quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum are terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we appreciate everyone's patience in allowing the leader, the republican leader and i to come and say a few words. the measure before the senate today is a model of bipartisan legislation. it's four components parts reported out of four different committees with bipartisan support.

mr. president, could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: take your conversations out of the well, please. mr. reid: 85 senators voted to begin debate on this legislation. as everyone will remember, we had to file a motion to cloture on this bill and the senate agreed to move forward on this legislation. this will create or save three million middle-class jobs and over a thousand different organizations support this legislation. from the chamber of commerce, the afl-cio, triple a, it has the endorsement of one of the senate's most conservative members and one of its most liberal members, the two main managers of this legislation. democrats and republicans have agreed additionally to 30 other germane, relevant amendments. so there should be nothing standing in the way of progress on this crucial legislation. yet for weeks republicans have refused to work with democrats

to finalize a path forward. so in a few moments the senate will vote on whether to end debate on this measure. and the fact -- and end the filibuster, another filibuster. mr. president, the bill before this body is a bill that has been generated by the environment and public works committee. we have a provision in it from the commerce committee, a provision in it from the finance committee, a provision in it from the banking committee. that's before this body. but in addition to that we have 37 amendments that's part of this measure that's before the body. if we did nothing else but invoke cloture on this and pass this, send it to the house, we would have a crorches, we would be way ahead because if we did nothing else, this bipartisan piece of legislation would help the american people save millions of jobs. it's really hard to comprehend i

had to file cloture on such a bipartisan bill. a measure republican president eisenhower and democratic president clinton could have agreed on and would have aagreed on. 40 years after president eisenhower won 35e7b8g of the bill, president clinton said the law had succeeded in bringing americans closer to each other. clinton said -- and i quote -- "we were connected city to city, town to town, family to family as well as we've never been before. the law did more to bring americans together than any other law in this century." end of quote. that was said by whrit bill clinton but it was a copy of what president eisenhower said in his men and women require about the most -- memoir, the most important thing he did as president of the united states was this piece of legislation and that says a lot coming from president eisenhower. i had had great optimism that the transportation legislation before the senate today would bring our two parties closer together. as interstate highways brought the american people closer

together in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's. so it's disappointing that republican majority would jeopardize this legislation and three million american jobs to pursue this ideological agenda. i'm hopeful the senate will move this much-needed jobs legislation forward. only seven republicans are needed to allow us to do this. only seven out of 47 that they have. to join us and move forward. but it seems more likely that my republican colleagues will continue to take orders from the tea party and filibuster this jobs measure. republicans are quite plainly holding up the surface transportation bill when they vote against cloture. that's what cloture means. it means that the senate agrees we need to focus on the germane amendments and bring endless debate to a close. senate republican leaders are taking a page out of the carnival economy jigs' book. they've -- magician's book.

they've been saying since february 9, look over here, look over here. they've been insisting on votes on contraception, on loosening clean water standards, on drilling for oil, pretty much anywhere there is water. but as the carnival magician says, look over there. mr. president, there's no need to look over there because it just an effort to divert attention what from what's really happening. no one should be fooled, a vote against cloture is a vote against moving forward on this very important, bipartisan legislation and that's true no matter what diversions anyone might try to distract attention from this very important piece of legislation that is now ours to move forward on. the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. communes we have had -- mr. mcconnell: we've had a number of constructive conversations about voting on

germane and nongermane amendments to this bill and i think we're very close to getting there. my concern is that if cloture is invoact right now we won't get an agreement. and amendments that have -- that we are very close to agreeing to have considered on both sides, the amendments that are sought to be offered here are not just on the republican side but on the democratic side as well. that they will end up being shut out. if we were not so close i might have a different view but we're very close to getting an agreement. and if we invoke cloture right now, that agreement will not come together. so i would encourage a no vote, not to stop the bill. this is a bill that's not going to be stopped, it has a broad bipartisan support, senator boxer and senator inhofe have worked very hard on this legislation, and we anticipate being able to wrap it up. but just to underscore where we are, i've indicated -- i would like to offer a unanimous

consent agreement that kind of summarizes sort of where i think we are. mr. mcconnell: by ask consent that the pending reid amendment be withdrawn, it be in order to offer a new perfecting amendment cleared by both leaders which contains the three titles. further, that following the nonrelevant amendments -- the following nonrelevant amendments be in order to s. 1813 and they be subject to 60 -- to the 60-vote affirmative threshold. senator collins, number 1660, boiler mact, senator vitter, number 1530, o.c.s., a wyden side by side relevant to hoeven number -- senator hoeven number 1537, hoeven 1537 related to the keystone pipeline. levin amendment on offshore tax havens. a mcconnell or designee relevant to the levin amendment. a cantwell amendment on energy tax extenders. and mcconnell or designee

relevant to the cantwell amendment. a menendez amendment on natural gas. and a coburn amendment number 1738 on duplication. i further ask consent that the following highway-related amendments also be in order. demint number 1756. coats number 1517. blunt number 1517. paul, 1556. portman, 1736. portman, 1742. corker, 1785. corker on highway trust fund number 1786. hutchison number 1568. and mccain number 1669. ten highway-related amendments to be offered by the majority leader or his designee. i further ask consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments and the managers' package of amendments to be cleared by both managers of the bill, the bill be read a third time and the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

finally, i ask consent that following passage of s. 1813, the bill be held at the desk and when the senate receives the companion measure from the house, the senate proceeds to its immediate consideration, all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of s. 1813, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill then be read three times and passed, the senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house, and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate, with a ratio agreed to with the concurrence of both leaders. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i don't know why everything we do has to be a fight. not a disagreement, a fight. this bill was brought up on february 7 and we have been spending the better part of a month dealing with contracepti contraception. by the way, an amendment that i had to offer because they wouldn't bring it up so we could vote on it.

my math says that the agreement here calls -- that's been suggested by the republican leader calls for 34 amendments. now, mr. president, i understand and i appreciate some of them are related to what's in this bill. some of them are. but, as i indicated earlier, mr. president, we've been dealing with contraception. these amendments deal with clean water standards, deals with clean air standards. mr. president, nothing in this bill should deal with having america have to breathe more mercury, more lead. and then just for good measure, how about some arsenic? that has nothing to do with the highway bill. and as i said before, mr. president, the amendment that i've looked at from my

friend from louisiana calls for drilling for oil any place there's water. next they'll be going to lake meade outside las vegas. we are producing more oil now than in decades, domestic oil, than in decades. the president has opened up areas in alaska that have never been opened before. why can't we just invoke cloture on this bill and move forward on it? it -- it's not easy to get to conference. we know that. but we could go to conference. the house is doing their best to come up with a bill. they're struggling hard. on the first day of april, it will be april fool's day for a lot of people in america because we will lose almost 800,000 jobs on april 1. it will be a real april fool's

day. so if we cannot, mr. president, move forward on this, i -- why can't we get seven republicans to break from the pack over here and say, not everything we do has to be a arm-wrifl-wrestling contest? so, mr. president, i appreciate we've at least got something, something in writing. i appreciate that and i'll take a look at it. but i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm not going to continue the debate much further, but i would point out there are demands for amendments on both sides here. we're very close to getting an agreement. and i think a "no" vote on cloture is not the end of this bill but the beginning and it gives us an opportunity to go on and wrap up discussions that have gone on entirely too long, it seems to me, and i know the majority leader's been

frustrated by it and so have i, but we're very close to getting an agreement on a list of amendments and should be able to finish this bill by the end of the week. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, i am, for lack of a better word, disappointed. these amendments are going to do nothing to advance the work product of almost 3 million americans. none of them. we should just invoke cloture. and i ask my republican colleagues, break this impasse, do something that is good for the american people, invoke cloture. stop a filibuster, another one. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the reid amendment numbered 1761

to s. 1813, a bill to authorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the manned corey quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 1761, offered by the senator from nevada, mr. reid, to s. 1813, a bill to reauthorize federal aid highway and highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: vote: the presiding officer: does any member wish to change his or her votes? the yeas are 5 , the nays are 5 , thrifts of the --

three-fifths of the senators not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. may we have order in the change please. mr. reid: i have a motion to, on the reid amendment. i ask unanimous consent the cloture vote with respect to the underlying bill be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until senate stands in recess until

>> we will have complete coverage, stay with the c-span networks tonight for results and candidate speeches. >> watch super tuesday election results tonight on the c-span networks. user a second screen webpage with your data or laptop computer to see result maps, social media post from candidates and reporters and a public forum for your tweets and those of other viewers. you can monitor our blog where we'll be posting super tuesday program information and news stories. is a laptop or tablet on a brand-new webpage made especially for super tuesday coverage, c-span.org/screen 2. it president obama has his news conference coming up at 1:15 p.m. eastern live on c-span2. later the president will speak

to the business roundtable, the nation's top ceos will. we will have coverage of that later as well. we heard from the head of that organization today on "washington journal." >> host: we are back with john engler, the former governor of michigan who served from 1991-2003, currently the head of the business roundtable. president obama will be before your kryptonite and talking to some of the nation's top ceos. what do you want to hear from him? >> guest: he will come in and be off the record, conversation. i think america's business leaders want to hear from the president what we can do to get the economy moving more rapidly, what are some of the plans, what are some of the decisions. we've got some advice. we are ready to release tomorrow morning taking action for america, a ceo plan for economic growth and job creation. i think like a lot of america's, ceos worry about a country with unemployment rate, up above 8% for three years.

