the mix and that we started talking about water and the way we treat water and how we could undo what we've done as one of the answers to climate change. and final i would have to say to you in terms of reasons for our politicians are talking about this, our store be the. i'm not suggesting that soldier in the united states. i think it's very, except in a few countries where they're just facing water shortage like the water is running right now. it's the domino model of economic element, which says more growth unlimited growth. we could just keep going forever. more trade, more stuff more market economy. i want my strawberries in january and i don't care where they come from or who it costs. so we have this notion that we can all things at all times. we have created a global economy which is basically, i would argue, not only creating enormous wealth gaps between

rich and poor. do you know that in the year 2000, there were 111 billionaires in the world? there are now over 2500 billionaires in the world. 15 years, what does that tell you about policies of the 1% for the 1% and by the 1% right? so i would argue that the way we grow food for a global market is a way of like putting a huge pipe into our water systems and sucking the water up and taking it away. remember when you grow food, when you use water to grow food you are consuming that water. that water does not get returned to the watershed. so what do we need? i call for a new water ethic. and a new water as they would say that water is not just a resource. as i said for our pleasure and profit inconvenience, but it is the essential element that gives us life. and it is to be respected and

revered, and we need to come up with a new relationship with water. we also and if i were queen of the world and could make every leader in the world do as i say and save the world's water, all policy, and this have to happen at all levels, municipal state federal, international, all policy has to ask the question what's the impact on water. our energy, using fossil fuels is not only bad for a or. everybody knows that. it's terrible for water. fracking uses, destroyers abuses huge amounts of water. growing corn for ethanol, it takes 1700 gallons of water to make one gallon of corn ethanol. so yes okay maybe that's a better use for your car but the water footprint it's leaving is not worth the. i would argue that ethanol is worse than fossil fuels because of the way it's treating water. we mustn't set up this air versus water kind of reality.

what would it look like if we asked the question about the impact on water of food production? well, i'll tell you what it would look like. we would have to stop using chemicals. we wouldn't have any more, you know, toledo green water if we stop putting, having those factory farms, if we stop putting all those pesticides and narcotics of every kind into animal feed and so on. if we went back to the way we know how to grow food more vocal, more sustainable, family farms, organic and food for local consumption we could cut the water consumption of the world and half. so what would be the question is then is always, what is the impact on water of these trade policies? what if we took into account okay, i'll trade maybe isn't the same. say i've got a white shirt coming from this country and a white shirt coming from this

country and they both took the exact same amount of water to produce, but the water, but the water in this country is almost gone and so that sure is coming at the price of the local people's water rights. in this country they still have water so it's not quite the since we don't ask that question. we never asked the question in these trade agreements are we protecting our natural resources? are we protecting our people? we also have to declare water to be a public trust. public trust is a very old concept in the united states very deeply entrenched particularly in the northeastern states, less so in the southwestern states where they have more of a first to come here, got the rights to water shortage thing. public trust-based this is the water is a comments. it belongs to all of us and governments must protect in the name of the people for all and for future generations. that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want but it's

not a comments that you can say well, i can abuse it because it doesn't belong to anybody. we are going to have to protect his comments and we're going to have to say, what are our priorities for having people having access to this water? because you just can't have it for anything anybody wants it for. i'll give you an example of vermont. i worked on this legislation, the state of vermont has beautiful water, lots of groundwater. but a few years ago that whole bunch of bottled water companies coming in and setting up plants and drinking the local water source until it was gone. they were really concerned so they brought in legislation that their groundwater is a public trust. they actually said to protected we are going to give priority, water for people's daily needs water protection of the ecosystem and water for local food production, not for agribusiness to make money selling our water and our food

far away. so they had that hierarchy of axis and they were just able to use their public trust doctrine because there was a nuclear facility that was leaking treaty them into the local -- treaty them in in the local company, the power company said yes that's our water, with water rights. the state was able to say no. the fact that we have made it a public trust trumps your private right to do don't tritium into water so we're taking back. so exciting, it's a very exciting concept that we need to go back to an item working a lot with a group of people around the great lakes. we want to get the great lakes to be declared a commons a public trust and to protected by a region so that we stop seeing it as your piece of it and this piece, but we see it as a whole watershed. we need common laws, protections, comment enforcement. you get enforcement totally different on different parts of

the lakes. we need together to say no more shipping of this extreme energy. we cannot put this water out that this kind of risk and it's a kind of new way of thinking thinking terms of watershed governance, which be doing in europe. since 2000 all other watersheds must be covered by committees and legislators from all other countries that surround these water sources. so it's not my water, i'm only going to try to get this amount. it's going to be our water collectively. at a global level i'm calling for what i'm now naming a martial plan for water. you will know some of you that the marshall plan was the major plan led by the united states to rebuild europe after the second world war. europe was in tatters and everything from rescuing orphaned children to rebuilding schools and hospitals to putting an economy back together. it was an absolute incredible

endeavor. and we need a marshall plan for water. we need our leaders to come together and say, this is a crisis. when you read that california has one year left of water i don't know what people in california think when it be that but i think a lot of them are going to be moving here, i guess. we might see american refugees moving from one part of the country to the other. what do we think of when we read that? we have to take this very, very seriously. and the united nations need to set up a separate process for water. right now water is linked into an comes under the umbrella of climate change. if you go to the climate summit, and i could everyone of them come all the talk about our greenhouse gas emissions which are important to i'm not for a moment negating that but they don't talk about water as anything but a victim. so they don't have the stories about how if you rebuild water retentive landscapes if you've created a desert, if you bring

in the technologies and the techniques that we know and if you put people to work rebuilding and refurbishing these watersheds, the rain comes back. it's absolutely miraculous. there are so many wonderful examples of what we have done this. the key components of this are absolutely at the heart of the would be watershed protection, conservation and restoration equipped to stop destroying our water systems. we have to repair those that have been hurt. national and international projects to replenish water retentive landscapes, i'm working with a wonderful scientist named michael in slovakia. he had a lot of land that had been destroyed by bad farming practices, like old bad international dumping and so when. he convinced many municipalities and their own federal government to allow a project where they put thousands of people to work rebuilding the kinds of small firms and dams water retention,

water collection, rainwater collection and so on and they have greened an amazing amount of the land. same entity. there are many projects where a wonderful man they call the rainmaker has brought back water to just a massive amount of land. a wonderful engineer in southern australia that convinced his government to let him gather all the rainwater, the storm water the sewage water put it all through massive legumes ever played with the kinds of plants they did bacteria and poison and they've got so much water. the greened the desert. the birds have come back to the animals have come back. it's a miracle because we need to remember that nature will come back if we stop hurting nature. nature loves us wants to come back to us as soon as again. we need food policies that promote local organics, sustainable agriculture. we have to move away from the

form of agriculture that we are now engaged in and has been supported by policy in all of our countries. we've exported it. there's an area of land three times the size of great britain in africa alone where foreign interests, foreign investors foreign corporations, foreign governments have come in and bought the massive amounts of land and water, and they're using it to grow crops that they sell out of the community. they are using all the same or well technology that's ruining the ogallala aquifer here. they're using their in pumping this water up, destroy water there. we have to learn people who have lived for millennia in communities in asia and africa and south america know how to live with the fluctuations of rain and then dry season, and they know how to conserve and they know how to farm dry land. we come in with our technology and we are ruining it.

