the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to take off the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to proceed to calendar number 396, h.r. 2072, which is an act to reauthorize the export-import bank of the united states be adopted, there be no amendments, motions or points of order to the bill other than budget points of order and applicable motions to waive. that there be an hour of debate equally divided between the two

leaders or their designees prior to a vote on passage of the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i would ask the majority leader to modify his request to accommodate a few amendments. therefore, i ask consent that the request be modified to allow the following amendments -- corker, number 2102, financing for transaction subsidized by export credit agencies. vitter, 2103, prohibitions on funds used for energy development outside of the u.s. toomey 2104, $40 billion increase contingency. lee number 2100 phaseout. and paul 2101, limitation on ex-im support. and i further ask consent that following the disposition of the listed amendments, the bill be read three times and the senate proceed to vote on the passage of the bill with a 60-vote threshold. before the chair rules, i would say that the sponsors of the amendments would be prepared to enter into short time agreements

in order to facilitate consideration of the bill. mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object. mr. president, these amendments that have just been listed, we are familiar with three of them. the other two i haven't had the chance to review nor has my staff and i don't think anyone else has. so we will be happy to continue to study these, take a look at them. happy to do that. now, the only thing i would say is that -- and i have other things to say, and i know that my friend, the assistant republican leader has places to go, so i would give a statement later, but i -- based on what i have just said and what i'm going to say, i object. mr. kyl: mr. president, i appreciate that. i hope we can continue to work together as to the original request that we would have to pose an objection as well. mr. reid: mr. president -- the presiding officer: objection is heard, heard to both requests. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. yesterday, the house sent the

senate a bipartisan authorization for the export-import bank. the bill the house passed reflects a negotiated agreement between -- that was struck between democrat and republican leaders. they worked hard to come up with an agreement. as one would expect with an agreement of that nature, the house passed it with a very strong vote. the vote was 330-93. every single democrat voted for the measure. only the far right tea party leaning of the house republican caucus voted against the bill, 93 of them. so it was 330-93. the house considered no amendments. the house passed the bill on the suspension calendar. for those of us that served in the house, that's a bill that comes up and there is almost no debate and it takes a two-thirds vote to pass it. they do it for noncontroversial items. mr. president, this measure at this time is noncontroversial. it should never have been controversial.

we brought it up here two months ago and we were stunned when the republicans wouldn't let us move forward on it. so the house did the right thing yesterday. this sort of -- this is the sort of bill that the senate should now simply pass without amendment. mr. president, it is so unusual here. i don't -- i am -- i have been here in congress 30 years, but this is a new one. even bills that they agree on they want to mess around with. in years past, this would have gone through here just like this. forget about what took place two months ago, but now the house passed something 330-93, and we're here playing around with it? it should be done. we should have passed it yesterday. this thing is going to expire. so i just -- it's hard to comprehend what the new mantra

of the republicans in the senate, what it is. i don't get it. as i indicated in earlier days, the senate would have passed this bill by unanimous consent, as we have done before, this same legislation. but these days, the far right, the tea party wing of the senate republican caucus, i used to just talk about the house wing of the tea party, but it's over here now -- who think that everything has to be a fight, everything. so we're going to have to have a vote on this rather than do it by unanimous consent. the bank will hit its lending limit any day and its current authorization ends at the end of this month, may, so it will be very important work to pass the house bill as quickly as possible. if we amend the bill and send it back to the house, we have to start all over again.

the house of representatives is basically not in session this month. they are under their very difficult schedule of working two weeks on and one week off, and then sometimes longer than that, so we -- i don't know when they are going to be here. it would be so much better on a noncontroversial, very important piece of legislation. last year, 300,000 jobs -- not 30,000, mr. president. 300,000. now we understand the senate republican caucus, they want to offer amendments. the amendments are -- i don't know for sure, but just glancing at them, i think they would be relevant. we'll take a close look at them, but there is no question of the ones i am familiar with are efforts to gut the program. one of the amendments just eliminates it. how about that?

so we're going to continue looking at the amendments that we have, those that we haven't studied, look at them and try to be reasonable. so as we do that, mr. president, we're going to vote on this. i will file cloture in just a second here, which i hate to do. another motion to proceed. if there were ever a time when tom udall and jeff merkley were prophetic, it's tonight. these two young, fine senators said it was time to change the rules of the senate, and we didn't. they were right. the rest of us were wrong -- or most of us, anyway. what a shame. so here we are wasting time because of the republicans. this week we have accomplished a lot, mr. president. we had a vote on a judge and we voted on cloture on the republicans defeating our ability to get something done

with student loans. that's our workload this week. i know it's been tough. mr. president, that was sarcastic, of course, but this is just absolutely mindless what's going on. then to top it off, one of the finest members of the senate we have had ever was defeated yesterday by a man -- listen to this, mr. president -- who campaigned on the platform that there is too much compromise in the senate, and he is going to come back here and not compromise with anybody on anything. now, that's what we need in the senate -- more people who are willing to do nothing but fight. so, mr. president, i am going to do whatever i have to do to take the steps to keep this measure moving forward. i hope we can do it next week. i hope we can do it without a lot of trouble, which we already have too much.

so i have a cloture motion at the desk, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 396, h.r. 2072, an act to reauthorize the export-import bank of the united states, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the clerk not be required to read the names. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i am finished here but i just want to say again, for those that are listening here or watching, senator udall and senator merkley want to do something to change the rules regarding filibuster. if there were anything that ever needed changing in this body, it's the filibuster rule because it's been abused, abused and

abused. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i appreciate the majority leader's actions on trying to move us forward on a very important jobs bill. the export-import bank is a way to fund manufacturers in the united states so that their products can be sold around the globe. it's kind of like a small business administration finance program for exports. we know the president has said we need to increase exports, and this is a program that has been in place for decades. never controversial at this degree and now all of a sudden here we are weeks before the authorization expires, sitting here arguing over whether we can move forward on this bill. i have great respect for the united states senate, but there are sometimes when the united states senate doesn't get to work out a deal and we are presented with something that has been worked out by the house

of representatives. now, we can go back to what the majority leader said, how we got in this spot, and that is objecting to every motion to proceed, objecting to every motion to proceed, objecting to every motion to proceed. pretty soon, all the work stacks up. we try to move legislation and every motion is objected to. so the consequence is we run out of time and run out of a way to get to a compromise. in this case, guess what's happened, the house came up with the compromise. the house, even to the degree that some of the amendments that my colleagues wanted to offer got implemented into the house compromise bill that now passed the house of representatives, whatever, 300-plus votes to 93. so my colleagues basically by continuing to just try to to derail the normal process here, we have had to take now a house bill that i think encompasses many of the things that people wanted to see either in reforms

or -- or ways to make the bank more transparent, or ways to make sure that we are focusing on things that are going to help u.s. manufacturers win the day in a very, very competitive market. so by say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, yes, mr. boehner and mr. cantor worked out a compromise and so now we can again take more time here, you can analyze it, see whether you agree with that or not and i certainly like when the senate works out agreements and oftentimes we've asked our house colleagues to vote on them. but we are now with student loan bill that needs to be done, with this export-import bank that needs to be done and many other important economic agenda items that we should get to for this country. so i hope that when this cloture motion comes forward that my colleagues will realize the only things that people are trying to do now are either they can vote no on the program if they don't like it because they are

primarily amendments to defund the bank. so these aren't perfecting amendments to a compromise that's been worked out. these are people who want to express their opposition. so they'll have a chance to do that. so i hope for the sake of thousands of jobs in the united states, for the sake of u.s. competitiveness in a global market where these companies are competing with other companies all around the globe that my colleagues will take a deep breath and realize this is a compromise piece of legislation, get it done next week and on to the president's desk so that we can go about winning more jobs in a very competitive global economy. that's what we need to do and holding out one more day or three more days or another week just to get an amendment saying you hate the ex-im bank is not the way to get things done for america. i hope my colleagues will support moving ahead and get this on to the president's desk. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent the banking committee be drarnlgd from further consideration of s. 418 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 418, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to the world world war ii membef the civil air patrol. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is

discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with with no intervening n or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, i want to speak about s. 418 that we just passed. i want to thank all my colleagues for allowing this to go through on a unanimous consent basis. this is a bill to award a congressional gold medal to the world war ii members of the civil air patrol. i introduced this legislation last year and it currently has 85 cosponsors. this legislation will offer long overdue recognition to a small group of people who answered the call to duty at our nation's time of maximum danger.

