there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this motion, the yeas are 39, the nays are 60. the motion to recommit has failed. a senator: mr. president? i have -- right here, mr. president? mr. kohl: i move to career the vote by which the bill was passed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kohl: i raise the germaneness point of order against the pending amendment number 764. the presiding officer: the point of order is sustained and the amendment falls. the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the -- the remaining coburn amendments are withdrawn. the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 155, h.r. 2112, an act making appropriations for agricultural, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question is on the passage of the bill as amended. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any member who wishes to change his or vote. the ayes are 69. the nays are 30. the bill as amended is passed. a senator: mr. president, i wish to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: lay that on the

table. mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i had a conversation with the republican leader. we have a very, very important briefing today at 3:30. it will be in the classified area of the visitors' center. we're going to have secretary burns, general clapper will be there, head of the joint chiefs of staff, secretary panetta, will be there to talk about a number of countries around the world that we need to focus our attention on. i hope we have good attendance at that meeting. it will be very, very important that we have senators listen to what these gentlemen have to say. so i ask unanimous consent that we be in recess today from 3:30 until 4:30. the presiding officer: without s there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, the experiment that we just completed, these appropriations bills, has worked out traoepblgsly well.

-- extremely well. one reason is because of senator kohl. senator kohl has been in the senate more than two decades. those of us who watched him know he doesn't spend a lot of time talking but he does spend a lot of time getting things done. this legislation is an example of how good he is. also senator blunt. this is a new experience for him, but he has been in the house. he's been in the house for many years and was part of their leadership and actually hit the ground running. has been a great partner in helping us move this legislation forward. so i congratulate both of these fine senators. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. kohl: i'd like to take a moment to thank my ranking member, senator blunt, for his support throughout this process. he and his staff have beened extraordinarily helpful to me and my staff.

i'd thraoeubg thank my -- like to thank my staff, diane nay,yl, bob ross and bob metgger. we've had good debate on the floor about many provisions of the bill we've taken many votes. we've followed the regular ordered and this bill was considered on the senate floor. we can now conference this bill with the house and hopefully send it to the president shortly after that. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i want to thank senator kohl. the comments the majority leader made about him have certainly proven right in all of our relationships. i want to thank him for his guidance and encouragement

throughout this process. we've had open communications and worked together to address the amendments brought forward by our colleagues. while we didn't agree on every single thing in the bill, we certainly agreed to be agreeable about that and see if we couldn't breaux dues a -- produce a work product here that is the kind of work product that people have a right to expect the united states senate to do. so the passage of these three bills is significant. i certainly want to thank senator kohl's staff: gaylynn fountain, diane naylor for their contributions and my staff: stacy mcbride, mary costenson, brian ziffel and christina weger. because this has been a process that involved two other subcommittees, i want to express my thanks to my colleagues for their hard work and cooperation on the other parts of this bill. senator mikulski and hutchison and their staff on the commerce

commerce, justice, science subcommittee and the subcommittee of transportation and housing and urban development. the floor staff has worked hard over the course of the last several days. often that work goes unnoticed, but managing this bill has not been easy. it was a little different than many of the appropriations bills that have been brought to the senate floor and certainly the floor staff have been tremendous help to me and to the committee staff. this has been a long process. a dozen amendments that affect the agriculture division of this bill have been accepted over the course of the debate on the bill. i'm glad we've had an open debate on these bills and hope we can swiftly move to conference with the house and send this work product on to the president so that we can get these appropriations processes started as close to the regular time as we possibly could based on the moment we find ourselves

in and look forward to working with the appropriations committee as we bring other bills to the floor. again, i want to close my remarks on this bill by expressing my personal appreciation to senator kohl and his willingness to work with a new member of the senate in putting this product together and bringing this bill to the floor. thank you, senator kohl. thank you, mr. president. mr. kohl: mr. president, i have two unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: are we now in morning business? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer. i also compliment both senators who just spoke, senator kohl and

senator blunt, for their excellent work. and i apologize for laryngitis. mr. president, like everybody here, i followed these votes and negotiations and did vote. and i'm encouraged by the progress made on the transportation-h.u.d. appropriations bill which we've now approved. it funds our nation's ongoing transportation investments. but if i might just speak of one part of country it helps. it includes crucial emergency disaster funding for vermont and the other states struggling to recover from the hurricane trop storm irene -- tropical storm irene. this bill is part of response needed from congress by thousands of vermonters,

actually by millions of other americans. it's vital not only for the economy of vermont and other states whose roads and bridges were decimated by the storm, but for the nation's economy. and i commend the chair, senator murray, and the ranking member, senator collins, for their hard work in this. mr. president, i said many times on this floor, hurricane irene was devastating to our small state of vermont. i was born in vermont, as were my parents. and i've never seen destruction of this magnitude. the only thing that even comes near it is some of the things my grandparents used to tell me about when they were younger of floods in vermont. this flood and the flash floods caused by the storm destroyed

homes and farms, businesses, bridges and roads, things that stood for over a century were wiped out in a matter of minutes. it just washed the roads and structures away. i helicoptered over vermont with governor shumlin and the head of the vermont national guard the day after the storm. none of us could believe the things we were seeing. and we know that repair costs are going to be well over $100 million. in our little state, we're stretched to the limit. vermont moved immediately -- i mean as the rain stopped, we had crews in there working to repair things. we didn't wait for anybody else. we started moving neighbors, helping neighbors. our state and local governments working. our national guard, red cross, everybody working. but we do need federal disaster

recovery loans and grants to help those whose lives were upturned by irene. federal disaster recovery aid has always been available to other states after something like this. we need it now in vermont. and this bill is an essential part of the work that congress should be doing in response to major events like irene and the apparent pulling together as a nation to heal these wounds. the senate -- the presiding officer will recall when we reconvened after labor day, those of us on appropriations worked on this bill and other disaster relief legislation have been top priorities for vermont and for many other states. many other committees were

involved. certainly the vermont delegation worked together on this, but other senators came together to help us week by week we made progress. we've overcome a series of legislative obstacles. one by one we've been able to turn the light from red to green in a legislative process that this year has been unduly cumbersome, unresponsive, actually different than i've ever seen in the years i've spent here in the senate. but the progress that we've achieved here in the senate is a testament to the determination of many in this body who have been willing to set aside partisan differences to work together as republicans and democrats to accomplish the work that the american people and our constituents expect from their government.

now, in vermont and the other new england states, winter is not just on the horizon, it's on our doorstep. in our state last weekend, we had more than a foot of snow in some parts. i mention this because if you're going to repair roads and bridges, time is a significant factor. time is slipping away. we all know that roads and bridges and the circulatory system of our commerce and where people have to go to work, go to school or be together with their families. as many of the federal aid disaster programs are underfunded, i'm especially please that had this bill contains the $1.9 billion that i and others worked to include to

replenish the federal highway disaster relief fund. that's going to help rebuild vermont's vital roadways. and these roadways r critical. they rebuild our economy. they distribute aid. they bring people to hospitals, to schools. it's of the utmost importance that this federal aid reaches vermont sooner rather than later. our winters can be extremely harsh. we look at washington, d.c., which will close down with three inches of snow. we call that a dusting in our state. many times with a foot of snow overnight, schools will still open, commerce still goes on, but you don't rebuild roads with a foot of snow on them. so we have to be working now and we have to be prepared to work

immediately when the snows stop. i have talked with governor shumlin who has spent every single day working on this and to senator sanders and congressman welch. my wife marcelle and i have driven around the state, we have talked to community leaders, to those who have worked on disaster relief and others. it's very clear, given the mammoth unprecedented destruction of this storm, certain waivers are needed to allow states to have funds for repair work that they need without going through all kinds of burdens for those repairs. i mention these waivers, mr. president, because if we're going to assure that vermont and the other states can promptly design and begin emergency and permanent repairs, we have to do it now.

we put the waivers into this bill, and i hope the other body will understand that we need them. this bill and its developments in america's crumbling and damaged roads and bridges is a crucial step. it will help restore the economic vitality of our country. i'm also pleased the legislation includes the emergency community development block grant funding. right now, h.u.d. has no funding available. they can address the housing needs of vermonters affected both by hurricane irene and the flooding of this past spring. these disaster recovery programs are woefully underfunded. so, mr. president, i can't think of the number of hours that i and other members of the

committee have worked on this in the evenings, the phone calls, the weekends, touching base, but it's all worth it. this bill can now be accepted by the other body. we can go forward, we can start doing the rebuilding we need. vermont is a very special place, not just because it's my home but because of the spirit of its people. this is a state that has always, always supported help for other states all over the country. we need the help now. this is a major step forward for that help, and i thank everybody involved with it. it will be -- now all we have to do is get it through the other body, get it on the president's desk and continue the work of recovery that we're doing both in vermont and other states damaged by irene. i would ask my full statement be made part of the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: as i talk about the money, i am tempted, and i actually won't resist the temptation to repeat what a vermonter told me. i have said it before on this floor. we spend unlimited sums to rebuild buildings and roads and bridges in iraq and afghanistan and somebody else comes along and blows them up. rebuild them in america for americans by americans, and we americans will keep them safe. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

when senators return at 2:15 eastern they will be in a period of morning business for general speeches. from 3:30 to 4:30 senators attend a closed-door briefing with defense secretary leon panetta and army general martin dempsey and director of national intelligence james clapper. they will discuss threats from iraq, pakistan and afghanistan. that starts 3:30 eastern. live coverage of the senate when members return here on c-span2. coming up in about an hour on c-span3 the joint deficit reduction committee will hold a public hearing with the cochairs of two previous deficit commissions erskine bowles and alan simpson of president obama's deficit commission. along with alice rivlin and pete domenici who led an effort for the bipartisan policy center here in washington. the committee is tasked with finding at least $1.2

trillion in deficit savings by november 23rd. live coverage of that meeting in just under and hour on c-span3. >> would you continue your statement please. you will receive the answer in due course. don't worry. >> i'm prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that is your decision. pppppppppppppppppppppp@ >> when i got into the public started selling my books every person i worked with you had rejection letter from which is kind of cool. we go to meeting. we love your stuff. what about this?

>> the white house counsel on environmental quality kicked off a 2011 green gov symposium feeting you are environmental and energy policy leaders discussing the ways that federal government can lead in sustainability. among the speakers white house budget director jack lew. >> well con to green.gov. happy halloween. we're thrilled to have you here today and so grateful for your to your engagement

and commitment to greening the federal government and following up on the challenge of president obama's executive order. we're incredibly grateful for the team that are represented in the room here today who have been working so hard and so diligently over the past two years to meet all of our milestones that were outlined in oe-13-514. we're equally grateful for our extraordinary partner in the green.gov symposium this year, dan krege r&a co. thank you [applause] all right. we're going to jump right into the program here and i am very, very proud to introduce nancy sulley, the chair of the white house counsel on environmental quality. nancy has been extraordinary champion of this effort, absolutely since day one and ceq under her leadership has advanced an extraordinary

set of initiatives focused on environment and clean energy in this economy. she has been a champion for greengov. national ocean's counsel getting that effort stood up and launching america's great outdoors just to name a few. i would like with that to welcome nancy to the stage. [applause] >> thank you, michelle and good morning to all of you. great to see you all here although with the lights i sort of see there are people out there t welcome to the greengov symposium. we're happy to see you all here. it has been a little more than two years since president obama signed the executive order on federal leadership in environmental, energy and economic performance. this important executive order and the reason we're all here today is to really

be smart and responsible in how we operate the federal government and not to get complacent. the point is really to make decisions, informed decisions about how we run our operations so we can leverage our purchasing power as a force for innovation and job growth. and we aim to be good stewards of the government and an asset to the communities that host us. and i'm glad to say that we're making excellent progress. the federal community is really made great strides towards meeting these greengov goals by working together across agencies and within regions by replicating what's working and focusing on the kind of results that demonstrate how environmental and economic health go hand in hand. so let me just recap a few of the achievements that we've reached together. in january of 2010 the federal community set a greenhouse gas reduction goal of 28% reduction by

2020 for direct emissions. a little more than a year later, we completed the first-ever federalwide greenhouse gas inventory, which also showed that agencies are making progress toward our commitment to measure report and reduce pollution. and next we have doubled the federal hybrid fleet with gsa and department of energy leading the way. a few months later we published the first-ever comprehensive set of strategic sustainability performance plans linking sustainability to each agency's mission. and we know that you can't manage what you don't measure so in earlier this year we released omb's energy and sustainability scorecards bench marking each agency's performance towards these goals. also this year earlier in the year the president signed a memo requiring that all new cars and trucks

purchased by federal agencies must be alternative fuel by 2015 and we're very excited to announce the purchase of the federal government's first 100 electric vehicles. the federal fleets is an area where every agency can lead by example, reduce the amount of fuel we use and practice what we preach. and it is how we can build on support the historic advances that the administration is making in slashing pollution from cars and trucks and building the next generation of advanced vehicles in the united states. working with the automotive industry we chart ad course to double the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, saving consumers thousands of dollars and conserving billions of barrels of oil. we made historic advancements in electric vehicles and advanced batteries that power them to insure the high quality fuel-efficient cars and

trucks in the future are built right here in the united states. the sustainability work agencies are working to support these efforts and more. these are great accomplishments and they're just the tip of the iceberg. now federal green teams across the federal government are making sustainability part of how we work every day, to, teams like last year's greengov presidential awards winners, sandia national labs are cutting cost and fuel use by inventing solar powered carts to get around their campus. general service administration's energy management team have connected their 400 biggest energy consuming buildings to a system that allows them to monitor and manage how much energy gsa buildings are using in realtime. you will hear more about progress today and not just in the great sessions on the greengov agenda. today we're very excited to work with more than 45 agencies to release this

year's strategic sustainability performance plans which will be available on line at performance.gov. together these plans demonstrate what leading companies across the american economy are showing also. that smart operations make sense for the environment, for our health and also for our bottom lines. now, in this, in this effort, along with all of you, ceq has had a great partner in this green dpof effort every step of the way and that the office of management and budget some i'm very happy today to welcome omb director jack lew to the stage. jack is, had an incredible history of distinguished public service which included leading omb during the clinton administration and experience in the private sector and as executive vice president and chief operating officer of new york university. so i'm very pleased to introduce jack lew, director of om.

about and thank him for joining us at greengov here today. thank you very much [applause] >> thank you, nancy for that kind introduction and for bringing together this impressive group today. it's indeed a very strong partnership between omb and ceq and with all of you on these issues. i think that it is fair to say that greengov and green eye shades see things eye to sigh. there is no question but that as a consumer of real estate and motor vehicle fleets we have a great deal that we can do together both to save energy and save money at the same time. it is a case where there is no conflict at all between our objectives. it is quite the opposite. it's one in the same. the numbers are very big in terms of what we as a federal government occupy a

space and consume in fuel. as all of you know from the pieces that you have in your agencies, we have 500,000 buildings and 600,000 vehicles in the federal government. with numbers this big it means that everything we do has enormous impact both on the federal budget and on the environment. that's why what you do in your agencies is critical and i was going to take a minute before going into some of the more specific issues that you're here today to meet on, to put it in the context of why this is an important part of the overall administration agenda. i think you're probably all aware that recently the president asked the vice president to head up a campaign to cut waste and he started a few weeks ago by calling a cabinet meeting. he will be having cabinet meetings quarterly on that.