need to pick up the pace. we need to compete globally. so these are many, many companies that are out there competing and seemed much faster growth rates around the rest of the world. we would like to see what we can do in the united states to pick up the pace. >> host: on the competition front, and what with the business roundtable be saying to the president? what you think the ceos will be saying to the the president tonight? >> guest: its unique. it's only ceos, 200 plus major companies, for the most part all headquartered right here in the united states. $6 trillion worth of economic impact, 14 million employees so they've had a pretty good polls on all of the different economic sectors. our tax structure is not competitive any longer with the rest of the world. we think the regular process is in trouble. that needs to be fixed. there's too much uncertainty, too much doubt and that all creates risk. everywhere you look we're in the process of estimating something, and that something whether it is

dodd-frank or the health care law, is massive, and in its scope. terribly costly. the implementation cost and the uncertainty run into the billions of dollars in terms of regulatory impact. we haven't mentioned environmental protection agency, labor department and the number of changes that have been keep it. there's a lot to talk to the president about. >> host: why off the record? why not have cameras there and let the american people see the exchange between the nations top ceos and the president? >> guest: there's plenty of that. the president has said many of the ceos at various forums. he said many of them actually very involved on different commissions he has put together. ceos were part of the simpson-bowles commission. dave cody, a very active executive was a part of the. jim mcnerney, our chairman of apparently, the ceo chairman of bowling chairs the council. ..

>> guest: to release our taking back america strategy. but after that we think it's important that the ceos be this situations with policymakers, with public officials where we can have a very direct, open conversation and nobody has to worry about being on camera and having it excerpted. >> host: can you tell us which ceos will be attending, some household names that viewers might recognize?

[laughter] >> guest: well, nearly 100 ceos will be present, and many of them are very much household names, jim mcenoughny, bob mcdonald from projector and gamble. jamie dimon, randall stephenson from a, the ask and, the, it kind of goes across the entire economy. it's also easier to say who won't be there. but it's really a stellar turnout. the president last was with the round table two years ago. he came in '09, and he came in 2010. he did not have an appearance last year, so this'll be the opportunity that he'll have, and i would think we meet four times a year, so in june you would p expect it at that point to maybe have the republican nominee there. we try to give everybody. we've had in the past year both leader reid and speaker boehner. we've had the minority leaders, ranking members, and we try to have a conversation. one of the more impressive sessions was with chairman ben

bernanke at our last meeting. he took a lot of questions. i think what -- what i think is important and i've only been at the round table a year, so this is only my fifth meeting of the round table, but our ceos really care about this country, and, you know, they've been through a challenging time because there's a lot of things that were aimed at the ceos. as if somehow they personally did something that changed the economy. and be there's no question that when -- and there's no question when you look at the complexity of the u.s. economic system, these companies are big players. unfortunately, they're not in it all by themselves. there's a big government, there's a big global set of factors out there including a lot of nations, i like to say, that are fully aware we're having an election, but they've decided not to take the year off. they're still working, they're still competing. and part of our message to the president is we've got to work with congress to get things done. nobody can do anything in this town unilaterally.

so it is cooperation and leadership. but as ceo to ceo, which is what the president is this some sense, the ceo of the country, you've got to make it happen. so if senate won't pass a budget, you'd better get them to do it because we need a budget for the country. >> host: we'll talk about the agenda for the business round table, but i'm sure our viewers couldn't help notice you have an i voted lapel this morning. [laughter] care to tell us who you voted for? >> guest: well, there weren't many choices. obviously, mitt romney and ron paul were on the ballot. mitt romney's father was one of my predecessors as golf and was help -- as governor and was helpful back in 1990 when i was running for the first time for governor. he was a marvelous leader. by this time in his career, he's done his public service as an elected official and even as an appointed official, so he was really a national leader this

volunteerism and was i said separational in setting up the michigan community service commission. he was a tremendous and tireless ambassador for people getting involved and giving back to their communities. and so george and mitt are both very special people, and i think mitt's pretty special too. i think the campaign process to date, this primary's always bruising, but at the end of the day, you know, there'll be a couple of candidates for president, and as it turns out, i mean, the election day is eight months from this very day. so there's eight months, ask we'll see what happens -- and we'll see what happens in the eight months. but i think it's very important for the country that we have a real open debate about our future because i do think that we've got to make some fundamental decisions. we cannot keep putting things off. one of the things that's -- the number one thing sort of we

mentioned in the report tonight is that, you know, we've got to get our fiscal house in order. you cannot expect to be strong in almost any way if you're not managing your affairs properly. >> host: all right. let's get to phone calls, governor, and then we'll talk more. kenny in huntington, new york. you're up first, go ahead. >> caller: okay. so you look at the future of what we call jobs and what not, so, you know, a very mixed economy around in this area. i do have a job it's part time, but now we're -- >> host: kenny, i want to get as many people in as possible, so what's your comment or question there for the governor? >> caller: so, you know, i'm

looking at not just what the, what they're doing here at the federal level, but i'm also looking at what are they doing at the state and local level to get, to get our jobs and to get our -- >> host: okay, all right. >> guest: well, let me try. kenny, i think raises something that's probably on a lot of people's minds. he just described himself, i think i heard him say he's working, but it's a part-time job. and one of the challenges we've got in this economy is there are a lot of people even if they're working, attached to the work force are really underemployed, they're not getting enough hours, or they've lost the overtime they had, the family incomes have taken a hit. we've seen for three or four consecutive years the number of people live anything poverty as the government defines that has actually been increasing. and we know that one of the drags on the unemployment rate even if it starts to improve a

little bit is there are a lot of people out of the work force that maybe would come back in if we started to see some improvement. he asked the interaction with state and local. one of the points i make, and in my 12 years as governor of michigan, a pretty tough, competitive rust belt-type state, but, you know, we had one point in the '90s unemployment rate down to about 3.3%. now, that was because we had a good national economy because we were also competing s. and you see in the all 50 states governors actually with strong economic development efforts. some are really strong, some not as strong, but all pay attention. what's interesting is you see that in other countries too. i mean, you can find the government of singapore in this country knocking on doors saying, hey, come to singapore, invest here. the united states is almost alone among nations that really doesn't have an economic development, a growth strategy. you know, we don't pay very much attention, and when the state of north carolina competes against the state of ohio for an

investment in a facility, they're offering benefits and inducements, hey, to the company, come here, come here. here's why, we'll help with workers, taxes, some really kind of important benefits. but today we often send ohio or north carolina out to compete against singapore or brazil or a european country, and you don't have the same tools. that's one of the reasons we've talked about the very high corporate tax rate. we've got the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and you can't as a state provide any incentive to come here versus o go to, say, canada where the corporate rate is now 15%. and so we think the nation needs to be thinking in a much more competitive way. >> host: which candidate, in your opinion -- this is from "the wall street journal" -- that lays out all the different options from the candidates including the president on corporate tax breaks, which one has the best plan? >> guest: well, you know, they're all better than what we have.

the president, i think, broke some new ground, and tonight when we're talking, probably asking about that, they talked about coming down to 28%. governor romney's at 25%. others have been even lower than that on the corporate tax break. the problem with the obama plan is there's a lot of other pieces to it, and we don't think it's still competitive enough on an international basis. i think that the collective republican plans at this point are more helpful in termses of competitive from where the president is, but even the president's moved in the right direction. let me give you -- let's step back a little from just corporate taxes and look at the tax structure in general because i think that's interesting. we have or will have at the end of this year 101 different provisions of the tax code expired. that's unprecedented. i mean, we don't actually have a tax code now. it's all temporary. it's all expiring, and how does anybody whether you're a family or a small business or a big,

global corporation know what their, you know, rules are, how to compete going forward if it's all temporary? and so one of our real strong recommendations is, look, stop fooling around. you've got to when you fix this code, it all has to be permanent. >> host: on the corporate tax rate, on twitter: what is the effective corporate tax rate in this country? not the nominal rate, the difference, and your guest knows this. let me show the effective corporate tax rate according to "the wall street journal." they gave some examples recently this their newspaper. utilities, 14%. transportation and warehousing, 9%. real estate, 23. manufacturing, 26. finance, 28. construction/retailing, 31. all below the nominal tax rate of 35% right now. >> guest: well, yesterday the financial times, and i was just looking for that, they had a little headline on this very issue, and they said the effective corporate tax rate was about 31.5%.

you get a lot of different calculations that people make, but even -- and it's all comparative. so let's just stick with the comparison because if you take the comparison on effective tax rate, u.s. versus other nations, we're still at almost the highest. on the actual nominal rate, we are the highest. japan drops april 1 below us. we think that's a factor. i don't ever say that's the only, you know, it's changed that and life gets great. but it is a part of it, and be it's a big part. we do not have today a tax code that's been modernized since 1986. if you think about it, that's before we even had common internet usage, it's before we had the 24/7 business news coverage cycles. i mean, a lot of things have changed in the world in that 25-year period. >> host: bill is a democrat in corpus christi, texas. good morning, bill.

