t the presiding officer: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 23, the stop the student loan interest rate hike act of 2012. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2343, a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to extend

the reduced interest rate for federal direct stafford loans 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:

the presiding officer: has every member voted? does any member wish to change his or her volt. on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 45. with one senator announcing present, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i enter a motion to

reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m. we will have more senate coverage when they gavel back in at 2:15 here on c-span2. don't forget about c-span's congressional directory. inside you find contact information for each member of the house and senate as well as district maps,

committee assignments and more. also cabinet members, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. it is 12.95 plus shipping and handling. order on line at c-span.or c-span.org/shop. sssb#" >> president obama from this morning as he prepared to depart for new york. he is on the road currently headed to, currently this

afternoon at the college of nanoscale, science and engineering at the state university of albany in new york. expected to make remarks there this afternoon at 1:5. we will have those live for you here on c-span2. [background noises]

[background sound. >> it [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] >> some of the themes of the president's departure from the south lawn of the white house this morning. again he will be speaking at the university of new york in albany. we'll have those comments live at 1:25 eastern. until then a look at the upcoming nato summit in chicago later this month. u.s. ambassador to nato ivo dalder previewed issues in the summit. yesterday in washington he talked about the plans by newly elected french president to with craw -- withdraw his country as troop and talked about u.s. relations with russia where vladmir putin is officially back for a third term. this is from the council on

foreign relations here in washington. >> welcome, everybody. to tonight's council on foreign relations meeting. i want to go through our standard stuff here but remind you to please completely turn off all your, and not just put them on vibrate, you are turn everything off, your cell phones, blackberry, all wireless devices to avoid interference with the sound system. i remind you this is an on the record session and before we begin with the program the council is pleased to announce the roleout of a report of the council's sponsored independent task force on turkey and copies of the task force's report will be released at a meeting in new york tomorrow and here in washington this wednesday, may 9th also.

for more information on upcoming events and please refer to the insert in the back of tonight's program. i also, tomorrow night in new york our guest is going to be on the daley show. you can tune in there if you like. this is another well-timed council session. not only do we have the u.s. ambassador to nato with just two weeks before the nato summit gets underway in chicago but we have a newly elected president of france, francois holl land, who may well well become a factor in nato's's future in afghanistan. you have all ambassador daalder's background. i'm sure you met him on one occasion or another. he has been a prominent figure on u.s. government

and international affairs but also with the council and equally important to those of us outside of government, he's been and remains even in his official capacity an important public voice, a frequent writer, explainer and debater on issues of great importance to american national security and global security. so, mr. ambassador, we will of course all want to know this evening your sense of whether nato, like everyone else, will manage to lose the blues in chicago. but first, let me go straight to the news of the day. actually a couple of stories that are newsworthy today about our topic this evening and ask your views about the election in france. mr. hollande as you know has suggested he was not happy with his predecessors taking france back into nato. he said he would be likely to withdraw france's 2500 or

so combat troops from afghanistan this year rather than next. and even though he has tilted towards less austerity he's also talked about defense spending needing to be cut further. so i know you're going to probably or i think you might say, we'll have to wait and see what the post-election realities are but since we're here and on stage and you're such a good source on this how do you analyze this? >> well of course we have to wait and see. >> right. >> put i think, one of the unique features of nato is that it's an organization of 28 democracis. so this is hardly the first time a government has changed while i've been there or indeed, which is happening all the time. 17 governments have been

changed in the time i've been here and this is just the latest. the french socialists are not strangers for the united states. they shouldn't be strangers. it's been true that it has been 17 years since the socialists were in power and had the presidency but of course they ran the government about a decade ago when he was in power. we've always had a good relationship with any government that is there in france and i am confident we will have a good relationship with this government in france. we do have to see how this government has, is going to deal with it the issues of the day. it is one thing to be campaigning. it is always something different to be governing. it is not up to me, certainly not my job to predict how this will evolve but i would note that francois hollande during the

campaign did say he would remain, keep france integrated in the military command structure. that was a remarkable decision by president sarkozy after so many years to come back into the command structure. i think france learned in the libya operation that being integrated into the command structure gives you a voice and a say over what happens in the internal affairs of a military operation. that's important. and learned that there are benefits from being fully integrated and i would suspect this is a benefit that will remain even if the there may be differences of degree as policies go on. that's what elections are about. it is to enable the people to express them service and vote in a new government who will then have to decide how they want to pursue policies. but on the big foreign policy issues i expect more continuity than change. >> so i mean he takes office

very soon. the nato summit is very soon. do you see any risk that the program in afghanistan both in terms of the troop levels and in terms of financial support for the afghan army, that that could erode before you're at the finish line here? >> no, i don't actually. i think, what's remarkable about afghanistan in the last three years is the degree of unity within the alliance and among the 50 countries that contribute troops to isaf that has persisted throughout the time that i've been there and i think is, remains solid and we'll see when we get to chicago that this is indeed a very solid coalition, committed to a strategy that was agreed in the last nato summit of lisbon when it was decided that a process of transition

would take place over four years. that we would try gradually and over time build up the afghan national security forces to provide for the security of the country. and so that by the end of 2014 it is responsibility of forces to insure security throughout the entire country. that strategy, i think is been proven to work. we will get together in chicago in a few weeks where we will reaffirm the centrality of that strategy. we will announce that as things are moving on we believe in 2013 it will be possible for all of afghanistan to be in a situation where the afghan security forces are in the lead for security and the nato and isaf anything will slowly shift from a lead focus on combat to a lead focus on supporting the afghan security forces. and then over the next 2013

and until the end of 2014 be in a position to insure that afghanistan will be secured by afghan forces rather than by international forces. that's the strategy. i think every country is committed. i, am so far, no one has left. we are committed to an in together-out together strategy. some countries have decided to train the focus from combat to training that is their national decision. we accept that but for now i think we will get to chicago fully committed to the strategy and united in implementing it. >> so just, so you would also be optimistic that there won't be any french troop withdrawals beyond the ones or different than what has been forecast by sarkozy? >> we'll have to await to

see how a new french government will relate to that i do think french troops will remain in afghanistan until the end of 2014? >> combat troops? >> we'll see. remember the dutch don't have combat troops. the canadians don't have combat troops but they make very important contributions by training, training the afghan forces. there are many jobs to be done in afghanistan and, individual countries will make their decisions how they want to contribute but they need to and they are, i think committed it the strategy that we have all agreed to. >> let me turn you to other news today the. vladmir putin took office in moscow and among the things he said was that russia will also seek a predictable relationship with the united states. will adhere to the s.t.a.r.t. treaty on nuclear arms and push for guaranties that the u.s. missile shield in europe will not be

directed against russia. is that something that he wants in writing or is that a trust but verify type of thing or, what does that mean, that statement? >> well we've had a discussion with russia since, since lisbon where the nato allies agreed to, for the first time, to deploy a nato territorial missile defense system that would provide protection for nato european terror i ares populations and forces against a growing ballistic missile threat from outside europe. that decision was not directed at russia nor were the systems that are going to be deployed capable of undermining strategic stability with russia or indeed undermine the nuclear deterrent of russia. we have been saying this for three years. we are more than happy to put it in writing because we have already done so. be happy to do it in the

future. russia, what the second time, the second thing we did in lisbon was also to invite russia to cooperate with us on the deployment of missile defenses which we have two separate systems that could be used, as separate systems to cooperate and be combined to provide a better defense for both nato and russia against this growing ballistic missile threat. we've been in discussions for the last 18 months with the russians. they continue. they are frankly not moving forward because of a russian demand that the guaranties be legally binding. not only the guaranty that it is not directed against russia but that our objective criteria and limits therefore on the nature of the system that we would be deploying to provide those, those guaranties. we have made very clear since the system is not designed or directed against

russia, it makes very little sense for to us have a legally-binding agreement with russia and limits on the cape abs of that system, that have nothing to do with russia but have to do with the threat that we're facing. what we've also made clear if we sit together and cooperate together they could find over time that in fact our system is not designed to deal with the russian threat and, and through the kinds of confidence-building measures and cooperation we would engage in could make clear that they don't need a guaranty because they can see for themselves that the sim is not capable of undermining their strategic deterrent. that discussion is ongoing. we're willing to continuing that discussion and hopefully one day we'll be able to convince them. >> how do you interpret the fact that he repeated it again today? >> that is the standard russian line. they said it before. will probably see it again.

in the meantime we're continuing with the deployment of the system. we will announce in chicago that a nato will have reached an interim capability, that will have agreed to the tools to enable nato to take command-and-control of, of the ballistic missile capabilities that the united states and other countries would provide. and we will go ahead because we think the threat warrants that kind of system. and anybody who look at what is the threat from the middle east is like, that is growing and not getting any less, will know that this is the response that is is necessary as well as all the other steps we're trying to take to reduce that threat. >> when president obama had that open mic situation with, with medvedev some months ago he talked about having more flexibility on this issue after the election. what did that mean? [laughter] >> you would have to ask him.

>> you've talked to him about that i'm sure. >> i think what he was reflecting was the reality that the last six months of a presidential campaign usually aren't the easiest to have serious international negotiations, particularly on issues that are politically-sensitive and i think that was just a truism. i think that is recognized by the russians. it is recognized by us. we have committed to continuing a dialogue which is continuing right now at the political level and over time may be focused on the technical level until such time that the political situational lous a more, a more thorough discussion of these issues. >> well the russians are not going to be in chicago and i want to ask you about other countries that are not going to be there but of the whole group as you well know of smaller european states that want in under the open door

policy and. and as far as i can tell enlargement is not on the table and i was wondering where these expansion possibilities stand for countries like bosnia, macedonia, serbia, georgia, you know the whole list, kosovo? where does that stand? >> of the list there are at the moment four countries that have declared that they would like to become members of nato. bosnia, montenegro, macedonia and georgia. all four will be in chicago because all four are active troops in the mission in afghanistan. we from the united states perspective and i think i can speak for all other 27 allies remain committed to an open door. under article ten of the washington treaty we can have an invitation to european member-states, european states whose, whose

membership in nato can attribute to the -- contribute to the security of the north atlantic area and meet nato standards. these four countries have declared they would like to be members of the nato. we are working actively with them. we as nato and the united states to foster the circumstances and ability for them to become members sooner rather than later. the time is not yet for various reasons and each country is unique and each country will have to be dealt with separately but the time with it will not be yet in chicago for them to be invited. either because there remain differences with other member-states. in the case of macedonia where we remain committed to inviting them as soon as mutual satisfactory issue of the name has been resolved with greece. we, we are working hard with montenegro and bosnia herzegovina to resolve

issues both internally and with reform to their country. we work with georgia on a day-to-day basis. georgia will by october be the largest non-nato contributor to isaf. remarkable deployment of over 1700 troops and not just in the north but in the west and down south in helmand province and georgia faces an important election, parliamentary election later this year and a presidentialal election next year and we will work with them to insure those are democratic elections. and that too then will be another step on the road to membership which won't happen in chicago but we're committed to have happen as soon as possible. >> thank you. one of the themes of the, a major theme of the french election was this approach of less austere approach to the economic crisis. i was just wondering if whether there's a sense that

also could have some effect on defense spending probably not with the french but perhaps with others in terms of loosening some of the restrictions on nato defense budgets? >> i mean austerity hasn't been good for defense spending. i think that's true. some say austerity hasn't been good for a lot of things but certainly hasn't been good for defense spending. i don't see that losing the austerity constraints that currently exist will now lead to a massive increase in european defense spending. but it is clear that we need more defense spending. if you look at just, just a two statistics, a decade ago europe still spent 50% of the total amount that nato spends on defense. today even after the cut that the united states has engaged it is 70% u.s. spending and 30% is europe.