saving money on energy. saving money through efficiency, saving money through reducing how much we print, how much waste we create, is all part of it. but, it has many elements. just, for example, in medicaid where we're announcing, we've announced initiatives that will save $2 billion in spending that was not necessarily or appropriate. there's $3 billion in real estate cost savings we're looking to accomplish by the end of 201. by holding regular cabinet meetings, what the vice president is doing and what the president has directed him and me to do is to make sure that the work we're talking about here today is not on the back burner but always on the front burner. we have to remember that every dollar we spend is a taxpayer dollar and every dollar we spend on energy that we don't need to spend is also wasting energy and

everything that we do to consume energy is emitting, that we don't need to do is emitting pollution we don't need to be part of. so that's why it really is one large challenge that we have. i think that if you look at the efforts that we've made as a federal government to go green, you know, there is quite a lot we have to show for it. as nancy said in her opening remarks, if you don't measure it, it is very hard to say that it is serious and it is very hard to know what you're doing. and i think that it's been important that omb and ceq have led together in developing a scorecard where we identified goal leaders and we've been working to improve our measurement systems and evaluations through the scorecard on sustainability and energy. and this means that we've got a tool that enables us to improve federal practices and strategies and goals.

today, we're taking an important step by posting online as nancy mentioned, the strategic sustainability performance plans so that everyone can see them. that is going to give the american people an opportunity to hold all of us accountable and to make sure that we don't just announce that we're doing these things but that we actually get them accomplished. when people log on and begin to read of about the plans that all of you have put together, i think they're going to be proud of the work that you've done. in agency after agency on the security side, on the non-security side, large agencies and small agencies we've got both innovative and common sense solutions that are helping to make the government more sustainable and at the same time save taxpayers money. let me give you a few examples. the department of energy nearly half million square feet of cool roofs were installed at doe sites. these roofs will result in

annual savings of $100,000 in heating and cooling costs. i think all of you know when you save money on heating and cooling you're saving energy also. the main campus at nih, the national institute of health, is planning a water conservation project that would save 105 million gallons at the central plant by 2012. the project implementation cost is $1.7 million and it will have $712,000 of annual savings. that is a pretty good payoff. million seven of an investment for a 700,000 a year saving. at usaid they set up teleconferencing vdt systems in washington and overseas, set up desktop virtualization software across the usaid network. by 2012 usaid projects this will save 1 1/2 million dollars. from the use of share point software, usaid anticipates

20% reduction of paper filing systems over next two years and that is estimated to avoid $2.4 million of costs. last year the first wind turbine at a active army installation came online at an armey depot in utah this is the 262-foot tall wind turbine that has the capacity to generate 1 1/2 megawatts of electricity which will save the base 14 1/2 billion btus of energy, that has initial value of $200,000 a year and will pay back quickly the initial investment of $3.7 million. i can of can go on and on because almost everyone in this room from an agency has an example of something they have accomplished and other things that they're working on. i think one of the values of a meeting like today's is for us to learn from each other and to share the best ideas that help government work better, produce results, save energy, protect the

environment, and not unimportantly save money at the same time. as we continue to strive to make the federal government cleaner, greener and more efficient i know one thing. it won't just be accomplished at cabinet meetings or by what we do at omb. it will be done by all of you on the front line, coming up with the ideas day after day and implementing them out in the field. so as you do your work, let me leave you with a few pieces of advice. first, prioritize your investments. put your time and your effort into the things that have the highest return. second, fund capital improvements that aren't just going to have savings in the short run but will continue to produce savings year after year and improve the sustainability of our performance. and three, leverage agency dollars with private sector investments through effective and responsible use of the authorities that you have to work in

public/private partnerships. if you do that, and you continue the work that you've done, i'm confident that we together will effectively manage the resource that is the american people give us the trust to manage. and at the same time, deliver long-term savings so that we can show the american taxpayers that their tax dollars are being well-spent. i want to conclude by thanking all of you for your hard work. i know these are difficult days. i hope you find these three days of workshops and forums and opportunities to exchange ideas educational and even a bit inspirational so as you go back to your agencies, you go back to your work, you do it with the confidence that together we really are getting something very important done, that we're making a difference in terms of how well government performs and how much we as public stewards can do to help protect your environment. thank you very much and i wish you all very well in the days ahead. [applause]

>> thank you, so much, director lew. i now have the pleasure of introducing our next couple of speakers who will be really focusing on the future of sustainability and the future of government. the first is administrator martha johnson who heads up the general services administration. administrator johnson is not only the leader at gsa, not only a woman with extraordinariliry professional background and private sector leadership, innovation and public sector service as well but she's also an expert in organizational transformation and in change management which has been really critical to the approach that gsa has taken to their efforts in the greengov initiative and to mayor commitment to z z. f zero environmental input. without them, without administrator johnson's

vision it would be extraordinarily challenging for the federal community and particularly for the civilian agencies to reach these goals. so please, administrator johnson join us on stage. thank you. [applause] >> happy halloween. thank you for the kind introduction. it was terrific as always to hear director jack lew speak. i want to thank him for his remarks as well. i'm delighted to be here to help kick off the 2011 greengov symposium. it's a tremendously important event and i know that this year the conference will shed some very valuable lessons and i look forward to learning about those. let me begin by saying just a few words about gsa and how we conduct the business of government. we manage acquisitions for the federal government which touches about 95 billion in this vast river of

consumption that happens every year across our government. we help purchase and maintain some 400,000 vehicles. we build and manage about 360 million square feet of space. which by some estimates is more than 2% of all commercial real estate. our positioning, this is very important to us, our positioning is as if we are a membrane between government and industry and it needs to be a porous and healthy mem brain -- membrane but a place where we interact and share back and forth and be part of the discussion and the creativity for our nation. greengov hits that same sweet spot. it brings the pieces together, business, government, industry and agencies about solving problems and collaborating and sharing across that line. let me just explain that the way i see gsa, we play a number of roles. at any time we're trying to figure out the best role we

can play in terms of supporting the agenda going forward. we're pretty substantial and so we can in size and reach. so we can make and move markets. the important thing is to do it intentionally, not with serendipity. we're also very operational. many agencies work through grants, work through second and tertiary parties. we directly do things. that means we can get into gear sometimes more quickly and more directly. where some parts of the federal government regulate and others legislate, gsa because it holds influence over the government purse is in the position to incentivize. i think that's a huge role that we can play and we need to play it intentionally and carefully but it can be rather substantial. and we are also in the position to model and try new behaviors and new technologies and new ways of thinking for the rest of the federal family and the private sector. i believe very seriously

that gsa goes first. we can give things a try and then the whole government doesn't have to put itself at the risk of being, trying out certain things. we're very proud of that role. we're innovative and we would like to try things out and show it off. you heard it from jack. you certainly heard it from the press. you've been in the middle of this. these are very tough economic times. many of us have worked in and around government for many years and many budget cycles and we've seen austerity conversations come and go. we can point to many times when we have been told as agencies to go on a budget diest. cut back on the carbs and ditch the rich and creamy ice cream but today it is really different. today we, the government is having our stomach stay peled. at gsa, sorry about that, but is, halloween i realize.

at gsa our new construction and renovation budget was slashed 90% last year. 90. that is nine, zero. no new buildings in our future if you really look hard at the numbers. agency, all of the government must respond and there are two ways to respond in my way of thinking. the first we need to find deep operational efficiencies. we need to find out how to do things smarter and faster. we can learn from each other. we can learn from the private sector. there is a lot of ways doing this and gsa can be a good partner in that. but the savings that we get from those efficiencies we need to plow into the reforms that we need to do and i think of them as the judo we need to do. because we need to transform. we need to figure out whole different ways of being effective and in delivering our work for the nation. this is the innovation agenda, the jujitsu, the judo, the new.

this is where we need creativity and collaboration so that we can reach to those new solutions. you might say it's ironic but i actually feel it is kind of eerie that we are at a time right now where budgets and resources in our economy are being so tightly squeezed on the one hand and on the other we are on the edge of an extraordinary revolution, an extraordinary change in how we use our resources. we're in sort of a tsunami if you will. we have new technologies, we have new solutions, we have new inventions, intellectual property and work place and organizational cultural norms are changing just as rapidly. clean energy technologies, green industries are maturing before our eyes and with the commitment shown by this administration, they promised high-skilled, often green-collar jobs for a high-tech, efficient, economy. i've been on the road a lot recently. i've been traveling the country, some, 17 or 18

cities in the last couple months. i've been visiting companies that are investing in new and really cool technologies. i've toured some major, major production facilities that are operating sustainably and also producing more fuel efficient products. it is very interesting, it says if what you do and how you do it are beginning to blend in the minds of some of these companies. i've explored, i've been able to crawl all over very interesting custom build machinery, huge stuff, two stories tall and so on. in one case it was to sort the recycled parts of car batteries. we're breaking not just into the processes but the whole, all new equipment that we need to do this work. . .

>> when we can choose, we must choose the future, not hold to the habits and techniques of the past, and this requires technology, culture, leadership, curiosity, risk. the entire surround sound that comes when a nation is turning a corner. i'd like to talk about what i know best, but i'll talk about the terms. at gsa, we embraced stainability in the extreme, if you will. we agreed as a senior management team to have a zero environmental foot frippet, zef, as the environmental goal. what does that mean for gsa? to start, it's ambitious getting everybody's attention, it's out there, exciting to the next generation, and we'll getting phenomenal talent coming to gsa,

and we're able to hire some of them. what's the agenda, what are you doing? well, it's a big one. i'm, like many others, personally deeply sympathetic to zef because it resinates with my environmental side. i'm a hybrid driving, compost, regift, put on a sweater mom, but that's not why i as the administer support and encourage the footprint goal. i want to be clear about that. it might be a hard piece, but i support zef for two big reasons. first, it's about no waste, no waste opinion no waste in our space our energy usage, our resources, our time and effort in processes, and think about

this. it is one thing to have the congress tell you cut those budgets, but it's another to have the entire agency say we have to find the waste in our system because we're on the zef media. what's what we're after. instead of talking how tight it is, but where can we find the next bit of waste. no waste is a tremendous way to transform an organization. it's also about a good government getting ever better which is gsd's vision. we do that by teeing up the work space of the future so the government workers can do their work ever better. we're not going to have an innovative government if we cannot work in innovative ways, and we do that by supporting innovative business partners with clever solutions to help the government solve problem, and we do that by thinking in new ways. for example, like craid --

cradle to cradle design. we have to think of the first full cycle, think about tenant behavior supporting green buildings, not just the steel and concrete, and use challenge.gov to unearth new possibilities. there's many new ways of going at things and new levers to pull, and we're trying to find them all and put them to use. we can't just think about emissions that went to making a product. we have to think about how that product is used and reused and then disposed. any shopper needs to think about that, and we are the nation's shopper. we can't just think about the design of a building. we also have to think about whether that building was built for its first day as well as its last day and every day in between, and when you build buildings that are to last a century, you need to be serious about this. we can't just think about

recyclability of a product. we have to think about the upstream supply chain that created that product, and the signals we're sending as we try to choose which products to by. we can't think about the present. we have to think about the future. at gsa, we're on mission and on a mission. we purchased over 11 electric vehicles last may and put proper charging infrastructure into the federal buildings to support them. you have to have the whole system work. we've begun to sync federal buildings across the country while we know a lot about one smart building, how can we link them to learn new ways to run them efficiently. we are wrestling with creative ways to engage the supply chain in stainability. this is one of the toughest, toughest problems. it is very complicated, big, big

huge industries are struggling with thrks we're sharing ideas, and it's a challenge when you are not in the full chain, and the product moves through you and then further down the chain of. how do we know what the impact is? we are developing tools to assess our gsa. i do not want to be giving people a lot of measures about how many printers you have and how many people are at work and how much square footage you have. i want one energy measure and they can choose how to get to it. we are redicing the environmental foot print by dramatically reducing our actual footprint. here in the dc metropolitan area with a dramatic consolidation of all of our personnel into two buildings. we have much to share and

learn. the deeper we dig, the more we uncover. we offer as expertise and service to the rest of our clients and government of the if gsa doesn't move forward on zef, how can the government make progress on stainability? we see the dots, and we hope to understand the connections. we know the effectiveness of government and the sustain the and vie bran sigh of our economy are one and the same. this is bows our nation's future. green gov is important because we must pull together on this. we all must be rowing in the same boat. this conference brings us together -- industry and government, committed boomers like me and brilliant millenials like the next panel. teachers, students, and concerned citizens. this is a great opportunity to continue to connect the dots and build the partnerships to continue to connect them even further. thank you. i look forward to hearing about

the accomplishments and aspirations 234 our next panel. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much, administrator johnson. before i introduce the next panel, i have one housekeeping announcement. we started a little bit late and are running a little bit over, and 10 i just wanted to assure you we'll give the full time we planned out to the next panel. we'll work a little bit into the break that we have scheduled, and then the next set of sessions, the tone setters will begin immediately following. everybody will have time to get to the next room. as we get going as realm, there's a lot of people standing in the back of the room, there's sitting in the front if you want to join us, unless you are juiced up on caffeine this morning and you want to pace around, that's okay too. as i shared and administrator

johnson e leaded to, we'll hear perspectives on the future of stainability and future of green government from emerging, existing young leaders, 30 and under in the green business, green government, and also in social equity and social enterprise movement. leading the panel for us and moderating is someone who i have tremendous respect and admiration for, an award winning journalist, associate professor at the university of kansas, been named as a top ten ecohero, contributing to nbc nightly news, cnbc, pbs, the oprah winfrey thoad, and the today's show to name a few. she's sun dance writer of green and the good fight. her work is dedicated to redefining environmentalism and

bringing diversity into the movement. please join us on the stage. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. good morning. it is such an honor to be here with all of you. i think i'm seated down here at the end. excuse me. it's an honor to be here with all of you today. i think for me, and i think what you'll learn as well, this opening exemplifies what we hope to achieve in the stainability efforts, that is deeper understanding, broader commitment, and engagement from everyone. stainability is not an issue for a single government, class, or single political party. it is an issue and concern for all of us. one that requires not one silver bullet, but what activist and author called silver buck shot. today, we will be joined by some of the brightest young people

leading this charge creating innovative, participating, and fun solutions to the most pressing problems. together, we'll discuss what we see as the evolution of stainability, and government's role in ensuring a just and more sustainable future for every american and the global community. i'll start with a brief introduction and then a question and answer session and conclude with remarks from each panel member. i'd like to start by introducing to you kiara. [applause] i'll introduce them and have them sit down, and then we'll do opening comments. can we also be joined by philip.

