is now we are not the first country to conclude that the assad regime has used chemical weapons in their attacks on the population of syria. the president also will announce that we will be assisting the syrian rebels in syria by providing them with weapons and other assistance. i applaud the president's decision. 93,000 people dead later, over 1 million refugees, the countries in the surrounding region erupting into sectarian violence, the clear spreading of this conflict into a regional conflict. sunni, shia, saudi, iran, russ russia -- all major players, and we see that jordan is

overwhelmed with refugees. lebanon is experiencing sectarian violence. iraq is unraveling. and the entire region is bordering on chaos, not to mention the massacre and genocide that's taking place in syria. so i applaud the president's decision and i appreciate it. but the president of the united states had better understand that just supplying weapons is not going to change the equation on the ground of the balance of power. these people of the free syrian army need weapons and heavy weapons to counter tanks and aircraft. they need a no-fly zone. and they -- and bashir asaad's air assets have to be taken out and neutralized and we can do that by cratering the runway with cruise missiles, moving the patriot missiles closer to the border and protecting a safe zone where they can organize, where they can work, where they can coordinate with the civilian

side of the syrian national army and they can have a chance of success. mr. president, bashir assad, thanks to iranians, thanks to russia, thanks to hezbollah pouring in by the thousands, thanks to people flowing in from all over the middle east, including from iraq back into syria, they are losing and they're being massacred and they are sustaining incredibly heavy casualties. it's terrible. so i applaud the president's decision. i applaud the fact that he has now acknowledged what the french and others and all the rest of us knew, that bashir assad is using nuclear weapons. but just providing arms is not enough. we've got to change the equation on the battleground. and if i might say, i have seen and been in conflicts where

there was gradual escalation. they don't win. if all we're going to do is supply weapons, then there will be a commensurate resupply by the iranians and the russians and others. so i thank the president for acknowledging that the syrians are using chemical weapons and massacring their own people and i applaud his decision to provide additional weapons. i do not, every ounce -- every bone in my body knows that simply providing weapons will not change the battlefield equation and we must change the battlefield equation. otherwise, you are going to see a regional conflict the consequences of which we will be paying for a long, long time. and i yield to my colleague from south carolina. mr. graham: well, thank you, i would like to add my voice to the president's decision to act, because i think action by the united states and the international community is required. what does it matter to the average american that we contain this war in syria and that it ends sooner rather than later?

the chemical weapons that now have been acknowledged to have been used by assad against his own people, my goal is to make sure they're not used against us or israel, our allies throughout the world. and if we don't stop this war, the chemical weapons caches, that number and the -- that number in the hundreds of thousands of weapons that could be used, could be deployed, that could kill thousands of americans or israelis or people that are aligned with us. so, really, the president's decision t to intervening comes from an escalation to the use of chemical weapons by assad. as senator mccain has indicated, the threats to our country are not just from the chemical weapons but from a regional deterioration. the -- the -- the sitting president of the senate today, we were in jordan. the jordanian government has to accommodate over 560,000 syrian refugees, 60,000 syrian children

are attending jordanian schools. the economy in jordan is about to collapse, and if we lose the king of jordan, we've lost one of the last moderate voices in the mideast. so this war has a ripple effect that's affecting turkey, it's affecting iraq. radical islamists are flowing in on the sunni side and the shia side. there's al qaeda elements that are filling in the vacuum because the war has gone on so long. now you've got hezbollah, radical islamic shia group. and this is turning into a civil war within syria and a regional conflict. so to the president, your decision today to get involved is welcome news, but, as senator mccain said, mr. president, the goal is to end the war. and the only way this war is going to end quickly and on our terms is to neutralize the air assets that assad enjoys, the air power advantage he has over the rebels. we can crater the runways. there are four air bases he uses. we can stop the planes from flying. we can shoot planes down without having one boot on the ground. that's not necessary.

but as to senator mccain's point, the longer this war goes, the more damage to our allies, the more likely the chemical weapons can be used not just against syrians but against us and others. mire biggest fear about the -- my biggest fear about the war in syria that chemical weapons fall into the hands of radical islamists and they're closer today than they've ever been in achieving that goal. so, mr. president, you made the right call today, but if we don't follow up to end this war with neutra neutralizing assad'r power, and supply arms to the rebels we will look long and hard who we give the arms too. but here's the good news. we don't need to give them a bunch of antiaircraft capability if we crater the runways through the international community using our assets. if we neutralize the air power by blowing up the runway, you don't have to provide the rebels with a bunch of antiaircraft capability. if we'll provide a no-fly zone using patriot missile batteries, you can -- you can protect the

people without interjecting massive weapons into the conflict. so, senator mccain, you've been right about this for a couple years. this is a big day and i would conclude with this. assad is winning. the reason the russians are providing him more weapons, the reason hezbollah is in syria, the reason that the iranians are so bold is that he is clearly winning and it is not in our national interest for him to win because the israelis cannot allow the technology being sold to assad by the russians to b be -- to be present because it will hurt their national security. so i hope by this intervention today, to get involved after chemical weapons have been used, that the tide of battle will turn. and if it doesn't turn, it will have catastrophic results for our national security and the region as a whole. so, mr. president, you chose wisely today to get involved. we support you. but the goal is not to help the rebels. the goal is to end the war

before chemical weapons can be used against us and we lose the king of jordan and the entire mideast goes up in flames. mr. mccain: could i ask my colleague, you remember when the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff appeared before our committee we will over a year ago and said unsolicited, it's inevitable, it's inevitable that bashir assad will fall. do you remember that? mr. graham: yes. mr. mccain: this is from our highest ranking military officer and our highest defense official, the secretary of defense. at that time, i said, what makes you so sure? how can you be sure? with the help from hezbollah, the help from the russians at that time and the equipment and arms that they were getting. don't worry, the fall of assad is inevitable. is there anybody today that believes that bashir assad is going to fall? i don't think so. because the facts on the ground are he's winning and the slaughter continues. and the latest is 93,000 people

who have been massacred. and as the senator from south carolina just stated, with well over a million refugees which are overwhelming the neighboring countries. now, i -- it's my understanding that the president has not made the final decision on arming but he has made the decision that chemical weapons have been used. i think it's obvious that they will be providing weapons. they need a no-fly zone. and i would say that there are military officials in the pentagon who will say, you can't do it and you have to have total mobilization of every single reserve in the world and -- and in the united states and it's so hard. well, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year on defense, and if our military can't establish a no-fly zone, then, by god, american taxpayer dollars have been terribly wasted and we ought to have an investigation as to why we can't handle a situation in a third-rate country.

