the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 79, the nays are 18. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. under the previous order there are now four minutes equally divided between senators alexander and murray. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington.

mr. alexander: mr. president the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: will the senate come to order. take your conversations outside. the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president i first want to thank chairman alexander for working with me on the every child achieves act. he has been a great partner in getting us to this point with this bill. this process started when he andary agreed that no child left behind is badly broken and need to be fixed. our bill, the yeeferredz act is an important step forward to do just that. the current law overemphasized test scores. our bill will give states flexibility to use multiple measures not just test scores, to determine how well a school is performing. our bill also eliminates the one-size-fits-all provisions of no child left behind that have been so damaging for our schools and our school districts. instead, it allows our

communities, our parents and our teachers to work together to improve schools and ensure every child can get a well-rounded education, and our bill maintains federal protections to help students graduate from high school with the tools they need to compete and lead in the 21st century economy. this is a good bill. i will keep working, of course, to make it better, even after our vote today in conference. i hope we can continue to build on the senate's strong bipartisan work, and i will continue to push to strengthen the accountability measures in our bill and address inequality in schools. but today i urge my colleagues to vote to pass the every child achieves act that will give all students the chance to learn and grow and thrive. let's fix no child left behind. let's prove that congress can break through gridlock and work together and let's pass this bill for students and parents and teachers and communities across the country. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent for an extra minute, if i need it. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: mr. president senator murray suggested we work on this in a bipartisan way. i took her advice, it was good advice and this is the result. we have had 100 amendments in committee and on the floor. we have had excellent process. i thank the majority leader. i think tank senator reid, the democratic leader, for creating a environment in which we could do that. this is a law that everybody wants fixed. we have a consensus on that. we have a consensus on how to fix it. keep the important measurements of academic achievement and turn the rest of it over to the states the classroom teachers and others that are closest to the children. that's what the governors that's what the superintendents that's what the teachers' organizations have said to us. they want us to fix it, and they support the way we're proposing to fix it. now, in the last few years we've created in this country in effect a national school board. it's made it harder to have

better teaching, harder to set higher standards harder to have real accountability in the states so we changed that. we reversed the trend toward the national school board. we end the common core mandate. we end the waivers that the u.s. department of education is using to run public schools. we end d.c. evaluating teachers. we end adequate yearly progress. some are saying vote no because you should go further. well we had a chance to go further. we voted for the daines amendment and the scott amendment and the alexander amendment. that would have gotten us 90% of what we wanted, and we got about 45 votes so we didn't get anything. this gives us about 80% of what we want. a president named reagan used to say if you got 80% of what you wanted, you might take it and fight for the rest on another day. i'm recommending we follow this advice. if we vote no today that means we leave the common core mandate right where it is. that means the waivers are still running your schools. that means that adequate yearly

progress is determined from washington d.c., not in your hometown and that means washington d.c., is evaluating your teachers. everybody wants this law fixed. if you vote no, we fix nothing. we fix nothing. so no means we haven't fixed anything. so vote yes. do what the governors do what the superintendents do what the teachers say we ought to do. they all agree on that. this is the most important step in that direction we've had in 25 years. let's don't miss the opportunity. vote to restore to the people closest to the children the responsibility for their education. vote yes for local control of public schools. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a third time. under the previous order -- the clerk: calendar number 63, s. 1177, a bill to reauthorize the elementary and secondary education act of 1965 to ensure

that every child achieves. the presiding officer: under the previous order the question occurs on passage of s. 1177, as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, then the yeas are 81, the nays are 17. the vote on s. 1177 as amended is passed. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i ask consent that the senator from washington and i be permitted to speak for as much time as we may require right now. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thanks, mr. president. the vote was 81-17. what that says to me and should say to the american people that not only is there a consensus in this country that everybody wants to fix no child left behind -- that's the consensus we began with -- not only was

there a consensus in the senate's education committee about how to fix it, which was unanimous in a 22-member committee that includes members that are about as diverse as you can find in the united states senate it means that the entire united states senate has a consensus on how to fix it. the senator from washington and i were talking this is a complicated plainly. there shall crocodiles at every corner any of whom would have made it difficult for this bill to succeed. and for the united states senate to take a look at the 100,000 schools in this country for the 50 million children and the 3.5 million teachers and say we hear you, we know you want to end the confusion end the anxiety, and the feeling that you're not in charge of your own children we hear you and we've listened to you and we've come up with a solution with which you agree and that we voted by a

vote of 81-17 is a remarkable vent. we have a remarkable consensus that no child left behind needed the to be fixed we had a remarkable consensus on how to fix it in the committee and it's not many times on a bill this difficult and this encompassing we have a remark -- a consensus this remarkable 81-17 in the united states senate. i mentioned in my earlier remarks about the importance of the united states senate in this way. someone has said the senate is the one authentic piece of genius in the american political system. the only claim we would have to that exalted description would be that we're the only part of our government that's created for the express purpose of developing consensus. the house of representatives is america's sounding board. the country moves suddenly, the house moves suddenly. our job is to take all the different points of view and to

consult with each other and to see whether we can create the kind of consensus so that when people look at the senate and see a result, they may say well i'm not sure i agree with every single thing they did but if 81 senators of both parties out of 100 believe this is the right way to fix no child left behind i will accept it. that's the way the civil rights bill was done in 1960's and 1970's by large majorities bipartisan groups came to a complicated decision on a complex problem the way you govern a complex country is by consensus. and the only agency in the government that's capable of creating that kind of consensus on a major piece of legislation is the united states senate. and it's done that today and i'm very proud of my colleagues for the way they've done this. i want especially to thank the majority leader for creating the time to deal with it. we took a little more than a week we came on the floor a week ago tuesday so we didn't

really take that long, we got on and off the floor pretty quick but i thank him also for creating an environment where we could adopt a lot of amendments. senators are here to have their say whether we agree or not. people of north dakota expect that. people of texas expect that, wherever we are and senator mcconnell has created that environment. senator cornyn, senator thune senator barrasso, the other leaders on the republican side have been an enormous help. i have during the week thanked the democratic leader, senator reid on this bill senator reid allowed it to come to the floor without delay. that helped a lot. during the week he and senator schumer, senator durbin, the other members of the democratic leadership along with senator murray created the environment where we could do what we've accomplished. and especially senator murray. i've said often that the reason we're here is because she suggested to me a way to go forward, a way to do this together. and she did that after both of

us watched the last two congresses where we fell apart into partisan differences. i took her advice, it was good advice and that's why we're where we're are today and i respect how she works toward a result. she's passionate but is here to get a result. that means in this case we need to work with the house of representatives which we'll begin to do in the next few weeks and then produce a bill, send it to the president in a form that he's comfortable signing. there are a number of senators who because we're able to offer amendments on the floor withheld their amendment or stepped aside because what they were doing might have interfered with our result. i think of no are franken on an amendment he feels powerfully about, he stepped aside didn't offer it in committee but waited until the floor. senator vitter stepped aside on an amendment because he could bring it up in the judiciary committee. senator lee senator toomey, senator burr all did that.

they showed some restraint in pursuit of a result. i want to thank those outside this senate whose works was so important to helping us. you know, there are a lot of remarkable things about this consensus but none was nor remarkable than what those outside of the congress thought. it is rare that you see the national governors' association association, the chief state school officers, the american association of school administrators the national education association and the american federation of teachers all agree that not only did no child left behind need to be fixed, but that this was the way to fix it and because of that it made it easier to get a vote of 8-1-17. finally, all of us in the senate know how important star work is and in this case staff have worked for days and days

and the trust that senator murray and i have developed is the same kind of trust they've developed. i thank david cleary, the staff director of the education committee, our help committee peeper oppenheim lindsey sideman, jim jeffreys, allison martin and on senator murray's staff evan schatz, sarah bolton amanda beaumont. then on the floor those who have the oil cans, laura dove and robert duncan who keep this side greased and working and gary myrick on senator reid's side and sharon soderstrom and from senator cornyn's office. and many others have helped. this is day i am very proud of for the united states senate appeared for 50 million children 3.5 million teachers, and 100,000 public schools, it is a big step forward.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: has as the senior senator from tennessee as he often does has laid it out very well, i believe it is the case that the united states national is the only legislative body in -- united states senate is the only legislative pod in body in the world where a simple majority is not enough on almost everything. so this body was crafted in a way to ensure, unless one side has a really big majority, that we work together. but it doesn't automatically work unless you have leaders like senator alexander and senator murray who want to get a result. and so i want to commend both these outstanding senators for an extraordinary accomplishment. this is a really significant bill for the country. and to fold all of these these disparate interest groups with

all of their separate agendas into a position of support was an extraordinary leadership contribution. so i want to say to both of you both the senator from washington and the senator from tennessee the senate is proud of you for what did you here. it's a good example for all the rest of us. on a little more contentious issue, senator murray and i had the chance to work together on trade promotion authority. we hope to do that on highways. we hope to do it on cybersecurity. the senate is back to work. i think that members on both sides appreciate that, and we're going to continue to do this. and thank you for providing a wonderful example for all the rest of us. i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington state. mrs. murray: mr. president i recently heard from a teacher in seattle by the name of mian

terry. he taught second, third and fourth grade. what mr. terry a great -- what makes mr. terry a great teacher is the way he engages with his students. he starts the morning by playing songs on his guitar. he keeps his students laughing with jokes and every day he tries to create an environment where kids want to come to school. last year he was named washington state teacher of the year for 2015. this week mr. terry has been following our debate here on the senate floor and he was truly hoping we would pass this bill. because he says the current law doesn't reflect the work he and his fellow teachers at lawsuiten elementary school are doing every day. so mr. president let me echo the words of the chairman of the committee on the one and the majority leader. i am proud today that the senate passed a bill to fix no child left behind. for teachers like mr. terry mr. parents, for teachers and

for communities a bill to continue our mission of delivering on the mission of providing every child with the best our nation can provide, i have been very proud to partner with chairman alexander on the every child achieves act. and i do want to thank him tremendously for his successful bipartisan process that he had. i want to thank all of our colleagues on the help committee for their work and dedication in moving this bill forward and, of course, i want to thank the staff as well, both my staff and the staff of senator alexander for all of their hard work. they have worked many, many, many long days and late nights and weekends to get us to this point today. i will submit a full list of names later but there are some staffers in particular i wanted to recognize. on senator alexander's staff, i want to acknowledge and thank his staff director david clean clean -- clary, as well as lindsey fryer. they have done an excellent job.

on my staff i want to acknowledge and thank my staff director evan schatz and my education policy director sarah bolton for their outstanding leadership swps amanda botech, ariel evans lesley koutherell. thank you for all of your hard work on this really important bill. i, too want to thank our floor staff, melissa garimarick and all of our floor staff republican and democrat for their help and guidance. we couldn't be here without you. mr. president, i do want to take a step back for a moment to look at the work we've done so far and the work that remains, even beyond the vote we had today. of course, nearly everyone agrees that no child left behind is badly broken. that goes almost without saying. i have heard it from so many parents and teachers,

administrators in washington state, democrats republicans independents. they are sick and tired of the broken law that's in front of us. they want congress to fix it, and they don't want us to wait any longer. that is why i'm so proud that our bill, the every child achieves arctic is act is a strong step in the rite direction to right direction to finally fix the broken no child left behind and make sure all of our students have access to a high-quality public education. for one our bill addresses high-stakes testing. the current law overemphasizes test scores to measure how students are doing in school. our bill will give flexibility to states to use multiple measures not just test scores, to determine how well a school is performing. these steps will reduce the pressure on students and teachers and parents so they can focus on -- less on test prep and more on learning. our bill eliminates the one-size-fits-all provisions of

no child left behind that have been so damaging for our schools and our districts. instead it allows communities and parents and teachers to work together to improve their schools and ensure every child gets a well-rounded education. our bill maintains federal protections to help students graduate from high school, college, and career-ready. when the education committee debated the bill, i was very proud to work on a bipartisan amendment with senator isakson to expand and improve on early learning programs. er you know,you know, are as a former preschoolpreschool teacher i've seen the kind of transformation that early learning can inspire in a child. i hope this bill will expand access to early learning education. mr. president, i've also seen fixing the current law as a multistage process. at the beginning of this year as the chairman said, he released his discussion draft for

reauthorizing elementary and secondary education act and after that the two of us had a conversation about a path of how we could move forward. instead of going down a partisan path and letting politics become our guide we agreed to work together to find common ground. and we agreed to do everything we could to put our students first, to put our families and our communities we represent first, to break through the gridlock and dysfunction that too often paralyzes this congress and to chart a path to fix a broken law. i again want to really commend my partner chairman alexander for sticking to that approach. he is a role model for all of us, and i real li a real a appreciative all he is doing. the result is our every child achieves act. it withinwasn't the bill i would have written on my own but it is what is called a exrosm it is a strong bill that all sides can be proud of. after we negotiated our bipartisan compromise in april we passed our bill out of