[applause] and ashok kamal. [applause] will burn. [applause] and tarak shah. [applause] i would like to start with you. tell us about the work that you're doing, and explain to us how your organization defines and advances sustain the. >> sure. i run a project called the enabling city, based on a creative commons publication i released about a year ago, and it looks at the idea of place-based creative problem solving and the mutually reenforcing role that social innovation and participating

governance play in advancing and promoting sustain the, particularly in urban centers, but not just limited to that. at the heart of the definition of stainability i embrace is the concept of cultural stainability, so embedding culture and creativity and the knowledge of place-based communities in advancing solutions for sustainable change. >> thank you. >> fhillipe? >> my work is focused on stainability, of course, and really innovation, and we think about the different projects and initiatives we're involved in about finding solutions and thinking outside the box and the challenges that face people and our planet, and we're really about action and helping people take action, and the various different ways that may be relevant to them in their daily lives, and thinking about innovation and we have a thing at the nonprofit i run, one of the leading youth environmental

organizations in the country is not that you can make a different, but everything you do makes a different and all of your choices have consequences, and the focus is on how do you think differently about the best ideas which may not come from the traditional green stainability space. my work is really incorporating stainability in our lives from how we travel, the food we eat, virtual office and telecommunity in our staff and we are small and nimble, but it's about thinking outside the box in markets, education, and in various different places we can innovate and think differently, so we do a lot of different things, and we'll get into them shortly, but i'm really delighted to be here this morning to share this time with you. >> you can already start to see the various definitions of manifestations of what this looks like. will? >> thank you. i'm will burn, and i think i have a microphone malfunction,

but i'm the executive directer of an organization called the dc project, a non-profit based here in the district, and we'll soon be taking on the name ground swell, and the focus of our work is really zeroing in on the promise of the clean energy economy and focusing on those projects 245 can achieve both significant environmental outcomes on a community level while also yielding deep economic opportunity and community benefits that sort of every day people care about, so in terms of our approach to stainability, we're really looking at it from, you know, the lens of the community level, the local level, and more holistically than, you know, just thinking about environmental balance or ecological balance, but to have a sustainable community, you really need to have, you know,

your full community engaged, and sort of availed to economic opportunity, ect., so we're focused on working with communities to identify those clean energy projects that not only sort of yields future ecological balance in neighborhoods, but also actual significant new economic opportunity, and we think that sort of advancing the broader challenge of environmental imbalance and ecological protection is a big part of the strategy that needs to be making clear economic impacts for every day people. >> thank you. >> well, i would just say thank you for being our moderator this morning. it's an honor to be on the panel, address all of you, and

thank you for allowing me to speak to you, so i work at the defense department, and in a nuance about a year old called the operational energy plans and programs. it's a mouthful, but when we say "green" at dod, most of the time we're referring to the army, and when we say "stainability" people hear sustainment referring to the logistics supply chain that keeps our troops and our systems moving and all in support of our mission, which is to protect and defend the nation and its interests, but energy is a part of that sustainment. as general petraeus said in his last months in afghanistan this summer, he said that energy is the life blood of our war fighting force, and so he we ice a lot of the life blood and we -- most of that is petroleum,

and that's the equivalent of 5 billion gallons of oil equivalent, so within the federal government, we use the lie and share at 80% at the defense department, and that makes us the largest user of the energy, the nation's largest, 1% of the total. our energy needs are risk multiplier on the battlefield at the operational level, but also the strategic and fiscal levels. in 2009, congress created a new office that i work in, and the president nominated by boss, the assistant secretary sharon burke, but as i elided to a moment ago, the everyonetous comes from the troops and experiences in iraq and afghanistan where they face attacks on fuel convoys that move around the battlefield, and where some of the troops pay the highest price where they are injured or killed moving this fuel. in the 2005 time frame or so,

general in iraq sent back an urgent request to the pentagon. we have a fancy acronym for them, and in it he said unleash us from the at the at the at the teather of fuel so less of it had to move around not convoys that are vulnerable. that's my office's focus. the 75% of the energy we use in operations and trainings for flying our planes, ships, powering our vehicles, our bases in theater, and the other 25% is fixed installations here at home and abroad in places like germany and korea, and dr. dorothy, our dod senior stability officer tackles that challenge for us, but to get to the question what is stainability mean for the department? well, at home, it means recognizes the bases we live and

work at are a part of the communities we're in, and so protecting the land and the air and the water there is part of the mission, and then on the battlefield it means making sure the troops have the energy to get the job done to be able to fulfill the set of missions we foresee in the 21st century, and we realize now at the department that it means making sure we're using that energy better. with that, i look forward to the conversation. >> thank you, thank you. will you tell us a little bit more what they are doing in defining stainability, please? >> sure. it's a real honor to be here. i came by way of new york city and escaped a blizzard, symbolic to have on halloween with the issues we discussion with climate change in particular. i have ten-plus year career as a social entrepreneur aeroheard in the introduction somebody mentioned the group is under

30. i'm slightly north of that. i've worked running a youth dwomght organization. i worked on the green rankings for newsweek for research and analytics with the largest socialbly responsible outside research firm, and most recently after going to business school, i started a company that is a social media marketing company focused on stainability initiatives so we develop strategic campaigns, we do the creative messaging, the tactical execution, and also the return on investment analysis, and we have a unique, what we call markets methodology combining greening with, of course, everyone in the room is, familiar with and a believer in along with social media, today's communications platform of choice, and gameification. that's really about the behavior drivers that make us human, the

need to be social, the need to be recognized and achieve and also even the need for a little bit of friendly competition, and the way i define stainability is really learning how to create maximum shared value for all stake holders that includes the planet, business, while still living within the means we are granted by our ecosystems, and i think they do not need to be exclusive, and i'll be speaking about the successful examples that i've been involved with. >> thank you. thank you. that's such a great expansive definition. you'll see that's what we striving for in different ways here. i'd rather redefine the question of what is stainability like what sustains us that opens up the conversation in a different way. that's what you'll hear today

that everyone is trying to engage with people in innovative now ways. i want to talk about more what dod's doing about what you just said about good risk management. as you said in your opening comments, the department of defense is the single largest consumer of energy in the nation, and was detailed in the global green defense stainability report, if the pentagon and subsidiary branches were to form a country, the department would be among the top 60 energy consuming nations in the world and the top 50 greenhouse gas e mitters. although it's politicized in circles, dod is committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions in domestic and tactical operations, and the military really led the way. it's extraordinary and inspiring to me the way they are the key renewing energy purchaser. can you talk about how your agency is emitting carbon

emissions and why dod is committed to renewable energy and avoided the polarization we've seen in other areas. >> sure. yeah, i'll take that first part of the question which is why does the department care about climate change and energy? on the climb change side, it's about the new and dangerous missions we see on the horizon that come from climate change. look at the arctic and think about what happens as climate opens up there. if you think about the effects of climate change of instability, how we define it in the 2010 review, you think about the severe weather advance, and whether it's our civil authorities here at home or humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. it's the set of missions that climate change may lead to that really kind of gets the

department interested in looking at this issue. on the energy side, it's because we're recognizing that energy efficiency and better energy sources serve as a force multiplier and you can see increased range and endure rains to to speak to the technologies we're looking at on a ship, we've installed hybrid electric drive. it's two more engines that operate the ship at low speeds, and in its first voyage, maiden voyage from the yard to san diego, it saved over a million gal lores of fuel, and over its lifetime it saves the department over $250 million worth of fuel, and that's just fuel alone. that doesn't talk about all the increased benefits from the range and endurance of that ship being able too loiter longer. that's the key point.

anything that's providing us capability that's necessarily of interest to our military leaders. the other thing briefly is that energy security, the department is defining it as also important to our national security, and so if you think about the cost of our nation's energy addiction, it's too high, particularly in the billions of dollars we send overseas and all the consequences arising from that. as we tackle that for ourselves, we have an opportunity to improve the picture in terms of real spending reductions for taxpayers, in terms of direct energy purchases, but also leading the way for the nation on energy technology. >> thank you. let's talk a bit more about what you said about this dependence on fossil fuels coming at a cost, and mission effectiveness and in dollars. we talked about true cost accounting and what is embedded in the cost of a gallon of petroleum, and you said, well,

we consume 1.7 million oil a day in afghanistan alone, and the cost ranges from $7 to $40 a gallon, and the dod spent obama $13.5 billion to purchase energy last year. what does embedded quality means and why is that there volatility? >> i'll start by telling a story of a company of marines, india 35 out of the first marines, and last year, they trained with the suite of energy technologies, and they had better tent liners to keep heat in the winter and cool air in the summer. they had led lights for their tents. they had solar panels that they used to power generation, and they had sort of fold up backpack size to recharge their batteries. they deployed last year to stay

in some of the most difficult fighting. not too many details, but they were in a tough, tough fight, lost a lot of guys, but what they found with the energy technology, they increased their capability, what we're focused on running two pa trail bases without resupply needs, and they took it 90% off the fuel supply line. on a ten-day foot patrol, they took 700 pounds of battery supply from their system. you can see what that means for our troops. could they have done it without the gear? sure, but it's a matter of looking at it in terms of opportunity costs. what's it mean in terms of having men and women guarding and moving fuel? what's it mean in terms of dollars? what's it mean in terms of lives? it's asking the question can we do this better, and so i think the department is now coming to the realization that yes, we can. there with fiscal benefits like you said, and so we have a cons

sent called the fully burden cost of energy, not just the commodity price of fuel, but the cost in terms of moving that fuel, the assets required to move the fuel, and sort of the personnel costs. it's he. the cost is there, but we can do this better, we can protect the nation better, but more capable if we look at energy differently. >> and that's the return on investment. >> right, yeah. >> to me, this is the most heartening examples i heard from within the government, but i'm inspired what we see at osha, dod, doa, and i'm grateful for your work and willingness to joins today to continue to advance stainability. i want to move what's outside of your world a bit and find out what's happening on the ground in our communities and how we can make that connection or

forge more sort of like dynamic relationships with our community members, so, will, can you tell us more? your innovations around energy are just a little bit different than what we just heard, but can you tell us more about washington, d.c.'s advanced mode e eel to advance clean energy and economic opportunities here in our backyard and across the country? >> absolutely, thank you. fascinating also to learn about the sophistication of this thinking about the around from department of defense. i -- essentially, one of the major issues in achieving place-based stainability as we see it is actually really opening up a consumer driven clean energy market place, one in which every day people -- everyday people are creating a self-sustaining economy around

renewable energy, ect., on the community level, and a major barrier and challenge that we've identified and many have across the field is demand and consumer behavior, sort of every day people understanding that stainability investments are, you know, are not just for the tree huggers anymore; right? these are investments that can really be transformative for families that are suffering from energy burden, energy cost burdens, you know, need jobs, want to see local business development, so what we've done is essentially focus, built a model that allows for community organizations and faith-based institutions to shift consumer behavior at scale across communities but identifying those services and those projects that when communities

come together and pool their purchasing power, can yield significant cost savings, significant jobs, and that economic development can stay local, so toe break down how that model works, essentially, we have a -- an approach with faith-based institutions, community based organizations, and the beauty of the model is these are sort of natural human resources that are everywhere; right? every city and town has these resources, but these institutions, because of the trust and the social networks that they have, have a really transformative effect in accelerating markets and tipping the scales around consumer behavior where conventional messagers try to move every day people to move into these services might not have that same trust. we're focused on that barrier,

and that's coming out of, too, a lot of new study around behavior economics, behavior psychology that really shows that there's a number of levers you can pull to create inacceptabilityives for every day people like financing, ect., but it's really peer pressure from peer validaters and people folks trust that really can tip the scale. focusing on that, we've worked in wholesale, clean energy electricity, and as one segment, and then single family, residential efficiency to give the example of the clean energy electricity, we worked with just under 40-faith-based organizations, community institutions that were they to try to invest in switching over to an alternative energy provider with renewables, they couldn't afford it, the

economics didn't work out, but by pooling 40 institutions across dc and their purchasing power toght, we were able able to switch about a $1.6 million purchase saving about over $300,000 across the institutions that are community level institutions that desperately need the help, and while also, you know, switching from sort of a dirty energy provider to shifting the demand on the on the community level over to renewables, so this approach of really community scale aggregation and also focusing on making community the messager in shifting behavior has been a really key piece of our success, so after some success in dc, we're now taking on a project in baltimore and on the process of scaling around the united states. >> beautiful, thank you.

i have another question for you. there's like 12 questions bundled i want to ask, but i got one. one of the things we do now is faith matters, and i'm curious as to -- am i screwing this up a bit now, but a key research poll indicated 89% of americans have some connection to faith. it's critically important, particularly as americans to understand this relationship. you could have chosen a number of institutions with whom to pair -- >> right. >> to address this connection to community, but you chose faith. talk a little bit more about that relationship of trust and what that means and what benefits that has reaped. when i say "they" i mean us, we, and this is what we care about. how did you recognize that and decide to move from there? >> yeah, it's a great question. so i think there's two reasons that working with faith-based communities, which sort of

national infrastructure among institutions of faith is there's going to be a big part of the scaling strategy. two reasons we have felt this has been very successful. one is that as you mentioned is faith-based institutions are really the social action hubs in most communities and have a deep history through the civil rights movement, particularly in low-income communities of the places for civic drivers for civic action, and so from that perspective and the fact there's a huge number of members; right? congregations, synagogues, ect., that can be infliewpsed if they are central and their inconstitution of faith makes their own investment, but the second is from a valued stand appointment that there we found that institutions of faith, you

know, they're significant actors in the commie; -- economy; right, but they have their own focus on sort of preservation, stainability in the community, and then their own charge for taking care of people in the community, and so it was definitely a natural fit, but one quick antedote why it's knew, transformative, and exciting to work with faith-based leaders, we had one leader here in dc who is reverend tom knoll, and we workedded with him on our community energy purchase, and his church was one that switched over to clean energy electricity, and he shared with us that the savings they were able to achieve by making that switch along with other faith

based leaders allowed them to continue running and because of budget tightness they were going to have to cut social services around housing for low-income people so there's a role that churches, synagogues, and mosques play that help us have social impact through the energy issues, but now he's gone on to sort of not to just preach around, you know, his faith, but also around some of the economic benefits that our congress makes some of these changes in their home can achieve, so there's that multiplier effect as well in that space. >> one of the ways that we define stainability is around this notion of a triple bottom line, seeing those, you know, economical, environmental, and social reform. you can see the different

definitions, but back to the same thing of return on investment. the enabling cities approach to stainability promoting a vision of interconnection similar to what will talks about followed by governance. can you explain how citizens can be directly involved in shaping how policies are created and related and what role should governments play in framing these for sustainability? >> sure. i argue that if we look at the every day level and the life of people in the day-to-day, and we see it as a sign of potential, then it can be deeply transformative, and it can open up avenues of participation that enhance the basic understanding and expand the understanding of growth, governance, and citizenship. it's unking that st'ses have more than just -- citizens have more than just

needs, they can provide solutions based on their own exponential knowledge and knowledge of their communities and their needs to really diffuse the ideas of createivity and problem solving of non-experts and opens up a certain language with a common understanding of expertise, but the notion of stainability and what can empower local residents to be decision makers over their own environment, and it's expanding the idea, the notion of the violence in itself, so in a sense, i think, when governance and institutions invest in sharing the various capital, complementing that be other forms of capital that community groups bring to the

table that's when we believe above governance to government and move to enablement that has the potential of forming cities, communities, and also institutions as this platform for community empowerment, and in particular, one tool that's proven successful is co-design where it's really where citizens and residents and governments come together to articulate visions for policies, services, and projects that are determined in concert with the different stake holders, and it's a much more prolonged process of consultation that really goes from beginning to end, and there's a greater sense of ownership involved in the process, and so just to give you a few examples on the governance side, the enabling city showcases over 40 examples from categories that range from, you know, eating, growing and eating food to financing, but more

specifically in relation to governance and cities, there's a few examples i like to sight from scandinavia. there was a greater vision, 2050 for helsinki that was organized a few years ago having municipalities coming together involving the public to create a vision of this infrastructure of helsinki in keeping climate change and overpopulation in mind, and what they thought was input on inventive transportation, land use, and energy provision policies that would really help make the city more resilient and also more inclusive, and so what this generated was a wealth of submissions that were incredibly insightful, and my favorite example is called a rot called "city 2.0" put together by our