>> caller: good morning. i don't want even know where to start with this gentleman. he's a capitalist -- >> guest: you've got me there. >> caller: you're a capitalist and a free trader. you talk about america's goals, but let's face it: free trade that you push for is exactly what gave away 44,000 factories and the jobs. that's exactly what happened to us. >> host: okay, bill, let's get a response. why is he wrong? >> guest: we would need to change to go there, so the premise of the question is a little bit flawed. some of the changes i'm advocating, i think, would have lessened the job loss. i think, also, what bill has to keep in mind, he's down in texas. texas as a state has done very well in competition with other states. i mean, there are certain jobs that are going to be in this country regardless. now, there's a big debate and a competition within america as where those jobs will be. in america texas has been very competitive vis-a-vis

california. a lot of california's jobs have moved to texas. but i think there's two concerns that i have. we don't have enough jobs period in the country today, and we're not competing effectively enough for the global economy. we're very strongly in support of the president's goal of doubling exports, but to do that you've got to have a very highly competitive sector. there are things to do, but i think bill's point is the changes i want if it doesn't cause the job loss, they wouldn't be necessary, and they'd be the wrong ones. we're changing to something we don't have, bill, that's why it'll be better. >> host: let me go back to your home state of michigan, detroit. he's a republican there. go ahead. >> caller: yes, thank you, and good morning. i think one of the things that is really missing in this country is that the republicans and democrats are starting to look a lot alike. they flip-flop back and forth. the only presidential candidate that i see any hope for is

dr. ron paul. i notice that he's consistent with his methodology. for the past 30 years, he's had the same, the same program. he's not flip-flopped back and forth like romney and obama. matter of fact, obama is a constitutional lawyer, and for him to go in and start a war with iraq or iran or libya or syria -- >> host: okay, fred, i'm going to stick to the economy and your comments -- >> you can watch all of that online in our video library at c-span.org. we're going to take you to the white house next. president obama will be in the brady press briefing room for his first news conference, formal news conference of the year. we expect it to get under way in just a moment. and by the way, the president later today will be speaking to former governor engler's group, the business round table. that will be later this evening, and we will be following that, c-span cameras will be there as well.

but this expected to get under way shortly. if you want a late entry into our facebook.com/c-span question which is what would you ask the question, you can post your thoughts there. it is up. and if we get the chance, too, after the president's comments this afternoon, we'll open up our phone lines for your thoughts on what he says this afternoon. the senate does come back at 2:15, so we'll take you live back to the senate then. >> good afternoon, everybody. now, i understand there are some political contests going on tonight, but i thought i'd start the day off by taking a few questions which i'm sure will not be political in nature. laugh -- [laughter] before i do, i want to make a few announcements about some steps we're taking to help responsible homeowners who have been struggling through this housing crisis. now, we've clearly seen some positive economic news over the last few months. businesses have created about

3.7 million new jobs over the last two years, manufacturers are hiring for the first time since in in the 1990s, the auto industry's back and hiring more than 200,000 people over the last few years, confidence is up, and the economy's getting stronger. but there are still millions of americans who can't find a job. there are millions more who are having a tough time making the rent or the mortgage, paying for gas or groceries. so our job in washington isn't to sit back and do nothing, and it's certainly not to stand in the way of the recovery. right now we've got to do everything we can to speed be it up. now, congress did the right thing when they passed part of my jobs plan and prevented a tax hike on 160 million working americans this year. and that was a good first step. but it's not enough. they can't just stop there and wait for the next election to come around. there are a few things they can do right now that could make a real difference in people's

lives. this congress should once and for all end tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and use that money to reward companies that are creating jobs here in the united states. i've put forward a proposal that does just that, and there's no reason why congress can't come together and start acting on it. this congress could hold a vote on the buffett rule so that we don't have billionaires paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. that's just common sense. the vast majority of americans believe it's common sense, and if we're serious about paying down our deficit, it's as good a place to start as any. and finally, this congress should pass my proposal to give every responsible homeowner a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage at historically low rates. no red tape, no run around from the banks. if you've been on time on your payment, if you've done the right thing, if you've acted responsibly, you should have a

chance to save that money on your home. perhaps to build up your equity or just have more money in your pocket that you can spend on businesses in your community. that would make a huge difference for millions of american families. now, if congress refuses to act, i've said that i'll continue to do everything in my power to act without them. last fall we announced an initiative that allows millions of responsible homeowners to refinance at low interest rates. today we're taking it a step further. we are cutting by more than half the refinancing fees that families pay for loans insured by the federal housing administration. that's going to save the typical family in that situation an extra thousand dollars a year on top of the savings that they'd also receive from refinancing. that would make refinancing even more attractive to more families. it's like another tax cut that'll put more money in people's pockets. we're going to do this on our own. we don't need congressional authorization to do it.

we're also taking a series of steps to help homeowners who have served our country. it is unconscionable that members of our armed forces and their families have been some of those who have been most susceptible to losing their homes due to the actions of unscrupulous banks and mortgage lenders. over the last few years, that happened a lot. so as part of the land heart attack settlement we -- landmark settlement we reached with the nation's banks a few weeks ago, here's what we are going to do. if you are a member of the armed forces whose home was wrongfully fore closed, you will be substantially compensated for what the bank did to you and your family. if you are a member of the armed forces with a high interest rate who was wrongfully denied the chance to lower it while you were in active service which banks are required to do by law, the banks will refund you the money you would have saved along with a significant penalty.

the settlement will make sure that you aren't forced into foreclosure just because you have a permanent change in station but can't sell l your home because you owe more than it's worth. some of the money will also go into a fund that guarantees loans on favorable terms to our veterans, and there'll be more or foreclosure perfections for every man and woman who is currently serving this country in harm's way. as i said before, no amount of money is going to be enough to make it right for a family who has had their piece of the american dream wrongfully taken away from them, and no action -- no matter how meaningful -- will entirely heal our housing market on its own. this is not something the government by itself can solve. but i'm not one of those people who believes that we should just sit by and wait for the housing market to hit bottom. there are real things that we can do right now that would make substantial difference in the lives of innocent, responsible

homeowners. that's true of housing, and that's true in any number of different areas when it comes to insuring that this recovery touches as many lives as possible. that's going to be my top priority as long as i hold this office, and i will do everything i can to make that progress. so with that, i'm going to take some questions, and i will start with mike. >> yes, sir. as it relates to american politics, a little less than a year ago moammar gadhafi said he was going to send his forces to benghazi, roust opponents from their bedrooms and shoot them. you frequently cited that speech as justification for nato's no-fly zone and military action in libya. in syria bashar al assad is killing people, there's a massacre underway, and your critics say you should start air strikes now. and on iran, mitt romney on sunday went so far to say that if you are reelected, iran will get a bomb, and the world will

change. how do you respond to those criticisms? >> you asked a couple of questions there, so let me -- let's start with the iran situation since that's been the topic in the news for the last few days. when i came into office, iran was unified, on the move, had made substantial progress on its nuclear program, and the world was divided in terms of how to deal with it. what we've been able to do over the last three years is mobilize unprecedented, crippling sanctions on iran. iran is feeling the bite of these sanctions in a substantial way. the world is unified, iran is politically isolated. and what i have said is, is that we will not countenance iran getting a nuclear weapon. my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon because if they get a nuclear weapon, that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would

undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists. and we've been in close consultation with all our allies, including israel, in moving this strategy forward. at this stage it is my belief that we have a window of opportunity where this can still be resod -- resolved diplomatically. that's not just my view. that's the view of our top intelligence officials, it's the view of top israeli intelligence officials. and as a consequence, we are going to continue to apply the pressure even as we provide a door for the iranian regime to walk through where they could rejoin the community of nations by giving assurances to the international community that they're meeting their obligations, and they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. that's my track record. now, what's said on the campaign trail, you know, those folks don't have a lot of

responsibilities. they're not commander in chief. and when i see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, i'm reminded of the cost involved in war. i'm reminded of the decision that i have to make in terms of sending our young men and women into battle. and the impacts that has on their lives, the impact it has on our national security, the impact it has on our economy. this is not a game, and there's nothing casual about it. and, you know, when i see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk but when you actually ask them specifically what they would do, it turns out they repeat the things that we've been doing over the last three years, it indicates to me that that's more

about politics than actually trying to solve a difficult problem. now be, the one thing that -- now, the one thing that we have not done is we haven't launched a war. if some of these folks think that it's time to launch a war, they should say so, and they should explain to the american people exactly why they would do that and what the consequences would be. um, everything else is just talk. >> syria? >> with respect to syria, what's happening in syria is heartbreaking and outrageous, and what you've seen is the international community mobilize against the assad regime, and it's not a question of when assad leaves or if assad leaves, it's a question of when. he has lost the legitimacy of his people, and the actions that he is now taking against his own people is inexcusable, and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.