committee with a unanimous vote, 12 republicans, 10 democrats. so i want to thank all of our help committee members who worked to improve and strengthen this bill in committee and all the members democrat and republican on our committee and off who wrote the dozens of amendments we included in our substitute and managers' packages and awful those who brought their ideas -- and all of those who brought their ideas to the floor and debated and voted on them over the past week on the senate floor. so mr. president today i'm very proud that we have passed this bill with a strong bipartisan vote. as we know, our work is not yet done. now we begin the next phase. as chairman alexander as said, throughout our floor debate, ultimately we need a bill that president obama will sign into law. and though this bill has taken a number of steps in the right direction, there are still a few more we need to do before our work is done. we have important work to do in conference to reach an agreement on a final bill. the president has made it very clear to us, he can only sign a bill that strengthens the

accountability measures in every child achieves act and addresses inequality where some schools are unable to offer the same opportunities as others. i agree that is a must and i know that i will continue to work hard alongside our rank member bobby scott from the house and the administration to make accountability and resource a priority in conference. the only way forward is for strong bipartisan work we've seen in the senate to continue in that process. now, i will say that unfortunately so far house republicans chose a partisan approach to reauthorize this bill. their bill doesn't represent one end and ashes ours represents another where we have to meet in the middle. their bill really represents an unacceptable partisan approach and path and our represents a carefully negotiated compromise with just a few important steps to go. i would hope in the conference, the house republicans will be ready to join a house and senate democrats, senate republicans the administration as we help to

get this done in a way that works for all of our students and families. by working together, i am confident we can get this bill over the finish line and fix this broken law for our teachers and in my home state and across the country and help make sure all our students have a quality education you know, delivering on that promise of a good education for all students will pay off for generations to come. this is one of the best investments in our country we can make to ensure that we have broad-based and long-term economic growth. as we all know, when students have the chance to learn we strengthen our future workforce. we know that our country grows stronger and we empower the next generation of americans to lead the world. we will help our economy grow from the middle out not just the top down. and that's something we've known for a long time. 50 years ago in what would be just months before signing the original elementary and secondary education act into

law, president johnson said, "when it comes to education -- quote -- "nothing matters more to the future of our country." that is still true today. the future of our country hinges on our students' ability to one day lead the world. so i'm looking forward to continued work on this every chielt-- onthis every child achieves act. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, it is my understanding we're in morning business? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. alexander: mr. president i wonder if the senator would yield for 60 seconds? mr. coats: i would be more thank happy to. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i fought forgot to mention the number of amendments that were considered. in the committee we adopted 29 amendments. on the floor 178 amendments were filed. 78 were considered.

65 amendments were adopted. ten of those through roll call votes, 28 through voice votes and 27 by unanimous consent through the managers' packages. so mr. president nearly 100 amendments were adopted to the bipartisan draft that senator murray and i presented to the -- to our education committee earlier this year. i think the fact that so many senators not only had a chance to have their say but had their ideas included in the bill -- i think especially the senator from rhode island, who has worked for the last couple of years on a particular provision -- i think that was one reason -- one important reason why we had a consensus that rose to 81 votes. i thank the senator from indiana for his courtesy. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president i rise to speak and i first want to acknowledge and thank my colleague senator collins from maine for allowing allowing me to

step ahead of her in this process. i promise to be expeditious in terms of getting through this. it turned out that her plane to maine leaves later than my plane to indiana sand and so she's very graciously allowed me to go forward. mr. president, for the last six months in this senate, i have been coming down here every week to talk about the "waste of the week." examples of waste fraud and b.a. buseabuse within the federal government. i can believe we've already done -- this is number 17. we are continuing to wrack up significant savings to the taxpayer. if we could eliminate these documented and certified wastes that have been determined through the various government agencies, inspectors general and other. today we turn to a rather serious topic regarding the receipt of taxpayer dollars by criminals who are avoiding

felony arrest. but are still receiving benefits at taxpayers' expense. a little history. mr. president, the social security act currently prohibits those fleeing justice from receiving social security and other federal benefits. congress first addressed this issue in 1996 when it banned fugitive felons from receiving social security benefits. and then expanded this prohibition in 2004 to also apply this ban to social security disability insurance and world war ii benefits. so that law in place unfortunately, has run into some conflicting opinions by court challenges that have weakened effects of the law and led to a lack of clarity in terms of what the original language and original intent by congress was

supposed to be. and to address this problem -- because it is a problem and there's lack of clarity -- i have this week introduced legislation to amend the social security act to clearly state to clarify the intent of the law that prohibits fugitive felons from receiving social security retirement and disability benefits. my bill would clarify this law and return the implementation of the policy to its original intent. now let me be clear the government should not be providing benefits to those avoiding prosecution custody or confinement for a crime or attempt to commit a crime that is considered a felony. but we're not talking here about individuals who get speeding tickets or make a mistake on their taxes. this legislation applies only to those with an arrest order for felony charges. the crime must be of enough serious magnitude to carry with

it a minimum sentence of one or more years in prison. so we want to be careful here that we are not imposing this restriction of receipt of benefits on someone who doesn't qualify under the law. and that's another clarification that we want to make. furthermore, the bill retains the ability of the social security administration to continue or restore benefits if the individual can show good cause, such as if they were exonerated of the crime or perhaps victim of an identity theft or other legitimate reasons to not be, to fall under the classification and category of loss of benefits. now according to the congressional budget office, this commonsense fix could save taxpayers $4.8 billion over the next ten years alone. and so bottom line, we pull out

our chart our ever-growing gauge of money that has been wasted through fraud and abuse within the federal government. we now are totaling, we're climbing very quickly to $100 billion. and i thought it would take a year to get there if i did one a week. we're going to have to make a major extension to this chart or redo this because we are closing in on $100 billion of wasted taxpayer money documented by federal government agencies and investigations. so passage of this bill will add $4.8 billion to our chart. mr. president, we have come across so many instances of bloat, waste fraud and abuse i could be down here every day the senate's in session. i could be down here every hour the senate is in session.

it's staggering the amount of dysfunction that is occurring through this bloated bureaucracy called the federal government. and here we are trying to protect the taxpayers of our states who are stretched to the gills in terms of what they have to pay not only in federal but state or sales or you name it, real estate, the taxes that roll up and consume so much of everybody's weekly pay. the least we can do, while we need to make major fix to our fiscal problems here, the least we can do is take those that have been identified by legitimate neutral organizations, inspectors general of the united states, various agencies and bring those to light and then do something about it. not just come down here and make a chart and add red ink but actually introduce legislation which i'm trying to do; most of

these pieces so that we can remedy this problem. while we have an administration here who has refused over and over to sit down and work out a long-term fiscal debt reduction program that this country desperately needs because we're still -- that debt clock is still ticking away like crazy. if you want to see it, turn on to my web site, coats coats.senate.gov. we haven't talked about it very much lately. we made a big push earlier. not too many people thrown up their hands and said under this administration it's not going to happen. it probably is right. the least we can do then until we get a new management in the white house the least we can do is find these issues of waste fraud, and abuse and do something about it now. so that's what we're trying to do. i look forward to being back here next week with the latest edition of waste of the week.

mr. president, again i thank my colleague from maine for her patience and i at this point yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. chairman, the senator from maine is about to speak and she's about to speak, i believe, to the older americans act. and while she is here on the floor, i wanted to take a moment and express my personal appreciation to her and to chairman alexander for an issue that arose during the course of the older americans act. i have a very strong concern that older americans particularly as they approach the end of their lives are not getting their wishes honored. in fact, very often nobody even knows what their wishes are about how they would like to be treated at the end of their lives. do they want to be home? do they not particularly care about using all the medical apparatuses available to them? do they want to be in the

hospital and have everybody take every available measure? that should be their choice. it should be an informed choice. and it's a choice that we should honor. and i sought language within the older americans act to try to empower that. there were difficulties with it, and those difficulties were resolved by the willingness of chairman alexander to ask chairman collins to hold a hearing on this subject in the aging committee. and for all of the chairmen and ranking members on the two committees to send a letter to the government accountability office to lay out the case and put a factual brief before us for that hearing, this would not have happened without the courtesy of senator collins. this is an aging committee thing that she has been willing to do to resolve an issue that actually started in the help committee. it was very gracious of her. i appreciate it very much. she has been a leader on these issues for a long time. i would yield the yield to her but i didn't want to miss this chance

to dispres -- is express my appreciation. with that, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. before the senator from rhode island leaves the floor let me thank him for his comments. i've been working with him on issues like hospice care and advanced planning. i know these issues are very important to him as they are to me and i'm happy that we're able to collaborate on a g.a.o. request and also on a hearing later this year. so i want to thank him for his efforts in resolving this issue so that the reauthorization of the older americans act could go forward. mr. president before i begin my comments on the older americans act, i do want to add to the

accolades that have been given today to the chairman and the ranking member of the senate health education, labor and pensions committee on which i'm pleased to serve. they have worked as a team providing tremendous leadership that brought us to a tremendous accomplishment today and that is the passage of the every child achieves act. it would not have happened without the extraordinary leadership of chairman alexander and ranking minority member murray. i thank them for their hard work in this regard. mr. president, as the chairman of the senate special committee on aging and as the cosponsor of the reauthorization of the older

americans act, i also want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the help committee for their hard work over the past two years in developing a bipartisan consensus bill to reauthorize and strengthen the older americans act. it is my hope that the senate later today women -- will unanimously pass this important legislation. the programs authorized by the older americans act are tremendously important in the state of maine and across the country. maine is the oldest state by median age in the entire country. probably if i asked most of my colleagues, they would guess that it was florida. but in fact it's the state of maine. maine's network of five area

agencies on aging provides invaluable supports and services to the more -- to more than 100 ,000 seniors living in my state. in just the past few months, mr. president, i've received almost 700 letters from seniors across maine urging that we pass the reauthorization bill. i look forward to letting my constituents know that the senate soon will do just that. mr. president, while funding has been provided on a continuing basis through the appropriations process, the fact is that legislation reauthorizing the older americans act is long overdue. the authorization expired in

2011. it is particularly significant that the senate pass this legislation this month for july marks the 50th anniversary of the older americans act. this law funds critical services in committees across our nation that help to keep our older adults healthy and independent. its funding supports some of the most vital and successful federal programs for our nation's seniors. nearly 12 million older americans receive services through this law. such services as meals on wheels senior centers transportation legal services, caregivers support.

moreover these programs are operated through a national network of area agencies on aging that stresses local decision-making regardless what services are most needed for older adults in a particular community. it's a flexible program that allows local needs to be met. older americans act programs also help to relieve the financial pressure on the medicare and medicaid programs because they help seniors to stay healthy independent and living right where they want to be: in the comfort security, and privacy of their own homes. aarp's surveys consistently reflect the fact that aging in place is the preferred option

for seniors who want to continue to live independently and avoid expensive nursing home and other instutionalized care as long as possible. mr. president, this bill also includes important provisions to strengthen the long-term care ombudsman program and to help protect our vulnerable seniors from financial exploitation and abuse. financial exploitation of our seniors is a growing epidemic that costs them an estimated $2.9 billion in 2010. it is so disturbing that in 90% of these cases the abuse the

financial exploitation is perpetrated by a family member, a trusted individual, a caregiver, someone whom the senior knows well. the aging committee has held hearings to highlight this issue, and the bill that will become -- be coming before the senate later today will take steps to strengthen the federal response to this growing problem. mr. president, of course, passage by the senate, while an essential step, is not the final step in reauthorizing this significant law. i look forward to continuing to work with the chairman, the ranking member, and our colleagues here and in the house to make the reauthorization of the older americans act a

reality this year and how wonderful it would be if it could be a reality this month which marks the 50th anniversary of this significant law. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call clong quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i want to speak for just a moment about -- are we in a quorum, mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum. mr. lard lankford: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lankford: i'd like to take just a moment to be able to speak about a subject that's very very difficult for me to speak about and, frankly, for a lot of americans to talk about and hear about. it connects to all of us in extremely personal ways. let me set some context. not long ago a group of annual rights activists gathered around a research facility is, a research facility that was using animals for their testing. the activists gathered around the facility and channeled and saying it's not soon, it's violence and other signs that

said animal lives are their right, we have just begun to fight. as they protested to protect the lives of the animals that were being used in that facility for research. now, i understand their frustration there. but let me put it into context of some things that came out this week. we learned that this week an organization called planned parenthood is using children that were aborted and sending the bodies of those aborted children to research facilities sometimes for sale sale different body parts, to be used in research. these are not mice, these are not lab rats, these are children. children that have gone through the process of a horrific abortion.

this morning at an appropriations hearing the president and i both were in, when -- we had extensive conversation about the rights of orca whales and the conversation wept on and on, that many people were connected to about the rights of orca whales and the care for them. then we had a pro tacted conversation about horse slaughter and how horses would be humanely put down. but in the middle of all that conversation happening today there were children still being aborted with an instrument reaching into a mother, tearing apart a child but carefully protecting certain organs because those organs would be valuable to sell. now, the challenge that we have on this as a nation is, the argument is for that baby that that baby's really not a baby,

it's just a fetus it's fish i tish the issue it's not a human baby is what everyone is told. it's just tissue and it's up to the mom to determine what happens to that tissue. and then on the flip side of it moments later they take that tissue and then sell it because it's human organs that are needed for research. you can't say in one moment that's not a human and then sell it for the next moment as a human organ and say now suddenly it is. it was a human all the way through. there he what was never a time that wasn't a child never a time that wasn't a human and it seems the ultimate irony to me we spend time talking about humane treatment of animals being put down like horse slaughter and we completely miss children being ripped apart in the womb and their body parts being sold.