electives, and they combined the idea of 2.0 and open governance and apply it to the very hyperlocal levels from communities and neighborhoods to then incrementally perform change in the cities, and they have the idea of common space reduction and knowledge tied into the very process of policymaking and decision makes in cities, and the fundmental shift is seeing residents and users, not just as consumers of what we service, but as participants in them, and the tools like innovative funding mechanisms and co-working spaces, incubators and the hub really have the effect of stimulating an ongoing political conversation with city leaders that also create the figure of a social innovation mayor who connects what happens as the

microhyperlocal levels into the larger fabric of the city and then also the country. it's really working across levels and scale and then across issues and areas of expertise in a more holistic way to produce really incredible results, and there's another example i like to cite, and that's in denmark. there are three ministries, the ministry of business affairs, taxation, and employment, that come together to create a class add min tier yal hub to tackle these increasingly interconnected issues that specialized thinking alone cannot solve because everything is connected and therefore collaboration to solve the issues is required, so they created a neutral space for brainstorming, innovation, and engagement outside of the industries with a small team of inter disciplinary experts that with competencies with economic to the more design based

facilitation, and what they do in the space is they have a cleverly designed office with a room covered in white boards called the brain where they join with stake holders and participants to come up with solutions, scribble them on the walls, and come up with creative problem solving outside the box, and then they come together in the stomach of the office which is a kitchen to discuss and sort of experiment with these ideas in how they might be piloted and launched outside of their space, and they've done up credible work on issues like gender equality to youth employment, climate change, citizen engagement, and it's priewfn to be in-- proven to be incredibly beneficial for the institutions and have a safe space for creative thinking, but it's a

merging of different ways of approaching issues and discussing stainability that's really proven to be the greatest strength an assets et policies implemented throughout the country. >> thank you, fantastic. you and will are hitting on the idea of of the role of civil society and implementing stainability in a fascinating way because these are not just words. to co-create and have ownership of something is different than being told to do something and executive order 131514 that has a 2020 reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the government is incredible, went we know it's essential and needed at the same time without the people, the citizenry also being on board, there's only so far that we can go, and these creative examples of how we can engage and activate faith communities, how to move in all kinds of ways, global examples to engage the

citizenship that's extraordinarily important, and that leads me to one of the more fun, i think i can use that word, ways to engage with people. phillipe is about creating value for stake holders in meaningful ways that takes a different spend -- spin on it and tackling the problems and moving into the personalized versions that you discussed a little bit in your introductions. how do you see that coming together to use the markets and mechanisms already in place to have advanced stainability? >> well, you know, as i said in opens comments with respect to innovation, you know, my background in legacy certainly stems from ocean and ocean conservation exploration with the work of my grandfather and father, but growing up, they helped me understand the broader issues at stake with respect to ocean conservation that relate

to population issues, land based solutions, ect., carbon, and as i've progressed in my career, i've gotten increasingly interested in the marketplace and how the market can drive. now, with respect to my work, we're launching the investment funds in the end of -- beginning probably of next year will be live in the new york stock exchange focused on a sustainable exchange rate fund like a type of mutual fund traded on the exchange that individuals can buy trading on shares, and a percentage of the management fee goes into a brand new foundation granting funds to communities, women, education of girls, water issues, ect., and it's going to be the first actually managed exchange rate fund of its kind that does this. it's surprising in 2011, but it's a way that we can think differently and look at how financial markets leverage. from the perspective of the government, i did a little bit

of research and specifically in a meeting i had with folks last week around energy conservation, energy, and policy issues learning about the energy savings performance contracts going on in the government and the opportunity for government to help provide financial incentives, again, to drive the market to be able to make the decisions about what's the best way to implement energy efficiency in leasing contracts of federal builds, and the federal government in the united states is a major real estate owner around the world, and so the potential for the u.s. government to, again, find these ways and leverage dollars from a market based perspective to allow the market to drive and find the efficiencies and best technologies is no different than what the dod and doe do with respect to helping companies and invest in renewable companies to provide better services for our security, and the companies go on with that innovation, so, you

know, it's something too we talk about with the public. how can i take action? what can i do? a lot of people ask me through public education, the nonprofit we run, a series of cnn international folks on these issues, we do a lot of work in design and development. our company's also doing the next smithsonian at the world expo with a contract with the u.s. state department, just a few months to do that in south korea, and people ask how to get engaged. we have to think about financial markets, what we do with our dollar, not just volunteers and recycling and installing energy efficient lightbulbs, but think about the dollars and where we invest in the market. >> absolutely. voting with our pocketbooks so to speak. thank you. tell me more about what you think because already addressed this in part, but what can government learn from the successful private enterprises and how can that be implemented

in the work done here, and we'll be done after people leave the room today? >> sure. there's a couple things, and one common thing i draw from the conversation is the notion of shared value which is taking a stake holder approach as opposed 20 just a shareholder approach. it includes shareholders and profits, but also that triple bottom line that's referenced where we think about the planet and the social impact of the actions along with financials, but the successful private sector examples that i've both ob served and worked with, you know, do have that business case for, you know, for maintaining the initiative if there's no, you know, bottom line impact, than unfortunately, they dispate as just a, you know, a charitable win, and i think, you know, if you look at ge and ecoimagination, this is a $20 billion revenue driver for the company, and these are generally environmental projects and

environmental, you know, lines of business, and, you know, that's sort of a i think, a hopeful example of the largest corporations in the world, now driving stainability. the other thing, i think, important thing to consider is making this fun. i think we've gotten past the times of blame and as my friend anthony likes to say, we have to focus on fun and fame, and not guilt and shame. look at the foods market, it's 3% of the market share despite 30 years of advocacy. recycling is about 30%, you know, recycle rate in the united states is 30%. our renewable energy consumption, 14%. that's not mainstream. in order for us to have the global, you know, significant impact that we need, we need to make green the mainstream, and i worked on some great projects, my company, ben and his climates include the fortune 500 to start

ups, and there's great work out there around this concept of gameification, a butt -- bit of a mouthful as a word, but it's down to one basic thing, and that's fun, and that's what are the human behavior drivers as with eluded to that motivate us to take action, so, you know, those are, you know, you know, those are things like peer pressure, and you think of being in high school and being asked to smoke a cigarette, but that's negative peer pressure. today there's positive peer pressure. there's an online rewards platform that rewards people for every day green actions like recycling, conservation of industry, there's leader r boards and points and challenges and educational websites to teach you about going green, and at the end of the day, not only do they create a social community where you're able to, you know, showcase the actions

you're taking and feel good about them, again, coming back to the fund, but you receive real world rewards, for example, like discounts on gray -- granola bars and others they have. there's another thing called simple energy, and they work with utilities and track household energy consumption and then have threw facebook and other social platforms, leader boards and means for people to compare themselves to their peers and their friends and it's really using that notion of social comparison, and, again, positive peer pressure where you don't want to be the person that's not thinking about your children's future. you want to be somebody who can proudly say to your friend, your neighbor that, you know, i'm considering the stainability of the planet, and my grandchildren's, you know, ability to have a decent life, so, you know, using those kinds

of game mechanisms, we find that people are actually, you know, changing their believer and for the better, and that's the way we try to celebrate, you know, our love for the earth and for each other opposed to blame. it's about we're focused on creating fortune. >> thank you. i think that's the perfect end to start to move into the conclusion on the idea of celebration and shared vision and participation and engagement. phillipe, starting with you, how can we embody that today? how everyone here can take that away working with their organizations to ensure that your generation and generations to come will also be able to meet their needs. >> certainly i draw inspiration every day from people like my co-panelists here and all of you and, of course, my grandfather.

it's key for us to kind stories that resinate with us and keep the eye on the ball. there's a lot of challenges with respect to the news cycle and politics today around the issues, and yet as you see with these amazing people up here and the work you're doing, there's innovation happening on the ground, thinking differently outside the box be it financial markets, leveraging young people. that's an underfocused market out there of an army of young people who want to take action can take action and thinking about, you know, how this affects our health and broadening the dialogue so it's not i'm right, you're wrong, we're about climate change or not, we're about health, stronger safer communities, and especially, you know, my two things are rev of leveraging young people and thinking how the markets work and remembering the inspiration of whoever inspires you, and holding on to that every day and never, ever giving up. there's a lot of challenges, but there's a lot of people.

gist look around you, they are focused on passionate about it. it's a very, very exciting time to be doing this work. >> thank you. >> similar to what was just said, i think inspiration, not underestimating the importance that aspirations plays at any level from the institutions to the grass roots and the capacity that it's our ability to unluck our creative potential and ability to contribute to problem solving collaboratively and have a shared language and understanding of the common values or what we mean by livable, reclusive resilient cities, so similar to that, enabling those with access to infrastructures and that works with resources and enabling public sur vaunts to understand

this significant shift from leading to enabling and from controlling to influencing and from working in isolation to working in collaboration with others. there's a term that i particularly find significant. there's policymaking responsive to today's challenges and that it's really on the ground working with partnership of others and can drive change. that is a really crucial shift that needs to happen and invest in capacity building and creation of platforms for, you know, bringing democracy to the every day. ..

>> i believe there were something like 5000 suggestions made across the board, and over 100,000 votes. that's a gain using game dynamics to engage people, to be social. so i think that's the direction we want to be going in. toward that end today we set up a little challenge for all of you, posing the question, what makes sustainability fund to you. you can answer the question by

using either the hash tag think of 2011 on twitter, the number symbol, green got 2011 and is about what makes sustainability fund to you. or you can go to a facebook tab that we set up and answer the question that at the end of the day both today, tomorrow and on wednesday we will select randomly three winning responses who will receive prizes via association of climate change officers has donated several annual never ships that are worth several hundred dollars. we have some recycled merchandise, backpacks, t-shirts. philippe has donated a signed copy of one of his books. you can go to our facebook page which is facebook.com/bennu world. or check up on the climate, on the congress -- conference website later. again it's all about celebrating and making this fun and hopefully we will be collectively inspired by the responses that are coming in over the next few days. >> thank you.

>> while i was trying to think of a price i might throw in there, but -- but i think one of the things you guys probably explore over the next two and half days is the agencies all come at sustainability from different, for different reasons. for the defense department the reason, hopefully i convey this, because of our mission. and to that we see sustainability as key. so better energy use means increased capability for our war fighters, means better combat effectiveness, lower risk, lower cost. that's what we are really interested. throughout the federal government we've had great part is, particularly any energy space where i focus. the department of energy has been tagged as. we have been working with the components to leverage the capabilities and match them to our needs. that has just been really a pleasure to watch. i think one of the other reasons i was asked to join this panel is because i bring a federal

government perspective. i joined the federal government three years ago and i absolutely had no idea what to expect. and from my perspective as a young person in the government, also just a young citizen, there's a lot to be proud of in the work that all of you guys are doing. with the president's leadership, the rules, executive orders, implementing the recovery act and all the programs, we've got a lot done. for me i'm just really proud to be a very small part of that. but i really just tip my hat to all of you guys and think you guys left great conversations this week that will help us get all the work we still have to do done. >> thank you. >> so, to build a little bit, i talked a little bit about, you know, peer-to-peer engagement and the power of civic leadership and really moving behavioral change as a way of

sorting driving market. that can seem very far removed, right, from i think the work of some folks in this room. but i wanted to actually acknowledge that there are ways that the federal government can really push for a new way of thinking about community, not just sort of recipients of policy changes and market-based changes, but actually the drivers, the drivers of sort of market transformation. and i wanted to recognize one way that the federal government already tried to institute that. there was what was called to retrofit ramp up project with the federal government for competitive funding out for city base, municipal and state-based efficiency programs. and recognize that the power of this sort of civic local messenger and actually recommend

that all of these projects around the country, after seeing it working here with our work and a few other projects around the country, the federal government prioritize for city to compete over, they make community organizations and the sort of civic networks on the local level a central part of the engagement process to drive consumers. that's an example of one with the government has succeeded and i think has been creative, a way of engaging. a few other quick sort of out of the box thinking young ideas. one is americorps. you know, there's i think an opportunity to potentially create, use the powerful structure of americorps to create sort of the curriculum, a program to which community organizations can be trained to be messengers to shift, shift

consumer behavior and move communities and help communities to invest in sort of win-win sustainability projects. and one i guess sort of last parting thought is to think more, i think it's really important that folks on the sort of 30,000-foot policy level think more in terms of an everyday citizen, and more in terms of, even an everyday consumer and thinking about how do we focus on the benefits of sustainability or environmental initiatives that are beyond just environmental, right? how do we talk of how do we present the benefits of these programs more around of the things that everyday people really care about, like economic opportunity and energy savings. and so be more proactive about that kind of framing i think the federal government has a real

opportunity to sort of set, to frame these issues in ways that are more practical and engage, engage more folks across different interests. >> thank you. we are very much out of time but i want to thank the panel for their inspiration, and think all of you for your inspiration. we could not do this without you. thank you, and enjoy the conference. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate is in recess right now to allow members to attend the weekly party lunches.

>> until then a look at today's headlines from this morning's "washington journal." >> host: we will begin with peace in "the new york times" this morning, lifelong death census. he begins his column with a case from 1971 to 277 year-old man killed a police officer in florida. in september this past year when he was 61, that man, was put to death for his crime. a couple of hours earlier the supreme court had refused to stay his execution with 1%. justice stephen breyer wrote that the 33 years the man had spent on death row amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

>> host: we want to get your take on this justice breyer says is cruel and unusual to be on death row for you. others on the court courts have disagreed. we will tell you their opinions as well. we want to get your thoughts, your comments on this. you can start dialing in now. read more from "the new york times" this morning. a law professor at columbia and

a former state department official said there was a gap between the united states and much of the rest of the world on this point. although concerns about the human impact of excessive times spent on death row have received little attention in this country, including lengthy time on death row, has been recognized as inhumane punishment and illegal throughout europe since the 1980s. >> or in this court's precedent for the proposition that it, i defend can avail himself of the banality -- >> host: that contradiction this is a larger point, justice breyer wrote in his dissent in the case that we mentioned before. a capital justice system that

cannot be administered without long delays points to the difficulty of reconciling the imposition of the death penalty as currently administered with procedures necessary to ensure that the wrong person is not executed. we have facts and figures for you here as well on the death penalty. but first wanted, democratic caller in dallas tax or. or. do you think? >> caller: hi. i am against the death penalty. i think we should leave death up to god. we should not impose death penalty at all. i think texas is outrageous. i detest governor rick perry. also bush. i think we should leave that to god. i think if people commit heinous crimes they should be locked up and that's it. we should not, we should not kill someone. if someone kills someone, how can we turn around and kill them for it? >> host: california, a

republican, what do you think? >> caller: good morning. this is in regards to i guess what the caller just said. about how we should have the death penalty. if you want to go off the bible it says an eye for an eye. i don't believe that a murderer should be able to prolong the case. you have to think about the families of the folks that they murdered. they will spend the rest of their life having to think about their family member or their friends that were killed. what good is it for justice to talk about it being cruel and unusual punishment? how about the family going through cruel and unusual punishment? >> host: you just don't think they should be able to prolong it? >> caller: no. >> host: i think that's what justice breyer is arguing is that the time between the

sentencing of a death penalty and the actual execution is too long. >> caller: that's something that they need to look at because whenever people go to prison, then they start, they can study law, you know, you can go to prison and get your degree. so a lot of people do that. you have a lot of jailhouse lawyers and then you have people that support, oh, no, support felons for committing murder, oh, this person didn't get just as correct. then he gets appealed and it continues, appealed and a field. that's where the courts have to come in. and say look, it's enough. >> host: you and others might be interested in this. back to "the new york times" article. here is what is clear. the average prison on death row hahas been 13 years there and te odds of growing old in prison are pretty good.