on the other hand, for us to take military action unilaterally, as some have suggested, or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, i think, is a mistake. what happened in libya was we mobilized the international community, had a u.n. security councilman kate, had the -- council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region's arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. this is a much more complicated situation. so what we've done is to work with key arab states, key international partners. hillary clinton was in tunisia to come together and to mobilize and plan how do we support the opposition, how do we provide humanitarian assistance, how do we continue the political

isolation, how do we continue the economic isolation. and we are going to continue to work on this project with other countries, and it is my belief that ultimately this dictator will fall as dictators in the past have fallen. but the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, um, you know, that hasn't been true in the past, and it won't be true now. we've got to think through what we do through the lens of what's going to be effective, but also what's critical for u.s. security interests. jake tapper. >> thank you, mr. mr. president. what kind of assurances did you give prime minister netanyahu about the role that the u.s. would play if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to work

to convince iran and today wrap's -- tehran's leaders to change and israel goes ahead and prepares to strike their nuclear facility? what kind of assurances did you tell him, and shouldn't we -- i recognize the difference between debate and bluster -- but shouldn't we be having in this country a vigorous debate about what could happen in the case of a middle east war in a way that, sadly, we did not do before going into iraq? >> well, i think that there's no doubt that those who are suggesting or proposing or beating the drums of war should explain clearly to the american people what they think the costs and benefits would be. i'm not one of those people, because what i've said is that we have a window through which we can resolve this issue peacefully. we have put forward an international framework that is applying unpress tented pressure -- unprecedented pressure. the iranians just stated that they are willing to return to the negotiating table, and we've

got the opportunity even as we maintain that pressure to see how it plays out. i'm not going to go into the details of my conversation with prime minister netanyahu, but what i said publicly doesn't differ greatly from what i said privately. israel is a sovereign nation that has to make its own decisions about how best to preserve its security. and as i said over the last several days, i am deeply mindful of the historical precedents that weigh on any prime minister of israel. when they think about potential threats to israel and the jewish homeland. what i have also said is that because sanctions are starting to have significant effect inside of iran -- and that's not just my assessment, that's, i think, a uniform assessment, because the sanctions are going to be even tough err in the

coming months because they're now starting to effect their oil industry, their central bank, and because we're now seeing noises about them returning to the negotiating table that it is deeply in everybody's interests -- the united states, israel and the world's -- to see if this is going to to be resold in a peaceful fashion. so this notion that somehow we have a choice to make in the next week or two weeks or month or two months is not borne out by the facts. and the argument that we've made to the israelis is that we have made an unprecedented commitment to their security. there is an unbreakable bond between our two countries, but one of the functions of friends is to make sure that we provide honest and unvarnished advice in terms of what is the best approach to achieve a common goal. particularly one in which we have at stake. -- a stake.

this is not just an issue of israeli interests, this is an issue of u.s. interests. it's also not just an issue of consequences for israel if action is taken prematurely. there are consequences to the united states as well. and so i do think that anytime we consider military action that the american people understand there's going to be a price to pay. sometimes it's necessary. but we don't do it casually. when i visit walter reed, when i sign letters to families that have -- whose loved ones have not come home, i am reminded that there is a cost. sometimes we bear that cost, but we think it through. we don't play politics with it. when we have in the past, when we haven't thought it through and it gets wrapped up in

politics, we make mistakes. and typically it's not the folks who are popping off who pay the price, it's these incredible men and women in uniform and their families who pay the price. and as a consequence, i think it's very important for us to take a careful, thoughtful, sober approach to what is a real problem, and that's what we've been doing over the last three years, that's what i intend to keep doing. >> if i could just quickly follow up. >> jake. >> you might not be beating the drums before, but you did very publicly say we've got israel's back. what does that mean? >> what it means is that historically we have always cooperated with israel with respect to the defense of israel. just like we do with a whole range of other allies. just like we do with great britain, just like we do with japan. and that broad statement, i

think, is confirmed when you look at what we've done over the last three years on things like iron dome that prevents missiles from raining down on their small towns along border regions of israel that potentially land on schools or children or families. and we're going to continue that unprecedented security commitment. it was not a military doctrine that we were laying out for any particular military action. it was a restatement of our consistent position that the security of israel is something i deeply care about and that the deeds of my administration over the last three years confirms how deeply we care about. that's a commitment we've made. jackie. where's jackie? >> right here. >> there you are. >> with the, um, news this morning that the u.s. and its

allies are returning to the table or taking up iran's offer to talk again more than a year after those talks broke up in frustration, um, is this israel's -- iran's last chance to negotiate an end to this nuclear question? and you said three years ago, theory three years ago in a similar one-on-one meeting with prime minister netanyahu that the time for talks by the end of that year, 2009, you would be, um, considering whether iran was negotiating in good faith. and you said at that time that we're not going to have talks forever. so here we are nearly three years later. is this it? and did you think you would be here three years after those first talks? >> you know, there is no doubt that over the last three years when iran has engaged in negotiations, there has been hemming and hawing and stalling and avoiding the issues in ways

that the international community has concluded were not serious. and my expectations given the consequences of inaction for them, the severe sanctions that are now being applied, the huge toll it's taking on their economy, the degree of isolation that they're feeling right now which is unprecedented, they understand that the world community means business. to resolve this issue will require iran to come to the table and discuss in a clear and forthright way how to prove to the international community that the intentions of their nuclear program are peaceful. they know how to do that.

this is not a mystery. and so it's going to be very important to make sure that on an issue like this there are complexities. it, obviously, has to be methodical. i don't expect breakthrough in a first meeting, but i think we will have a pretty good sense fairly quickly as to how serious they are about resolving the issue. and there are steps that they can take that would send a signal to the international community and that are verifiable that would allow them to be in compliance with international norms, in compliance with international mandates, abiding by the non-proliferation treaty and provide the world an assurance that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon. they know how to do it. and the question's going to be whether in these discussions

they show themselves moving clearly in that direction. ed henry. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to follow up on israel and iran because you have said repeatedly you have israel's back. so i wonder why three years in office you have not visited israel as president. and related to iran and israel, um, you have expressed concern about this loose talk of war as you call it driving up gas prices further. um, your critics will say on capitol hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before that will wean the american people off fossil fuels onto renewable fuels. how do you respond to that? >> ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the president of the united states going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher? [laughter] is that -- is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense? look, here's the bottom line with respect to gas prices. of i want gas prices lower because they hurt families.

because i meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work, and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it's a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks. and a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now. and it's not good for the overall economy because when gas prices go up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. and we're in the midst right now of a recovery that is starting to build up steam, and we don't want to reverse it. what i have also said about gas prices is that there is no silver bullet, and the only way we're going to solve this problem over the medium and long term is with an all-of-the-above strategy that says we're going to increase production which has happened, we are going to make sure that we are conserving

energy -- that's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars which will safe consumers about $1.7 trillion and take about 12 billion barrels of oil, you know, offline which will help to reduce prices -- and we're going to develop clean energy technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil. and we've made progress. i mean, the good news is 2010 first time in a decade that our oil imports were actually below 50%, and they have kept on going down. and we're going to keep on looking at every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use while maintaining our living standard and maintaining our productivity and maintaining our economic growth, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that consumers aren't hurt by it. now, there are some short-term steps that we're looking at with respect to, for example, there are certain potential bottle

necks in refineries around the country that we've been concerned about, we're concerned about what's happening in terms of production around the world. it's not just what's happening in the gulf. you've had, for example, in many many -- in sudan some oil that's been taken offline that's helping to restrict supply. so we're going to look at a whole range of measures including, by the way, making sure that my attorney general is paying attention to potential speculation in the oil markets. i've asked him to reconstitute a task force that's examining that. but we go through this every year. we've gone through this for 30 years. and, y know,f are going be mpetitive, succeful and ma sreli are otecd over t lo the' te s showing that latino voters seem to be favoring your re-election over a republican alternative,

yet some of them are still disappointed, others upset about the promise that you made on immigration reform that has yet to come down. if you are reelected, what would be your strategy? what would you do different to get immigration reform passed through the congress, especially if both houses continue as they are right now? >> well, first of all, just substantively every american should want immigration reform. we've got a system that's broken. we've got a system in which you have millions of families here in this country who are living in the shadows, worried about deportation. you've got american workers that are being undercut because of those undocumented workers can be hired, and the minimum wage laws may not be observed, overtime laws may not be observed. you've got incredibly talented

people who want to start businesses in this country or to work in this country, and we should want those folks here in the united states. but right now the legal immigration system is so tangled up that it becomes very difficult for them to put down roots here. so we can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and it is not just a hispanic issue. this is an issue for everybody. this is an american issue that we need to fix. now, when i came into office, i said i am going to push to get this done. we didn't get it done, and the reason we haven't gotten it done is because what used to be a bipartisan agreement that we should fix this ended up becoming a partisan issue. i give a lot of credit to my predecessor, george bush, and his political advisers who said, you know, this should not be

just something the democrats support, the republican party is invested in this as well. that was good advice then, it would be good advice now. and my hope is, is that after this election the latino community will have sent a strong message that they want a bipartisan effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform that involves making sure we've got tough border security, and this administration has done more for border security than just about anybody, that we are making sure that companies aren't able to take advantage of undocumented workers, that we have got, you know, strong laws in place and that we've got a path so that all those folks whose kids often are u.s. citizens, who are, you know, working with us, living with us and in our communities and not

breaking the law and trying to do their best to raise their families, that they've got a chance to be a fuller part of our community. so what do i think will change? -- >> [inaudible] >> well, look, we're going to be putting forward as we have done before a framework, a proposal, legislation that can move it, move the ball forward and actually get this thing done. but, ultimately, i can't vote for republicans. they're going to have to come to the conclusion that this is good for the country and that this is something that they themselves think is important. and depending on how congress turns out, we'll see how many republican votes we need to get it done. [inaudible conversations] >> norah o'donnell. how are you? >> thank you, mr. president. today is super tuesday, so i