part of it is because the united states expanded its defense spending in the last decade but other part of it is europe has been cutting and there will come a time when if you continue that divergence between european and american defense spending, that the gap becomes so large, the ability to operate together in military operations becomes so constrained, that, that there is a real need to start thinking about how do we meet the ability of the europeans to be good partners and strong partners as we saw in libya. they can be but continue to be over the future and that will require not only spending more but it also will require europeans spending better and smarter. one of the issues and initiatives that secretary-general rasmussen has been pushing is a notion of having, what he calls smart defense which is having europeans working

together to procure critical capabilities that alone they couldn't afford but together they could. and we will encourage all europeans to do more of that so that even if they don't spend necessarily more in dollars or euros or crone men or krenen or whatever it is they're spending the output of that spending will be larger and better. >> you have talked and written about how effective the nato campaign in libya was. many lives that it saved for those who were trapped in the struggle but as you also know "the new york times" last month reported on a lengthy, confidential post-action nato report that highlighted just how poorly equipped and staffed are many of the nato allies and that they would basically have been unable to sustain combat operations for very long even against such a weak opponent as libyans

were without very crucial u.s. assistance in a whole range of basic contrary warfare, weaponry, intelligence gathering, arrow fueling. that story does really make one wonder about the real world military capabilities of nato if, if against a weak opponent like they were really all these shortcomings were made very obvious to nato. that is very disturbing report. has there been a reaction to it or, i'm sure you didn't like it? >> well, no, actually first i of course can't comment on classified reports but what i can do is point people to reading the foreign affairs article that i wrote with the supreme allied commander of europe which said much the same thing. so in that sense it's not surprising. we, there's two parts to the

european contribution in libya. there's a good news story and there is a not so good news story. the good news story is that europeans led by president sarkozy and prime minister cameron decided to take the lead and in much of the military campaign including, in particular in the military, in the bombing campaign in libya. the statistic that we cite in the foreign affairs article that really makes that clear in the kosovo war, 90% of the all precision-guided munitions dropped on serbia and kosovo were american. 10% were european. in the libya war it was exactly the opposite. 90% was european and 10% was american. that said there were critical capabilities, these gaps that i mentioned before, that were exposed by the libyan war. most importantly

intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance where between 70 and 80% of isr effect was provided by the united states. aerial refueling or 75% the aerial, tankers were flown by the united states. the capability to do strategic targeting, precision-guided targeting to take the information you get and turn that into, into precise targets that was necessary to have a low casualty kind of loco lateral damage kind of strategic bombing campaign we saw in libya was provided by the united states. so it exposed those weaknesses. the good news as result of libya the europeans are not trying to focus how to close down these gaps. in chicago, we will sign an agreement where 13 nations will procure, what is called the alliance ground surveillance system.

five most advanced kind of drones that will provide the capability that was so evident in libya, we needed it to have radar capability, to look what is going on the ground which will be procured by 1 nations and will be owned and operated by nato. aerial refueling, europeans have decided that within the european union they needed to invest in the capabilities to bring these capabilities together and do more. there is a lesson learned here and that is in fact the report in the "new york times" was a lessons learned report. it exposed the problems that commit within nato and we're now addressing them by making the investments in those kinds of activities that are particularly important and the short falls that were demonstrated to try to start to fill that and overcome these gaps. >> is that one reason why, i mean, the current shortcomings, is that a reason why nato has not been

involved in the syrian operation in the sense that it would have to -- much more formidable opponent there and the united states would have to be more involved? just in terms of capabilities. . . >> there is no desire within the region for foreign intervention, quite to the contrary. the arab league has made clear this is not something they seek at this time. the arab league was, in fact,

the body that asked for the u.n. to impose a no-fly zone. those are two fundamental reasons why there is a hesitancy to engage militarily on the part of nato and, in fact, fundamental reason why an alliance of democracies which operates on consensus would find it at the moment difficult, if not impossible, to have the consensus necessary to intervene. >> okay. we're going to now invite audience members to join in the discussion. let me get the ground rules out here first. please, wait for the microphone, speak directly into it, stand up, state your name, tell us your affiliation and keep your questions and comments concise so we can get as many as possible. yes, sir. wait for the mic. >> thank you very much. josh rogan foreign policy magazine.

thank you for your service. i wanted to can ask you about your mentioning of an announcement in chicago about an interim milestone toward the 2014 full transfer of power over to afghan hands. as per the lisbon treaty, i'm wondering is that the same announcement that defense secretary leon panetta made on the plane to brussels in february and then clarified at the munich security conference? we were told that that announcement by leon panetta in february was made because he accidentally read his internal talking points instead of the press points to the reporters on the plane, and i guess i'm wondering since that -- if that announcement was scheduled for chicago before secretary panetta accidentally blurted it out, i'm wondering if that's going to be same thing, or that's going to be something different, or are you going to add meat to the bone? is it going to be something new, and if it's new, what's new besides what we already heard?

thank you. [laughter] >> um, this history of when, how, what i will leave to the historians to, to dig out. but as the president said in bagram air base, as he said in his press conference with prime minister cameron when prime minister cameron was here, we are committed to the strategy that we adopted in lisbon which was to have a transition starting in 2011, completed by the end of 2014 in which afghan forces would over time take more and more responsibility for security so that by the end of 2014 they would be fully responsible for security throughout the country. in 2013 there will come a period where the afghans will have lead responsibility throughout the country for security at which point we will shift the main focus, the main effort of the nato and isaf contribution from

combat to support. as the president also announced in june of 2011 that we would do. that's, that will be a milestone. a milestone when we shift from one point to the other which should happen in 2013 depending on, of course, how the situation on the ground evolves. we expect it to happen in 2013, and be that is where in chicago we will solidify how we get to 2013, what we will do until the end of 2014 and, by the way, what is the nature of nato's role and the international role post-2014 which the president started to address in his visit to bagram air base a week ago. as well where we are, as part of the strategic partnership agreement that the united states has now signed with afghanistan and nato which has an enduring partnership agreement signed in lisbon. we'll start filling out what that really means as well. >> sir?

>> behind you. >> mike halter, johns hopkins, sais. ivo, good to see you again. i'd like to get back to nato enlargement both in the north as well as the south. first of all, in the north sweden and finland have not asked to join, but they've really become almost allies in any sense of the word. swedes took part in the combat missions in libya, they're doing baltic air policing, swedes and finns are going to -- as i understand it. at any rate, cooperating very closely. if you could just say a few words about that cooperation but the second and perhaps more important question has to do with macedonia. you said that the u.s. favors macedonia's accession to nato when the name dispute is solved, but the international court of justice ruled about six months ago that greece had no right --

it was almost a unanimous decision -- greece had no right on the basis of the 1995 interim agreement to keep, to block macedonia's membership in international organizations, that while the negotiations are going on. sounds like the united states, in a sense, has raised the bar because, you know, if i understood the icj's decision, it shouldn't matter that the negotiations are going on and, in fact, macedonia, as you know, was slated to get in bucharest in 2008 with croatia and albania. so if you could speak to those two issues. >> thanks for both parts of the question. on sweden and finland, sweden even more than finland, they are extraordinary partners. they participate, sweden participates in every single operation that we are conducting with major cooperation and operation, unify and protect in libya, a leading role in the

north in afghanistan until recently, although that's gone down, has contributed significantly in kosovo as has finland in many different ways. they could be allies tomorrow. by the way, i remind them of that too. [laughter] it is, there is something -- membership does have its privileges. for one you get to sit at the table and make decisions, and if you don't, if you're not a member, you get to sit at the table, but you don't get to make decisions. but it's a national decision. sweden will have to decide, finland will have to decide like every country whether or not they want to become members of nato. the good news is you don't have to be a member of nato to be an extraordinary partner. on baltic air policing, they have air covers in the baltics, but they're not part of the nato mission of baltic air policing as of yet, so that's why i was shaking my head. on macedonia the issue's very simple. in bucharest it was decided by

all 28 -- at that time 26 members of nato -- that macedonia would be inviteed to join nato as soon as the name issue was resolved to mutual satisfaction. this is a consensus-based organization. the way it works, you need all members to agree. since greece has insisted that it needs to resolve the name issue prior to being willing to say yes to an invitation, the reality is until that name issue is resolved in a mutually-satisfactory way, an invitation will not be forthcoming. that's how this organization works. we are not going to have the icj or anybody else telling nato when and how it should take in new members. that is for nato to decide. among the 28 countries. that is the recognized way in which every enlargement has happened from 1952 when greece and turkey were the first two

countries to join nato until 19 -- 2008 when the last two, albania and croatia, became members of nato, and we'll continue to adhere to that fundamental decision which we all made in bucharest which is an invitation will be forthcoming once a mutually-satisfactory to the name issue has been reached. in that sense it's not, there's no change in the u.s. position. we've had the same position since 2008. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. claire o'donnell, visiting fellow at brookings, originally from the center of european reform. i have a question about smart defense. major governments recognize interests do remain an obstacle to close defense cooperation, and i was wondering if you had any suggestions as to how this obstacle could be overcome. thanks. >> big question and important question. part of the obstacles for smart

defense is that if you want to have industrial cooperation, joint procurement of weapons systems, you need to do that on the industrial side as well as in the policy side. and in one reason why nations are hesitating in the cooperating internationally is because they want to defend their own defense industries. now, some of those multi-national programs actually are designed to enhance international cooperation. i mentioned ags. the ags program has very specific -- in the contract has very specific benefits for local industries of those countries that are participating in the procurement of that system. so all 13 countries -- not just the ideas -- are providing significant industrial input in getting significant industrial benefit from that cooperation. but working out these deals is very complicated, requires good politics as well as good

industrial cooperation. that is very difficult. takes time, and it's much easier particularly if you have a large enough defense industry as some europeans still do to just buy, you know, buy local. whether that's french or british or italian or what have you. so trying to figure out how we're going to mesh these two pieces, the need for industrial cooperation to help drive procurement cooperation is one of the areas that we're increasingly looking at and recognize as important. not just within europe, but also between europe and the united states. >> bill courtney, retired diplomat. when sergei lavorov might be used in the russia, this caused some stir among russian nationalists because putin had just campaigned on a kind of anti-u.s., anti-nato platform

running for president. why do you think the russians agreed, and more broadly, how do you see the mixture of cooperation and competition with regard to nato? >> bill, thanks for asking that question, because i think it's very important. the one success story in the nato/russia relationship -- one of many, but the one that really stands out is the cooperation on afghanistan. russia came, has come to the conclusion that for nato and isaf to succeed in afghanistan is in russia's fundamental interest. and, therefore, it has cooperated with nato and with the united states on the transit of goods, equipment and personnel. 220,000 american troops have been flown into and out of afghanistan through russian air space. in the last few years. similarly, many thousands of tons of material have now transferred through rail lines through russia into afghanistan,

and as we start drawing down our forces, getting the stuff out becomes equally important. and russia has been a great, a great member of that coalition, of the transit coalition that exists. the multimodal transit which is what the base is being used for which would allow us to fly out of afghanistan into russia and then transport the same materials onto trains is yet another step in the direction of making sure that the transit system really does work to the benefits of all. and despite the protest that happened, we've been hearing on the streets in russia because of this agreement, the government remains committed to fulfilling it. it set out, my good colleague, former colleague to make the case for why this is important, and when dmitri says anything

nice about nato, you ought to listen because that's an important event. [laughter] and it means that, in fact, they want something to happen in a positive way x. -- way. and they do and on this issue, counternarcotics training, other issues where the nato/russia and u.s./russia's cooperation is extremely beneficial to both sides, we remain committed, and we remain implementing it despite the differences we have on other issues. >> yes, sir, in the back. >> you will not believe it, but my name is ivo also. [laughter] i'm from the balkans. can we go back a little bit to enlargement -- >> could you speak a little louder, sir? >> croatia and slow vain ya, they're already in nato, you said others have big desire, but serbia didn't show any desire to

be part of nato. isn't nato actually afraid a little bit that serbia would be too close to moscow, maybe russia can offer some military base in the south of serbia, maybe, and also in bosnia, practically divided, under serbia control. they're saying we would put referendum about nato if it's necessary, just one part of the country, and also they want to see what is belgrade saying about nato membership. please, your comment. thank you, sir. >> serbia has a, an evolving relationship with nato. it's a relationship where we now have an individual partnership plan signed and negotiated with serbia. serbia has not indicated it wanted to become a member of nato. as i said, this is a decision individual countries will have to reach themselves. for now serbia has focused

primarily on moving towards the e.u., and it gained candidacy status a few months ago which was important. there was an important election, there were many important elections on sunday. there was another one in serbia which, and we will see the second round next week. but the forces that want to continue the process of euro/application integration in serbia remain strong which is good for serbia, and it's good for europe. how and when and whether that integration will have a nato angle is something for serbia to decide. we are open to it. the serbs, in fact, have a mission to nato, they have an ambassador at nato whose sole job is to have an interaction with nato, and we will find be whatever partnership activity and partnership relationship belgrade wants we are willing to

support it. with respect to bosnia-herzegovina, one of the interesting things is nato membership remains one of the few areas in which there is large agreement across the entire country. and bosnia has made significant steps in recent weeks and months on meeting some of the key requirements with respect to defense property registration that will enable them to have a new relationship with nato in the weeks and months ahead. demonstrating that nato and the ability to become a member of nato remains one of those things that helps political consensus form in the country, to make the kind of difficult political decisions that are sometimes necessary in order to move forward. so we're hopeful that bosnia will continue down that path and enable it to move closer to nato membership as it makes the reforms that are necessary.