about 3300 inmates on death row in the united states. >> you can see all this segment in the c-span video library at c-span.org. the u.s. senate is gaveling back in now for general speeches sene until recess at 3:30 p.m. for a military briefing with defense secretary leon panetta. who tried to help her students

register to vote. it was nothing new for this teacher, jennifer sicerelli, to be prepping 17-year-old students for the privileges and responsibilities of voting in a democracy. she's been doing this for a number of years, but it turned out that when jill organized a drive at the start of the school year to get students preregistered to vote, she ran afoul of florida's new election law. how could that be? but sure enough, the law that is basically an attempt at voter suppression, face -- causes her to face hefty fines under the law. and for what, mr. president? for helping to register to vote.

as ridiculous as that sounds, that's what the law says. but there's more, unfortunately, mr. president. there's a lot more. when i met with jill sicerelli and her students last week, they are extremely concerned and they're extremely surprised that a good-government attempt to register students so that they will be ready to vote in the next election, that they've run afoul of the law. now, they weren't happy, but, interestingly, neither was their elected supervisor of elections in volucia county, who, under the law, was required to report the teacher and the students to the state authorities.

and the supervisor of election, anne mcfall, she has now publicly openly criticized the parts of the law as egregious and unenforceable. she's done that speaking out. she's done that in an op-ed in the local newspaper. she has been unambiguous in her criticism that not only is it egregious in the substance of the law but that the burdens that they place on the supervisors of election are unenforceable. well, i have written to governor scott, i have talked to him personally, asking him to support the revamping or the repealing of this law. and i've also just asked the senate judiciary committee to

conduct a congressional stroaftion see if florida's law was part of an orchestrated effort that resulted in voting law changes in 14 states thus far this year. these new voting laws could make it significantly harder for more than 5 million eligible voters in many states to cast their ballots in next year's election in 2012. and that's according to the brennan center for justice at new york university school of law. last month they completed the list in a comprehensive study of those states' laws impact. now, the florida law is probably the strongest of all the 14 states. it requires third parties who

sign up new voters to register with the state first and then to submit applications from the new voters for registration within 48 hours. for almost four decades, the for florida law has been that they had ten days in order to submit the names. for four decades. now it's within 48 hours. can anybody with a straight face really say that florida isn't taking a step backwards in making it harder to vote and harder to register to vote? and harder to have your vote counted as you intended? especially a step backwards when it involves protecting one of our most fundamental rights, the right to vote. i hope that people are going to

start to realize that this is not just happening in florida but that a number of states have passed laws that are going to make it harder to vote and for people to cast their ballots. and we simply should not sit back and watch as a handful of lawmakers and governors approving this legislation in those states continue to block the path of voters to the polls. you think back in history. lyndon johnson as president, that day there were poll taxes and literacy tests aimed at blocking african-americans from voting. president johnson went on tv and he spoke to the nation about passing civil rights laws for african-americans, including the right to vote. he told us, we are going to give

them that right. well, if he were alive today, i wonder what he would think watching as these legislatures across the country in what the "miami herald" recently called a disturbing trend, have passed laws that place unnecessary hurdles between the voting booth and minorities. between the voting booth and young voters, and between the voting booth and seniors. in florida, this so-called election reform law rapidly made its way as a legislative bill into law this past spring despite the public outcry as the legislature was considering it. now, here's what it does. it reduces the number of early voting days from 14 to 8.

and, of course, it was explained in the guise, well, the supervisors of election can increase the voting hours in those days. but when they do that, they have to pay overtime, time-and-a-half, and look at the budgets of all the states and the counties. they are in stres distress, so e not going to have the money to do that. so in effect it's reduced it from 14 days early voting to 8 days. why was that ever instituted, early vogue, in the first place -- early voting, in the first place? remember the debacle that we had in the presidential election in florida in the year 2000? and as a result, there was an effort to increase the number of days so that it would make it a convenience and make it easier to vote.

14 days constricted to 8. and, oh, by the way, always the 14 days had gone all the way up through the sunday before the tuesday election. the new election law in florida stops it on the saturday before the tuesday election. well, guess who that's going to hurt? what group do you think goes in record numbers to vote on the sunday after church on the sunday before the tuesday election? so election laws that were set up to make it easier to vote for seniors, for many others, so much so that it was such a tremendous success in the last several elections, where 40% of all the people voted before

election day. you can imagine the administrative help that that was that only 60% of the people are voting on election day. but that's constricted under the theory that it was going to stop election fraud. by the way, there's very little election law fraud reported in florida, in other states, and so this is a completely -- mr. president, you look like you want to speak to me? the presiding officer: the senator's ten minutes has expired. mr. knel nelson: i would ask cot for an additional five minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? withouwithout objection, so ord. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. so that is a false argument, mr. president, that it is going to cause any improvement on

voter fraud. there's just hardly any voter fraud. all right? that's one thing that the new election law does. what's another thing? well, it makes it harder if you move your residence to another county in florida. as a matter of fact, if you move to another county, you register on vote in that county but you have an identification like your driver's license that shows that you have an address in another county where you came from, if the two don't match up, you're not going to get a ballot. you're going to get a provisional ballot. and, sadly, what we know from the experience of provisional ballots in the year 2008 presidential election, half in florida of the provisional ballots were not counted.

well, what group is that going to affect? did you hear about how young people and college students got so interested in government and politics that they went to the polls in record numbers, and where did they vote? a lot of them got interested while they were away at their college and university and they registered to vote and they voted in record numbers. don't we want to encourage that? no, not this election law. this election law says when that congress student shows up because they've suddenly gotten energize the an -- energized and they've registered to vote in that county where they go to school but they pull out their identification and it's their driver's license and their driver's license has their

parents' address back home in another k county, they're not going to get a ballot. they're going to get a provisional bat lot. -- a provisional ballot. now, is this the kind of nonsense that we want going on? well, it's happening in front of our eyes and it's happening in the state of florida. let me tell you what else it does. it subjects voter registration drives to red tape and even fines -- fines -- up to a thousand dollars per person. so much so that the league of women voters was forced to abandon its registration drives after doing it in our state for 72 years. what does the law do?

it says if you are going to register somebody to vote, you first have to register with the state of florida that you're going to be a third-party registerer and that when you strernlg those names, you've -- register those names, you've got to turn them into the supervisor's office within 48 hours. why for four decades has the law been that you had ten days to do it, to turn them in? but now if you don't get it in by the 48th hour and one minute, you are now subject to fines of $50 per registration up to a thousand dollars that you could be fined. thus, the case of the teacher at new symrna beach high school, jill sicarelli, who had

preregistered her students and had held the registrations more than 48 hours. now, of course, jill didn't even know about the law. well, look what the "orlando sentinel" said about it. this is about the new election law. it amounts to ripping apart election laws and weakening democracies. look what the "tampa tribune" said: this bill isn't fooling anybody. it's not about clean ahrebgss -- elections. look what the florida gannet, "it called the law an assault on the most cherished of american rights." mr. president, i see that you're calling my time. may i have and ask consent for two more minutes? the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. nelson: mr. president, no

state should have the right to make a law if it abridges people's basic rights. i have requested the department of justice to look into that. i've requested this several months ago. and, mr. president, at this moment i can't tell you to what degree the department of justice is questioning this. they have been engaged in a lawsuit because the state of florida has sued them. the state of florida suing them to invalidate the entire voting rights act of 1965, if you can believe that. look back in history. after being arrested for casting an illegal vote in the presidential election in 1872, susan b. anthony, a schoolteacher, called it a downright mockery to talk to

women of their enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are being denied of the use of the only means of securing them. and that's the ballot. and that's what florida new election law and others around the nation like it are: a downright mockery. and so, mr. president, dr. king said, he warned americans that all types of conniving methods can be used to keep people from being registered voters. that's what these new so-called election reform laws amount to: democracy turned upside down. mr. president, i hope the senate will look at this. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, later this month the an it 'tis pated special joint -- the anticipated special joint

committee will be issuing its recommendations. the special joint committee was set up for us to get recommendations on dealing with our economic problems and our budget deficit. i just want to share with my colleagues two points that i think are critically important that i hope will come out of this special joint committee. first, i hope this joint committee will provide the way that we can advance an agenda that will create jobs in our community. and secondly, i hope that this special joint committee will come forward with a comprehensive and balanced approach for us to deal with our unsustainable budget deficits that we currently have. let me talk about the first issue, creating jobs. president obama came forward with a job initiative that i really do believe is entitled to debate on the floor of this body and i would hope passage. president obama brought forward a bill that deals with

rebuilding america so that we can have the types of roads and bridges and water infrastructure and energy infrastructure that allows america to compete, at the same time creating jobs. he's offered proposals that will help small businesses, because we know that the small businesses represent the economic engine of america, where more jobs will be created, where more innovation occurs. he understands that and is encouraging us to do more to help small businesses. the president's proposal deal with our men and women in the military service who are coming back from iraq and coming back from afghanistan, to have jobs available. mr. president, yesterday i was at b.w.i. airport as our returning soldiers came back from being in iraq and afghanistan. and they want jobs, and the president's initiative says, look, let's make sure we have jobs for our returning soldiers. all that means that we're going to create more jobs. and the joint committee needs to make sure that in its

recommendations that we have the wherewithal to move this nation forward by creating jobs. the president's proposal has been evaluated by independent economists. mark zandi, who was senator mccain's economic advisor in his presidential campaign, points out that the president's proposal would increase our gross domestic product by 2% and create 1.9 million additional jobs. and the president's proposal is completely paid for, so it adds nothing to the deficit. now, i must tell you, if we're going to be able to balance our budget, if we're tpw-g to be -- going to be able to get our budget into better shape, we have to have more jobs. less people using governmental services, more people paying revenues or taxes into our system. the more people that are working, the better our budgets will come into balance. now, i know some here are saying, look, there's a better way of doing it. come forward with a better way of doing it. i would challenge my, particularly my republican colleagues, if you have a better way, come forward with a proposal that creates at least

1.9 million jobs and does it without adding to the budget deficit. that's the proposal that we had before us. i'm asking the joint committee to make sure that they provide in their recommendations a way that we can create jobs so that we can deal with our budget deficit. the second point i want to make is that i would hope that the joint committee's recommendations would be comprehensive and balanced. some call that the shared sacrifice. now, i know these numbers can sort of be used any way you want to, but the groups that have looked at this, the simpson-bowles group and others, say look we need to reduce the deficit over the next ten years by about $4 trillion. i think that's a number that we should meet. i would hope the joint committee would come in with a $4 trillion of deficit reduction over the next ten years. we've already done the first trillion. we did that when we raised the debt limit in august. now we need to look at another

$3 trillion. i would hope that they would do it. it starts with a realistic baseline. what does that mean? it means what numbers are we using in order to determine what we actually get to that $4 trillion of deficit reduction. what baseline do we use in order to determine the revenue base in which we start these discussions. aeupbld suggest we need -- and i would suggest we need a realistic baseline. i was impressed by the work of the simpson-bowles commission. i was impressed by the work of our colleagues in the senate, the so-called gang of six in which i must tell you the overwhelming majority of colleagues in the senate have at least agreed to the basis of what the gang of six are working, what they're trying to do. it uses a realistic baseline, so it assumes that some of the tax provisions will be extended but not all. it also assumes that we have to bring in additional revenues beyond that. quite frankly, the number that we've been talking about is that we need about 1.2 trillion out

of this $4 trillion package and realistic revenues using a realistic baseline. that can be gotten. that's not so difficult to get. when you realize that all of the tax deductions, exemptions and credits equal as much revenue as we bring in in our tax code. another way to say that is if we eliminate all the exemptions and deductions and credits, we could have tax rates one half of what our current tax rates are. what we're suggesting is that there are certain loopholes that are in the tax code that benefit special interest corporations. they need to be eliminated. they need to be eliminated. and everyone has to pay their fair share. we can't just attack the middle-class families. there was an article in the baltimore sun this past week that showed that during this recession, the number of people earning more than $1 million has grown dramatically. and which have been economic

studies that have shown that the wealthiest in america during these economic times have done very, very well. their incomes have grown at a faster rate than other americans. the middle-class families. middle-class families are falling behind. so all we're suggesting is that when we look at how we get the revenue, let's make sure it's fair and we don't again penalize the middle-class families. let's make sure those who earn over $1 million pay their fair share towards this comprehensive and balanced approach. and that's what we're asking the joint committee to come in with. come in with proposals that are fair, are balanced. make sure everybody pays their fair share, including those who have done extremely well during this economic recession, those who have made over $1 million of income. i must tell you, everyone needs to be part of the equation. we understand that. we have to have so-called shared sacrifice. i've taken the floor before to talk about our federal

employees, and everybody says the federal employees have to help contribute to this deficit also. well, our federal employees understand that. they've already contributed. they were the first to do that. two years of pay freezes. i might tell you, asking them to do more with less people; we've cut their budgets and we've given them more work, and we've told them two years with a pay freeze. to me, our federal employees have already contributed to this, to the deficit-reduction numbers, and they shouldn't be picked on again. mr. president, i believe we can come together and we need to have a comprehensive and balanced approach that allows america to be able to create more jobs. that's what we need to do as a nation. if we come together, i am convinced that it will instill confidence among the american consumers, among american investors, and our economy will take off. and it's going to be good for

everyone in this nation. i hope that this month we will see the joint committee come in with such recommendations that will be balanced, will be fair, and will allow us to create more jobs for americans. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the

senator from virginia. mr. webb: mr. president, 11 days ago -- the speaker pro tempore: we're in a quorum call. mr. webb: i ask consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: 11 days ago a all but four of the republicans in this body filibustered a commonsense piece of legislation that would have created a national commission designed to bring together some of the best minds in america to examine our broken and frequently disfunctional criminal injured system and to make recommendations as to how we can make it more effective, more fair, and more cost efficient. this legislation was the product of more than four years of effort. it was paid for. it would have gone out of business after 18 months. it was balanced, philosophically. it guaranteed equal representation among democrats and republicans in its membership. it was endorsed by 70

organizations from across the country and from across the philosophical spectrum, from the national sheriffs association, the fraternal order of police, the into the association of chiefs of police to the aclu and the sentencing project. i must say at first i was stunned at the filibuster at the hands of 43 republicans, but on the other hand, mr. president, it's impossible not to notice over the past two years the lamentable decline in bipartisan behavior in this body, even in addressing serious issues of actual governance. i say this with a great deal of regret, both personally and politically. i think i can fairly say that there's no one in this chamber who has tried harder to work across party lines. in fact, one of my republican friends joked not long ago that

i was the only, quote, nonpolitical member of the senate. i spent four years in the reagan administration as an assistant secretary of defense, secretary of the navy, i'm proud of that. i consciously sought out senators john warner and chuck hagel as two of my three principal cosponsors when i introduced the post-9/11 g.i. bill. i voted with the republicans 17 tiles during the health care debate. i was the only member of congress in either party or either house to send a alert to president obama when he claimed he would come back from the climate change summit in cone hagan with a politically binding agreement stating my belief the president did not have the constitutional authority to bind the american people to an international agreement without the approval of the congress. i've taken issue with this administration with respect to closing down our facilities at guantanamo. i've consistently opposed any

tax increases on ordinary earned income. and i took that same bipartisan approach when i introduced the criminal justice commission bill in 2009. obtaining the cosponsorship of a number of republicans, including senators lindsey graham and orren hatch both of whom serve on the judiciary committee. the filibuster of a commonsense measure that might assist this nation in resolving the national disgrace that now comprises our criminal justice system is a sad metaphor for the obstructionism that is too frequently replacing commonsense leadership in our national debate. we spent more than four years reaching out to all sides of the philosophical spectrum. we worked with liberals, we worked with conservatives, we worked with law enforcement. we sought the views of many republicans and we also worked in close coordination with the

other body. toward that end, it's interesting to note that in the last congress the house of representatives approved this same legislation by a voice vote. it was not even considered controversial. in fact, congressman lamar smith, a republican, now the chairman of the house judiciary committee, was a cosponsor of the legislation. well, let's speak frankly, mr. president. in the aftermath of the 2010 elections and in anticipation of the 2012 presidential election, the mood in this historic body has frequently become nothing short of toxic. and in that environment, even this carefully developed and much-needed legislation is suddenly considered controversial. and not only controversial. it was also alleged to be unconstitutional. just before the vote senator coburn of oklahoma said,

quote, "we're absolutely ignoring the u.s. constitution if you do this." senator hutchison from texas said this was, quote, "the most massive encroachment on states' rights i have seen in this body." mr. president, in all due respect i'm pretty comfortable with the legal education that i received at the georgetown university law center. i care a lot about the constitution. i keep a copy of the constitution on my desk. i refer to it frequently. i think i have a pretty good idea of what is in it and what is not and there is nothing in the constitution that precludes the congress from asking some of the best minds in america to come together and to give us advice and recommendations on the entire gunman utt of challenges that face our criminal -- gamut of challenges that face our criminal justice system. certain senators may not like that idea. that is their prerogative.