70 years ago during the height of world war ii, civil air patrol members in small aircraft beganning searching for german u-boats off the atlantic coast. this was a time of jait grate peril for the nation when over 400 ships were disung sunk in u.s. waters, many in view of americans on the shore and the military did not enough aircraft and ships to stop the carnage. that's why th -- that's why the civil air patrol answered this call. their pilots were civilian volunteers flying their own airplanes on combat operations often at their own expense. the mission was for civil air patrol aircraft to force the u-boats below the surface of the water making their attacks on shipping much mor more duff and time-consuming. as soon as the pilots took to the air, the military quickly armed their aircraft. from maine to texas civil air

patrol aircraft flew these missions in pairs up to 100 miles offshore in all seasons, often in bad weather. these cap pilots, as they're known, put themselves at great risk flying at low levels with only a compass, one radio, minimal survival gear. many pilots had to ditch in the water. 26 pilots lost their lives and 90 aircraft were lost. during an 18-month period, the civil air patrol flew over 24 million miles on its ant antisubmarine coastal patrols. it spotted 173u-boats, attacked 57, sank or damaged two. it also escorted over 5,600 convoys, reported 17 floating mines, 36 bodies, 91 ships in distress and 363 survivors in the water. most importantly, cap's constant

presence over the gulf of mexico and atlantic was a major factor in pushing enemy operations away from the coast and protecting vital shipping and cargo up and down our coastlines. in 1943, german u-boat attacks ceased off the atlantic coast of the united states. one high-level german officer credited civil air patrol for being the primary reason for withdrawal, saying, "it was because of those [blank] little red airplanes." as the u-boat threat ended, civil air patrol expanded its security and emergency operations to include search-and-rescue, border patrol, forest fire patrol, disaster relief in every state in the nation. by war's end, nearly 60,000 members had participated in civil air patrol, flew 75 million miles, over 750,000 hours in support of critical home front missions.

its volunteers ranged in age from 18 to over 80. many served for the entire war while oh, most of whom later joined the military. a substantial number received belligerent certificates indicating they had participated in combat-related operations on active duty with the civil air patrol. the individual accounts of civil air prosecute papa troll pilots are too numerous to account, but just a few examples can illustrate the valor with which they served. for instance, major hugh sharp and lieutenant eddy h edwards fm rehoboth, delaware, landed their plane in high cease to rescue two other cap airmen who had to ditch their pleafnlt one crewmember was badly hurt but they were unable to take off due to a pontoon damaged during rough landing in 10-foot seas.

they made a decision to tax the aircraft back to land but they quickly discovered that the damaged infibian listed too far to the left and went around in circles. so eddy volunteered to climbed out to keep the plane in balance. the next day when a coast guard ship met the aircraft, eddy had to be carried from the wing after holding on tight lit for 11 hours in freezing and wet conditions. both pilots were awarded the first air medals of the war by president roosevelt. captain francis mat mclaughlin flew for 17 months. during that time, he along with albert crabtree ditched a fair p child 24 aircraft in the atlantic and floated in a life raft for several hours until the coast guard picked them up. they quickly became members of the "duck club," an exclusive organization that recognized

those who survived a cap ditching. there would soon be new mexico that club, as i mentioned. when the coastal patrol ended, matt went to mass to to you aerial targets, the cap's second most dangerous duty after the coastal patrol. seven cap pilots and observers would be shot down an killed during gunnery practice. matt who served the entire war on active duty with the civil you are a patrol had just passed away at the end of 2011. another cap veteran was charles compton who flew from atlantic city new jersey on antisubmarine and convoy escort missions. he recently noted that "convoys could be attacked at anytime. we had a war on on and the threat of german submarines off the east coast. our job was to make it less dangerous for the submarines to surface without being detected."

charles who lives near chicago turned 95 last summer and remembers during these dangerous missions pilots often used sunken ships as points of reference to help them navigate over open water. he added that, unfortunately, sunken ships were plentiful at that time. recently recognized for his service with civil air patrol's distinguished service award, he credits the exceptional efforts of his fellow atlantic city squadron members for the honor he received. these are just three stories but they're i will u illustrative oy world war i heroes. they serve as a powerful reminder. dedication and service that all gave to our nation. when the war ended, civil air patrol members received the recognition they deserved. their story over time, however, was lost to much of the nation. this congressional gold medal will ensure that this story is told over and over again for future generations and recognize

the civil air patrol and its world war i members for their critically important service to our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: we are presently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president.

i'm here to close the senate for the day, but before i do that i wanted to speak for a moment about the ongoing and deliberately overlooked problem of carbon pollution and what it is doing to our planet. and in the context of these remarks, i want to first ask unanimous consent to put into the record an article entitled "game over for the climate," written by jim hanson and published in yesterday's "new york times." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: what this article says, it begins with two simple sentences: "global warming isn't a prediction. it is happening." he talks about the dangers of

the canada tar sands and what that means for us if we go ahead with that project. his conclusion is this: "if canada proceeds and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. canada's tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumin, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. more co2 in those tar sands than emitted by global oil use in our entire history." he looks at the recent extreme weather that people not only across the country but across the world have been noticing and concludes, "we can say with high confidence that the recent heat waves in texas and russia and the one in europe in 2003 which

killed tens of thousands were not natural events. they were caused by human-induced climate change." so the risk that we face is a real one, and we're actually beginning to see it happen in present time. the tar sands that he talks about, he says "contain enough carbon, 240 giga tons to add 120 parts per million to our atmosphere." as i said before on the senate floor, we've lived for 8,000 centuries within a range between 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon in our atmosphere. that's the bandwidth in which which the human species has lived on this planet. and we have gone rocketing out of that bandwidth in recent

years. we're now at 390 parts per million out of a bandwidth for 800,000 years between 170 and 300 parts per million. the tar sands would add 120 parts per million to that. that would take us to 510, if my math is right. tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the united states, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. and this really shows what dr. hansen describes as -- it really shows the folly of what he describes as a frantic stampede we're now engaged in to extract every fossil fuel through mountaintop removal, mining, hydraulic fracturing, tar sands, tar shale extraction and deep ocean and arctic

drilling. jim hansen is somebody who is worth listening to. he has been writing about this now for more than 30 years. i would like to also add to the record as a part of these remarks a posting by neil wagner entitled "hansen had it right in 1981 climate report." the -- he says a recently rediscovered 1981 paper written by nasa atmospheric physicist james hansen and others has been analyzed and found to be impressively accurate about the course of climate change since its publication. the 10-page paper which was published in the journal "science" had been overlooked for decades when researchers john van oldenborg and raine

harsma uncovered it and began scouring its contents. the paper's impressive prognostication, the paper's impressive prognostication is the best kind of vindication for hansen who has suffered more than his share of the slings and arrows from climate deniers in the media. a complex world of climate science he concludes rarely enjoys such clear validation. when such an opportunity presents itself, we owe it to ourselves to make some noise about it. so with appreciation to jim hansen for how the actual science has borne him out over the past 30 years and with respect for the predictions that he makes, we should as soon as we can begin to address ourselves to this problem. jim is not alone in this. the -- an array of scientific organizations wrote us all a letter back in october of 2009.

its conclusion is pretty clear and stark in scientific language. observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. these conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer review science. we act as if it's something new, but in fact it's not. a determination that carbon dioxide would warm the planet as it increased its concentration

in the atmosphere was figured out around the time of the american civil war by an irish scientist who worked in england, john tindle, and what tindle discovered we have proven to be true as since then we have dumped gigaton after gigaton of garbon in our atmosphere, loading it up to the point where we are now, as i have said before, well outside the bounds that have protected our species for 800,000 years on this planet. the scale of what 8,000 centuries means is perhaps best measured against the time that we, scientists now believe mankind first began to engage in agriculture, first started scratching at the earth and putting seeds in the ground. before then, we were primarily hunter and gatherers, leading a very primitive life.

so we have gone from beginning to scratch at the earth and plant things to the human species that we are today in 10,000 years. we have lived within this bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million for 8,000 centuries. and to veer outside of it is a significant and hazardous thing, and i'm delighted that mr. hansen, despite all the abuse that has been heaped on him, continues his work on this, and i hope that the time comes when we start to listen to the voice of what our planet is telling us, the voice of what our scientists are telling us, the voice of what our children are telling us and not just the voice of what the lobbyists for the polluting industries, particularly the oil and gas industries, are telling us, because frankly the lobbyists for the polluting oil and gas industries are not telling us the truth.

they are not telling us the truth. the truth is becoming increasingly apparent, and the problem is that as time goes by, you can reach tipping points that are irrecoverable, and it would be really tragic for us to look back and think that if we had been able to act on time, if we had listened to the signals of our earth and planet, the signals that are plain in our face, on time, we would have made a world that was better and safer for our children, but instead in our folly and our greed and our willingness to listen to the falsehoods of these polluters, we shot past that point and there is no way to recover it now. so with that said, let me turn to the closing business of the senate today and ask unanimous consent that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of h.r. 4967 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4967, an act to prevent the terms of the temporary office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed with the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to senate resolution 456 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 456, commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifice made by the federal,

state and local law enforcement officers who have been killed or injured in the line of duty. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: and i will just take a moment to recognize the significance of that measure. i know the presiding officer in his many years as attorney general of the state of connecticut became keenly aware of the sacrifices that our law enforcement officers are too often called upon to make to protect our community. in the state of rhode island, we have recently lost a providence police officer killed in the line of duty. so it is a somber and important act that we take. i ask unanimous consent that this resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements be placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the consideration of senate

resolution 458 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 458, commemorating may 15, 2012, as the assess way centennial -- sesquicentennial of the founding of the department of agriculture. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble also be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i will now ask unanimous consent that on monday, may 14, 2012, at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar numbers 570 and 571, that there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in

order, that any related statements be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 14. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the majority leader be recognized. further, that when the senate resumes legislative session following the votes on the russell and tharp nominations, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2072. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i am informed that it is the majority leader's intention to resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 2072, the export-import bank

reauthorization bill, on monday at 4:30 p.m. there will be an hour of debate on the russell and tharp nominations. at 5:30 p.m., there will be up to three roll call votes on confirms of the russell nomination, confirmation of the tharp nomination and on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to h.r. 2072, the export-import bank bill. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it now adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 14. >> so that wraps up another day of senate floor action. earlier today lawmakers worked on a bill reauthorizing the export/import bank's charter. they also continued debate on a bill that seeks to prevent the doubling of student loan interest rates. currently set at 3.4%, they're due to rise to 6.8% on july 1st.