>> sorry, can't hear you. can you -- can you speak up a little? >> [inaudible] republic of -- [inaudible] is going to have a referendum about nato. i'm not talking about -- [inaudible] because the president of that entity of bosnia, he said that a few days ago we are going to have referendum in the public -- [inaudible] >> i will leave the internal politics of bosnia his governor that -- herzegovina to the people of bosnia herz governor ya to comment on rather than me. >> jeff bialis, washington lawyer, occasional academic. the united states has articulated something of a pivot toward asia, and i wondered what the -- have we thought about the implications of that for nato and particularly with respect to assigning or encouraging europe to take more responsibilities in the european theater? >> thanks, jeff, for -- i know

what it means to be an occasional academic, so i feel your pain. [laughter] the pivot of asia, the pivot, if you want to use that word which seems to have resonated around, needs to be understood in the right way. this was not a pivot away from europe, it was a pivot away from a decade of war. in which europe needs to become a partner, and we see europe as a partner in that, in that activity. for us europe remains our partner of choice. it remains the place where the economic and military and political weight of that, of that coalition is larger than in any other part of the world. we need europeans to be with us to deal with the global challenges that we face together. the fact that we are spending now more time thinking about operating in asia should be seen as something that europeans

ought to welcome. both because it's important that there is stability in asia, but also because we see europe not as a competitor in the asia, but very much as a partner. as a part of our solution to deal with the global challenges that we face together. that does mean that europe will probably have to continue to think about what can it do for europe. that is an important question. it's an important question that europeans need to ask each and be every day. but it doesn't mean that we're going to do asia, quote -- whatever that means -- so you can do europe. it is we have global challenges that need to be addressed together. we need that what is happening in asia is fundamental to global security, it's fundamental to asian security, it's fundamental to american security and, oh, by the way, it's fundamental to european security. so that's why it's important for us to be engaged there, but that doesn't mean we should be less engaged in europe, which we are not, nor that we don't want

europe to be part and parcel of that very engagement in asia and around the world. >> yes, this lady in the back. >> hi. thank you, mr. ambassador, for your service. mary beth long, former dod and former high-level group. there are some critics that say that some of the nato member states have gone wobbly when it concerns political will regarding the actual facilities of nuclear weapons on their territory and that that wobbliness of political will coupled with the actual deterioration of the facilities and the equipment puts at real peril nato's nuclear posture in the coming years if nato doesn't act quickly. is that an overstatement? is the u.s. concerned regarding the future nuclear posture of nato? >> yeah, i think it's an overstatement in both the political and the technical sense. in the political sense, i think there is a, um, a fundamental consensus that nato will remain a nuclear alliance as long as

nuclear weapons exist, that that requires a widespread cooperation on the nuclear issue which we have been engaged in for 40, 50 years, and we need to continue to be engaged in. at the same time, there's an interest on the part of many european countries to contribute to the president's prague agenda and to help create the conditions necessary for a world without nuclear weapons. and we are trying to manage that political desire on the one hand to insure that nato will remain a nuclear alliance as long as nuclear weapons exist while also working to create the conditions for nuclear weapons to, for nuclear weapons no longer to exist. technically speaking, we have made, we have done the investments necessary to insure that the weapons are safe and secure which is, ultimately, the most important thing that -- >> we'll leave this program at this point to go live this

afternoon to the state university of new york in albany. president obama's here today to talk about the u.s. economy and to urge congress to act on a to-do list to create jobs. ♪ ♪ [applause] [cheers and applause] >> hello, new york! [cheers and applause] thank you! thank you so much! thank you! everybody, please, have a seat. it is great to be back in albany, it is wonderful to be with all of you here today, and i want to thank governor cuomo not only for the outstanding introduction, but also for the extraordinary leadership that he's showing here in the great state of new york. please, give him a big round of applause. [cheers and applause]

he is doing outstanding work. i also want to thank mayor jennings who's here -- give the mayor a big round of applause. [applause] don't be shy. we've got chancellor zimfer, we appreciate very much. [applause] dr. kelly yaros, i want to make sure i say that right. folks mess up my name all the time. kelly yaros for hosting us here today. we've got a couple -- [cheers and applause] we've got a couple members of congress here, paul tonko! [applause] and also representative chris gibson is here. [applause] and all of you are here, and i'm happy about that. [cheers and applause] yeah. [laughter] [cheers and applause] so it is wonderful to be here at

the university of albany nano college. this is one of the only colleges in the world dedicated to nanotechnology, and it's an incredible complex. but you're working on particles as small as an atom, and you're doing it in rooms that are 10,000 times cleaner than a hospital operating room which is very impressive since clean is not usually a word i associate with college students. [laughter] maybe things have changed since i was in school. now, the reason i came here today is because this school -- bless you -- [laughter] and this community represents the future of our economy. right now some of the most advanced manufacturing work in america is being done right here in upstate new york. cutting-edge businesses from all over the world are deciding to

bill here and hire here, and you've got schools like this one that are training workers with the exact skills that those businesses are looking for. now, we know the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, it's not washington. but there are steps we can take as a nation to make it easier for companies to grow and to hire, to create platforms of success for them. everything from giving more people the chance to get the right training and education to supporting new research projects in the science and technology. in fact, there was a substantial investment made here, i was talking to governor cuomo about the investment his father made here to help get this center started. there are things we can do to make sure that if you're willing to work hard and meet your

responsibilities, you can find a job, own a home, maybe start a business and, most importantly, give your kids a chance to do even better than you did. and that's something we believe has to be available to everybody, no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like. we can make a difference, and at this make or break moment for america's middle class, no excuse for inaction. there's no excuse for dragging our feet. none. now, over the last few years there are certain steps that i've been able to take on my own to help spur the kind of innovation that we're seeing here. and, also, to help the overall economy grow. so we announced a new policy several months back that will help families refinance their mortgages, save up to thousands of dollars a year. we sped up loans and competitive

grants for new projects all across the country so thousands of construction workers can get back on the job. we simplified the student loan process to help roughly 5.8 million students like the students here save money on repayments. [applause] these are some steps that the administration's been able to take on its own. but the truth is, the only way we can accelerate the job creation that takes place on a scale that is needed is bold action from congress. because of the recovery act, because of all the work we've done, we've created over four million jobs in the last two years. we've created hundreds of thousands of jobs each month over the last several, over the last several months, so we're making progress, but everybody knows we need to do more.

and in order to do that, we're going to need some more action from congress. democrats and republicans have to come together. and they've shown that they can do it. i mean, they did some important work. they passed tax cuts for workers, approved trade deals to open up new markets for american products, we reformed our patent system to make it easier for innovative ideas to come to market. those are all good things. but the size of the challenges we face requires us to do more. so back last september i sent congress a jobs bill. it included all sorts of policies that we knew would help grow our economy and put more americans back to work. that wasn't just my opinion, that wasn't just the opinion of democrats, it was the opinion of independent, nonpartisan experts, economists who do this for a living and analysts on wall street who evaluate what's going to really make the economy

grow. the one big piece that we were able to get done was make sure that we didn't see payroll tack go up -- tax go up and people get $40 taken out of their paychecks each, each time. but most of it didn't get done in congress. just about every time we put these policies up for a vote, the republicans in congress got together, and they said, no. they said, no, to putting hundreds of thousands of construction workers back on the job repairing our roads and our bridges and our schools and our transit systems, no to a new tax cut for businesses that hire new workers, no to putting more teachers back in our classrooms, more cops back on the beat, more firefighters back to work. and this is at a time when we know one of the biggest drags on the economy has been layoffs by state and local governments. that's true all across the country. and it's worth noting, by the way -- this is just a little

aside -- after there was a recession under ronald reagan, government employment went way up. it went up after the recessions under the first george bush and the second george bush. so each time there was a recession with a republican president, compensated, we compensated by making sure that government didn't see a drastic reduction in employment. the only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. so i make that point -- [applause] i make that point so you don't buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear. and, frankly, if congress had said yes to helping states put teachers back to work and put the economy before our politics, then tens of thousands more teachers in new york would have a job right now.

that is a fact. and that would mean not only a lower unemployment rate, but also more customers for businesses. now, i know it is an election year, but it's not an excuse for inaction. six months is plenty of time for democrats and republicans to get together and do the right thing, taking steps that will spur additional job creation right now. just saying no to ideas that we know will help our economy isn't an option. there's too much at stake. we've all got to pull in the same direction. so even if republicans are still saying no to some of the bigger proposals we made in the jobs act, there are some additional ideas that could help people get to work right now and that they haven't said no to yet, so i'm hoping they say yes. and they're simple ideas. they're the kinds of things that in the past have been support bed by democrats -- supported by democrats and republicans. these are traditionally ideas

that have had bipartisan support. they won't have as big an impact as rebuilding our infrastructure or helping states hire back teachers, but together all of these ideas will do two things they'll grow the economy faster, they'll grow more jobs. so today i'm announcing a handy little to-do list that we've put together for congress. [laughter] you can see it for yourselves at white house.gov, it's about the size of a post-it note, so every member of congress should have time to read it. [laughter] and they can glance at it every so often. hopefully, we'll just be checking off the list just like when michelle gives me a list, i check it off. [laughter] each of the ideas on this list will help accelerate our economy and be put people back to work. not in november, not in next year but right now. all right, so i'm going to go through the list. first, congress needs to help the millions of americans who have worked hard, made their mortgage payments on time but still have been unable to

refinance their mortgages with these historically-low rates. [applause] this would make a huge difference for the economy. [applause] families could save thousands of dollars, and that means they've got more money in their pocket which means they can either build their equity back up on their homes, or they go out and use that money to do things like helping their kids finance a college egg. education. so congress should give those responsible homeowners a chance to refinance at a low irritate. we estimate they'd save at least $3,000 a year, so that's on our to-do list. it's not complicated. [applause] second, second, if congress fails to act soon, clean energy companies will see their taxes go up, and they could be forced to lay off employees. in fact, we're already hearing from folks who produce wind turbines, solar panels and a lot of this green energy that, you

know, they're getting worried because there's uncertainty out there. congress hasn't renewed some of the tax breaks that are so important to this industry. and since i though that the other side in congress have promised they'll never raise taxes as long as they live, this is a good time to keep that promise when it comes to businesses that are putting americans to work and helping break our dependence on foreign oil. [applause] so, so we should extend these tax credits. that's on the to-do list. that's number two. number three, congress should help small business owners by giving them a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. [applause] you know, we, we believe -- [applause] small businesses are the engine of economic growth in this country, we should not hold them to a situation where they may end up having to pay higher

