>> the senators are advised that all time for debate has expired. >> i ask unanimous consent to continue the debate for five minutes. >> is there objection? without objection. >> thank you. so this statement that somehow commanders are removed from responsibility and that we are not keeping commanders responsible that couldn't be farther from the truth. .. level. the unit commander is responsible for good order and discipline. every aspect of the chain of command is responsible. it is their job to train troops, to maintain good order and discipline to prevent rapes and crimes being committed under their command and to punish retaliation. they have failed in that duty. in this chain of command 97% of commanders are responsible and do not have the convening authority that we would like to give to prosecutors.

97%, their job doe'tnge and do not have the convening authority for prosecutors. 97% not changing one iota. so you want a major commander left response to bowl is a false statement that has no bearing. in fact they are 100% responsible for good order and discipline training troops and prosecute retaliation. and one near mr. president, dave been on notice for years about this. they are super on notice now. not one prosecution or retaliation. under article xv this guy can do something about retaliation. this guy, this guy. only 3% of the right to convening authority of the 3% needs to move to someone who is a lawyer who was trained to does have a way of it in to make the right decision and that is not what is happening today. right now the supervisor unit

leader is 65% of the cases with alleged discrimination or sexual harassment. the unit leader is committing it. one in seven are one of this chain of commands. there is a perspective by a survivor that the chain of command does not have my back. i would like to give it to another chain of command from the senior military prosecutors to make a decision so her perspective can be someone has my back. the chain of command may be taken for her and her unit commander is harassing her. you need to professionalize system. we are trying to make the military the best in the world and making it his mission. we need to give them the tools. having the current status quo of no retaliation for 25 years is failing. to have the same rate to retaliation two years ago when the commander said you must

trust us to do this everyone does not have convening authority, but everyone could've stopped retaliations. it is dishonest. 30% of the cases of retaliation or administrative. 30% are professional. only a commander can demonstrate a professional retaliation. this culture must change it if congress doesn't take responsibility to hold the department accountable, no one will. i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >> fiscal year 15 and the aa last year included 34 new provisions dealing with sexual assault. they have had barely time to implement these let alone assess their effectiveness. fiscal year ford team include at more than 50 individual privations, the most comprehensive set of changes to the uniform code of military justice since 1968.

she militants the last three ndaa include 71 sections of law with 100 unique requirements including 16 congressional reporting requirements. this year's bill for 12 military justice provisions including every proposal offered by senator joe lagrande during the markup of the legislation. it is true sexual assault has been reduced. that is a fact. so to somehow allege that nothing has been done that there has not been what her proposal has -- is it by literally every member of the military that i know that has years of experience. we cannot remove the commanding officer from the chain of command and that is what senator

gillibrand's amendment has been to remove the commander for responsibility and i will steadfastly opposed it and i hope at some point the senator from new york with knowledge that we took in this bill every provision that she offered during the markup of the legislation. so with respect and appreciation for senator gillibrand's passion and dedication on this issue, i respectfully disagree and encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment. that's >> the senate approved a ban on torture in interrogations on a 78 to 21 foe. another amendment to the bill proposed by democrats kirsten gillibrand would remove sexual assault cases from the chain of command. senator gillibrand debated with john mccain and dianne feinstein. this part of the debate is half

an hour. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the distinguished chairman for this. i don't think i will take 15 minutes. we have worked it down but mr. president, i join senator mccain and ranking member read as well as senator collins and the other original cosponsors from the senator legg t., paul king flake heinrich, white house, mikulski warner, baldwin and marquis in darfur in an amendment that will help ensure the united states never again carry so coercive and abusive interrogation techniques or indefinite secret detentions. i'm very pleased the senate will consider the amendment and i urge and aye vote. the amendment today is really

very simple. it applies the authorizations and restrictions for interrogations in the army field manual to the entire united states government. it extends what congress did in 2005 by a vote of 929 with the detainee treatment of fact which i believe mccain off third for amusing techniques not authorized by the army field manual and also then the government for using cruel inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment. the amendment requires prompt access by the international committee of the red cross to any detainee held by the united states government. both of this provision are consistent with united states policy for the past several years. this amendment would codify requirements into law. president obama bans the use of

coercive and abusive interrogation techniques by the executive order in his first few days in office. actually, january 22nd 2009. that executive order formally prohibits as a matter of policy the use of interrogation techniques not specifically authorized by the army field manual on human intelligence collector operations. this amendment places that restriction in law. it is long overdue. the amendment also codifies another section of president obama's january 09 executive order requiring access by the international committee of the red cross to log u.s. detainees in u.s. government custody. access which has been historically granted by the united states and other

law-abiding nations in this needed to fulfill obligations under international law such as the geneva convention. it is also important to understand that the policies and eight the own nine executive order are only guaranteed for as long as the future president agrees to leave them in place. this amendment would codify these two provisions into law. current law already been torture as well as cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. however the amendment is still necessary because interrogation techniques were able to be used, which were based on deeply flawed legal theories. it was sad day do not constitute torture or cruel inhuman

treatment. legal opinions could be written again. in 2009 president obama's executive order settled the issue as a form of policy. the amendment will codify a prohibition program already confirmed at the end of the bush administration. cia director john brennan has clearly stated that he agrees with the bad on interrogation techniques that are not in the army field manual. director brennan wrote the following to the intelligence committee in 20 team about the president's own nine executive order. and i quote, i want to reaffirm what i said during my confirmation hearing. i agree with the president's decision and while i am director of the cia this program will not under any circumstances be reinitiated. i personally remain firm in my

belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and the varied use impairs our ability to continue to play a leadership role in the world, end quote. furthermore, it is important to point out that the senate and the house both require use of the army field manual across the government and the fiscal year 2008 intelligence authorization bill. unfortunately president bush vetoed the legislation. mr. president, whenever one may think about the cia's former detention and interrogation program, we should all agree there can be no turning back to the year of torture. interrogation techniques that would together constitute torture do not work. they corrode our moral standing

and ultimately undermine any counterterrorism policy they are intended to support. so before i close, i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a series of letters and statements in support of the amendment. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and by doing so we can we commit ourselves to the fundamental precept that the united states does not torture. without exception and without equivocation ensure the mistakes of our past are never again repeated in the future. i ask for a yes vote and i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. >> the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