wonder if you might weigh in on some of your potential republican opponents. mitt romney has criticized you on iran and said hope is not a foreign policy. he also said that you are america's most feckless president since carter. >> yeah. >> what would you like to say to mr. romney? >> good luck tonight. [laughter] >> no, really. >> really. [laughter] lynn, since you've been hollering and you're from my hometown, make it a good one. >> my question is about the switch of the g8 summit from chicago to camp david. >> uh-huh. >> a reason given by the white house is you wanted a more intimate summit. people in chicago would like to know what do you know now that you did not know when you booked hometown chicago for the g8 that

led to the switch, and what possible security risks -- >> keep in mind, lynn, we've got this nato summit. typically, we've try today attach the g8 summit to the they toe summit so that the leaders in the g8 summit don't have to travel twice to whatever location. so last year in france we combined a g8 with a nato summit. we'll do so again. um, i have to say this was an idea that was brought to me after the initial organizing of the nato summit. somebody pointed out that i hadn't had any of my counterparts who i've worked with now for three years up to camp david. g8 tends to be a more informal setting in which we talk about a wide range of issues in a pretty intimate way. and the thinking was that people

would enb joy being this many a more -- enjoy being in a more casual backdrop. i think, you know, the weather should be good that time of year, it'll give me a chance to spend time with mr. putin, the new russian president, and from there we will then fly to chicago. i always have confidence in chicago being able to handle security issues. whether it's taste of chicago or loll la lose saw -- [laughter] or bulls' championships. we know how to deal with a crowd. and i'm sure that your think mayor will be quite attentive to detail in making sure that everything goes off well. [inaudible conversations] all right? okay. go ahead, last one. >> thank you. >> last question. >> thank you, mr. president.

to continue on that. when the nato leaders that are in chicago in may, do you expect that they'll be able to agree on a transition strategy? and are you concerned at all that the quran burning and episodes that have followed since then threaten your ability to negotiate with -- [inaudible] >> well, keep in mind that the transition policy was in place and established at lisbon, and we've been following that strategy that calls for turning over increasing responsibility to afghans and a full transition so that our combat role is over by the end of 2014. and our coalition partners have agreed to it, they are sticking with it. that continues to be the plan. what we are now going to be doing over the next, at this nato meeting and planning for the next two years, is to make sure that that transition is not a cliff, but that there are

benchmarks and steps that are taken along the way in the same way that we reduced our role in iraq so that it is gradual, afghan capacity is built, the partnering with afghan security forces is effective, that we are putting in place the kinds of support structures that are needed in order for the overall strategy to be effective. now, yes, the situation with the quran burning concerns me. i think that it is an indication of the challenges in that environment, and it's an indication that now is the time for us to transition. you know, obviously, the violence directed at our people

is unacceptable, and president karzai acknowledged that. but what is also true is president karzai, i think, is eager for more responsibility on the afghan side. we're going to be able to find a mechanism whereby afghans understand their sovereignty's being respected and that they're going to be taking a greater and greater role in their own security. that, i think, is in the interests of afghans, it's also in our interests, and i'm confident we can execute, but it's not going to be a smooth path. there are going to be bumps along the road just as there were in iraq. >> well, are these along the road, or are you seeing a deterioration in the relationship based on the quran burning itself, the violence that has followed that inhibits your ability to work out things like how to hand off the detention center? >> you know, none of this stuff is easy, and it never has been. and, obviously, the most recent

riots or protests against the quran burning were tragic. but remember, this happened a while back when the pastor in florida threatened to burn a quran. in iraq as we were making this transition, there were constant crises that would pop up. and tragic events that would take place. and there would be occasional setbacks. but what i've tried to do is to set a course, make sure that up and down the chain of command everybody knows what our broader strategy is. and one of the incredible things about our military is that when they know what our objective is, what our goal is regardless of the obstacles that they meet along the way, they get the job tone. and i think that president karzai understands that we are interested in a strategic partnership with the afghan

people and the afghan government. we are not interested in staying there any longer than is necessary to assure that al-qaeda is not operating there and that there is sufficient stability that it doesn't end up being a free-for-all after isaf has left. and so we share interests here. it'll require negotiations, and there will be time where things don't look as smooth as i'd like. um, that's, that's kind of the deal internationally on a whole range of these issues, all right? [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, guys. oh, can i just make one other comment? i want to publicly express the condolences to the family of donald payne, a congressman from new jersey, a wonderful man. did great work both domestically and internationally.

he was a friend of mine, and so my heart goes out to his family and to his colleagues. all right? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama finishes a

45-minute news conference, his first official formal news conference of 2012. we have about 15 minutes here on c-span2 until the senate comes back into session, so we're opening up our phone lines for your reaction to what you heard from the president. the numbers are if you're a democrat, 202-737-0001. republicans, that's 02-737-0002. independents, your number's 202-628-0205. we'll take 15 minutes of phone calls or so, again, until the senate comes back into session. at the top of his news conference, the president announcing more mortgage relief help, this time in particular for members of the military and veterans and folks with fha loans. and, again, we will also show you all of the president's comments later in our program schedule on the c-span networks. let's go to our phones, we have allentown, pennsylvania, and it's robin on our democrats' line. go ahead. >> caller: yes, good afternoon. >> host: good afternoon. >> caller: as far as the concern

about president obama's having some good sense there, as far as the gasoline crisis are concerned, that's one big gripe that the americans have. besides the grocery, food prices somehow has an effect on all the prices. it's called reinventing america, and i know the senate's probably -- [inaudible] but all of this devastation that's going on right now and the red cross and so forth, and a member of the atu, the metro system and also a member of lay or boar council -- labor council. i think that on behalf of all the american people helping government or government helping the people i think the churches -- i was going to get together and help all them people in the midwest. i've, you know, i don't know what to say. a lot has gone on there. so i think they're all trying to do more than what they can do

and keeping the grocery prices down is the biggest thing as well as the gasoline prices. >> host: well, robin there in allentown mentioning gasoline prices, we'll show you in a moment what the president had to say, he was asked about the rising price of gasoline. let's go to texas next, hallsville, and this is ralph -- john, excuse me, on our republican line. hi, john. john if hallsville, texas. all right, john, that's -- let's go to, um, richard in johnstown, pennsylvania, on our democrats line. hi there. >> caller: thank you. to me, president obama's speech sounded as though god was in his heart. that's what i took from his speech. the way he delivered it, with poise and courtesy and love. thank you. >> host: marianna, georgia, let's hear from our republican line next, this is jim in marietta, hi. >> caller: yeah, i listened to him, but i don't think god was in his heart.

he talks about the gas prices, he talks about we're getting more oil in this country, but it's just on private land that we're getting it because he's stopped a lot of it. and i just hope he gets beat in november because we don't need four more years of this guy. he's just leading this country down the wrong road. >> host: let's hear what the president had to say when he was asked about rising gas prices. >> look, here's the bottom line with respect to gas prices. i want gas prices lower because they hurt families. because i meet folks every day who have to drive a long way to get to work, and them filling up this gas tank gets more and more painful, and it's a tax out of their pocketbooks, out of their paychecks. and a lot of folks are already operating on the margins right now. and it's not good for the overall economy because when gas prices go up, consumer spending oftentimes pulls back. and we're in the midst right now of a recovery that is starting

to build up steam, and we don't want to reverse it. what i have also said about gas prices is that there is no silver bullet, and the only way we're going to solve this problem over the medium and long term is with an all-of-the-above strategy that says we're going to increase production which has happened, we are going to make sure that we are conserving energy -- that's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars which will save consumers about $1.7 trillion and take about 12 billion barrels of oil, you know, offline which will help to reduce prices -- and we're going to develop clean energy technologies that allow us to continue to use less oil. and we've made progress. i mean, the good news is 2010, first time in a decade that our oil imports were actually below

50%, and they have kept on going down. and we're going to keep on looking at every strategy we can to, yes, reduce the amount of oil that we use while maintaining our living standards and maintaining our productivity and maintaining our economic growth, and we're going to do everything we can to headache sure that consumers aren't hurt -- make sure that consumers aren't hurt by it. now, there are some short-term steps that we're looking at with respect to, for example, there are certain potential bottlenecks in refineries around the country that we've been concerned about. we're concerned about what's happening in terms of production around the world. it's not just what's happening in the gulf. you've had, for example, in sudan some oil that's been taken offline that's helping to restrict supply. so we're going to look at a whole range of measures including, by the way, making sure that my attorney general is

paying attention to potential speculation in the oil markets. i've asked him to reconstitute a task force that's examining that. but we go through this every year. we've gone through this for 30 years. and, you know, if we are going to be competitive, successful and make sure families are protected over the long term, then we've got to make sure that we've got a set of options that reduce our overall dependence on oil. >> host: president obama's news conference from this afternoon, about 45 minutes long. we have about ten more minutes here on c-span2 before the senate comes back in, so let's get back to phone calls and your thoughts on what the president had to say. pennsylvania, todd is an independent. hello, todd. >> caller: yes. >> host: go ahead with your comment. >> caller: yes. i just wanted to say i thought the president is doing as best job as he can considering the