taxes just by hiring more workers. we should make it easier for them to succeed. so that's on our to-do list. that's number three. number four, congress should help our veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan find a good job once they come home. [cheers and applause] our men and women in uniform have served this country with such honor and distinction, and a lot of them come from upstate new york. now it's our turn to serve themment so we should -- them. so we should create a veterans' job corps that helps them find work as cops, firefighters, employees at our national park. that's on our to-do list. then the last item, the fifth item, which bears especially on what's going on here, the last

item on our congressional to-do list is something that will help a lot of you in particular. you know better than anybody that technology has advanced by leaps and bounds over the last few decades. and that's, that's a great thing. businesses are more productive, consumers are getting better products for less. but technology's also made a lot of jobs obsolete. factories where people once thought they'd retire suddenly left town. jobs that provided a decent living got shipped overseas. and the result's been a lot of pain for a lot of communities and a lot of families. there is a silver lining in all this though. after years of undercutting the competition, now it's getting more expensive to do business in places like china. wages are going up. shipping costs are going up. and meanwhile, american workers are getting more and more efficient, companies located here are becoming more and more competitive. so for a lot of businesses it's

now starting to make sense to bring jobs back home. and here -- [applause] here in the tri-city area you've got companies like ibm and global foundries that could have decided to pack up and move elsewhere, but they chose to stay in upstate new york because it made more sense to build here and to hire here. you had more to offer. got some of the best workers in the world, you've got an outstanding university. now i want what's happening in albany to happen all across the country in places like cleveland, pittsburgh and raleigh. [applause] i want to create more opportunities for hard-working americans start making things again and selling them all over

the world stamped with those proud words, "made in america." that's the goal. so -- [applause] the good news is we're already starting to see it happen. american manufacturers are creating jobs for the first time since the late 990s. 1990s. and that's good for you, but it's also good for the businesses that supply the materials you use, it's good for the construction workers who build the facilities you work in, it's good for communities where people are buying more houses and spending more money at restaurants and stores. everybody benefits when manufacturing is going strong. so you've heard about outsourcing. today more and more companies are insourcing. one recent study found that half of america's largest companies are thinking of moving their manufacturing operations from china back to the united states of america. [cheers and applause] that's, that's good news. [applause]

because even when we can't make things cheaper than other countries because of their wage rates, we can always make 'em better. that's who we are. that's what america's all about. [applause] so this brings me back to our to-do list. what we need to do now is to make it easier for more companies to do the right thing. and one place to start is our tax code. at the moment companies get tax breaks for moving factories, jobs and profits overseas. they can actually end up saving on their tax bill when they make the move. meanwhile, companies that choose to stay here are getting hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. that doesn't make sense. and politicians from both parties have been talking about changing it for years, so i've put forward my own plan to make it right in the long material. but in the short term before we

completely rework the tax code, before we've done a full-blown tax reform, at the very least what we can do right away is stop rewarding companies who ship jobs overseas and use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that are moving jobs back to america. so we're putting that on congress' to-do list. [applause] this is something simple to do, we shouldn't wait, we should get it done right now. so that's the fifth item. that's all on our to-do list. i'm not trying to overload congress here. [laughter] so over the next few weeks i'm going to be talking about this to-do list when i'm on the road. i'm going to be talking about all the things that congress can do right now to boost our economy and accelerate even more job growth. of course, it's not enough just to give them the list.

we've also got to get them to start crossing things off the list. and that's where all of you come in. i'm going to need you to pick up the phone, write an e-mail, tweet, remind your member of congress we can't afford the wait until november to get things done. tell them now is the time to help more americans save money on their mortgages, time for us to invest more in clean energy and small businesses, it's time for us to help more veterans find work, and it's time to make it easier for companies to bring jobs back to america. it's the right thing to do. now, i'm cheating a little bit, i said that was my to-do list. there actually is one other thing they've got to do. [laughter] before they do anything else, congress needs to keep student loan rates from doubling for students who are here and all across the country. [cheers and applause]

that has to happen by january 1st, or rates on stafford loans double. these young people are nodding their heads. they don't like that, they've heard about this. [laughter] and we need to pass a transportation bill that guarantees almost a million construction workers can stay on the job. [applause] so the good news is both parties say they want to make this happen. we've done this before. so congress just needs to work out the details. don't let politics get in the way, get this done before july 1st. those bills should be passed right now, so i'm cheating a little bit. there are actually seven items on the to-do list, but two of those items are old business, and folks have already said they want to get them done. albany, we've got a long way to go if we're going to make sure everybody who wants a job can find one. and every family can feel that

sense of security that was the essence of america's middle class experience. but we can't just go back to the way things used to be. we've got to move toward to an economy where everybody gets a fair shot, everybody's doing their fair share, everybody's playing by the same set of rules. and that's what you guys are doing here in albany. you're investing in your future. you're not going backwards. you're going forward. with your help i know we can get there because here in america we don't give up, we keep moving, we look out for one another, we pull each other up. that's who we are, and if we work together with common purpose, i've got no doubt we can remind the world just why it is the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. thank you so much, everybody. god bless you. god bless america! [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> president obama finishing up here, giving congress a to-do list of items to ato help the

economy, speaking before this audience at the state university of new york in albany in upstate new york. elsewhere on the road to the white house, three states are voting today in republican primary contests, indiana, north carolina and west virginia voters are going to the polls. in addition to the primaries, various referendums are on the ballot as well. join us later tonight for reaction and results to the vote. late last night former pennsylvania republican senator and former presidential candidate rick santorum endorsed mitt romney by e-mail. his endorsement read in part:

>> and don't forget to make c-span your home page for all things related to the 2012 campaign. watch campaign speeches and rallieses, read related documents and track campaign contributions. all of that at c-span.org/campaign2012. you're watching c-span2, with politics and be public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights, watch key public policy events and be every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedule at our web site and join in the conversation on social media sites. well, the u.s. senate is in recess at the moment to allow lawmakers to attend their weekly party caucus lunches. before the recess senators blocked a measure that would have doubled the limits of student loan rates.

back in at 2:15 eastern, we will have more live coverage then here on c-span2, and to get us there, a portion of today's "washington journal" with your phone calls and reaction to stories in today's newspapers. >> host: and here is one of several of the articles that we'll be referring to this morning. this one comes from the washington times with the. headline "americans will get heavier still." cdc report, rather, predicts 42% of adults will be obese by 2030. sign of a truce of america's continuing battle of the bulge. a report projects that u.s. obesity rates now at 36% of the population will rise to 42% within two decades, bringing with it, a tab of more than half a trillion dollars in health care and related costs. the rise would top off at three times the national obesity rate

in 1980. the country could save billons of dollars in health care costs in the coming decades simply by preventing further gains in average weight so we want to talk to you about the numbers being put out by the c.d.c. and the responsibility and who's going to help us out in trying to trim our weight lines. is that strictly on our own or is that something that the government can and will get involved in? our first caller comes from washington, ohio. cella, you're on the washington redskins. go ahead. caller: yes, i have a comment about it. i think as the middle class becomes lower and lower and lower, our indicts are going to

change to what's the cheapest, cheapest you're going to find and that's what you're going to find. and i have another comment i want to make. host: do you think the government should be involved in getting america thin or keeping america thin? caller: i think that there's are many, many problems that are interfering and i think that if people don't have jobs, if they don't have good health care, i think that the oil industry should pay their taxes so that we can use that money to help seniors keep their medicare doctors and they should be paid a living wage. the doctors need to be helped so that they don't drop medicare patients. i think this is another thing about obesity. host: all right, cella, we're going to leave it there and move

on to cleveland, tennessee. steve on our line for republican. talk to us about your thoughts regarding the obesity rates. caller: obesity? host: um-hmm. caller: yes, sir. i want to say the american people please wake up. number one, i have a very strenuous job and a guy told me the reason why i'm so successful with my job is because i'm skinny. well, the reason i'm skinny is because i eat right and i work very hard. i triple this person's numbers. so my personal opinion is they're making excuses. host: steve, what kind of job do you have? caller: i exchange power meters for the smart grid door to door. host: so you -- so that keeps you walking around a lot? caller: yeah. people are buying all these pit bulls and whatnot. host: how many miles do you figure you put in a day from

walking to house to house? caller: i couldn't really gauge but i do. -- approximately 80-90 homes a day and that requires going around the front door, going to their house around the meter and go to my truck. host: what kind of diet do you have and what kind of recommendations do you see the government putting out on like food or that kind of thing? do you pay attention to any of that stuff? caller: well, i pay attention to the government constantly and that's why i want the people to wake up. the government allow these food processors to intervene in all types of just crap and they're stuffing us full of b.s. and when you go to the store and you see the people that have these whatever kind of cards they use to get their food, the twinkies, the chips, the multiple different types of cereal, i

personally use multi-grain, regular real meat, regular real fruits, regular, you know, i try to keep everything -- i try to keep everything at a natural state. host: we move on to ed in ken wick, washington, on our line for independents. good morning, ken -- ed. caller: yeah. i talked about -- you know, the reason why it's called a food and drug administration is because food and drugs basically are one and the same, you know. if you eat healthy foods -- in fact, when you eat junk food, that's like eating poison. and i think that's all -- that's the way i look at that issue. host: that's ed in ken wick, washington. -- keno wick, washington.

there's another article in the "washington times" -- back to the phones. pam is on our line for democrats. good morning, pam. caller: yes, good morning. this is a very complicated issue. about 10 years ago, i worked at a convenience store in upstate new york. there was no supermarket for 15 miles in either direction. kids and parents would come in with food stamps to buy food. and what they bought was candy

and soda and all the junk food that everybody's talking about because we didn't sell broccoli, for example. so it's a complicated situation when poor people who don't have a car can't get to a supermarket. they have food stamps and they need to feed themselves. they're going to buy boxed macaroni and cheese, for example, which is a terrible thing to eat as the previous call said. it's a poison. so it's a really complicated situation. i don't know the answer except i myself would color code food stamps. i would make green for vegetables and so forth and the food stamps, you could only buy like three or four candy bars. you couldn't buy $150 worth of candy bars. so that would be my solution. everybody deserves a candy bar but not unlimited. so i don't know what the

ultimate solution is but obesity is going to continue as long as poor people have no access to actual supermarkets. and thanks so much for listening. host: thanks for your call. judy in missouri, you're next on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: i believe people need to be responsible, but i also believe that our government has completely failed this country. they give us genetically modified food. they do not label the foods. foods are not labeled properly. we have hormones, anti-boisk -- ant bosk and food additives put in all of our food and i'll tell you what. i'll bet you over 90% of the people do not understand and you do have to be responsible for what you eat. and eating healthy. but our government does not label our food and we do not know like so many of these

things are bad for us. the hormones are so bad for young girls. and that's what you see in drinking regular milk. host: judy, let me ask you this. you talk about the labeling and whatnot. what would you put on the label and, you know, most people when they're in their grocery shopping, they're looking for beans and the can says beans, they grab the beans. people don't really take the time to stop and read those labels. >> exactly. and our government has failed the american people on this. i do blame people do have to be responsible, but our government has failed the people because of improper labeling. host: david in cleveland, ohio, on our line for democrats. the c.d.c. says the obesity rate may hit 42% by the year 2030. what's your thoughts? caller: yes, i see that. i've been driving a truck since i got out of vietnam in 1968.