so here's how it happens. a mom comes into a facility gives consent to have an abortion makes that request. after that request is made, to some moms -- and we don't know exactly how they choose which moms -- to some moms they then ask consent for their child after it's aborted to be used for research purposes. from the video that was put out this week, they said that was actually comforting to some moms that they would know how traumatic the abortion is, at least some good would come out of the it if the body parts were ruiz used for research to save third children which comes back to the irony that we would tear one child apart in an abortion with the assumption that would help some other child in the future, missing the significance of the child that's right there that could be helped by protecting their life. and then the doctor in this particular video gives the details of how once they get

that consent from the mom they would be careful to reach in and actually crush the head of the child to kill the child in the womb so they could preserve the rest of the organs because the kidney has value the liver has value, because the lungs have value, because the muscles in the legs have value. i would tell you that child has value. and that every single adult who can hear me once now was once 20 weeks old in the womb and we can look at each other and understand the difference between that child in the womb and any of us now is time. that's a human being we're talking about. and it doesn't bring me comfort to know that one child is torn apart so that maybe they can do

research on the child's organs to in some future moment help a different child. not every woman is being asked that her aborted child would be used for research and we really don't know the whys. maybe they're looking for particularly healthy moms. maybe they're looking for very mature healthy babies. maybe it's a situation where particular mom couldn't afford to have the abortion procedure so they swap off and say if you can't afford to have the abortion procedure we can cover the cost by possibly selling some of these organs then. we don't know. but i think maybe the question needs to be asked. why this congress would spend time today debating horse slaughter and debating orca whales but yet we've become so numb to children that the

only -- the other debate doesn't seem to come up. maybe we need to start again as a nation, asking a basic question. if that's a child and in our declaration we said every person that we believe is endowed by our creator to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness maybe we need to ask as a nation again, do we really believe that? let's start with some basic things. how about a child at 20 weeks that we know scientifically can feel pain? cannot have their limbs ripped apart in an abortion. there are only seven countries in the the world that reallow that. we're in a prime group like north korea and china that still allow abortions that late. we should ask is that who we are as a america?

what about maybe by should ask like planned parenthood who we give half a billion dollars in funding to, maybe this is not a good idea. and other organizations that serve people allover the country raise their funds separately and don't do it by federal funds. maybe it's a legitimate question we need to ask. mr. president, we have hard questions to deal with as a nation. budget regulations future direction that we're going. why don't we add to the list, do we really care about children or not and on a day that we passed an education bill before we pat ourselves on the back saying how much we care about children, let's make sure we're dealing with a compassion for children at every age not just at certain ages.

have we really become this numb? how do we turn it around? with that i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. hatch: mr. president i rise today to express serious concerns about an ongoing project at the organization for economic cooperation and development or oecd. it's called the base erosion and profit shifting or beps project. beps is a program that is intended to address perceived flaws in international tax rules that have allowed multinational corporations to shift profits but not necessarily corresponding economic activity from high tax to low-tax

jurisdictions. these strategies in some cases have a negative impact on the tax bases of oecd countries creating a need for solutions. unfortunately, it appears that the project has moved well beyond its original mandate and many u.s. companies are rightly concerned that they may be facing significant negative consequences. this should concern all of us in government as well. let's talk for a minute about how we got where we are today. in 2012, if g-20 tasked the oecd with developing a comprehensive and coordinated approach to addressing certain aggressive tax planning strategies. as we all flow the g-20 is an international forum for governments and central bank officials from 20 major economies around the world. which meet -- meets periodically behind closed doors to discuss financial matters and even though it has no formal charter, arrived -- arrive at

agreements. the g-20's direction resulted at least in part in the beps project. it was originally supposed to be limited in scope to focus on discrete actions to address inappropriate tax avoid answer. the idea was to find ways to avive at consensus to prevent those strategies that result in little or no taxation of profits or what some have called to call "stateless income." the oecd released its "beps action plan" in 201. the plan identified 15 action items for changes in tax policy. among those action items were recommendations to modify domestic laws to, one strengthen control foreign corporation or c.f.c. rules and limits on interest deductions; two, prevent at that moment treaty abuse; three increase

taxpayer reporting requirements and information-sharing among governments; and four, develop a multilateral instrument to implement certain beps actions. discussion drafts have been released on many of the action-plan items and final reports are anticipated to be finalized and delivered to the g-20 later this year. the obama administration's treasury department has been actively involved in the beps project. last summer deputy assistant treasury secretary for international tax affairs robert stack stated that -- quote -- "failure in the beps project could well-result in countries taking unilateral inconsistent actions thereby increasing double taxation for taxation, the cost to the u.s. treasury and the number of tax disputes." unquote. now, given this and other statements from treasury officials, it appears that

treasury believes that it's role in the beps project is to protect the u.s. tax base from erosion and to protect u.s. multinational companies from actions from other countries that could lead to double taxation and time-consuming disputes. in that regard, treasury has been actively negotiating on behalf of the u.s. government to reach consensus on the beps action items. these are laudable goals mr. president. however, i do not believe that these goals have been achieved. indeed just last month deputy assistant treasury secretary stack himself followed the u.c. & australia actions targeting multinationals contrary to the commitments those countries have made in their treaties with the united states. more importantly i'm very concerned that there are bigger

issues at play here and that the beps project has far exceeded its original mandate. once again beps was meant to be limited in scope focusing on the prevention of tax strategies that yield inappropriate results. instead, it appears to have become a mechanism for real estate writing global tax strategy -- rewriting global tax strategies potentially those commonly used by u.s. companies behind closed doors without the input or consent of congress itself. as we all know, only congress can make changes to u.s. tax law. yet no representatives from congress have been offered a seat at the table in any of the beps negotiations. sure the oecd has been quite forthcoming in meeting with members and congressional staff but in the actual beps deliberations, all the decisions are being made by unelected bureaucrats in paris and not by anyone from the senate or house of representatives. the senate finance committee

which i chair is currently engaged in an effort that we hope will eventually lead to comprehensive tax reform. this has been a long-term effort, and members of both parties of both chambers of congress have been engaged in this endeavor for kuwait sometime. -- for scwiet quite sometime. as congress continues to work towards this long-term goacialg the treasury department is negotiating the beps action items which may attempt to commit the u.s. to make changes to our domestic tax laws without any substantive input from congress or congress' tax-write being committees. we know that this is a problem mr. president. indeed certain positions already agreed to by the treasury department as part of the beps project could materially damage u.s. tax reform efforts. congress and the administration need to work together on these issues. and when i say -- quote -- "work together" --en quote -- i do not

mean that treasury officials should only periodically come to the hill in order to brief congressional staff on decisions that have already been made. i mean that administration officials should not make any commitments that could impact u.s. policy -- tax policy without adequate consultation and explicit agreement from congress. we all remember when years ago then-treasury secretary geithner decided to reach an agreement with other officials in the g-20 regarding funding for the international monetary fund, or i.m.f. after reaching this agreement without any significant input or consent from congress, the obama administration presented and continues to present the issue of altered i.m.f. funding as a -- quote ----quote, unquote -- "administrative commitment" that congress must honor. put simply, that is not an

appropriate model for pursuing -- achieving changes to u.s. law. and if the administration intends to use a similar model for the changes recommended by the beps project, that is, as the saying goes, a dog that just won't hunt. mr. president, i'm going to put this as simply as u.a.e. as i can. congress is the steward of the american taxpayer resources. those resources are not bargaining chips for international agreements that may or may not advance our nation's interests. make no mistake international cooperation and consensus are important. i don't object to unified actions toward common goals and shared objectives. but when the resources of u.s. taxpayers are on the line, as they appear to be with the beps project, congress must play a significant role. once again some of the beps' action items would commit the resources of u.s. taxpayers

either in the form of alterations to tax rules governing the taxation of u.s. multinationals or in the form of resources american taxpayers will have to ex-expand spend in order to abide by the terms of the beps action items. last month the oecd held a conference on the beps project here in washington d.c., and prior to the conference, house ways and means committee chairman paul ryan and i sent a letter to the treasury secretary lew outlining our concerns with several of the actions proposed under the beps project. including country-by-country reporting. quote -- masterfile" come toation, potential interests on interest deductibility, and others. those proposals could have far-reaching negative consequences for u.s. multinationals and the united states government. for example consider the

masterfile documentation scheme envisioned in the beps project. under this proposal, companies would have to provide additional detailed and intricate information about their tax planning and business models to foreign tax authorities. if we impose this requirement on u.s. businesses, what assurances do we have that these foreign governments would keep the information confidential? i do not know and no one from treasury has told me. what about countries with prevalent state-owned enterprises who would greatly benefit from this type of information? wouldn't the beps proposal force u.s. companies to real estate veal sensitive information to -- reveal sensitive information to foreign governments that either own or substantially back competing enterprises? i don't know, and no one at treasury has told meevment mr. president, i could go on for quite a while about these proposals, especially given the broad scope of the beps project the breadth of possible tax

effects, and the potential negative impact these proposals could have on our companies and our economy. needless to say as the chairman of the? senate's -- of the senate's tax-writing committees, i have many concerns. before we can even consider moving on any of the beps action items, we need more information. in fact, the president's lead negotiator on beps, deputy assistant secretary stack stated that we need to slow down the pace of the beps work substantially. we need to know more about the costs relative to the benefits of the beps proposals. we also need to know whether the i.r.s. is capable of sharing sensitive tax information with foreign tax authorities without violating the confidentiality of american businesses. after all the i.r.s. does not have the best track record. between the fraud and overpayment rates on various

refundable tax credits and other breaches of trust at that agency, we have more than enough reasons to be concerned about whether the i.r.s. can effectively and appropriately implement a plan for global information-sharing. to address these questions i sent a letter today to the controller general asking that the government accountability office engage with me and my staff to begin an in-depth analysis of these issues so that we can at least get a sense as to how the oecd's proposals might impact the u.s. economy including employment, investment and revenues. in the coming months i'll be reaching out to other experts as well. it is difficult to imagine that the analysis and discussions that would have to accompany consideration and adoption of beps-related rules and schemes could be completed by september when the oecd has stated it hopes to render final action

plans or by the time the next g-20 meeting. -- time of the next g-20 meeting. as stated, mr. president even if final reports from the beps project are released on schedule many if not all of the action plan items would need congressional action in order to be implemented in the u.s. so again i urge treasury to work more closely with congress on this and to not tie our hands as we move toward fax reform by -- tax reform by consenting to bad outcomes. i urge them to consider the interests of u.s. taxpayers and to not make any commitments that would impose unnecessary burdens on american companies and put them at a competitive disadvantage. the u.s. has always recognized the right of other countries to tax income earned within their borders to the extent such taxation is consistent with treaty obligations. however, regardless of what some in other countries may think

the u.s. tax base should not be up for grabs in an international free-for-all and i expect officials at the u.s. department of treasury to remember that. in fact, i demand that they remember that. mr. president, i will have much more to say on these matters in the coming weeks and months, and with that, i now yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: i ask that the quorum call be set aside. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: thank you. i rise today to speak about the economic effect of regulations coming out of the environmental protection agency on the energy sector and particularly on fossil fuels and coal. the state of wyoming is the largest coal-producing state in the nation. coal representatives he represents almost 40% of the share of electricity general generation across the countries. it's abundant, it's affordable it's stockpilable.

it can be clean and it shouldn't be replaceed through regulatory actions. but this administration continues to try and regulate coal out of existence. in 2012, the e.p.a. finalized a standard that requires a strict reduction in air emissions from electricity generating ute tilts, known as the mercury and air toxic standards rule and make many of the rules from the e.p.a., the cost of this regulation is great and the benefits are very limited. e.p.a. estimates the rule will create between $500,000 and $6 million in benefits. that sounds like a lot of money. but related to the mercury reductions the cost is $10 billion annually. $10 billion annually for a return of $500 to $6 million, that's a pretty big range and

there probably isn't a lot of calculation into how that came into with being or much transparency to see how it came about. that $10 billion annual cost will be to the consumers of electricity. those are costs that aren't allowed to be recouped. many of those have already been put in place they become part of the rate base and under most of the laws dealing with utilities, they're allowed to make a return on that. so there wouldn't be a huge protest for it, it's a lot of upfront costs for them, but they get to recoup that over a period of time. we've got to be sure that when we're making regulations that we don't flood a whole bunch of them in there that have huge costs and very little benefit. we just had a hearing just a short time ago in the homeland security subcommittee on regulations talking about how all those costs come about.