mess that george w. bush and his administration left behind for president obama and his current administration. to contend with and the ways that it needs to be contended with. and he's doing a very admirable job, president obama is. thank you. >> host: republican view next from fredericksburg, virginia. this is louise. >> caller: um, i personally think that president obama did a very good news conference. i do thank him for acknowledging the good that george bush did with the, you know, he had a strategy for getting out of iraq and a deadline, and he had a strategy for getting out of afghanistan, president bush did. and obama has pretty much followed that. and president bush had all the oil leases signed and ready to go so that by 2010, which was less than a year into mr. obama's administration, the

oil imports dropped. so it wasn't anything that he did. i do think that, you know, it might cost us more in the long run for the increased efficiency, fuel efficiency standards. i hope he does well. i did admire him for standing up to netanyahu. >> host: you hope the president does well? you're calling on our republican line. >> caller: yes, i am, i'm hoping he does do well because i am not a supporter of the right-wing israelis -- >> host: your primaries are there in virginia. are you going to vote? >> caller: i sure did. i voted for ron paul. >> host: thanks for sharing your vote details with us, a wide-ranging news conference on this super tuesday. a reminder, we'll have coverage on the c-span networks later this evening. seven states are holding primaries, three states holding caucuses. here's a tweet in -- from the national journal this afternoon, they tweet that obama says the democrats have a better story to

tell women on how we're going to solidify the middle class and grow this economy. we mentioned it was a wide-ranging news conference. he was asked about iran, and the aftermath of his comments to aipac on sunday and the meeting with benjamin netanyahu on monday. here's what the president had to say about iran and syria. >> with respect to syria, what's happening in syria is heartbreaking and outrageous. and what you've seen is the international community mobilize against the assad regime, and it's not a question of when assad leaves -- or if assad leaves, it's a question of when. he has lost the legitimacy of his people. and the actions that he's now taking against his own people is inexcusable, and the world community has said so in a more or less unified voice. on the other hand, for us to take military action

unilaterally as some have suggested or to think that somehow there is some simple solution, i think, is a mistake. what happened in libya was we mobilized the international community, had a u.n. security council mandate, had the full cooperation of the region's arab states, and we knew that we could execute very effectively in a relatively short period of time. this is a much more complicated situation. so what we have done is to work with key arab states, key international partners. hillary clinton was in tunisia to come together and to mobilize and plan how do we support the opposition, how do we provide humanitarian assistance, how do we continue the political isolation, how do we continue the economic isolation? and we are going to continue to work on this project with other

countries. and it is my belief that, ultimately, this dictator will fall as dictators in the past have fallen. but the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, um, you know, that hasn't been true in the past, and it won't be true now. we've got to think through what we do through the lens of what's going to be effective, but also what's critical for u.s. start interests. >> host: in a couple more minutes of phone calls, your reaction to the president's news conference this afternoon. don is in vermilion, ohio, and he's on our democrats' line. hi, don. >> caller: how you doing to do, sir? >> host: doing fine. >> caller: he didn't touch on this transportation bill that's going through the senate today. anyways, they ended the keystone

pipeline that's got the -- >> host: that's one of the proposed amendments? yeah. >> guest: yeah. i think it's 1813. anyways, they're going to use, tie into all of our oil pipelines for oil in this country to move those tar sands because it's like a jar of peanut butter and a jar of sand and use our oil to transfer that stuff down to the gulf which those refineries down there are in a free trade zone, and they're not -- they don't even have to pay any taxes and ship our oil off the this country. and that's what i wanted to comment about. people that's pushing this pipeline don't realize, fail to watch the commerce commission talking about it. they're going to use our oil to move that, those tar sands. >> host: there's certainly more debate ahead on that transportation bill. it did fail to move forward, they fell eight votes shy this the senate just before they broke at 12:30. they're coming back in a couple of minutes at 2:15, and votes on

a couple of judicial nominations ahead. let's see if we can get a few more calls here. long island is next, independent line. this is anthony. hi there. >> caller: good afternoon. thanks for taking my call. number one, i've got two points. number one, the veterans. he touched on that. myself being a persian gulf veteran, was very happy to hear him decide to make sure that wall street and the banks open up their pocketbooks for the veteran homeowners. that's one. and i'm conservative, but i'm not extreme right. number two is the daughters. he mentioned ash shah and malia -- sasha and malia, and i totally agree with him. the comments -- and if you have daughters and for extreme right-wingers that don't have daughters, they don't know what

the experience is to have your young, teenage daughter or your young daughter come home that's been ridiculed by some bully. so i'm glad that he touched on that. >> host: anthony, thanks for being with us. couple more calls here. let's hear from john who is in hallsville, texas. john, i think i may have lost you the last time. if so, i apologize. go ahead with your comments, the nat's about to come in. >> caller: yes, good afternoon. >> host: afternoon. >> caller: obama talked about contraception for women, and he mandated the insurance companies pay the whole bill with no co-pay. he's not going to give a man a free vasectomy, so why is it always this gender discrimination? what about the man? aren't we all equal in this country, or are we not? that's called divisiveness. and the other point that obama made about immigration, he had both houses of congress, a super majority in the senate, and he

did nothing with it for the first two years on comprehensive immigration reform. so latinos need to wake up and look at the actions, not the words of what one speaks. thank you. >> host: thank you. senate's coming in in just a moment. we want to let you know it is, obviously, super tuesday. seven states and three -- seven states holding primaries, three are holding caucuses. we'll have coverage on the c-span networks tonight, and this tweet from washington post.com, they say that low turnout in northern virginia just two candidates on the ballot there. looks like the senate will be gaveling in momentarily, we'll take you there live on c-span2. thanks for joining us. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico.

mr. bingaman: i yield back the time. they're not ready. excuse me. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. [inaudible [. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent there be two minutes for debate between the two votes equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second?

therthere appears to be. the yeasnays ar and nays are or. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 5, the nays are 2. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the rice nomination. the presiding officer: the senator from washington is recognized. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. i rise to support the nomination. he is one of our state's rising legal stars and has left his mark defending the community he was born in. for nearly 25 years he's served in the united states attorney's office in eastern washington and in that time he successfully prosecuted a variety of criminal cases to protect our eastern washington communities and he has wide support from his peers and numerous accolades. so i hope my colleagues will support his nomination, making gonzaga university's alma mater,

spokane, and the state of washington proud of his nomination. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the question is on the nomination. the yeas and nays have been ordered. there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:#

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any -- are there any senators wishing to vote or to change his or her vote? there being none, the -- it is 93 ayes, 4 nays, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table. the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative. mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i rise to pay tribute to a friend from, a longtime friend from new jersey. it's a sad day for all of us from new jersey who knew

congressman donald payne from north jersey. and i pay tribute to my colleague, new jersey congressman donald payne died this morning after a battle with colon cancer. congressman payne was the first african-american from new jersey to be elected to congress. he was a trailblazer and a fine leader and one of the finest our state has ever known. for more than two decades congressman payne served new jersey with distinction, but the whole world benefited from his leadership. he was a proud son of newark and became an expert on foreign relations, led efforts to restore democracy and human rights around the world, including in places as far away from one another as northern ireland and sudan. president clinton chose congressman payne to accompany

him on his historic tour of africa in 1998. the congressman also worked hard. he secured more than $100 million to treat victims of malaria, tuberculosis, h.i.v. and aids and stop the spread of these diseases in africa's poorest nations. three years ago, against the state department's advice, congressman payne went to somalia to see the turmoil there for himself, narrowly escaping with his life when insurgents launched a mortar attack near his airplane as he was leaving. the congressman also helped win passage of a resolution declaring the killings in darfur as genocide, raising global awareness of these travesties. at home, congressman payne was a

tireless advocate for his constituents, brought significant economic development to counties in new jersey, essex, hudson and union. donald payne was a former schoolteacher, was a leader on education issues. he worked hard to close the achievement gap, making college more affordable and bringing more equity to school funding. congressman donald payne was a man of conscience and conviction. i knew him for many years, and i was always struck by a soft-spoken demeanor, and that kind of made him a rarity in politics, as we know here. but congressman payne knew he didn't have to raise his voice. his ideas were powerful enough. the congressman put it best when he said -- and i quote him here -- kpw-gs there's a lot of dignity in being able to achieve things without having to create

rapture." donald payne was a teacher and, as i mentioned, in newark's public schools. newark is a poverty-stricken city. his mission was to inspire young people to use education in their lives to achieve opportunity. the people of new jersey sent him to washington for the first time in 1988, and they continued sending him back by whoefrplg majorities for the -- by overwhelming majorities for the next 22 years. he became an inspiration to many, including members of his family, who followed him in careers in public service. but most of all, donald payne was an inspiration to the people he served. he gave them hope. he gave them some ideas of what they could make of their lives, and his voice sounded important and deliberate enough to convince people to try harder.

and he did succeed in many successes. in 1988, during his first campaign for the house, congressman payne told a reporter -- and i quote him again -- "i want to be a role model for the kids i talk to on the street corners." he used to see a lot, he worked hard within his congressional district. and he said, "i want to see there are no barriers to achievement." mr. president, donald payne achieved this goal. an entire generation of new jerseyans has come of age knowing and respecting congressman donald payne. he has undoubtedly inspired many young new jerseyans to enter public service, and i expect that we will one day see some of them walking the halls of congress following in donald payne's footsteps.