the thing is other countries around the world are charging people just about half of their paychecks to have free -- i think obama care is the way to go. because if people really have to spend a lot of money to be healthy on their insurance, they would stop eating so much. i've never seen so many fat people in my life. we are spoiled just like the world think we are. thank you. host: we've got a tweet from don richie. he addresses the obama care issue. he says if obesity costs so much, obama care should offer free liposuction. next up is dwyane in irvin, texas. dwyane is in our line for democrats. go ahead, dwyane. caller: liposuction. host: dwyane, are you there? caller: yes. host: talk to us about your thoughts regarding the obesity rate hitting 42% by 2030 according to the c.d.c. hey, dwyane, turn down your television. we're getting feedback and

that's causing some confusion there in irvin, texas. caller: really? i just called in. host: all right, dwyane, you know we're talking about the obesity rate. -- caller: this isn't dwyane. host: who is this? caller: this is ron. host: hi, ron. how are you? caller: in eagle river, wisconsin. host: nowhere near irving, texas. caller: not a clue. [laughter] host: ok, ron. the c.d.c. released a report yesterday saying that the obesity rate may hit 42% in 2030. what are your thoughts about that? caller: i think it's a situation where we cause our own problems. we're being fed foods that not necessarily nutritious. our food inspection system is just -- it's a crime that we've allowed our legislatures to let

food inspection to go as bad as we have to not even trust what we're eating in the grocery stores anymore. as of the can lope list ya -- cantaloupe and listeria problem that we have, if people can't trust what they're eating, they're going to have to go to another source and that's manufactured foods and then you run into the obesity problems. host: ron in wisconsin, thanks for the call. here's a chart that goes along with the article from the "washington times" that we've been referring to this morning talking about future obesity. experts predict an increase in the percentage of obese and very obese mernings over the next two decades and you can see the light tan is for obese, the dark

tan, severely obese and you can see the numbers rising. according to the predictions in the source here of the american journal of prevention -- preventive medicine, and we get that also from the associate press and you can see the numbers rising for both obese and severely obese. back to the phone, hope, michigan, david on our lines for independents. david, are you there? caller: yes. this is dave in hope. all i want to say is that if you look at the correlation between corporate profits and the stagnation of wages in the united states, you can put a t in between those two on a line graph and this is just one of the other problems that go along with that. we've got a bunch of dishonest people actually running our country and telling our representatives in d.c. what to

do and we have no say in it anymore. so we're getting what we deserve anyway because we're not standing up for our own rights. bye. host: that's david in hope, michigan. this is on the front page of the "u.s.a. today" this morning. "obesity rate may hit 42% and health care costs could take off too." if nothing is done, it is going to hinder health care cost containment according to a research economist with a non-profit organization in north carolina's research triangle. extra weight takes a significant toll on health. it increases the risks of type ii diabetes, heart disease, stroke, many types of cancer, sleep apnea and other debilitating and chronic illnesses. and we'll get to more of that article on the "u.s.a. today"

this morning. our next call comes from john in danville, illinois. john's on our line for democrats. go ahead, john. caller: hello. i just want to say that people with low incomes, they can't afford to eat healthy and all that. i've been taking care of my family for 31 years and we've had to eat macaroni and cheese, hamburgers, you know? it's hard to go out and buy healthy foods with low income. there's nothing you can do about it. host: john, based on your income and what you pay for food, how much more would it cost for you percentage-wise to eat healthier on a weekly basis? caller: well, you figure a family of four, it costs us about $150 to $175.

-- a week to eat and that's with toilet paper and all your other stuff, you know. you figure to eat healthy, you eat the right cuts of meat, to eat lettuce and everything, lettuce is at 100 -- i mean $1.50, $1.59 a head for lettuce. you figure that's only going to give you one meal, maybe two. host: so john, eating healthier would add what? about another $35, $50 to your food costs per week? caller: right. well, the way it's going right now, my hours have been cutting way down because delays -- you know, i wouldn't blame it on the government but i think it's more than -- what do you want to call

them? not the environment, but -- host: all right, john, we're going to leave it there. we've got another tweet. this one is from sam. he writes this is not a problem for the government to worry about. bill in michigan on our line for republicans. bill, you're on the "washington journal." you talked about what fishing sam had to say. is that is problem for the government to worry about or not? caller: definitely not. the government needs to mind its own business. they have enough trouble on the country. what i say is most americans are responsible for their own way. mind your own business. i'll take care of my family like i have like the people before me did. host: hey, bill, how's the -- bill? caller: yes. host: how'ds the health situation with your family and do you think that would be adjusted up or down? do you think you would be eating better or not?

caller: no. i retired from g.m. in 2008. took a job at $10 an hour because i didn't want to stay home. we buy apples, broccoli. you cook it, wash them not -- watch them not eat it. kids get at a certain age, you want to force them, well, you're going to bring in child abuse. i say mind your own business. i will raise my children like i have been and i've got two good men. you guys, good luck with your children. host: jonathan in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: jonathan, your thoughts about the obesity rate hitting 42% in 2030. caller: i believe it's the direct correlation in the government and that the f.d.a. is doing. you've got pink slime in all your meat and you've got sugar in everything which -- the glucose in that. that's why we're having insulin and diabetes problems and obese

problems because there's sugar in everything. the access to good foods is cut in half and the government is the direct correlation of that. we spent the last 40 years eating foods that are all meats have been injected with steroids, the chemistry in the water. everything has been building up for us to gain this weight now that we're overweight, you know, we're starting to complain about it. but this is in direct correlation and the f.d.a. and our government is not doing their job in watching the foods that is being put out to us thank you for being on the "washington journal." we're going to go back to the obesity rate hitting 42% by 2030 from the c.d.c. "the washington post," the headline reflects that. nation's health and economic welfare expected to suffer. they write this view into the future is less ominous than one published four years ago that predicted that 51% of the

population would be obese in 2030. nevertheless, the trend for tells a huge drag on the economic and welfare of the united states. we'll get to more on that article in a few minutes. let's go to damane on our line for republican. damane, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning for c-span. i really appreciate how you guys cover the news. i think it's a false premise that to eat healthy costs more. in fact, buying the unpackaged or foods that you need to prepare are often much healthier and more often less expensive. but the government has conflict of interest because it subsidizes a lot of agriculture industries that foods that aren't necessarily healthy. host: like what? give me an example there.

caller: the beef industry or >> you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7 eastern on our companion america, c-span. we are going back live now to the u.s. senate, senators returning from weekly caucus lunches after earlier today blocking a measure that hoped to prevent the doubling of student interest rate loans due to go into effect on july 1st. and now live to the senate floor. few hours ago, where our republican colleagues voted to filibuster our efforts to make sure that student loans in this country do not double from 3.4% to 6.8% in july. i think everybody understands that the young people in our country today in the midst of this terrible recession are facing extraordinary challenges. they are paying three to four times as much than their parents paid for a college education,

regardless of whether they attend a private or public college. and when they receive their diplomas, they have no guarantee, given the state of the economy today, that they are going to be able to get a job and earn the income to pay off those debts. given the challenges that college students today are facing, the least we can do is to keep student loan interest rates at a low rate for another year. the interest rate on subsidized stafford loans has been steadily reduced since congress passed the college cost reduction and access act of 2007, but if congress does nothing, interest rates on subsidized stafford loans are set to double from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1, 2012.

when we talk about stafford loans, we are talking about student loans for students from low- and moderate-income backgrounds. subsidized stafford loans are need based and targeted to students who otherwise might not be able to attend college. nearly one-third of undergraduates have benefited from these low-interest federal loans, and if the interest rate doubles this year, the rate hike will impact up to nine million students, and we must not allow that to happen. among the students who will be impacted are 19,000 young people from the state of vermont. in my state, nearly 70% of college graduates are carrying student loan debts.

70%. and on average that debt is $30,000. which puts vermont at the sixth highest student loan debt in the country. mr. president, everybody understands that in order to get ahead in the economy today, it is very important that one has a college degree. the cost of college education is soaring, and in the state of vermont that i have talked to many of these young people and throughout this country, students are leaving college deeply, deeply in debt. 19,000 students in the state of vermont are on stafford loans, and if interest rates double from 3.4% to 6.8%, it will make their current situations, which are very difficult, much, much worse.

so, mr. president, i hope that our republican colleagues will end their filibuster. i hope we can get back to work as soon as possible in passing a bill which will maintain stafford loan rates at 3.4%. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. a senator: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent the time from 2:15 to 5:15 -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mrs. boxer: i ask that it be called off. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: i ask that the time be divided between the leaders for he or their designees and all quorum calls be also divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i thought before i put the details out on the impact of not helping students in this difficult economic climate get student loans that they can afford, i just wanted to say that i was stunned that my republican friends refused to give us a vote to proceed to the issue. and i think every student in

america today should turn their focus to this chamber because the republican party today made it impossible for us to lower your student loan rates. they made it impossible. and this is going to mean thousands and thousands of dollars over the life of a student loan. and so while the republicans are calling for a major -- major tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires of $100,000, $200,000 a year, in cuts, they don't have the heart to help middle-class students get a break on their interest rates for college. and for graduate school. i find it appalling. and if anyone wants to know the difference between the parties, start with this. who do you fight for when you're here? we all say we're for the next

generation. we all have the speeches. oh, they're terrific, they are beautiful, each party. but when push comes to shove, who's voting to help our students get an interest rate that they can afford so they're not shackled to a high interest rate at a time of historic low interest rates? democrats are on their side, and all we have to do is looking at the vote today. there's nothing else. you don't have to understand any more than the republicans blocked us from debating the importance of lowering interest on student loans. i'll be back and put in the record individual stories from my constituents, but let's wake up, america. parents, wake up. students, wake up. the democrats today proved that we're on your side. the republicans proved they were not. period.

that vote says it all. it's not complicated. they'll make it complicated. they'll talk about procedure and this and that. the bottom line is the bottom line. the republicans voted not to allow us to vote on ways and methods to lower interest rates for our students. so don't be fooled. you'll hear speeches on why they voted no and this and that, and they'll come up with things. the bottom line is they wouldn't even let us debate this. i am stunned today. i had assumed we would be on that bill. so america, if you look today, you look at the senate floor and you don't see much activity except a few of us coming to speak, you thought today was the day we were going to vote to lower interest on student

loans, it's a filibuster. we were stopped by the republicans once again just like they have stopped us time and time again. they come to the floor with every reason you can imagine, but we've got news. we have two independent scholars that wrote a very important paper. they are nonpartisan, and you know what they said in this paper? they said, you know, we thought -- we used to think it was both sides that were stopping progress. now we know it's one side. it's the republican side. and today is yet another example. and i hope everyone within the sound of my voice -- and you're going to hear stories today about what's happening, and i hope people will write us all. email us with your stories. tell us what it means to you to have to spend thousands more unnecessarily on a student loan. give us the stories.

let us tell the stories. i hope you will send us those stories and i hope you will send a message to those who voted to filibuster this very important legislation today that they are not on the side of the american people, they are not on the side of the working families, they are not on the side of the middle class, they are not on the side of economic progress, they are not on the side of economic growth. and, mr. president, i thank you so much for the time and by yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. brown: wow. that was interesting. i remember the senator was speaking before me before we left she was praising the republicans for working with her, one republican specifically, about how appreciative she was about working together and taking the time in a bipartisan manner to work forward on a very important piece of legislation that she was spearheading and we worked for. we didn't filibuster that. we didn't filibuster the postal bill, we didn't filibuster the

violence against women, the crowdfunding or the insider trading bill but all of a sudden we're filibustering now. bottom line, we wants an opportunity to have an alternative proposal and have a full and fair debate and i think the american people are smart. i know the smerp are -- american people are smarter than that. and i stand before you today to just reference that most students and parents know that in july the fixed interest rates on subsidized government student loans are set to double. that was very eloquently pointed out just now. but let's be clear. the vast majority of the members of this body want to prevent that from happening. that's a no-brainer. unfortunately today we voted on a bill that's not bipartisan. it's very clear it's not bipartisan to raise taxes on subchapter s corporations which are the people that are doing some of the very serious job creation in this country, it's not going to pass the house. it's not going to pass muster for and with the american people. it was not negotiated in good

faith and as i said, it has no chance of 356g in the -- passing in the house of representatives. once again we're preparing for an unnecessary political battle. that's kind of what happens. we have a rough spot, then do two or three things that are really good and then we get stuck again, then do two or three things that are really good, and, you know, it's unnecessary. we need t -- we need to work in good faith and negotiate a compromise instead, a 100% democratic bill is not going to pass, folks. listening up there on trvetion a 100% republican bill isn't going to help. it needs to be a bipartisan, bicameral bill that the president will sign. they's how we passed some of the most important pieces of legislation dealing with ethics on the insider trading bill that i was proud to sponsor with senator gillibrand in a bipartisan manner. we got it through and out of this chamber and passed and signed in record time by the president. we just passed the postal bill. we did the violence against women. we did the crowdfunding, the

jobs package. we've done these thongs. we need to work in the same manner. with so many recent graduates unembroid or underemployed, members of congress need to work together. rather than wasting time trying to blame the other side, let's try to build some bridges as we actually -- before we left, i thought we had done that. i was looking forward to getting right back at it and working on important things like cybersecurity and the student loan interest issue. so let's all, people of good faith, figure out how to solve these problems. today as i've referenced to many of my colleagues in our weekly caucuses and through e-mail, a bill that would extend the 3.4% rate for another year without raising taxes, as being proposed, or by cutting sacred programs, which is also being proposed. my bill, the subsidized stafford loans reduced interest rate extension act, would extend the

subsidized rate for a year and to pay for it i suggest a noncontroversial option -- reducing federal improper payments. we've all heard about the amazing amount of waste that goes on just by paying people that are dead that shouldn't be getting their payments and also paying other entities that have already been paid or being improperly paid. it's millions -- i'm sorry, billions and billions of dollars. the bill establishes a government-wide do not-pay list and requires new audit programs across federal agencies to provide more tools to battle back and make sure we can recapture those moneys. let meet give you a few examples of the improper payments so the folks up there listening and watching on tv can kind of reference. the payments that i hear work as ranking memg of the federal financial management subcommittee, a committee that senator carper and i have been working in a bipartisan manner once again to solve problems --

medicaid, which is the primary source of health coverage for over 50 million americans, made an estimated $21.9 billion of our tax dollars in improper payments in 2011. the federal state unemployment insurance programs made an estimated $13.7 billion of improper payments in 2011. s.s.i. made an estimated $4.6 billion in improper payments in 2011. i think if i'm not mistaken, we're looking for $billion to pay for the student loan extension. i just referenced almost $38 billion, $39 billion. we need $6 billion. that's it. you know, we spend over $1 billion in payments that are sent to dead people, as i said, $1 billion we pay -- can you believe that? -- we pay a billion dollars to people that are dead. billions in payments sent to the wrong recipient, billions in payments where documentation is

missing and where the recipient is not using the funds for the intended purpose. all we have to do is being marginally successful, just marginally successful to recover the $6 billion we need to pay for this very important student loan program. when government is so wasteful, raising taxes should not always be the first thing that we look at. how about reestablishing the trust with the american taxpayer, the people that are listening up in the gallery and on tv? why is it every single time we've got to raise taxes on one particular group or another? this time we're going after the small business orientation the "s" corporation owners. my bill is chance to bring people together to find a solution we can all live with. i am willing to work with my colleagues and consider all options the that will allow us to move forward. if we fail to act, we will

burden our stiewntdzs who are going to college with an extra $1,000 in student loan interest. just because we couldn't find a compromise. pretty simple. you know, the student loan situation is we're all discussing and has been discussed throughout this country through various media outlets and the like and they're focusing more and more and more on this which i any is critical. we need to start a national conversation about addressing the primary issue affecting families with kids in college, the cost of annual tuition room and board between 2000 and 2010, the cost of togs room and board rose 36% and that's after adjusting for inflation. that means that students are now paying a third more for the same education they would have gotten 10 years ago. looking at previous decades shows a similar trend from 1990 to 2000, the increase was 26%, 80 to 90 was 37%. so why are students paying so much more for the same education in as we know, it is a huge

family -- it is a huge problem for families. and while tuition is skyrocketing, there is still a total lack of transparency when it comes to schools' financial decisions. if the recent reports of outrageous administrator and faculty compensation packages are any indication, it would seem that students and parents -- students and parents are funding administrators and faculty members' million-dollaral is race. instead of being surprised by every expo say of outrageous pay package, i propose schools to post their financial transactions on their web sites. this would not be hard to do. in fact, if the i.r.s. already requires nonprofit institutions of higher education to file the i.r.s. form 990 yearly which includes disclosure of the compensation packages for the highest-paid employees. it also provides a financial

snapshot of the school's finances and also how schools will choose to spend their tuition dollars and making the information available so easily online will increase transparency and allow the students and general public to check the school's spending decisions way before they make headline news. on the outrageous pay issue, citizens united may help begin to solve the spending problem associated with the high cost of education. no one disputes the cost of a college education but we're setting our students up for failure by giving them above-market student loans and not requiring our schools to be transparent about their financial operations. so my suggestion, mr. president, is let's work together. let's not fail our students. it's time we finally focus the federal government on how we can set our students up for success instead of failure. mr. president, i want to thank you and i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. harkin: mr. president, here we are, an empty senate

chamber, while families across the country are wondering whether or not they're going to have to come up with more money to pay higher interest rates on their student loans beginning on july 1. it's going to happen unless we take action. we've tried to take action, but, quite frankly, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the republicans, won't even let us go to the bill. we had our vote here almost three hours ago. we recessed for our different party conferences as we do every tuesday. and so here we sit without being able to even proceed to the bill because the republicans have voted against closing down debate and moving to the bill and offering amendments and having an up-or-down vote. this is a pattern that's all too familiar, as we know, over the last few years, more and more

filibusters, more and more cloture motions, as they say, to end the debate. it's really unfair to families and students all over america. and here i address my comments to students. they are the ones that are trying to get a higher education because they know that is the pathway, the gateway to the middle class in america. our young people today know that in the future the jobs of the future are going to require a higher education. they understand that. and so, many are scrambling to try to put together the resources to pay for college. we had a young woman this morning, marissa mccants from howard university, who spoke with us, first in her family to

go to college. from philadelphia; she goes to howard. very poor background, very poor family. she put -- eked together, put together pell grants, work-study programs, summer work jobs that she's worked on, and plus her subsidized loans which if i'm not mistaken she had somewhere in the neighborhood of $13,000 or $15,000 in debt. the last thing florissa mccan'tts needs is to have an additional $1,000 year put on her student loan interest. that's what's going to happen if we don't act here. it's really unfair to her and millions of students like her all over the country that we sit here and do nothing -- and do nothing -- while they wonder whether or not they're going to have to pay more in their

interest charges on july 1. it's really unfair. we have -- on our side we have a solid proposal to keep the interest rates down for the next year to 3.4%, where they are right now, rather than having them double to 6.8%. to do that, to pay for it, we have proposed that we close a glaring loophole in the tax code which applies only to subchapter "s" corporations. a lot of people say what's that gobbledygook mean, subchapter "s" corporations? subchapter "s" corporations are small, very small compared to the giant corporations you normally think of. very small. and within that small universe of subchapter "s" corporations, as they're called, there's even a smaller universe.

and that smaller universe is comprised of professionals like lawyers and accountants, people who give advice, do their own work, and they form a small corporation. because of the fog that surrounds whether or not someone is paid a salary or paid from dividends, many, many people who form these subchapter "s" corporations are not paying their fair share of social security and medicare taxes. what we have proposed is that we draw a bright line so that people know whether or not they're getting paid a salary or wages or whether it's coming out of dividends. the joint tax committee says this will raise for us $9 billion over the next several years, enough to help us pay for keeping the interest rates low. so our proposal accomplishes two good things. it closes the tax loophole

that's glaring. i should say three things. it closes that loophole. secondly, it puts more money into medicare and social security trust funds. and third, it helps us keep interest rates low for students in this country. you think that would be a no brainer. i think most people would say that is kind of a no brainer, but our friends on the republican side refuse to even let us bring the bill up for debate and a vote. now, they, my republican friends, have suggested a different way of paying for this. they want to protect those few people in these subchapter "s" corporations, very wealthy people, from paying those taxes. they have suggested -- the republicans have suggested instead that we take all the money to pay for keeping the interest rates low out of the prevention and public health

trust fund, prevention fund as it's known that was -- that is in the affordable care act. again, that would -- it would drain all the money out of it. it would completely eliminate the program. i suggest that people look at today's headline. just look at the headline in "usa today." "usa today," look at the headline this morning. 42% -- 42% of the adult population by 2030 expected to be obese. by 2030. and out of that, one out of every four will be severely obese. the same report was also in "the washington post" this morning. a study predicts 42% of americans will be obese by 2030, which will shorten life and incurs large medical expenses.

in fact, if obesity stays at its current level -- 34% -- and does not increase, the savings in projected health care costs will be considerable. about $550 billion. half a trillion dollars. that's what the prevention fund is doing. it is out there working every day. it's only been in existence a couple years now. putting things in place to prevent people from being obese. to prevent kids from getting adult onset diabetes at ages 10 and 11 and 12 years of age. in 1980, only 15% of americans were obese. in 1980. today it's about, as i said, about 34%. what if we had had in place in the 1980's and 1990's and in the last decade the prevention fund that we have that does all the

things necessary to help people make healthy choices and lead healthy lives and not become obese? think of the savings that we would have in our health care system today if we would have had a prevention fund like that in 1980. and rather than having 34% obese people in america today, we had 15% or 16%. or project that forward to 2030. if we don't act now, 42%. and again, if it goes there, it's going to cost us $550 billion in the next 20 years. $550. so preventing this, which we know we can do -- we have evidence-based proof that certain interventions and programs work. and not only does it keep obesity down, all the other related illnesses like diabetes

and heart disease will be lessened; thus saving us even more money. well, the prevention fund is what the republicans want to kill. they want to eliminate it. they want to eliminate it. well, i think that is disappointing and disturbing after all that we know, after all that we have seen in the past on prevention and public health and what we can do to prevent illness, prevent obesity, prevent diabetes in children and to say we're not going to do that, we're just not going to -- we're not going to put the resources forward to prevent it. and we know that for every dollar we spend on prevention, we're reaping anywhere from $3 to $10 or pho in just the first -- or more in just the first couple of years on each dollar that we invest in prevention. and so, here we are at an impasse again.

once again the senate's at an impasse because we can't move to a bill. we can't amend it. we can't vote on it. we can't even debate it other than talking about it right now like i'm doing. republicans refuse to let us even get to the bill. well, we will continue. we will continue to tell the american people what's at stake here and what the differences are. these are policy differences, and the american people should know what those policy differences are. republicans say they want to keep the student interest rate at 3.4%. and we say we do too. well, okay, then what's the difference? the policy difference is in how we pay for it. how we pay to make sure that we keep interest rates low. well, i think the logical thing would be to have the bill come before the senate floor, offer

an amendment. if the republicans want to offer an amendment to take the money out of the prevention fund and kill and eliminate the prevention fund, let them offer the amendment and we'll vote on it. we'll see if they have the votes to do that. they can debate it if they want, and we'll be glad to debate and discuss closing this tax loophole on subchapter "s" corporations. i think that would be a good, healthy debate, and i think it would be a policy difference that the american people should see. which way would they like to go. which way would they, the american people, like to go if they really knew the two sources of how we're going to pay for this? well, we're going to continue to talk about this because i think the american people should know what's at stake here in this filibuster that we have in front of us right now.

now i know my friends on the other side of the aisle, they say, well, you know, president obama he wanted to take some money out of the prevention fund that. did happen. that did happen in order to extend for one year the unemployment insurance provisions and also the payroll tax cut this year. and they seem to think that well, since we've already taken some money out of the prevention fund, we can just kill the whole thing. my analogy this morning, mr. president, was i said it's one thing to take a couple of pints of blood. it's another thing to take all your blood. they took some nicks out of the prevention fund and i didn't support, but the fund is still healthy. it's alive. it's doing its job. it could do more if it had more money. nonetheless, it's still there doing its job. the republicans are saying kill the whole thing. drain all the blood out of it. well, i don't think the american people want to go there.

it seems to me that it just doesn't make common sense that we would pit the health of the american people, and women's health especially -- women's health, children's health, and elderly -- that are benefitting right now from these prevention funds, benefitting right now. every person on medicare gets a free colonoscopy every year when they want it, free breast cancer screening, free cholesterol screening, a free health checkup every year so they know what their health is like and they can take better control of their health. immunizations, childhood checkups, provisions that go out into communities for healthier living in our communities. better nutrition for our kids in schools. fresh fruits and vegetables. more physical activity. that's all in the prevention

fund, and that's what they want to do away with. it's too bad that they are trying to pit the health of our women and children and the future against students. it's just not right. as i have said many times, i keep saying it, i have heard from the other side. we're going after job creators. see, if we raise the taxes, you see, on a subchapter s, if we close that loophole, we're hurting job creators. first of all, the provisions in our bill on subchapter s only affects a corporation with three or fewer stockholders. hardly job creators. if somebody wants to start a corporation five, ten, 15, 20, well, that's different. this doesn't touch you. it only touches you if you have less than three shareholders, if your income is over $250,000 a

year income, joint filer, and you are a subchapter s corporation. right now -- some say well, you know, they can get audited. i had an example i used the other day of a person who was claiming they didn't have to pay their social security and medicare taxes because they were a subchapter s corporation, and the individual, pretty ingenious that had set up a subchapter s corporation. he contributed, he donated his time, and in exchange he got dividend payments, profits from this subchapter s as did his wife and i believe his child. there were three of them. he, his wife and child. and did not pay social security taxes. well, he happened to get audited and the -- and the justice department took him to court, tax court. tax court found out that really

he was -- he was being paid. he was making a salary, an income and he had to pay social security taxes on that. well, when i use that example, my friends on the republican side say well, that's just it. all we have to do is audit them and we don't have to close this loophole. i had to point out that only one one -- only .5% of filings of subchapter s corporations are audited. if you're out there and there is not a bright line as to whether you are salaried or getting dividends, there is kind of a fog out there, why wouldn't i err on the side of saying i don't have to pay those taxes because the odds are 99.5-1 that i will never get audited. pretty good odds, pretty good odds. 99.5% of the time, no one is ever audited. and if you are audited, you get a slap on the wrist, pay a little fine and move on. so what our bill does is it

provides certainty, it provides certainty to subchapter s corporations that if you fall on this side of the line, you're salaried. if you have less than three shareholders. if you fall on the other side, you can get dividends, and that way you don't have to pay social security and medicare taxes. quite frankly, i think that would be in the best interests of everyone including the subchapter s corporations. so, mr. president, again i ask that the article that appeared in "the washington post" this morning by david brown appear at this point in the record on the study that predicts 42% of americans will be obese in 2030. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: and again, mr. president, i hope the republicans will talk among themselves. i hope they will listen to the students and their families who don't want to be hung out there this week and next week and on and on and on, not knowing

whether or not they're going to have to pay higher interest rates on their student loans. let's have cloture on this. let's bring the bill up. let's vote on it. if they have amendments, fine, we'll vote on them, but at least let's move the bill. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to spend a little time today talking about what has become known across the country as the obama economy. this administration after nearly four years has failed to get this country and to get our economy moving again. even worse, as i look at it, this administration seems to be taking steps that appear to be methodically and deliberately sabotaging certain parts of our nation's economy. they're doing this in sectors of the economy that apparently to me they just don't like, and they're doing it by issuing thousands and thousands of pages of red tape on the very people in this country who have in the past successfully created jobs for americans. this administration has

finalized 1,330 rules that have been deemed what's called economically significant. they have proposed over 1,300 additional economically significant rules. so what does this mean, this term economically significant? well, those are rules that have an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more. 57 coal-fired power plants have already announced their closure because of the cumulative effect of these rules on just this one industry. the e.p.a. is proposing regulations on whole sectors of the economy, whether it's issuing new storm water regulations for existing buildings to requiring costly clean water act permits. they're doing this for ditches on family farms. thousands of america's jobs have already been lost, and others are on the chopping block just due to these rules. not a just law that has been passed but the rules that come

out from this administration. each time that the e.p.a. claims that the benefits of the rules vastly outweigh the costs, but the costs are real in terms of real dollars to the economy and the benefits are unknown. the administration claims that the benefits are in so-called -- quote -- "saved future health care costs." that's how they define it, saved future health care costs. the e.p.a. and this administration has a history of understating the costs and of overstating in my opinion the benefits. the e.p.a.'s math on the benefits and the costs of their rules is not even close to being accurate. now, this has been verified in testimony before the senate environment and public works committee, on which i serve as a member. the e.p.a. rules that set new burdensome mission on a -- limits on emission pollutants such as mercury and sulfur dioxide. well, those rules can have serious costs to plants and

factories and have to upgrade their facilities with costly equipment or simply close to be underirthe new standards. new standards. not the old standards, but new standards. those reduction yields few quantifiable benefits to the economy, and that's not me saying it. that's the e.p.a.'s own models. they admit that the reductions yield very few quantifiable benefits to the economy. the costs are usually significant to the businesses in terms of the actual expenses, as well as to the public, to the people looking for jobs in terms of jobs that are lost. the e.p.a. knows no one would buy into their rules with such high price tags, so in order to inflate the so-called benefits of their rules, the e.p.a. says that as a result of having less emission from plants and factories, they must -- there must also be reductions in particulate matter or dust at the same time. well, they then make the

inaccurate conclusion that reductions in the dust will somehow yield billions of dollars in health benefits because folks will have healthier lungs and visit the doctor fewer times. these reductions in dust are often in areas where the dust level today already is well within public health safety standards that are set by the e.p.a. so the folks aren't actually getting sick in those areas anyway. so if people aren't already getting sick in the areas where the e.p.a. is trying to regulate the air, then how is it that they can claim they are going to save billions of dollars and fewer visits to the hospital by reducing the dust levels even fewer than today's safe levels? what we know now is that the e.p.a. is cooking the books. at the same time, they are missing the real public health threat that they themselves, the e.p.a., is making worse. that is the public health threat

from high unemployment. i recently released a report and it's entitled red tape, making americans sick. a new report on health impacts of high unemployment. red tape, making americans sick, a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment. studies show e.p.a. rules cost americans their jobs and their health. this is a report submitted by the subcommittee on clean air and nuclear safety by the minority subcommittee staff, and i ask, mr. president, that this be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. this is a comprehensive report, and it contains expert testimony before the environment and public works committee. the best research science from institutions such as johns hopkins, yale university and others. this key medical research and testimony on the impact of unemployment on public health is

irrefutable. the report concludes high unemployment increases the likelihood of hospital visits, of illnesses and of premature death in communities. that's high unemployment. high unemployment raises health care costs, raising further questions about the claimed health savings of the e.p.a.'s regulations, and high unemployment hurts children's health and family well-being. on june 15, 2011, dr. harvey brenner of johns hopkins university testified before the senate environment and public works committee. here are the facts. he says -- quote -- "the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates and epidemiological studies performed since the early 1980's. well-known fact now for over 30 years. in addition to the includes on mental disorder, suicide and alcohol abuse and alcoholism, alcohol is also an important

risk factor in cardiovascular disease and an overall decrease in life expectancy. i come to you as a physician, someone who practiced medicine in wyoming, taking care of wyoming families for more than a quarter of a century, and i will tell you this is perfectly in keeping with my experience in the years of medicine that i practiced. yale researcher dr. william gala's paper on the impact of late career job loss reports -- quote -- "results suggest that the true costs of late career unemployment exceed financial deprivation and include substantial health consequences." substantial health consequences. he goes on to say -- "physicians who treat individuals who lose jobs as they near retirement should consider the loss of employment a potential risk factor for adverse vascular health changes." so what is that? well, it's stroke, high blood pressure, heart disease, major

killers, major things that result in disability and long-term problems and increasing the cost of care. so let's look also now at the impact of joblessness on children. the national center for health statistics concluded -- quote - "children in poor families were four times as likely, four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children in families that are not poor. well, i have seen, mr. president, firsthand how economic challenges affect americans' health and the quality of life. in my medical opinion, this country faces a worsening health threat from unemployment. now, well over 30 months of unemployment rates well over 8%. i have urged the e.p.a. to seriously consider the impacts of these rules and the new rules they continue to come out with. these rules and how they have a bad impact on families, on pregnant women, on children, on the elderly. the e.p.a. has not looked at

these serious health impacts that their rules result in. they continue, the e.p.a. continues to hide behind computer models, not real people but computer models that churn out inflated, fictitious so-called benefits of health. the time to get serious about public health is now. now, in fact, there was a "usa today" article on monday of last week, and i brought a copy along because it was very disturbing, mr. president. it's a copy on the front page of "usa today," monday, april 30, 2012. "police tie domestic violence, economy." survey, incidents rise after financial collapse. the article states, mr. president, that police are encountering more domestic violence related to the sluggish economy, the national survey of law enforcement agencies are fine. these are law enforcement agencies across the country,

their national survey. the article quotes camden, new jersey, police chief scott thompson who stated it is -- quote -- "impossible, chief thompson says, impossible to separate the economy from the domestic turmoil in the city where unemployment is 19%." camden police chief scott thompson went on to say -- quote -- "when stresses in the home increase because of unemployment and other hardships, domestic violence increases." he says, "we see it on the street." so, mr. president, these types of reports of increased domestic violence due to unemployment are not just being recorded in camden, new jersey. the article cites chuck wexler of the law enforcement think tank who expressed deep concerns with the rising violence. he says you're dealing with households in which people have lost jobs or are in fear of losing their jobs, because there is a lot of fear out there, mr. president. he goes on to say this is an added stress that can push

people to the breaking point. and i agree, it is certainly what i saw as well in my days of medical training and medical practice. the health crisis from unemployment under this administration is getting worse. in may of 2012, "christian science monitor" may 4, their article on the unemployment rate says -- quote -- "while the economy added 115,000 net jobs in april, some 350,000 americans gave up looking for work." so for every one new job that was added, three people gave up looking for work. that has the effect of reducing the unemployment rate because by the federal government way of calculating it, those people no longer count as part of the labor force. as a result, the share of americans who are part of the labor force either working or actively looking for work has reached a 30-year low. you can add those numbers and

look at those and say 350,000 people and put that to the list of folks who are now at risk for serious health impacts due to the obama economy. if we want to make americans healthy, we need to get americans back to work. we need to get the e.p.a. out of the business of making folks unemployed across this country. each new job is a job that will put food on the table for struggling families and help keep medical costs under control. new jobs will keep thousands of americans out of the doctor's office and onto the play tbrownd. creating jobs will keep those nearing retirement from paying for more prescription drugs so they can spend more time and money with their grandchildren. creating jobs will ensure that the next generation will be healthier than the palace. let's work together to improve public health by reducing this administration's red tape that is putting so many americans out of work.

the health and happiness of the american people depends upon it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. demint: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: i ask the quorum the suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. demint: thank you, mr. president. i'd just like to make a few comments about free markets, free enterprise and the role of government, particularly as it relates to the export-import bank. when people ask me if i'm pro-business or pro-labor, i say i'm neither. i'm pro-freedom. freedom is the only political principle that cannot be bent to serve special interests. remember how 7 up used to call itself the uncola? well, freedom is the unspecial interest. freedom protected by the constitution and the rule of law

works for everyone. it allows everyone, left or right, young or old, rich or poor, to make their own choices according to their own values. government's job shouldn't be to tilt the field for one team or another but to guarantee a level playing field for everyone. that's why i'm against forcing workers to join unions, i'm against congressional earmarks for favored groups, government bailouts for wall street, and energy subsidies, both for oil companies and for green energy companies. let's look at recent events surrounding the boeing company, one of south carolina's most important employers. as a south carolinian, as an american, and just as a guy who likes cool airplanes, i love boeing. when boeing's home state labor union ganged upped with president barack obama's national labor relations board to try to sue boeing for

building a new factory in north charl storntion i strongly support -- charleston, i strongly supported boeing's freedom to build phaktorie facte ever they please. dust has been kicked up over the ex-im bank. because boeing receives export-imporexport-importsubsidr winding down the ex-im bank instead of increasing its budget, some ask if i went from being pro-boeing to anti-boeing. neither. i've -- i'm just being pro-freedom. in both cases, my guiding principle is the same: liberty. freedom isn't perfect, but it is fair. and anytime government hands out favors, they're being unfair to someone. when washington picks winners and losers, in the end taxpayers

always lose, and the ex-im bank is no exception. the ex-im bank started out decades ago with a lending cap of $5 million to help american companies sell into a global economy that barely existed. today the cap has ballooned into $100 billion. in a booming global economy. and what have the american people gotten for their moaf mo? millions in loans to another solar company to sell solar panels to itself in another country. $600 million in loans to enron projects before ken lay went to prison. all this after ex-im has already sought its own $3 billion taxpayer bailout. this isn't a criticism of an agency or an administration but of government subsidies in the first place.

when government stays out of markets, businesses focus on their customers, quality improves, prices fall, and everyone wins. when government steps in, businesses turn their attention from their customers to their congressman and hire influence peddlers instead of innovators. the pace of inknowvation slaws, prices rise and quality suffers. defenders say the ex-im bank is needed because europe subsidizes their exports. but europe says the same about our export-import bank. we're at a bidding war with other countries for the biggest subsidies. still, exporters say the cost of doing business in america is too high to compete. i agree. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, so let's cut taxes. let's reform our insane $1.75

trillion-per-year regulatory state. let's reform education and liberate our children from failing schools and create a better-prepared workforce for the future. let's repeal the government takeover of health care and put an end to predatory lawsuits filed against innocent businesses. in short, let's fix the rules of our game to make all of our exports competitive rather than rigging them for one company or product at a time. our policies should make the united states the best place in the world to buy, sell, farm, manufacture, patent, invent, invest, innovate, and educate -- for everyone in every industry. look at what today's ad hoc economic policy making has done to america, where a collection of narrow special interests buy for the favortism of discredited

politicians while we mount unsustainable debt onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. that is what i'm against. what i'm for is a level playing field, a set of clear rules that guarantees the freedom of entrepreneurs to make and sell what they want and the freedom of customers to buy what they want. i'm not for big business or big labor. i'm for big freedom for everyone. thank you, mr. president. i yield back and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president,? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: madam president, i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i rise to address the motion to proceed that we're currently debating. a motion to proceed to a bill that would sustain the 3.4% interest rate on stafford

student loans. now, earlier we had a vote to attempt to conclude the debate over whether we should get to the bill, and that has to have a supermajority of 60 under the rules of the senate, and we didn't have that supermajority. my colleagues across the aisle voted against debating whether or not to sustain the 3.4% on student loans. or to put it differently, they voted to block this effort and preserve 6.8% as the rate that we'll go to shortly if we don't address this legislation. now, i can tell you that i think students at every institution in oregon would be appalled that the u.s. senate isn't willing to hold a debate over the doubling of the cost of student loans. this has a tremendously powerful

impact on the affordability of education across america. we are at that point in the history of the world where nations are interconnected, we have a global knowledge economy, and the nations that prepare their children well not only will have the best future for those individual children but will have the best economy down the road. so what is the impact of doubling the cost of student loans? well, certainly for many students, it means that they will not complete their education. they are facing diminished job prectsz, they -- prospects, they are facing expensive tuition. there is only so many part-time jobs that they can take while still attempting to complete their coursework and at some point they say, you know, the burdens -- the burden, it's too heavy, the debt burden is

too heavy. the hurdles are too high. and then we all lose. our children lose the opportunity to fulfill their potential, to pursue their dreams, and our economy loses because we are not the best prepared around the world. indeed, across america, we are becoming the first generation of parents whose children are getting less education than we got. i would like to see that debated on the floor of the senate. i'd like to hear a senator stand up and say they are proud of the fact that america is failing its children. i'd like to hear that defended, because i certainly have a different view. i have a view that in terms of the opportunity for our children and the success of our economy, we have to address the issue of the affordability of college tuition. now, the folks who can capture this issue the best are our students themselves, so i've

come to the floor to read a letter from one of the students in my home state who is making the case that we should debate this issue, that we should address the affordability of college. and here is what he has to say. quote -- "senator jeff merkley, my name is mario parker milligan. i'm the student body president at lane community college in eugene, oregon. my job as president gives me many opportunities" -- and that's president of the student body -- "gives me opportunities to discuss issues that students find important to them and i often find myself lobbying or advocating for issues that don't directly affect me." he continues, "today is different. today i find myself seeing a federal and statewide disinvestment in higher education students across the nation and dramatically here in oregon. at the same time, more and more students are needing need-based aid while it, too, is being

diminished. students are graduating from college but our debt loads are increasing, we are finding fewer jobs upon graduation. with all of these other barriers -- low, federal and state investment pricing students out of tuition, low financial aid leads to high student debt and few jobs upon graduation -- the process of having stafford loans interest rates doubling is a haunting thought. students are continuing to pay more and get less for our education." mario continues, "today the average student is graduating with $25,000 of loan debt. i have over $18,000 of loan debt today. an interest rate of 6.8% on to which thousands of dollars we owe in this economy doesn't seem smart either. i'm not close to being done with my education and am fearful to continue to take out loans when i think of how long it will take to pay it back. students rely heavily on student

loans in order to complete college in a timely manner. otherwise, many of us are forced to work two to three jobs while attempting to go to college full-time, which usually result in prolonged stays and more debt ." and in his final paragraph, mario says, "as a member of the board of directors for both the oregon student association and the united states student association, both associations working to break down barriers to higher education, i hear stories of students that are having to choose whether or not they put food on the table or keep lights on at home. affordability is a leading barrier to quality education and raising interest rates will only continue to price students out of an education. please vote to maintain the stafford loan interest rates at 3.4%. don't double our debt. sincerely, mario parker milligan of eugene, oregon." i think mario does voice the concern of hundreds of thousands

of students across america who are working hard to complete their course work, to pursue their dream, to gain the skills to -- to provide both a purpose in life, a life mission, if you will, and a stable financial foundation. and the prospect of coming out of college with debts that come close to a mortgage on a home is , indeed, daunting. i must say, i -- i view this through the lens as my own experience as a child of a working family. my father was a millwright and then a mechanic ache. and no one in my family had ever gone to college, and i was the first. and the prospect of debt was a consideration that worried my -- my family. and with this unfamiliar course, if you will, that i was

undertaking. and i feel very fortunate that in the end, the combination of work-study, affordable loans, and scholarship meant that i graduated from my undergraduate education without the heavy debt burden, very modest dealt -- debt burden, not the heavy debt burden students are bearing today. and that, indeed, gave me the range of options to pursue in life that i might not have had if i had to immediately find the job that would help me pay back those -- those very high loans that students are facing. and those are the students who complete their education. so many more will find that they only make it partway through because the debt becomes too high. so i'm disturbed, very disturbed that the senate body, once known as the world's greatest

deliberative body, voted today not to debate this issue, not to take it up. now, my colleagues may be voicing their concern about specific aspects of the bill. i would say to them, madam president, that they should comely to to the floor and offer amendments -- they should come to the floor and offer amendments and we should debate those amendments. but let's not fail the students of america. i believe that the majority leader has reserved the right for reconsideration and that in a matter of a few days we might well have another vote on this topic, and i would ask my colleagues to reconsider, to end their filibuster aimed at preventing us from keeping the 3.4% interest on stafford loans, that they would reconsider and say, yes, there is a responsibility to debate this issue. it shouldn't just be on stafford loans in that we also certainly have a big challenge maintaining

pell grants and keeping those grants competitive with the rising tuition. we should debate other strategies about how to make our investment in higher education more efficient. maybe all those debates don't have to happen on this bill. maybe this bill should just be on stafford -- restricted to stafford loans. but for this body to reject the notion of debating an issue central to the success of our university students, success of our children, and the success of our economy is just wrong. let's change that vote. let's get on to this bill in due course, in short amount of time. thank you, madam president. madam president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. now, i am speaking today, of course, on the need to stop the student loan interest rate hike act of 2012. it is obvious how hard to the pay for college these days. it's not just hard for poor people, and we have some programs that help poor people out at the federal level. pell grants, in particular, and that's a good thing. but you can be making well above the pell grant allowance level, well above the income that you need for a pell grant and have a really difficult time paying for

college. college is extremely expensive. the average private college cost a year is over $30,000, and the average public cost has gone way up with all the cutbacks at the federal, state and local levels, is about $17,000. and if you just figure that out, if you're an average family anywhere in america making $65,000 or $70,000, $17,000 a year, after you pay your taxes, pay your mortgage, pay for the necessities of life, is a heck of a lot of money. and so wisely, the federal government has provided some loans and a few years ago, under the leadership of senator kennedy, we decided to have the federal government pay for those loans because when the banks did it, it ended up being far more expensive than it had to be. and those loans originally were at 6.8% around when the banks did it and they went down and down and down. and they settled to a nice level of 3.4%.

3.4% is still interest, particularly these days it's not such a low rate of interest given that the cost of money is quite low, but it's a lot better than 6.8%. but, unfortunately, the law that senator kennedy shepherded and many of us voted for and president bush signed -- i believe it was in 2007 -- expires come july 1. what will that mean? that will mean that millions of students throughout america will pay a lot more interest on the loans that are a necessity for going to college. now, we all know how important college is. we all know these days that statistics show that the unemployment rate among college grads is one-third that of high school grads. we know that your income level, you make hundreds of thousands of dollars more each year if you have a college degree. and there was a recent study that even showed you lived longer if you went to college.

i don't know what the correlation was but it was a broad-based study, it was trumpeted in many of our leading newspapers. so a college degree is very, very important. and one of the ways we measure america versus other countries in terms of our future is what's the percentage of our kids who get a college degree. and unfortunately, madam president, that's been declining. and it's been declining. we used to be first. now i don't think we're even 10th. and it's declining because of the cost of college. so a high interest rate on top of the basic cost -- $17,000, $36,000, whatever -- is just bad for students, bad for their families, and, frankly, bad for america. in new york, my state, 423,000 college students would pay $341 million more in loan payments if we didn't pass this

legislation. and i'd say one other thing, madam president, and that is that this affects almost all college students. you say, well, i started college last year and i'm at 3.4%. yeah, you're at 3.4% for your freshman year if you're a freshman in college. but when you go to your sophomore year and you renew your loans after july 1, you're going to go right up to 6.8%. so it affects everybody those who college except, luckily for them, the senior class that's graduating this year. it will also affect the new class of freshmen who are coming in. and i would bet many of them are watching this debate and deciding whether they can go to college or not or they can go to the college of their choice, one that they deserve to go to because of their grades and record and accomplishments, based on this bill.

and so, wisely, senator jack reed and senator tom harkin and senator sherrod brown have put in legislation that would keep the rate at 3.4%. now, when they first did this -- and president obama has been fully, fully supportive and he has talked about this at length on campuses throughout america and in other places throughout america -- and when they put it in, amazingly enough, most of our republican colleagues, places like club for growth and american enterprise institute, said, we're against it, let the students pay 6.8%. that was sort of the 21st century analog of mary antoinette saying, "let them eat cake." because these days, college is much more of a necessity than it ever used to be. even for jobs, you k