well the actual cost of doing it is pretty easily cal you'llable. there are things that have to be bought and put in in place and construction done in order to get it done. the benefits are a little harder to come out where those come from and a lot of the things aren't clearly cut that the problem comes from a single spot often there are a lot of things involved but it's a tendency to pick on one place. so three years after the rule was finalized the supreme court has ruled the e.p.a. should have considered costs before determining to regulate mercury with the fossil fuel power plants. the cost-benefit ratio assuming the e.p.a.'s best-case scenario is approximately 1,600-1. the court's majority opinion calls this an overreach and stated -- quote -- "the agency gave cost no thought at all because it considered cost

irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate." since these standards began to take effect in april utilities are already retired or plan to retire coal-fired plants to comply with the cost of emissions. sometimes it's cheaper to shut them down than it is to make the changes. the courts did not issue a stay on the implementation so the companies began installing the mandated controls to meet the deadline for compliance. these costs will be passed on to consumers and will result in higher electricity prices. on average a household can see their electricity bill go up by $400 a year. a cost which will disproportionately impact those with lower fixed incomes like many older americans. in 2012 congress had a chance to use the congressional review act to stop this devastating rule from moving forward. the congressional review act gives congress the ability to disapprove of rules that go

beyond what congress intended that requires a simple majority for passage and was a legislative vehicle available to stop the rule from going forward unfortunately, it was rejected by the senate majority at that time. with the process you have to get a petition that has a lot of signatures on it, and then you're guaranteed eight hours of debate and an up-or-down vote. of course, after it goes through the senate it also has a to go through the house and then it also has to go to the president for his signature. the rules and regulations are done by congress, not by the president. the presidency is the enforcer of the rules we supposedly put in place so it should not take a presidential signature to stop the action if the house and senate agree. in this case it was rejected by the senate majority so it wasn't until this lawsuit filed by

state governors was finally decided that the agency was called out for charging ahead with this disastrous rule without considering the consequences. right pairs shouldn't have to wait this long to wait for the correct decision. congress has to stand up to this runaway agency but we need to stand up to governing by rule making. we need transparency in the regulatory process. by requiring congress to approve all new major regulations. the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny rains act would make sure that people -- the people's representatives get a stay in the regulatory actions affecting the nation's economy. the presumption should not be deference to a federal agency attempting to implement a regulation but to congress and to the states. if enacted the reins act would

require an up-or-down vote before any executive branch rule or regulation with an impact of $100 million or more could be enacted. in the case of the clean power plan the costs are in the billions so it would ensure congress gets a say to stop the e.p.a. from regulating coal out of business. additionally the environment and public works committee has moved legislation that's the affordable reliable energy now act, which would extend the proposed rules compliance dates pending further judicial review. that way we don't see the premature plant foreclosures that harm our grid reliability and make energy more expensive before even knowing whether the rule is on good legal standing, whether the numbers are good. both of these bills would give congress additional tools to fight executive overreach and the house has already passed legislation similar to the affordable reliable energy now

act. we must do what we can because there's no doubt that matts regulations will continue to be challenged for its requirement of outside the fence lines challenges its coordination with existing source performance standards, the implementation of federal standards should states not submit plans or on the scientific basis if the status quo contributes to the endangerment of public health. in fact, the white house has requested over $50 million to defend the rule in court. that's your tax money. they've already lost once. and while the e.p.a. ignores the costs, outside groups have projected four to seven times the cost of the regulation. the national economics research association found an annual

compliance cost for mattes ranging from $41 billion to $73 billion. that's the annual compliance cost. so that would be up to 73,000 millions as i like to put it. i think talking about millions instead of billions makes it a little bit more understandable. so that's the policy that's going to affect consumer prices. it also shows that states like wyoming seeing double-digit increases in electrical prices. congress must ensure the e.p.a. does not continue to act unreasonably by not considering the cost of compliance before drafting carbon regulations. by requiring states to implement their own plans the e.p.a. is trying to skirt their responsibility to determine the true costs. the e.p.a. has not adequately considered the costs of the clean power plan. so what they have done is shifted that over and say states, this is what each of you has to do to make the federal

plan work, but since this is a state plan, we don't have to do all of this analysis to see what the costs are going to be. of course, we need more transparency in the calculations. as i mentioned costs are easy to come up with, benefits are pretty hard to determine and they're kind of in the eye of the beholder or the eye of the calculator. and usually the cost happens up front in just a few years. five years maybe ten years at the most. but they are allowed to calculate the benefits over 50 years, 100 years. how long can they do that? the consumers have to pay it up front, but the company has to pay it up front the consumers have to pay it over a regularly short period of time. 15% of u.s. coal generating capacity is already planned for retirement. wyoming would be forced to prematurely close four additional coal-fired power plants under this rule. yet the -- incidentally, that's

about the amount of electricity that we export to california. the e.p.a. asserts that since states determine compliance, the remaining useful life of coal-powered units prematurely shut down need not be considered. governors have already begun telling the e.p.a. that they will not be able to submit plans to meet the proposed standards so administrator mccarthy has threatened a federal implementation plan if states do not comply. now, a federal implementation plan is a federal regulatory action, and so they need to consider the costs of premature plan shutdowns and the consumer energy prices that that will cost prior to being finalized. you can't bypass these considerations by placing the onus on the states first. congress also needs to empower states to oppose federal regulations that hurt their constituencies. again, with little benefit. as wyoming's goifer matt meades

commented on matts the e.p.a. does not have the legal authority to impose, enforce or finalize this proposal. it functionally hamstrings energy and electricity sectors driving up the electrical prices. it would burden our nation's economic security and prosperity with almost no environmental or health benefits. the state of wyoming is considering its legal options once the rule is finalized. can't do anything until it is finalized. i have proposed an amendment to the constitution which would give states the ability to repeal federal laws and regulations when ratified by two-thirds of the legislators. that's almost like calling a constitutional convention under article 5 of the constitution. this amendment stands up for states' rights and gives them another option other than the court system to find solutions to regulatory problems. ultimately the states know what is best for them, and it's time to shift the power back into

their hands. even when federal regulations may have good intentions, they can create situations in which they cause more harm than good. unfortunately, the regulatory process is skewed in favor of the administration. we need to find a way to empower congress and to empower the states. those most accountable to the voters to keep runaway agencies in check or we'll continue to see regulations that impede our economy by directly hurting the energy industry, which hurts individuals, cost jobs and hits the ratepayers. the price ultimately paid by the consumers. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll.

quorum quorum quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to calendar number 12, s. 192 and that the bill be read for the third time and that the senate vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate occur. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar number 12, s. 192 a bill to reauthorize the older americans act of 1965, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, the senate has now unanimously passed the reauthorization of the older americans act. as the chairman of the senate committee on aging and as the senator who represents the state

with the highest median age i'm well aware of how important the programs authorized by this law are to our nation's seniors. they include, for example meals on wheels, a wonderful program that allows so many of our seniors to stay in their own homes and yet have their nutritional needs met. i also know how much the seniors in my state look forward to the visits from those who are delivering meals on wheels. it's a way that their health and well-being can be checked on. in some cases it may be the only social interaction that they have on a given day. in my state the five area agency on aging are so active in

delivering the services that are needed for the seniors in that particular community or region in my state. particularly in rural maine where there may be an absence of services such as care-giving services the area agency on aging plays an absolutely critical role. in some other areas of the state, under the older americans act programs, transportation services are provided to our seniors, legal services, whatever is needed. one of the provisions of this bill in which i have a particular interest is the strengthening of the role of the ombudsman for long-term care. that is important for the quality of care that our seniors

are receiving in nursing homes and other institutionalized settings but the great thing about the older americans act is that it helps many of our seniors avoid nursing homes and instead remain in the comfort security and privacy of their own homes just where they want to be. mr. president, this bill also takes steps to help safeguard older americans from abusive and financial exploitation. i know from the hearings that we have held on the -- before the aging committee that this is a growing problem. in fact, in the year 2011, it is estimated that older americans lost some $2.9 billion due to

schemes that were foisted on them. that probably is a gravely understated number, because sadly 90% of this exploitation comes from people that the senior knows well, either a relative a trusted advisor or a caregiver. oftentimes seniors are very hesitant to report these crimes because they don't want to get a loved one in trouble or they're simply too embarrassed to go to the police. we have held hearings on how technology has made the do-not-call list virtually useless nowadays because unfortunately, technology allows people from call centers

in india, for example to call into this country pretending to be a member of the internal revenue service or the local police department. well when a senior sees on the caller i.d. that the department of treasury from swashed calling, they're going to pick up the phone and thus the exploitation begins. we're making a real effort on the aging committee to educate seniors about these con artists and the techniques that they use to try to rip off people of all ages but with a particular focus on our senior citizens. so i'm pleased that the older americans act is focused on financial exploitation and trying to stop that kind of abuse. in short mr. president, the

reauthorization of these important programs under the older americans act is long overdue. while we have continued to fund them the reauthorization expired years ago and i'm very pleased that the chairman and the ranking member of the senate help education and pensions committee of which the presiding officer is such a valuable member have worked together to produce a bipartisan bill that we have just passed. this shows what the senate can do when we work together to meet the needs of our citizens. it's an honor to be on the floor and manage this bill, and i hope that since it was 50 years ago this month that the older americans act first passed, that we can move rapidly to see

it approved by the house of representatives as well and signed into law by the president. thank you mr. president. i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. cake: once again i -- ms. heitkamp: once again i see my good friend, senator collins, working for the people of her state and all of our states and working with issues is a i dealt with quite a bit as attorney general of my state and exploitation is a horrible thing when it takes away the dignity and the opportunity for a healthy life of an elderly american citizen. so i congratulate her on her fine work and i pledge my full support as she moves forward with this bill. thank you senator.

todayry rise to speak about the young men from my state of north dakota who went to vietnam and certainly those who died while serving in the vietnam war. as i have said before, the families of each of these 1998 fallen north dakotans deserve to have america pause to honor each of them. before i talk about some of the north dakotans who are missing or who died during the vietnam war, i want to thank arthur tom mandan a vietnam veteran from new town, north dakota, who is an inspiration to our state and to our country. in 1966, tom chose to enlist in the army. he was stationed in vietnam as a medic. he volunteered to extend his time in vietnam twice and spent a total of three years there. the army awarded him with a purple heart and a bronze star with the v device to denote his heroism involving conflict with

the armed enemy. tom comes from a family that is also an example of service to our country. tom and four of his brothers all served in vietnam each one after the other. and previously their father, victor mandan, served our country in world war ii. when tom returned to thñ -- when tom returned to the united states, he became a teacher. enjoyed teaching fourth graders in mandari and taught the hidatsa language. he now serves the aric. kara nation. tom is a proud fearnl, a proud grandfather but he is humbled about his important contributions to his tribe his state and to our country. tom's first cousin myron johnson, like a brother to tom also served in vietnam and was killed in action there. i'd like now to talk about myron

and the four other young men who didn't come home from the war. myron "chief's high" johnson. myron was born september 26, 1948. he was from mandaree. he served in the army's first battalion 46th infantry americol division. myron died march 28, 1971. he was 22 years old. he was the sixth of nine children born to melvin and eloise mandan johnson. his siblings said that myron had a magnetic personality and was kind and sincere to everyone who met him. when people reminisce about myron, they always talk about how much they loved him. my pron enjoyed writing bucking horses and was a top contender in the american indian rodeo association. he was also a great hunter and a good shot.

in vietnam myron's best friend richard bain and 32 other american soldiers were killed in action when fire-based marion was attacked. myron received many medals for his honorable and distinguished service in vietnam. diane johnson is myron's sister and my great friend. diane said that after myron's death, he was escorted home by his first cousin john morrisette who in the indian way was myron's brother. john served two tours in vietnam and also was highly decorated. john told diane that taking myron home was the hardest thing he's ever done. the trail of cars accompanying them from the minot airport back to his home in man calendar re-was -- in mandaree was miles and miles long. myron left behind his wife sheryl and daughter melanie. myron's family said that the denl left us permanent scarred

hole that can never be filled. they will continue to honor vents and honor -- veterans and honor myron for giving his life to his country. the mandaree american legion post 271 is named after myron and myron's nephew nathan "good iron" who was killed in afghanistan in 2004. the mandaree american legion post honors me consistently by allowing me to enter with their shawl at american powwows and honors me by allowing me to walk with neigh on this' mother harriett. for over 30 years myron's mother despite her limited resources, honored myron by giving away star quilts and shawls she made in his name. these giveaways were held throughout the years at various

flag raisings, various powwows memorial and veterans day services. on myron's mother's deathbed she looked up and said in his native language "o my son, you are here. you finally have come to see me." francis dowling. francis was from cooperstown. and he was born july 13, 1929. he served as a major sergeant in the army's fir infantry division. francis was 38 years old when he died on october 17, 1967. francis was one of eight children. his two brothers also served in the vietnam war george? the air force and forest in the marines. we were unable to reach any of francis'francis' family members but according to remembrances written by jim shelton who served with him francis was a brave and loyal soldier. jim described francis as tall, handsome and professional with a

strong sense of humor. michael maier also served with francis and he recalled that francis was easily 6 feet 6 inches tall and was very muscular. michael said he was so big people thought he was mean. but 97% of the time he had a big smile on his face. francis died during an ambush when he was trying to shield his wounding commanding officer from further fire. francis was buried and is buried in arlington national seem taimplet glenn maier. glenn was from bismarck and was born december 31, 1949. he served in the navy and was trained as a fireman. glenn died july 11, 1970 when he was 20 years old. i have the pleasure of knowing glenn's family. his parents vy and chuck tracy live just two doors down from the house where i raced my family in mandan.