but today these halls feel emptyer without his presence. i'm going to miss don payne. we'll mourn his absence from our lives, but we'll also take comfort in the knowledge that his legacy will endure for a long time to come way beyond his life. and we thank him at this time for all of the good things he brought to our people and our state. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: i'm sorry. the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, i'd like to speak as if in morning business on a matter that affects a lot of he shaours.

i -- hoosiers. i do that with condolences to all who suffered from the tragic storms, tornadoes that swept across the southern part of our state friday afternoon. gratitude for all those who responded in such a wonderful way to address this situation, and deep pride for the people of indiana in terms of how they responded to this. mother nature's unforgiving force friday afternoon changed the lives of being hoosiers. imagine, if you could, a stretch of land extending for nearly 50 miles, between a quarter of a mile and a half-mile wide, and a storm that touches down at the beginning of that 50-mile stretch and moves through that with force and destruction that is almost unimaginable. most of us from the midwest are used to hurricanes -- excuse

me -- to tornadoes, and they usually jump around and bounce down and take out a shed here and a barn there and perhaps a home there and do wreck -- or perhaps a short stretch of space. but nothing that i've ever seen, and most have not ever seen is a tornado that touches down and stays down with 175 mile-an-hour winds, crushing everything in its path. as we flew over and down that path and looked down and saw that total destruction, every home, every business in that path destroyed, like kindling. every open field strewn with debris, some carried for miles before it was deposited. every tree stripped bare and flattened. every car or truck within that path damaged either by softball-sized hail or turned

upside down by 175 mile-an-hour winds. a house still miraculously intact, picked up off its foundation and moved 100 yards east and plopped, put back down. several rural towns, small rural towns in southern indiana destroyed, totally destroyed by the force of nature. a high school of more than 1,100 students now lies in total shambles. buses stationed at the school and cars hurled into buildings across the street. an entire family -- grandpa, grandma, mom, dad, child -- all killed just because the storm hit just seconds before they were able to reach the steps leading down to the basement. and yet, through all these, these devastating images, i saw

and heard firsthand the stories of heroism and generosity and resolve that i'll always remember. two school bus drivers who made a split-second decision to turn around and get the kids off the bus and into a shelter. both those buses totally destroyed just moments later. the immediate response from our first responders -- the local police, the fire, the state police, the rescue teams, accepting for victims, helping the injured, doing everything they could to restore some semblance of support in light of this tragedy, neighbors rushing in to help the injured, citizens from nearby towns and counties pouring into the area offering food and drink and shelter, people saying, "do you have a place to stay? do you have something to eat? what can we do to help?" former strangers becoming immediate friends. on sunday morning as a walked through what was the town of

henryville, i witnessed a remarkable scene. displaced home orientation picking through the rubble of their home, trying to recover lost memories and precious keepsakes. a homeowner planting an american flag on the rubble of his former home. i was deeply moved by the income indomitablely of the american spirit, a spirit so alive and well in a time of tragedy. soon the first responders will be returning home, if they haven't already, a job well-done to wait for the next call to action while the state and federal assessment teams begin the process today of assessing the damage and the process of restoration. and piece by piece, day by day, the people of indiana will rebuild, their homes, their churches, the schools, and the communities destroyed by this tornado.

one woman captured the feeling of hoosiers best when she turned to me while standing on the rmings oremains of what used tor home and said, "we will go on, we will recover, we will make it right again." i am asking all americans to keep hoosiers, kentuckians, all the victims of the storms that raced through the midwest, the southern parts of it, to keep them in their thoughts and prayers. i ask all americans to remember how quickly life can change but also to remember that american spirit which brings them to reaching out to help their neighbors in trouble. i'm going to continue to work with governor daniels, our indiana governor, his homeland security team, the administration, fema -- a shout out for fema. great strides have been made since katrina. they've been -- they were right

on the scene, available, ready to help, in the process working with the state and local communities. we'll never be able to replace the lives of those lost to mother nature's destruction. but hoosiers will come together to rebuild one day at a time. it's the hoosier way. thank goodness it's still the american way. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, what is the order now, the regular order, the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is considering the transportation bill. mr. kerry: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, several of us here in the senate have run for the office of president of the united states. two of us have been our party's nominees. and dozens of others have played major roles in tough campaigns. so none of us in the senate are strangers to the tough and tumble of american politics. i think we all understand on a personal level what the humorist said at the turn of the century when he wrote, "politics ain't bean bag." you have to have a thick skin and a strong backbone to survive in this business. you have t to be able to take a punch and deliver one and we all understand that. so it's not as an innocent that

i come to the floor today to say that i was troubled, deeply troubled, to read an op-ed in this morning's "washington post" by the likely republican nominee for president, mitt romney. it was an attack on the administration's iran policy, and it was, mr. president, as inaccurate as it was aggressive. every candidate for the oval office has the right to criticize the president, but particularly this week, while prime minister netanyahu is in washington meeting with the administration to determine the road forward that might determine the difference between a war or a diplomatic solution, particularly at that moment when so much is on the line, we all ought to remember that the nuclear issue with iran is a deadly serious business and it ought to invite so sobriety and

serious conversations. i don't think we should allow iran to become another party's applause line on the presidential stump. talk has consequences, particularly when it's talk about war. and talk of war only helps iran at this moment -- and others -- by increasing the price of iranian crude oil that pays for its nuclear program. to create false differences with the president just to score political points does nothing to move iran off a dangerous nuclear course. wooferwars of allworse of all, s op-ed does not describe how a

president romney would do anything different than president obama and this administration has already done. so if we're going to disagree, mr. president, let's at least disagree responsibly and honestly. so examine the op-ed that i'm talking about. from the very opening paragraphs, mr. romney garbles history, going back to the iranian revolution, i calls president of the united states carter feckless saying he did nothing for over a year while iranian revolutionaries held americans captive. in fact, it was in the months -- it was months of president carter's negotiations leading up to an all-night session of negotiation, the very night before the inauguration of president reagan on january 20, that actually freed the hostag hostages. and i bring the hostage crisis up for another reason, because

when those helicopters went down in the desert during the failed rescue attempt in 1980, the united states not only lost the opportunity to get our people back sooner, but president carter fundamentally lost any chance that he had at reelection. notwithstanding that reality -- notwithstanding the lesson of desert one and those helicopters that crashed and the failed mission, notwithstanding that, president obama, whom governor romney calls the most feckless president since carter, threw that lesson al out the window, knowing that if he attempted to go into pakistan and failed, he'd probably lose his chance at reelection. despite everything that could have gone wrong with that raid, mr. president, the mission was ordered with confidence, executed with courage, and the

man who plotted the september 11 attacks was finally held accountable for the murder of thousands of americans. george w. bush made said "wanted dead or alive," but it was president obama who delivered. i don't know if governor romney has checked the definition of the word "feckless" lately, but that raid ain't it. the rest of romney's argument doesn't get any better. in fact, he goes on to propose action after action that president obama has already taken. just look at the analysis. let me read you the first sentences from an article today iin today's "new york times." "to rein in iran's nuclear ambitions, mitt romney says he would conduct naval exercises in

the persian gulf, he would try to ratchet up security council sanctions on iran and the country's central bank and other financial institutions. and if russia and china do not go along, he says the united states should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place. as it turns out," this is a quote, "as it turns out, that amounts to what president obama is doing." ambassador nick burns was president bush's lead negotiator on iran, and he said -- quote -- "the attacks on obama baiive basically say, he's weak, we're strofnlgt but when you look at the specifics, you don't see any difference." that's a quote. so let's go point by point through the romney plan. he writes that he would proceed with missile defenses to protect iran. he ignores the fact that one of

the very first things that the obama administration did was to issue its plans for the phased adaptive approach so that we would be able too sooner protect our friends and allies against the iranian missile threat and to provide increasing levels of capability as the technology advances. during the debate over the new start treaty, the senate heard in great detail, including from the commander of the strategic commander command, and the diree missile defense agency, how that particular system was going to work and how the administration planned to proceed with it. in fact, the president sent the senate a letter affirming his commitment to missile defense and over the past year he has struck -- stuck by that provment then romney goes on to say that president obama doesn't understand the seriousness of the threat from nuclear terrorism.