i believe we can. i know we can. i know because i talk to people like the head of our central command -- former head of our central command and our former head of nato and others, like general keene, the architect of the surge. we can go in and establish a no-fly zone and we can change this equation on the battlefield. finally, i would ask my colleague, you know, we understand that the american people are war weary.they're weary because of what happened in iraq. and we remain in afghanistan. iraq is unraveling, by the way. but americans are weary, they're tired of reading the casualty lists and the funerals and the -- and the terrible tragedies that have befallen american families. that's why neither i nor the senator from south carolina are saying we want boots on the ground. in fact, we don't want boots on the ground. we know it would be counterproductive. we know it would not lead to victory.

but we do know we can provide incredible assistance and change this battlefield equation. and finally, because a lot of americans haven't paid perhaps as much attention as some of us and maybe because they're war weary, i think it would be wise of the president of the united states to go on national television and explain to the american people why we are stopping this genocide, why we are assisting these people who are struggling for the same things that we stand for and believe in, why the united states of america went to bosnia with air power, not boots on the ground. why we went to kosovo and didn't put boots on the ground. and how we can help these people while alleviate the unspeakable misery of the syrian people. and i wonder if my colleague from south carolina agrees with me. mr. graham: i would recommend the president educate the world -- the american people about what's going on in the mideast because it's scary. its really scary. the iranians are marching toward a nuclear weapon.

israel's becoming more surrounded by radical islamic nations, not less. the king of jordan is teetering. and if we lose him, god knows what's going to happen in the mideast. i would suggest the president take it one step further. explain to the american people what happens to us if these chemical weapons assad has used against his own people fall into the hands of radical islamists who want to do more than just take care of syria. my big fear is that weapons of mass destruction are going to fall into the hands of radical islamists either in iran or syria if we don't act quickly. and the only reason thousands of americans have been killed in the war on terror and not millions, they can't get the weapons to kill millions of us. if they could, they would. so i would argue very strongly it is in our national security interest to make sure the war in syria ends and assad is displaced and finally, senator mccain, you're right. he is winning. he was supposed to be gone last year. he's never going to be displaced until the tide of battle chang changes. the way you change the tide of battle is you neutralize his air

power. you can do that without mobilizing every reservist, including me. it can be done and it should be done, and it's in our interest to do it. one last thought. if we do not address the chemical weapons compromise in syria and end this war before these chemical weapons flow out of syria, not only will israel be in the cross hair of radical islamists with weapons of mass destruction capability, it is only a matter of time that they come here. the next bomb that goes off in a place like boston could have more than nails and glass in it because the people who want these weapons in syria, trying to develop nuclear capability in iran, if you don't think they're coming after us, you're naive. i know we're war weary but i hope we're not too weary to protect our children and grandchildren and ourselves from a threat that's real. i wish it would go away but you don't make these things go away by wishing. you confront them. and the sooner you confront it, the better off we'll be.

mr. mccain: could i just mention one other -- i know that one of my colleagues is waiting on the floor. there's no experience that i think anyone can have to see the terrible wages of war than to go to a refugee camp. the senator from south carolina and i have been to refugee camps on both the syrian and jordanian -- excuse me, the turkish and the jordanian border. to see thousands of people living in terribly primitive conditions, to see, as i did in one camp we visited, there had been a rainstorm the night before and people literally living in water. to see the -- the desperation on the faces of the people and the children. and i've had many moving experiences while visiting these refugee camps, but i also think there's an aspect that we ought to understand and appreciate as americans. they're angry and they're bitter because we wouldn't come to

their assistance. i'll never forget a woman who was a schoolteacher who was escorting me around the refugee camp that said, senator mccai mccain, you see all these children here, you see all these children? children running around everywhere. and she said, these children are going to take revenge on those who refused to help them, to stop this slaughter by bashir assad. so there are long-term implications, both on a humanitarian side as well as other aspects of -- of this issue. and believe me, it is the greatest blow to iran if bashar assad fell in 25 years, so it is not just a humanitarian issue. if bashar assad goes, hezbollah is disconnected from iran. the whole equation in the middle east dramatically changes. if iran and bashar assad succeed, you're going to see a direct threat of the state of israel, which the israelis

understand coming from the golan heights. so this is not only a humanitarian issue, it is a national security issue. if iran succeeds in keeping bashar assad in power, that will send a message throughout the middle east about iranian power, iranian ability and iranian ability to change governments throughout the middle east. so there is a lot at stake here. i hope the president will go to a no-fly zone and give these people the weapons with which they defend themselves as russian arms and iranian arms pour into the country on the side of bashar assad. my friends, it's not a fair fight. and we know in that kind of climate and terrain, air power is the deciding factor. so i thank my colleague from south carolina. mr. president, i appreciate the patience of the senator from texas, and i yield the floor.

mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, on friday, the people of iran head to the polls to make a false choice. ostensibly participating in a democratic process to select a new president. they are really affirming their existing extremist theocracy. they will be forced to select not the candidate of their choice but the candidates that have been chosen for them by the supreme leader ali komeni. candidates guarantee to continue the supreme leader's policies of political and religious oppression in pursuit of nuclear capability at all costs. in the united states, we are now engaged in a national dialogue about how we can best preserve

our god-given rights guaranteed to us by our constitution. we're taking a serious look at the role of government in our lives and revisiting the balance government is striking between security and privacy. but even as we debate these vital issues at home, we should remember those who are denied their liberty in iran. today in iran the economic picture is grim. 48% of iranian citizens now live below the poverty line, almost double the rate from 1995. the rial has lost 50% of its value. the official rate of inflation is 32.2%. the real rate is considerably higher. the national rate of unemployment is 11.2%, and it is as high as 20% in certain regions. and basic freedoms, political,

religious, speech, the internet are under systematic attack by the regime. sadly, persecution and oppression are the norm in iran. iran's political opposition has been effectively silenced. keen 2009 opposition leaders such as mirosein musabe, have been imprisoned without charge in their own homes for two years, with locked doors and windows. the list of presidential candidates has been hand selected by the supreme leader, not by the iranian people. american-iranian pastor sayed abedeni is right now serving an eight-year sentence in iran's brutal evan prison for simply professing his faith. i was proud to sign a letter

along with 11 other senators in january to secretary clinton advocating for pastor abedeni's release and to secretary kerry on february 12 thanking him for his statement in support of pastor abedeni. there has been a crackdown on christians in the leadup to this election, including the closing of the central assembles of god church in tehran and the detention of pastor robert asaria. eye rainian pastor benham erane may face the death penalty for organizing a 300-strong congregation of church of iran. iran's 100,000-plus evangelical christians are suffering brutal oppression right now in an imitation of china, iran is attempting to create a sort of internal internet that will