>> mr. president. >> senator from arizona. >> we are in a quorum call. >> i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. >> without objection. >> i asked my colleagues if they wish to disregard my statement with the exception of this statement by general david petraeus. i don't know if a military leader that is more respected in america and throughout the world in general david petraeus. i don't have to remind my colleagues whose commander of u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan, director of the cia and arguably has more experience dealing with foreign detainee issues across the u.s. government than any other american and here are his words. these are the words of general

david petraeus. i strongly support provisions of the u.s. army field manual that currently govern actions of the military to all u.s. government personnel and contractors. our nation has played a high price in recent decades for the information gained by the use of techniques eons those in the field manual and in my view that price far outweighed the value of the information gained through the use of techniques beyond those in the manual. i urge my colleagues to listen to the words of david petraeus. here is a letter that i received this meant the former intelligence interrogation professionals, u.s. military cia and fbi. there's an excerpt of a letter they sent this month. as intelligence and interrogation professionals who have offered our collective voice of opposing torture and

other forms of cruelly inhuman or degrading treatment we strongly encourage you to support the amendment. the interrogation methods that have kept america safe for generations are sophisticated to lawful revival actionable intelligence in any interrogation scenario. to promote a return to the respective level of professionalism, there must be a single well-defined standard of conduct consistent with values as a nation across all u.s. agencies to cover the detention and interrogation of people in u.s. custody. support by the most experienced military leaders in a letter this month, 30 retired not delivering core, centcom, former commander-in-chief among others wrote the following and i quote. this amendment not only solidifies america's stance against torture and other cruel inhuman or degrading treatment

but it ensures methods produced by all u.s. personnel are professional and reflect best practices. in no way we not only ensure the the interrogations are humane and lawful but also they produce reliable intelligence on which we depend if we fight again against the current terrorist threat. i ask unanimous consent the letter from this individual is dated june 9th be included in the record. >> without objection. >> in the letter from the 30 retired armed military officers including commander-in-chief of the marine corps also be included in the record. >> without objection. >> in a letter this month the national association of evangelicals wrote the following and supported this amendment.

by use of torture is currently prohibited across all government agencies by executive order, the fundamental principle must be enshrined in law to ensure no future president may authorize the use of torture. batasuna national association of evangelicals. the committee on international justice piece in the united states congress conference of catholic bishops grow catholic teaching torture is an intrinsic evil that cannot be justified under any circumstances as it violates dignity of the human person both victim and perpetrator and degrades any society that tolerates it. we urge all senators to sub board the mccain feinstein amendment to ensure our government is not engaged in torture every again. mr. president i respect the dedication and services of those charged with protecting the

country. for 14 years america's security professionals in the military and intelligence community and beyond have lived every day with a dogged determination to protect fellow americans. at the same time i must continue to insist the methods we employ in the fight for peace and freedom must always be as right and honorable as the goals and ideals we fight for. i believe past interrogation policies compromised our values stand or national honor and did little practical good. i don't believe i don't believe we should have employed such practices in the past and we should never permit them in the future. this amendment provides greater assurances that never again will the united states follow the dark path of sacrificing our values for a short-term security needs. i also know such practices don't work. i know from personal experience

the abuse of prisoners does not produce good reliable intelligence. that is the torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. i firmly believe all people even captured enemies possess basic human rights which are protected by international standards offense that by america's past leaders. our enemies act without conscience. we must not. let us reassert the contrary proposition that it is essential to our success in this war that we ask those who fight for us to remember at all times they are defending the sacred ideal of a nation should govern and conduct relations with not even our enemies. those of us who give the beauty are obliged by history by our nation's highest ideals and the many terrible sacrifices made to

protect them by a respect for human dignity to make clear we need not risk our national honor to prevail in this or any war. we need only remember the worst of times in the chaos and terror war when facing cruelty suffering and loss that we are always americans. different, stronger and better than those who would destroy us. mr. president i yield the balance of my time.

>> found that -- [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. my name is tom pickering. it is my special pleasure to introduce this afternoon's distinguished guest susana malcorra come the shaft a cabernet at the secretary-general of the united nations. a moment ago we were chatting about her job and how interesting it is and how tough it is. i am sure she brings to those particular challenges around

distinguished and indeed deeply experienced career. as many of you well know she proceeded this present job which he undertook in march 2012 by a four-year stint as undersecretary general for field support, and extremely challenging job dealing with 80 and 120,000 peacekeepers around the world. many missions of the united nations and many taxing and challenging questions. she said of her present job a moment ago it is everything between the bombing of sun on one hand and 10 minutes later a fire in the u.n. garage. i can imagine it is. hopefully there are no buyers in the u.n. garage behemoth intended by your presence here. prior to her work as the undersecretary general field support. she is also a distinguished

career in the world program as he now undertakes the urging of providing to those needy all around the world. the donated in surplus pools that can be made available and provided to many thousands of recipients. the deputy chair of the organization. she brings a wealth to us today a distinguished background in the private sector. and a very interesting one. in the early stages of career in argentina unless the job and went into the major telecommunications company of her country where she rose to very important and responsible positions in direct in the work of that particular organization. so she comes to output the

experience that is fast both in the private sector and international organization of the united nations that her. today we are here talking about the future of the united nations and potential for change. i would like if i can to take a few minutes to talk about one or two challenges out there. having spent a little time myself dealing with the security council i think it remains part of the organization capacity to deal with today's overwhelming problems to peace and security and in that regard we look at the old sometimes in anguish over getting it back together and sometimes deep cooperation that it has the capacity to provide for legitimacy and indeed the processes that can help the international community built directly with threats to peace and security.

devito is of course something that no representative and a member would wish to talk about in public. i used to deal somewhat as the basis of deciding how strong and firm my own career was to the united states. the year that i left american government employment in 2000 made a proposal which i thought that had legs. i don't think it does now. but our friends in france are following the proposal so that i would mention it briefly as i think it can help set off a little bit of our discussion and a little bit of interesting issues. devito in my view should be used to promote the interests of the organization and protect the permanent members of the security council when what they

consider is the highest order of interests being threatened and not for other purposes. it is unfortunately as we now know well used for other purposes. some of them ephemeral, some highly political. some of them to send signals that none of them in my view worth the notion assigning work of the security council. my view was and still is in cases like genocide and genocide is a particularly important question. the security council on the five permanent members that when they cannot reconcile three of them opposed it, then it would be a draft. less than three opponents will help obviously in negotiating a draft which wider scope. but when there are less than three the others would agree they should abstain. in my view this is possible in

the early 90s when in fact we emerged from the cold war and we had errands of good feeling in the effective operation of the security council. it is not now. i would temper the voting convention by several caveats. one that i mentioned a moment ago that the voting convention would work except one of the permitted members felt that a truly vital interest was at stake and told the other members why it was going to break the voting convention. secondly my view with e. it could be much more acceptable on a broader basis if two thirds of the members of the general assembly asked the security council to operate under the use of this voting convention with threats to peace and security on the agenda at the security council. these are wonderful ideas. they don't solve the problem of how we get more representation

of more deserving stays for the role. my sense is were we to resolve the question of the use of veto in a way that much by tightly restrict good complication we could open the door in a more positive way to slightly broader representation of that in itself would be a help. thank you for giving me an opportunity to deliver this message to our audience. and thank you for being with us. thank you for coming to the platform to give us your thoughts and remarks. we look forward to a great deal of anticipation. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. pleasure to be here today.

i want to thank the brookings institute for this opportunity and particularly want to thank you for the chance for being here today. i also want to add my thanks to ambassador tom pickering and his introduction put in a high mark for me as sort of makes me wonder how much a travel i would make it. i would like to start by referring to the fact 2015 minutes a year for the united nations. i'm sure you remember this is the 70th anniversary of the united nations which essentially is time to take stock to define what the institution has done so far and to fundamentally think what the institution should be doing towards the future. so it's a very relevant year for all of us all over the world at

a moment where things are not easy in the world. the combination of us trying to look inward and trying to see how we have new soap are an external threat than fact areas that could pressure the united nations are combined before us. the first thing i would like to say when they look at the u.n. and the charter of the u.n. and i will invite you to read the charter of the u.n. if you haven't done it is very interesting because the founding member states have written a charter that is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago. one wonders how is it they had such a long-term view of the broader charter.