more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span2. and don't forget about c-span's congressional directory. inside you'll find contact information for each member of the house and senate as well as district maps, committee assignments and more. also cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/shop. >> furthermore, i remain optimistic about the future of indiana and the united states of america. the news media and political leaders spend a great deal of time talking about what is broken in our country, and to some degree that is the nature of their business. but we should also have confidence that the unique american experiment is alive and well, and be our political system still can work. >> tuesday night longtime

indiana republican senator richard lugar lost to primary challenge everything richard mourdock. look back at senator lugar's term including his work in the '90s with senator sam nunn on a nuclear disarmament program in the soviet union, all online and searchable at the c-span video library. >> i thought it was important to write a book that took people's movement seriously. so the movements that elected obama, how did they build over time. obama didn't come out of nowhere. 2003, 2004, what was happening? also the tea party movement which seemed to come out of nowhere. what was its origin, how did it work? occupy wall street. i thought those were important things to take seriously, to look at from a social movement, we the people perspective. >> on after words, van jones on social movements in america today. saturday night at 10 eastern on booktv. also this weekend, the american spectator founder contends that

modern liberalism is flawed in "the death of liberalism," sunday night at 11. part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> now, a conversation with the republican candidate for u.s. senate in indiana from today's washington journal, this is about 35 minutes. >> host: well, now, joining us from indianapolis on the washington journal is richard mourdock who knocked off 36-year senator richard lugar in the indiana gop primary on tuesday. mr. mourdock, thank you for being with us. if we could, let's start with what we were talking with our audience about a little earlier this morning, and that was president obama's statement endorsing gay marriage yesterday. want to get your reaction to that. >> well, i was surprised that he made the statement, this being a political year, especially a presidential election year. because as i've traveled the state of indiana in the last 15 months, i've not heard the issue

come up, i don't think, more than twice. and clearly, in a state like indiana that is very conservative that the president won in 2008 it will certainly work to his disadvantage here, and i see that happening in the other critical so-called swing stateses, states with large independent voters, i think that's going to be more of a negative than the plus for the president. >> host: what about your personal view? if you make it to the senate and it comes before the senate, what would your personal view be? >> guest: well, i am one who believes that marriage should be one man, one woman. i have watched here in indiana as i think the, believe the number's right, i think 36 other states have also passed the so-called gay marriage ban amendments that's happened here in indiana. i appreciate the fact that a lot of states are picking this up as a statewide issue. to me, it's a fascinating issue in the sense that so many states are trying to preemptively act ahead of what the federal government might do. in other words, those states

fear what the federal government might do, and it's really a very unusual thing that we see. i can't think, and i'm a bit of a history buff, but i can't think of another instance or issue where states have so rushed ahead of what they expect some federal judge might do in the future. >> host: why do you think you beat richard lugar? >> guest: well, was all politics are local -- because all politics are local politics. a couple things came into play. first and pore most, senator -- foremost, senator lugar had been in the united states for 36 years. th. he's really losttown with the people of -- he's really lost touch with the people of indiana. he has not physically had a residence in indiana since 1977. he actually filed the lawsuit to make the legal argument you can't make me live in indiana. hoosiers were very offended by that. over the several weeks after he filed that lawsuit, i could feel it like a shock wave going

across indiana. hoosiers are pretty simple people. we like to know who represents us, we like to know that they share our values. they want to eat an ear of corn with us at the county fair, have a chicken dinner with us, and i think mr. lugar had separated himself. >> host: mr. mourdock, want to get your reaction to what senator lugar had to say in a statement: if mr. mourdock is elected, i want him to be a good senator, but that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to washington. he and i share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting, partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for hoosiers in the senate. >> guest: well, my reaction to that is, obviously, it's based on what a campaign theme of ours was which is that we have a lot of failures in washington, d.c. right now. and for all the cries for let's

have bipartisanship, let's not forget that bipartisanship has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. we don't need bipartisanship as much as we need the principle that says we live within our means. when it comes to negotiating, to getting things done with the other side, i can certainly do that. but we need to stand on those principles that say, as i mentioned a moment ago, we live within our means. to your first question, why did we win this election, it's because hoosiers right now are incredibly proud of their state. i've heard democrats, and they identify themselves as democrats, come up to me and say i am so proud of indiana because there have only byrne two states -- been two states that have kept their head above water fiscally, and indiana's one of the two. we've cut spending back, we've reduced the size of government, our credit rating has gone up while the nation's has gone down. and people here in indiana want to see that kind of leadership in washington, and they know to

get it we have to have people who are going to stand on those rock-solid principles, and they know i will. >> host: now, mr. mourdock, you sued -- i want to get this right -- you sued the federal government regarding it bailout of the auto companies s. that a correct statement? >> guest: let me set it up a little more correctly, if i may. as state treasurer of indiana, i represent the indiana state police pensioners as a trustee for their pension fund. they own the secure debt of chrysler corporation back in 2008. when the federal government organized the bankruptcy of chrysler in may, ultimately, of 2009, all of the rules of secured creditors, all of that law, the bankruptcy law that had been in existence since the first congress of the united states was thrown out the window. and as a result, our secured creditors -- it happened to be not just teachers, i'm sorry, not just police officers, but retired teachers here in indiana, had their property ripped away from them in an unprecedented way, and in that case i did file a lawsuit.

we went to the united states supreme court. first time they failed to take the case, the second time they ultimately ruled in our favor by vacating the earlier court's decision. >> host: is the auto bailout of 2010 different than when chrysler got bailed out, and dick lugar was part of this, the 1978 bailout, i think it was 1978. was that a different situation? >> guest: yeah, it was a totally different situation in the financial structure of the deal. there the united states government stepped forward to offer loan guarantees. this this case, in the chrysler and ultimately the gm case as well -- though indiana was not involved in the gm bankruptcy -- it was a totally different deal. because secured creditors, and not to go too much into the weeds, but if it sounds like complex finance, it's not. if you're a secured creditor, you've loaned money to a business, and they've guaranteed you in the event of a bankruptcy you will be the first in line to get your money back. the other types of creditors are called non-secured creditors,

and they have no guarantee they'll get any monies back, but if every creditor is paid back 100 cents on the dollar, whatever's left over goes to nonsecured. by all accounts, in the case of chrysler there were adequate resources and value in a normal bankruptcy to pay the secured creditors back 100 cents on the dollar, but the government decided that's not what they wanted to do. so they turned the rules upside down arbitrarily to say secured creditors were going to the bottom of the pile, then they hand selected non-secured creditors, most notably, the united autoworkers who were non-secured who suddenly got better value than the secured creditors. government's role should never be to pick winners and losers. just today walking here, i was listening that the hostess company, the twinkies people are in bankruptcy. is the government going to rush forward and bail them out? no. what's the difference? why is government picking

winners and losers? >> host: richard mourdock, two-term state treasurer of indiana, former county official in evansville, indiana, in the southern part of the state. mr. mourdock, you ran for office prior to being elected county commissioner, correct? >> guest: i did, indeed. >> host: and what was the situation? >> guest: i ran for congress in the eighth congressional district as it's known in national politics, the bloody eighth district of indiana. ran in 1988 in a primary and lost. i was the nominee in 1990 and lost. came back, ran again in 1992 and received 49% of the vote, obviously, lost. was urged to run again in 199, and i showed my political genius by saying i don't think '94's going to be a good year for republicans. of course, that became the republican revolution. i was elected county commissioner, as you mentioned, and i served two terms there. >> host: have you had a conversation with senator lugar since the election? >> guest: no, i have not. i spoke with him the saturday before the election.

we were at a joint appearance, and we had a moment at the end of that event, and i said to him, senator, i've said it hundreds of times, and i've never meant it more sincerely than this moment, i have great respect for you, and no matter what happens on tuesday night, that will continue to be the case. senator lugar is a great man. this city of indianapolis, many describe it as america's most nearly-perfect city. it was put on a course to be modernized because of mayor dick lugar. he was a great united states senator, he's a great hoosier, a great american. he's been known as an international statesman. i have nothing but respect for mr. lugar, and maybe it's because i have lost those elections i spoke of a moment ago that i have such empathy for him today. i've not lost a race as an incumbent, but i can only imagine the sense of frustration he has after serving the people of indiana for 36 years to lose the way he did on tuesday night. so my thoughts are with him. he is a good man, and i hope we

might talk soon, and i would certainly appreciate his support if he chooses to give it. >> host: we're going to begin with a call from indianapolis, peter, on our republican line. hi, peter. >> caller: yeah, hi. mr. mourdock, going on with what you were saying earlier, i know senator lugar had some pretty harsh things to say about you, and i know that he wasn't at the unity press conference that you guys gave earlier, but are there plans for an endorsement, and be do you plan to speak to him soon? >> guest: well, traditionally in this situation, obviously, the person who was not successful calls the one who was. it's an etiquette, frankly, i don't want to break for fear if i give him that call, it'd be the i told you so, and i don't mean it that way at all. i would not put the senator in that position. i would certainly welcome his support. but, again, we're moving forward, and governor daniels was very kind to pull that conference together yesterday,

and as i think our state chairman, eric holcomb, said at the news conference, the moment was meant to be richard's moment -- meaning this richard -- with all of our fellow statewide elected officials, and it was very kind of the governor to step out behind us. again, mr. lugar, if he chooses to give us a call, we're certainly going the take that call, i'd be delighted to sit down and talk with him to learn more, especially given his written release that was quoted here earlier this morning. >> host: shepherdville, louisiana, stephen on our democrats' line. please, go ahead with your question or comment for richard mourdock. stephen? >> caller: hello. >> host: please, go ahead. >> caller: i'm from indiana. >> host: all right, i apologize to you. >> caller: that's okay. indiana, if i'm not mistaken, has closed financial books. you watch channel 8, they understand that they are reviewing many thousands if not

millions of dollars which are hidden. but my question really is how can you help fix, and do you believe in social security and welfare? and that's my question. [laughter] >> guest: okay. in reverse order, do i believe in social security? absolutely. um, the situation we have with social security and medicare, obviously, with all that's going on in the federal government, there need to be fix bees applied and very quickly. i happen to be someone who agrees with something congressman paul ryan put forward in his plan that says there's a fundamental social contract that we have today with our citizens. i think anyone who's over the anal of 55 who's spent their working life understanding what the rules were, those promises have to be kept, every penny. however, i think, two, because we have to face the fiscal realities that exist in the future, we have to start telling people who are between the age of 50 and 55 and 45 and 50 and 40 and 45 today that there's going to be a different set of rules. and we also need to give them a different set of incentives to invest and be save for