they may not want to believe there is a problem in our criminal justice system. but to claim that the constitution precludes this process is nothing short of absurd. in fact, our national leadership has received such advice before most notably in 1965 during the johnson administration which is the last time we have had a comprehensive examination of our criminal justice system. and i am not alone in this judgment, mr. president. over the past 11 days there have been a number of editorials and articles pointing out the unfortunate nature of this filibuster. sunday masthead editorial, "the new york times," sunday masthead editorial, "the washington post," an article in "politico" the day of the vote.

editorial, news-day, lead editorial, "the virginia pilot" in my home state, "senate negligence on crime reform." and interesting an article in "the national review" one of the most conservative magazines in the united states titled "an absolute scandal." first sentence saying "the insane refusal of 43 senate republicans to back the national criminal justice act." i ask unanimous consent that all of these articles appear at the end of my remarks in the congressional record today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. webb: mr. president, for nearly two years our legislative process has toofn become sidetracked by what can only be termed an indiscriminate obstructionism. a lot of good ideas have fallen

by the wayside having become hostages in the larger debate about who should come -- comprise our national leadership and who how to solve long-term problems such as our fiscal crisis. this has affected the willingness of many in the other party to come together and address a number of serious issues of governance that should be resolved no matter who is president and no matter how we end up addressing the economy and by ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to think hard about the overwhelming frustration across our country with the persistent failure of the congress to address these kinds of issues. nowhere is the need to think creatively for the good of the country more clear than where it affects our dysfunctional criminal justice system whose challenges threaten the safety and the well-being of every single community and every single american. this system will not be fixed by

sticking our heads in the sand and pretending not to see that -- pretending not to you see its failings. it will only be fixed by bringing together good minds who have dedicated years of thought and action to finding answers and that's what we've been trying to do, mr. president, unfortunately that's what we were stopped from doing by this filibuster. people in this country are looking for leadership and obstructionism is not leadership. we will continue to pursue this effort and by ask my republican colleagues to join the unanimous position of the democratic party as we do. i yield the floor. and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the

senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, i want to congratulate the members of the senate who by a very large vote today passed the minibus legislation, which among many other important things will provide $1.9 billion for the department of transportation's emergency relief fund. and what that will do is help the department deal with the backlog of disaster situations around the country that they previously were not able to deal with and from the perspective of the state of vermont, it will help us deal with the devastation that we experienced in terms of our roads and ow bridges and our infrastructure as a result proliferate hurricane -- as a result of hurricane a republican n many

communities around the state, we saw washouts, bridges destroyed or damaged, roads disappear. and while vermont is certainly prepared to do everything we can to come up with funds to help, there is no question that the federal government needs to be there, as we have always been in the past when disaster strikes a community in america. the name of our country is "the united states of america." twhandz submarines if a disaster hits minnesota or california, the people of vermont are there to help. that's what we do as a nation. and when disaster hits vermont and new jersey, people in other parts of the country are there. so we made good progress today. i want to congratulate senator leahy and the other members of the appropriations committee for coming up with this funding. and now the ball goes to our colleagues in the house. and now is the time for the house to stand tall, to support

what we have done here in the senate and make sure that communities all over this country get the emergency funding that they need in transportation in order to rebuild their communities. mr. president, i want to say a word on another interesting issue which took place today. you may have noticed that bank of america has decided to withdraw its $5 fee for debit transfers. and let me tell you, the bank of america, like the other banks that were going to go forward in imposing these fees, did not withdraw them because they were nice guys. they withdrew them because the american people said, enough is enough in terms of the greed of wall street.

let us never forget that it was the bank of america and the other huge financial institutions on wall street who caused the recession that we are in, resulting in millions of people losing their jobs, their homes, their life's savings. let us never forget that when wall street was on the verge of collapse, it was the american people and the fed who bailed them out. and now that wall street and the large banks are making very handsome profits, paying their c.e.o.'s some of the largest compensation packages they've ever received, their "thank you" to the american people was to charge them $5 a month debit fee. but you know what happened? the american people said, thanks but no thanks. it wasn't the senate that turned this arndle. it wasn't the house that turned this around. it was the american people.

and i want to applaud the people of the occupying wall street campaign who focused attention on the greed of wall street and the millions of other americans who have said, enough is enough. and the point here, mr. president, which is a very profound point, which is ultimately what politics is all about, is that if the american people at the grass-roots level begin to stand up and fight back, profound and positive changes can take place in this country. if the american people stand up and say, no, we're not going to touch social security, we're not going to cut medicare, we're not going to cut medicaid or education, but we're going to move towards a balanced budget by asking the wealthiest people in this country, whose effective tax rates is the lowest in decades, to start paying their fair share of taxes, we can do that.

we don't have to cut social security and medicare and medicaid. and if the american people say, maybe we've got to end these outrageous tax loopholes that allow oil companies that are making huge profits right now in some years to pay nothing in federal income taxes, we can end those loopholes as well. and if the american people say, well, maybe before we cut pral programs for the elderly and sick and the poor, maybe we want to make sure those companies that stash their money in tax havens like the cayman islands where we lose hundreds of billions a year because of the hasm havens, when we rally the american people and they stand up and say, enough is enough, we can change that, too. so today i want to congratulate the american people. you did it. you took on the largest financial institution in the united states of america, and

you beat them. and that should be step one. we should go on from there. the american grass roots have got to continue to speak up in the fight for social justice in this country. with that, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: in my capacity as senator from minnesota, i ask that the quorum call vitiated. without objection. until the previous order, the senate stands in recess until

4:30. >> until members return from

their closed-door meeting we bring you any that from yesterday on the relationship between the u.s. and russia. a report on russia and u.s. national interests. the serious problems between the two countries is mutual distrust. reports the field administration's recess policy in russia contributed. this continues to be -- just over an hour. >> which we postponed for the center for national interest. my partner in crime is right here and he will speak later. let me introduce robert blackwill will preside over today's event. and with the west point chairman of the task force on u.s. direction. >> thank you, dimitri. good to see so many friends

here. dimitri has said, he and graham allison and i have been cooperating with the national interest issue for over a decade. the two centers have released two previous reports on the national interest and therefore it was perhaps logical to try to use that optic to look at the relationship between the united states and russia. we recruited 20 or so very distinguished americans to be part of the task force. a former national security advisor, chairman of the joint chiefs and head of the cia and ambassador to russia and worked for five months on the report. it will be available to you as you leave. it is being released today and

put on the web site of the center and council on foreign relations. where i am affiliated. just briefly, the question might arise wine now? for such a report. the reason we all felt to work on it and publish it now was a sense of urgency about the future of the relationship. so the way we are going to proceed, first, graham allison will speak about why the united states and americans should care about russia. i will then go over selected list of prescription, policy prescriptions in the report. there are dozens and dozens of them but i will confine myself to about a dozen of them. and then dimitri simes who is just back off of the plane from

russia will give us his impressions of moscow. then we will have a conversation about the report and the substance which we will discuss today. with that let me ask graham allison to lead us off. >> thank you. thank you for coming. great to see so many friends, many of whom have been dealing with russia for longtime. arnold, i read this book when i was a graduate student, very special pleased to have arnold here. let me say first on behalf of the bofors center for science and national affairs of which i am the director that we have been very pleased to work with the nixon center in several

iterations of reports on the american national interest trying to define american national interest. we are very happy to work with its new incarnation as the center for national interest. and dimitri won this project. most of us here in washington probably are familiar with the two standard refrains that i hear most frequently when the subject of russia comes up in conversation in washington. the first is who cares? 20 years after the cold war russia doesn't matter anymore. the second one basically says u ugh. we have heard enough of that topic and we are tired of it and maybe a little bit of noise. i would think speaker john boehner's speech last week is a

good illustration of that. this report's view is quite to the contrary. and says that those two reflexes are profoundly mistaken. for government, a responsible government of the u.s. who is taking its responsibility to defend and advance american national interest. so the place from which this report starts is what is good for the u.s. not what is good for some other country and not what is good for russia but what is good for the u.s. and what interests of the u.s. russia impacts and therefore what policies the u.s. needs in order to defend and advance american national interest in the world as it is, not as we might like

it to be. so for this group this is not too complicated a quiz but maybe i will even surprise some of you. know presentation is complete without a quiz. which is the only nation on earth that can, by its leaders, a un unilateral decisions, e raise the u.s. from the map in the course of an hour? that is nuts? it is really absurd and it is anarchic. it is ben curtis from the cold war. but it is brute fact. hard to ignore. if i just stop there that would be more than sufficient to assure that russia commands the daily attention of any american

president. which nation, second question, which nation has done more over the last 20 years to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other states? third, what nation has done more to prevent the lost or theft of loose nukes to terrorist groups? fourth, you can see nuclear is on my mind but that is not surprising. we go to the energy world. which nation added more oil and gas to global energy markets? there are four. the answers are russia, russia,

russia, and russia. in what appears today in politico we consider ten reasons why russia matters. these are reasons why russia matters to and american government intent on defending and advancing american national interests. i will take another question. what nation is providing the most important lifeline to the hundred thousand americans fighting in afghanistan today? today? most people don't know but over the last several years as relationship with pakistan has become more difficult, russia now accounts for half of the daily deliveries. russian northern routes which

russia can turn off and on at its own discretion. if you go to the question of iran about which john boehner had a lot to say, what has russia done recently with respect to iran? as it impact american personal interests? most importantly it did not deliver s 300 air defenses that could be operational there today and would make it very difficult to have a credible military coercion of iran as it pursues its nuclear aspirations. russia also voted for the u. n. security council resolution, the most recent one and therefore didn't provide cover for china, the strongest set of sanctions

that have been imposed to date. not strong enough for my point of view but the strongest. it could just as easily in the un vote up or down. a slippery vote. so if you new and more reason you can look at the overhead and if you want to see argued in more detail i would say the report does a good job on this topic. the report also offers some realism about russia in terms of numbers. some of those numbers in terms of a realistic assessment of russia remind you russia matters even more than you thought. so who is the no. one producer of oil and gas, combined hydrocarbons everyday today? it is not saudi arabia. it is not saudi arabia. on the other hand let me remind

you why russia is an especially difficult stage with which to have relations that advance american interests. because of its own internal politics. there are some good numbers and charts in the report as well as a lot else. the analysis in the report is for the purpose of identifying the russia that we have to deal with and the analysis of american national interest is to remind you why do we care? what do we care about? what do we care about more than something else we care about? than the hard part is prescription. i leave that to robert blackwill. >> thank you. we hope once you have had a chance to look at the report in detail, if you have comments on any element in it, you send them

along and we would be grateful. the overall tenor of the report is of a group of 20 or so former policymakers who worked on russia and therefore need no tutoring about how difficult it is to deal with moscow. many of us have done that for much of our professional career and the report makes clear this is a relationship that is challenging because of russian behavior. so in that spirit let me just read to you a small number of the prescriptions that are in the report by saying there are dozens of them on the various dimensions of the relationship. i will just read a few to give you a flavor of it.

the united states should engage russia to develop and implement a jointly produced and concrete road map with a firm time line to attaining the highest possible standards of security for all stocks of weapons, weapons usual plutonium everywhere in the world. we are proposing that bilateral initiative by the united states and russia. the united states should invade russia to orchestrate international consensus that there will be no new national and richmond or plutonium reprocessing. a proposal for a bilateral u.s./russia and global initiative. the united states should explore with russia a new strategic stability concept that reflects the fact that washington and moscow are no longer enemies

prepared to destroy each other but rather potential partners. the next round of u.s./russian nuclear arms reduction should combine deployed and non deployed weapons to lower the ceiling of strategic warheads to 1,000 or fewer. united states should proceed with developing anti-missile systems in europe and globally in line with the realistic assessment of existing and future threats and available technologies and funds. the united states should prepare to launch a genuine and substantive dialogue about a new inclusive european security system that would give russia a meaningful voice and would include an effective rapid

response mechanism of conflict prevention, interdiction and resolution. in making major international policy decisions the united states should consider whether u.s. actions would consolidate russia/chinese cooperation at the expense of wider u.s. goals. as long as it appears feasible, achieving broader u.s. objectives should have priority over expanding nato membership in ways that could undermine cooperation on greater u.s. priorities. the united states should strengthen joint capabilities with russia to collect and analyze intelligence on terrorist threats including nuclear, biological and conventional catastrophic terrorism threats to the two nations and their allies. united states should intensified

discussion of the end game in afghanistan with the russian government, including military to military talks. the united states and russia should rapidly complete the u.s./russian agreement on russia's wto obsession. the united states should work with the european union to press russia to negotiate curiously with georgia to completed georgia/russia wto agreement while encouraging russia -- encouraging georgia to limit talks through issues that are within the scope of the wto's work. the united states congress should graduate russia from the jackson banning amendment restrictions and develop new legislation on russian corruption and human rights. the united states should revive efforts to sign the bilateral investment treaty negotiated in the mid 1990s.

the united states should accept that democratic political change within russia will likely occur gradually and need not necessarily lead to american-style democracy. the united states should support russian lead efforts at democratic and market reform when they occur but should avoid steps that are likely to be viewed as interference in russian domestic politics. which are often counterproductive and finally, in view of the vital american interests at stake in the u.s./russian relations which robert blackwill -- which graham allison enumerated and washington's limited leverage over russia's slow democratic transition, united states should not allow democracy promotion to dominate its approach to russia. those are a few of the

prescriptions of the report. and now, dimitri simes who is just off the plane from moscow will give you some sense of what is the buzz there. >> thank you very much. agree credit for this enterprise. and we have an important issue, we have a problem with opportunity and the leader in the exercise. i couldn't have a better partner than graham allison with whom we worked for many years. a remarkable combination of capabilities in russia and the united states, particularly american security policy. one reason i wanted this to be

part of this exercise is because things that we have a serious problem. part of that is how we handle. we do support the administration policy and we also state -- it is still afraid -- quite fragile. there is much yet to be done. one important conclusion, which several of our members strongly -- and i was among them whenever the united states does -- even the smartest and most courageous will not be the results unless

certain things would happen in russia but with russian foreign policy. at the same time it is also clear some important decisions have to be made in the united states. i for one did not now the good will of the obama administration but has our report clearly it does not just the good intentions. it is a question of presidential leadership. it is a question of being prepared for difficult things and unpopular things. and that ability and willingness still needs to be fully demonstrated. when i was in moscow the question of russian democracy was answered persuasively by most russian demonstrators after it was announced that the

presidency was likely to become prime minister. according to a recent public opinion poll organized by a government controlled public opinion center, 66% of the russians believe their country is not a democracy but is run by bureaucracy. 74% of the people believe that elections are not going to be fair. 81% is basically fine with it. by that they mean not that they approve this state of affairs but they kind of accepted as a way of life and are not prepared to do anything about it. i do not smell arab spring in the making in moscow. also clear that a serious question in russia about u.s. foreign policy, this is not

always in an update because we understandably focused on what russians have done right with expectations about russian democracy and in fact about the quality of russian partnership with the united states and the west in general. the russians won't that which is very different from -- it would be surprising to most americans. i remember years ago i asked a real russian democrat, a leader of democratic progress, i asked him what would be the one thing he would want the united states to do to promote russian democracy. he said don't vote serbia. ..