block access to international news and social media. since the 2009 upraising, the supreme leader has instituted four new entries to restrict internet freedom. the supreme council on cyberspace, the committee charged with determining offensive content, the cyber police and the cyber army. and iran has continued aggressively expanding its influence in the region and beyond. iran remains a leading state sponsor of terrorism and is increasing its activity. iran has been so hostile towards the nation of israel that prime minister netanyahu recently expressed fears of -- quote -- another holocaust from tehran, regardless of any election that may take place. iran's proxy army hezbollah is supporting assad's murderous attacks on his own people in

syria. today the united nations estimated that 93,000 people have been slaughtered in syria since the uprising began in 2011. iran's fingerprints are on those murders. iran is not only expanding its own influence through the region with closer ties with the muslim brotherhood in egypt, but it's also expanding its influence in latin america. and most troubling, iran is proceeding undeterred in pursuit of its nuclear weapons capability. in my judgment, mr. president, there is no greater threat to the national security of the united states than the prospect of a nuclear iran, and we need to be unequivocal and speak with absolute clarity that the united states will do whatever it takes to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.

unfortunately, the message to date from the united states has at times seemed muddled. on the one hand, secretary of state john kerry has asked congress to relax sanctions around the iranian presidential elections so that his diplomatic efforts have a -- quote -- "window to work." on the other hand, the obama administration recently announced new sanctions on iran's currency and a new initiative to get communications devices to the iranian people. but both efforts, however well intentioned, came too late to have any real impact on this election. today, the united states senate is taking encouraging action. i'm pleased that today the senate hopes to pass a resolution, s. res. 1 54, reaffirming our call for free and fair elections, a resolutions i fully support. the resolution also condemns the widespread human rights

violation of the government of iran, calls on the government of iran to respect its people's expression of appreciation and expresses our ongoing support to the people of iran for their calls for a democratic government that upholds freedom, civil liberties and the rule of law. the iranian people may well be confused about where the united states stands. especially after we stood silently by when they took to the street four years ago during the green revolution, but it was not always this way. 26 years ago this week, president ronald reagan stood in front of the brandenburg gate in berlin and challenged the soviet leader mikhail gorbachev to tear down the wall that divided the eastern and western halves of the city. no more important words have been spoken by a leader in modern times. today, i ask all americans to

join me in likewise urging the regime in iran to tear down the walls of political and religious persecution, to relieve the pain of the unnecessary economic hardship and to renounce the isolation caused by tehran's aggressive and belligerent policies. to those right now imprisoned and being persecuted in iran, i would repeat to you the words of encouragement president reagan gave when he knew that the tyranny represented by the berlin wall would not stand. as president reagan observed, for it cannot withstand faith, it cannot withstand truth, it cannot withstand freedom. that's the very same message we should convey to the people of iran as they suffer under tyrannical theocracy, and to the

supreme leader i would say stop oppressing your people, stop persecuting christians, stop pursuing nuclear weapons capability, stop stifling freedom of speech and allow real and free elections. free the iranian people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. 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 west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, thank you. mr. president, i appreciate the power of the free enterprise system. it is one of the reasons for america's greatness, and i know from experience that private businesses do some things better than the government ever could. but over the last couple of decades, the united states has increasingly relied on private contractors to do the work that the men and women in our armed forces used to do. and they are getting exorbitant salaries to do the work, in some cases almost twice the salaries of the president of the united states. to the people of west virginia and to me, it doesn't make any sense to pay a defense contractor up to $763,000 a year. that's almost twice as much as our commander in chief and almost four times as much as our secretary of defense. and if we don't -- if we do

nothing about this, this figure will automatically rise to $951,000 next year. $951,000. that's almost a million dollars a year right in the middle of sequestration when we are cutting everything. now, with the war in afghanistan winding down, it is only natural for defense contractors to be looking for new opportunities, and the southern border of our country is one of the places they are relying. in fact, "the new york times" says some of them are getting ready to demonstrate military grade and long-range camera systems this summer in an effort to secure billion dollar contracts with homeland security. i understand we need the expertise of the private industry to secure our borders, but taxpayers should not be responsible for the exorbitant salaries that these contractors are demanding. so i'm offering an amendment that would cap compensation for private contractors employed for border security. the cap would be $230,700

annually, which is the most a government civilian could be paid in a given year, so it's in line with what we are doing. that is significantly more than we pay the defense secretary, secretary hagel, or our homeland security secretary napolitano. there is nothing in my amendment that would prevent contractors from making more than $230,000. we're not saying you can't make more than that. we're just saying you can't pass that through to the taxpayers of america. pay it out of the profits of your company. and the only thing i'm preventing is from us, the taxpayers, from having to foot the bill. i have heard some proposals to bring that figure down to $487,000. that's an improvement, but frankly i can't look west virginians in the eye, and i'm sure you would have a hard time looking at your fellow massachusetts -- massachusettsians? and try to justify paying government contractors that much

money because it's just hard to justify. it can't be justified, mr. president. we need to get our fiscal house in order, and we can't do that if we allow private contractors to charge the taxpayers exorbitant salaries of almost $1 million. it's time for common sense controls on controls on contractor salaries, so i'm asking for the support of this amendment when it comes to the floor. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share some remarks after our armed services committee hearing, and i appreciate the eloquence of my friend and colleague from west virginia, thor manchin, on the issue he just mentioned. and the committee did reduce almost by half the amount that contractors could bill.

we may see further changes in that issue. but when you talk about money, real money, there is a problem we've got with the bill that came out of committee, and it's such a grim, serious matter. and we've got to talk about it. we've got to be up front about t and nobody can be confused about it. i was pleased with chairman levin. he was a wonderful chairman of our committee. we've consistently had bipartisan votes. i wanted to be a bipartisan vote for the bill and voted for it today. but i'm not sure that was the right vote because i said then during the committee that we've got a few serious, serious problems in that the amount of money that was appropriated for the bill -- $552 billion -- $52

billion over the current law. and there is a hope and a belief that we can fix that gap between now and the time it comes to the floor. secretary hagel was before the budget committee yesterday, and i'm ranking republican on the budget committee, and he indicated he's working on a plan to help us be within the law enforcement he also indicated that to chairman levin and rank member inhofe on the armed services committee. but let's be sure what the situation is. august of 2011 we'd run up huge debt, we hit our debt ceiling again, and the administration, the president, wanted to raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion, one of the largest -- maybe the largest raise of the debt