glenn's father served our country in the military and died when glenn was very young. vy later married chuck tracy and raised glenn together. vy also gave glenn a brother and sister. bob and sue says that glenn was a happy-go-lucky guy. he had remember him riding his vespa scooter and enjoying time with his friends and especially playing a lot of pinochle. glenn's sister sue chuckles when she thinks about growing up and glenn not knowing how to swim. even though sue was younger by about six years she tried to teach him how to swim in the small swimming holes on the missouri river. when glenn decided to enlist in the navy, she joked with him that he was foolish but he asserted to her that the navy would make sure he knew how to swim. glenn's brother bob is grateful for meeting other men who served with glenn. they told him stories about

glenn's service like how despite being traininged a as fireman in the navy, glenn served on a swiftboat running machine guns. they said that they always requested glenn for missions because he was so good with .50 caliber machine gun. the month he was killed, glenn was scheduled to leave vietnam to train in the united states as a navy seal. john tague. john was from burlington born december 2 19456789 he served in the army's first infantry division. he was 22 years old when he died on june 16, 1968. he was the oldest child in his family and he had three sisters alice, georgia and goad divment alice and georgia said that glenn loved to hunt and fish and did so at every opportunity. his golden retriever followed him every wiry where especially when he went huntingment after high school, john joined job

corps. the corps honored john for his outstanding work by naming a building after him. when that facility closed, job corps gave john's family the building sign with john's name. john's sister appreciate that their former burlington classmates are planning to honor john in a parade float this summer. in vietnam john served as a field communication electronics equipment mechanic. john was about six months into his tour of duty when he was severely burned. shortly thereafter john was flown to japan where he died of his injuries. he's laid to rest at rose hill memorial park in minot. lowell inn einarson was born march 18 cialg 138. he served in the navy as a ship fitter. lowell was 28 years old when he died on september 1 1966.

lowell and his sister marilyn were children of immigrants from iceland. joe and sophie, their parents they grew up in a small farm outside of bantry. lowell's niece remembers hearing her mother tell stories about how she and lowell traveled to school in the winter by cross-country skiing. marilyn told vonda that lowell was a strong, young man who watched over her and took care of her taking care of the many chores especially after marilyn was diagnosed with polio at age seven. shortly after completing high schooling, lowell enlisted in the navy. he served for about ten years until he died of a heart attack during the early part of the vietnam war. marilyn cherishes the three sets of china lowell brought her -- brought home for her for her mother and herself. and for himself. sadly, marilyn lost her belongings including lowell's china, when her home burned down

in the 1970's. lowell's niece sue keeps a rubbing of lowell's name etched on the memorial wall in washington d.c., and shared that several family members have said that lowell's new england fee mitch resembles lowell. i continue to speak here on the floor about the lives and deaths of north dakotans who died while serving in the war because these men remain in our hearts, and they certainly remain in the hearts of the wonderful families that we have had an opportunity to get to know during our work on this project. as in the 2012 vietnam proclamation on the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the vietnam war states, "in the reflection of the wall we the military family members and veterans who carry the pain that may never fade. may they find peace in knowing their loved ones endure not only in medals and memories but narts of all americans who are forever

grateful for their service valor and sacrifice. it is so important that we never forget the sacrifice of those who served in vietnam or the sacrifice of those who serve today. and that's why i can consider it such a privilege to tell the stories of those who did not make it home and listen to the stories of those who did. i want to share with you a song that was sung at the recent vietnam memorial exhibit in the fargo air museum in may. i was really moved by a local poet and local performing artist shaun schipper who was able to sing the song to honor those who serve. i would like to read the lyrics of his song. i'm not going to sing it. that should really -- all of you should be very excited that i'm not singing. i couldn't do justice to the words that he wrote. he wrote 19 years old six months from prom, out in a

jungle in vietnam. so scared, don't want to die thinking about home, tears in my eyes. what are we fighting for? i'm so sick of war. i bet the guys on the other side want to go home like i do. miss your whom mom and dad the life you had. i pray to god to get back home again to be with you. search and destroy kill or be killed mayhem out there in the battlefield. adrenalin flowing another sleepless night holding my m-1 ready for a fight. here in the trenches, fear everywhere death and destruction, smoke sm the air. mortars, grenade devonning sounds shrapnel and bullets flying all around. plage praying to god caller being for moms, another buddy dies in vietnam. another buddy dies in vietnam. and so -- and it goes on and on and on and on. what are we fighting for? i'm so sick of war. i bet the guys on the other side

want to go home like i do. i want to thank him. i know that he was greatly moved by and inspired to write this song by an encounter he had had aw. a vietnam vote. i think all of us who have had those experiences of meeting veterans and people who serve can't help but be moved by the quality of their continued devotion to their brothers in arms but also the quality of their service. and so i move to doing something for veterans, making sure that our veterans have an opportunity when they return home to basically reconnect with their families. and so while each week came come to the senate floor to honor the north dakotaians who gave up their lives in the vietnam war to truly honor themed and our current service members and veterans, we have to make real changes to better support them. today i am proud to reintroduce a bipartisan bill that i have

sponsored with senators moran king and bozeman that would better connect our nation's new veterans with services, resources and benefits that were available right at home in their communities. my connect with veterans act aims to keep service members transitioning to civilian life after they separate from the military and begin to settle into their communities. organizations like association of defense communities have stated that the most important part of the transition from service member to civilian comes in the short period of time that a service member leaves the military. we need to make sure that it's successful and there's more we can do to aplib those goals. too often these veterans don't have access to the basic information on local services and many communities have few ways to connect with them. i have traveled across north dakota listened to our veterans and i hear time and time again about the need for veterans to have more

information on services and opportunities available to them at the local level. my connect with veterans act would provide these veterans with better access to that information by making it easier for cities, counties, and tribes to interact directly with them. it's a simple but really commonsense bill. participation, number one is completely voluntary. transitioning service members will be given the option to share their contact information with communities in which they intend to live after completing military services. interested cities, counties, and tribes will be able to request that contact information from a secure directory maintained by the department of veterans affairs so they can provide the information. integrated back into civilian life may be particularly difficult for those living in rural community like so many of the communities in my home state of north dakota, as they often have fewer resources and access

to less services. as a study from 2014 showed that half of the veterans polled from the wars in iraq and afghanistan said that they are having difficulty adjusting to civilian life. this reasonable solution would help change that by allowing local communities to connect with new veterans at the earliest possible point in the transition process. with 550 service members transitioning daily -- i want to repeat that, 550 service members transitioning daily nationwide out of the military and with nearly 250,000 servicemen and women expected to leave military service over the next five years , we have got to prepare. we have got to say thank you by making sure that they get the services that they've earned and that we can connect them with communities where they can continue to participate ask serve their country and their communities. i know from talking to north dakotans that this bill

especially benefit communities in my state that have unmet employment needs. if you can imagine over 20,000 jobs that go unfilled and we have all these trained service members that are coming out of the military who would be just excellent additions to our north dakota community. and so whether it's an employment or health care or family support services, we have to do better. and so i appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. we have to have a plan for our service members and i think connecting them with their community is a great plan. finally, i'd just like to give a little update on what's been happening since we have basically allowed the charter of the ex-im bank to expire. just as we predicted that unilateral disarmament in our trade financing opportunities would open the door for opportunities in other countries

, we are seeing more and more this -- this delay in basically fully -- in having a fully functioning ex-im bank is already costing jobs and opportunities in our state. so i just want to reinforce that not by just my words but talk about what -- what's being said about u.s. export-import bank being shut down as what's good for china and bad for our competitiveness. today the "business standard" printed an interview with the head of the export-import bank of india who said that with u.s. ex-im bank closing down, we would now have more markets because indian products are going to compete with u.s. products and now that competition will go away. and in a recent reuters article the chief risk analyst of the china export-import bank said

that at the end of the -- at the end of the american export-import bank would help china be more competitive. he said, "with respect to competition and strategy and policies between u.s. and china this is a good thing for china." another recent article said china's central bank is interjecting $32 billion into the china development bank and $30 billion into the export-import bank of china. as we're seeing growth in their -- we're seeing very similar growth in the export-import bank of india. so i would suggest that if we truly want to remain a global competitor if we truly want to access a market, an international market where we have in fact 95% of all consumers live outside our country. if we don't have access to those markets and if we're not competing on a level playing field, it's going to cost american business, including american small business

opportunities opportunities for exports, opportunities for profitability. but equally important, it is going to cost americans jobs. and so the sooner rather than better. we expect that we will have a vote on reauthorizing the ex-im bank. i know we continue to see challenges to having that vote. we continue to see challenges to this institution. but i will tell you that many small businesses in my state are contacting us wondering why in the world would we do this. why in the world would we shut down the ex-im bank that is a critical part of that trade infrastructure? and so why in the world indeed? why would we ever make this decision? it's a decision that needs to be reversed. we need to get the ex-im bank fully functioning and back in business. and so we are going to be doing everything we can in this next month and into future months if we -- if we expect that we are

going to eliminate the possibility of unilateral disarmament. and trade financing. so with that, mr. chairman i yield the floor and i note an absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president this is a sad day in chattanooga. a sad day across our country. another terrible tragedy. a mass shooting, apparently. a thorough investigation's under way. the senate's thoughts are with the families of the marines and our entire military community. and our thanks, as usual in these situations goes out to the first responders and the

community that mobilized so quickly. we have two great senators from tennessee who i know are mourning the events of today and the american people will be interested in knowing as soon as possible as many facts about this horrible shooting as possible. on an entirely different matter, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 139 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the title of the bill for the information of the senate. the clerk: s. 139 a bill to permanenty allow an exclusion under the supplemental security income program and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the

measure? without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 3038, an act to provide an extension of federal-aid highway highway safety and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:40 a.m. friday,

july 17, for a pro forma session only, with no business being conducted. further, that following the pro forma session the senate adjourn until tuesday july 21 at 10:00 a.m. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form. finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there is no further business to come before the senate, ski that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until 10:40 a.m.

it is a privilege and honor to an honor to have the senator with us among the vision for the american idea. a little background about where we are this was the bedroom and 153 years ago this summer president lincoln was writing the emancipation proclamation from this room and there is a replica over there.

the american idea is described in the declaration of independence. this has been a good exercise for myself about what the declaration says. all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and here is a critical part follows it directly is important that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among them deriving their powers from the consent of the governed so the

beautiful ideas that formed the declaration of independence will clearly intended to be followed by the constitution and senator having you here a constitutional expert your experience in the incredible public service. it's to develop and engage in recognize exceptional leadership championing the american idea.

my dad was passionate about many things and certainly about the american idea. one of his good friends and i'm privileged to call him a friend as well. we will read three words or phrases. the guy that started about delivery service. we come from a personal background. we have fathers, mothers uncles

i'm grateful each one of us is standing on the shoulders of our great men and women that have come before us. sharing the stories of your father and talk about your vision of the understanding of the american idea. >> i am here as a moderator and it is an honor to be with senator ted cruise who is the real man of ideas. so when jimmy called me i figured out i would change my schedule and it is very hard for me to turn down a request for

any member of the family. he was a hero of mine and a remarkable figure and inspiration and combined both skills and visceral or the name of ideas and also person of extraordinary warmth and passion and made a lot of things happen and one of the highest compliments i ever received is that he wants to consider himself to be a lieberman democrat. i was designating myself. about my dad and what if this does come from your own experience. i will start with my grandmother. my mother's mother we were in the house until my dad made enough to buy your own house.

she was my link to the old country in her case it was romania, now ukraine. my grandparents were immigrants but my grandmother was the one that was in my life and i always used to say she was one of the greatest american patriots i ever met because she had something to compare america to and that is one of the gifts of succeeding generations of immigrants have given us because i think they appreciate the american idea he had a tough childhood but never complained about it. he was in an orphanage from the age of three.

to me if i'm of the smartest people ever met that they didn't but they didn't have the opportunity to college or to work in the store or factory. they were in the business and they were put in the zone but have to make 25 bucks a week. this is a tough deal but it was a great incentive system.

the god-given talents would have normally given him and. he voted for wendell wilkie in 1954 and i grew up with the dream if you work hard and play by the rules. >> the truth may pay homage but

what you share a little bit with what you wrote in that book about your father and your coming to understand of the american idea. >> let me first just pay tribute to your dad and wish a happy birthday. it would have been been held in friedman's 100th birthday. it's a natural ideological heir and successor.

it's why i was drawn to politics i'm quite confident i will never be a starting quarterback in the nfl. it's stitched together from the fabrics of the stories. they were irish catholic. they didn't know what else to do actually her uncle discovered this in the process of writing my book.

they ran the numbers in wilmington delaware. this little old lady would walk down the street to bloomington carrying the book and so that was her family and she ended up becoming the first person to go to college. my mom who is 80 now i'm at the same age as your dad my mom stood up to her dad and she's got a steel backbone and ended up being the first woman and her family to go to college and she went to rice and graduated 1956 with a degree in math and became a computer programmer in the