energy sources that don't harm water have got to go. we are fighting the pipelines, you know the keystone xl pipeline which is still a very hot issue and is going to remain contentious through the next election. but we are fighting huge of the pipelines in canada because they want to move that vitamin the terrible tar sands stuff from the tar sands in alberta to export markets. fracking is a really dangerous form of energy in terms of water. so we have to say we can do better, we ask the question energy what's impact on water. we will come up with different solutions. i also call for in my book the notion of using water as a source of peace rather than a source of conflict. and think about for a minute but if you stop and think in a world where the demand for water is going straight up and displays going straight down it doesn't take a genius to figure out that maybe this going to be conflict.

maybe there already has been. the deep germ of many of the conflicts in the world have at least partially to do with water, from syria to egypt to israel-palestine, many, many disputes in africa disputes in asia are around water or water is a part of it. and water is being used now around the world as a weapon of war. the government in syria has cut the water source is off to the people in aleppo which is where the original revolution took place. just cut the water. so if you want to make war on people you just take away their water supply. there's very little people can do in the absence of access to water. so the question would be then well, if they can be a source of conflict, could water equally be a source of peace? could we think about water as nature's gift to humanity, to

teach us how to live with each other? and maybe, you know my grandfather was taught to rate your grandfather and your father was taught to hate my father and vice versa and i'm supposed to meet you, except we both live on this river and it's a dying. so maybe instead of expending our energy hating each other maybe we can come together and build something that saves this river. maybe our kids will live in peace because we will come together and say this water source. so there's a whole discipline in universities now around water and nature as being forms of peacemaking, forms of negotiating a peaceful settlement coming around the concept of governance, watershed governance and watershed sharing. instead of saying this is my portion and i'll fight you for it. it's like what does the health of the watershed event? whatever that is let's conform to it. let's make that happen. one of my favorite examples is a

group called friends of the earth middle east who came together years ago and they've got people from, members from all the warring factions gaza israel, syria, lebanon, all of them, and they came together to say we're not going to talk religion or politics. were going to talk about how to save the water systems in our community. it's been so successful that there's actually some parts of the world -- of the wall put up and take it in where people got to know each other and realized how much more in common they have with one another than they might have thought. we also have to promote human laws that mirror and reflect the laws of nature. there's a whole movement that i'm involved in, a number of early thoughtful and interesting people on creating called the rights of nature. that is the notion that nature has rights beyond its used to us. yes, it's a public trust which

means will have, access. we all have equal rights to these, assets, hot water has rights separately, even if water didn't serve us. water serves other species. water serves itself. nature has its own rights and we've got to stop thinking of ourselves at the top of his chain of command as if we're so important. and how that would be? well we actually have examples here in north america and around the world where local ordinances are being declared that the local water or the local but land or the local forest has kind of the status of the human being, right? it has fundamental rights and people are coming around the concept of protecting those rights. somebody said to be, you mean you can't go fishing, because fish have right? i said no of course you could go fishing but you can't fish species to extinction. that would be the way the law would work. yes, you can take water from the

watershed but you can't take so much water from the watershed that you destroy the watershed. you have to leave the integrity of the species or the integrity of the ecosystem intact. that's a sea change for us for we humans, at the more rich we get and the more powerful we did, the more industrialized and the more urbanized and the more consumers take we get, the more we think that nature is there to service. nature has got to -- nature has a really, really rude wakeup call for us. finally, and then i'm going to stop so we can chat with each other, ma finally we have to make real this fight, this concept of water as a human right. nancy talked about the struggle at the united nations. i was invited in 2008-2009 to be an advisor to the president of the u.n. general a silly. that's not a ban ki-moon's secretary-general. general assembly which is all the countries together, every year elect a president.

and that yes a man named father miguel, from the liberation theologian from nicaragua, wonderful man. he read a book my first book on water called liquid golden you said before you see the president, would you come to new york and meet with me? because i want to make water a human right. and i said do i have time to go to new york and meet with the new -- okay, yes maybe. like now? can i get on a plane now? tide list men. we worked with a lovely man named pablo was ambassador at the time from bolivia which is a little and locked country which of the locked into a water war. that water war where people were killed because the world bank had said you have, you have to take a private water company if you want help from us. so they brought in this private company and it tripled the price of water and they said we own

the rain and were going to charge you for the water that you catch from the sky. and they sent inspectors around to me, these are the poorest people on earth. 85% indigenous, a very, very traditional culture. this is their water from the sky they're being told they had to pay for it so there was a revolution. the army was brought out. people were killed but it was a real water war. so when the new president, evo morales, wonderful man came in to assign this pablo to the u.n. and father miguel and pablo and i work worked together, built a small team there, and pablo put the resolution to the u.n. general assembly in june of 2010. and it was a very brave thing to do and it basically said that water and sanitation are fundamental human rights equivalent to all of human rights. water was not included in the 1948 human rights declaration because nobody at the time ever could imagine what it would be a

problem, right? that for the last number of years it's been pretty clear that not only is water a huge the lack of water a huge threat but it's the greatest threat particularly to children. and when public out of an agenda simply, he had formidable enemies. your country was opposed at the time. has changed its my but at the time. my coach was supposed. great britain was opposed. all these water companies were opposed. we didn't think we're going to win. he got up to present to the general assembly and he said there's a new study that says in the global south every 3.5 seconds a child dies of waterborne disease. then he went like this. he held three fingers up like this and then half a finger. everybody realized a child just died. a child just died. you could hear people briefing. it was just absolutely amazing. and then the voting started and at the u.n. when they vote they sit in the seats and the press and electronic button, and it

comes up on a great big board at the front. i was standing at the back up in the balcony holding hands with a couple of my staff say, we are going to loose but it's okay. we never thought we would win system. we will be back in five years. we will win and. i was reprinted because i was sure we're going to lose. they are in tears. they vote. i was wrong. 120 countries voted in favor. not one country, including the u.s. and canada, voted against even though they were opposed. they at stand. 41 countries abstained. the place erupted in cheers but it was an absolutely fabulous moment. and in my opinion in that moment the human family took an evolution step forward. we said it's not okay that your child has to die a horrible death of waterborne disease because you couldn't afford to buy expensive water. that's not okay. now, does that mean that they after this is adopted everything was fine?