>> that it would not lead to islam and the living civil war and where the limit. the way nato handle this resolution, it reminded them of what may have been done in 1999 against yugoslavia, against russian objections. and this was a personal embarrassment for the president and let a lot of people in the

russian security establishment saying here we go again. here we followed the american elite. here we trusted american assurances. and what happened is quite different from what we expected. i am not presenting this as an argument, that the libyan situation was wrong. i'm presenting this as an argument with different merits. and when we think about american foreign policy decisions, we have to think also about unintended consequences. how decisions would be viewed by other nations, but other major powers. when we make a decision about libya, which was an important decision, but i don't think most people view the decision as something of practical. with powers like russia or china that would affect the conduct on

u.n. security council resolutions. i do not think, at least i am not sure, that we put the decision in the broadest strategical contact. we are dealing with a country with a different worldview, with different values, not only on the part of the russian leadership, but also on the part of the russian electorate. let me mention specifically one issue. that is a problem of russian corruption. corruption is pervasive. it affects not only how rush is ruled. it also affects the quality of u.s.-russian relationship. because at this point in contrast to china, we do not have a strong economic component in the u.s. relationship with russia. we have a lot of western business leaders, american business leaders, coming to moscow meeting, citing declarations and contentions.

and yet they are not the majority of them, a few exceptions, i'm not prepared to make major investments in russia except one sector. and very few in the american business commute. are prepared to promote engagement with russia indiana state. that makes the relationship inherently fragile. and for this it is clearly russia have not the united states, that has sole responsibility. where we have responsibility our own decisions, and let me simply emphasized what graham has just said. there are a lot of russian decisions which we kind of take for granted. and we do not think what would happen is if these decisions were not made or worse. a decision about s. 300 missiles, not to supply them to iran was a russian decision essentially. russia was obliged.

$800 million. it clearly was a decision based on the russian judgment about the quality of russian relationship with the united states and with this relationship deliver to russia particularly very important economically. the relationship allowing nato supplies across russia again was a top level decision which i understand was quite controversial in russia. if you just ask what would happen, if these decisions were not made and how it would affect fundamental interest, i think the answer is clear. many years ago at the center for the national interest, we had a meeting with dimitri who is not that time president but was chief of the russian

presidential, president putin's administration. there was a decision about the u.s. separation in iraq and about russian regarding separation. and medvedev said that clearly they were not in agreement for separation. they clear it did not think it was a good idea for the united states, or for the region in general. but then he said something that i found rather striking. and then he said, but, of course, if we had true partnership with united states, if we could feel that we would get genuine benefits of that partnership, we could decide to ignore our disagreements. and to support our american partner because that partnership would be more important than our differences over any particular issue. but he said we are not true partnership. and don't ask russia to deliver of what you would expect of a partner when you do not treat

russia as a partner. our report makes clear that one fundamental issue in the u.s.-russian relationship are not our differences over specific issues, but our mutual mistrust. this mistrust is serious and real, and is evident in both capitals. are the reason for this mistrust? no question about that. but what i want to say, as my conclusion, we have to be honest with ourselves. it is not likely that we will be able to have it both ways, to treat russia as rival and to get benefits from russia as if it were a partner. we have to make something. thank you. >> thank you, dimitri. before we begin our discussion let me just read the last two paragraphs of the report, and then we will move on to your

comments and questions. the last section of the report is entitled the consequences of failure. just as the united states should expect russia to a just too many of its policies to achieve a sustainable, cooperative relationship, washington should recognize that moscow is unlikely to support u.s. policy goals if the u.s.-russian relationship significantly deteriorates. as a result, the failure to establish an onboard working relationship with russia would be quite costly for the united states. u.s. officials must carefully weigh, not only the american national interests in working more closely with russia, but also the costs and benefits of failing to do so. keeping in mind moscow's capacity to act as a spoiler in a number of areas and a number

of issues that are of vital national interest to washington. in our considered judgment, task force concludes, the choice is clear. the united states should pursue a sustainable cooperative relationship with russia to advance vital american national interest, but do so without allusion regarding either moscow's sometimes neo-imperial ambitions, or the pace of democratic change in russia. with that, let me open our conversation. would you raise your hand if you wish to make a comment, ask a question. and please identify yourself and your affiliation. i think we have -- i'm not sure if we have a mic the goes around. know, so speak up. yes. >> maybe stand up so everyone can hear you. could you perhaps outlined where

-- [inaudible] >> spin a globe, thank you for the report. we don't think everyone, just to be specific in our prescriptions, agrees that the u.s. nuclear arsenal and the russian nuclear arsenal should go to 1000 or less. i could enumerate fight more like that, we don't think there's a unanimous view in washington, that nader should discuss a new security system, in europe with the russians and so forth. but again, thank you most importantly for accommodation. >> shorter answer would be if it were a sensible report, which i think it is, how could there be anything other than opposition in washington? [laughter] >> arnold?

>> actually that really was my point, too. from my point of view it is a good list. it is far from a consensus on it in this country, so we have to decide ourselves what it is that we want, before we can even imagine approaching the russians on a. i remind you that not too many years ago under somewhat similar circumstances, i don't remember whether it was nato enlargement or serbia, you and i and sam nunn wrote a paper, very, very similar to the one that you are writing now, reminding everybody how important russia was. the problem we have been is similar to the problem that we have now. because some of the answers to that question is not just ugh.

it's so what. the big question, so what. we get a lot of people to agree with this general picture of where russia is and why russia could matter to us, if they did the right thing, if we did the right thing. but the probability of that happening, because of the lack of consensus on our side and the disarray on their side is so low that it's very, very hard, i hope this is not what you will encounter, but it's a very, very hard to get people to go beyond so what, when these questions are addressed. >> thank you, arnold. that may well be true, but that doesn't lessen the obligation for us as citizens to do what we can. none of us work in the government, and what we can do is advance what we think is an analytically sound set of propositions, and sensible group of prescriptions. but that's all we can do.

we can try to persuade. we can't coerce, and we certainly can't decide. none of us are in government. so what we hope is that this report will stimulate the debate and have people talking beyond the so what. and we will see if it succeeds in doing that. >> can you stand the? >> i would say -- >> gym was a member of our group. >> where the report leaves a questioning to me as, not just so what, but now what? if you look at the basic components, they were laid out in april 2009, and if you look at that list of priorities and goals, if we get wto done its pre-will finish but at least the

bumper sticker part is pretty well finished. the real challenge now is okay, what's the next set of bumper sticker's? and is it a new start for me reduction? is it something different in europe? i just don't know where that is and i think, there's one comment i would make about the report come and that's one of the things that really isn't there. as i agree with you, reset isn't quite as successful. great accomplishments but it's also -- [inaudible] and the question is what's going to come in the next three, four years, whoever is president year, or in russia, to keep the momentum going? and i don't see that in a prescription of should. it's also a question of what. and how you do it. >> thank you. thank you, jim. what we try to do as you know is, you will get a chance to take this with you and study it

as you wish, is to give a menu in the various dimensions of the u.s.-russia bilateral relationship. we tried not to recommend, as jim says, issues that had already pretty much been decided in the first phase of the recent. so we tried to do that. but i think if you look to the prescriptions, there are many issues that the united states, if the administration wished to do so, could pursue which would give a new sense of impotence to the u.s.-russian relationship, given that there was similar objective on the russian side. and then the administration has to decide which of them it wished to do, because he can't give six dozen. so you might, each of you have a somewhat different list

emanating from those policy prescriptions, and that, in fact, as jim said would be a good discussion to have, as if if you have six dozen and you only get to pick for, what ford would they be? -- what format would they be? other questions, comments? have one year and i think i saw a hand back their. >> i am ambassador to the united states. thank you for the conversation. looking forward to reading the report. but still, i would like to take the opportunity to ask when you're talking about the new genuine dialogue with russia before it was a nato member state, and later with russia, european secure the system that will give russia the place russia deserves. could you elaborate on that? >> yes. i've say there are two broad models that one can think of.

there are probably more but at least two about russia and european security. one is the one we pursued the since 1989-90, which was how can we integrate russia to some extent into the deliberations of nato. and we tried, succeeding administrations have tried to do that. and i think basically have failed. and certainly the russians are quite dissatisfied with that, that arrangement. as i say, i don't for a second challenge the goodwill and efforts of folks have been in succeeding administrations. but that's model one. the russians on the outside of the alliances security arrangements, and are not invited to dinner but might be

invited to a drink before dinner, if i may put it like that. model number two says that you can't have european security over the long run without integrating russia more into it. and the report specifically says that president medvedev's approach is not the right approach, and the report says we're not talking about replacing nato with some very, very notion, but what we recommend is that first the alliance decide on what principles it would like to discuss the second concept with the russians and then have a conversation. i don't know whether that second model would lead an effective outcome, that i would argue that the first model has russia on the outside looking in. and if there is a way to deal

with that in a way that protects america alliance national interest, we should pursue a. so it's basically the argument in the report. i think i saw a hand. >> just to follow that up with the question is,. [inaudible] how would we do that? >> it doesn't say. and -- [inaudible] >> well, let me -- what we tried to do, all of us have, about these matters. the report is a consensus document, so we're trying to stick as close as we can to the report. we're trying to represent the views of the 20 people or so who were working on it. so i think i won't be imagined here, if it's okay. we can have a schnapps and i can give my own personal ideas about what it is. but i think the question is good

because if we were to pursue model number two we should have some pretty specific ideas about what its dimensions, structure, objectives ought to be. and that work i think really hasn't been done, or if it has been i haven't seen it, and i try to follow these pretty closely. oh, and graham spent quickly. i would say is inaction the good question and there are four or five models out there, of model two, then wrestle back and forth. actually personally i think with the idea, it's not very clear but i think the idea you can see the source of it and i think that's why the question is a very good one. basically the best line at a topic for me, a fellow who used to run the soviet program. that basically he said after

1991, the soviet union put itself up, russia, as a newly independence day, put it up do put itself up for adoption and there were no takers. so again, all this gets coveted with the russian soul and its identity and all that. but still, the notion where does it belong, is the question many, many russians ask. and i think the proposition that they just belong outside is attractive but insufficient. so i think that's the first point. i think if we were to define a set of principles, they would certainly include recognition of the borders and territory, integrity of the new states. that would obviously be an elementary component. but they would also be taking account of the ways of activities in was to impact the security and well being in another state. so it's hard to deny that this is a common space in some

regard. now, where does it stop and where are the boundaries and how does it relate to, you know, central europe and then ultimately russia as the report points out? everybody here knows, russia is a country that borders poland and china, and in the arctic, the u.s. my god, expanse. so where does this come if you're ever starting throwing it into, what. i think there's lots and lots of components of this that don't quite work, but i think the proposition that basically lead them on the outside and things will be comfortable under the long run. is an unsatisfactory proposition. >> please, dimitri. >> i think these were two excellent and very important questions about the relationship between the transatlantic security system and russia, and

ambassador, i think your point is very well taken. we are not suggesting that russia should be invited to nato, all we are suggesting is that nato would be changed in india fundamental way to accommodate russia. but then there is a question, do we want russia to be outside to your atlantic system? one is to say well, if they don't quite deserve to be a member of our extended family. and to give the long lease of transgressions which would demonstrate that they are not quite there. and if you would invite them to be affiliated with us in any shape or form, we just provide legitimacy to what is happening in their troubled country. that is one possible approach. well, we have tried this approach. in 1979. we have tried it. bring european powers and

outraged by what was happening in stop and russia, and influenced by, quite understandable, poland and others on security arrangements. when they essentially decided well, how to put it? not to give much priority with moscow about the security arrangements. and the assumption was that hitler and stalin were such exact opposites that they could never agree. well, they could never agree strategically. and send jeremy, and invade russia. but we have discovered that they have agreed tactically. and your country knows better than most. while the implications of such a tactical arrangement? one important conclusion of a report that geopolitical considerations, that not pushing russia in the direction we want to push it, including in the

direction of greater closeness with new superpower. that they should be an important consideration. so when we were thinking about -- [inaudible] we were not thinking about rewarding russia for bad behavior. we were thinking about influencing russian choices in the direction which we firmly believe in nato's interest and in your country's interest. >> yes, here and then we will go back in this direction. >> i am the representative for the american chamber of commerce in russia. my colleague, randy, is here, with the u.s.-russia business council. i am senior report but from what you say, it sounds like you haven't mentioned much about american business which grant, your comment, they have adopted russia. there are 750 countries, most of

the fortune 500 making billions, no problem with repatriation of funds from russia. they are bringing 80% in many other companies back that money and creating lots of jobs. john deere is loading up on jobs. so i don't know, indeed your report -- >> i'm sorry, i gave a capsulized version just for reasons of time but yes, there is a section on that. >> second. i was deputy director of the united states information agency, and dealt with a lot of the think tanks in town, also was five years deputy at the center for the study of the presidency. one of the things i found out is there are a lot of great records sitting on the shelves, like yours to come, my question is, and i hope you can answer this, is there organized orderly plan to put this forward? not just to hope that the

columnists pick it up. if you're not allowed to with these, they don't go anyplace. i commend you on after because i think it is very, very much-needed. >> thank you. the answer is yes, there is. and we will see if it's successful. there are a lot of other things on focuses minds here in washington these days, as we all know. but we will do our best to market it. and i think it's an excellent point. okay, and grandma. >> since we didn't say anything about the economic presentations, it's worth chasing a few things. so yes, i think your point is precisely what. and actually the report probably doesn't have as much as it should do. because i think most people don't appreciate how many american businesses are doing very good business in russia, and could be doing even more. but i, for many years, was

chairing a u.s.-russian investment symposium that we did jointly with jean and a company. if i look at it, the development of american business engagement in russia is much less than what one would have wished for. and effect if you go to germany they think it's great for the americans to talk about corruption or whatever reason they don't want to come here because it's more business for us. german businesses are having no problem what ever it, doing a huge amount of business in russia. but so, too, for many great american companies. you mentioned john deere, coca-cola has made a decision to put another $5 billion in to russia. pepsi, this is one of the biggest markets. boeing has a fantastic planet there. microsoft has a very significant facility there. so i think there's a fantastic amount of opportunities, and i think what dimitri was saying

was, at the same time that american businesses are doing effective business here, there's also the question of what's happening to culture, government, russian business relations that make that more challenging than it ought to be. but i think the business component of this is actually one of the crucial element. because in other areas, is the only, is the only basis for the u.s. engaging russia to defend and protect american interests that are higher on my priority -- priority list than economics that are higher, like security, is the only basis is the president of the doing heavy lifting every day, if there is no support in the society on the business leadership and from other parts of civil society, that's a relationship that is inherently rocky in the democracy. so that's what the elements or part of the challenge and

sustained from the american side that kind of engagement we will need in russia is if you don't really have the support groups that you have for virtually every other element. i mean, the diaspora who are related to russia and the u.s. are mostly people, who escaped from an evil empire. and remember, that it was an evil empire, or who came from eastern and central europe or other parts of the soviet union who remembered that there was a boot on my neck and there was a boot on my neck. so they don't generally feel very hospitable towards the place from which they escaped. and you don't have been the committee, you know, there's no equivalent of the armenian diaspora or the greek diaspora or the israelis, or the other ones. >> thank you. and thanks for the question and comment. over here. >> your recommendations that you stated, tend to have considerable bilateral --