1950s really pioneering in an industry and my dad likewise his journey was in cuba and the histories intersect. you mention your dad's mom died in the of the flu epidemic. my grandfather's father was in cuba and his dad died of a flu epidemic epidemic and so he found himself as a teenager living on a sugar plantation. and it was basically essentially a company town every one of the sugar plantation was paid in script at the store and then all of your expenses were charged with servitude you just stay there and work at the plantation and my grandfather when he was a teenager a bus came by offering people $5 a sandwich to come to a political rally.

and they send money to his mom and siblings. they would go fishing with their dad and my father would tell me they didn't tend to use the rod and reel basically it is fishing line wrapped around a stick or something. the bigger the cut bigger the fish used to be that you are wrestling and my dad as a teenager became involved in the cuban revolution and it was

interesting. the revolution in cuba started in high schools and colleges. they would come in and beat the living daylights out of them and they know they shattered his teeth and at that point my grandfather said they released him and they were following him hoping they would lead him to others in the underground and my grandfather said look you got to get out. so my father applied to three u.s. universities.

he had $100 in his underwear that he had so been there so that they wouldn't take it when he was leaving and he got a job washing dishes became 50 cents an hour and he got that job because you had to be able to take a dish, put it under hot water and scrub it and they could do that in any language and he worked seven days a week. and today he is a pastor. the impression of coming to america seeking freedom is at the heart of what drew me to politics and where my passion

lies is that we have been a beacon of freedom in the world. that's what we have to fight to preserve and bring back more than anything. as powerful as we are our future will not be secure unless we use that power to create the world of world that offers those things we hold sacred.

what extent do you think we have an obligation to take the american idea which as most people would say in essence they articulated. do we have an obligation to try to take that universal statement of human rights and make it real around the world. my view i think the united states should always be a clarion voice for freedom.

to be what ronald reagan x. simplified and speak out and for the u.s. military force intervention those standards are very different. i think the standard for the military force should be providing the national security interest and speaking the truth to power has enormous impact. a couple of years ago i visited in jerusalem and he described how the soviet prisoners and the gulags were passing cell to cell to hear what president reagan said. evil empire. my office and senate i have a painting itself a 20-foot painting, beautiful painting of ronald reagan and above its written in german are the words tear down this wall i think the most important words any leader has uttered in modern times and bad clearly and voice for

freedom before we sat down. i think that you and i have much more common ground in this deal. there are many aspects to talk about that but one point beginning on where we were talking about being the voice for freedom, one of the aspects of president obama's speech today is that he didn't utter a word about the americans languishing in prisons. he didn't utter the name or mention jason. he didn't mention robert. these are americans who were imprisoned for their christian faith or acting as a journalist and exercising their first amendment rights. and for the president of the

united states to celebrate with a nation that is wrongfully imprisoning americans is such a stark contrast and giving a voice to the aspirations of freedom. >> on that point this is an incredible moment in history. they have 60 days to deal with this issue. how will you connect the underpinnings of the american philosophy to the argument to oppose this agreement with iran backs >> for 60 days we are going to have a vigorous debate about the

national security implications of the deal, and one of the things i hope happens is that we focus on speaking the truth. i belief that truth has power. i think the consequences of this deal allows iran to keep centrifuges can't keep uranium and to keep the icbm program if it's incredible restrictions. remember it wasn't long ago that we were promised any agreement would have the most vigorous inspections in history. well this agreement gives the wrong 14 days if they notice before any inspections and the ability to appeal to an international tribunal. you know it's worth stopping to think, what exactly is the logic behind getting a nation that you would expect 14 days of notice before you inspect anything. the only logic of that and the only thing that makes sense is to give them the time to remove

whatever evidence you would discuss and that we would agree to that demonstrates that there is a political mandate behind the deal rather than a national security mandates like mice. at the very end, i think unfortunately, the a political deal that national security adviser describes the nuclear deal as the obamacare of the second term which i think that he meant as a compliment. one of the thing all about a domestic political legacy is at the very end, they tossed in one more thing, left the international moratorium on weapons and ballistic missiles coming into iran and the administration said that's fine. ..

this is -- and some people say you can deal with that if you want to have an agreement with them. when we were negotiating arms control agreements with the russians who are also

supporting the freedom fighters.fighters. solidarity implode. >> and let me say something important. i very much hope that we see the reemergence of joe lieberman democrats. there used to be a long tradition of jfk who stood vigorously against the communists and took national security seriously. that is becoming an endangered species along the modern senate democrats. i hope the next 60 days prove me wrong. nothing would make me happier than to see democrat after democrat after democrat stand up and say my partisan allegiance is far less important. that is the only thing that can stop this deal if enough democrats are willing to set aside.

we are going to have 60 days of vigorous debate. >> it strikes me that a significant underpinning is a recognition of the human condition. we have become much more pluralistic and very clearly started off with judeo christians values and principles. part of the american trinity includes and god we trust. i believe that our founders and most of our political leaders through the years believe that the principal fight in life was between good and evil. today speakingevil.

today speaking about good and evil is much more difficult because basically the question is asked to. is america -- is the american ideal arrogant? i we claiming that you are evil and i am good? i do not believe that is the perception, but it is important when having these conversations how to have the conversation in a way that recognizes absolute good versus evil without being absolutist in the demeanor. i don't no if you have guidance of perspective, but it seems to me that there is a humility in the recognition of our government and the need for addressing the issue. >> i will take a 1st shot at it. you are absolutely right.

we respect everybody which is great. we should not do that at the price of holding at times because this is part of our religious heritage but it is part of a moral heritage. if you don't stand up for the right and the wrong we will triumph. the question is an important thing is to do it in aa way that respects people who have a different opinion but not to have that respect lead you to be quiet in defense of what you think is right. recent debate for my great debater and we have lost that ability to have a good

debate where people disagree but do not seem to hate each other. that was part of the american idea. the founders of the country have incredibly spirited sometimes quite person debates but it together for the good of the country. >> you know, i think i very much much agree and think your exactly right. we are a nation that was formed by men and women who were fleeing religious oppression and seeking to establish aa land where every one of us could seek out the lord god almighty. each of us may do this differently. both of us live in a land where we can worship god according to the dictates of our conscience.

part of the american ideal one of the most revolutionary aspects was the understanding reflected in that portion that you quoted, all men are created equal and endowed by there creator with certain unalienable rights. for most of history and women have been told your rights come from government. the revolutionary idea that it is god almighty that gives you the right to enough to put inherent in what it means to be human being, that inverted sovereignty is made clear that sovereignty begins with we the people and linda sovereignty the government but it remains with people.

when it comes to seeking out good and evil truth matters. when isis is beheading children when there crucifying christians, taking jordanian soldiers and putting them in cages and letting them on fire that is evil. they're is no ambiguity no middle ground. it is the face of the. truth has power that we need to speak up and speak in support of the inherent natural rights of every person. so. >> i was going to take off from that to a slightly different place starting with james madison who said famously that if men were angels government would not be necessary. i think we can certify that men and women are on angels command presume that some government is necessary but

it always limits of the question of how much government is necessary and how you draw the line. >> you invoke that quote from madison and the federalist papers. what i was in college my senior thesis was a title. >> in the wings of angels deriving from exactly that portion of the federalist papers the great challenge is to enable those in government to perform there responsibilities and at the same time of lies and to govern themselves. i think the key, jefferson likewise describes the constitution as chains. they're are certain essential facts of the government must perform. the 1st and most fundamental is protecting the national security of this nation, the overarching concern that goes to the

very 1st responsibility of every member of the government. more broadly when it comes to how the human spirit achieves. the incredible potential of everyone. every issue we think about and talk about the should focus like a laser opportunity. we should you the impact of the least off among us young people, african-americans, hispanics, people struggling to climb the economic ladder. i try to view issues through the lens of my dad.

ifif my dad was to wash dishes today make it $0.50 an hour how would it help or hurt all of our focus and what you understood so powerfully is why we created environment where we are in shane human liberty and allow people to create business and expand that enables people like my dad to move up the economic ladder. one of the things we're looking at just looking at median income and comparing the current administration to the reagan administration the policies of the current administration have been told to the american people. yet no one has that her more money obama economy in the most vulnerable. young people and hispanic and african-american. from 2,009 to 2013 median

income across the country has dropped $2,120. by contrast in the eight years of reagan rose $5,555. medianmedian income of every american one of 12 percent. likewise if you look at african-americans from 2,009 to 2013 median income dropped $789 year. under president reagan from 1981 to 1989 million income for african-americans rose $5008 year. 18% increase in median income in just a years and finally you look at hispanics.

from nine to 13 median income has dropped $349 per year.$349 per year. under reagan rose $2,160 per year. the reason that i am a conservative is because i believe the policies that best benefit teenage immigrants single moms waiting tables. a lottables. a lot of folks in my family is a single moms. both my answer single moms. that may be the hardest job in america. people who are struggling need an environment where they get better opportunity wages command create an environment that is something you don't understand powerfully and it is what has drawn me to fight for that every day. >> that was beautifully said

watching and become his acolyte and supporter and partner, taking very traditional republican ideas and then focusing them on poor neighborhoods take a concept that was not popular cut the capitol gains tax and it worked. >> they call the votes. the round of applause. thank you for taking time with us.

[inaudible conversations] >> what a treat for us to have senator lieberman with this. even more of a conversation. senator thinking about the american idea the incredible divide in this country.

it used to be scoop jackson democrats blue dog democrat for yourself. talktalk about from your perspective as it relates to the american idea that is not well understood. the electorate. that we will be interesting. >> i cannot say i am glad to but i i will. he suggested a response. obviously by the time i was in the senate, and the senate was a more partisan place than i expected it to be.

i came from connecticut contact sport. a little more partisanship particularly on foreign-policy things. it just got worse over time. a big part of the question is how and why it would take an hour to describe it. the influence of the parties as sources of funding for candidates and constantly preparing for the next campaign pulls people part ideological interest groups pull people part. the news media have become much more partisan and/or ideological. when. when i was growing up they're was a guy named walter cronkite.

i always ask any idea whether he was a liberal or conservative, republican or democrat? i didn't. he was quite a liberal democrat for but i but i never knew that. part of the question is how we shape people out of this. i want to come back. maybe it is to bring people back to the american idea. in this together. founded uniquely based on the borders. generation after generation coming here and trying to realize the idea. that is the story. the american revolution is unfinished.

to make progress toward finishing it is one of those things. to continue building with this shape people out of this provision. i'm part of another group called the labels and attempt to say forget the liberal democrat and republican. moderate, all americans and have to figure out how to work together. one of the ways we thought about it to my national strategic agenda, for big goals and that, social security, jobs command if you get people to sign on to figuring out how you can get them in a position to do it you still have them a lot in washington but not so much anymore, people negotiated compromise. when we went through that effort to achieve the empowerment enterprise stuff

some of it was adapted in the balanced budget act of 1997 and took a lot of compromise because jack knew if you say i don't give you a full we get zero. so keep pressing the idea of the american ideal. that is what unites us because people still believe in it. >> i don't know if we have a microphone so that the cameras can capture. you have been great. i am guessing that you we will have questions. i did not get a lot of questions on postcards. does anyonedoes anyone have a question for senator lieberman army?

>> well you are thinking about that command struck me during the conversation, something i was unable to do.do. i made it to the lincoln bedroom. [laughter] real lincoln bedroom. >> one of the things your father said. home like you to talk about the context of that. >> the question, father calledquestion, father called himself ago from a heavily armed of.

i believe his motivation was the american idea. dad had an understanding and all of us recognize the human condition is real. they're is a need for government. you do not have the impact. are we going to go out and push for freedom and democracy everywhere and impose our will,we will, or are we going to be a beacon of light, city shining of the hill. as beliefas belief was that we are a peaceful people recognizing the desire of every human being is to improve his or her lot in life and that of the children. wechildren. we want the next generations to be left in a better place does not have through more. the goal is to have american

be the death. as our economy is going we had to be heavily armed. fight the rules. hawks have a -- others can probably speak to it better than i but but a belief that we need to go out and be proactive. we have to go out and engage in take the fight to people and the dynamic changed. your experience and knowledge, i would be interested in your perspective. i assume that you would call yourself a

heavily armed. >> i haven't, but i we will from now on. that is a great description because it conveys the message that we are not looking for a fight not looking for or. we prefer piece. the reality is certainly in the 2nd world war the world has been more stable relatively and more free more prosperous because the american don't has been heavily armed. they're was a feeling that we would go to use our power to protect stability in a

direct sense which does not get appreciated much. the number of people who live in extreme poverty today is remarkably lower than it was three or four decades ago and a lot of it is because of the u.s. navy primarily protecting the security of maritime commerce has enabled countriesthat has enabled countries around the world to trade and basically keep jobs what they do not have any before so that they could raise their standard of living. you have given me -- i will sometimes give you an jack credit for myuse that to describe myself. >> anyone else? so i live in washington dc. a return to citizen which some people call and ask offender. he believed in

empowering people in urban communities and was able to get people on both sides of the aisle to come up with initiatives that work on empowering people. in places like dc, chicago, san francisco, and other places african americans and people who live in poverty are being pushed out and not empowered. we have a terrible education system a lack of resources for empowerment to start her own businesses. what do you think the solution is? i do not see it moving in the right direction. the other things we see. >> ii want to agree that you are a return citizen. i am glad you returned. jack was great and we are to come back to it. we have to be creative about this and in some ways we

have to acknowledge that the traditional programs are humane but not enough. foodfood stamps are important, but it is not enough. the various waysthe various ways in which welfare exists a humane but not enough. we have to find target place. over my time in the senate and became a big supporter of school choice because i grew up with the believe that my mom and dad you have an incredible blessing. you go to a public school and we will get a great education.a great education. he we will go on to do whatever you want to do and

that worked for me because i didn't get a good education in the public schools. as i particularly studied around connecticut and went into cities, low income kids, the system was not working for them because the schools were not as good as they were when i was there. the best answer is to make the public schools great. in the meantime we are losing generation after generation of young children. i feel one of the most important things is give the parent of young lower income kids the opportunity to choose where they were the kids to go to school. if you can get those kids on to the education and up they will fly. and then the other questions he raises an interesting one how do we help

african-american and hispanic american people to go and start in a small business and particularly in a high-tech world that we are in now but frankly they're is still a lot of need for small traditional businesses. you know, people are handy and can make a good living. if your in a craft were trade you will probably do okay. you have to work harder. that is the beginning of an answer. >> and that is what you are talking about. the concept hasthe concept has come back.

it is interesting. this idea was not fully implemented. president clinton adopted the concept and turned it into empowerment. providing tax credits instead of zeroing out the capitol gains tax, and it is important to understand and think about the american idea because of the government is saying here is a tax credit. you did we told you do. going away, that is a different message than talking to the market and saying hey,hey who wants to come here, who can utilize the assets of the people with the skills to create jobs for receive investment and really the answer to our global competitiveness is in the creation of jobs.jobs. we have to create small jobs to compete in the world, and it must start in our cities.

while i think it is critical to understand that in a city like dc that is doing so well certainly in large part because the federal government continues to grow they're are many people who are being pushed out of the communities and the growth is not organic inasmuch as the federal government is enabling opportunities and yet people are going back into the city. get things are happening but it it is not as organic is like it to be. it is warm here. new line great to be a part of this. i hope it has been interesting. we would love to have you stay engaged with the foundation and specifically with our events

emma watkins is an back.a mac. if you need more information you can contact me or him a. i want toi want to thank senator lieberman as well as senator cruise. >> thanks. >> just thank you and everybody who created and sustained the foundation for keep jack live and extending the legacy. in some ways it is apparent. inapparent. in a way we'll to leave our families behind us. i would say the 80th birthday from the everyday jack is smiling. thank you for being who you are in keeping the good

works going. a pleasure to see quex. to be with you. >> pres. obama promised a thorough and prompt investigation into the attack today at two military sites that killed at least four marines. the pres. spoke in the oval office minutes after returning from washington from a trip to oklahoma. he was joined by hashis counterterrorism and homeland security advisor and the fbi director. >> i just received a briefing from fbi director coming as well as my white house team about the tragic shooting that took place in china today. wewe do not no yet all the details. we no what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks. we have identified a name, and at this time a full investigation is taking place. the fbi we will be in the lead working closely with

local law enforcement. we have also been in contact with the department of defense to make sure that all of our defense facilities are properly attentive and vigilant as we sort through exactly what happened. as details of the investigation proceeded to pull make sure that the fbi as well as local law enforcement are providing the public with all the information is involved. my main message right now is obviously the deepest sympathies of the american people to the four marines that have been killed. it is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great power to be killed in this fashion and although the families are still in the process of

being contacted, i want to no that i speak for the american people in expressing our deepest condolences and knowing that they have our full support as they try to overcome with what is involved. i want to say that there are reports of injuries to chattanooga local law-enforcement officials. thankfully as far as we know they had survived the assault command we wish to make sure that they know we're thinking about the. we take all shootings seriously. obviouslyobviously when you have an attack on a us military facility we have to make sure that we have all of the necessary information

to make an assessment in terms of how this attack took place and what further precautions we can take in the future. as we have more information we will of the public know. in the meantime i ask all americans to pray for the families who are grief stricken and i want everyone to understand that we we will be thorough and prompt in figuring out exactly what has happened. thank you very much. >> the role of religion and healthcare was the focus of our recent conversation at the center for strategic and international study. panelists discussed the importance of faith-based organizations delivering care in countries with health challenges such as hiv-aids. this is just under an hour.

>> thank you all. in the interest of time we will dive right into the 2nd panel which we will give us an opportunity to look at the us angle and the us engagement with faith-based organizations and the genesis of those strategies and what impact and evolution we can see. we are honored to be joined by three very respected panelists. sandy thurman to my left who is the chief strategy officer for the office of the global aids coordinator. many of you no sandy from her long work in this arena. the director of the center for faith-based and community initiatives. and on the far end we have the vp and dir.vice president and director of global health and hiv family foundation. you have their full bios a

man out. you can see that we have a very illustrious and important panel command we are eager to dive in the interest discussion. i think we all no the 1st panel make clear the importance of engaging with an understanding the role of the faith-based communities in providing the health and providing information, especially hard-to-reach areas. i am reminded of the time not long ago when ii was in ethiopia interviewing and orthodox priest talking about family planning and i asked him what message he gave his followers. he said roughly translated: family planning is not ascend. hundred children as soon.

it is just a fascinating lens through which we can see again the importance of faith leaders in the information that they can transfer to there communities and the importance of engaging them in ensuring that they have the information and the capacity necessary to reach their communities with appropriate and accurate information. we have the engaging very interesting conversations on the subject. most recently last week with some providers kenya on the subject of family planning. it is true that things are evolving and developing and this is an important moment to be exploring this further we are very eager to talk about it from the focus of the us policy perspective. and i think to begin with we will turn to sandy thurman. given your long involvement from the us government can you describe to us a little bit more about how we 1st began partnering with organizations and how that has evolved?

>> sure.sure. thank you for being here. it is interesting. a partner in our response since the very beginning domestically and globally. that partnership was an outgrowth of our experience in partnerships with faith-based organizations all the domestic side. when we began looking at the disproportionate impact and early 2,000's of our interest and a lot of the pressure that was brought to bear on the us government and policymakers was from faith-based organizations on the ground in africa seeing the devastation that was occurring on the continent. so they have been a natural partner for us.

a natural partner working from the beginning. and so when we begin to expand the global program to focus on hiv internationally and put this in perspective actually working in the white house and the global aids budget, $125 million year for seven years in a row which is now a rounding error. so we saw faith-based organizations were at the forefront of encouraging us to really respond in a robust way. that ultimately led to the development of pet four. faith-based partnerships

were not based on politics. there were based on pragmatism. elected people on the ground to have access, all of the things that we knew we needed and partners to move quickly they were primary and natural partner. >> it is so interesting how all of this has evolved. if weif we get into the spectrum of the challenges and opportunities. tell us a bit more about your office.office. the goals for your outreach, your strategy. >> sure. i have the great privilege to have this office that has its origins back around 2,003 trying to do a more systemic engagement with the faith community. that said usaid has been working with the groups since the inception of the agency. this was not new. a broader which continues to

be the guiding star. if you think about the work certainly to be the ombudsman into the agency they can come through us and do that. groups act a little bit like an ombudsman. we organized with the white house department of state a conference call which includes 400400 people on the call talking about a bola. we did smaller groupings as well. they're is a convening role of the organization and there is a goal of supporting the other parts

that are trying to get things done. we support the missions. that is a critical a critical part of it. government agency, very decentralized. the missions are evolving and decision-making happens. he tried to make it as robust as possible, especially when they're are areas and emergencies. >> thank you. one of the things that came up on the last panel was how much of the share of the us government support goes through faith-based organization. i wonder if you could tell us more about how much kaiser has approach that and why that is a complicated set of numbers to find. >> thanks. i just want to say that i want to commend the authors who put the issue together

to pick up and formalize the evidence -based framework which is critical. and so for this question what do we know, the scope of the involvement. we were talking in advance of this. clearly money is just one measure. the money is one that we care about. attention to. in preparation share data. they're is also really good work being done. looking at is the development article it just came out. roughly estimating over roughly estimating over the last decade or more 30 percent of all development assistance has been channeled through faith-based organizations

which is aa complex analysis. i encourage people to look. the other piece looking specifically at the share of revenues the faith-based organizations have. she actually found about 15 percent. it is less than people think in preparation for this i took a look at data recently released a broad area we put out a couple reports for putting out a summary analysis. what what do we no about faith-based organizations? but it was 2013 data all kinds of caveats.

looking at that year able to identify. the vision 13 percent 4% of the4 percent of the funding went to that. lots of people. seeing how it is changed. faith-based organizations were more likely to be in africa. no surprise. an important data. most of the areas of hiv. malaria is a big one. more so. less than family planning. those findings and looked at. just to give you aa

sense, more likely that in africa. probably less funding people think. to give you a funding amount about 96 million in 2013 to give you a sense. less than the global fund amount identified in the analysis. >> thank you. we're going to run through a series of questions. the question of who are these organizations. you describe the spectrum of kinds of organizations which helps underscore the opportunities in the challenges of working with them. perhaps you could talk more about what you mean. >> sure. thank you. the genesis of the challenges we have had building partnerships.

it is hard. faith-based organizations. faith-based organizations can range anything from the catholic health system in the united states of america which is still the second-largest health care system in the country. a very small clinic or ngo. so they're is an incredibly broad range. very big differences in capacity, very big differences in ability to deliver services. our challenge to donors and faith-based organizations communicate with those differences are.

when we look at revamping our mechanisms in order to be more effective we have got to be able to name both serve what we had partnerships and defined roles and responsibilities and establish monitoring and evaluation and accountability mechanisms we have to just be careful dealing with. what you don't want to lose mom for years of public health that if we want to look at sustainable change at the end of the day and we want to be able to have countries take full responsibility and ownership of the work being done in the country that has to be rooted on the ground and grassroots organizations all of the country. if we want to sustain the

impact on look at sustainable development we have to figure this out. it will not be easy. family dynamic, but that does not mean you abandoned the family. that is where we are in the conversation is exciting. >> one of the pieces of sustainability is of course a big theme here in washington also the link to the private sector and the longer-term financing issues that relate to sustainability. you have talked about the added financial value of working with faith-based organizations in the outreach, can you describe a little more about your outreach to faith-based groups as linked to the private sector? >> they're are two elements. what is the faith-based organizations have robust fundraising likely from the

private sector.sector. they have been engaging the private sector. the other is more direct. looking at the importance of the private sector the ways that we can think about the faith community the business people who are motivated but will never put a religious icon of what they do. for example, the project we are working on, small help experiments the principles can provide some sustainability in eastern democratic republic congo. a consortium of business leaders that are connected to the national christian foundation have put up a million dollars partnership. the national christian foundation and the philanthropy that flows

through his hundreds of millions of dollars. i give significant part of that, formalize partners with that kind of flow and access to capital as well as the expertise which has gone down. >> a lot of work over the years. as we discussed we saw the importance of some of the faith-based organizations all as well as the ebola response. do you want to reflect more on your view of how that has had an impact in us response? >> sure. that is clear. alsoalso it is important to note that from the case

study perspective we all look back and try to put together the elements that went in to me was watching the state of the union speech and wondering how you were able to get they're it is clear that without the committee that would not have happened. on a case study perspective an essential element to making. it is not just on the ground delivering services and being partners but pushing the us government to go to another level. that is really important from my perspective looking at it from the long-term. on the ebola response it is clear that without engaging the way governments have to do and realize we would not have been able to turn around that crisis. hopefully lessons from that experience we will be

evident and ready the next time a crisis like this occurs whether it is a ball or something else.else. the forefront of this approach in communities with cultural understanding engaging the leaders that understanding can speak to them. >> it is quite clear they're has been a huge impact and benefit and very big challenges presented by the engagement particularly from the perspective. could you talk to us a little bit about some of the hardest parts of the history of dealing with the faith community and what lessons have in mind and how that has impacted the current strategy? >> again we have had challenges. hiv and aids. incredible opportunities from the beginning. it is certainly true.

i think that we have had to -- a couple of things. it has been hard to find a way to operationalize our partnerships with faith-based organizations. and so we have had stumbling around issues of health, the lg bt community. where we had this is more in places like washington dc and big institutions rather than the ground. what i have found inspiring is the way people on the ground doing this work figure out a way of work together. often times we just make --

i mean, wei mean, we try to make it better but sometimes people are creative especially people working on the ground. people figure thispeople figure this out. it is a place where we need to learn from colleagues on the ground and bring lessons learned up to the top. wewe also must be careful wanting to be politically correct. the way we engage the policymakers that we don't put people at risk. tell the story about our supplies command ngo that is secular so that they can train and get condoms. ..

about that episode, putting the lgbt community at risk the founding for religious council being withdrawn and what lesson do we learn from that and what new practice or vetting procedure oh mechanisms arose from that? >> let me summarize quickly, legislatures in uganda proposed an act that was not good for the treatment of lgbt people. the discrimination and description of them who they were as people was beyond the pail. members of the religious council campaigned for that edge legislation and took out ad and i was in uganda when the rally went on. you were listening to thinking

this is a horrible situation. what happened, i think the united states government lost confidence in the council to carry out their mandate and serve people without bias. it was beyond what we saw in terms of active campaigning. there were nuances between them but largely all foil. funding was withdrawn and mechanisms were put in place to meet the needs of the people in uganda so they were not left without treatment. i think the situation is polarized. i come from the community organizing background. how do we depolarize? i don't know if we have done that successfully. the other thing is how do we learn more about the discrimination on the ground?

we have the rhetoric leading to impacting people negatively but we don't know that. there have been leaders at the top saying bad things but the providers on the ground continuing to do good work. we need to figure that out. there is a study usid did about bias and i think that is model for what we want to do in other places. what are people experiencing, what are they perceiving to experience, and what are they witnesses. >> family planning and reproductive health is another area. jen, do you want to comment on that in >> i want to pick up with the remark left off the lgbt rights and issues. there is a new study about

nigeria and the perception of gay men on the ground and finding a link between the rhetoric and their own fears about seeking services they they get what they need. getting that evidence and sum summarizeing it is very critical. something to the family planning issue that i want to paraphrase what was said. i think the overriding issue for policy makers is public health. she said it much more elquently. stigma in any form is not what public health is that. that plays out in the family planning discussion. stepping back the polarization among family planning is very clear in washington.

i don't think people realize or make assumptions that faith-based communities are not champions of family planning when many, many are. in fact leading on providing family planning services on the ground. i think the evidence for that is there.partners or some of

our best partners and doing that work, again is going to be with faith-based partners because we have to get into the communities, get access to

relationships of trust to get people into treatment and keep them on treatment. the things we need to do take time to do; developing in relationships, giving in communities, and identifying people that need to be in services and getting them in treatment and keeping them in treatment, we can't do that on our own and we need partners so expanding partnerships with faith-based groups is important. it is pragmatic. we have to identify folks, get them in treatment, keep them in treatment, and those programs have to be rooted in communities on the ground. otherwise there is not sustainability in our work. so it is their primary partner and a big piece of our workforce. >> mark you talked about exactly that issue. the cultural literacy you called

it. training for u.s. government agencies to work better including new training for how to work with religious groups. can you say a word about what that entails? >> sure. general frame of this is the various agencies came together for the past few years and there is an inter agency strategy on global religious leaders and community engagement. part of that is calling for more training on how to work with faith-based organizations. we receive money from the human capital team and talent management team and we do that with usaid to formalize new training policies and distance learning from missions and things. that is really going on for us very strongly. so as a team a member of my team, works together and is

leading that effort to deal with the frame work and sensitivity. the other side of that coin is how it do the faith-based organizations provide training working with government which as we know is a challenge of itself. >> thank you all. i have lots of questions but i think you do too. let's open it up. we will take three at a time. identify yourself and brief questions and then we will do another round after that. please wait for the mike so the online viewers can hear you as well. first question in >> hi thank you. i am john from emery university. jonathan man put forth human rights has to ground the moral vision and work of a lot of watt we are talking about. that is an important concept and

kind of grounding for a lot of our work. but in our work at least in kenya with faith-based organizations that work with lgbt communities, sex workers, people who use drugs, they almost never reference to term. and they have actually talked with us and a lot of us know this. around issues the term invoking human rights has an affect as being seen as the west trying to impose cultural values on another part of the world but our faith-based partners in religious traditions and teachings do similar kind of work. one thing i found powerful at the world bank meeting is dr. kim invoked an option for the poor from roman catholicism and it feels finding a common moral space on issues that are

contentious i know faith base leaders are looking to explore other areas and i wonder if you have thoughts how we might understand those common moral grounds that give us new language beyond the language of human rights. not abandoning it but expanding it. >> how much when usiaid funds attaching to this giving funds for the intervention as well? it seems like in the first base it was evidence-based and faith-based and obviously funding for that kind of analysis is important. and how much of that is attached

to the packages? >> one more question for this round. >> i think there has been some really interesting work done around better language and words defining the way we talk to each other about these kinds of issues. but, you know, it is limited. i think coming out of the conference there was a lot of dialogue. and coming out of the conference yesterday, i think it is clear we need to spend some time looking at expanded kinds of language that works for everyone

and it is not polarizing in and of itself. we all respect john man is just annex annex a extraordinary visionary in our field but we understand our language has to change as time changes. we have to keep moving on and finding common languages as more partners come to the table. that is something we need to invest in and we haven't. that is conversations i would love to have with colleagues going forward and for others. at the end, these partnerships have to have investment to figure out what the foundation of that looks like and coming to some agreement on that. >> jen maybe you want to comment on this issue of universality of human rights and the impact.

>> language is critical. you have don't speak the same language you have to work on understanding. how people speak about a situation or a group there has been a lot of work done. i agree figure out the right way to frame the discussions and different communities is we have not done a good job of it. i do wonder about seeking the rights and using that language because when the uganda and nitrogen situations were -- nigeria -- at the height i was involved with conversations about language and how to approach and make the case these are harmful laws. one of the discussions coming up is human or lgbt rights. some said you have to focus on human right and that will speak to a whole sector of society that will not necessarily be part of an lgbt rights discussion. i don't think it is clear.

it depends on communities and religious leaders use different language. to your point we have not cracked this nut at all, no. >> can i say on this research i don't think we have used enough of this or placed the term is our foreign service nationals which are the people from the countries in which we are working will work for a longer period of time. decades. and they are rooted in their own communities and from the religious institutions we talk about. they have a set of relationships for longevity and after a fairly short number of years i came to appreciate by three years. the roll and figuring out how to use and work with foreign service nationals to address these questions. >> mark maybe you also want to take the first crack at the question about funding for the evidence. >> so i think where you get into

that is the difference between evidence and evaluation. certainly, we are there on evaluation that is built into our requirement of our funding. we don't tend to fund a lot of evidence. and that is a gap. and i don't know where we will solve that. our budgets are largely dictated by capitol hill. so the conversation needs to happen there. we are big on evaluation and not so big on evidence. >> i think this is -- it really is the point where, you know government donors are finding schizophrenic. because we keep asking for evidence and demanding efforts and talking about data and everything so thin only having monitoring evaluation that mark talks about i think that is a conversation we need to have. it is not an easy one because we are all funded by the u.s. congress and we have our own sort of challenges around that.

it is also a place where i think advocating on the faith-based partners could be helpful for us. saying we have all of this an dotal data but we are hand strung by the fact you are asking for evidence we cannot pay to get. and see if we cannot be a little more creative in the conversations with colleagues down the street to find a way to do that. or external partners that appreciate the needs for evidence. foundation and other donors who might not be as restricted as we are. >> usaid rgetown millions of dollars to look at the efficacy of tools for family planning planning purposes. there are evidence they work. we can use those as a tool to

reach our goals in family planning. we will obviously have a lot of other tools but that particularly tool is acceptable by many release groups opposed to the other do is. so i think that is one positive story we look at replicating. >> do we have other questions from the audience? >> hi i am jenna carp from the state department. this came up from the ebola crisis in west africa and i was wondering if you could speak about the role faith-based groups could play in pandemics and response and lessons learned from ebola in the past year or two. >> other questions?

>> how do we cooperate with the usaid and we talked about how do we come up with the this collaboration of out reach in the rural areas in africa? as you say lessons learned on ebola because the was no mechanisms of out reach to people. so local people place so much rough on the ground but no body funds this. we should look at the cpo was and the locals in the rural areas. look into that and go to the

grown. we do a lot of work and how do we collaborate at the end is important. >> if there are no other questions we will turp turn to the panel for these two. again, the question of the role of faith groups and pandemics. >> i think the engaging faith-based organizations in emergency preparedness and pandemic preparedness is critically. we say that domestically and systems strengthening it is more difficult to do on a global reach than is to do at home with domestic reach. but certainly faith-based organizations and other private entities have to be partners in any kind of emergency preparedness or pandemic preparedness and i think people are very aware of that certainly in the arftermath of the ebola

epidemic. the faith-based organizations were on the ground responding to the epidemic before anyone else could figure out what to do. one of the things coming up around emergency preparedness is training our first responders on how to engage with people who are already doing the work on the ground when they arrive. so that the transfer and partnership and integration of already on the ground, indigenous services is done in a way that honors the people who are responding first, and engages the people who are our first responders coming from big organizations with donors and others. we have a lot to learn but there is no doubt that faith-based partners have to be a big part of the process. >> i totally agree. the preparedness side of the

equation which is harder for policymakers to focus on. the response is much easier so that is another thing to discuss. what is important is to look at going forward is what extent are faith organizations and leaders involved in preparedness now because there is much more attention to the need to have better prepareness becausef-- prepared preparedness because of ebola. there is more funding for that. very few ngo's get money and no faith-based organizations got disbursements for that in 2013. this is pre-ebola. so it is important to look at that going forward. >> one story and you are thinking it is worth all of this. forward administrator went to liberia and met with a school

that had to shutdown. so this was a very small operation. it turned out the pastor who ran this had a national radio show that covered the country. at first glance what was small became big. so they were able to send out messages. i think we have to be open to being surprised and careful when we think something is small because it may not be so small and the influence that could go out. i think in terms of second phase of ebola response and we want to build that back up the u.s. is in conversation with the international catholic health asummationation seeing if there is a way we can partner about ebola and ending preventable deaths. i think that is a key to reach some of these organizations in public health in terms of doing health system strengthening

across the board with faith-based and non-faith-based organizations take the shocks and respond and not get set back so far. >> any thoughts on the collaboration piece? we talked a lot about that up until now but any additional thoughts on collaborating with community-based organizations? last question. >> i think we have to continue to expand the capacity. government forms will never have the capacity to fund small organizations. we don't have the bandwidth to be able to continue to rely on robust coordinating mechanisms and organizations that comprise many different faith-based groups so week can get the money to the ground.

that is way usaid does funding. it is the best of what we have at the moment. there is always room for improvement and we are talking about going forward and improving mechanisms and increasing capacity to get closer. >> i think in the last couple minutes we have i would love to give you a chance of final comments but also ask you to reflect on that. what are the next steps including to address some of the hard issues. the paper and lens talk about the challenges about child marriage, gender-based violence, about gender family planning and reproductive health there are big issues the united states government is focused on in its own strategy. and sometimes the faith community can help in those strategy and at time they are a barrier to implementing the goals in that area. so when you are thinking about

next steps please include how to address these challenges. jen, do you want to start us off? >> sure. i think it echoes a lot of what the authors said and those in the audience looking at the next phase of global health policy and global health more generally with i think, a better articulation we have to reach the course of the poor. we cannot have the world we want if we don't. faith-based organizations and religious communities have always done that in a way other groups haven't always been able to. we cannot reach those goals without their involvement. that is one. two on the challenges we have to name them. and the article does that. i think naming and talking about them and trying to understand where there is common grounds and difficulties in figure out

ultimately with the goal of getting services to people who need them from a public health-evidence base services. is this the end game we want. and lastly data. we need it. i would like to do more on this and all of us can and should and i think that is critical. >> i don't see the negative as much as the positives. we are flooded with great opportunities. we get frustrated we cannot take all of them. to see the partnerships going on it is really terrific. i think in terms of addressing the challenges the thing to me is the trip wires for the challenge and the solution at the same time to the challenge. on gender violence for example,

conversations with the chair have taken place or the council, and he is very interested in addressing this. and in somalia taking networks moms here maintain and in the communities of kenya and ethopiother places. we are proud of the foundations that want to come together. we want to look at that. i am going out to minneapolis soon. i think week take the mechanisms we have for public-private partnerships and use the religious leaders to answer the challenges that may come out of the religious community. >> i just want to agree with what the other panelist have said and add a couple things. one is that we need to reach the force of the poor but i want to not leave the very marginalized

for other reasons behind which makes a more difficult conversation for us. but that is certainly in hiv and aids and other issues as well. the other is to focus on the importance of literacy and cross training of public health practitioners and faith-based practitioners. we have had great pioneers with certain icons of us in public health like jimmy carter and others who recognized the importance of this 30 years ago and started working on this. there is a robust, small body of work cross training practitioners and people on the ground to talk with each other and find the common language john was talking about so that helps us. we have to have the same language to have the conversation about the particular sensitive issues. to end on a trend i see in

academics and elsewhere that i think speaks to the future in a very important way and that is this incredible thing we have seen with john and emery that we have seen and interdisciplinary approaches to development and public health and theology that includes school and public health and development. and theology and this cross training that is making me hopeful about the leadership ten years from now and 15 years from now on these kinds of issues we all hold so dear. i think there is a lot of light on the horizon when it comes to new leadership. >> i think this has been an interesting panel and i think so

many more conversations and much more happening in the field right now. great thanks to all of you for the work you are doing in this area and sharing your insights with us. i think it has been very enlightening and join me in thanking our panel. [applause] >> c-span two brings the best access to congress and hearings and public policy events. live coverage of book festivals from around the country and a behind the scene look at the publishing industry. c-span2, the best