no. in fact, the crisis in detroit has happened since then. we outlawed torture back in 1948 and torture still exist in our world but it doesn't mean we think it's okay. and when we don't think something is okay, we collectively make that statement. and it was really important that as the human family the united nations said we will strive so that no one has to be without. the only way that no one will do with out is if we take care of our water better and we share it more justly. and this is our task now and it's a huge and very, very powerful one that lies before us. we've had tremendous success with this law in a number of countries, ma mexico being the most recent, have adopted a human right to water in their constitutions or in separate laws. a number of countries have set out plans to move forward. we have had a wonderful success with a group of first nations

indigenous people in botswana, which is a country just north of south africa. botswana has the kalahari desert and they have kalahari bushmen hunter gatherers who live very much the way their ancestors did. and about 15 years ago the government at the time started trying to get them out of the desert because they would find diamonds in the desert. they were also beginning to crack in the desert and they wanted the people gone. when the people wouldn't go and kept coming back no matter what they would come back they smashed their water bore wells but they passed a law saying anyone bringing water to the kalahari bushmen would be put in jail. it was like a terrible violation of the human rights. they went to court with a group named survival international. they won the right to go back to the desert but they didn't get the right to water. but after the u.n. adopted the human right to water and sanitation, we all went back to

the supreme court in botswana, and armed with this new right, the people the indigenous people there one the right to have their water reopened and they were returned to the desert. it's a really marvelous story of a kind of genocide and of people fighting back and saying we know who we are and we know what we stand for and we will take nothing less than these fundamental rights. we don't want the whole world. we don't want to be competitive. we don't want all your stuff. we want to live our lives the way our parents and grandparents and their parents lived, and we want and need water for this. so when i think about my own life i guess i think about a few highlights and i can tell you that being part of that struggle was a very deeply moving one for me and for everyone involved. so if this vision i had of a

water ethic based on water conservation, watershed restoration, watershed governance, putting water at the center of absolutely every policy saying what is the impact on water, and if it isn't okay go back to the drawing boards. water is a public trust and the comments. nobody has the right to appropriate it for private property, to gather it up and collect it in some for personal profit when other people are dying because they don't have access to it. and water is a fundamental human right, not just for this generation but for generations to come, which i called it forever. it's all the cheeky to all the cheeky 20 books in how to protect water for people and the planet. i put for ever in. my husband said that's pretty strong and i said, what, do you want me for like 100 years? it's got to be forever. we better think about it for ever. we better do what indigenous people do and think seven generations ahead.

so i'm going to end the formal part of this with my two favorite quotes, and then we have time for discussion i think. so i'm going to just so many wonderful, i'm going to give you three quotes. just because i have enough time. one of them is from a writer who talks about watersheds. i just love the he said at watersheds coming families. nested levels of intimacy. on the grandest scale speed we believe this and take you live to the basement of the u.s. capitol for remarks i lawmakers and possibly second of state john terry who could alter from energy secretary earnest monies and treasury secretary jack lew after the briefing with senators on the iran nuclear deal. >> do you know anything about that? >> i think that bob is working with ben carson going to be. and we should move forward.

with the way the legislation is written, you will have substantial time for congressional review. that would give more time for the administration. >> there's been some harsh words of secretary terry. how would you -- >> i was very happy to that secretary john terry is called for north korea negotiation of the clinton a fairly. when i've met with wendy sherman and passed she claimed it was a success, that we actually have had for nuclear detonations claim by north korea. i'm glad he admits the clinton policy was a total failure of north korea. >> i'm sorry but he admitted that -- >> he said the failed in north korea, and often because there was nuclear detonation of north korea effort on the clinton failed under whidbey -- under wendy sherman. sound like. >> i would say he claims to have

come in the case he talked about the iraq reactor about having no weapons-grade plutonium. that points at the guy who represents the south side of chicago or nuclear power is good i would say -- it's also weapons grade. remember,. >> there's a report that russia is going -- >> it was a stab in the back by selling the as 302 iran means that we have substantial air defense issue against the f. 300. israel and unisys will have to take that into account. spent as relates to negotiation? >> i would say the bush administration did manage to hold that transfer of technology quite well. russians knew just how bad it would be. you see major force in

negotiations where they were relying on the russians to take custody of some of the fissile material. another russians are selling the as 300 back. any solution that involves trust with russians does not appear to be valid at all. >> what was the pitch as far as congressional restraint as far as -- >> he was -- i think in general you can his general point like all the executive branches, they want congress just to go away. in this case congress can't go away. one thing that my colleague at durbin said, he said what happens when the majority of the american people don't trust the iranians? i think that was a well worded question. because we know that 61% of the american people think the iranians will cheat on this agreement. i think that is a valid concern. >> what did the secretary say about --

[inaudible] >> they actually, that people didn't ask about, didn't ask about the discrepancies between the iranian story and the american story. >> did he address the bill? >> he just asked us to hold off your he didn't give a firm date. so is talking about very very long time, 15 years and 25 years. they want to get it through the presidential election so they can get a democratic election in the white house but that wasn't what they wanted to have. >> what was the concern basically about feminine does bill? [inaudible] >> he really didn't address that too much or i would say menendez -- i was there first. >> sound bites. it wasn't. there was no veto threat in the

room. >> south of the. >> i would expect the president is emotionally invested in this, he would issue a veto on legislation. that's a mistake. it's clear that the iranians are delaying because they haven't finished their nuclear weapon yet. we should not give them unlimited time to complete their argument. >> initial review period of 30 days enough for you? >> i think the corker legislation is adequate is the way to go. that has congressional response time of about 30-60 days which is going to get more than enough time for the administration to work out various problems with the iranians. >> you -- sunup spent we just voted on that. 100 to zero on a recorded vote more than enough for an override.

said in a. >> on the corker bill. i think it measures will work very hard to make sure that -- when the senate has been called to vote on a rented its voted 100 to zero twice. 100 to zero on the kirk-menendez. we have been unanimous not agree with the strategy. >> some statements in the basement of the capital. we take you live to the floor of the u.s. senate as their gaveling back in from their recess.