themselves for both health care and social security. i don't think there's anything more immoral than making promises you know you can't keep and, unfortunately, that's what we're doing today, especially with social security for younger americans. to your question on welfare, you know, i am certainly one who believes there needs, again, to be welfare reform. when i was a county commissioner, as odd as it may sound, i actually crafted through our county commission a unique welfare-to-work project that used money from a local casino operation to fund to help people who were willing to help themselves, who were willing to get job training or even those who had what we called circumstantial disruptions in their life. we made funding available for them, and it was limited in time, limited in the amount of money, and it was, basically, something they could use as they needed it. but again, it was limited, and i think that's what welfare should be. it shouldn't be the perpetual lifestyle that all too often it's become. to your comment on the books of indiana, you know, the books of indiana, the public records of indiana are just that, they are

public. the auditor has opened through a new web site transparency of indiana, and it's something that i would encourage you to check out because our books are out there. there's the annual report, the comprehensive annual financial report of the state of indiana, and we're always glad to help the public find those. and thank you for the question. >> host: ben is an independent in hot springs, arkansas. ben, please, go ahead. you're on "the washington journal." >> caller: thank you so much, kudos to c-span. when you were talking about the bailouts a moment ago, i think another thing that can be considered is if my recollection is correct, chrysler was manufacturing m1 tank engines, and there was a national defense issue involved there that played into that. but my main question, my question to you today has to do with the relations between the federal government and the state government. let's use the earlier example about the gay marriages. it's my belief that it is emphatically the province of the state to deal with issues like

gay marriage, abortion, gun control and that the federal government has very little, if anything, to do with these issues. i think there's a great deal of fuzzy logic being utilized these days, sometimes purposely and sometimes out of ignorance, phrases like due process, equal protection, separation of church and state are thrown around willy-nilly, and i don't mean to say that i'm someone who knows everything, but i think there are a lot of people, a lot of citizens who have failed to educate themselves as to what these things really mean. >> host: mr. mourdock? is -- >> guest: well, to the statement you don't think you know everything, believe me, i don't either. the last 24 hours i've been asking myself how does a geologist end up as a candidate for the united states senate. but not being a lawyer, and to your point, you know, i am one of those people though i'm not a lawyer, i've read the constitution many times, and i

understand from reading that and from reading the federalist papers that we were originally designed to have a relatively weak federal government and stronger state governments. the several points you made on abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc., being more the state issues, that is, as i said in the opening question, why i find this issue so interesting. the gay marriage issue with the states preemptively acting as i don't recall they've done in american history before. i think that's saying that there is an awakening at the state level for a need to get back to the more federalist principles of the weaker federal government and the be stronger state government. i think historians are going to look back at this time in another 100, 150 yearsesses and note what's been happening these last few years. was as our federal -- because as our federal government has grown larger and larger, albeit more powerful and more powerful, it's sucking up resources that are ultimately slowing down, if not killing our economy. and i don't know that our founding fathers ever envisioned

the national economy that we have in the sense that so much of our revenues would be going to washington, but they designed the federalist system so there could be prosperity at the local levels knowing it wasn't going to be a product of what happened at the federal government. and today we have so much federal government seemingly feeling it is its duty, its deaths any to hire people, to guarantee jobs and to utilize resources so it can distribute them as it sees fit. i think it goes against our historical background, and i think we are on the cusp of seeing something that is going to be historical over the next few years. >> host: mr. mourdock s there anyone in the senate that you a admire the most? >> guest: absolutely, and there are several of them, but i certainly am a fan of senator jim demint be. someone i've come to appreciate is senator mike lee from utah. when he and i first met, i will tell you just anecdotally, i walked in his office. i was meeting with the chief of staff, and the senator walked in, stuck out his hand, didn't

say, hi, how are things in indiana, didn't even say what's going on in your campaign, his very first words were, what do the words promote the general welfare mean to you? and i didn't realize he was a constitutional lawyer, but we had a great discussion talking about the enumerated powers and the various sections of the constitution, and though he's the youngest member do, should i be success. , i think he may be my mentor. >> host: and the washington times this morning, a large op-ed by senator rand paul: "tea party wins in indiana." now, we have this e-mail from illinois man: you have stated that compromising is making the democrats agree to republican policy and nothing less. more gridlock will result because if cloture rules are enacted by the opposition, 60 votes will be needed for passage. your thoughts. >> well, again, the comments i've made many times about bipartisanship, let's start with this recent bit of history. when the obamacare bill was

passed, i don't remember, i don't remember any conversations about bipartisanship. in fact, not a single republican voted for it in the house or the senate because they had the votes, the democrats did, and they were going to jam it through and ram it through. every time since when we hear about bipartisanship, it's about the need for the democrats to bring a few republicans over to their side to get something done. what i've seen many times is, to me, the highlight of being in this crazy business of politics is the opportunities i have to sit in front of a camera or, even better, standing at a microphone in front of an audience and inflicting my opinion upon them with the idea that i might change their way of thinking. you know, i am a conservative. i believe in limited government and, frankly, i'm more frustrated with republicans right now than i am with democrats. because even the republicans who will vote the right way in washington, who will make those conservative votes aren't coming back to their homes, they're not coming back to their districts, they're not coming back to their states. more importantly, they're not

getting in front of the unfriendly crowds to make the argument why their vote was the right vote, why limited government is a good thing, why the path to prosperity comes by rolling back goth, not making it bigger. i want to be not only on the campaign trail, but as a united states senator putting out that message so republicans who think like i think can become the majority, and then i'll be happy to have bipartisanship when the democrats come to join us just as they now expect us to join them. >> host: mr. mower dock has an under-- mr. mourdock has an undergraduate degree from defiance college and a master's from ball state university. what's your master's in, mr. mourdock? >> guest: in geology. i spent 31 years in the private sector, i've been a full-time government employee for six years, during my time as state treasurer. worked in the energy business. it's an unusual background, as i said a few moments ago, and my head's been spinning a bit to think that someone who worked in the private sector for 31 years

chasing drill rigs around would ever be in this wonderful position. it's still kind of shocking. only in america. >> host: how much did you spend in the primary? >> guest: um, i haven't seen the final figures. i'm going to guess probably about $2.6 million. we were probably outspent in total three to one. both those numbers are exclusive of what might have been put in the race from the so-called independent expenditure campaigns. i'll tell you this -- if there was a moral from this lesson if i may, peter, and i haven't seen the rand paul article you referenced, i was many times called a tea party candidate, and i know certainly the democrats are already trying to label me as this right-wing extremist. but the day i announced in february of 2011, on that day i released a list of three-quarters of indiana's republican county chairmen who signed on to support me, i released a list of over half the members of the republican state

committee who signed on to support me. on day one. after that the tea parties came onboard, and they were a tremendous source of volunteers. the real lesson of what happened here on tuesday was an overwhelming victory against a 36-year incumbent is that when people get motivated, when they get energized, when they are committed, they can make all the difference in the world. it was an unbelievable thing. we had identified 1300 critical republican precincts that we wanted to make sure we had someone attending during primary day, and be every one of those precincts for all 12 hours had at least one person there. numbers from last night as we were totaling them up, it looks like we had 18,000 man hours worked just on election day on our behalf. it was an incredible thing. >> host: and, mr. mourdock's opponent this fall will be representative joe donnelly, a democrat from indiana. he represents the south bend area of indiana, and we, the

washington journal has invited congressman donnelly to appear on this program as well. participate know beach, florida, scott, democrat. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question to you, you know i've been in the army eight years, honorably discharged, and i was just happening to -- two thugs tried to rob me. now, me being as a fella, you know, my question is how would you handle the situation where, you know -- [inaudible] how can you handle that situation to where, you know, it seems like i'm being stereotyped, right? they don't have no idea i'm honorably discharged. i can understand that people do ruthless crimes and stuff,

but -- >> host: you know what, scott? let's see if there's anything there that mr. mourdock wants to respond to. >> guest: well, first, scott, thank you for your service, and i obviously don't know the details of the case you're talking about, but urge you to talk to the folks with either the local civil rights if you think it's that type of stereotype or get good legal counsel. certainly, as a veteran we appreciate your service to the country, and you deserve to have full benefits and rights to protection under the law. >> host: maurice e-mails in: what three vital policy matters do you share with the administration that could be nurtured to positively improve our society? >> guest: um, i may be stretched to go to three for a moment, but let me tell you one that i do appreciate they've been working on, and that is i think they've done a much better job -- even than the bush administration -- in opening up better area of

negotiation for the economic ties we have in southeast asia. the emphasis they've put on asian trade, i think, is a very good thing, i think it's a very healthy thing. so we need to be looking to make sure we have those doors open for us. obviously, with what's happening in china, india, vietnam even there's going to be more and more trade from the united states over there x they deserve kudos for that. >> host: osage beach, missouri. steven, independent line. please, go ahead with your question or comment for richard mourdock. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. you mentioned hostess filing for bankruptcy a moment ago. last year the top eight executives gave themselves 80% raises. this year they're filing for bankruptcy and trying to take over 75% of the pensions away from its workers. i would just like to hear your opinion on that, sir. both you gentlemen have a good day, i'll hang up and listen to it. >> guest: well, thank you for the question, and my comment regarding hostess was the simple fact that i was making that

parallel between the chrysler workers, the line workers who were losing their jobs, and they were getting protection from the government, and now in the hostess case, you know, those people have lives, too, and they're not getting the so-called protection and benefit of government that was afforded in the chrysler case. to the specifics of executives, i'm going to go beyond hostess with this answer, obviously. there has been this disparity over the last 20 years really where we've seen in public company bees a lot of executive getting raises, bonuses and such that are way over the top, and certainly that's not something i think is appropriate. i'm a very strong believer in something called employee stock ownership programs. in fact, i wouldn't be sitting here today if i had not personally been a member of an esop where the employees literally end up owning the company. as someone who's greatly concerned about the direction of american competitiveness, you know, i hope in the united states senate to be the leading advocate to have more employee-owned businesses in this country. because when the employees own

