. imagine, if you will, what it means to the biggest banks in america when they have on the line $1.3 billion a month. pulled out all the stops. a friend of mine who's a lobbyist in downtown in washington said durbin, praise the lord. come up with some ideas. this is a full employment amendment. everybody who's a lobbyist in washington is working on this amendment. we just love you to pieces. well, the sad reality is, it's coming, maybe, to a close with the vote on this amendment. but the banks and the credit card companies started piling it on. and let me be fair. the other side did too. the merchants and retailers finally said, for goodness sakes, we want fair treatment

and if we have to fight to protect this new law, we're going to fight to do it. and that's where we are today. senator tester of montana, senator corker of tennessee have offered an amendment which i'm about to describe. this is interesting, though. they are offering this amendment in an effort to stop the federal reserve from issuing a rule that will establish how much that swipe fee is going to be. well, how soon would the fed issue the rule? within the month, within a matter of days they are desperate to get this amendment to the floor to try to stop the federal reserve from saying what is is a fair swipe fee and to protect merchants, retailers, small businesses and consumers across america. the banks want to stop them. so there's one other part of the story that's important. we decided when we wrote this law that we would give smaller banks, community banks, and smaller credit unions an exemption. in other words, they are not covered by the federal rule. and you say why?

from a consumers' point of view, all the arguments that are made still apply. well, that's true. but many of these smaller institutions are more financially vulnerable. and i happen to agree with both senators tester and corker. i believe in community banks and local banks and i want them to survive. so we carved them out and said if the value is below $10 billion, you're not going to be affected by this. if the value of your credit unions is below $10 billion, you won't be affected by this. how many did we exempt? out of 7,000 banks in america, only 100 would be affected by the law. and out of 7,000 credit unions, only 3 would be affected by the law. but then there's another part of the story. it turns out that the three biggest banks in america are the ones that make the most money on debit fees. each month they collect more than 50% of the debit fees.

what are those banks? chase, wells fargo and bank of america. they have been fighting viciously to stop this rule from going into effect because there are billions of dollars at stake and they don't want that -- they don't want to lose that income. so let's have a little trip down memory lane about these banks. do you remember a few years ago when these banks got us in the biggest economic mess in current memory? did you notice any change in your savings account? perhaps your ira? the money you put away for your retirement? well, i sure did. i think loretta and i lost about 30% of our value because they were playing games with subprime mortgages and new derivatives and aig offices in london, and this wholly mess ended up being visited on families, businesses and consumers all across america. and we were in a panic.

the chairman of the federal reserve ben bernanke and the chairman of the treasury, hank paulson, he said if you don't do it immediately banks across the country is going to fall and the economy is going to collapse not just here but across the world. you've got to come to their rescue. you've got to come up with a bailout for the banks. remember that, taxpayers of america? well, how did the big three debit card banks do in the bailout? chase, $25 billion in taxpayers' money because they had acted so recklessly and endangered their bank that they needed a helping hand. bank of america, $45 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. wells fargo, $25 billion in taxpayer funds. remember that, taxpayers of america?

when the same banks that are going to profit from these debit card fees were so desperate that they needed a helping hand from taxpayers to save their banks? and do you remember how they expressed their gratitude to us. it was heartwarming. as soon as they could, they called a meeting of the board of directors and awarded one another bonuses. bonuses for their reckless conduct. just warmed my heart, that they were so appreciative of the taxpayers across america sacrificing with their taxes to save these big old banks. well, i've got news for taxpayers. they're back. they're back today. and now it's smaller, i'll concede. it's only $15 billion a year but these same big banks are asking for a handout and a subsidy from the senate. are we going to get shaken down a second time? that's what this debate is all about. because i'll tell you at the end

of the day, if this amendment that's pending on the floor passes, then for at least a year, and i think way beyond it, these banks will continue to bring in $1.3 billion out of the wallets and purses of consumers across america every time a person uses one of these plastic cards. i don't think it's fair. i don't think it's right. i think there's a way to deal with this and deal with it honestly and let me tell you what it is. let the federal reserve issue issue its rule this month. they're going to come out with it and let's look at it. nobody knows what it's going to say. i've heard both senators who introduced this amendment say, well, this rule we can't accept this rule. they don't know what this rule is and neither do i. it hasn't been issued yet or published. at a minimum shouldn't we wait to see it before we say it's unacceptable?

so it's often swept under the