ceiling in history. and that was supposed to take us two or three years. well, we've already hit that debt ceiling again now it appears. soon we'll be having to pass legislation -- all the little extensions and maneuvering -- to extend the debt ceiling a little longer are being exercised. but we'll soon have to vote again to raise the debt ceiling. but in august of 2011, after much intensity of effort, legislation passed. i opposed it out of one of my biggest -- one of my biggest concerns was what it was doing to the defense budget, but the bill passed and it set up a committee and it said -- and the cheat was tcommittee was to deah future cuts and long-term entitlement programs and other programs. that was their goal. they were given that challenge. but fundamentally the bill that

passed raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion, but it reduced spending, the growth of spending, better said, over the next ten years by $2.1 trillion. and, unfortunately, those reductions in the growth of spending fell disproportionately on the defense department. i'll mention that in a minute. but the agreement was clear. there was no tax increases, there was no other gimmicks to it other than the spending level would be reduced over ten years by $2.1 trillion. we were then spending at the level of $.7 trillion a year, which would be $37 trillion over ten. we were trying to spend $47 trillion over ten, an increase substantial from the current level. so agreement was it would reduce

the growth to $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion. so that was the deal. and there was a hope that the committee would reach an even more historic agreement in which entitlements, social security, and medicare would be put on a firm foundation and we would get the country on the right track. the committee failed. they did not reach an agreement. so in law there remained the b.c.a., and within the budget control act there was the sequester, and the sequester would take another $500 billion -- the b.c.a. took about $500 billion out of the defense budget and the sequester part of the b.c.a. took another one. when the committee didn't reach an agreement, there was another $500 billion to be taken out of the defense department. $1 trillion.

the defense department represents one-sixth of the federal budget. the cuts -- almost $1 trillion -- with would come out of defe, one-sixth of the government. that's half of the cuts that were to be taken from our entire government. when you look at the numbers over ten years, the defense budget adjusted for inflation would take a 14% reduction in its funding, whereas the remaining five-sixths of the federal government would have a 44% increase in its funding. so this is the kind of malapportionment of belt tightening that ought not to happen. and so i thought -- and i believe the american people thought -- that we should get together with the president and see how we couldn't avoid this problem and spread the cuts out through other agencies and

departments, many of which had no reductions whatsoever. of course, social security had no reduction whatsoever. medicaid, one of the fastest-growing programs of all, had zero reductions in spending under sequester. food stamps that had gone from $20 billion to $80 billion, increased fourfold in 12 years, got zero cuts. and a lot of other programs got zero cuts. whereas the defense department was getting hammered. and people think, well, the war is coming down, the defense department can handle it. no, that's not the way it works. the war costs are entirely separate. this is a reduction of the base defense budget, where we pay our soldiers, pay our electric bills, maintain our bases, maintain our aircraft, our ships, our ports, and our bases around the world.

that's what's being cut, the fundamental strength of the military, and it is too much. can they survive it? not without doing some damage. sure, they'll survive. and they'll be able to get by. but what ought to be done is we ought to get together with the commander in chief of the united states military and work with the secretary of defense, senator -- former senator chuck hagel, a member of this body, and get together and figure out a way to have some other parts of this government take some of the reductions in spending that have fallen disproportionately on the defense department. it is just that simple. now, i suggested to secretary hagel yesterday at the budget committee that, yes, he ought to be talking about congress; yes, we have eventually the power of the purse; but nothing was going to happen in the united states

senate that president obama doesn't agree to. senator reid is not going to support anything president obama doesn't agree to. it looks to me like the members of the democratic conference are going to stick together on this issue. they have so far. months have gone by, and effort is hasn't been -- and the sequester hasn't been fixed. so i said, i assume, mr. secretary, that you have the phone number to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. and i think you better call over there to the commander in chief of the united states military, who has an obligation to the men and women he's deploying all over the world and sending into harm's way and who has an obligation to maintain the strength of our military. yes, it can be more efficient. it's already taking $500 billion in cuts and may take a little more. but these cuts are more than can

be easily assimilated. so i just feel like that this has drifted to a point where we're in a serious predicament. the military has already had to lay off civilian civilians worke united states government for 11 days, furloughed them without pay and done other things to try to stay within the financial constraints that they're now under because the cuts are beginning to bite. so that -- this is the situation we're in. now, i want to say to my colleagues, i do not believe the defense bill that came out of committee -- and we had a nice discussion today on the multiple issues that are important to america's defense, and we had a good collegial feeling. i don't believe that bill should pass the united states senate.

i don't believe it will pass the united states senate. if it violates the spending limits we voted just two years ago. i mean, get -- just think of it. we agreed to reduce the growth of spending from $37 billion -- at that time rate two years ago, we were going to let it trough to $47 billion. we reduced the growth to $ar $45 billion. and we come back to the american people and say, we can't effect that now? we can't reduce the growth in spending just that little bit? repromised you that we would raise the debt ceiling, but we know it made you angry because we mismanaged your money, but we promised we'll reduce the growth of spending by $2.1 trillion. trust us, we'll do it. and here we are -- president obama six months later produced

a budget that wiped out all of those cuts and increased taxes, taxes and spending. and this has been the pattern we've been in. so i got to say, we do not need to have this happen. so i'm prepared to meet with the president. i'm prepared to meet with the secretary of defense, the office of management and budget, and talk about where we can find other reductions in spending and reduce some of the reductions on the defense department. we need to reduce a good many of them on the defens defense depa, frankly. and then the defense department can phase in some reductions in spending over the out years. they can do that. but too much too fast is really destabilizing. no business would do that. and so we've got to figure out a way to make the system work. so, mr. president, i was pleased to work with senator levin and

senator inhofe today. i want to be cooperative and be positive in our efforts. i like much of what we did with the budget, but we just -- the authorization bill in the armed services committee. but we just didn't talk about the elephant in the room, and that's the sequester. the real danger that we have there. we're going to have to discuss it now. it will be part of the floor discussion and debate. if i.t. not fixed -- it can -- if it's not fixed -- it can be fixed. i am i think we're all prepared to work for t i don't think this country will sink into the ocean. i don't believe this country is going to have to close our parks. i don't believe this country is going to have to end tours at the white house to reduce the growth of spending by $2 trillion from $47 billio trillio

$45 trillion over the next ten years. i don't believe that's going to bankrupt us. but we ought to do it in a smart way. we should have every agency and department of government tighten their belt, not just some, and we slipped into this when the sequester was written to try to effect some political result that didn't occur, and now we're -- we've got to as a responsible senate, consider what the right thing for america is. and the right thing is to have all agencies and departments tighten their belt and to reduce the pressure that's being -- now being -- now falling on our defense department. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum and yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum, terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent, that on monday, june 17, at 5:00 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar numbers 48 and 62, that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the

usual form, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations and do it in the order listed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further action on s. res. 154. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 154, supporting political reform in iran and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the hoeven substitute amendment an grady, to the resolution as amended be agreed to, the hoeven amendment to be preamble be agreed, the tight amendment be agreed to -- title amendment be agreed to and the

motion to reconsider be considered made an made and laie table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 171. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 171, designating june 15, 2013, as world elder abuse awareness day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i apologize to everyone for having to wait. we were trying to get some things cleared and it didn't work. so... i ask unanimous consent tha that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until monday, june 17. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed

expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m., senators be allowed to speak for ten minutes each. following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. and finally, that when the senate resumes legislative session following the vote on the gonzalez nomination, the senate resume consideration of the immigration bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, the next roll call vote will be at 5:30 on monday. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will stand adjourned senate will stand adjourned

until the secretary of homeland security system order is fully secure. now we all know that will take years and years and years and that is why very similar to disconnect the judiciary committee and was defeated 12 to six with two republicans joined

democrats were part of our so-called gang of eight. the problem with the amendment is very simple. what do we do for five, six years until the border is fully secure we need to bring equipment there, build fences they are and do all the kinds of things in our bill. we provide $6.5 billion to build a billion dollars for the border fence to deploy sensors, fixed hours, radars, drums the current entire border. so utterly telling those 11 elliott? if you had successfully the police, maybe five years you can stay here and get the right to work in the right to travel. this clearly would undo the entire human structure of the immigration bill that has such bipartisan support before us today. but they repeated as opposed by

all the members of the gang of eight, the four democrats and republicans are the reason that it will take years and years until the border is secure had to read that lot will have millions more from across the border illegally, the number illegal immigrants will increase and we may never get to real immigration reform that is needed, so desperately needed by the country. i would strongly urge this amendment be defeated. the american people made it resoundingly clear they want to the forwards immigration reform and a careful, balanced bipartisan way. they want us to be reasonable about the 11 million here and future immigration so they grow the american economy. that's what our bill does this

proposal would enter much of that without proposing real solution is to it we do before that. that's bipartisan opposition and i strongly urge it be defeated. i yield the rest of my time to the chairman of our judiciary committee, senator leahy. >> senator from vermont. >> mr. president, i ask you this consent for the majority minority leaders i ask unanimous can send the request be granted. >> without objection. >> mr. president, this amendment by fred from iowa's daily delay the process for the 11 million undocumented individuals of the country. the pathway to citizenship has to be earned, but it's also got to be attainable and as a further delay a process party taken these 13 years.

but in the 11 million people is not at the right thing to do. we can focus their research center pose a threat. also necessary. but then pouring billions of dollars into border security in recent years. it made enormous progress since the last immigration fell in 2006 and 2007. this bill takes even more. as i said yesterday on the floor, i have to oppose this amendment. i yield the floor. >> senator from iowa. >> i want to remind my colleagues we were promised an open and fair process in this legislation. the fact that maturity is moving to table my men and purged the

so-called open an amendment process is a farce. the majority is afraid to have an up or down vote on my amendment. they're apparently afraid to have an open debate on the provision that ensures sure border security before the causation and that's what the people want. they claim to be open to improving the bill, but this motion to table shows are not ready to fundamentally change the bill. price him in my amendment that maturity is stifling progress on this bill. they are refusing to have an amendment process to approve it. this is not the right way to start off on a very important though. with only two immigration reform once every 25 years, so what's the hurry? surely we need an amendment

process ensure immigration reform can succeed. is a lesson to be recommending to 86 legislation that is now the law of the land. then we legalize first and thought we were going to secure the border line, which we never did. this amendment is the first of many that will improve the bill and do what the authors of the bill say they want to do you secure the border into at the american people expect us to do. the american people are being asked to accept legalization programs in exchange for the compassionate approach it be a short the laws are going to be enforced. as he read details of the bill, it's clear the approach taken is legalize first come into force later, the same mistake in 1986.

my amendment would fundamentally change that. the amendment now pending would require the secretary to certify to congress the secretary is maintained effective control over the entire southern border for six months before processing applications for legalization. it's a commonsense approach. order security first, legalize next. the bill passes isaias, the secretary only needs to submit to plans before processing people through the legalization program. we don't need to pass it in my legislation that tells the administration to do a job already required of them that they are not doing because people want laws enforced. nevertheless the fillets are at legalization even if the strategies the secretary submits to congress are flawed and

inadequate. what if the secretary is committed? what the secretary believes the border is more secure than ever? while the secretary told the committee she thought they were secure. legalization status is more than procreation. this rpi status is in fact cyclization. once a person has rpi to get the freedom to live in the united states and travel from everything our country offers. does that to prevent legalization. we all know it will never be taken away and people who say 10 years down the road if we don't have the border securitate you can have -- that you're going to take that can make these people classified as illegal again is naïve. given the history of these programs, we know it will never

run. for those that wish of the the border security for one person gets legal status. if we pass the bill as it is, there will be no pressure on this administration or future administration to secure the border. there will be no push by the legalization to get the job done. we need to work together and secure the border for several reasons some are not back here in the same position 25 years ago sanely made a mistake 25 years ago like we know now we made a mistake and we needed to protect our sovereignty in the homeland and improve national security. under my amendment, the secretary would have to prove we have effective control as defined in the bill for six months before the application for provisional immigrant status or process. hayek was one authors of the

bill of border security title is not improved, this bill doesn't stand a chance at getting to the president. my amendment is the first necessary step to fixing this issue. i yield the floor. >> majority leader. >> my dear friend and i have certain the congress together for more than three decades. he's a fine and from a good legislature, but the only criticism i have is reading my speech because the speech he just gave is almost a carbon copy of what i've been saying for a long time that we should have or shouldn't have the 60-vote threshold. for him to come now as they were going to have 50 votes should go back and read his speeches, which may be his staff has done. mr. president cummings to table the amendment.

>> the senate immigration bill cannot keep white house briefing. jay carney was ousted by u.s. policy options regarding the syrian civil war in the national security agency data collection programs. this is about 50 minutes. [laughter] >> i actually have to -- i have

a family wedding and i have get back to boston. i was going to fly, but i fear that may not happen. so i booked a train. as a former employee of the vice president, i'm a big fan. [inaudible] >> now you don't, but i had a special affection for it. so thank you all for being here this afternoon and let me just say a couple things before we start. first of all for the reason aforementioned, 1105. secondly, today the president and vice president will be within the numbers they seem to have elementary school. we commend the famous courage and perseverance are continuing commonsense legislation to

reduce gun violence and we want them to know as we approach the six month anniversary we will never forget and will continue to fight alongside. second announcement. this afternoon, the president will meet with senators leahy, schumer, durbin, menendez and inaccurate the white house for an update of the senate suffers to pass, and the comprehensive immigration reform. let me read that again there? senators leahy, schumer, durbin, menendez and then it. third and final announcement is today's clerks last day as assistant press secretary and he is heading over to the department of homeland security, heading back where he will be the assistant secretary for public affairs at the department of homeland security.

fancy title, but i hope you feel the same way we do that he's been an essential element of this office and has helped usa's help us. what i'll take your questions. >> 93,000 people have been confirmed killed in syria. we've all heard from the white house that she condemned the violent, that she won aside to government must provide nonlethal assistance to rebels. none of that is called the violence they are. can you tell us a little bit about whether there is frustration by the president and the white house is you haven't been able to do more and the president is considering, not just on the table has a broad array of options, but one is actually considering it is his next to. >> the president and every member of his national security

team are greatly concerned by the terrible situation in syria and the worsening situation is syria. as you know, the united states has made itself the number one contributor communitarian assistance to the syrian people. we provide direct assistance to the syrian opposition and the supreme military council. we are working with the russians and allies and partners as well as the opposition to bring about a conference in geneva for any transition we in the syrian people seek. the president is reviewing and considering what options are available to him in the united states as well as our allies and partners for further additional steps in syria and not process

continues. every option he considers he evaluates based on the long-term view of whether or not the limitation of any policy options will help bring about the desired result as opposed to seeming like a good thing to do but not actually changing the situation for improving the situation and perhaps worsening instead. that is in the process the president has insisted he and his team undertake as they evaluate these options because as terrible as this situation is area, he has to make decisions when it comes to policy towards syria and the best interest of the united states. first and foremost in our security interests and to look

at it all so through regional as well as the interests of allies and partners in syrian people. these are all difficult decisions because of the two radical behavior by bishara al-assad, has wanted willingness to murder his own people to cling on and the president in every member of his team understand the gravity of the situation and are making decisions in evaluating options accordingly. >> do you feel any sense of urgency given the deteriorating situation hezbollah in syria right now? >> as i've said, we have noted in condemned and are concerned by the involvement of outside

actors than trying to prop up assad. it only increases potential for greater regional instability for the conflict in syria spilling over into other parts of the region and that is a concern. the death and destruction remains of course the primary concern in the potential consequences for continued chaos in syria remained of great concern. i've been asked recently about are you now meeting on syria and i have said what is always been the case that in this building and the defense department and state department and elsewhere, people need on the subject and discuss the subject reviewing options in assessing the facts that we have constantly.

that's true here and true with regard the principles in the policymaking process. >> is anything for the u.s., france and britain to go in with a coordinated message to the russians on syria? >> as i said yesterday, we fully expect syria to be a topic of discussion on the g8. there's no question syria will be one of them in particular because of the interest of the united states, the united kingdom and france as well as other participants. i don't have any announcements make about policy related matters in the run-up to the g8. we'll try to brief you not necessarily about syria, but will preview that trip for you tomorrow.

with regards to syria, i can simply say we fully expected to be a topic of conversation and discussion. >> jay, president clinton made some critical -- fairly critical remarks about president obama's policy towards syria yesterday. does the white house have a response to that and has the added pressure? says the president feel any pressure? >> the president as you know views these significant challenges in the international arena through the prism of the u.s. national interests and he makes decisions based on what he considers the essential long review about what options we may undertake with our allies were

unilaterally with the opposition assessing whether or not they will help bring about achievement of the ultimate goal which is a transition in syria to an authority that respects the rights of all syrian, that ceases the violence, protects conventional and unconventional weapons. the president is very serious about the need to evaluate the options available to him based on the assessment that he makes him that his teammates abuts international security interests and what policy options will be most affect give. obviously, a lot of people who have expertise in the matter, both outside of government and congress instead of government have perspective to add and

opinions to contribute and analysis to provide the president welcomes all of that. in the end, he and his team have to make decisions they believe are the best interest of the united states and the american people. he welcomes the cadmium but if every individual out there who has perspective on a situation like this, absolutely. >> has seen the rest of the team studied the option of syrian rebels concerned about those weapons ending up in the militant part of the rebel community? >> there's a number of factors that come in to the human assessment about that policy option. that is one of them and we've been explicit about it for some time now. it is also true the opposition

has strength and then become or sophisticated and we have overtime were more directly with them and develop stronger relationships with leaders within the opposition and opposite process we talked about in secretary clinton talked about in the past. so this is not a static picture. most are about the state of the opposition in nature of the opposition six months ago or year ago is not necessarily true today, so we evaluate that as well. obviously the concern you mention is one of the concern we been very forthright about as we debate these assessments. >> lastly, can you tell us what i'll be talking about? >> the progress being made in

the senate, comprehensive immigration reform bill that emerges bipartisan support for the judiciary. i'm sure the elected president on the process and debate, but i don't have any specific amendment to note that they'll discuss. there's obviously a lot of amendment that will be considered. the president's interest as you heard him say the other day is in the senate recognizing we have a unique opportunity that has been a long-time coming and is unlikely to come again anytime soon if we do not see fit to pass comprehensive immigration reform with bipartisan support, which is the only way to do it. we've been encouraged from the

start by the purpose of the gang of eight, leaders in the senate and other participants in this process and we continue to be by the progress we've seen come even as he made clear there is much work to travel and there are obstacles along the way. we expect those who oppose immigration reform will attempt to derail it and we urge every senator as he or she considers this legislation to understand no one can get exactly what they want out of this process. that is the nature of compromise. the president supports the existing bill. it is a product of bipartisan compromise not exactly word for word if he would write it, but does reflect principles he laid out. the same statement can be said by every co-author of that legislation and every senator who will eventually supported.

it won't be exactly what they what word for word, but it is already a significant bipartisan accomplishment and we hope to keep this train moving. >> minority leader pelosi got into a heated exchange with a reporter of the late-term abortion bill saying that this bill would make it no abortion in the country are taking an extreme case here but i say to you in philadelphia is reprehensible and have an agenda, and better. does the president believe this bill is an important though or does he agree with minority leader pelosi? >> since you just notified me of the statements come i haven't spoken to the president. you know the president's

position on women's health in a woman's right to choose and he's been absolutely clear about where he stands. with regard to the bill in question, that one got a little attention yesterday in a way that i'm sure republicans which the public would forget because it reflects in the learning misunderstand and of what is a crime and what that means and an alarming disregard for women in many ways. we obviously asserted that she was similar comments were boys have taken great issue with them. >> on a separate matter in syria, there's plenty for conference later this year in geneva, but since the violence

has escalated con is planning for the conference now on hold? >> no, it continues. as a set of late, we are working to convene the conference and do the work necessary to have preparations in order that would bring the parties together and move towards a political solution. but that process is not and cannot occur in the fact is there's developments on the ground that play into that process and the bloodshed this person. the loss of innocent life has escalated and this goes to the questions i was answering a we are very aware of how serious the situation is. we evaluate our options as we pursue this channel solution

with the russians and other, we are aware of the need to continue to explore what we can do to support the opposition on the ground. >> representative peter king has said he believes glenn lemos should be prosecuted. does the president share that view first of all? and secondly, speaker boehner today said he surprised the white house has not spoken out more forcefully in defense of the program nx rating were forcefully why it's necessary. >> i think you're the president speak about his views on the program and the necessity of the programs in question here, the necessity to have such programs in place in order to protect our national security. i think you heard the president make clear that he believes in the trade-offs that we have to

make to pursue our security and protect her privacy, we have found that the system we have the right balance, but he understands others may have a different opinion and that the debate about that is in part 1. on the issue itself of the necessity of these programs, the president agrees with general alexander, head of the nsa who spoke yesterday on capitol hill about the programs under section 215 and 702 and how they hope dozens of attacks. he used to examples that have been declassified and i think it's -- director clapper mentioned as well. it was a plot to attack the subway in september 2009.

while monitoring the activities, the nsa noted contact from an individual in the u.s. that the fbi subsequently identified as colorado is najibullah sellout. the community, worked in concert to determine his relationship with al qaeda as well as identify any foreign or domestic terrorist links. the fbi tracked zazi where they were planning to conduct a terrorist attack. zazi were subsequently arrested and upon indictment pled guilty to conspiring to bomb the new york city subway system. this plot at the time is characterized as one of the most serious terrorist threat since 9/11 and we were able to on all the agencies working together were able to thwart that because of the tools available to them

authorized by congress overseen by federal judges as well as internally by the executive branch. chicago in october 2009, a chicago businessman into a u.s. pakistani citizen was arrested by the fbi if you try to depart from chicago airport i trip to terrorism based on its involvement in reconnaissance of the hotel attack in the right to designate. at the time of his arrest, headley and his colleagues are plotting to attack danish newspaper that published and flattering cartoons at the behest of al qaeda. compiled collection under the fisa section 702 against foreign terrorists and meta-data analysis authorized under the business records provision of fisa -- hold on. -- let me get to that.

i didn't want to spell this out because people often ask because these are necessity classified programs, can we demonstrate their effect this? there was an effort undertaken to declassify these instances to demonstrate to you in the american people that there are concrete results of these programs. under section 702 as well as the business records position of fisa, the fbi and other authorities were able to investigate overseas associates. so these are two specific instances of where these programs authorized by congress, overseen by congress, overseen with internal checks and balances in the executive branch were found to be directly affect

of importing terrorist attacks nsa general alexander in his note yesterday these programs have overtime contributed to the sorting of dozens of attacks. so the president spoke about this on friday. i'm sure he will speak about it again. he made very clear his views both on the need to debate this issue, but on the fact we have a system in place that is contrast with the system existed prior to congress taking action in 2006, 2007, 2008 to ensure that its proper by congress and by the federal judiciary. >> set this up by saying the president is meeting with five -- the president is meeting with five senators. all five are democrat.

>> the president has in recent days been in contact about the progress being made on comprehensive immigration reform. he's reaching out to members of both parties of the senate and the white house in general is engaging with members of both parties in the senate as well as the house as is very important legislation moves forward. >> on edward snowden, how sure that he operates to the chinese? >> the individual under investigation in the matter of unauthorized leaks of classified information is not a subject that i can discuss because of that investigation that will not characterize the status or expressed concerns about our observations about what he may or may not do or what may or may not happen as a result of this

investigation. the leaks themselves has general alexander said, the president has said and others have said were very serious and they go right to the heart of our efforts to combat terrorism, to combat efforts by extremists who desire to attack the united states and the american people. they are programs that are authorized, better overseen by all three branches of government and that are part of the process or assessments and the valuations of programs are constantly undertaken to ensure they are implemented in a way that is just about the law in their values. >> i appreciate -- >> i just can't talk about the individual -- >> i'm talking about a potential future problem here.

how concerned is the white house, is the president that whoever is responsible for the leaks that have happened has more to leak and to cooperate with any foreign government? >> the president is concerned about the leaks of highly sensitive classified information and he believes we need to take steps to prevent classified information from being leaked because they can do such great damage to national security and they can risk the lives of americans in those who assist the united states and our efforts to protect the american people. or with regards to the specific individual, i don't have an observation. >> clarification on the program itself, does the nsa collect any data on hundreds of millions of americans?

>> would've been clear about that provision, section 215 works in the meta-data as they describe it that is collected. i put in a statement by director clapper furthers about more specifics with the program. >> i don't appreciate this, but to rector clapper has addressed this and these are classified programs, portions of which have been declassified to discuss them publicly in the wake of these revelations. they are programs authorized by congress that are implemented with the full oversight of congress. there are briefings of members of congress regularly on the implementation of these programs. the one you refer to is authorized on a 90 day base is by the fisa court and it is very

important the presidency is it that oversight exists. >> now classified the answer classified the answer is yes the nsa does collect data -- >> it's clear what director clapper and others have said about the collection that the program collects phone numbers and duration of phone calls. any action taken on that data requiring further investigation or inquiry requires court approval. >> he said the president welcomes president clinton's remarks. >> first of i haven't seen the full context. >> it's possible the president is afraid of polling data and being overly cautious because of that. he also said because hezbollah and iran are in the fight it's time now to give rivals support

so they can fight against the advance of house a lot, ran in the syrian regime. those are two points. obviously you don't necessarily necessarily -- >> we are assessing oppositions all the time as we discussed providing weapons to the opposition. the first point again and taking your word for it because that's what was said, but in the context they have to investigate myself. the fact of the matter is the president makes a decision about the implementation based on our national security interests, not on what might satisfy critics at any given moment about the policy and as we discussed over the month, there's very serious in rotation discussed, including

providing weapons, questions i've had about a no-fly zone and other things that have been discussed and that's why you have to trust soberly. [inaudible] >> would does factor in is what's in the national security interest of the united states and what has the best chance of working, not satisfied and urge him to do something today, but beyond today and next week, what actually has the potential to help us bring closer -- bring us closer to the achievement -- >> does what in fact meet that standard. >> don't get me wrong. the president as they sat for the past -- half-hour is evaluating things were fully aware of the worst situation and

are assessing options in light of that. >> is it fair to say the gang of eight about whether or not you get 60 votes in this rather important tactical decision about securing sessions on the senate floor to get over 65 come to 72 bulbar momentum for the house. it seems to be an tactical decisions that needs to be made very soon. >> there will be a number of topics discussed around this for legislation, both tactical and strategic as well as subsidies. the fact is the president wants a strong and believes there should be a strong bipartisan vote that is in keeping with the principles that the gang of asif forest that is widely supported by the american people that

would have made by the middle class and businesses in strict than our economy. [inaudible] >> we've seen a variety of ways the senate demonstrate that there is broad support for comprehensive immigration from members of both parties. we have work to do. the debate that has been joined and amendments being considered in what our goal is that the senate keep its eye on the ball and not allow those who clearly have no interest and as for comprehensive immigration reform its economy and middle-class in our businesses, not allow them to derail this process, but instead to keep focused on the bill that will achieve the

principles that the president and the gang of eight have laid out. tonight they are checking famous decision not to provide public assistance in major disaster declaration or provide individual assistance. if the president comfortable with famous decision? >> i've spoken to the president and i would defer you to fema for any specific questions. as you know shortly after the incident, president obama declared an emergency for the explosion providing immediate financial assistance to the state responded to the explosion hit the emergency declaration is amended twice to ensure additional assistance could be provided to the individuals and supports the local recovery efforts including coverage provided 75% car share eligible costs associated with the recovery. since the initial declaration, 775 individuals and fema and the fbi have provided more than

$7 million in direct federal disaster area and low-interest loans for eligible individuals and families. is just the beginning that fema will continue to provide under the existing declaration. famous person all the joy filled office are actively working with state and local officials to prepare project worksheets for embarrassment caused an emergency protective measures. another resident of the existing declaration, there is assistance that is already and provided an rss and it will continue to be provided. as for assessments made using standard formulas and i would refer you to fema. [inaudible] >> it was still going on -- as you know we landed in the south lawn and is on the screen as we were flying back. i was pleased by the result. i haven't asked him if he stayed up to watch it till the end.

>> back on syria, part of the context of a former president clinton was saying c. was asked about bosnia and kosovo. as you said i'm the commander-in-chief wants to make the right decision, but part of a former president clinton was saying was he had regrets about not dealing with bosnia and kosovo sooner. how much do something like that way on president obama? he talked about the slaughter, how is continued. how much is that pressure weigh on him? >> the president is very aware of the past precedent and the situations and with regards to the decisions a president has to make constantly on matters of national security seeks the insight and advice of experts

both within the administration and outside of it. again having not seen the full extent of president clinton's remarks, those are all valid points. having said that, president obama assesses the specific situation, which could be analogous but not perfectly so and judges was in the best interest of the united states today and what policy options present the best opportunity for achieving our ultimate goal. >> are you aware of any phone conversations or meetings between the two president for this is the primary topic? >> i have not. we saw each other at the bush event but i don't what it is spoken. >> he takes advice from seasoned rice. what did she start? asked the question because national security vice or, she

is someone who's publicly talk about aerobics. says in waiting too long to get involved in conflicts and i wonder how her face may win the prize event as she takes on her role? >> ciardi is a member of the president national security team >> right here in the white house. >> she starts july 1st. something around that. i think we set up a time when she was going to start with thomas leaving, but one of the reasons why it will be a smooth transition as she has been from the beginning and even before the president took office a senior kaiser national security mashers and her experience both in this administration through the unbelievable events in consequential decisions we've seen over the last four and a

half years from the united states than in her prior experience in the click administration i'm obviously in between. that's why the president has relied on her face. were taken up a lot of time here. >> does the president put the assaults should remain within the military chain of command? or should be outside the military chain of command? >> i have to take the question. what the president wants and has made clear is that sexual assault is unacceptable and particularly objectionable when it occurs within our united states military and those at the side, those who wear the uniform of the united states this honor if they engage in sexual assault and those who wear the uniform that are the victim should know their commander-in-chief has their back and he has zero

tolerance for this and has insisted to the leadership, the pentagon that we need to take direct action to do with it. >> if you could take the question because the old guard in new port richey mel senators and particular say they disagree with the decision made. quickly can the conversation that takes place between the president and vice president and families of the new town tragedy six months ago is a new ad for that targeting specifically joe mentioned, which appears to be darkening or shading the face of the president that some people suggest has some sinister tone to it. that's why does the president have any opinion or has it been a? >> just heard about it for the first time, so no opinion. >> is the president clinton signed an executive order now or in the near future in terms of ending all gpt by federal

contractors? >> i then said this a few times and we have said we are supporting the legislative effort and that's the approach we've taken, so i would not expect any executive order to be signed. [inaudible] >> we have insane u.s. support audio rack [inaudible] of teams not going exactly an interest. what is the u.s. have right now --

[inaudible] >> i've no calls from the president. there have been communications. secretary of state kerry has spoken with its counterpart foreign minister and i'm sure there's other communication at different levels. they simply say we continue to follow defense is concerned we welcome efforts to resolve the situation through democratic means and we remain concerned by any attempts to punish individuals for exercising their right to free speech as well as attempts by any party to provoke violent. as we said, we believe turkey's long-term stability, security and prosperity is best guaranteed by upholding the fundamental freedoms of expression, assembly, association and the free and independent media. turkey is a close friend and ally to the united states and we expect turkish authorities to uphold these fundamental figures. >> irani and elections will be

happening tomorrow. is the obama administration prepared for the leadership? >> when it comes to policy, especially on the issues that are source of great disagreement between iran on the one hand and the rest of the world virtually on the other. ultimate authority in iran rests with the supreme leader and we remain hopeful that irani and authorities will be ready to engage in serious negotiations with the p5 plus one regardless of the outcome of the elections. ready to meet with the ram wonder bread is ready to respond substantively to the bell's proposal put forward by the p5+1. >> he said the president makes decision based on national

security not post it as the president familiar with what the polls say? has elected many data? >> again, i think he's pretty clearly focused on the decisions he makes that involve our national security interests and decisions that, straight guys. i've decided what in the best interest of the night stay in the american people of what could work. >> among the options of the president in terms of what would be in the u.s. interest in all of the syrian people to do no more. >> all options are on the table. i suppose that would be an option. not one that we give a great

deal of consideration to. we have ramped up our assistance to the syrian people and the opposition over recent weeks and months and i think that reflects a process that has -- that those decisions reflect in our recognition that apply to the syrian people is worsening and that's why we have made the decision thus far and is what we consider as we look at other options. ..

recognized by members of both parties as well as people in the field. we need to continue to take action to secure our border. we need to make sure that our businesses that everybody is playing by the same set of rules because that is good for businesses. it's not fair for businesses who play by one set of rules and those that don't, those that play by the rules get hurt.