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, tomorrow is april 15. april 15 is a date that causes a great deal of stress and anxiety for hardworking american taxpayers. for millions of american families this year is going to be worse than ever before. the obama health care law obamacare, is making tax day

harder for men's. american taxpayers who have force--who were forced into the health care system, they're having to fill out even more forms this year than in the past, so many forms that the internal revenue service can then enforce all the president's health care mandates. it is a complicated and a burdensome process. now, president obama promised that buying health insurance he said through obamacare was going to be as easy as buying a television on amazon. well why didn't the president ever say that it was going to be so difficult to satisfy the i.r.s.? why didn't the president say that hardworking american taxpayers would have to fill out pages and pages of forms just to find out if they had actually paid the right amount for their health insurance? why didn't the president say that people who changed jobs during the year might have to

pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to the i.r.s.? that's not -- that doesn't happen when you buy a television on amazon. amazon tells you the price. and that's what you pay. amazon doesn't make you fill out forms on april 15. amazon doesn't demand more money from you after the amount that you've paid. but that's what's happening to millions of americans across the country. you know, taxes were already too complicated. now, because of obamacare, it is much worse. for this year's tax filing season be, the i.r.s. released seven new forms that people might have to fill out to comply with the health care law. the instructions alone for these forms are 46 pages long. now, a married couple with two children might have to enter numbers and other information into 133 individual boxes on

just one of the new obamacare tax forms. a family could spend more time filling out one of these forms than they usinged to spend filling out their entire tax returns in the past. so for people who go through all of this effort, the results actually can still be terrifying. cnn ran a report earlier this year about the problem. the headline was, "i have to pay back my obamacare subsidy." they told the story of jackie riddle from los angeles. now, she got aen obamacare subsidy -- she got an obamacare subsidy last year. then when she got a new job she forgot to tell the i.r.s. about the new job. they sort of knew because she was getting paid from the new job. she was paying taxes but she didn't actually alert the i.r.s. about it from the standpoint of obamacare. so when she was doing her taxes this year, she learned that she has to pay back the entire amount of the subsidy more than $ed 5,000.

she told cnn i'm in shock she said but i have no choice. she said, "do i want to argue with the i.r.s. or the obama administration?" well january is jan is is not alone. the obama administration says that more than.5 million families --.5 million families in america will have to recognize their obamacare subsidies on their taxes for 2014 when she do the filing deadline tomorrow. according to a study by the kaiser family foundation, last month only 4% of all the families that qualified for a subsidy got the right amount. so the kaiser family foundation did a study last month and what they've come out with is only 4% of all the families are across the country who qualified for a subsidy got the right amount. the study found that half of all u.s. households that were

eligible for a subsidy, they would have to pay back some of it with their taxes this year. the average amount they're going to have to pay back is $ed 794. one of those people who just found out that he owes the government so much money is rob tuck from dublin, california. dorgan article by the associated press last week, he said he had expected to actually get a refund for his taxes a refund of $400 for his taxes from his work last year. turns out that his refund has been almost wiped out wiped out to repay some of the subsidy he got to buy an expensive obamacare policy. he chanked changeed jobs during the year, got a little extra income. in america that should be a good thing. you get extra income. well not for him. it came with a large price tag from the government. he said he enrolled in the plan

to avoid the tax penalties of being uninsured. he says that now he feels penalized by the obama administration anyway. another person who's feeling penalized by the president's health care law is bill preus of st. petersburg ring florida. she was quoted in the same associated press article last week. this man was only on obamacare for three months, only on it for three months. after that time, he went onto medicare. well, there was poor coordination between the obamacare web site, healthcare.gov, and his insurance company. because of that, he may have to pay the i.r.s. close to $4,000. now, the man who used to own an insurance agency and according to the article he said he's used to complexity, but he said he never has seen anything like this. he told the associated press

"it's a total mess." this tax preparer and the i.r.s. both told him -- his tax preparer and the i.r.s. both told him that the best thing to do was to file an incomplete turn so that it would trigger an audit and then they could sort things out. is that the president's idea of his health care plan being as easy to use as buying a tv on amazon? this man has to go through an i.r.s. audit. that's what they're hoping for to get audited by the i.r.s. apparently that's the easiest way for washington to figure out its own rules. it's outrageous. and then the president in the past has been asked about the

health care law. he said it's working better than he expected. what does he expect when people are telling stories like these? the president's health care law is more than 2,000 pages long. it paid for thousands of i.r.s. agents people to investigate american taxpayers to make sure they comply with all the law's destructive and expensive mandates. but all of that complexity has become a disaster. this law has been bad for patients. it's been bad for providers. and i will tell you as we reach the i.r.s. filing deadline tomorrow it's clear that this law is terrible for taxpayers. this isn't what democrats promised and it's not what the american people wanted. people didn't want more red tape more stress. they just wanted the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. that's what republicans in the senate are working to give them. we can do it without more i.r.s. audits.

we can do it without a 2,000-page law. we can do it without making tax day harder for americans. we can do it without all the negative side effects of obamacare. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president on april 2, president obama unveiled the framework of a nuclear agreement with iran. the purpose of the administration's negotiations with iran was simple. prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. but the agreement the obama administration seems to arrived at casts doubts on whether the administration will be able to achieve that goal. the framework does not shut down a single nuclear facility in iran. it does not destroy a single

centrifuge in iran. it doesn't stop research and development on iran's centrifuges. it allows iran to keep a substantial part of its existing stockpile of enriched uranium. it's not surprising that members of both parties are concerned about this agreement. democrats and republicans are worried because it appears that the administration is not trying to stop iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon but simply trying to manage when iran will develop one. mr. president, again and again during the process secretary kerry and the president seem to forget what the goal of the negotiations was not a deal for its own sake but a deal that would actually stop iran from developing nuclear weapons. american priorities were sacrificed for the sake of getting an agreement. and in the process the administration may have ensured that the deal they finally arrived at is too weak to

achieve its goal. mr. president, stakes on this one are very, very high. the deal we're talking about here is not trade agreement. it's not a land dispute. it's not a negotiation over water rights. it's a question of whether a tyrannical oppressive regime that has backed terrorists and announced its intention of taking the country of israel off the map should get access to the most apocalyptic weapons known to man. the deal we arrive at in the coming months will shape the middle east for decades to come. the cost of failure will be nothing less than nuclear arms race in the middle east. imagine for a second what it would be like to have a nuclear armed middle east. right now we're already witnessing a quasi proxy war in yemen with iran supporting the

houthis. imagine that same scenario if both major powers had nuclear weapons at their disposal. because make no mistake, that is the type of situation we could be facing if we fail to stop iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. not to mention that the threat that our ally israel would be facing. mr. president, today the senate foreign relations committee is set to mark up a bipartisan iran bill for consideration by the full senate. the iran nuclear agreement act would give congress 60 days to approve or disapprove any final agreement. this legislation would ensure that the american people through their representatives in congress have a voice in any final agreement with iran. given the fact that the ramifications of this agreement will last well beyond the obama administration, it is essential