they have that peace and security pillar which most of the time people are referring to. the development pillar and the human rights pillar. the combination of elements are mutually reinforcing because one will say there is no peace without development as much as one could say there's no development without peace. more and more one could say there is no peace and development without good human rights and that is exactly where we are. so our first check is the charter, as our founding principle and those remain as valued as they were earlier. the interesting thing is even now the principles stayed the same, we do have a question

regarding the united nations and how prepared is the united nations to address all the challenges that the u.n. and the world has today. and the question which i will try to take us through as i speak of whether the united nations is the only tool to address all the problems. sometimes we expect too much from the united nations and maybe we need to have consideration of other tools that could address some of the problems. that they start talking a little bit about the nature of the challenges that we face today. because i think the more we understand the nature of the threats and challenges the better we can understand what is needed to respond to them and then decide whether there is a great match or not between the

u.n. and ability to deliver and then needs the challenges spring. the first thing i will say is the united nations is basically an organization of member states. 193 that essentially recognize the sovereign state as the main basic driver. so we have an organization mounted around the notion of member states as a key element to our decision process. having said that it is clear that the type of threads we face are essentially cross-border cross regional and dealing a share. let me give you a few examples of those because it is

important. violent extremism, one of the things we are seeking these days is on a daily basis not only in iraq and syria libya and nigeria. the violent extremism has a way to work that challenges borders, challenges states, challenges all the institutions and the systems that have been established. migration is another clear example of a challenge we have which is of course cross-border that connects the different regions that we can see that through the migration that is now coming out of media tour zero but we also see it coming out of me on mauer and we see connection between the political

issues and a lack of opportunities and people moving in a manner that is far beyond any name one sought in the recent past. illegal trafficking is another element that is totally trans order, trans regional fed handles itself in a manner that is outside the established systems, but is progressing and worries them is totally interconnected to extremism because of the way extremists have to finance themselves. not only is it an issue on its own because we see people trafficking drugs, arms people, all of these is not only horrible enough but is also

time for the supreme groups which need -- cybercrime is a good example of the threat far beyond boundaries. climate change a different type of challenge as the secretary-general likes to say given the most powerful country in the world can address this challenge on its own. again there is a direct connectioconnectio n between climate change and development opportunities in peace and security. and another very important transporter element. we saw it recently with ebola pandemic with something that looked like a small village in guinea ended up threatening this country in europe because it went beyond anything anyone could imagine at the beginning.

so the question is how do we find a web to adjust the toolbox of the united nations and the same manner with the agreement of member states to tackle issues before us that are so different in their nature are the ones we used to have that essentially word consultation between member states. how do we do that in a manner that member states feel that they are worthy to handle it and instead in a a manner that begins with the notion of sovereign states that is the basis of the united nations. the other reality is these challenges are absolutely up asymmetric nature. most of them are such that established institutions

customs all the established parts of the state are not to handle it. so it's not even the united nations that is lacking the tools to address that off in member states that lack the right tools to address them. so it's a very interesting moment because one can argue and more than ever before, corporations of member states is required to address these incorporations to the united nations should go forward. as much as there is a challenge, we don't have the right instrument. it looks like an opportunity because no one can address these on its own. so we have to be innovative and

the enemies we have in front of us are very very fast on their feet, maximize the use of all the openings and opportunities that the systems give them to bypass the systems. so in this context, what are we doing? what is the united nations doing? what are we facing? i think one can say probably the united nations is facing today more fires and not exactly in the garage than ever before. if you look at our world is starting from afghanistan, you can see the basic pattern that allows us to understand interconnectivity of the issues that each one of those issues

being almost untouchable at this point in time. you go from afghanistan where al qaeda has been attacked and you start to look for a nurse to iran syria and yemen and you start to see it now we have not only the conflicts on their own merit but aisha isis and so on. there is a new development which is the competition between al qaeda and the new approach in how they view themselves in power and in acquiring relevant they want to have. so we are involved in each one of these countries trying to find ways to miss the different

parties into a solution. but then you add to that the insurance are the different perspective that the regional players in each one of these places. so the overlay of different views different geopolitical interests coming from the neighboring countries which adds to the complexity and which has led us in the case of syria to be into already four years of an impossible situation without any hint of a solution yet as much as the special envoys tried to work on. so how do we find a way connect in all of these.to rethink how we can offer solutions to member states, how we offer solutions to the people suffering there.

the humanitarian situation in all these countries is absolutely incredible. delivering humanitarian aid is a good first step but is far from enough. only finding political solutions that give people an opportunity is what is going to get us there. of course they had the middle east, the long-lasting issue of the middle east which is a very very difficult to see in a solution in the near term and again could connect to the rest of the questions particularly in syria iraq and yemen. then we get to africa. and africa traditionally has its own dynamics. go to the great lakes and how

the question of the democratic republic of the congo. you can see there that there is a big question of solving the access to other people. you have the different rebel groups trying to seize the states an opportunity that is a conflict of traditional nature. then you have somalia. somalia is not traditional nature because precisely al-shabaab is linked to the other groups and not trying to decide the pledge of allegiance to al qaeda or pledge allegiance to daish. it may bring to somalia the same approach we have seen with vocal for rob in nigeria. you can go of course olivia and see what is happening in libya

again not only the issue of establishing institutions, but also the question of the opportunity these extreme violent groups have seized and now has taken a huge amount of territory with the implication that they mentioned earlier on migration and the impact this has in europe. so something that is happening in africa that starts from far away now has a direct impact in europe and has created a strong reaction in the people and governments of europe with a great deal of concern. out of libya you can go to mali and again molly has a situation of a mix of extreme groups allegiances to different groups

a shifting reality that has made our nation and mali be the target to these groups and we have lost the nation that has a little bit over a year more than 70 peacekeepers already. that shows to you how much we have to become on our own. all of these to say the issues that we handle one by one are absolutely interconnected. unless we can establish this connection can tackle those connections at the heart is very hard to really see a future where winning solutions will be available could be produced by the u.n. or by u.n. partners. what are we doing them with this

reality and now i'm going to mention something ambassador pickering referred to. all of this is overseen by the security council. so it is asking the secretary trying to deliver it to the best of our ability sometimes very well, sometime shortly been that good. but when the security council comes together behind an issue and i could make a reference to weapons in syria is clear that we can make it happen. as much as some people may argue we are not certain of chemical weapons have been out of syria the reality is we have reduced chemical weapons in syria dramatically. although this was was done because the security council was solid behind the subject is.

it is clear that is not the case in syria for the rest of the political file and clear that while there is a bigger confrontation in ukraine represents a bigger consultation and more members of the security council the chances for all of us to move forward this very difficult agenda that passed so many nuances and so many connections as less and less likely to happen and happen well. for us the security council together and see them in the same way the issues at hand is absolutely important. what is happening from iran to try and adapt to the future, a few things i will mention to you. first is the secretary general peace operations panel at the

end of last year and coming out with a report that should be out in the next two days with recommendations on how to strength in our peace operations and this means not only peacekeeping, but also political nations trying to see how we can find ways to work in a manner that is tighter, that delivers better both in political terms in military terms of the security council so decides. here are the areas a very interesting analysis to take into account going back to the charter which is the eventually use of eight of the charter which is the chapter that also shapes the u.n. to the original organizations when that seems to be the best option.

so in this day and age with this combination and going back to my question whether the u.n. should be the one doing everything chapter eight is one of the elements then maybe it's worth considering to be used more frequently moving forward. the other thing that is happening is a review of the commission that is an element driven by members they but the notion of peacebuilding and trying to see how we bring forth the transition between the conflict in the post-conflict and the element between the security and development is very essential and is being reviewed and we should have an output and how, during the year. also women in conflict which is

very important because a lot has been done regarding women of conflict and we are still behind where we should be. there is an element on the development pillar which is supposed 2015 agenda and there is an incredible amount of work done by member states to discuss what comes after the mdg at the end of 2015. and we have seen so far a very interesting agenda put together, which is all-inclusive. it is all states of the world contrary to a little bit of the developed role dictating the developing world and in agenda centered on people and planet that connects sustainability around development and also is

very much centered on inequality, which is an issue that prevails all over the world and one could argue is one of the element by so much is happening with extreme ideas taking root on a job. the third pillar of the charter we are working on a few minutes up front, initiative of the secretary general to put human rights at the center of the united nations to matter where you are in the development side humanitarian to connect the dots and be able to look at the early signals coming from member states or society or with the lack of respect for human rights most likely will lead to a situation of conflict sooner or later. so while this to say we are

reviewing ourselves. we are assessing ourselves. we are taking stock of what we have done. we are not complacent. we understand what we have done is good on some occasions. far from getting the expectations and others. most important we need to probably something different that requires a different toolbox and different tools than the ones we have. we need to define what that is and we're working together with member states to leave enough space to the united nations to expand or to decide where the united nations should not be and how that should be structured in a manner that is still coherent within the international system. so i think flexibility and a

long-term thinking is part of what is required. i can tell you it is very difficult when you are trying with buyers from the garage towards the world and do it in a manner that nothing falls between the cracks. so thank you. i hope this helps this idea and of course i'd be more than happy to answer other questions. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> well, thank you very much. i'm the acting vice president of the foreign-policy program here at brookings. i will start by adding my thanks to susana malcorra are coming here today. i've known suzanna nearly a decade in from the first time we met your honesty and dedication has continued unabated and what is easily the most complex job in the international system. our thanks to you. i'm not going to get you into trouble by pushing you to answer questions -- tough questions per se. over the last 20 years has seen enormous evolution of the u.n. and we been setting up a large part of it here detractors also thought this was a knife of a

situation where it's absolutely deadlocked on ukraine. and yet cooperaticooperati ng on others. i wonder if you could describe what like to work with the council on circumstances. >> you'll get me in trouble. you know it is really very interesting what you said because as much as there is almost an impossible situation and one discussion that morning you get stuck in the afternoon to discuss something different and there is unity and how it can go forward. so how we can get the security council to have a common view on the issues is our big question

mark. i still don't believe we can do as much of it. we can offer options. we can thank ideas that can compromise. i always believed the secretary general can bring to the table and maybe help ease the tension. when you have profound differences between two permanent members are more of the security council that are part of their own policy is very difficult for the secretary general to fix that. so while this gap exists we have to assume that the hands of the united nations are going to be quite tied because the united

nations security is only an instrument of the security council. so other than volunteering options that abuse can give the security council to an alternative that maybe they had not thought about and not be a first step the best place in the hand of another. >> do you ever find yourself playing the opposite role? of course the u.n. has type this into a certain extent by policy that the u.n. should build.to anybody, rogue states, et cetera. but do you ever find yourself reaching the conclusion that a particular actor is simply a contract to bowl simply impossible to work with as they

need to move on from a political solution. do you ever find yourself in that role? >> it is clear we can speak with very difficult act reason we have done that over time. but it is also clear that after you get into this new era that i described earlier where people reject institutions are the ones that are part of the conflict is hard for us to have them interlocutor. first i don't think they care about as. but from our perspective it is difficult because essentially we are the institutions at the maximum level and if you are trying to deal with somebody with deep regard how can you

establish a compromise there. i think it is hard to think how to embrace. >> parliamentarian issues you describe a number of things who are reconsidering but cannot. when it comes to the question of violent extremism and transporters, migration, is it also the case you work with other tourists. another is the concentration of the u.n. is with member states. they are civic, social media. does the u.n. need to shift to what is working with to tackle these problems? >> it is clear the u.n. to open up and is opening up to a much larger number. that again is tricky with the

notion of an organization. we need to be able to in the end the center remains the general is some really. but we need to recognize that social media we need to outrage is one of the world in a different manner. so it is clear that we need to be able to transpire the principles and a different way. ..

is it trying to set the stage for from and relationship with the private sector that is mutually satisfactory. that is a win-win, requires for the united nations -- that's

something we don't do well. sort of an equal footing. so all of this is something we need to develop because there is a divide between the private and the public and i'm not suggesting we need to blur the divide into a responsible is but need to establish good communication. >> the briefly before cody audience i want to talk about peacekeeping. he played a huge role in overseeing human field operations, i was struck by some of an old shop shared with me that territory the false currently under u.n. mandates is slightly larger than -- doesn't even sector have the staff, the structure to the support that it needs to manage that scale of operations? >> you can just say no. >> it all depends and compared with what. if you look at the united states armed forces, military forces,

and the relationship of direct indirect factor in the u.s., we are at a place that is nowhere to be compared. if you look at nato again nowhere to be compared. so it's clear that we don't have the same oversight and support some of these institutions have. but it's also clear that the construction around the peacekeeping operations that member states envisioned was totally different. the command and control is different. relationship between the military deployment and their own capitals is always there, which makes things even more difficult. so the short answer is no. i'm sure to have everything we need. but it's also true that i don't

see an appetite from member states to put in many more resources. so what we are trying is to do the best we can with the resources we have and i think when you look at it but balance is quite possible. having said that we have meaning in areas to make progress on. >> let me ask you about one of them. there have been a number of stories of sexual exportation by peacekeepers. this is an issue that kofi annan adopted a zero-tolerance policy that continues to be a challenge. just a few words about what you're doing about. >> clearly, since secretary-general kofi annan and the panel, where there were suggestions made to change how the organization handled these issues, a lot of progress has been made. we see now systemic approaches to fall on the issues, to track

situations. but it's altered true that member states decided that this was indiana going to be their responsibility, it was going to be in the hands. to get to one point where you transfer to member states and is pretty much in your hands. so the secretary-general is looking into this now and member states are looking into this. probably there is need to take a second look at those recommendations and some that may come after experience, and try to tighten at that relationship with member states. it's a very difficult thing because again, this goes back to the question of a sovereign state that lends military to you, but they are always in the end under the responsibility under jurisdiction. so the bottom line is we now have much better sense of what is happening than what we had

before. some of these are very, very appalling things that we just cannot stand. they should not happen but at least it's better that we know they happen. and bringing these to the limelight hurts because it hurts the institution as we know, but into we get to zero, it is better to be heard than to be not. >> let's turn to the audience and i'll take several questions and come back to you. we are running all of the overtime i'm going to do this for grouping in the middle. right here. please identify yourself and please ask a question. >> thank you. i'm with voice of the news america's. thank you madam. my question has to do with asia and the current tension that is

-- [inaudible] including everything that you listed with human rights, development and peace and security. so to that a special with attention and the south -- in the south china sea and the diversion with a complex in between rising powers and many others and even. my question to you is do you think we the adequate representation of the region in the security council after to the security council capacity based on original representatives? and then also what institution do you think being threatened by the powers in that conflict? is there anything we can do to retain, or to maintain the respect to the institutions? it was detrimental to the u.n. established institutions being rejected are disregarded.

i gather from you. did you suggest how to best resolve the current complex in asia? thank you. >> the are a couple people right behind. >> thank you. actually the navy georgetown instituteinstitute for women, decency to do. image the upcoming review of 1325 and i was curious be on the global study and review its of what the office has been doing to improve the gap between implementation and greater. we have seven resolutions and only 3% of women are only 3% of peace negotiations had women at signatories. i'm wondering what the sg office can do to improve that? thank you. >> back behind. [inaudible] foundation for a public come ngo. thank you very much for your

passionate speech of dedication and your commitment to international organization. i used to work for the world bank over 20 years. and in the meanwhile, i was working for w.h.o. in geneva. the commission on macroeconomics. so at the time i couldn't make the comparison between the world bank and the u.n. and while i was working for both and, you know, there are so many international, some institutions by the u.n. in times of peace and development, i cannot agree with you more the the peace and element goal go hand-in-hand. but there are many instances, many institutions you have proliferated that certain missions are overlapping and that they are very much to be polite. they are sort of like -- i don't

know, as a person used when a national development heartbreaking that when eastern european community, i mean the war had collapsed and there is to institution no organization u.n. organization which you are based in vienna had any cause their client has now been open to capitalism. because of 170 staff interest, that institution disappear and it is right and it goes on. so my question in the end is that it's really nice to hear the u.n. is trying to take stock of the last seven years and trying to move forward. in that review and in that commitment, is u.n. will inform

take a look at some of the institutions and so that if they are overlapping they are willing to and have determined, eliminate some of them? and if they don't need come if they don't have a capacity, can they really work with others rather than just making institutions? thank youthank you very much. >> i think that gives you enough to chew on for a first or. >> i will start with the last one. and i think it is clear that the u.n. has grown throughout time and organic manner. there has been no particular sign of -- [inaudible] in fact we have had different organizations flourish in different times, and based on real needs of the times. one can also argue that after a

certain process, some of these organizations could be mainstreamed into others or merged. it's a very, very difficult exercise. because each one of these organizations has member states involved and that is a strong ownership i member states and member states sometimes are different ministers in different states. it's very interesting that often member states ask as to be more coherent coordinate better among ourselves and we see that member states themselves doesn't necessarily coordinate in the system and in the presence and the system. so i think that part of purpose that he mentioned as we move forward, it's sadly trying to see how we tackle that. now, one of the biggest problems i see we have these days

internally is the need for coordination to get things done. sometimes coordination becomes an end of its own come and you spend so much coordination that you lose sight of what why is it that you were there and who are you therefore let's so we need to find ways to simplify and to define our mandates in a manner that is more clear come as less overlap and at the same time is more dear to us working together. having said this that is organize things ones like to hear there's a very strong competition for resources these days and that goes against the notion of coming together. it's so difficult to fund the programs we have.

it is so much that we rely on -- funding, that they fight for the pool of resources. as a matter of survival. so there's a big tension and a big contradiction between something that is absolute significant which is fully coming together, sharing, and at the same time the notion that unless you have your own institution recognized it's unlikely that you'll get enough resources. so for me that's part of the fit for purpose, how we adapt the united nations to this reality of the 21st century particularly to this reality of sustainable development agenda which will require a totally different approach. by member states and by us. so long question but has not really precise answer but is before us, no doubt.

secretary-general has been, i'm starting backwards so has been very breaking on the question of women. if you look at the presence of women in the secretariat very very important positions, it has grown exponentially. he also believes very deeply that women should be an essential part of negotiation and peace processes the you know, when i work on his behalf in the great lakes, we brought to the table, the women and in the framework that both agreed upon and 11 states women have a relevant piece to address. and its working. it's a matter of putting pressure and putting pressure and putting pressure. it doesn't come automatically.

people don't think in those terms naturally, so the only way is -- that's why this is so important, that that is so important, and adding and adding and adding pressure. that's the goal in automatic mode, for sure. then on the question of adequate representation. first, i cannot answer that specific question to be answered by member states. i'm sure i could have somebody come for my region and make the same argument, somebody from africa making the same argument. what is clear is that it is a very wide agreement that something should change regarding representation. there is a wide disagreement on how this should be done. so as long as there is no common view on how to make it happen is a very very difficult that

something will materialize anytime soon. >> let me ask you about, it's one thing to talk about representation, but are using a different level and quality of engagement by the group of countries we can do describe as any powers, india brazil, china, are you seeing a difference of engagement in the u.n. speaks to me, i don't have a long history in the united nations so i don't know how they were when the ambassador was in the united nations. i cannot compare. but it's clear to me from what i see that these emerging powers feel that they don't have enough share of the saying. this goes beyond the sturdy council only come and that often the agenda is not shared with her participation in a very very established manner. to give an example talking

about the design of mandates by the security council, and their participation as stakeholders tcc or pccc something they continued to ask to be more open and more direct participation. so no doubt that they see themselves in a manner that is not fully reflected in the way we work. >> let's go back to the audience. so i will start. and i will work my way back. >> thank you. i was senior advisor to four to the part of human to in a few weeks of report on global governance will come out of madeleine albright and others have co-authored they think you probably have been briefed on it. one thing to talk about in the report is that we have to take

an opt in to the 75th anniversary of will that work on building support for major changes. and i'm wondering if there was an agenda that you had of perhaps different financial formulas perhaps ideas for reforming of the general assembly, that you think should be worked on? at have to just as i coda say that another great gift from argentina to the vatican is going to come out come he's going to come out with a very major statement, and i'm wondering how the united nations is going to capitalize? >> we sometimes refer to the section as a secular pope so we'll put that in an argentina context. gentleman in the back. >> my name is -- i'm a professor at johns hopkins university school of advanced international studies next-door. one of the challenges you

mentioned that a climate change isn't very which the leadership and vision of the secretary chu has left a powerful and i would say transformational change your his leadership which was the silver last year at the climate summit actually did broaden the circles of outreach and engagement. and has led to open dialogue development or solutions to climate change. beyond the sovereign states that engaging the private sector, the financial services sector in extraordinary success away. by raising the ambition of leading corporations, eosg has brought new hope into what had again to become a somewhat stupefied process of negotiations of member states. could you please sit a little bit about how you see the role of the eosg and the climate change supporting continuing in the broadening effort to create the opportunity for engagement to the private sector as equals with the u.n. going beyond top

21 in december of this year and on toward a for solution? a cooperative collaborative solution to the climate challenge that builds the framework for sustainable development. >> i'll take one more before go back to susana. right in the back lady in the back. >> thank you. i work for fao/rao here in washington, d.c. i just have one quick question to addressing all the different and topics problems in the world, what is, what are the things that are unique that u.n. can provide at no with entity are able to offer? it is drastically changing environment. thank you. >> suzanna? >> thank you. on the report of global

governance, i have come i know a bit. i'm not really yet fully privy to what is coming out, so i will navigate from the basic i know. forgive me if i'm not totally -- i think the notion of having a five year prospective to what's needed to change, it's a very interesting notion. one of the problems is that coming from the private sector i always thought that the private sector was very short-term oriented. i didn't have enough of -- i have learned now that there's much bigger private sector than when we had the again, going fire after fire and being pulled and pushed by the reality of today, and reacting to the

reality of today. so being able to have an agenda that is developed over a period of time and that has the common understanding by member states to meet his fundamental. that means that member states need to trust that the agenda is in the interest of everybody and work towards that agenda. reform is often seen with a suspicious mind within the united nations. there's a certain relationship between reform and cost-cutting measure, and i think it's wrong to see it from that perspective. i believe that many member states, many of the emerging powers that we refer to come a just and that there is a need for a broad reform that goes to the security council. so if we were able to articulate

a few things with a comment by member states, i think that is very powerful way to move the united nations. what will i suggest to put in there? well, it is clear that there is a strong tension between the general assembly and its willingness to delegate power to the secretary-general. it's not different from any other body in the world. i'm sure in this town this is a very well-known reality. the question of how deep you go into managing what is under the responsibility of the secretary-general as chief administrative officer, i think it's something that requires a conversation. it can only happen if member

states fully trust that the secretary joe is going to do in the best interest of the organization, and not managed by any other factor. so that will be something that from is important to see whether there is an opportunity to come to a common view and move the agenda forward. it will make a big difference probably in how fast and how creatively the u.n. can react. having said that there is a very interesting example that happened with ebola. the g8 reacted to the secretary-general's proposal in three days. so when they say -- got back and it's a good example of the general assembly working toward something i was absolutely a demand that needed to happen now, and we got resources within a week. sometimes we think that this

cannot work. maybe there is an interest to make it work can be proven that it is possible. executive jim and climate change, i think this is an excellent example of how much -- secretary-general and climate change, i think this is an excellent example of how much a secretary joe can do. we would having an excellent conversation before coming in and we were talking about how much concern the secretary-general has and the question of is the secretary-general secretary or a general come at all these things. i think that the secretary-general has much less influence than what people perceive the secretary-general has, but at the same time he has much more influence than some others believe she has. i will add to be politically

correct. it's secretary-general bond and his own conviction that move his agenda agenda, when everybody went to copenhagen and that did not materialize, it would've been easy for him to give up. it was a very difficult moment and he did not give up. so he has worked with every single member of state on this agenda. the very big powers the very small nations that are now drowning themselves in water and he has made the case i think. i wouldn't say he is the only one but higher moral ground has really helped in shaping this agenda. now we have the pope adding his

voice. so i hope that will also bring more to the table. it's clear again as i discussed the development of this is an agenda that will not happen just with engagement of member states. the biggest contributor and a positive or negative what will be in the private sector. so unless we enlarge in a very concrete manner the commitment of the private sector unless we make sure that his alignment between what private sector does, what policies are established by governments, and what all of you of all of these have added international level this will not materialize. it's clear that will have to think through what comes after december, but we are not there

yet. this is something that is being worked. so i don't have a specific answer to your question. what has happened and what is going to happen with the oval office, but there will be follow afterward, no question. is secretary will not let go, i assure you of that. what is the difference between the u.n. what does the u.n. act as a uniqueness? i think it's clear that the authority and the convening power that the u.n. has through the general assembly to speed we will take the last few minutes of this event at this point. a quick reminder you can watch this program or any c-span program online anytime at c-span.org. going live now to the senate where lawmakers today will spend a nice the they work on the 2016 of its program and policies to put it provides the this except well billion dollars for the pentagon. no votes are scheduled at this

point. and now lie to the senate floor here on c-span2. -- now live. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of our lives, whose commands we cherish and in whose service we find joy, thank you for the gift of this day. inspire our lawmakers to fill the waiting hours with labor that will

open doors of new possibilities for our nation and world. stir their hearts to seize today's opportunities to do your will on earth repairing yesterday's wrongs and grasping tomorrow's promises. enlighten their hearts with the knowledge of your love, as they strive to make this world a better place. use them to provide cheer to sad hearts, faith to doubting hearts and courage to fearful hearts. we pray in your loving name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: it was certainly heartening to see so many democrats join us yesterday in advancing a good defense authorization bill by a very

large bipartisan margin. it now puts the senate on a path to bring the bill to final passage tomorrow. once that happens the senate will have taken a significant step toward doing right by the men and women who risk everything to protect us. this is certainly good news, but it's not the end of the story either. because while the defense authorization bill makes promises to our troops, it's the defense appropriation bill that actually fulfills those promises. that's just the bill we'll consider next. i would expect everyone who votes for the defense authorization bill would also want to support moving to defense appropriation because i'm sure every democratic colleague who just voted to make promises to our troops will want to help us actually fulfill those promises by voting for the defense appropriation bill as well. they might look to the example democrats just set in the house of representatives last week.

house democrats appeared to understand just how cynical it would have been to make promises and then not fund them, which is why we saw dozens join with republicans to pass defense appropriation. house democrats must have known their studies wouldn't fall for a -- quote -- i was for the troops before i was against them -- end quote argument. house democrats also must have seen how heartless it would have been to deny funding for america's heroes as part of some ridiculous filibuster summer plan to extract more cash for giant bureaucracies like the i.r.s. i have to think that senate democrats would see things the same way. judging by what we just saw last week in the senate appropriation committee, there is no reason to think otherwise. democrats and republicans came together in the appropriation committee to pass the defense appropriation bill we're about to consider by a huge margin of

27-3. not only did every single democrat support this bill in committee -- not only did nearly every single democrat support the bill in committee but democrats had some pretty supportive things to say about it too. one democratic friend called the appropriation bill a key investment in our national security that funds a number of hawaii's defense needs. another democrat noted it would fund a program that's one of her top priorities. and here's what another democrat said of the bill -- it will directly protect and grow connecticut's defense manufacturing industry and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports across our state. and he went on to say it will implement a well-deserved pay raise for our troops who put their lives on the line each and every day. he concluded by saying it's a victory for connecticut a

victory for connecticut. now, there is a rousing endorsement of the bill we'll vote on tomorrow. it's no wonder each of these democratic colleagues voted to endorse the appropriation bill. it's good news for our troops and for their families. it's good news for our country. these democratic friends must not want to see a victory for connecticut squashed or one of their top priorities sacrificed for the sake of some ploy to funnel a few more dollars to washington's big bureaucracies. they must think this filibuster summer idea their party leaders hatched isn't good for america's national security or for job security in their own states. they must know you can't take credit for promises made in a defense authorization bill if you then vote against them in an appropriation bill that would fund them. so i hope senators in both parties will join together once

more to bring the defense authorization bill over the goal line tomorrow and then begin debate on the inseparable defense appropriation bill, too. if senators want to amend that appropriation bill or strike a rider, then they should vote with us to get on the legislation so we can consider these amendments or those motions to strike. if senators want to try and increase or reduce the level of funding in that bill, the only way they'll have a chance to try doing that is if they vote with us to get on the bill in the first place. so bring us your ideas bring them on out. let's debate them. whether you have got a proposal to boost the helicopter industry in connecticut or a plan to repair naval vessels amphibious and surface ships in places like california washington, hawaii and virginia, the only way to ensure ideas like these are considered is by voting to open debate on the appropriation

bill and the only way to ensure they won't be heard at all, at all is by voting to filibuster. that wouldn't be good for anyone. so let's not kill the opportunity to even have those debates, because here's what we know. the young men and women of our volunteer force don't need a summer packed full of democratic filibusters, and they certainly don't need a democrat shutdown surprise in the fall. all they ask for are the weapons, the training and the skills they need to prevail on the battlefield. we can give it to them. we're almost there. democrats have already joined with republicans to make a promise to the troops, and with just a little more good bipartisan work, we'll see democrats join with republicans to fulfill those promises. i have to think that they will, because failing to do so would

mean making empty promises to both constituents and to our troops. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democrat leader. mr. reid: my friend, the republican leader, throws the word around filibuster, and he is right to do that because he is an expert. he has led this senate in more filibusters than all previous leaders put together. as a republican leader, he has engineered about 300 filibusters, stopping basically everything or certainly slowing down everything in the president's agenda. it's a plan that he was part of and he certainly lived up to that. mr. president, 46 democrats over here are just as patriotic as 54

republicans over there. we care about the troops just as much as the republicans over there. but we also believe that when my friend the republican leader, throws around terms like vast bureaucracy that we want to fund a vast bureaucracy i don't think that we should start talking about bureaucracies. the pentagon's a pretty good bureaucracy in itself. i admire very much the secretary of defense. he does the best job he can. but our secretary of defense does not agree with the republicans as to how the troops should be funded. my friend, the republican leader knows that the legislation that is before this

body is going to be vetoed by the president. he said so, he put it in writing. the president said that on appropriation bills if they're at the level of sequestration he will fulfill -- veto those also. so this little magic game that the republican leader is engineering, saying we're going to take care of defense and the vast bureaucracy we don't care what happens to them, well, this vast bureaucracy is things like the federal bureau of investigation, it's the homeland security secretariat, which is important for protecting the homeland making sure that airports are safe, making sure that our borders are protected. that's the vast bureaucracy that he's talking about. and so we democrats want to make sure that there is equality. we believe in funding defense and we're going to do everything we can and there has been no

better example of that the chair of the subcommittee dealing with -- the ranking member i should say of the subcommittee dealing with defense, the senior senator from illinois. he has worked so hard to be fair fair to democrats and fair to republicans. and i'm confident he will continue to do that. i'm also confident that he cares about these other agencies that we are so concerned about. only a few i've mentioned. have a secure nation, mr. president -- having a secure nation mr. president takes more than bombs and bullets. having a secure nation also is to make sure we have a good education system, we have a good transportation system, we have a good program to maintain research for health. the most famous in the history of the world organization for investigating disease national institutes of health, and we know what sequestration did to them once, and they're about to

do it again if this little magic game the republican leader is engineering goes on. they will be cut just like everybody else, just not defense. and the one thing he fails to mention is the fact that it's all borrowed money. $100 billion approximately to get this, what he wants done, is borrowed money this so-called overseas contingency fund. so mr. president we're going to do what we think is appropriate for the country. changing the subject one way we're going to do that, mr. president, is later this month, we'll celebrate the 50th anniversary of the creation of the eisenhower interstate highway system. the establishment of america's interstate highway system was one of the signature accomplishments of the entire 20th century. if ever there was a list of seven wonders of the united states our nation's highway

system would be on that list. of course it would be. consider the sheer size and complexity of our transportation system. the interstate highway system encompasses 50,000 miles of highways bridges and tunnels and that doesn't count the railways. it connects east and west, north and south. a person could drive from boston directly to seattle 3,020 miles, or from laredo, texas, to duluth, minnesota all on our interstate highway system. the federal interstate system serves all 50 states and the district of columbia. the interstate highway system is the central nervous system of our nation's economy creating vital corridors for goods and services for america's commerce. every community in our nation, from our largest cities, our largest metropolitan areas, to the small rural communities that have just a few people, and i mean a few people.

our interstate highways bear the name of the republican president dwight d. eisenhower whose vision of a connected america resulted in the federal highway act of 1956. how did this man this good man, dwight eisenhower, come up with this idea? well he was ordered as a young officer to bring military contingency across the united states during world war i. it was awful. and he never forgot that. there was no federal highway system. there were barely highways, there were barely roads. with his experience as allied commander of our troops in world war ii he came back from that recognizing how important moving goods and services and -- in

the military around europe and how he had tried that in the united states, it didn't work, but he was going to change that and that's what he did. president eisenhower, a republican understood that the interest rate highway complex was an investment worth making. he realized the money spent on roads and bridges creates jobs, lots of jobs. president eisenhower with all of his military experience and background understood that the interest rate system was an important national security need. my friend talks about the security of our troops. of course they're important. we so admire these men and women who protect us. but have a safe, secure nation, mr. president, we also have to have things like a good highway system and my friend the republican leader fails to mention that. it's part of our nation's security need as evidenced by dwight eisenhower. i wonder what president eisenhower would think of

today's republican party and its lack of concern for the interest rate highway system. i believe he'd be greatly disappointed. just a few weeks from now as the move july comes to a close -- month of july comes to a close funding for the federal highway program will expire. you wouldn't know that congressional republicans are watching the same movie. the american people are watching. republicans in congress have refused to work work with us in making an adequate long-term investment in our nation's surface transportation system. instead the republicans see the federal highway program and trust fund as a sort of hot potato stay way from it, it should never be dealt with, only kicked down the road leaving millions of jobs behind. even with a looming deadline republicans are showing no haste in forming a plan to address our nation's crumbling roads railroads, bridges and transit system. mr. president, we have one of the most unique makeups in one

of our committees that this body has ever seen. we have one of the most liberal members of the senate, barbara boxer, and her counterpart is one of the most conservative members of this body jim inhofe from oklahoma. and they know the importance. they know the importance, these two divergent political spectrums know that we have to do something about the highway system. and they're going to put out a bill. they're going to authorize it and then we need to figure out a way to fund that. republicans don't seem interested in that. with the looming deadline republicans are showing no haste in forming a plan to develop this system that we have to do something about. congressional republicans see no urgency to schedule hearings, mark up a bill, take testimony in other ways, or make the highway trust fund solvent. and with every day that passes, our federal highway trust fund inches closer and closer to

insolvency. it's clear we'lled in to get to -- need to that program this week or next week but we won't. look at the schedule. it means we're left with july. looking at the senate calendar for july assuming the republican leader will keep the senate out of session on friday we have in reality 15 days to reauthorize the federal highway system. 15 days. 15 session days is precious little time especially when republicans don't feel any urgency to solve this problem. of course we all know how this is going to play out. this is straight out of the republicans' playbook. manufactured crisis playbook. they have written the book and they're adding chapters to it every week of this congress. republicans will drag their feet until the very last minute, refusing to work with us on a long-term solution to our nation's infrastructure woes and then when the deadline is imminent the republican leader will offer yet another short-term extension to stave

off another disaster of his own making. this is and should be unacceptable to everyone here. we already have had 33 republican short-term fixes. we don't need a 34th. but that's where we're headed and that's too bad. what we do need is a republican party that sees the value of a robust long-term investment in our nation's highways. we need a republican party that sees what president eisenhower saw 50 years ago half a century ago that investing in our infrastructure is a shot in the arm to our economy. there are thousands of shovel ready jobs waiting for congress to act. on the other hand, if we fail to meet our infrastructure needs, it will be catastrophic. the american society of civil engineers predicts our economy would lose $1 trillion unless we invest in surface transportation. $1 trillion. let's not forget the safety implications of sitting on our hands. half of our roads are in poor

condition. tens of thousands of bridges across the country are structurally deficient railroads are without important life receiving break -- life saving breaking systems and need to be refurbished and parts of them reinvented. doing nothing is not and should not be an option. the republican leader should change course, abandon his policy of governing by crisis. we can get started on a long-term bipartisan reauthorization of the federal highway program today. all we need is for republican members of congress and their leaders to focus on american jobs and the traveling american public's safety. and they haven't done this and that's too bad. mr. president, there are a number of senators on the floor. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour

with senators permitted to speak therein with time equally divided with the democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i am truly blessed to represent the people of michigan in the united states senate. my state was carved out in one era by an ice age and again 200 careers ago by the united states congress. it is comprised of more than just two beautiful peninsulas bordered by four grade lace. since our founding michigan has been at the frontier helping build a stronger and more secure country. the northwest ordinance affirmed by the first congress created the midwestern region from which michigan territory would be born. in the 19th century pioneers moved to the western frontier to settle michigan and its neighboring states. the peters family was among them. my family made the long journey

from new york and settled in rochester, michigan in the early 1840's. they were among the earliest pioneers to settle in my state. from that time on, generations of michigan anders -- michiganders while the northwest ordinance stated schools in the means and education shall forever be encouraged in the new territory, higher education also had a place that made our state great very early. 20 years before the founding of the state of michigan, the university of michigan was founded, one of the first public universities in the country. later michigan state university would become one of the pioneer land grant universities. and while the two schools may be rivals on the gridiron, they have long complemented each other to the benefit of our state and today michigan is home to 93 universities, colleges and community colleges.

michigan grew rapidly as migrants from across the country and immigrants from around the world were drawn to our supplies of timber, ore arable land and abundant freshwater. as the new century dawned across america michigan continued to grow with the advent of industrialization and mass manufacturing from mining and forestry at the western tip of the upper peninsula to the booming auto factories of detroit. michigan embodied the growing optimism opportunity and prosperity that would be america's crowning achievement in the 20th century. michigan factories would turn into the great arsenal of democracy, building the arm addas that would defeat tyranny, win the second world war and in the process create america's middle class. during world war ii my father, herb peters, was a proud soldier in eisenhower's army, helping to free france from nazi occupation. it was there he would meet my

mother, mandolin vonier, a frenchwoman. she raised me and my sistersyy and jackie. a few years ago with my late father i joined the sons of the american revolution. my forefather william garrett was a member of the virginia militia and served alongside general george washington at valley forge. my great grandfather julian peters served with the michigan infantry during the civil war. i am proud to follow earlier generations of patriots who served their country and prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom and liberty. but like millions of americans i'm also the son of an immigrant. america's shores were new to my mother but provided an incredible expanse of opportunity that people across the globe continued to dream of. my mother worked long hours and as a nurse's aide and fought for a better workplace for herself and her coworkers helping to

organize her workplace and later served as a union steward. michigan's strong labor movement and our manufacturing sector helped built economic opportunities for millions of americans. standing together to call for fair wages safer workplaces, and better hours michigan workers and their families helped build the middle class and make the american dream a reality for many. i am honored to embody such a uniquely american experience, the descendant of a revolutionary war soldier and the son of a foreign-born naturalized citizen. and to carry on these rich traditions that continue to make our nation proud diverse and strong. but while my story is uniquely american, it is not so very different from nearly ten million michiganders, who come together to make our state an extraordinary special place. michigan is unique that we are the only state made up of two peninsulas separated for

thousands of years by waterways carved by retreating glare he perks our peninsulas were permanently united with michigan statehood and the opening of the mackinac bridge almost 60 years ago. the mackinac bridge is one of the longest in the world remains an engineering marvel to this day and a symbol of how michiganders can come together to accomplish great things. financed with an innovative public-private bond structure over 10,000 workers contributed to this five-mile span implementing the vision and planning of 350 engineers. in our state it is simply known as the bridge and its construction unleashed economic growth for our state increasing tourism and provided an avenue for goods to be hauled south while agricultural products and manufactured goods flowed north. as michigan and our nation transitioned to the 21st century economy we would do

well to draw on the engineering know-how, skilled work force and boldness to invest in transformative infrastructure that made the mackinac bridge possible. michigan's products move and feed the nation, we invented the modern automobile and the middle class. we are the second most agriculturally diverse in the nation. our sugar beats and cherries are just a few of the crops we grow. our farmers and producers use the climate and resources to feed people across the country and around the world. whether we are talking about our state or our nation or our successful industries we cannot rest on our laurels. we are in constant competition. the coming decades will see rapid growth abroad but i know our nation will continue to lead the world with our ability to innovate and efficiently align

capital and talent to maximize the strengths of our work force. today's small business in grand rapids or start-up in detroit can access consumers across the world and i know michigan will be at the cutting edge of this global economy. michigan is at the forefront of developing the transformative technologies that will remake america and help our country sustain its stature and prominence. southeast michigan has more engineers per capita than any state in the country which is one of the reasons detroit is home to the first field patent office outside of washington, d.c. our automakers, part suppliers and advanced manufacturers are constantly innovating and not just generations of new goods but also intellectual property. if you can make it, we can find a way to make it faster, lighter, more efficient safer, and more affordable. incremental innovation meaningfully improves lives but as a nation we must keep working

towards the next big thing. investments in education and basic scientific research are the down payment on our future. it is critical we maintain these investments at the time our country faces so mean unique challenges. growing income inequality is a threat to our middle class our economy and our democracy. while globalization is opening new markets for american goods it is also hollowing out the mid level jobs that are the foundation of the american middle class. and without a strong middle class, we cannot have a strong economy. and without a strong middle class, we simply cannot have a strong democracy. there are many ideas about how to deal with these challenges, but history has taught us that increased productivity is the number one driver of economic progress, and in my view the key to american greatness. economic historians tell us after hundreds of years of