the stock, they would make sure that the very types of abuse you just talked about don't happen. is there a risk for employees who own a business? of course there is just as there's a risk in investing in any single business. but we have to find a way to encourage entrepreneurship again in america. we have to have every american be thinking of that american dream of owning the place they work for, to own their own business. it doesn't mean they have to be experts in every knowledge of business management, but it means they get to benefit in the long term from the investment of their own labor. that is a wonderful american concept. i'll tell you, when esops were first formed in the 1970s and early '80s, it was one of those unique areas where there was total bipartisanship because the republicans were honest enough back then to say social security was going to have some trouble meeting its obligations, and this would be a way to have people help save for themselves, and democrats were willing to say let's look out for the

interest of the working men and women here. so i hope to be a true advocate for esops because that way you have better distribution of what the company makes based on the approval of the stock owners -- the employees -- and it causes every american to have skin in the game where they work, and that's a great thing. >> host: george from orlando, florida, e-mails in: mr. mourdock, as a republican you want less government, but you want to stop gay marriage. it's none of the government's business who gets married to who whom. >> guest: well, as i said at the outset, i this i that's a -- i think that's an issue where the states get to decide. i heard the president use those very terms yesterday, e personally think, i personally think marriage should be between a man and a woman. i think it's in the best interests of our long-term society to have that, but i understand other people can certainly disagree with that point of view. >> host: jeremy is a republican, alexandria, virginia. here in the suburbs.

good morning, jeremy. >> caller: thanks for the information about pfizer. i've got one comment and then one question. the comment relates to the same-sex marriage thing. mr. mourdock, if you want good information about why same-sex marriage has problems, i suggest you look up helen alvarez, she's a law professor at george mason university, alvare, i believe is how it's spelledded. and my comment relates to, you know, what is the states' interest in gay marriage? the state has an interest in promoting things that are good for a society, and mrs. alvare has good information about, you know, conclusive -- >> host: do you know what, jeremy? we are so running out of time, and we're going to have to leave your comment stand there and take this last call from julie, an independent in st. paul, minnesota. julie, please, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. um, pertaining to social security reform, um, how -- i'm

54. how does this fundamental social contract apply to me? and be also i have heard that paul ryan through albeit, um, misfortunate circumstances has already received his social security benefits, so i want mine. [laughter] >> guest: well, i have no idea or comment on your reference to mr. ryan there as far as what he may or may not have received. but the point is that we have to quit making promises we cannot keep. and at some point when a law passes, there will be a date -- i think -- in the near future that there's going to be some fundamental reform. and i think the only way to be as fair as possible, and i realize that's not the same thing as being fair but, unfortunately, there are many parts of life that are not fully fair, that we have to be able to say to groups above the age of 55, you've worked your whole life, that is the contract. but take heart here, if what

i've just suggested ever happens, i'm sure you'll be 55 by them. people need to know what they can expect from government, and the saturday part is right now -- sad part is right now we're not doing that. we are sitting on a time bomb, and that fuse, by the way, is interest rates. and by the way, that number doesn't include those monies that are owed to social security recipients in the future. that's totally separate from that. if we are ever hoping to meet the obligations of our national debt and of social security, we have to get the economy growing again. we cannot cut our way out of this big problem. we cannot tax our way out of it. there's simply not enough money being generated. we have to grow our way out of it by getting an annual growth rate in the gross domestic product of at least 3.5-4% a year. that's going to be a challenge, but do i believe we can do it? yes, i do. i wouldn't with doing this if i had the thinking that somehow i was getting onboard a ship that

was getting ready to go down. we need to rebuild america, and i want to be a part of that. >> host: one of the criticisms senator lugar campaigned on was all the outside-of-indiana money that was coming into your campaign. do you have a comment on that? >> guest: well, he did many times make the point there was all this special interest money coming from outside the state, and i agree, there is a special interest group from all over the country came in. they're called conservatives. they are the people who would express the very things that i've spoken of this morning here with you. that we want to see government reduced. i mean, they are very concerned about the future of this country, vis-a-vis the economic issues that i spoke of in the last answer. we've got to turn things around, we have got to quit kicking the can down the road. it's a beautiful thing to be 60 years old to run for an office that, frankly, i don't have to have, and to know that i get to make the hard decisions that a lot of americans don't want to make, that a lot of senators especially and congressmen don't want to make. but they have to be made. there are going to be some rough

days ahead for us regardless of what we do. if we scale back government, some will see that as difficult. if we don't, the economic decline will be even harder. so we have some choices to make, and i want to make the right ones, and i'm ready to do it. >> host: richard mourdock is the republican nominee for u.s. senate in indiana, he defeated richard lugar on tuesday. thank you for being on "washington journal" sir. tomorrow morning we'll focus on the institute of medicine's report on the obesity rate. we'll be joined by the food and nutrition chairman, former agriculture secretary dan glickman. libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico, will take your calls about the campaign. and we'll examine the foreign-born population in the u.s. with elizabeth greco and awdty singer with the brookings institution. washington journal is live on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. >> these men go through things

and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover who were two such personally and politically different men and who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation of what become a very deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they had become to one another are really extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive in the -- exclusive club in the world. the private and public relationships of the american presidents from truman and hoover to george h.w. bush and bill clinton. sunday at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> i thought it was important to write a book that took people's movements seriously, so the movements that elected obama, how did they build over time?

obama didn't come out of nowhere, 2003, 2004, what was happening? also the tea party movement that seemed to come out of nowhere. occupy wall street. i thought those were important things to, to take seriously, to look at from a social movement, we the people perspective. >> on "after words" former white house adviser van jones on social movements in america today. saturday night at 10 eastern on booktv. also this weekend, the american spectator founder r. emmett tyrrell contends that modern liberalism is flawed in "the death of liberalism." sunday night at 11, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> you know, i had my ambition to walk where john smith and pocahontas walked. well, i got to pocahontas, and this makes a tech tang lahr space that would be the chance el. pocahontas marries john rolf in

this church in 1614, so i guarantee you i'm standing exactly a little deeper than where she was, but this is where she stood when she got married. >> this saturday, tour the jamestown colony dig with william kelso. the colony has yielded more than one and a half million unique artifacts. take the tour starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern. visit the rediscovery lab at 2 with senior curator and then join in the conversation answering your questions live saturday at 2:30 be p.m. eastern. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> the partnership for public service in washington, d.c. hosted a discussion tuesday focusing on the government work force and its services to the public. four administration officials, the secretaries of health and human services, transportation, and homeland security, and the gsa's acting administrator were on hand to participate. this is public service

recognition week. it's just over an hour. >> good morning, everybody. my name is max, i'm the president of the partnership for public service, and we are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to making government more effective by focusing on people. and it's truly a great pleasure to welcome all of you here on behalf of the public employee round table and the partnership at public service recognition week. one week in the year when you have federal employees who, hopefully, are the subject of respect and accolades, people who otherwise all the rest of the 52 weeks -- or 51 weeks -- are very much focused on trying to serve the american public. we want to make sure that the american public learns more about what their public servants are doing for them. we have an exceptional, truly exceptional panel here. i'm very excited myself to hear from beginning with secretaries -- i'm going to get this right because i know

there's supposed to be a special order -- secretaries lahood, sebelius, napolitano and acting administrator of gsa, taan tangor linney. before we get there, however, i also want to make sure i recognize one of our colleagues here at the partnership who made all this possible and has done much more. so i say this as psrw, i also like to think of it as jsrw or jim seymour recognition week. [laughter] he's been with the partnership for nine years, and he's our director of events and programs and salute jim all the incredible things you've done for nine years in the partnership, so thank you very much. [applause] now, clearly, um, if you pay attention to the news, the thing that you hear about most these days or the avalanche of news stories we've heard have really been focused when you think about government are on the $800,000 conference at gsa and inappropriate activities of a

few secret service agents in the cartagena. what's been missing entirely is the positive side of the ledger, and what i hope, again, today we will be able to do is talk more about that positive side. one way of doing that is to look at some of the specific achievements that federal employees are doing and what are the other program that is we run at the partnership, service to america medals, and we are announcing or recognizing 33 finalists tomorrow at a breakfast. wanted just to take a couple minutes to talk about three of those finalists because, again, i think in the balance of things you'll get an idea quickly about what's more important here. so we have dr. lynn moffinson from the institute of health, and she played a pivotal role in curtailing the transfer of hiv from infants to their mothers. we also have kelly who directed more than 300 young aher corp.

members in missouri. they gal galvanized the effortsf 60,000 unaffiliated volunteers, and they opened a missing persons help line, operated a donation warehouse and be helped rebuild homes. this has become a model for fema about how to engage in these incidents going forward. then you have louis who led a high-stakes undercover operation on three continents to capture the world's most notorious arms trafficker. so, again, i could go through all 33 of these, but you get the point. we will, frankly, not get what we want out of government if all we do is tear it down and we fail to recognize the good things that it does. and this is particularly important today. obviously, the budget difficulties, globalization, shrinking, you know, economic difficulties and, of course, i've got to mention increased partisanship. government is going to need to change. there's no doubt about that. it's going to have to adapt to

the new demands and constraints we face, but we will not succeed in getting the government that we want if we treat our federal employees as an unnecessary cost instead of a national asset. in this new century, we need to focus on building a federal work force with the advanced skills of the day. on a knowledge-based economy including ones with a more global and multisector approach. we have to give them, though, the tools they need to succeed. to succeed more generally, however, is going to take great leadership, and i am really pleased and proud to be able to be on a stage with great leaders here, um, that you'll hear from in a second. it's also my great pleasure to welcome the podium cokie roberts, a board member of the partnership for public service, author, journalist, thinker extraordinaire. thank you very much, cokie roberts. [applause] >> thank you. and excuse my silly wrist, this

is evidence that ladies of a certain age should be more careful. [laughter] and welcome, all of you. i must say it is very brave of you to come here today. [laughter] secretary sebelius, um, you know the secretary of health and human services, former governor. secretary lahood, secretary of transportation, former member of congress. secretary napolitano, secretary of the department of homeland security, also a former governor. and dan tangor linney who you probably don't know. he is the really brave person because he is the acting head of the general services administration. he was at treasury for a long time and was in charge of management there, so it's good to have him at general services administration now. but it is a rough time. it is wonderful that we are having public service recognition week because we need to be doing that in this period of time.

um, just on the way in on npr i was hearing complaints about immigration rules, you were being picketed yesterday, i think, secretary napolitano. you didn't even notice, but they were. [laughter] >> thank you for sharing that. [laughter] >> and, of course, the stories about the airport scanners not picking up bombs. great, you know? we're stripped naked and still they're not getting our bomb. [laughter] >> i'm going to have to respond to that later. [laughter] >> secret service, gsa, butts of presidential jokes at the white house correspondents' dinner. of course, health care is never an issue. [laughter] and, um, as i recall, secretary lahood, you have a bill in conference at the capitol today, a bill that is seemingly not

proceeding apace, the highway bill. i remember when it used to be fairly easy to pace highway bills, but not now. so it's a rough time and nice that you all have come. i know you've really come to take questions from people who are public servants, and rather than members of my profession. but they are here -- we are here as well, so, um, it's all fair game. um, but go ahead, secretary napolitano, you answer that business about airport scanners, and then we'll go from there. >> well, i think the reports in the paper today illustrate the kinds of threats that we confront, and there is nothing we do at tsa that's not gauged to be a risk-based approach and give us multiple opportunities, many layers to prevent these plots from succeeding. so we are taking all appropriate steps at this time, in this era of the world where we have terrorist groups to make sure

that it -- awd awd tiff strip search, body scanners. they show the software has evolved, it's like a pencil figure, be able to allow a transportation security officer to have a shot as the last layer we have, really -- or second to last, i think the cockpit is the last, the airplane itself. >> i'm sorry, there seems to be some problem with your microphone cut anything and out. maybe if you can just, you know, position it better toward you. >> how's that? >> that sounds good. >> good? [laughter] >> um, but it's still true, you know, that people get very fed up going through airports. i mean, i go through airports way too often, and it is, it is irritating. >> it can be, yeah. ..

the gsa probably was something most americans at never heard of until there was a notorious conference with mind readers and

magicians. >> no magicians. >> no magicians? [laughter] cementer i think magicians are a good idea myself. we need as much help as we can get these days the they do something with nothing. what do you do to try to get the word about about what the gsa actually is and try to get past this. >> people have now heard the name and hopefully what we can begin to do is make people understand the gsa is the government agency. that's been part of the issue and what people have talked about gsa and the eve ensler around the western region conference there's a huge irony in the fact this is an organization supposed to be about saving money but the point is everyday 12,500 actually do

focus on saving government money, hundreds of millions of dollars in things like the telecommunications systems we provide we save over a hundred million dollars by managing the suite in a centrally and efficiently. we save the government billions of dollars by using our scale to a quieter more efficiently so what we need to do and talked about doing now is of assault and double our efforts around saving people like my colleagues money so we can make sure they are able to deliver. >> how do we get the data out. >> it's a question for you. >> i need to learn how to do that. >> part of the point is as we talk about the way we respond to

these issues we need to talk about what we do we also need to deliver, continue to deliver in the nation and work with our partners so they can get the solutions. >> secretary, your department is so enormous and includes a many different kinds one of the things we do at the partnership is the best places to work in the government and it's really tough to keep that up. >> it's great to be here in i want to thank the partnership for actually helping us celebrate employee recognition week because it's critical and i don't think there's any more important time than now to be involved in public service. the challenges we have are enormous. we need the best and brightest in these jobs, so trying to

recruit and retain the best possible work force is particularly tough when people are working of busily and hours a day and paid below market trash value and treated trash on the news media and the hill told that they are incompetent and not doing a good job so the challenge for the leaders is how to make people proud of what the deutsch and understand how important it is and reinforce that. we spend a lot of time with senior leaders at hhs trying to do that sharing strategies and ideas, but i think things like this and the old records to the trustees success and the awards, seven of the 3-cd come out of hhs. i'm proud of the innovative work they are doing and they have an

opportunity to shed a light on those and it's part of what reinforce his people feeling that they've made a right to place. >> the sammy's are every year. it's a goose bumps central. >> people don't know enough about that. to follow on janet's plant, we would love to have -- data stories always get day after day after day of headlines. good stories get page 30 on the bottom left-hand corner, one nanosecond and they're gone, so having a little more balanced -- >> secretary lahood, max eluted to the partisanship. you were in congress, was in this partisan quite as it is now, and i needed to cover up the highway bill but really it is hard to get it passed.

have you seen that partisanship making the work of government harder, and also been the vehicle for attacking people in government? >> let me pick up on something kathleen said, what i think most people in this room realize, i know you do, coakie, most of the people that work in the federal government today came to do work for the american people somebody who gets a social security check today, somebody there to its veterans shipped today if if somebody that took care of a problem for a congressman and the congressman took the credit deserves the credit for that and there are still a, many good people that work in these agencies we represent. we get a lot of the headlines and the credit. they deserve the credit.

they will never get the headlines. and every day that i can i praise people that work at the d.o.t. and in the government. what we probably need, coakie, is more of the families in congress and most of you know that coakie comes from one of the most outstanding public service families may be at her to serve in congress, they both served in the house and in those days they came like many like the people worked for as a congressional staffer, bob michael, tom groesbeck team to do something. unfortunately, what we have in at least one house of congress is people who came to do nothing and that's what they've been doing for the last year-and-a-half and that's the reason it's so difficult to getting the transportation bill passed.

when - in congress and served in the transportation committee for six years and we passed to five-year bills and the past that 500 votes in the house and 80 votes in the senate. the senate has taken a different approach. they've taken the bipartisan approach can't pass the bill with 74 votes. they've taken a page out of the history ducks books when your parents serve and my former boss is served about people who came here to solve problems and get things done. i saw all two senators on the morning show, one democrat and one republican talking about how they are working in a bipartisan way on education and trying to reform education and promoting ways for kids to learn. some of it goes on the lot of it doesn't, and it because we have people who were elected to these jobs to stop famous from

happening, present the opportunity to solve problems. >> secretaries lahood is kaput republican in the house. [laughter] but it also is members of congress run against congress for a vertical we want to serve in the body we eight. >> i agree with you when i ran in 94i ran as a republican and the people that were collected in my class ran against the institution. i've never trust the institution or federal employees i know what could congress can do when they put their minds to it. >> now what you have is in addition to running against congress it's running against all of government, and what does that do in terms of you doing your jobs?

>> we see that unfortunately not only in congress, state level. you have people that have sought public office to dismantle the government. anything involved in the government has to be so whether it is cutting off education funding lowercase health programs, things that typically were seen as a public good, public service come together to do the things together we can't do one at a time that attitude unfortunately is change among some of the people cannot serving in office and see that any progress made on anything by the government is inherently wrong faugh they spend energy trying to convince folks that direction is misguided kurth there are things people can do

by themselves they don't put airports together by themselves they don't run an agency so the governor services are critical research and pick an area, the food safety systems, so having the resources to do that is essential to protecting the american public. >> i want to go to your questions for and we will do that right now the secretary napolitano will use peaked that how does this atmosphere affect your ability to do your job? >> there's a couple things. the department of planas security and federal government was previously 22 agencies cobbled together under one roof. we've been putting together -- >> i was amazed to wasn't in

west virginia. when congress created a stated it also reform the structure to match the department, so we have over 100 cavities that somehow exercise jurisdiction. we love them all by the way. the difference between working with congress and trying to defend yourself and ability to do your job is we are right in that space right now and the federal government. we have to who hundred 30,000 plus employees because they believe in the mission, they want to work in the public good, they are dedicated to employees in a yet during structure is designed to point out the flaws as a post to what has been accomplished and what is on the

table to move forward supply of our tasks is to keep pumping up the people and telling them they are good jobs and providing essential services. transportation, social security, disaster response, the facilities and technologies enable us to do our job. these are positions that go together and held the american people, but the structure itself right now is not designed to bring that out. >> questions from all. anybody have a question? why don't you in of yourself, please. >> this is for secretary of pellicano to the to -- napolitano love to press you on the details on that revealed

yesterday if you have any more details you can provide in particular whether there would be still life and whether the body scanners would have picked up explosives that would have been used to plot. there was more information about the plot than we had already for a variety of reasons. they're designed to minimize the risks they're obviously analyzing but i think all things considered who likelihood in the united states. thank you. >> can you talk a little bit closer to the microphone.

>> and the executive director of two under eighth graduate schools for public policy. i would like you to address the next generation coming to public service given how difficult it is at this time to appeal the next generation we have some programs coming on line very shortly to create the opportunity. >> i appreciate the question because it's incredibly important figure out ways to continue to revitalize the entire core of the public service. the biggest challenge we will find coming into the public service is the budget environment making it hard for agencies to be all to afford to hire new people. that i think they haven't seen

any diminishing of the interest of people making contributions to the public service. i've seen that increase and so will this partisanship may get harder to get things done, the desire for things to be done, the desire to serve the government, i see this continuing to increase so that's our challenge to find ways to strike the right balance in the resources we have in the interest and demand that people are showing. islamic we've formed a new hire engagement group chaired by the university of maryland say in how we get out reach in the various universities across the country in the talent to recruit them and once we recruit them to give them a career path that makes sense. you bring them a internship's, fellowships', all types of experiences, trying to then move people around the promises they

see different things that our challenge is finding a way to work in the security area. >> you are doing in addition to the kind of things you get folks into the agency's we are trying to recruit young health care providers to serve in public capacity so we tripled the number of the national health service with a peace corps for health workers say if you serve in underserved area we will help pay off the commission or give you a loan. we are recruiting new scientists to try and look at the pipeline and one of the very alarming things that the assistant secretary for administration is hearing and reminded about this every day is a snapshot of the federal workforce and now many people are really smearing or about two years of retirement

age if to make sure not only as a pipeline of talent but that trajectory so people can see themselves staying for a long period of time gaining new skills and that kind of tough way across the latter because we need to take succession planning very seriously and recruit talent. >> two-thirds of graduate schools are female and more than half of undergraduates say you get to a workplace environment where how carvel is it for 40 women throughout her life where she's likely to be spending a good bit of her time caretaking in one capacity or another how we meet the federal government a place a woman can see herself then without having to abandon the caretaking roles she feels

are necessary? >> let me tell you a few things we've done. number one, once we put our people in place to run our different administrations, we to ask them what finding one younger career% so there can be a follow-up. early on we gave up opportunities for internship at spelman college. we went there and announced and unannounced 15 internships for the women to work and transportation. we signed an agreement with an organization called the women's transportation association, they did and they are very happy about and they helped us recruit women to be involved in transportation careers.

we agree with you on this. we need many more women involved in what we do and we are making an effort to recruit women, young women and obviously the stamp program is one that -- really haven't focused on women and it will take a little time related to that -- i'm sorry. i was going to say the gsa is pushing hard on the ideas that tell where they are bringing technology that allows you to take that work wherever you are to kind of create the flexibility that can strike that balance between home life and work and so that i think is what will expand the opportunity. >> and i think having workplaces that recognize first of all,

women are often caregivers but so are the men. the workers want to be good parents and so clever it is opportunities, flex time, job sharing, looking at work schedules which can be flexible amount child's hours for fathers and mothers figuring out strategies that recognize that we shouldn't have to choose, and i think that's one of the finance that actually government can offer some times ahead of the private sector. we may not have a salary competitiveness for the market but hopefully we can be a more family friendly environment, and we have things like a lot of our employees have the opportunity for a proximate daycare in the adjacent building and they can literally drop off their kids and see them at lunch time and participate and make it a whole

lot better to come to work, do your job but also feel confident that you are taking care of your family. some of the director for information security policies and focus operations at the department of homeland security. as a disabled veterans, one of many is proven his surface by passing a higher-paying jobs i would like to note any of you to address this resources. >> i will start with this one. we have a very focused effort to recruit veterans. we have about 230,000 employees we have 50,000 veterans and we work with all the veteran schools for the veterans but the kind of work we do and many of

our components they have training and showed their dedication protecting the american public so it's a great resource for the dhs and we are doing everything we can to reach into the veterans community and they are now returning from iraq and afghanistan and we want to give them opportunities as well. so is a big issue. >> still veterans progress. >> yes. >> next question. >> from fox news channel [inaudible] what have you learned about how weapons and going forward to

yield savings to earn back the public trust? >> i appreciate the question. in a couple of weeks since the during, in talking to the gsa employees and i've been doing a virtual town hall traveling and then using technology to go visit the region and that we also modeling the employee is that there's this we can make connections but i've learned there is as much anger, disappointment and frustration and fatigue gsa employee over what took place. it really doesn't represent the values and the beliefs and the commitment of those employees to deliver services. and what's happened and as we've been able to spark a conversation among employees with their supervisors and the inspector general about greek ideas how we can save even more money for the american tax payer and that's our challenge is to take those great ideas and

convert them into action and deliver services to the agency partners picking it more than ever. >> follow-up and the beginning the government savings agency asked for one specific example you are already looking at the you can kind of get to work this is what you're going to do and we're going to stick money with this. >> the top priorities are budgeted and it's helping solve the budget problems of the agency parkhurst but we are looking at things how the government travels in pnac the travel reservations we're looking at talking to the agencies about the ones that don't have their fleet management in a cohesive unified way. we are trying to find ways to provide strategic resource and that is procuring as one government, using the power and size of the government to get the best possible price and

doubling things on like sustainability to build buildings that actually reduce the cost of operations. so that's the kind of work we found and there's a bunch of momentum that already developed are rounded. the question is how to we discontinue that momentum and frankly speeded up. >> thank you very much. i know you've taken a lot of heat, the other secretaries on the way in. [laughter] >> when we got here this morning -- the important point is look we all have been engaged in finding savings and budget fiscal [inaudible] with having the with of the gsa it's not a great media story how we save money and other agencies in other ways, conferences which

by the way if you are running a federal agency may reach across [inaudible] >> sycophant and paul, you talked about how angry people were of the gsa i suspect you are seeing the same thing in the secret service. >> yes, in fact one of those things where the issue [inaudible] what can we do from an immediate disciplinary status, now let's look at what happened and how it happened to make sure it doesn't happen again but the people that are most upset are the secret service agents. >> another question.

>> of going to ask about the secret service but have a question for secretary napolitano about the bomb plot. just wondering what measures tsa and the federal air marshals would be taking in response to this and also in the department's communications with the public how yesterday's your spokesman said you had no specific credible to information regarding in a terrorist plot against the united states said steinman also comments by the white house counterterrorism advisor john brennan one clearly there was a device deemed to be a valuable ied that was intercepted by the cia how the administration can make these assertions and there is no plot under way. >> the statement was there was no specific plot tied to the anniversary of bin ladens's

death. that was and is an accurate statement and it was accurately made. the point is we will be taking all appropriate measures now that the plot has become public to make sure that aviation and the traveling public remains safe and will be working with airlines and of working with more nations. remember tsa doesn't to passenger screening. there will be bigger measures taken. >> it sounds like it was a perch statement. >> it was and for good reason. it was because we have to protect and the plot was unveiled. >> my name is antoinette samuel.

i visited the church of the american society for of administration. one thing that our society is interested in is the area of the inter-governmental cooperation and relations have and we feel that particularly with the last challenge as we've experienced in the recession the cooperation between the federal government and state and local government is solving some of the public that we've had a positive outcomes are interested in hearing do we need to take a strategical get cooperation between public servants between institutions of government and levels of government and really emphasize more intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental, operations on the serious problems we have? >> when it comes to transportation i will tell you this the only way we are able to do what we do is because we have great partners and governors and mayors and people in the

state's. in the two years we've spent $48 billion that we have received from the economic stimulus we've created 65,000 jobs and 15,000 projects. we did it in two years. there's been very minimal negative stories. there were no earmarks, no boondoggles. they could have never done a without a great part first. in governments and fairs and the d.o.t., there's a lot at the d.o.t. there's a tremendous amount of intergovernmental cooperation that goes on and it's all done in a professional way. there's no politics involved in it and it's all done for the right reasons to put people to work and fix up america's infrastructure. implementing high-speed rail we've been able to allocate $10 billion, and almost all of that money is because we've had great partnerships with a

governors and it's extraordinary that cooperation passan at the department. >> there are two things going on. some of which i think is fairly unique having served as a governor coming and now watching the relationships we have with governors. one is the departments working together across federal agencies to solve problems. so the secretary of education and i are working on an early childhood education and with the people would tell me has never happened before so they have certain people at the table with early education folks at the school and child care people saying kids should be in a safe and secure understanding, and we also need a curriculum on all programs. we need to talk about this together and the parents need information.

that really doesn't happen, but the health care bill is a strategy put together and is being developed. i am as a former governor used to a lot of mandates and no money. i think there has been a lot of effort with her during the recovery act, all of the programs. the reporters in the room would want to talk about public service looking at the two years of programs that were run at the federal level to really put incredible safety nets, new infrastructure, countercyclical plans in place and no scandals, no boondoggles. billions of dollars that provided lifesavers to people in places across the country and had to be intricately involved not only with of the mares and governors but a lot of times with community agencies that

were running water is asian programs, so i think that effort was very much under way and is still a lot of the part of the operation in the public administration i think is a great background. [laughter] >> would you expand all little bit on what the secretary said about interagency cooperation, because sometimes that has been the biggest barrier to efficiency. >> going back one more stop to talk about the intergovernmental relations i think this panel is in a sample of the power of the relations. we all took some tour through the state of local government and i think the state and local governments have so much to offer in terms of dealing with fiscal constraint, dealing with managing of the limited resources and that is one of the things they offer is the smart use of of inter agency

cooperation. we are the and to non-governmental agency and we have the ability to bring together different services and focus on those administrative services that a lull them to focus protecting the homeland. >> do you see them operating in a discreet fashion or is there a cooperation? >> the answer is yes and they are both operating in discreet fashion so the mission and we can do more and we should do more to find ways we can work more closely together and that's the power and promised of the agency. >> i had a briefing from ten of the amtrak security to the extraordinary cooperation that goes on between homeland security is amtrak when it comes to safety on trains is really

quite remarkable and the same is true of airports we have jurisdiction over airplanes and airports they have jurisdiction over the screening in the safety. there is extraordinary cooperation that goes on, and we know it's not going to get the headlines until something goes wrong that so many things go right that's why you don't see that many headlines because a lot of stuff goes right. [applause] i think we should needlepoint that. a lot of stuff goes right. >> and with the el our people applications and i've been to a number of defense recently for federal officials who talked about the need to do more with less and i guess what i'm wondering is a two-part