[inaudible] might i suggest that many of the issues where you may have, and although out of other countries around the perimeter. countries like turkey, india, china, korea, japan. and that this as it is here in washington. [inaudible] and that the very fact that putin -- >> "washington journal" airs live every morning at seven-isht and on c-span.morning going back live to the senate. ba of a senators have been meeting with defense secretary leon panettant for a closed-door briefing on iraq, afghanistan and pakistan. senator durbin is speaking on thenc floor.

monthly fee for thures of a debit card. now i believe every bank across america has said we're abandoning this approach. and it is a good thing. because it is an indication to me that the consumers across america have a much larger voice in this process today than they did even a few weeks ago. consumers and customers of major banks paid close attention when many of these banks, like bank america, said they were going to charge these customers $5 a month to have access to their own money in their checking account. i was asked at the time what should we do, and i said, customers of these banks should vote with their feet. start looking for another bank. find a bank or a credit union that treats them in the manner they want to be treated -- fairly and respectfully. well, the message got out. and that message ended up creating a substantial move of

customers from some banking institutions to others. some suggest that the activity on credit union web sites is now up 800%. the people at community banks all across america have signs in front of their banks saying, for instance one in georgia, "we agree debit cards should be free." what we have at work here is a very fundamental principle of our economy -- the free-market economy: transparency, so people know what they are being charged. so they have a choice. i think those are the two pillars of a successful free-market economy and now the banking economy in many respects is being introduced to it. i think this is a healthy thing. prior to october 28, several large banks had announced they would begin charging monthly debit fees on many of their customers' accounts. bank of america, $5 million. wells fargo, $3 a month.

chase, $4 a month in some states. sun trust of atlanta, $5 monthly fee. regents national of birmingham, alabama, $4 monthly fee. numerous other large banks made clear that they would not charge monthly debit fees and these banks included u.s. bancorp, citigroup, p.n.c., usaa and more. in response to the consumer reaction to this announcement, on friday, october 28, wells fargo and chase announced they were abandoning their plans to charge these fees. sun trust, regents financial announced they would also abandon their plans and pay rebates to customers who had already paid them. warrewar buffett is a -- warren buffett is a man i have come to know and respect. he was asked over large lunch recently to react to the bank of

america $5 monthly fee. he lifted his glass of coca-cola and said it was like new coke. it really told the story that sometimes large companies really lose touch with their most basic consumers and their customers and make bad decisions. the question is, what will come of this next? and i think we really all the to ask ourselves, what have we learned from this experience over the last several weeks and what do we hope that it leads to? well, certainly we want more transparency, competition, and choice. but in order for that to happen, we need more disclosures so that the average customers of a bank knows what they're getting into. have any of us taken the time to read the back of that monthly credit card statement? as a larks i can tell you that if you asked for the entire statement concerning fees at banks, it's over 100 pages, almost impossible to decipher. we've got to get down to the basics where we understand our relationship with these

financial institutions so we can choose those that serve our needs or the needs of our business. that's why the pew trust recently came up with a valuable suggestion. they have a disclosure form, one page -- one page that lists the basic fees that banks can charge. what they're suggest something every bank should adopt this. just as we have a basic box in the back of food products with ingredients that we can turn to, how many calories, how much sodium, how much carbohydrates, we can have a basic disclosure on every bank's web site so america can go shopping. competition. free market. i think that's a healthy thing. the second thing that we could to follow on is the discovery that there are such things as swipe fees. we suspected it, but we didn't know what was going on really when we handed over a piece of plastic in the restaurant to comby something, or a growsry store. it turns out that every time

that's swiped, the retailer, the restaurant, the business, is charged. how much are they charged? a variety of different amounts. and, frankly, that grocery store, that bookstore, has no ability to negotiate that fee. it's a take-it-or-leave it. you want plastic from visa or mastercard, then you go ahead and pay this fee or else. that's changed. and the world has changed with it. when the federal reserve got the new authority october 1 to put in place a reasonable swipe fee for debit cards at about 21 cents a transaction, things started changing. there's lot of money at stake. if you add up all the money collected by banks across america for swipe fees, for debit and credit cards, it is about $50 billion a year. it's a huge amount. we all pay it. you pay it and the bottom line -- in the bottom line at the restaurant or the grocery store,

whenever you go shopping, if you use plastic. so now there is a 21-cent ceiling established by the federal reserve on debit card fees. that's what caused all of the reaction by the banks saying they were going to charge their customers more because of it. we need even more disclosure. for the largest baifntion america, the top 1% of banks, if you go to an a.t.m. machine an put in your card, at some point they will usually notify what you -- notify you what the a.t.m. fee s i think the same disclosure should be made on swipe fees. on the monthly credit card statements across america we should see in parentheses how much was paid to by the retailer to the credit card company. irthink it will be a surprise to many people as to how much they are paying every time they use middle class stifnlgt i should say, how much retailers are paying and charging their customers every time they use plastic. that is more information. that's more transparency.

that allows you to understand the relationship that to in point has been hidden in secret. i think that's an important thing. i've also been talking to senator reed of rhode island. he has some thoughts of interesting legislation that he and i are working on concerning the actual cost of credit card fee transactions to the banks and to the credit card companies. so that we'll have a better understanding in that category as well. so what we're saying, madam president, is something significant has happened over the last several weeks. i hope it is the beginning of a trend. one way to make sure this trend continues to the benefit of consumers and families and small businesses all across america is to make sure that richard corderi is appointed as the head of the consumer financial protection bureau. this, to me, is an agency which can continue this battle. on behalf of consumers. it is literally the only consumer protection agency in

the federal government. now, many on the other side of the aisle don't like it. they don't believe in strong government oversight of these financial institutions on wall street. i disagree. i think americans deserve to be given the basic information about their financial transactions so that with that information they can make their own decisions. i'm not saying that government should steer them one way or another, but at least give us the basic information. let me decide the best bank for my family. let me decide the best credit card or debit card for me family or my business. that's all we can ask. finally, let moo say this: this established of a debit card fee limit is -- swipe fee limit is a breakthrough for many retailers. when i talk to retailers large and small, some of them chain stores and others just local stores, they were getting killed with this fee. it turned out to be the second-

or third-most expensive item every single month, after personnel, after rent. here came the swipe fees that they had to pay to visa, mastercard, the banks that issue their cards. now these retailers fee like there's been a light that's been shined on this process and a limit that's been established when it comes to debit cards. sadly, it's been abused. readbox, which is a re-- redbox, a retailer of movies that most of us see, even in springfield, illinois, where you nut $1 and take a movie home, announced they had to raise the price of their movies from $1 to $1.20 because of this new law. we looked into it. they used to be charged a lower swipe fee by the debit and credit card companies but now these companies are trying to make up their money that they're losing from this ceiling and they're passing higher charges along to redbox. so some companies i think need help.

the federal reserve has continuing jurisdiction and authority when it comes to that help. and i hope that they will take a look at the consequences to some companies, like redbomb. i think what has happened to them is unfair. i think the federal reserve has the authority to change t so we are at a tipping point. for years the big banks have been rigging the rules with a lot of fees and charges we were not een wear of. the consumers of america have said, enough. through a combination of reasonable regulation and consumers voting with their feet, we are bringing transparency and competition back to the financial services industry. it is working and it's long overdue. consumers aare now saying they'll only do business with banks that care about serving them instead of squeezing them. it's a good thing. we've got to do more things. let's confirm richard cordray and let's get it done soon so the consumer financial protection bureau can go to work to help us. let's ensure that all bank fees are transparent, such as with the model checking account fee

disclosure that i mentioned earlier from the pew charitable trust. and ensure that all swipe fees are transparent, because consumers ultimately pay those fees in higher prices. by promoting transparency and competition, we're going to help restore the balance between wall street and main street. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask that the quorum call being suspend. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask that title amendment to h.r. 2112, the text which is at the desk being be agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum quorum quorum call: rom louisiana.

ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i'd like to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. i rise today to speak just for a moment about the significance of the month of november with -- which just began. about 10 years ago, madam president, members of congress decided to designate november as national adoption month. i think probably because november is sort of the beginning of the holiday season, with thanksgiving and then christmas and to follow in december, and so it is a time when americans from all parts of

our country really take stock to slow down to think about how important family is. we saw that a little bit last night with halloween and all their children and their parents trick-or-treating throughout our nation. and then as thanksgiving approaches, it becomes even more significant as families from all different walks of life gather around tables, some tables are very plentiful and others are rather sparse with the treats based on the economic strength of the family. but nonetheless, many, many families gather for these holidays. and it reminds us that there are over 500,000 children in our country today that are really without family. they have been separated from their families. sometimes for good cause but it's all tragic. children have to be separated from families that abuse or grossly neglect them and they

have to be placed temporarily until we as government officials and nonprofit organizations can do a better job of either strengthening and reuniting those children with that family and trying to heal that family or trying to promote another family for that child or that sibling group. we do many things here in congress, both collectively as a congress but also individually in our own ways to try to bring attention to the fact that there are orphans in america. not just the 500,000 children in foster care but of that 500,000, about 100,000 have had their parental rights terminated because the state has decided that we unification is not possible in this case, that children would be harmed irreparably from going back to that family. and so we work to try to find

them another family, a better family to raise children because governments do a lot of things well, madam president, but one things governments don't do well is raise children, moms and dads and parents and families and responsible adults do that, not governments. so these children are in the temporary care of the government but it is our hope that they can be placed as soon as possible into the loving arms of families. i've met hundreds of families that have adopted, including my own. it's a blessing to my husband and to me. i've just recently met a family from minnesota, parents who had already several biological children. when they found out about the death of a woman and her husband in the philippines that will resulted in nine children of that family being orphaned, madam president, they stepped up and adopted all nine of those children from the philippines.

and because of the good work of senator klobuchar and others, they were able to bring that whole sibling group to the united states. i could go on and on and tell you the most remarkable stories. but as members travel through the rooms of the capitol this month, they are going to be very happy to see in the rotunda of the russell senate office building a very special exhibit and that's the national heart gallery exhibit. about some ten years ago, or maybe even less, some great nonprofits got together and said, what could we do to help show americans that these are beautiful children with lots of potential just waiting for a chance for a family to call their own. and so photographers donated their time to take really beautiful portraits of these children. so it doesn't look like just a mug shot. but beautiful portraits of these children, and some of them are going to be on display. this is an opportunity for us to

become more familiar with how many different kinds of children are available for adoption. and i say that as sensitively as i can. these are children that are waiting for a family. they, many of them would love to be adopted. they want to have a family forever. you don't just need a family until you're 18. you need a family forever. you'd like people to -- a father to walk you up the aisle when you're married. you'd like your mother to show up at the baptism of your child. you'd like a place to go home, even in your 40's and 50's, for thanksgiving. so we don't think anyone's too old to be adopted and everyone needs a family, and so you'll see pictures of these children. let me just make a couple of other points about this national exhibit. it's traveled around to many cities. perhaps, madam president, it's been to new hampshire. i don't know. we would be happy to have it in louisiana but it's in the anything's capitol for this

10th anniversary. now, these numbers do sound staggering. 500,000 or 400,000 in foster care, 100,000 waiting to be adopted. but let me put this in perspective. there are over 100 million children in the united states. one-third of our population roughly between the age 0 and 13. so 100,000 is really a relatively small number. and if you think about it, there are 300,000 churches in america roughly. so if just one family within three churches, just one family among three churches, decided to step up and say, i'll take this child into my home, we would have no more orphans in the united states, which is our goal. our goal is for every child in the united states and the world, if they are separated from their birth family, to find within a short period of time a home to

call their own. preferably with a relative in kinship care but, if not, somewhere in the community. i don't think this is a difficult or impossible task. it seems overwhelming. but when you think of the assets of the world and you -- you know, you juxtapose the assets and strengths of the world against this particular problem, it's most certainly doable f. we can go to the moon, if we can explore science and space, we most certainly can put our good minds and sense together to figure out a way that governments can work better with nonprofits to make this happen. and i want to conclude with just saying one of the extraordinary organizations in the world that i believe are doing this work is the dave thomas foundation. and many people may remember dave thomas as the founder of wendy's. but i remember dave thomas as a child who came out of the foster care system, or a man who came

out of the foster care system. i did not know him as a child. but i can remember him saying -- he's passed, of course -- but coming to congress advocating on behalf of foster care children, of which he was one. now, he beat the odds. not only did he go on to be successful and create one of the most successful businesses in america today, and perhaps even in the world, but as he's passed, his foundation carries on that work. and they've just released a wonderful report which will come more into focus in the coming weeks, but the bottom line is that through the work of this foundation, they have come up with new strategies -- not complicated, quite simple, child-focused, recruitment strategies -- that each and every one of our states can employ and deploy and use without a lot more expense to really see significant increases in the number of older children, particularly children with

mental challenges and emotional challenges adopted. in fact, they have increased, according to the study, research shows that children in foster care served by wendy's wonderful kids are 1.7 times more likely and children with mental disorders are 3 times more likely to be adopted using these different strategies. so in conclusion, madam president, this is national adoption month. we have the heart gallery here in the capitol and in washington for pictures of some of the most extraordinary children. their families may be broken, their families may be dysfunctional but it doesn't mean they are. it means they are full of potential, ready for a family to call them their own and to step up and to live up to their potential. and there are many organizations from this nonprofit to wendy's wonderful kids, the dave thomas foundation, and hundreds of others working to solve this

problem. so i thank my colleagues. many have been very they have last year in this regard -- many have been very active this last year in this regard, and i wanted to honor the heart gallery and the great work of the organizations that have put that together. it's made a meaningful difference making these children through these beautiful photographs very real to all of us so we know they're just not statistics, they're really children with heartbeats and dreams and hopes and aspirations and they would make wonderful additions to many of our families. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.

ms. landrieu: and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: