barrasso for a moment to make his case and then i'll have a minute after that. so at this time, we would turn to the regular order. mrs. boxer: i note the absence of a quorum, please. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, i call up inhofe amendment number 797. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from california, mrs. boxer, for politburo inhofe, proposes amendment numbered 797. mrs. boxer: i yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the amendment. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mrs. boxer: i move to reconsider, lay that on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, what is the order at this time? the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 868 offered by the senator from wyoming, mr. barrasso. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, this amendment

amendment -- to encompass all wet areas of farms, ranches, suburban homes across the united states. they want to do it through guidance. this proposed guidance that is used by federal agencies, it seems that they are preparing to expand the definition of waters of the united states to include ditches and other dry areas where water flows only for a short duration after a rainfall. this guidance is going to have a huge impact on farmers, ranchers, small businesses that need to put a shovel to the ground to make a living. this guidance will in fact trump states' rights by preempting state and local governments from making local land and water use decisions. i have always believed that the state and local governments, not washington, knows best how to protect their communities from environmental harm. the guidance does exactly the opposite and puts the power of these decisions in the hands of bureaucrats in washington. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, the way my colleague and friend has drafted his amendment is very

dangerous to the process because what he wants to do is say that if in the rule making where we will define the waters of the united states, if they even so much as refer to the guidance that has been put forward, the draft guidance, there will be no rule, and the problem of not having a rule is you leave in place chaos. states can't go ahead and handle this themselves. local governments can't. under the law, according to all the rules of the court and everybody else, we have to have the definition here. no one i know wants to classify a ditch or a puddle as a water of the united states. that's always brought up, but that's -- that's just a red herring. we need to make sure we have a clean water act that protects the people, protects their drinking water, makes sure they are safe when they swim in a lake, and if we don't move forward with a rule and at the

end of the day this amendment will not allow that to happen, we're in chaos, and it does not protect our people from arsenic, from lead, from whatever toxin there may be in a water -- a body of water. so i hope we will reject this. i thank my friend for offering it, but i really think it's misguided, and i would yield the floor and ask for the vote. mr. barrasso: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 44. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the

adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not decreased to. mrs. boxer: move to reconsider and lay that on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, could we have order so -- the presiding officer: order. order in the house. mrs. boxer: for the benefit of all senators -- the presiding officer: order. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. mrs. boxer: colleagues -- the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: colleagues, i want to tell you what the plan is for tonight and tomorrow on the wrda bill and thank everyone so much for their cooperation on both sides of the aisle. senator vitter andry so happy -- and i are so happy to we're able to have this open process. this will be the last vote this evening. we will continue late-morning and complete our work. right now we will have the sanders amendment with two

minutes equally divided and both senators from vermont would like to be heard. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment number 889 offered by the senator from vermont, mr. sanders. mrs. boxer: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: this amendment impacts vermont today, but it can impact any and every state in this country, if you experience a major flood or a natural disaster. we all know that fema compensates communities for rebuilding bridges and culverts damaged during storms like irene. but what is not widely known is that fema insists that local communities, in order to get reimbursed, must build culverts and bridges to the same standards that already failed and are likely to fail again,

not terribly sensible. that's what this amendment deals with and i would yield to my colleague from vermont, senator leahy. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, all we're saying is if you're going to be getting relief from the federal government, you got -- er office the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. mr. leahy: if you've go to a better way to rebuild their culverts, you can do it that way rather than do th the ones at tt failed before. i hope it will be approved. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: as ranking member, we know there are a lot of problems with fema and the stafford grant. but this is an earmark for an improvement before fema has even determined if they're going to give grant money to the state of vermont. we need to overdo a lot of changes with fema and the grants

and the starngdz stafford. but this starts a process that sets is precedence that will be terrible and it is nothing right now but an earmark on one area to benefit one state when we need to make improvements in the whole process. i would hope my colleagues would look at the big picture rather than the small picture. i yield back. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishes -- any senator wishes to change a vote or to vote? hearing none, on this vote the yeas are 56. the nays are 40. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: madam president, i

rise to make a few brief remarks. i will leave most of those remarks until i make another unanimous -- another request for unanimous consent. i think i know where this unanimous consent request is headed. i'm disappointed. i think we're on day 51 at this point of a request that many of us have made in this chamber that we go back to regular order. part of that regular order was after a budget was passed for conferees to be appointed so we can resolve what i believe is the most important issue facing our nation, the question of the debt and deficit so we can take the actions needed to get this economy jump-started again. knowing where i think this is headed i will reserve most of my time for remarks afterwards. in the meantime let me make this request.

madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 33, h. con. res. 25, that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of h. con. res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that h. con. res. 35 as amended be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, that the senate insist on its amendment and request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses and the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate, all with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. mcconnell: madam president, reserving the right to object, i would ask consent that the senator modify his request so that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes tax increases or reconciliation instructions to increase taxes or raise the debt limit. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify? mr. warner: reserving the right to object, i simply -- as

someone who has spent an awful lot of time on this issue and believes that both sides need to be willing to compromise, that we need to deal with both the revenue side of this challenge as well as the entitlement reforms that are needed to make sure that we can get our close to $17 trillion debt back under control, recognizing that the senator's request would take part of that opportunity to reach that common ground off the table, i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the original request? mr. mcconnell: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. warner: madam president, i simply want to take a moment here. 52 days after we spent until 5:00 in the morning debating a budget, the budget that had over 100 amendments offered, a budget that was, amendments from both sides were offered and rejected

but also accepted. amendments from both sides were accepted into this budget. it passed with a majority. i know there are some of my colleagues on the other side who say we should go into the next step of this debate with certain things taken off the table. i just don't understand how we're ever going to get to the point which every economist from left to right has all agreed upon, that we have to put this issue of lurching from one budget crisis to another behind us. the fact is there's an awful lot of consensus about what we need to do. starting back with the simpson-bowles report, then followed ufp -- up by the gang of six and the domenici-rivlin report, everyone has agreed what we do is at least $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. we have to take a good step forward. the remarkable thing is lurch

tpr-g -- from crisis to crisis, we're over the half the way there. we've done over $2.2 trillion and $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction. we need basically about $2 trillion more to be done for us to, again, not only provide the boost to the american economy, not only no longer make the congress the object of more than late-night jokes about our inability to get things done, not only to be able to ensure that we've driven our debt to g.d.p. ratio back down headed in the right direction, but perhaps, most importantly, demonstrate to the american people that when we have an issue of this importance, that we can actually find that common ground. well, to do that is going to require candidly everyone in this body and our friends down the hall in the house to be willing to give a little.

that means we're going to have to find ways to generate additional revenue. i believe for one -- i know sometimes many on my side disagree with me -- we're going to have to find ways to reform our entitlement programs so the promise of medicare and social security and medicaid, some of the best initiatives ever put forward, are going to be here 20, 30 years from now. but if we're going to reach that kind of compromise, it means the regular order has to proceed. it means we have to have these two very different budgets -- one passed by the house, one passed by the senate -- need to be resolved through the regular order of a conference committee. if we don't do this, if we don't do this, my fear is that we're going to continue to do the kind of actions that we have been on over the last number of months where we continue to cut back on that relatively small piece of federal spending which is discrear we're already seeing in states like massachusetts and minnesota

and virginia the effects of sequestration, where we have put forward a policy that was viewed by everyone as, when it was originally thought up as so stupid, so beyond the pale that no rationale group of folks would ever allow it to come to pass. we're now three or four months into allowing that to come to pass. while we have taken action on certain items such as relieving the challenge of our air traffic controllers, we've not taken action on making sure the 70,000, 80,000-plus kids who have lost their head start funding, those funds are replaced. we've not taken steps to make sure those n.i.h. cancer grants that are being cut where we've done multiyear grants for the preceding years, research is going to be flushed because we don't do the final year of the grant. we've not taken action on the fact that now as announced by

the secretary of defense, while we've made some progress, no longer 22 days of furloughs, we're seeing 11 days of furloughs to our defense civilian employees at a time that makes enormous challenges to those families' budgets. but beyond the furloughs to the readiness of the men and women who defend our nation. so we can continue this path on sequestration. frankly, retarding our ability to keep our military ready, holding back our ability to have the kind of economic recovery that we'd all like to see, or we can allow the regular order, a regular order that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle called for for the last couple of years for us in this senate to pass a budget. well, we've passed that budget. now we need to take the next step in the process and appoint the conferees and let us try to find that common ground between the house and the senate budget so that we can address this issue of debt and deficit, we

can demonstrate to the american people that we can do our most basic responsibility, which is to make sure that we pay our bills and operate the basic functions of government and that we can do our job to restore the faith that this institution can work in a way that the founders set up. unfortunately, madam president, we're not going to take that step today because now for the 52nd day in a row our republican colleagues have objected to the next step in regular order. i'm greatly disappointed but i know i and other colleagues will come down on a regular basis and continue to make this request, and my hope is that at some point in the not too distant future we can let the process continue and we can get to the hard work of resolv reresolvinge differences between the -- resolving the differences between the house and the senate so we can put this issue of lurching from budget crisis to budget crisis in the rear-view mirror. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president?

the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. 34rs klobucharms. klobuchar: i o thank my fellow member of the budget committee. he knows how to balance a budget. and i share his frustration that we're not able to bring this long-awaited budget that we finally passed in the senate to conference with the house. and i hope that the minds will change and that we'll be able to get this done. and i again thank him for his longtime leadership on a balanced approach to reducing the debt. i come today to the floor, madam president, to speak on the importance of passing the water resources development act, or as we know it around washington, the wrda bill. in my state, they know it as a bill that is gad for our -- good for our harbors, it's good for our rivers and it's good for the flood protection that we need for the fargo-morehead area, or as i like to tell it, the morehead-fargo area, putting my city first. the wrda bill advances a critical project to advance a

red river. i visited this region twice just this last year and i've been back literally every year i've been in the senate because of flood threats, some years more than ever. this is literally an every-year occurrence now to the point where people have major sandbag operations filled with volunteers, filled with seniors, filled with people from the prisons, everyone working together. but there must be a better way to do this. and just because we do it so well in north dakota and minnesota and have such an incredible spirit of volunteerism doesn't mean that there is going to be one year where the flood is just too great or that we should continue in this path when, in fact, we have the opportunity to have long-term flood protection. the river has been above major flood stage six out of the last eight years. in 2009, the year of the record flood, the river rose to more than 40 feet. and i remind you, madam president, the grand forks flood and what happened there literally just about an hour away from fargo.

and we were that close to that happening in fargo and morehead. but in minnesota and north dakota, the red river doesn't divide us, it unites us. and it is in that spirit of solidarity that we drive our efforts to help the red river basin. this year we were fortunate that the flooding was not nearly as severe as it had been projected. literally a week before the crest went down, it was projected to the the second biggest flood in history with the late snow. back in 2009 and 2010, homes and farms with ring dikes around them literally looked like small islands floating in the flood waters. and if you think this just lasts for a day or a week, it literally lasts for months. entire towns create ring dikes and they can only get out of them with boats. now, that is what's happening near the canadian border in minnesota and in north dakota. the town of georgetown, minnesota, threatened every time the red river rises and the buffalo river overflows. the vte said, this is so nice

of you to be helping making lunches for people, and he said, actually, i lost my entire home. and i said, and you're here? and he said, yeah. this is the only thing i could think of to do to help other people that had the same bad experience as me. that's the spirit of volunteerism up in our states. but we think we can do better. the annual threat of flooding in the fargo-morehead area underscores the need for permanent flood protection. we know about the devastating impact about floods. the flood diversion project, whicwhich is authorized in the a bill, is critical to safety and economic development. i've enjoyed working with congressman peterson on flood diversion efforts, including retention, something he cares a lot about and we got some funding. i was able to get in the farm bill today to help with that and also working with senator hoeven and senator heitkamp and senator franken on this long-term project to have actual permanent solution to our flooding projects in fargo and morehead. we have a problem and the wrda

bill is the beginning of a solution. also included in this bill is the roso river project which is at a critical point and the wrda bill helps address flood protection for roso, minnesota. roso has recovered from a flood in 2002 that caused widespread damage but the area needs flood protection to reduce the flood stages in the city. the next phase of the plan will include a diversion channel, a restriction structure and two storage areas designed to remove the city from the 100-year regulatory flood plain and reduce future flood damages by nearly 86%. the wrda bill, as you know, also advances our nation's water infrastructure, something you know a little bit about in massachusetts. it's clear that our 21st century economy demands 21st century infrastructure and we can't afford to sit back any longer and allow it to crumble. no one knows this better than minnesota. i live six blocks from that 35-w bridge, eight-lane highway, one

day in the middle of a summer day just fell down in the middle of the mississippi river. and as i said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of america. but it did. we are seeing the same crumbling infrastructure and problems with many of our ports across the country. failure to take actions will have consequences no one likes. according to the american society of civil engineers, inefficiencies in infrastructure are estimated to drive up the cost of doing business by an estimated $430 billion and that's just in this decade. the civil engineers 2013 report card gives our nation's infrastructure an overall d-plus grade. as someone who's taught students before, i think you know that is not a good grade, ms. president. our inland waterways infrastructure, which includes our lacks and dams on the mississippi -- locks and dams on the minnesota river, gets a d-minus and our ports receive a c grade. we cannot be satisfied with those grades. now, when people hear ports, they think of places like massachusetts and south carolina

and they think about florida and they think about california. but, in fact, the great lakes, including lake superior, which we are so proud of in minnesota, have very significant ports. in fact, when i first came to the united states senate, i was assigned to the commerce committee and somehow found myself on the ocean subcommitt subcommittee. and i remember sitting at my first meeting thinking, what am i doing here? i'm on the ocean subcommittee and i wrote a note to the senator from new jersey, frank lautenberg, and i said, i am the only senator on this subcommittee that doesn't have an ocean. i still kept the note that he wrote back for me -- to me, and the note said, it's easy. next year just come back and ask for one. well, in fact, i found out since then that the ocean subcommittee included the great lakes. so it gave me a platform to advocate for our great lakes. so the harbor maintenance trust fund, which is so important to our ocean bordering states, also includes the great lakes.

the harbor maintenance trust fund collects $700 million each year than it spends on dredging, so, in other words, it collects $700 million more each year than it spends on dredging and maintenance. meanwhile, our ports and our navigation channels wait for basic maintenance. we need to correct this disparity and ensure that the funds are spent to address the needs of these shippers and ensure that the great lakes system does not fall into further disrepair. i was just up at the port of duluth superior to highlight the need for dredging and maintenance on the great lakes. the port of duluth superior is ranked among the top 20 ports in the u.s. by cargo tonnage, seeing 40 million short tons of cargo and nearly 1,000 vessel visits every year. i think people would be surprised of that when they think of minnesota with our lakes. but, in fact, we have one of the top 20 ports in the country. 11,500 jobs are dependent on cargo shipments in and out of

the port. the port is critical to the economy of northeastern minnesota, where my dad was bo born, where my grandpa worked as an iron ore miner. guess what? that's how they got the iron ore out of minnesota and out to the world. well, it is critical that high-use ports like duluth and two harbors get dredged so they can support the ships. it's vital that their trading partners throughout the great lakes system receive maintenance as well. both duluth and two harbors, minnesota ports are considered deepwater ports so they come into a classification which has tended to get funding. but, in fact, the entire great lakes navigation system is in trouble. the backlog of sediment due to insufficient dredging is more than 18 million cubic yards and estimated to cost $200 million. when ships on the great lakes have to light load, having to reduce the amount of cargo they carry because channels are not deep enough, our economy suffe suffers. now, at first you might think, what does this mean, light

loading? well, at the end of 2012, the light loading required to navigate the sioux locks on the lake river between lake superior and lake here ron meant 10,000 cons of tar goa just couldn't be trans-- cargo just couldn't be transported on the final voyage. think of it. these are american goods, things that we produce, that we want em t morth of and yet we literally can't put them on the ships because we haven't maintained our ports the way we're supposed to so the ships that are come in anyway just can't take the stuff. it just has to wait until the winter's done. that's that is exactly what happened this year and has been happening many, many years. we are an export economy, madam president. america's way forward is to make stuff again, invent things, export to the world. well, that isn't going to happen if we can't get our goods to market. that's why i've been working so closely with senators from across the great lakes to address this backlog, and we've been able to make some progress. i cosponsored an amendment with senator levin to direct the secretary of the army corps to

manage the great lakes navigation system as an interconnected system. this would ensure maintenance and dredging is done throughout the system. and there is much more work to do. i will continue to work with senator levin, senator stabenow and other great lakes senators on this bill. the wrda bill will go a long way toward increasing the efficiency of the shipping across the great lakes system, strengthening the economic standing of our agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and other industries. now, the bill also makes critical reforms to our nation's river and waterways. the inland waterway system in this country spans 38 states and handles approximately one-half of the inland waterway freight. farmers and businesses in my state heavily rely on this system to transport soybeans, corn and other commodities from minnesota to terminals in the south. from there, ships are loaded and eventually delivered to trading partners. again, if we want to make things

and export to the world, we have to have the transportation system that supports it. with many maintenance and construction projects years overdue, the inland waterways are in dire need of major rehabilitation. the inland waterways trust fund which funds these projects is in steady decline. if we don't make the inland waterways trust fund sustainable, the industries that are so heavily dependent on the inland waterways will suffer and this means jobs suffer. i cosponsored the river act with senator casey and senator landrieu to help move forward major construction projects on the inland waterways system. that bill is also supported by senator lamar alexander. it is a bipartisan bill and it includes much-needed rehabilitation of the locks and dams along the mississippi riv river. this bill includes a number of reforms to the project management process that will ensure that waterways projects are completed on time and minimize cost overruns. i also, by the way, support the amendment to increase the inland

waterways user fee. i am a cosponsor of that amendment. and let me emphasize that the users who pay this fee have asked for it. so here we have a situation, madam president, where the industries are willing to pay more so that we can improve the locks and dams so they can get their stuff to market. that's what's going on here. they understand we're having budget issues and they are willing to pay a higher fee to pay for the changes. industry partners from farmers to shippers to companies like carghill in my state, strongly support this user fee increase. the increase was, in fact, their idea. they realized the government wasn't going to fund these and that they were having trouble doing business and they've agreed to pay for this increased fee. to me, it is the perennial no-brainer that we get this done. they know this modest change would go a long way to making our nation's rivers and waterways viable for years to come. well, the fee increase will not advance, sadly, in the wrda bill because it is considered a tax provision, but it sends an

important message that industry and shippers are at the table and volunteering more to help build the infrastructure our economic future requires. we plan on advancing this part of the river act in another bill, in taxi reform or tanding on its -- tax reform or standing on its own, because we think it is so important to be a fund these improvements to the locks. finally, in minnesota, the fishing and boating industries contribute around $4 billion to our state's economy each year. sometimes i like to tease people and ask them how much money they think we spend on worms in minnesota every year. it is literally tens of millions of dollars that people come to our state and buy worms and baiting and other forms of fishing tackle because of the importance of this to our economy. in fact, last weekend, minnesota's fishing opener sadly cold and ice covered many lakes, but people were still out there looking for that empty hole where there wasn't ice so they

could put their line into the water. in minnesota, we also know how important it is to address invasive species problems especially when they threaten our lakes and our rivers. in our state, the problem of asian carp is literally swimming and jumping into our lives. anyone that hasn't seen the youtube video should look at it. you can see the arab yen carp jumping out of the water and hitting fishermen in the head. we are very concerned because we have seen problems with them downriver in southern minnesota. they are coming our way and we do not want them to ruin our way of life in minnesota nor do we want them to hurt our jobs with the $4 billion fishing and gaming industry. i think we need an all of the above solution to this problem that includes research carp barriers, also the authority to close the upper st. anthony falls lock. i'm very glad the provision was included to allow for greater coordination between federal agencies when it comes to asian carp, and this also includes rivers and not just the great lakes.

so we're continuing to work on this bill when it comes to asian carp and other invasive species, but i italy there are some good m president, i'd like to commend senators boxer and vitter for their great work to put together this bipartisan legislation. i support its passage from fighting to protect towns from flooding to critical waterway infrastructure. this legislation is vital to our economy, to our environment, to our cities, to our towns. i'm excited to be a part of it. i hope my colleagues support it and we get this done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: the senate is now having a quorum call, is that true? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the senate proceed to s. res. 140. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. refs 141

recognizing the goals of national travel and tourism week and honoring the valuable contributions of travel and tourism to the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 141. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 140, commemorating and acknowledging the dedication and sacrifices made by federal, state and local law enforcement officers killed or injured in the line of duty. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? mr. reid: resolution 141, is that right? the presiding officer: we have one of each number. we reversed them.

mr. reid: okay, well, i'm sure you'll work it out. i ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: s. 953 was introduced earlier today. i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill the first time. the clerk: a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest rate for undergraduate and direct federal stafford loans and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday, may 15, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved the morning business be deemed

expired, time for the two leerpdz reserved for their use later in the day and following any leader remarks, the senate be in what period of morning business until 10:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the leaders for their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. further, following morning business the senate resume consideration of s. 601. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: that resuming consideration would be under the previous order, that's already entered. so, madam president, there will be a series of up to seven roll call votes beginning at 10:30 or thereabouts to complete action on the wrda. if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that the senate stands adjourned that the senate stands adjourned

of children's who were made orphan as a result of the civil war. they would come here and visit, they would sit here in the formal parlor. lucy was a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel welcome here, and so this is where they would sit and discuss the issues of the day. they would have hosted a number of political figures here for dinner including future presidents after it as well as a number of local and national political figure. as a april partner with her husband, and intertalking about the political figure and serving in the role of hostess at the dinners would have been important. >> the conversation open lucy hays is available on our website c-span.org/first lady.

today's white house briefing jay carney answered questions on the -- irs review as a conservative political groups. and the attack on the u.s. consulate in beb gas city. >> good afternoon, thank you for being here. i appreciate your attendance, and i have no announcement to make at the top. i'll go straight to the associated press. . >> reporter: thank you, jay. you are stating the obvious, the white house right now is a issues of. benghazi talking points, irs review and political groups. -- [inaudible] every instance either the president or you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else the benghazi talking point has been political motivation on the hill, on the

irs it's been a bureaucrat and irs. on the justice department issue yesterday in your statement you said those matters are handed independently by the justice president. what is the president's administration -- [inaudible] i wonder responsibility for setting the tone and distribution ultimately rest with the president on the matters? >> well, the responsibility to set tone and focus on the priority of the american people is absolutely the responsibility of the president, and you see and hear him do that every day as he fulfills his duty as president. i think so you to separate the issues, if you look at the answers the president gasp yesterday in response to questions on the one hand about the clear political circus that benghazi has become, and his response to questions about the report of activity by the irs. i think you see something

different. he made clear that if the reports about the activity of irs personnel proved to be true, he would find them outrageous and expect that appropriate action be taken. and that people be held responsible. he had no toll tolerance for targeting of specific groups, conservative groups if the reporting is true on this. and he would expect action to be taken. but this is matter, when it comes to the irs, that is under review by the independent inspector general. we have not seen that report. it is our understanding that it's released is fairly imminent. once we have that report, we'll be able to assess next steps. at this point, we have to, you know, wait for the action of an independent investigator, if you will, the inspector general before we can jump to conclusions about what happened,

whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups inappropriately, and if that's the case what action should be taken. but you be sure, i wouldn't point you to the president's response yesterday what his feelings are about this kind of action if it in fact took place. on the issue of what is a department of justice invention -- information as i understand it the president is strong defender of the first amendment and the need for the press to be unfettered in facility a free flow of information. he also, recognizes the need for the justice department to investigate alleged criminal activity without undue influence. as i said yesterday in the statement, under press report we have no d "issue" seek phone records of the associated

press. we are not involved at the white house in any decision made circumstance with ongoing criminal investigation. the matter are handled appropriately by the justice department independly -- dependently. ii understand there are a lot of questions about doj's actions and from i had background, i understand them well. but in the situation where the department appears to be conducting a criminal investigation, it would be wholly iran appropriate -- inappropriate for me to have answers to the question. i have to refer you to the department of justice. . >> reporter: thank you. going back to the irs issue. the president used the word -- [inaudible] there has been an acknowledgment on the part of the irs leadership that these things did occur. i wonder why the president using that phrasing and claiming it was outrageous. >> those from the irs have

spoken about this have greater insight than we do. we have not seen the report. we have not independently collected information about what tran parted. we need the report to be released before we can make judgments. one person's view of what actions were taken or what that individual did was not enough for me us say concretely happened is inappropriate. i think you if you look at what has been said, you know, the actions were inned aer have end or not or instituted something specific or inappropriate or not. what we have to do, responsibly is wait for the independent inspector general's report to be released before we assess next steps. again if you look at what the president said yesterday. he was clear if there was specific targeting of groups

that would be outrageous and require, in his view, action be taken. >> reporter: something that the white house can do? >> i think we have to wait and see next steps. obviously there's a significant amount of independence of the irs as well as income eig. we have to wait for what the ig assesses before we can decide what next steps might appropriately be taken. yeah. jay, it's not clear that the senior tax officials knew about the extra scrutiny. since the 2011, which means also during the election. it was withheld until after the election. should the white house have -- [inaudible] earlier? >> my understanding is that when there is a review as there was and is by an inspector general, that when the end of the process

is nearing and a report is about to be released, a notification is appropriate and routine. had that is what happened several weeks ago. prior to that there was no knowledge at the white house here. before i make judgments about or anyone else here makes judgments about whether the white house should have known for more or others in the administration have known more. we have to find out contactually what happened. it's important for us to wait for the realization of the inspector general's report. which is hopefully fairly imminent. >> you have any concerns it was withheld when it could have been a big story -- [inaudible] >> we have serious concerns about what happen reported. i think you saw it reflected in what the president said. it's been reported. we have to make sure that the independent review by an inspector general is revealed and question assess that. and assess what actually happened. what motivations are the worth

behind whatever actions were taken. and decide what action is appropriate. >> when did the president find out about -- [inaudible] >> yesterday. >> we don't have any independent knowledge of that. we find out yesterday. >> what was the reaction to that? we believe there was an overreach. >> all i can tell you is i cannot and he cannot comment specifically on ongoing criminal investigation or actions that investigators at the department of justice may or may not have taken. it would be wholly inappropriate. if we commented on it or have insight in to it you would appropriately ask why. and is that correct procedure. it wouldn't be. the president feels strongly that we need the press to be to

be able 0 unfettered in the pursuit of investigative journalism. you saw when he was a senator, the president cosponsored legislation that would have provided further protections for journalists in this regard. and he is also mindful of the need for secret and classified information to remain secret and classified in order to protect our national security interests. there are is a careful balance here that must be attained. but i think it's important to look at the president's past here to understand where he comes from in the broadly speaking where he comes from in regard to issues like this. we simply can't comment on the specific investigation. >> president obama being compared to president nixon. how does he feel about that? >> ben, -- again, i don't have a reaction from the president obama. i can tell you people who make the compare sobs need to check their history. because, you know, what we have here with one issue, in benghazi

is clearly, as we're learning more and more clint effort to politicize a tragedy. the president feels strongly about that. on the other issues, these are things that we are finding out about. we need to wait appropriately for independent action to be completed before he can in any way take action on comment specifically on it. i think it's a reflection of the sort of rapid politicalization of everything that you have that kind of commentary. everything becomes, you know, with a huge political issue. if you look at the fact and ben gas city has been instructed with this. the real issue is that four americans died. we need to do erg we can as the

president committed to doing. finding out who did it, finding out why, and taking the steps necessary to ensure that our diplomatic personnel is -- so what happened there doesn't happen again. infed of trying to score political point. it's unfortunate. it's not what the american people expect us to do. going back to the original question, the president is here to try to achieve the things he told the american people he would try to achieve. and that they supported him in two elections now in trying to achieve. and that is to focus on the middle class and help in any way he can to strengthen the middle class. help the country build the economic foundation essential for the kind of dominance economically in the 21st century

that they enjoyed. that is what he spends his time focusing on. that and the paramount interest of protecting the national security of the united states. >> reporter: you say check our history. but you have to understand and hear how it sounds like the administration might be hiding something. we take it one at the time. on the irs on friday, they gave one version of the story that changed several times. can you say plainly does the president believe they are being truthful. does he think that the leadership there needs to change? >> well, i don't have that -- i don't understand how -- assertion here. we have seen the reports and the president said if the reports are true, he would consider them -- >> reporter: even irs acknowledged that some of this wrong doing happened. the president and the administration could agree -- . >> i think you heard the president say yesterday if it turns out to be the case. again, there's at love reporting -- a lot of reporting.

not all complimenty. -- >> reporter: irs personnel. >> how could they be isolated. it could be the entire agency. [inaudible conversations] concerned about it. every report you see on that. you can believe he's concerned by that. that's why he looks forward to finding out what the ig report says. then deciding what next steps need to be taken and who needs to take them. instead of rushing to conclusions or i didn't know, you know, perpetrating consequences before we know specifically what happened and the whole story, would be inappropriate for a president to do. and so, again, he made clear what his view of this action -- if there was specific deliberating targeting of conservative group or any groups

inappropriately he would be outraged. he finds suggestions that have to be outrageous. we cannot and should not -- [inaudible] >> >> reporter: what is the consequence of the outrage. >> how could he say what the consequence will be before we know the facts. shouldn't we let the facts be revealed by the independent inspector general report before we make conclusive -- >> reporter: we understand that you can't get involved in the complete investigation. and that is a violation and legal issue. but -- [inaudible] is the president concerned about the threat of the investigation and the threat and death that the doj presidented in the

administration more people for leaks than any other president put together. >> jessica, what i can tell you is that this president believes strongly in the first amendment and strong defender. he believes strongly in the prez to be unfettered in the pursuit of the investigative journalism. he it can endanger our national security interest and endanger american men and women around the world. but i cannot and he cannot appropriately comment on the specifics of ongoing criminal investigation for the reasons you yourself raised. >> talk about the specifics of the investigation. >> reporter: you listed the specific of the investigation. >> reporter: is he concerned about the difference legacy of his attorney general. >> i think it refers to the investigate. i cannot comment on that.

the.absolutely believes in the need for a press to be able to unsue unfettered investigative journalist. that would enhance protection for the media. and the principle that are behind that effort are ones that -- i can't then take that to a specific case that's been reported in the press. we learn about from the press appropriately. if we learned any other way it would be inappropriate. >> reporter: can you say categorially nobody at the white house and -- will any knowledge or involved in any way in the targeting of tea party groups by the irs? >> yes.

>> reporter: absolutely. >> we found out about this in at least the council office was notified about the investigation the activity potential activity very broadly just a few weeks ago. and beyond that, you know, we have to -- we learn about everything we know from what we see in your report. that's why we have to wait for the inspector general's report before we can assess based on that and what it tells us what we know about what happened and what didn't. and what actions should be taken. ..

of prosecutors go into the personal phone records and works on records of journalists and editors quiet >> i appreciate the question, but that goes to the heart of the reporting on this specific case. the president believes the press has the role needs to have a nonstandard ability to sue investigative journalist. >> i can't respond to this in a specific. you know, i am very

understanding of the questions on this issue and appreciate the nature of the questions and i think they go to important issues and finding the balance between lake says classified information of our nation's secrets if you will between the need to protect that information because of the national security implications of not protect a man on the one hand and the need to allow for an unfettered press in its pursuit of investigative journalism. it's important that we have to fine and how he views the issues can be seen in the actions and proposals in the past. when it comes to this specific case, i simply cannot get into the details of our view or his view of the. >> this is the last question.

is all of this, all the swirl of controversy and stories affect in the president's ability to pursue his agenda? >> the president is focused on what he believes the american people expect from him and from their leaders in washington. you have seen that and you'll continue to see that in the days and weeks and months ahead. overwhelmingly, americans are concerned about continuing the recovery out of the worst recession since the great depression, building on the job creation at the scene continuing to expand and make more secure than middle-class, taking the necessary steps to invest in our future so our economy can grow later. that means bipartisan cooperation on infrastructure innovation in the hunts the president talked about last week.

these are the issues he is focused on. they include comprehensive immigration reform, which he is constantly discussed in with leaders and members of congress, a bipartisan effort that he believes can and should produce of that he laid out a long time ago. he's focused on outward. [inaudible] >> as you know, numerous numbers of congress over a period of a couple years with the irs announced its conservative groups are being targeted here those officials did not respond. if it turns out the officials didn't know at the time the conservative groups were being are had been targeted, should those be punished? >> this craziness appropriate. if what we see in the northeast report about specific targeting

and actions taken by personnel within the irs turns out to be true, then people should be held accountable. what that means in concrete action live to see based on information and and the facts gathered at first by the general. say you heard from the president yesterday. you heard the outrage he can be as the reports of this type tbd. ideal my >> i don't if you would want to be outraged about something that turns out not to be true. [inaudible] >> i agree with that and i was reflect to chinatown and the nature of the comments he saw from the press in it. on the broader issue about

getting all the facts, it is important in our view and the president's view that we let the independent effect or general complete that report, that we assess when we see it because we haven't seen it. there have been suggestions that some of it has leaked out, but we haven't seen it. we don't have access to it. when we do, we'll assess more specifically than we can now. >> one other question about what he called the issues. you've got benghazi, irs, doj. if you read the articles, it almost sounds like there's a speech going on. is there ossetian the west wing right now? be not absolutely not. we are focused on the things we can do to help the middle class, the things we can do to move our economy forward, to get kids educated, to work with congress to achieve what will hopefully

be a bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that this president can sign into law. working with congress over the last week to find common ground to help the economy grow and create more jobs. we are focused on these fundamental issues that the american people sent this president took us off this twice now focus on. you know, i understand the outskirts -- i understand the natural inclination to bunch these things together, that there is a distinction here and you heard it from the president that the ongoing obsession and i'm quoting now somebody describing the speaker of the house, and the ongoing obsession with talking points and benghazi and the attempts to politicize that. constitutes show instrument

purely by political interests are not the interest of finding out what happened and who is responsible in taking the steps to ensure diplomat and facilities are secure. that's what the president has been focused on a much easy in the report from the accountability review board that was overseen by admiral mullen and ambassador pickering and it's what you seem that the investigation led by the fbi into finding out who's responsible for the deaths of four american. we have breached the point where we can bring those to justice. >> what prevents the president from picking up a phone, calling eric holder and walking into the white house click >> a great deal prevents him doing that.

at least as reported impulse leaks of information from the administration. imagine the story on fox if that were to happen. so that is why. and this is -- we have seen from the press reports the information about attempts to seek phone records from the associated decisions. we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation for reasons i think. maybe he was rhetorical, but are pretty apparent to everyone who's covered these things over the years. >> is it your understanding no one could have ordered this but the attorney general? >> is my understanding this is something the department of justice does and if the investigators at the department of justice handle when it comes to these things a

decision-making process. but i would refer you to the department of justice for who actually made the decision that's been reported because it can our information comes only from press reports. >> even if it turns out to be the attorney general or whoever, will the president have confidence that person quite >> the president has confidence in the attorney general and his team at the department of justice. again, i am not going to comment on specifics of the investigation. it's to note that there is a balance here that has to be struck between our national security interest in the need to provide classified information from leaking, classified information that can endanger american and harm our national security. the reporters be able to in an unfettered way pursue investigative journalists. and at the same time the phone

records. the president does believe that balance should be sought and can be found. and it's a balance and therefore we need to work out. he seemed from the past that he believed action should be taken to alter the balance. but i cannot comment on the specific investigation for all the obvious reasons. >> we know it happened just as the irs admitted what it had done in terms of the tea party groups. the full records -- the president i can find them in the balance -- >> would be inappropriate to comment on the specific investigation and the methods reported. i can tell you it is important to protect our national security

classified information. it is also the president's view essential to allow journalists to be able to pursue an unfettered way investigative journalism. >> you keep talking about than senator obama supported a piece of legislation. as president he killed that piece of legislation in october 2009 that made it so that the protections he supported having judicial review review -- there was an opportunity for the bill to be passed. chuck schumer was supportive of it and the white house had problems with it. >> first of all your talk in a separate pieces of legislation in a piece of history that there's more looking into. the president's position is that it was as a senator. the fact is i cannot been appropriately applied his support for that measure.

>> we wouldn't be having this conversation today because he supported a judicial review as it came to some of this. [inaudible] >> the legislative history here is a little more complicated you present. >> this is 2009. who cares about 2007. we notice that on the campaign trail in front of "the associated press." he had a chance to support this and make this bill happened. essentially the president changes his position because of certain things to national security. >> the president does support the ability of journalists in an unfettered way to pursue investigative journalism. he has to find a balance between that goal -- >> he didn't believe the mustard as president.

>> yeah, you are obviously free to ask them the next time he had the press conference dressed them about this. the fact is as president, as president he obviously has response abilities that commander-in-chief to the nation's secrets and highly sensitive and her nation is not leaked. the information can endanger individuals as well as overall national security. >> that's fine as a candidate he believed he said the point of the press to be a watchdog of the watchdog a little bit and the judiciary branch is probably the appropriate place for them to make that determination. you guys will claim classified any administration that everything is the national security we can file under having a third-party make that

decision is a truly going to endanger lives? and you make your case in front of the third-party. does the president support that? >> anima protection -- >> i don't have that specific scenario laid out. >> in 2008? >> he does support protections for the media and believe i need to take measures to ensure the media can pursue investigative journalism in an unfettered way and we have to balance that goal with the very real national security interest that we have of the nation. understandably there is classified information leaked that can jeopardize our national security interest or danger individuals. >> is still not quite understand members of congress complaining about this for two years. could it just never reach you guys at the white house that there are these complaints i

conservator groups feel they are being singled out untargeted? >> i'm sure people were aware of the new some of the stories, but we were not aware of any dvds or any review conducted by the spec or general. [inaudible] >> i was at that before. >> lushes say -- for all the reasons i has to be that distance. on a specific question i want to wait and see what the report says and what we actually know how good on this matter and before we make any decisions or pronouncements about what action

should be taken. you heard that the president said about what he believes and what he feels about his reported about specific targeting turn out to be true. we need to wait and see if that's the case and what the scope of the days before we make decisions about how to proceed. >> any update -- [inaudible] hamid karzai claiming from the cia on this cash payment are continuing and he's been confirming this and claiming it in afghanistan and senator corker was hoping for an explanation for the president and his two letters without any explanation. >> i'm not aware of the letters will have to take the question. with regard to the letters -- if there's a response.

>> you'd use this formulation the press and ends support for unfettered investigation number of times. to what extent is the former constitutional law professor in the oval office torn between that philosophy in that case for going after leaks. >> i think the appropriate way to describe it is there needs to be a balance because there is an interest in making sure classified information that is sensitive is not leaked because of the consequences to national security and individuals. but there's also an interest in the president's view and ensuring the press can pursue investigative journalism and be unfettered in that pursuit. to the earlier point that chuck was making, even after he became

president the attorney general and director of national intelligence, his attorney general sent a letter to congress in november 2009 unexpressed in the administration support for media shield legislation. so the position the president has held as a senator he continues to hold us president. but that balance is important. without commenting on specific reports about a specific cases, we have to be mindful of the fact that national security interests are significant classified as information needs to be this. >> he has to know that a reporter can't be unfettered and is subjected to a fishing expedition of records in office phone records. >> broadly speaking the president understands a reporter needs to be shielded and away he

supported as a senator and a president. i cannot because of the nature of your question i size reported criminal investigation at the department of justice. >> categorically no one from the white house has a pretty unequivocal answer. the bulk of the press conferences you say you don't have all the facts. >> what i can tell you is -- i can tell you if they think i said yesterday the white house counsel was alerted about this ig review and the general topic of it just a few weeks ago. i didn't find out -- >> are you categorically certain i was on the political team? >> i have no reason to believe. i can tell you that i am not

aware of anyone here knowing it' be obviously -- [inaudible] >> you can ask me if somebody who works -- >> you've asserted something categorically. >> i'm certainly not aware of than confident that no one here was involved in this. we find out just a few weeks ago and what what we say we come i didn't, the president didn't, but found out about the review being good in coming to conclusion by the inspector general. i can say i feel confident enough that -- >> you of the fact? >> you ask me to prove a negative, haunts. >> you've asserted you are confident in the one who put it out. >> you're the president expressed his views and we are going to wait and see what the facts are based on the independent inspector general

reviewed. it will make judgmts abot factad one actaken and b whom at actions might be taken. i'm just not going to get any more details about it because it would be inappropriate to do so. >> i want to follow up on that question. [inaudible] this administration has prosecuted twice as any leakers as every previous administration combined. how does that reflect balance classics >> i would say the president is committed to the press' ability to pursue information to defending the first amendment. he is also as a citizen and as commander-in-chief committed to the proposition that we cannot allow classified information to be -- that can do harm to our national security interests are in danger individuals to be leaked.

that is a balance that has to be struck. >> the record does not suggest balance. twice as many prosecutions as all previous administrations combined. >> i understand ongoing investigations that preceded this investigation. i can tell you what the president's views are the president's views include the first amendment and not to be able to pursue information in an unfettered way and that is backed up by support for media shield law both a senator and president and it is also true a balance was struck to 92 protect classified information. you're not going to hear him say that it's okay for the nation's secrets to be freely reported noninformation could endanger national security and do harm to individuals in danger individuals. >> are you simply actions reflect just --

[inaudible] >> i believe he has made that clear, both as president and administration. i cannot comment on the specific case, but i can tell you what the president believes and what his actions have been in the past. the makeover mama martine. >> the president has made the goal of balance clear within the administration. can you describe how -- [inaudible] >> i decided in november 2009 a letter to congress about the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, expressing the administration support, the obama administration support for media shield legislation. that is clear expression from several components of the administration about the president's views. as someone who spends a lot of a lot of time he speaks about press frequently that he firmly

believes in the need to defend the first amendment and for reporters to do their jobs. he's also as commander-in-chief and a citizen interested in the protectionist and that of information that can have for these endanger national security or individuals. that is a balance every american would expect the president to seek, both in his views and actions. >> did he talk about that with you privately? >> i know what his general views about this matter are. >> a couple of questions. do you know the attorney general has recused himself of this investigation? >> i do or not before i came out. >> you said earlier it wouldn't be appropriate -- >> is a general matter about an ongoing criminal investigation led by the department of justice in part the administration is safe to say that would be

inappropriate and everybody in this room are considered inappropriate. >> tumor questions. is there an expectation the white house has released an investigation beyond "the associated press"? >> this is not something we acknowledged that it have to refer you to the base. >> at any time during this administration do you have any knowledge of any wiretaps of the serious questions? >> no. >> i don't and any suggestion that somebody here would goes to the heart of what i am saying. these are questions for the department of justice and i would refer you to what's been reported. first of all, happy birthday. >> is there a possibility any of the obama administration -- [inaudible]

>> investigated the leaks? i have no idea. i think the reporting -- the sources are cited. you're asking me hypotheticals about things that it would be able to answer. >> the president is human. when he first found out about these stories -- >> i can tell you that he found out about it yesterday. [laughter] >> are you saying it involves an ongoing criminal investigation? just to clarify, what are we talking about -- [inaudible] could you explain? >> there's a federal investigation reported based on news reports and we do not, appropriately so, have any insight into that investigation or communications about the investigation. so we have no knowledge independently of any event or

the justice department to subpoena phone records of "the associated press" on the press press reports we read. >> following up on the chalk and haunts were asking you, is reported for several years that the complaints from the organizations are being targeted by irs that a prominent lawmakers who actually gave speeches and talk about it long before we would've known about the ig report. i just want to make sure, are we going to find out because of the president's animosity or feelings or shortcomings about citizens united that he himself appreciated or wanted the irs to be looking? >> that's a preposterous assertion, lexis. the fact of the matter is if this turns out to be true, he would be outraged. he specifically said if there were targeting of conservative

groups, that would be wrong and outrageous and they should be people held accountable for it. it is not who we are, not the way the ira should ever operate if it turns out to be true. [inaudible] >> obtaining higher now leaked as part of the e-mail trail -- [inaudible] because we are eight months into what you call the political circus in part of that e-mail has come out, will the white house -- >> the report i read showed that republicans who are leaking these e-mails that have been shared with congress didn't just do that. they decided to fabricate portions of the e-mail and make a portions in order to fit a political narrative. i'm not surprised by it because we've seen it again and again. we've seen it in the issue of

the committee's report, the republican committee report about secretary clinton signature and the fact that they of course didn't include the truth behind that but it was an automated signature and she had no in all of many in that e-mail. so you know, it reinforces what we've seen, which is an ongoing effort to politicize this, to cherry pick information or in this case just make it up to fit a political narrative. >> my question is after eight months of which you call political service, why not just put out the e-mail? >> a couple things because i'm your questions affect we provided enough to congress that several months ago at the time, some republicans said they were fairly satisfied with the information they felt he knew what they needed to know. this is about the confirmation of john brennan, the new head of the cia confirm hn in that position. the speaker of the house is

reported to be obsessed with because he and the political benefits of this pursuit. i'm just doing a prelude to the answer, which is -- preface to the answer. if the speaker of the house is infested this in as many demands and it turned out there's also information and it didn't show up to get the briefing produced on an all along with the e-mails contain and what they don't contain. this is as it has been with the information of both parties, internal deliberations. alexis, shake your head editorialized -- abaya mac >> information comes out, but if

people with information as they have him held for political purposes, that is one thing. deliberation is something that goes to the kind of protections for the executive branch of both parties in the fact is the full reporting of the story did something rather extraordinary, which is providing most of the committees and camera, since a legal term for spending all the time they wanted, make notes, copy them verbatim or not so verbatim as it turned out to not go on their way make their assessments, which is what we did. i am not >> he has. today the president spoke by phone with the president of pakistan, most only to congratulate him on his party's success in the may 11

parliamentary elections. as you know, over the become the president commended the people of pakistan on a successful completion of their parliamentary elections. the united states stands above pakistanis seem welcoming this historic peaceful and transparent transfer of civilian power, which is a significant milestone in pakistan's democratic progress. it is important to note consecutive democratic elections in the transfer of civilian power from one government to the next. the united states and pakistan have a history of working together in mutual interest in the administration looks forward to continued cooperation with the pakistani government that emerges from this selection as equal partners in supporting a more stable, secure and prosperous future for the people of pakistan. [inaudible] >> i think the content for this conversation was reflected in

what i just said. >> does the white house amid all of those nice words about the pakistan election have a position on the fact that "the new york times" bureau chief was asked to leave for 72 hours notice on the day of that election? >> out on a specific reaction to that from the white house. we obviously have a broad interest, not just in the matter we've been discussing today, but in general put in international reporting and governments around the country permitting journalists american and otherwise to operate freely. i don't have the specifics on this case. an official capacity i followed it and read about it. it's a general principle we believe reporters ought to be able to work and to work safely around the world. >> can i follow on what they can and does it quite this goes back

to the talking points. does the white house believes the state department has valid equities that needed to be good in the drafting of those talking points? >> i would point you to this cnn story about a particular e-mail misrepresented in the reporting about it originally, where there was no discussion at the state department specifically. but the prices we describe or agencies put a stake in an issue like what happened in benghazi obviously, you know, are part of it and present their views. in this case, the cia had to read when it came to drafting the talking points. much of reported his reiterations of the talking point for discussions about what should be included contain changes made from within the cia that people have recognized. in the end, what was produced by the cia was a distillation of

both of you of the agencies involved, but most importantly, reflective of what the cia felt at the top was a fair representation for public use of what they knew at that time. as we know ms is made made clear that talking points and sells is there a caveat of her information is available in picture would change and evolve it happened. some of what was originally put forward is what we believe to have happened turned out not to be true, which we now shouldn't have that that when it became evident. the head of dnc to see women talked about that a few days after messenger race. >> the key misrepresentation was the fact that the e-mail reported as the state department singled out, so i guess my question is state department

raised a series of concerns. are we to believe those concerns were not in the minds of the white house? >> he should believe as i understand, there was an effort here, a focus here and elsewhere in making sure will be sad as an administration provided to congress was as accurate as it could be there is information and a lot of assessments about the night of hot and, the contradictory information and it's the job of the intelligence community to filter through that and discuss what his position is in those points for public consumption can reflect and that's what happens. i don't think there's about one particular agency. it was the community at large, let eye in this case the cia.

>> one more? the prime minister is claimed here and people got killed and injured. what's your reaction and will change in their approach to one of your allies. >> versus outcome of the united states condemns the car bombings over the weekend and we stand with turkey against such terrific violence. we extend our deepest condolences to families of the consent author with those mandated. it's important to note always, t particly with the arrival of the prime

minister that turkey is one of our strongest partners. we've worked shoulder to shoulder with the turks to counter terror threats in a small mixed strength and resolve to work together, protector people incite instability and violence in the region. this incident will be a matter of discussion between the prime minister and president is partners are addressing a range of critical global and regional issues. it will clearly discuss syria, which is an interest that they share and they will also talk about stability in the middle east, trade and economic cooperation in countering global terrorism overall. the prime minister's visit underscores the close friendship between the strategic importance to play some broadening and deepening the relationship moving forward. [inaudible] -- time is running out. he said this two days ago and

the attack may be impossible to obtain very soon -- [inaudible] what's the latest up to date? >> well, we are working with our allies as well as the syrian opposition to gather evidence. we continue to call on president bashir al-assad to allow the united nations to conduct an investigation into the use of chemical weapons, an investigation that president assad said he wanted it is now blocked. but we are not relying on the u.n. alone. we are pursuing a gathering information independently and working with our allies and most importantly the syrian opposition. i don't have the depth of

information about the progress being made to assess whether the report you said about the evidence available, whether or not that is the case. i know we have been for some time now work in in an effort to build on the intelligence community's assessment about the use of chemical weapons to make sure we have a case, if you will, a set of facts i can be cooperated and reviewed and from which we can make assessments about possible policy actions. even as that takes place, as you have seen at the direction of the president, we have stepped up our humanitarian assistance. we have stepped up our assistance to the syrian opposition. we've made systems available directly to the military council of the opposition. we have stepped it up in that process of constantly assessing

the options available to us in the situation, assessing the ways we provide assistance to the opposition will continue, even as we gather facts about possible chemical weapon use. thanks very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the justice department is investigating who leaked the national security information "the associated press." tomorrow afternoon, attorney

general eric holder testifies before the house judiciary committee. that is live on c-span at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> jennifer hafer cornice halts reporter with "politico." warehouse to public setting up another vote on repealing the health care law 2010? >> they've really got assessment from the most cnrvative

house. obviously, president obama has been reelected if this is his lot and he will not allow repeals to get past his desk. that doesn't mean house republicans don't pick a statement to make it clear to the public to continue to fight this law. >> host: how many times have house republicans try to repeal the law? >> guest: this'll be the 37th 02 repeal a portion of the law. most of them in the last three years, but this'll be the 30 time they've attempted full repeal of the law. >> host: what a republican thing about the health care law they say hurt the economy? >> guest: you know, a lot of things will go into effect early next year on employers to provide coverage or pay penalties and we are to insurance announced this summer or next year. there will likely be increases in rates. they say that's going to hurt the public and that's why they want to continue to put attention on the loss. >> host: you mention all the

other times, attempts at repealing the votes on repeal anyway. what are democrats saying this go around? >> guest: this is more of the same in congress can spend my time doing better things that help the economy. it's really to base all the time and taxpayer money on legislation that the senate isn't going to take up of the president with certainly veto if it got that far. >> host: you mention a number parses a lot yet to be implemented. when will the law be fully implemented? >> guest: the significant portion will be next year when insurance for pay or penalty will go into effect in others have to provide coverage or pay a penalty and when insurance exchanges, which are the marketplace is what go into effect next year, too. >> host: there's a build build the house for her was pulled at the last minute. can you tell us about that though a mother is coming back to the floor?

>> guest: to helping sick americans now i could've taken money from the prevention funds to extend the life of the tiger pools. one of the first pieces to go into effect with the high-risk pools they were supposed to provide coverage to very, very sick people who have a hard time finding insurance. they win in 2010 and art expected to expire at the end of this year before these marketplaces go into effect. the white house said the schools will run out of money, so they cut off new enrollees in the pools. republicans say this is a mistake. you know, it is obviously sarcastic, but democrats are leaving the sickest americans uninsured, so they said this arrangement, taking money under the prevention funds in the high-risk woes is going to help them. but many conservatives said that

looked like it was pumping up the hot spot and they didn't want to do that, particularly because they hadn't voted on full repeal. republicans say once they vote on full repeal that could potentially come back to this helping sick americans act. i think it's yet to be determined whether that's going to be enough to bring those around, but they hope this is the first step. >> host: in addition to the full repeal bill, are there any other health care related pieces of legislation out there you're keeping your eye on? >> guest: this is the main one right now. we will see more hits against the holocaust, but i don't expect any time soon. >> host: haberkorn covers health issues for "politico." read more at "politico".com. thanks for the update. >> guest: thank you. >> the senate agriculture committee today approved a five-year farm bill. the legislation would cut

$2.5 billion a year and agriculture programs. here are some of the comm session from earlier today focus on the food stamp program. >> thank you, madam chairman. the first amendment, this would be number four has to do with the snap education program, which is voluntary and requires state resource matches fussbudget implementation plan and the discussion about the snap program this morning is centered around cuts to the program and who that might impact. this doesn't impact any beneficiary. this is basically the program is to educate people. if you look at where those dollars go today, you've got some serious inequities in the way the money is distributed. in fact, it seems a little unfair that 54% of these

resource is are going to force states. now this is the case in point. texas has more s.n.a.p. enrollees in california and it's on the receiving went .3%, or california gets 31.4%. it doesn't seem to take that much more to educate people in california than it does in the state of texas. this does another program, which the previous proposals have attempted to do some evidence that ensures resources are spent more equitably. basically what it does is provides for a $5 per person number that would be allowed for per enrolled in habitual to be used for education and that is indexed annually for inflation. so i can't, i think this is a fairly commonsense thing that doesn't impact people who were beneficiaries of this. and by the late come in a $2 billion savings.

so if we are looking for areas to find savings in the farm bill and with the sequester astarte pointed out by mcculloch from nebraska, the savings proposed by the cbo are significantly less because of sequester. we are done under $20 billion. it strikes me we had to find some areas in each of the areas that the farm bill budget where we can achieve significant savings. $4 billion as the number of trained greek, a 10 year number we find in savings. trim or he will spend hundred $60 billion. we talk about 1.5% of the budget we were able to find in savings and this adds a couple billion dollars to savings we get out of the program simply by coming up with a more equitable way of distributing these education and obesity prevention grant

dollars. it's an inequitable use of funds among program participants. we restructure so they can receive $5 per enrolled on recipients benefit nutrition education that help them make healthy choices when they're shopping on a budget. and again and away they make sense, his logical analysis to continue to do what we need to do to educate people about the program and a more equitable way. not a president, ask a recorded vote on this amendment. >> senator johanns. >> madam chair, thank you. let me thank the senator from south dakota for bringing this up. this is another example of the

inequities in the s.n.a.p. program. this is an opportunity to this amendment to fix for states with 50% of the benefit of this. i can't imagine there is ever a thought by any member tha literally this program would be designed in such a way that we would be on the floor of the senate saying to 46 states will be treated unequally do get a better deal here. i can imagine that was the case. this was important. i cannot must guarantee you must remember those four states, you are voting for the comments a result of the amendment to your stay. they are not beneficiaries and

that's a fair way of allocating precious dollars in a fair way to all 50 states and allocating the money to force states. >> i strongly oppose this amendment on a few grounds. straight up causes $2 billion is a mistake because at the end of the day we seen a hundred billion dollars on cardiovascular heart disease and we have a growing childhood obesity problem in this country. when our kids go to school, one of the challenges is often they do not sleep well, hunt sleep apnea, score lower because of lack of sleep or because of lack of self-esteem as they are made fun of. there's so many problems that happens to children they are obese. taken away for education issue should be we want to

cut costs so we not spent for new obese adults. the second reason i oppose this kind is what you are saying is your favorite state right in so you don't apply for money. honestly because some states think it's an program and apply for the money and utilize the money they get it in their schools doesn't mean he should defend state they don't think it's important. one of the reasons texas gets 1.3% of the monies that because texas doesn't have huge needs. the government chooses not to utilize this money. it is a choice that the texas governor, choice of the texas government. if they don't believe it's important to prevent, that is their choice, which i strongly disagree with. it's a long-term savings measure for costs. rewarding states that are doing a good job rewarding obesity is

the wrong approach in avoiding overall is the wrong approach. >> senator roberts. >> well, i think we all understand that we have some obesity problems in the united states. and i understand the federal government has wanted to play in creasing role in limiting in regards to school breakfast, school lunch programs are certain amount of calories. when the federal government would be deciding how many calories we would consume. on obesity problems, i think we'll have to of folks i'm not in a way that makes sense. are we saying with four states receiving high of 54%, someone has said 50%, 54% of the fund

gained. what about states rights of the children who suffer from obesity and the 33 state agencies that receive less than 1% total funding. but the senate is trying to do is simply replace the current index block grants with a per capita of $5 per household indexed for inflation. this prints out more evenly rather than the four states. i would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i appreciate the remarks by the senator from new york, however i think we have the real problem in the country with obesity, 39. >> any other discussion quite >> madam chair. >> senator thune. >> we are looking for ways to save money. you can save $2 billion in a way that doesn't cut benefits to

anybody. and i agree we have issues and need to educate the american people about obesity being one of them. with respect to individual states make an application for this fund to, this doesn't prevent texas -- texas can apply up to $5. texas doesn't want to apply for individual rowley, but they don't have to. the tone option. what it does do is put generally cap, which seems to me to be indexed for inflation a fairly reasonable amount and find a way to save $2 billion in this farm bill that we could pass on savings to the american taxpayer without impacting the beneficiaries, the people who depend on this program, which is pointed out in previous discussions on previous amendments by the senator from new york here folks across the country do need help from the program. this is an administrative costs. this does not come out of

beneficiaries, no one at benefits and programs today simply reapportion is the way in which states these dollars to educate people about some of these various programs available. >> at the senator will yield to a question. can you explain a feature $2 billion of savings? >> that is the cbo score. >> where is that $2 billion coming from? bars that go way now that it will no longer be going? >> it's a states that are probably getting funding today for education purposes. >> will come out of education is currently being used? >> administrator program stone impact -- not benefits that go directly to beneficiaries. that is correct. >> i would urge a no vote because it does in fact take $2 billion away from important education related to obesity, but i also want to remind everyone the most recent child

nutrition reauthorization, the s.n.a.p. education formula was change some more resources could be given across a larger number of states that transition taking place right now and we expect that to begin to change under the new formula put into place under child nutrition. there's no further discussion, we'll go to it though. i believe rollcall was requested, is that correct? the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] [roll call] ..

in that respect that perhaps the senator from new york could check her blood pressure little bit and we could move on down the road.