question. first are there specific things agencies are doing. you are trying to motivate people but are there specific activities you've been able to do to address that and the second part is are we reaching the point especially some of the proposals in the federal work force become law where that's not going to be possible and the agencies have to say look useful want us to do why we are not going to do x. >> et de dhs we will be getting refunds called the efficiency review and it was kind of an intra department will effort designed to spare art redundancy waste to figure out cheaper ways of doing things, and they literally have been able to find billions of dollars of things cost avoidances we could have

and then redeployed the money into the mission. often times we are operating without one. there's no ceo in the country that has to deal with a sort of uncertainty we have about budgets coming right up to the edge of closing down the government for the federal work force so that the difficulty petraeus mekouar efficiency review efforts would be happy to provide more detail but it has been employees generated ideas finding redundancies' and cost avoidances. >> one of the exciting things i think is going on, not only as a kind of efficiency area and we are all sharing strategies and get together regularly and i want to know where they found savings and others but i think

the innovation space is exciting. we've had an effort under way for the last three years to figure out a new and better ways to deliver services using technology and innovation and often is greatly reduced cost. so, we knew for instance one of the challenges we were looking at in the health status was around getting good prenatal care particularly to vulnerable women into low-income neighborhoods, so partnerships, public-private partnership with fiscal phone companies we've initiated text for babies and low-income women are given a cell phone and get regular text updates about everything from vitamins to prenatal checkups

and its user-friendly and easy to access and it's now a couple hundred thousand women we are seeing the results in terms of those when following up with care and things like that. >> that's a huge cost savings. >> so reducing velo term making sure babies are off to a healthy start. those kind of strategies are low-cost or no cost and involve the public sector push strategy but it's by the groups of employees who said we should do this. we are using that now giving to teenagers on smoking cessation strategy against taxing. kids don't talk to one another. the text. >> that can be a good thing. >> it can be. [laughter] how to connect that and figuring out we have 40,000 employees involved in the innovative strategies and ideas and we do

innovation awards and i've told them that that kind of energy and effort we will come from anyplace in the department. we want people to be a work in progress and creative and that's been a very exciting adventure. >> my name is christine. on the government of management my question is about refraining of the discussion around the federal workforce to celebrate public servant. a lot of the questions are from the media and a lot about headlines. we are here to celebrate workers somehow we've refrain the discussion so that we talk about headlines in terms of what the federal work force has done to the terror plots or the ing office to uncover as well as all

of the things the federal government is doing. >> that sounds like a low initial question. >> the problem as it is the equivalent of saying 500 planes took off today and landed safely. that is your expectation so it's a plan that crashes that is the news. >> as long as something is going on let's assume the federal government is functioning great and the minute it was let's hold oversight hearings and flash federal benefits how do we make sure the message gets out of all of the good things your agency does and the federal government is capable of is because of your people? >> it's one of the reasons for the sammy's and for this week. these are the things you try to do.

that's the partnership for public service mission, every word people who do good work in the federal government advertise the fact they do good work in the federal government but also meet the federal government better. ceramica is their anything that you folks are doing to make sure they recognize the good work they do? it's important i would assume having only worked in the senate but i would assume it's important for the leaders. >> what do you see in the senate and the attitude being on the subcommittee? >> i would like to hear from the agency. [laughter] sometimes it's easier to get outside of d.c. and shine a bright light on the regional office work and work that's going on. i think that oftentimes the press is cynical inside the

beltway and end up on a gotcha media so the press is often delighted to print the stories and follow worthwhile employee and ventures can't deliver service news so we try to do that a lot, our leaders out and make sure part of it i think it's shining a light on what is going on and making sure people know the good work that is going on and in a very minimum making sure employees we know that we know, so it is it never gets headlines at least having the internal effort to say we are doing terrific work each and every day and some of that involves travel and some of that involves going to places visiting worksites people are working hard over the knows what i'm doing, nobody cares about what i'm doing and having somebody show up and say we do

know and we do care and it's terrific. >> of the disclosures that were made more about federal employees polluted their job that work for dhs profit agencies of dhs. that's why what happened in the last few days because we had good people who show of everyday to protect our air force, to protect passengers and all of the disclosures were not good work that took place. the first thing i remember the president saying about the secret service is 99.9% of the people that he came in contact with at the secret service show up every day, put their life on the line to protect the first family or other government officials and i think things are said.

we've all said them here today. i think for a week is about good public service, about people who were carper. there's going to be a hearing on capitol hill today about tsa because a few members of congress are irritated about it. but think of the good work that's gone on for more than ten years by tsa federal and please well-trained to make sure that people don't work trains to hurt one another and there's a lot of those stories. hopefully some of them will come out in this hearing rather than just trashing an organization that's actually protected people that have been flying now for a decade since 9/11 and not one plane has been brought down by a terrorist. [applause] >> i think we all like to have a good track record like that. that's what we are celebrating

this week. we can all tell the stories and we've tried to tell some of them and we will continue to do it because we believe in the people that believe in public service and serving the american people and doing it in a way that is all honorably and with honesty. we need to answer a question about the senate. we'll answer your question krista mikey is a huge proponent of the federal work force so we are having a hearing this week to celebrate public service recognition and focus on human resources. >> congratulations. thanks, senator akaka. >> good morning. - kathleen and i work for the national park service. i'm a federal employee. i served 30 years -- >> congratulations.

[applause] i normally wouldn't say that. there are many places i would no longer say i have a full career in the federal service based on a wall of what we've just heard. my question was to rescue -- >> it's the agency everybody loves. >> every day we face what you are facing today and my question was to talk about the work force and how we are going to find me be creative ways to let people retire and still have the carvel exit where they can contribute their knowledge to the next generation. but i think i'm going to change that to the press questioned and the fact that even at my love which is relatively low probably five levels away from the director of we face a lot of these same questions and we don't know why in the press we don't see these stories every day of what we did right. we spend too much of our time on the sound bite if she used.

but back to my question as we age of the federal workforce i do encourage you to look the part time retirement option, and people will gratefully and every letter agency because they liked to think of the impact can of work they've seen remains viable. do any of you have programs looking at the transition of the work force? >> that is a good interesting question. we actually have begun looking at that. it affects different components in different ways. but i think that kathleen neal did when she said we are about ready to hit a big bubble where a lot of people will be eligible for retirement. we don't want lose all those resources. they have a very strong contribution that continues. so yes, we are looking at what are the available options working with the office of personnel management.

what can we do to keep that alive and at the same time keep bringing in new talent that's properly matured and properly incorporated. >> what about this question of some part time involvement, is that something that -- >> there are some complicating rules has you know about what you can do in addition to part-time work and still not meeting those rules, we currently have a number of people who served, exited and are now contributing as consultants or project by project basis so we hate to lose talent any point along the way and we are trying to find various strategies but if they

want to choose an occupation that would have been a conflict possible the the it's very difficult to continue the relationship from the agency point of view it's their choice to be in a situation and take that expertise elsewhere but all of us are looking at strategy's and ways we don't lose that institutional knowledge, we don't lose the expertise. we have the ability, but i also think it's well before a person decides to exit that that conversation needs to begin and think about what kind of options they might have if they want to continue the relationship and not find out six months later that they've now made themselves ineligible out the door. >> the state department does a lot of it, they bring people in every half a year.

>> i began a public servant and i met the architect of the capitol firms. my question is over the years and the idea and the culture of official business only and of behavior in the government has always been there but i think with a degree of relevance today as we changeover, people retiring and a lot of newcomers in the federal government i would like to know -- >> can you get a little closer sure the microphone? >> what new approaches or new ideas have you thought about regarding the ethics training? in addition to the traditional

policy, what new ideas are you thinking about or looking to implement in your agency? >> athina 56 has to run through and they go together. is their anything more boring than the entry video you have to watch? how can we reshape that and make it interesting and development, more relevant and direct so that employees are not immediately hit with this today's of stuff, but then how do we incorporate that into ethics training, public service, how do we incorporate that into how we bring new employees, train them and enter then? >> i'm working really hard not to make a secret service a joke.

[laughter] >> we have also i think the initial training is one thing that it's created sort of a public integrity council across the department because it is more than just the ethical rules it deals with how you approach conflict and make sure there's an appropriate oversight as money is being sent out the door the ethical conduct of employees has to drill all the way down so we have representatives from every agency and department doing a variety of risk strategy is to look at areas where there might have been gaps and focus some additional training and additional help and a lot of guidance documents for not only our own employees, but the downstream employees look at areas in the field that might have had gaps and strategies, so i think it is kind of a culture

of how you take care not only with your own personal conduct but with taxpayer dollars how to make sure they are responsible up and down the stream and how you instill that in folks not in a gotcha fashion but that it becomes a part of the culture of doing business. >> you refer to the video this is something that everybody sees >> they should hire some 20 years of thing would make a kallur youtube. we should do with the federal wolf. >> they are good for something. >> that's a great point. some of the stuff hasn't evolved beyond where it was ten or 20 or 50 years ago and we've made investments and billions of

dollars worth of technologies and we haven't fully leveraged it yet. we are trying to take every moment we have a chance to get people together to remind them of the importance and significance that's an important right now. building a clear partnerships the people recognize that that is not in the opposition but they are a partner and they can help us identify fraud case and abuse but using technology and finding ways to speak to people the way they are speaking to each other is one of the big challenges. >> you have an action item coming out. >> we try to catch people's attention in the emergency preparedness thinking about it again has pretty boring and awful strategies and one of the innovations that came out recently was getting ready for a zombie attack and videos went firewall and it's the best training video for families but also we need that kind of thing for an ethics and getting ready

for zombies to come. [laughter] >> since we have abraham lincoln i know the reason you came is because you feel such strong devotion to the public servants in your agencies and across the government, and it's a testament to that that you've taken time out of your very busy schedule to come here to be with them so thank you very much all of you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[applause] that no one can understand and accept each other. >> the first thing was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover who were personally and politically different men who've ended up performing this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation of a deep relationship. later in their lives about how important it become to one another is extraordinary.

..