that the american people have a voice in this process which makes congressional review indispensable. this bill would also ensure that iran is held accountable for holding its end of the agreement by requiring the president to evaluate iran's compliance every 90 days. this legislation has broad bipartisan support and i believe it will quickly pass the senate. and i'm hopeful that the president will listen to the concerns the american people expressed and ensure that they are addressed before any final agreement is reached. mr. president, every member of congress would like it to see the president successfully conclude a deal with iran that would prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon. but the president needs to remember that a deal is only acceptable if it achieves that goal. if we can secure a deal that will prevent a nuclear-armed iran, we should step back from the negotiating table and

reimpose the sanctions that were so successful in driving iran to the table in the first place. anything less than a verifiable accountable and an enforceable deal with iran is a failure. mr. president, one bright spot in this iran debate has been the bipartisan cooperation that i just mentioned that's characterized the iran nuclear agreement review act. it's a trend that we're seeing a lot more of in the republican-led senate. there was the bipartisan keystone bill. there was bipartisan legislation to prevent suicide among veterans. bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the terrorism risk insurance program. bipartisan legislation to increase penalties for perpetrators and provide restitution for victims of child pornography. now there is the bipartisan iran bill. and this week we have another

bipartisan agreement. today congress will vote to repeal the flawed sustainable growth rate formula used to calculate doctors' medicaid reimbursements. since 2003, congress has had to patch the formula regularly to ensure that physicians are paid a reasonable amount for their services. in all there have been 17 patches or short-term fixes band-aids, if you will, enacted over the last 12 years. the bipartisan solution that's being considered on the senate floor today repeals this flawed formula permanently and replaces it with a payment system that focuses on quality not quantity. it also puts in place the first significant reforms in medicare in a long time. without reforms the medicare trust fund will be insolvent as soon as 2030 leaving seniors

without access to the care that they have been promised. the bipartisan agreement we're passing today starts the process of strengthening medicare and putting it on a more sustainable path going forward so that the current generation of seniors as well as future generations can enjoy the benefits that they have been promised. mr. president, with the return of bipartisanship, i should say and regular order we've had here over the first few months of the republican-led senate, i'm disappointed that democrats are continuing to obstruct a l bill that should be the most obviously bipartisan bill that we've taken up all year. the justice for victims of trafficking act would provide law enforcement with additional resources to combat the scourge of human trafficking and increase the resources available to trafficking victims. this bill was cosponsored by 12 democrats in addition to 21 republicans and it appeared to have strong bipartisan support of passage. it was reported out of the judiciary committee unanimously.

unfortunately, members of the democrat party's most extreme wing decided to fixate on a funding restriction in the bill that has been a routine part of the appropriations bills spending bills around here for decades. the hyde amendment reflects the sentiments of a majority of americans. that's the funding restriction that i refer to. and that sentiment of a majority of americans is that the federal government shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. it's been the consensus view around here literally since 1976. it's unfortunate that the left wing of the democratic party has taken the extreme step of holding up relief for victims of human trafficking over language that simply maintains a status quo, a status quo that's been in place around here since 1976. mr. president, every year thousands of innocent victims

most frequently women and children are trafficked within the borders of the united states. many of these victims are children who are bought and sold to feed the twisted desires of sexual predators. others are forced into lives of slave labor compelled to work in the shadows without the protection of the law. rescuing these innocent victims and ensuring that their captors are punished must be a priority. the justice for victims of trafficking act has been endorsed by 200 advocacy group including the naacp the national center for missing and exploited children, rights for girls, the national association to protect children, the fraternal order of police, and the national conference of state legislatures. it provides new tools for law enforcement and new help for trafficking victims. mr. president, it's time for the democrats to stop obstructing this legislation and to allow the senate to pass this bill.

a bipartisan achievement something that's much-needed long overdue. there's a crisis in this country that needs to be addressed. we can do something about it. we ought to do it and we ought to do it now. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence -- before i do that, mr. president, i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders and i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: now mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president we're here today because our medicare status quo is not working and it hasn't been working for a long time. for decades medicare has been on a path to insolvency. in 1997, congress attempted to impose some fiscal discipline on the program by creating the sustainable growth rate, or s.g.r. this is a budget-enforcing mechanicmechanism that calls for annual adjustments to the amount that if i i guessphysicians are given for treats patients. it was permanently billed as a permanent solution to medicare's unsustainable trajectory.

the idea was to restrain medicare spending by linking physician reimbursements to a target amount based on the general performance of the economy as a whole. while this may have seemed like a good idea at the time, when the economy was relatively strong and stable and growing it quickly lost its appeal when we went into the 2001 recession just a few years later. the plan also suffered from the central planners' fatal conceit that trust bureaucracies rather than consumer preferences and real price pressures to determine the cost of a particular good or service. as it turns out the actual cost of medical goods and services and the practice patterns of physicians do not necessarily align with the health of the economy or the predictions of government bureaucrats. so each year since 2003, the s.g.r. formula has called for

cuts to physician payments, and each year -- often several times each year -- copping has congress has passed legislation to temporarily prevent the reimbursement reductions from kicking in. while these so-called doc-fix bills have yielded some modest savings with cuts elsewhere in the budget, they have not restrained the quickening pace of medicare spending. and while they've successfully avoided cuts to doctors' pay they've put the medicare system in a near constant state of uncertainty and instability leaving medicare doctors and their patients hanging in the balance. america's physicians and america's seniors deserve better than this, mr. president. but they also deserve better than the bill before us today h.r. 2 the medicare access and chip reauthorization act of 2015.

congress has long wanted to repeal the s.g.r., and with good reason but this is not the way to do it. not only does the house bill double down on medicare's broken price control model but it does so, according to the congressional budget office, while adding $141 billion to the federal debt over the next decade. let's look first at the policy implications of the underlying bill. the new payment scheme proposed in this bill is simply more of the same inefficient form of central planning that further embeds washington bureaucracy into every aspect of our health care system. it continues the role of the federal government as price setter rather than the price taker in the free market. and it also inflates the

administration's power as the regulator and compliance officer. the principle change proposed by h.r. 2 is to move from a medicare payment system based on volume to one based on bureaucratic measures of quality and value. but we already know this doesn't work because it's the same policy introduced under obamacare that requires physicians to comply with government-established guidelines and stick to rigid one-size-fits-all best practices or pay a penalty. instead, we should be freeing the health care community from heavyhanded regulation and constant intrusive bureaucratic scrutiny. doing so is the only way to allow doctors to develop individualized quality treatment plans for each of their patients and to unleash innovation in the delivery of health care. but what the current with the current

doc fix expiring tomorrow and physicians facing a 21% pay cut, there is not enough time to rewrite it with be better policy. but there is, mr. president -- there is enough time to address the fiscal irresponsibility of this bill. that's why i'm offering an amendment to this bill that will simply require congress to pay for that $141 billion urpd its normal -- under its normal pay-as-you-go rules. the pay-as-you of go budgeting rules which share bipartisan support in congress and the white house wouldn't force us to offset the new spending immediately. rather, we would have until the end of the year to find these savings and 10 years in which to achieve them. my amendment would not delay or change anything else in the

bill. doctors and seniors wouldn't notice any difference. it would just require congress to budget for the cost, just like we promised that we would. indeed just two weeks ago the senate passed a 10-year balanced budget stating specifically that any s.g.r. patch or real estate peel would not add to -- or repeal would not add to the deficit. so passing this bill in its current form would not only be irresponsible, it would be dishonest, it would be inconsistent with what we've just said in the budget. now, we've known for a long time that medicare cannot survive without structural changes to its price control system, and we know that this bill, h.r. 2, does not contain such reforms. they aren't there. according to a report issued last week by medicare's actuaries quote "under the new payment system, most doctors will see cuts in 2025."

close quote. the only way to put medicare on a sound fiscal footing is to make it work for america's doctors and for america's seniors. to do that, we need to work toward replacing the centralized price-fixing system of the status quo with a functioning consumer market that empowers seniors to access the high-quality individualized health care they deserve and that enables doctors to do what they do best, which is provide the very best medical treatment in the entire world. this is my goal. and i believe this is a goal widely shared within this chamber. but we can't deceive ourselves. to get there we must be responsible with the public trust and we must be honest with ourselves to that. to that end i implore my colleagues to support this amendment,. to put it very simply, paying

toker this new spend something the right -- paying for this new spend segregate right thing to do. and we just passed a budget promising that we would do it. my amendment do nothing more than hold us to that very promise. thank you mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous

consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess as if under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

>> american history tv usually on c-span3 every weekend will be live on c-span2 tonight and tomorrow morning as we bring you commemorative events marking the 150th anniversary of president abraham lincoln's assassination.

>> were you a that of c-span's first latest series? first lady said no book published by public affairs. looking inside of the personal life of every first lady in american history based on original interviews with more than 50 preeminent historians and biographers, were details of all 451st ladies that made these women who they were their lives commend patience and unique partnerships with the presidential spouses. the book "first ladies" on the lives of 45 iconic american women provides lively stories of these fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, sometimes at great personal cost while supporting their families and famous husband. and even changed history. c-span "first ladies" is an illuminating come entertaining and inspiring read. and is now able as a hardcover or e-book through your favorite bookstore or online bookseller.

>> the polk county iowa democratic party hosted its annual spring awards dinner last friday evening featuring former maryland governor martin o'malley and for virginia senator jim webb. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. it's a pleasure to be able to spend a few minutes with you, all legitimate. i want to thank the polk county democrats for inviting us, to be here with you. i would also like to express my appreciation to the uaw for hosting this event. i think it can be safely said that i was the only person ever elected to statewide office in virginia with the union card two purple hearts and three tattoos. one of which i don't want to talk about last.

[applause] but i am the only one in a statewide campaign whoever lost the ticket line to pick up line during the strike. very proud of -- [applause] and a huge part of who i am. also, like it was said these videos were so extraordinarily well done and the one that really got to be i've got to say was the one the first one about the veterans. i don't think anyone who has had to watch friends he egypt away like that will ever forget it. i come from a family a long military tradition. my dad was a world war ii bomber pilot, was a pioneer in the missile program. i was a marine. my brother was a marine. my son was a marine. i would like to take this opportunity for me to ask those people are veterans to stand up and be recognized tonight. [applause]

we are happy to be here in iowa. i got here yesterday. my bags get here today. [laughter] and i have to admit last night, strong in my face, i'm not apologetic for that but it did suffer committing a sin of envy. iowa city in a hotel room. i come from american airlines through chicago. we were on the tarmac for six hours in a delay. i got to omaha in my bag wasn't in omagh and has tried to explain to the baggage people that are striving to do what you had to figure out how to get my bag. i guided him a bag wasn't a. i called my wife. i started talking to her about this and i said look i did here, i don't know where my bag is but i look over and donald

trump's aircraft is out on the runway. what did i do? what did you my life that i'm stuck on an airlines and he is a plane coming in here? and she said you know get over it. you are in such a hurry to get out if you didn't kiss me goodbye. this is gods way of giving you a big kick in the seat. [laughter] i had a great moment over and council bluffs, iowa yesterday. i spent my high school years in omaha. i boxed gold gloves, junior loves. one of the greatest years of my life is part of the most underestimate amateur fighter in the history. harley cooper, who was my coach my senior year in high school. but more than that he was a national golden gloves champion that year. he had not got all the way to the national semifinals, had a decision, a knockout in the final. immediately put team the next year and he was an incredible mentor to me. when i was a kid 16 years old

moving around in the military, i going to nine schools in five years at one point and i need some stability. i had to work all through high school. that's what i started boxing because i could do it after work. and by my senior year i got an academic scholarship. went to the university of southern california before it went to the naval academy. i decided all these people have got these high school letters. i want to go for high school sports i get myself a letter. i went out for track and i ran the 880. i came in second. a number of schools, i was proud of myself. i went by to see harley to which is when the national golden gloves. i said i got this auto to scholarship. i came in second. he looked at me and he said wait a minute, are you bragging to me? i said yeah, i'm proud of myself. i've never done this before. all these people good athletes and i came in second. he said don't ever, talk to me if you come in second. i said come on, not everybody

can be the national golden gloves champion. i'm proud of myself. he said he ran the first four-minute? i said roger bannister. who came in second? i have never forgotten that in my entire life. it was terrific to see them yesterday. he's 81, on his way to the gym after we had our meeting. we are happy to be here in iowa. we're going to be back in iowa. i'm commuting to you right now we're going to go over the whole state, be back as many times as we can get here in we have -- working full-time here where are you? in the back. so you will be seeing more of us. i'd like to take just a few minutes tonight and talk to you about three things that i care deeply about. first, what really are the challenges that are facing us as a nation? not in great detail. we don't have the time for that but where do i see the need for us to really focus in the next several years. the first is restoring fairness economic fairness, social

justice into our system. i was talking about this when i ran for the senate. it was a principal issue of talking about when i ran for the senate. we vetted economic recovery since the great recession. that's only help a partial element in our society. we have to be honest about that, particularly as democrats we have to be honest about that. if you go to april 2009 when the recession came down and look at the recovery, if you own stocks, ifif you of capital assets, you're probably doing pretty well. the stock market bottomed out little over 6000. as recently as a couple of weeks ago it's been up to 18,000. we've seen the stock market almost tripled since april of 2009. working people's wages have gone down since 2000. assets, there was a piece today in the national media about assets of working people of actually decreased. we have to fix this problem. where to put our leadership effort into fixing this

challenge. we have to reshape our national security policy. i'm proud that i was able to serve as a marine during a very tough time in our countries history. i also was able to spend five years in the pentagon one as a marine, for as a defense executive. i sat on the foreign relations committee winners in the senate and i can privilege to be a journalist. in the time i've not been a public service. i was in beirut when the marines were in beirut in 1983 covering it for pbs. i was in afghanistan as unembedded journalist. and i can tell you from these years of observation and involvement that we need to have a new doctrine that articulates for us the national security policy of the united states. and from that doctrine we can reshape the united states military. you can't reshape the military without a stretch, without a clearly understood strategy. the third area that we really

need to focus on is basic governance. we need to be working toward a comforting style that will allow the congress -- governing style -- allow the congress and the president to work together, and also people of different parties to work together. what should you be looking for in terms of leadership of? first of all when i go around the country and i've talked to people, i hear over and over again, we need leaders we can trust. we need leaders that will tell us what the problems are what the police are about the problem and how they want to fix them. there's a consistency in that. it's this kind of leadership that requires the willingness to take a risk, to take the hits to stand up for what you believe, not from april, which helps you sort of shape an issue politically, or work towards that the magic 270 number but

what you need to do is to put a these issues in a way that is not simply smart are safe, but where do some hard. and i have to say the one comment that i've been the promise of into leadership positions i've had is people tell me i don't agree with you all the time, but i know what you say is what you mean. that's not always easy to do your when i look at the issues of the iraq war, it was not easy to say early that this is going to be a strategic error. i wrote the first piece in a major national newspaper the "washington post," five months before the invasion of iraq. i said this is going to be a strategic wonder if we going. it will empower iran in the long-term but it's going to empower china. we will have a breakdown in secular violence and there are ways to address our national security interests without being

an occupying force in the part of the world. there's an old saying you don't take a hornets nest out by sitting on it. it was not an easy thing to do to take on criminal justice reform. when i started talking about our broken criminal justice system when i was running for the senate i had political advisers telling me you are committing suicide. in virginia, second on to texas in terms of capital punishment and incarceration, but it's so clear that our criminal justice system is broken from point of apprehension to help people are arrested the present administration to long way since then to reentry process. we started talking about it. i held two and a half years of hearings on it when i was in the senate acquitted is legislation for a national commission. we brought this issue out of the shadow into the national debate. the great irony to me is this is an issue that the democratic party should own. criminal justice reform social justice, and do you know who's

making the most mileage out of that right now? rand paul. rand paul. and when you look at the american, a conservative political action conference it was their number three issue for the republican party to be focusing on. we need to get the issue back, a comprehensive issue of criminal justice reform. not simply one little piece of it or another. it was not an easy lift on the g.i. bill. when i introduced the bill my first day in office, i had written it with the committee counsel, and the comment i was making even for iran for the sake of which is a this is the next generation -- greatest generation? pay the tuition, buy their books, give them a second i people, democrats come to me and said you are freshmen, you've been there like two weeks. we've got a lot of people have bills in that we need to pass in terms of veterans but this was a comprehensive piece of legislation to we worked hard, listen to people, not a lot of

support from veterans groups and we develop a bipartisan consensus, to republicans to democrats, to world war ii veterans, two vietnam veterans come in and 16 months were able to pass the most comprehensive piece of veterans legislation since world war ii what are the great prides of my life is that more than a million post-9/11 veterans have now not been able to take advantage of our g.i. bill. [applause] -- have now been able to take advantage of our g.i. bill. >> how to make america a better place? let's look into the future. i want to say something that troubles me a lot and i think there are a lot of people in the show who will agree. money is ruining our political process. [applause] particularly since the citizens united case of 2012.

it's money i hear jeb bush saying he raised $100 million in three months. there are these super pacs meeting with the super pacs. he is not alone here but this cannot continue. the only way we are going to do anything about it is to make sure that our people by the numbers can outnumber the kind of money that's coming in here and that we get the policies that we believe in place to that's what we did when i ran for the senate we have 14,000 volunteers and helped us win we ran against and incumbent senator who just got the highest number of votes. we need to remember that the american dream is a unique thing in this world. and when people say you shouldn't talk about american exceptionalism, excuse me. i think the american dream is unique because i people are

trying to come in from all over the world. i've lived the american dream. i was able to get scholarships to go to school. able to serve my country. i've had a great experience in my life. but i will tell you is really the american dream, my life. my wife was born in vietnam. her family escaped vietnam when the communists took over. is something we need to remember. on april 30, it will be the 40th anniversary of the fall of saigon. for those of you who can remember what that was like, with the chaos was like in that country, hundreds of thousands of vietnamese jumping into the sea rather than having to face what was happening when the communist took over. her entire extended family got on the phishing boat seven siblings aunts, uncles et cetera. they went out to see. they did know if they're going to live or die. after three days, it shall be the first to point this out the united states navy screwed them out of the seat.

brought into a refugee camp in guam. from there she went to a refugee camp in arkansas, and her family was able to settle in new orleans. her parents never spoke english. never able never mastered english literature choose are working when she was 11. got a scholarship to the universe of michigan, and to do that cornell law school. now that's the american dream. [applause] we are going to preserve this it's only going to come from the democratic party. waft remember that. we are never going to find an answer in the republican party on issues like economic fairness and giving people who have no voice, the voice that the democratic party, the party of franklin roosevelt and harry truman has always given them. and we should say, we should agree that we are not going to be marginalized by special

interests. we are not going to be silenced in the face of overwhelming pressures that this kind of money can buy. we will not acquiesce to a future that marginalizes this whole beauty of the american dream. we will not allow them to ignore us after the election is over. everyone in this room i think shares these kinds of feelings, or you wouldn't be committing yourself to the kind of service that you're getting right now. if enough of you believe that we can restore and preserve the american dream, for everyone then we will not become what some people are calling the moderate wing of the republican party. we will return to the party of roosevelt and truman, the party that today looks after everyone

though lacks a voice. [applause] and harley to be will be proud of me because when the going to come in second we are never going to come in second with the finest nation in the world, the strongest economic power in the world. we are the guarantor of stability in the world and that is going to continue. thank you very much. [applause] >> let me to you a little bit about governor martin o'malley of maryland. governor o'malley comes from a long family of democrats as well. his father was a national leader in the democratic party.

he's someone is not a stranger to i would. he came here in 1983 to work on gary hart's campaign as one of his staff organizers and had a chance to work on that great camping and which gary hart finished second to graduate from law school he settled in baltimore. he became interested in local government and ran for the city council and got elected. elected. the mayor spa beach an. the mayor's body can open into the crowded field running for that spot and he dived into that as well and be successful getting elected mayor. the time he took over as mayor of baltimore it was suffering through some really tough times with regard to high crime rates and a struggling economy. it was a result of the innovative policies is able to enact. baltimore was able to turn around and baltimore became a city that was recognized nationally for some really fine achievements. as the result of his work as mayor he was elected governor in 2006. he took on the republican incumbent and beat him and was probably rewarded with a bad economy in 2007 and 2008 that he had to deal with.

dean acheson innovative policies to deal with it. economic problem, reelected in 2010 and that badger for democrats by a landslide. and so the people of maryland thought well of him and his leadership. after he left office he kind of looked at his most successful publishers. personal the race and the to 10.10 dollars 10 an hour. [applause] -- he signed into law the marriage equality act. [applause] he signed into law a legislative -- legislation abolishing the death penalty. [applause] and he also was instrument in passing the dream act to provide in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. [applause]

when he left office can maryland recovered 100% of the jobs it lost in the recession, and -- go ahead. [applause] under his leadership maryland public schools ranked number one in the nation for five years in a row. [applause] and finally the u.s. chamber of commerce which is not always kind to democrats recognized him because maryland was number one in entrepreneurship and innovation for three years in a row. [applause] please give a nice round of applause for governor o'malley. [applause] >> thanks very, very much. thank you. hey, thanks. let's give it up for senator webb. senator, thank you for your message tonight. [applause] senator webb, thank you for your

message of economic fairness for your message of national security, for your message of basic governance. i want you all to turn to one another and say it's good to be a democrat in polk county. go ahead, do it. now turned your other neighbor and tell them it's good to be a democrat from polk county. now that we've established that, let us establish one of the very important thing that i was taught via a maryland senior senator paul sarbanes. that is as democrats were great believers in the truth that programs should end on the same day that they start. [laughter] as i'm going to get right into it. [laughter] tom anderson, i want to thank you. i want to thank all of you for being here today. and sharon and the famine of congressman neal smith, thank you for everything you did.

stated next is my 17 year-old son william. [applause] and sharon, i know families give up a lot in order to support their parents and public service but i would also like to tell you one other thing. that is that my mom barbara o'malley, who is 87 when she found out i was coming to iowa she said say hello to my friend neil smith. ago she was in the young democrats from fort wayne, indiana, where she got a pilots license during the second world war. joint civil air patrol protected the indiana coastline against german u-boat incursion. [laughter] and at the time though, she come after that she was in washington, d.c. and she remembers your father very fondly. she was the secretary-treasurer and would see your father in washington. so please give her my best about writer named out on the card for

you. i promised my mom i would do that. my parents were part of that generation that tom brokaw and others have called the greatest generation. it was not a title that they would readily embrace themselves. because as americans they believe that every generation have an obligation to be a great generation. and that's my message for you tonight. we still have time, all of us to be a great generation of americans, and our children and their future is depending on it. and yes the future is watching. tonight i want to talk to you about the story of us about the story of des moines in baltimore, about the start of maryland and iowa, and the story of america. 200 years ago in the war of 1812 true story, the british had just burned our nation's capital to the ground. they had taken washington.

the capitol and the white house were burning, and the people of my home city the people of baltimore, could actually see the glow from those fires to our south. and now we knew that they were coming for us. and a mix the ashes of our nation's capital, the commanding british general at the time declared, and i quote, i am going to march on baltimore. i am going to die and they are because even -- dying -- because even then we have great restaurants and baltimore. [laughter] and then i'm going to burn baltimore to the ground. our nation was not yet 40 years old. and the american dream at the moment was facing extinction. imagine what we felt at that time. anger, fear, disbelief

confidence shattered. trust totally gone. there are moments in the life of our country, and they are defining moments when it seems that the american dream itself is hanging by a thread. and yet for america there is always a yet. and that final thread that holds us to just be the strongest. 50% of the defenders at the time were actually immigrants. one out of five of us were black citizens of a still as yet very imperfect country, and only one out of five of those black defenders would free themselves. but somehow together we transform our loss we transform our despair and instead of digging graves, we dug trenches. we built ramparts by the sea,

and against the overwhelming shock and awe force of it today the people of baltimore stood firm. all of us today in our own times now singing the star-spangled banner, that giant giant flag was hoisted in defiance over fort mchenry when the british guns finally give up and went silent. but let us remember as we sing the anthem today that the colors of the star-spangled banner were themselves stitched together by black and white hands by name sans and women's hands hands of freedom, hands of bondage. and i would submit to you that thread that held the flag together then is the same thread that holds us together here tonight. [applause] and what is that thread?

it is the thread of human dignity, the dignity of home the dignity of place ma the dignity of country, the dignity of neighbor helping neighbor so that all of us can succeed. in other words, with our countries future hanging in the balance, we stood as one and the american dream lived on. now fast-forward. in 1999 when i ran for mayor, mr. attorney general, there is a different sort of battle going on in the streets of baltimore. and this time we were losing. baltimore had become the most violent of the most addictive and most abandoned city in america. and the biggest enemy that we face was not the drug dealers or crack cocaine. it was the lack of belief. a culture, failure. excuses as to why none of us if we had an ounce of sense should even bother to try. so we set out to make our city

work again. to make the dream true again. we started setting goals with deadlines. and instead of simply counting out, or rather inputs as government always does, we started measuring outputs. we saw trashed in our streets and alleys and we picked it up every day. we saw open air drug markets and we begin to relentlessly close them down. and guess what? when the people of baltimore saw that their government was working again they rallied too. [applause] together, in other words, we put into action a powerful belief that in our city there is no such thing as a spare american. that we are all in this together. and over the next 10 years baltimore went on to achieve the biggest reduction in part one crime of any major city in america. [applause]

we americans sometimes have short memories, don't we? but none of us will ever forget seven years ago when our country was facing the worst recession since the great depression. a meltdown on wall street left our nation's entire economy hanging by a thread. ..