again, just look at the record. for the first time the president set as a national goal securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. he won international endorsement of that effort at the 2010 nuclear security summit. last year alone, the department of energy removed or eliminated over 250 kilograms of high will he enriched uranium from places like serbia and kazakhstan and in the budget request before congress the administration plans to remove or eliminate highly enriched uranium from nine countries, including vietnam, ukraine, and mexico. mr. president, that is clearly an administration and leader hounds the danger of -- who understands the danger of nuclear material, far more than any effort previously. then romney lays out the greatest willful avoidance of

facts in his article. he calls for ever-tightening sanctions on iran. mr. president, i don't know what he thinks has been going on here for the last few year, but when president obama took office, iran was in the ascendancy. as the vice president used to say when he chaired the senate foreign relations committee, "freedom wasn't on the march; iran was o on the march." its reach through proxies like hezbollah threatened the region, particularly obviously israel. the international community was divided. diplomacy, both mul multilaterad bilateral was stalled. but in june 2010 with asidizive step by president obama, united nations put in place the mouses comprehensive international sanctions the iranian government has ever faced. imposing restrictions on iran's nuclear activities, ballistic missile program, conventional

military exports to iran, iranian banks, financial transactions, and the islamic revolutionary guard corps. what's more, in coordination with allies such as the european union, japan, south korea, australia, canada, and others, the obama administration put in place additional measures, rach he eting up pressure on the country's petrochemical industry, oil and gas industry, and financial sector. recently europe announced the ban of oil imports from iran which will further pressure iran's economy and that has come with significant leadership effort in diplomacy by secretary clinton and by the administration and secretary geithner. that's just on the multilateral front, mr. president. president obama also worked closely with congress to pass the comprehensive iran sanctions, accountability and divestment act which strengthened existing u.s. sanctions. he made it harder for the iranian government to buy refined petroleum, to modernize

its oil and gas sector, and recently we imposed tough, new sanctions on the central bank of iran. so you had don't have to take nigh word for it. let me quote iran's president ahmadinejad who was the one feeling the pressure. here's what he said last fall. "our banks cannot make international transactions anymore." today, all of these sanctions are beginning to bite. iran is now virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system. almost $60 billion in energy related projects in iran have been put on hold or discontinued. iran has started to lose oil sales to key customers in europe and asia. all you have to do is look at the front page of today's newspapers and read the stories of iran hastily running around and looking for additional people to buy their oil. and, in fact, they've lost

customers in asia, and those losses could reach up to 40% of its daily sales, according to the international energy agency. banking sanctions have prevented several of iran's customers from paying for its petroleum products, leaving the central bank short of hard currency and driving down the unofficial foreign exchange rate by 40% in a single month. mr. romney needs to understand what's going on if he wants to run for president. just yesterday, the deputy chief of the iranian revolutionary guard corps was quoted as sayi saying, "the regime --" this is a quote -- "the regime is at the height of revolution" -- this is the revolution guard speaking. "the regime is at the height of isolation, and in the midst of a technological, scientific and economic siege. we are not in a situation of imaginary threats and sanctions.

threats and sanctions against us are effectively being pursued." iran is also divided internally and isolated diplomatically like never before. iran's most important ally, syria, is facing regime collapse which a former dictator of israel's moassad recently said could be a bigger strategic setback for iran than a military strike against it. that came from the former director of israel's moassad. and to take about israel for a second, we all ought to remember that president obama has provided record amounts of security funding to help israel maintain its qualitative military edge. prime minister netanyahu has spoken of president obama's ironclad commitment to israel's security. he said -- quote -- "our security cooperation is unprecedented and president obama has backed those words with deeds." so when you add it all up, mr. president, mitt romney

evidently is trying to ignore, twist, and distort the administration's policy, for what purpose? for his own gain. simply to try to drive a wedge in american politics. it seems to me that the strategy of his campaign is to just say anything, doesn't matter what it's based on, just say it, put it out there, whether it's true or not. and i might say that i think that is exactly what the american people are tired of and fed up with, what has turned them off of all of our politics and what threatens of quality of our democracy in this great country of ours. mr. president, we should be crystal clear. yes, we have to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. that is not a question of containment and never has been. it is a question of prevention, outright denial of this ability.

and that is why president obama again made that clear in his public comments yesterday, even as he builds pressure for a diplomatic solution. i think it is appropriate to have a president who first seeks a diplomatic solution. i am one of those here in the senate, together with a few others of our generation who served in vietnam -- very vie view -- and with one or two i think who served in world war ii, senator inouye, senator lautenberg, maybe senator cochran. i don't recall if there are still more here. but the fact is that i think anybody who has served in a war first wants leaders who try to find if there is a way to make that war inevitable, if it has to happen, and at least turns over every stone possible to find out if diplomacy can find a solution to a problem. president obama has reiterated

that all the options are on the table. iran, in its long history, has had many amazing moments and has provided great accomplishments, culturally and in other ways, to its history and to all of us. this regime, many people believe, is something different and some hope might even become something different at some point in time, though it has a long way to go to evidence that. but president obama has emphasized in his approach, he has said, i don't bluff. i am convinced, as i think all of us are, that the president means exactly what he says, that iran cannot have this weapon. but i think you can ask osama bin laden what president obama means when he says that he means what he says. and i know we're going to have tough debates going forward.

that's appropriate. and we're going to have a bruising election season. that's okay, if it's on the up-and-up. if it's really about real differences and real issues. and we ought to have those tough fights. but, you know, that's proven to be how we decide the big issues in the united states and we always have. but let's have an honest debate, not a contrived one, not a phony set of phony propositions that have nothing to do with the reality of a situation. the american people deserve more than that. governor romney can debate the man in the white house instead of inventing strawmen on the op-ed pages of our newspapers. he ought to be armed with facts instead of empty rhetoric. and if we're going to siew succ, as the american people want us to, in order to avoid a war in iran, then at some point all of us have to act like statesmen, not candidates. we need to be clear-eyed about

what we have accomplished and what we have yet to do. that is precisely what americans expect from their commander in chief and that is exactly what americans deserve, no less. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. menendez: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: madam president, i rise today to mourn the passing of a great man, a great leader, and a proud new jerseyan

and my friend, congressman donald payne. i am saddened beyond words by his death. personally, i have lost a close friend and the people of nother have lost -- o new jersey have lost a person who fought a lifetime fighting for justice and fairness and the little guyment where ever there was injustice, intolerance or suffering, where ever someone was downtrodden by the more powerful and didn't have a fair chance, donald payne was there intervening. from his earliest days in corntion he focused on niewrnlings but his influence was profoundly felt around the wompled as a senior member of the house committee on foreign affairs and the ranking member of the subcommittee on africa, global affairs and human rights, donald payne followed his

passion to restore democracy and human rights in places where the suffering was greatest. if you asked him what his greatest accomplishment was -- and there were many -- he would tell you that it was working on global health issues, cofounding the malaria caucus that he launched with first lady laura bush, securing $50 million to fight drug-resist taints tuberculosis, and $50 billion for hiv-aids, t.b., and malaria, but literally -- and i have heard these stories, mr. president -- literally saved whole villages in sub-is a heron africa because that's the man he was. he built a reputation as chairman of the africa and global health subcommittee for his integrated approach to africa, combining health,

development, economic growth, and improvements for a better quality of life. i once said, "malaria, t.b., hiv-aids are diseases that are caused as well by poverty." and until we really start dealing with poverty elimination, we are going to continue to have these diseases that follow poverty. we cannot be serious about development assistance or engagement without effectively dealing with these three major diseases." and he did everything he could to live up to those words. he could not ignore the fact, as he pointed out, that more than 29 million people in sub-saharan africa live with hiv-aids, that malaria and h.i.v. together kill more than 4 million people each year, that 90% of them are in africa, that for millions around the world, particularly in

sub-saharan africa, where the global malaria blurred is heaviest, the disease is a daily epidemic that kills millions and impedes the progress of entire nations. he believed in putting eangdz to the scourge of his diseases and helped broadening ash focus in dealing witdealing with this. these are global problems that warrant a global collaborative approach. on world malaria day in 23001 said, "this is not an endeavor for which we lack the knowledge, scicialtion or resources to wing." and done payne was determined to wing. when he put his mind to it, he could do anything. he believed he could change the world, one village and a time, and i did, because that's the kind of man he was. i served with donald payne in the house. i got to know him.

i grew to respect his deep and passionate commitment to the institution and the people he served. his belief in the process as it was intended by our founders to bring all of us together no matter what our politics or persuasion was to make a difference for his district, for new jersey, for the nation, and for people around the world. donald considered himself lucky to serve. he saw it as an honor. and he made a difference because that, too, is the kind of man he was. donald payne was a congressman's congressman. to me he was what public service is all about. he embodied the concept of congress, the assembly of a few good people committed to the betterment to all of us. in his passion for these issues, he worked to bring people together in common cause who were often from totally different ends of the political

spectrum. many of us would refer to him as the great convener because he had the unique ability to bring people together of disparate beliefs on behalf of these issues felt so passionately for. don's aacareer and accomplishments were exemplary. before he was elected to congress he was an education in the newark and pasaek school districts. he was a former national president of the ymca. he became new jersey's first african-american congressman, winning election in 1988 overwhelmingly and was serving at the time of his death his 12th consecutive term this year. he was a senior member of the house committee on the education and the work force and was a steadfast vocal advocate for early childhood education. he was instrumental in make k-12 education more successful and more making college more

affordable. he worked to cut the costs of the stafford loans in half and increased pell grants. he was a tireless champion of working families, always an advocate of increasing the minimum wage, always pushing for workplace fairness and work force protections, because that's the kind of man donald payne was. through his life and service, he was a man of the people and the people of new jersey will never forget what he said for essex, hudson and union counties or for the state as a whole. in the end, congressman payne will be remembered for the dignity and honor with which he brought to this institution and the congress, for which he represented his district, always putting the interests of the community, the interests of new jersey and the interests of humanity first. because that's the kind of man he was. donald made buildin new jersey d he will forever be missed by all of us who were touched by his warmth and compassion.

so i join my colleagues in mourning the passing of a great man. leaders throughout the world -- i -- i got to visit congressman payne on saturday at the hospital, and talking to his brothers were leaders throughout the world had been calling to inquire as to how he was. leaders throughout the world who knew how he touched the lives of their citizens and who also mourn his passing. so our thoughts and prayers go out to donald's beloved children and his entire family and all of those who were touched by him throughout his life. he will be missed and certainly we hope that god will bless this great man who gave back much more than he ever received in life. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: