will vote on three u.s. district court nominations. also today we expect to hear remarks from senators on the escalating violence in iraq. later on this week the senate will begin work on bills to fund the federal government including the department of transportation, commerce, housing and agriculture. live coverage of the senate now on c-span2. iding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. lord of all, you loved us before we loved you. accept our thanksgiving for the gifts of life, love and laughter. come among our lawmakers

and manifest your unifying love. strengthen them in their work, leading them with your wisdom. lord, empower them to do your work on earth even as it is done in heaven. may they labor with the confidence that they are kept by your power. guide them into the future inspired by the knowledge that their times are in your hands. we pray in your mighty name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic

for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 16, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable christopher s. murphy, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 428, the appropriation bill. protothe clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 428, h.r. 4860, making appropriation to the departments of commerce and justice and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of senator mcconnell, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 this afternoon. at 5:30, there will be three cloture votes on district court judges -- mendoza from washington, vandle from illinois and gayles from florida. mr. president, going to the statue of liberty on the lower level there is a poem. it says a lot. written by emma lazarus. "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your tempest shore. send these the homeless, tempest tossed to me." mr. president, these words encapsulate what's good about america. those few lines represent the very makeup of this great country. over its history, our nation has welcomed the tired and the poor

of the world and made them strong. we have opened our doors to the best the world has to offer, and the u.s. has become better for it. our country is a melting pot and every aspect of our society reflects that, especially our athletes, soccer in particular. mr. president, i can remember when my middle son came home one night. he was just a boy. i guess he was maybe 10 years old. he said i want to play soccer. i said what? i want to play soccer. soccer was not much in nevada at that time. because i thought, you know, you're going to be an athlete. you have to play football, basketball, baseball. be able to run track, high jump, long jump. i want to play soccer, he said. okay. and soccer he did.

it began for me a great education, and it was so good for my john leif. he was my middle boy. they had a great team. my wife and i started going to the games learning about soccer. it was so much fun. when we moved back here, he was a freshman in high school and suffered a very, very bad -- badly broken leg playing soccer, so his career really ended there. my next boy, he was a baseball player. my youngest boy was a gifted athlete, mr. president. i have boasted about him for many, many years. he was a soccer player. also played basketball. he played on three national championship teams at the university of virginia soccer. by the time he had gone there, i had watched hundreds and hundreds of soccer games. for him to play at this premier

school with the greatest athletes, playing soccer anyplace in the country was really an experience for me, again an education. for example, one of the -- my son's team mates. one of his teammates is a famous soccer player claudia rainer. claudia was so good. that was a team of many, many great athletes. my son was, as i said, a gifted athlete. everybody on that team was good, but claudio rainier was better than any of them. claudio's dad emigrated from argentina. his mom was the daughter of portuguese immigrants. they lived in new jersey where claudio was recruited to play at the university of virginia. my son came from a different background, mr. president. his grandfather was born in russia, immigrated to the united

states. his grandmother on my wife's side had lithuanian blood. my grandmother immigrated from england. so key and claudio were on that team and it would be hard to find two men with more different backgrounds than they. but they were teammates. their other teammates had backgrounds that were very similar in being unusual, different. there was a young man from spain, one from jamaica, an all american named damian salvera from jamaica. these young men, these 11 players and some that didn't play all the time came from different cities and different cultures, but they were one, they were a team. they were in rhythm, always united in purpose.

they were coached by the great bruce orina, famous coach. coached an olympic team. coach won the first championship here playing for the washington professional team here. he is now coaching in l.a. they won a championship there many times. he was good at getting this diverse group of young men and women playing in rhythm, in sync. it was really beautiful to watch. i guess, mr. president, that's why they call soccer the beautiful game. tonight our men's soccer team will play ghana in the first game since the 2014 world cup when ghana knocked them out of any more games. the world cup is special. more people watch that than watch the olympics. it comes about every four years. americans from all walks of life and all backgrounds will watch together and support our nation's soccer team. our support for team u.s.a. comes from more than just

athletics. it's more than just competition. i think we see a bit of ourselves in the team. our unique connection to the u.s. men's soccer players stems from the team's composition. their roster is a reflection of america itself. it's diversity but yet it's unity. it's a reflection of us. our head coach, yurgin klinsman, was a legendary player. i can remember his playing in the world cup. he is from germany. he played for west germany. he has lived in the united states for a number of years. one of the team's defenders is a man by the name of omar gonzalez, texas born, mexican american who plays professionally in los angeles for bruce arena. our striker is a 23-year-old alabama-born icelander who plays in the netherlands.

tomarkus beasley is the veteran defender from indiana who plays professionally in turkey. these are just a number of examples, but there are so many more, but the entire roster is an illustration of america's diversity. we are, after all, a nation of immigrants. under klinsman's direction, these players will bring their many talents and experiences from across the world to coalesce under one flag, the american flag. i wish our team all the best tonight against ghana. i will be watching and cheering them on. mr. president, and also another reason i love soccer, you don't have all those advertisements interrupting the game. it's a free-flowing athletic contest. you have -- in the background, you have the announcers talking about what took place if you don't fully understand it, but the game goes for 45 minutes and 45 minutes more, 90 minutes plus

whatever penalty times they get. sometimes an extra three to five minutes after the 45 minutes is up. not interrupted by commercials, mr. president. so i will be watching and cheering on the team. i hope our colleagues do the same, and i'm confident they will. when we do watch this team out there, watch what our team represents, what america stands for, and see why it makes this great country of ours so special. the united states really has given refuge to the tired, the poor, the huddled masses of the world and made them strong americans, and we as a nation are better for it. i would -- mr. president, i would ask the chair to announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. 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:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i hope the presiding officer and my other colleagues had a great father's day this sunday. i had maybe the best father's day you could imagine because i

got to spend part of it with both my two sons and my father. we actually got to go out to dinner with my wife, and it was a really special day. and so i come here with a both light and heavy heart. light, because i got to experience father's day in a way that i wish thousands of other people did across the country because, given these pretty stunning statistics -- these are the numbers of people that are killed by guns every year -- there are tens of thousands of people all across this country who are losing their fathers and losing their sons, in part because this body -- the united states senate -- doesn't do anything to try to stem the scourge of gun violence akos this country. and so, mr. president, as you know, i try to come down here every week for just about ten minutes or so and try to give some voice to the victims of gun violence. and i thought today, 24 hours

having passed father's day, maybe we can talk a little bit about those who have lost their fathers and their sons. little boys out there like logan soldo, about to turn one year old. he certainly doesn't know what happened to his father igor, but he will unfortunately when he is old enough hear a pretty horrific story. because it was his father who, ironically, having fled war-torn bosnia as a 13-year-old to settle here in the united states, was killed in a shooting in wal-mart that got a lot of attention from about a week or so ago, jared and amanda miller, who were fairly well-known radicals in the las vegas area, walked into a wal-mart and shot igor soldo, a priser a police o,

who was eating. he had come here from the balkans, had graduated from a high school in nebraska, studied criminal justice at university of nebraska at lincoln. he worked part-time as a corrections officer in lincoln where he met his wife andrea. the couple were married in 2009 and they were planning on celebrating their son's first birthday. his birthday actually will be on july 7. they were going to return from las vegas back to lincoln to celebrate it with friends and feavmenfamily. but, instead, igor's family ventured and journeyed from lincoln to las vegas to bid farewell to their son, who was a police officer killed in this episode of horrific violence that killed two others and eventually also led to the death of the two shooters.

one of his fellow officers, who was one of the close buddies of igor, told the story at his funeral about how close igor was to his son. he said through the tears to the crowd that, "i started getting these pictures of igor and logan. i'd see him with logan over at the house, and it was clear that our once epic bromance was being replaced. logan soldo will never know his dad, but there are other thousands of people every year who lose their sons. and some of my colleagues might have had the chance this weekend to read an op-ed in "the washington post" written by mark barden and david wheeler. mark and david lost their sons, daniel and ben, in sandy hook. and they talked about p what father's day has become.

they said, "we know that fearnlings day cement to be a day when fathers sit back on their couches, watch sports and take it easiment but this farnlings day, we ask you to do something differently. look at your children, your beautiful, pesky children who bring you so much joy and sometimes cause you so much heartache and ask yourself, am i doing everything i can to keep them safe? because the answer to that question, if we all answer honestly, is no. obviously theals the answer here in the united states senate because, as we have witnessed over 70 school shootings since sandy hook -- 35 this year alone. we're not even halfway thraw the year. 2,600 a month, 86 a day killed by giewfnlts we do nothing -- nothing t. we tried to pass a pretty simple bill for background checks.

something supported by many on the floor of this senate. but because of a republican filibuster we couldn't get to a final vote. the numbers clearly aren't moving people. hopefully the stories will. stories like that of one particular father who has become the face in many ways of the sandy hook tragedy, neil hesselan. he probably talks in the most poignant, most open, soul-bearing terms of any of the parents. and so 24 hours removed from a father's day that many of us got to spend with our dads and our kids, let me just leave you with the words of neil, somewhat at length from his testimony before the senate judiciary committee. on december 14, jessie, neil's son, got up and got ready for school. he was always excited to go to

school. we stopped at misty veil deli. i remember the hug he gave me when i dropped him off. he just hugged me. jessie said, it is going to be all right. everything is going to be ofnlgt looking back, it makes me wonder, what did he know? did he have some idea about what was going to happen? at the time i didn't think much of it. he was always being sweet like that. he was the kind of kid that used to leave me voice messages when he'd sing my happy birthday even when it wasn't my birthday. he said, i just want to make you feel happy. half the time i felt like he was the parent and i was the son." take break from neil's testimony, this was neil's only family. he was separated from his wife. neil has has been unemployed bopping between different housing situations. his entire family, entire life was his son jesse. neil went on to say "jesse had

this idea that you never leave people hurt. if you can help somebody, you do it. if you can make somebody feel better, you do it. if you can leave somebody a little better off, you do it. they tell me that's how he died. when he heard the shooting in sandy hook elementary that day, he didn't run and hide e. started yelling. people disagree on the last thing he said. one person who was there said he yell run. another person said he told everybody to run now. what i know is jesse wasn't shot in the back. he two two bullets. one grazed him on the side of the head, the other hit him in the forehead. i hate to say it but when you know your community has been hit, you pray it wasn't your boy. they tell us to go to the fire station and wait to see if our kids would make it out of school. by 3:30, 4:00, they told us there were no more survivors. i should have realized but i

waited. i told people what to look for, what he had been wearing that day. he had a striped shirt and pants that fit him in september but he hit a growth spurt. i gave the description and i waited some more. i waited and i hoped until 1:30 in the morning. that's when they told me he wasn't coming. breaking away from his testimony again for a second, i was at that firehouse and i will never, ever forget the scene of neil hesslin sitting by himself hours after hours. returning to his testimony, he concludes by saying before he died, jesse and i used to talk about maybe coming to washington someday. he wanted to go to the washington monument. when we talked about it last year, jesse asked if we could come and see the president. i said that i can be a little cynical about politicians, but jesse believed in you. this is neil talking to us. he learned about you in school, and he believed in you. i want to believe in you too.

i know you can't give me jesse back. believe me, if i thought you could, i'd be asking you for that. but i want to believe that you will think about what i told you here today. i want to believe that you'll think about it, and then you'll do something about it, whatever you can do to make sure that no father has to see what i've seen. i yield back, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended and i be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: when i first exercised congressional oversight of the f-35 joint strike fighter program in 2010, at that time i was the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, i saw a program in turmoil. perhaps the most significant indication of that was this -- while the program had exploded from its original overall optimistic development cost estimates by more than $15 billion, and was delayed by five years, without the prospect of delivering needed war-fighting capability anywhere on the horizon, the program's prime contractor consistently received most of those award fees that were available to it under its contracts with the government. let me repeat -- the contractor

continued to receive award fees that were supposed to be given in case of the progress meeting certain milestones. in fact, it exceeded the cost estimates by $15 billion and was delayed by five years. since 2010, major challenges have continued to arise. just days ago, the department of defense grounded the entire f-35 fleet because of an in-flight emergency involving a leak of engine oil. this is the second grounding of the f-35 fleet due to engine problems in the last 16 months. much work remains to be done in the program, including validating design and operational performance, installing state-of-the-art flight and combat software, programs -- that those programs are still being written and making the f-35 affordable with life cycle costs estimated at

more than $1 trillion. the first weapons system in the history of this country that is estimated to cost a trillion dollars. while the government accountability office has said that the program is -- quote -- moving in the right direction, this is clearly a program that has had and continues to have major problems. with this in mind, i was greatly concerned when i read an article last week entitled "carter j.s.f. program manager based f-35 award fees on desire to protect lockheed exec." it was on an insidedefense.com. i would ask unanimous consent that article be quoted for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: the article describes comments made by former deputy secretary of defense and under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, ashton carter, a man i admire a great

deal. ashton carter in a speech at harvard university on may 16, 2014. he revealed that while the joint strike fighter program was suffering from massive cost growth and scheduling delays, the government's program manager for j.s.f. consistently awarded prime contractor lockheed martin most of its available award fees due to concern about the job security of its lockheed martin counterpart. aappropriately, the department of defense fired its program manager, a marine two-star general, in february, 2010. while that official had been giving away millions of taxpayers' dollars to his friend in the industry, regardless of how exceedingly poor the joint strike fighter program was performing, independent cost estimates were briefing the estimators were briefing the pentagon that the joint strike fighter program might exceed its original budget estimates but as

much as $60 billion. to understand why the cost to procure these fighters exploded, then department of defense carter requested a breakdown of f-35 costs and challenged the program manager why he had been giving lockheed martin upwards of 85% of the maximum award fee it could have earned. as secretary carter recounted the official said -- quote -- "i liked the program manager i worked on the lockheed martin side and he tells me if he gets less than 85% award fee, he's going to get fired." this is -- this is totally unacceptable. it's the kind of cronyism that should make us all vigilant against, as president eisenhower warned us over 50 years ago, the military industrial complex. in this case, it appears that taxpayers paid a massive premium

for the friendship between the government's and the contract contractor's program managers. as disturbing as these revelations are, this incidents also raises a few other questions. for example, why were award fee criteria that exposed those contracts to the risk of being abused in exactly this way? originally negotiated in that contract? why would the contract allow such a thing? and where was this program manager's superiors? the service acquisition executive, and particularly on joint strike fighter, the under secretary defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics? what about his superiors? weren't they supposed to be overseeing how and why he was awarding lockheed martin fees throughout the relevant period? this whole episode underscores the importance of ethics in government contracting. if the program manager or the

program executive officers, senior officials in the acquisition chain of command, don't recognize the fiduciary responsibility they have to the taxpayer, in their stewardship of defense dollars, any attempt to reform the defense procurement process or otherwise can exercise vigilance vis-a-vis the military industrial complex will fail. this episode also emphasizes the importance of the tradecraft of government procurement contracting. those skills and judgment that comprise the tradecraft of government procurement contracting provide government acquisition managers with the tools he or she needs to keep the -- quote -- "unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex at bay, and make sure that the product or service to be delivered into his or her watch will be delivered on time with the retired capability and at a reasonable cost. and that starts with structure in government procurement

contracts properly so that given the nature of the work and the deliverables placed on contract, one, exactly the kind of performance that's important to the government in a given program, is being incentivized and two, the government is incentivizing its industry partner to render that performance effectively. if in a given program the performance that's important to us is cost control as it should have been in the case of the joint strike fighter development contracts, why were we even using an award fee as a opposed to an incentive fee contract? by their very nature, incentive fee contracts provide that the cost of overruns be shared between industry and government, and therefore incentivizes prime contractors to minimize them. this, of course, has not been a problem that's been limited to the joint strike fighter program. for years we've seen a

widespread use of award fee contracts, including those that support major defense acquisition programs with subjective measures of award fee not clearly tied to cost control. any internal department of defense guidance that simply prescribes the use of appropriate contract types that are not accompanied by effective guidance and training on how contract types should be tailored to a given product or service should be viewed with secret six. this matter, indeed the possibility that dr. carter alluded to in his speech may be more per pervasive than we reale today and should concern all committees of jurisdiction and inspectors general who value how their taxpayers' dollars are being used. i want to repeat again,

mr. president, as a proud supporter of our nation's defense, as an outspoken opponent of sequestration and the damage it's doing our nation and our ability to defend it, when we look at a program such as this where it exceeded its original cost estimates by more than $15 billion, and more than five years of delay, and still problems, still problems with the most expensive weapons system in history and the first time a trillion dollars is being spent on one weapon system, we need to do a lot better. and one of the -- one of the things that has to be done, one of the actions that has to be taken that has not been taken,

has not been taken, is holding people accountable. i remember talking at a hearing asking the chief of naval operations about the u.s.s. gerald r. ford, the brand-new aircraft carrier. it had a $3 billion cost overrun, and i asked the chief of naval operations who was responsible. the chief of naval operations said that he did not know. that is absolutely unacceptable. so what we're doing here by these terrible cost overruns, and the list goes on and on, i'm going to come to the floor one of these days with a long list of programs that we didn't -- didn't even reach fruition that were canceled such as the future combat system that the army was touting for many years for which we got zero

return at the cost, i believe, as i recall, over $3 billion. unless we fix this cost overrun problem, the american people will stop supporting spending money on defense. and that's just a fact. so it's time we in congress exercised much greater oversight, much greater scrutiny, much greater questions both before and during and after the acquisition process. i strongly recommend the work of inspectors generals. i strongly recommend using the government accountability office, which is really one of our most important tools. i strongly recommend using committee staffs and sending them to the places where these weapons systems are being assembled to get detailed briefings. because this has got to stop.

and i'm getting a little bit repetitious over the years saying that it's got to stop. but when we look at the strings -- and the challenges around this globe that are taking place now from china sea to iraq, we are going to have to have a strong national defense, and we cannot have that with these outrageous and unacceptable cost overruns. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the senate in a imoarm call? the presiding officer: the answer is yes. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that noting the cloture vote on calendar number 778, gayles, the senate proceed to considering of 788, wells and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation 69 nomination. if confirmed, the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and in a further motions be in order to the nomination, and any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we thep that enthat this will be a voice vote, but we still expect to have three roll call votes starting in just a few minutes. so i ask unanimous consent that -- i'm sorry, not unanimous consent. i look around, and i note there's not a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions

of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of salvador mendoza, jr. of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington, signed by 17 senators. poeup by unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of salvador mendoza, jr. of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district of washington shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. # vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 55, the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, salvador mendoza, jr. of washington to be united states district judge for the eastern district. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent -- the clerk will report the the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinois signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinois shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to vote? if not, the ayes are a55 -- the ayes are 55, the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination.

the clerk: staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district. a senator: yield back. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of staci michelle yandle of illinois to be united states district judge for the southern district of illinois. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of darrin p. gayles of florida to be united states district judge for the southern district of florida --

shall be brought to a close? the clerk will report the corrected motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators accordance with the provisions of rule 2269 standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring a close the district attorney bait on the -- debate on the nomination of darrin p. gayles for the southern district of florida. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. 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, the ayes are 5, the nays are 37. the motion to invoke cloture is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: darinp. gayles of

florida to be united states district judge for the southern district. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the wells nomination. the clerk: department of state, alice g. wells of washington to be ambassador to the hashimite kingdom of jordan. the presiding officer: question is on the nomination. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent we now proceed to a period of morning business and senators be allowed to peek for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there are two bills at the desk due for a first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 4453, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to make permanent the reduced recognition period

for bill to end gains of "s" corporations. h.r. 57, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increase expensing limitations and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask for a second reading on bodge of these matters but would object to both requests. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be receive their second read being on the next legislative day. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow morning, june 17, at 10:00 a.m. 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. following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of machine until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 11 schook earnlg the senate will broad to executive session you as provided under the

previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be four roll call votes tomorrow starting at 11:00 a.m. therefore, mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the >> the senate has gaveled out, but earlier today members voted to move forward on three judicial nominations with final votes on those nominations scheduled for tuesday. later this week work could begin on 2015 spending bills for several departments, including commerce, transportation, and agriculture. also awaiting action, a job-training measure that combines part of a house-best proposal on training programs with a senate bill that would authorize the work force investment act. follow the senate live here on c-span2 when members return on tuesday. >> in the 90's when there was

over 90 percent of the market. today a little over 50 percent. so the business has matured. i think you either have to do two things, lower cost, keep your margins good or find new sources of revenue. i think they are attacking both of those things with the focus on the revenue side. i think a one, looking for new ways. if you look at comcast and its investment in the x1 platform, you can make a video on demand more attractive, easier to use common interface is more delightful. number one, don't lose what you have. innovate to keep what you have. you also see them taking advantage of broadband. that is a blessed a source of new business opportunity for our industry and is growing much faster and still has a huge addressable markets, good economics and is a good business

>> the rapid change in telecommunications technology advances in the future of the cable industry with the national cable and tele-communications president michael powell tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> earlier today secretary of state john kerry address to the "our ocean" conference which was hosted by the state department. he discussed ocean conservation while outlining a plan to protect marine habitats. here is more now. >> i want us to walk away from this conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with a plan. , a plan that puts an end to overfishing based on new rules and the best available science. may i add, one of the things that senator ted stevens of alaska who teamed up with me on the commerce committee in the senate, one of the things we always were fighting was getting more better science so that we

can convince fishermen and convince countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we hear, well, we don't see that or feel that. i would hear from captains of the boats, when i go out to fish i see plenty out there. there is no reason to be restricted. we need science, and globally we can put our heads together and governments together and come up with both the budget and capacity to be able to do what we need to help convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use your office and techniques that dramatically reduce the amount of fish and other species caught by accident and discarded. a plan that in this subsidies to fisheries, which only serves to promote overfishing, a plan that makes it near impossible for illegally caught fish to actually come to market

anywhere, whether in boston or beijing or barcelona or brazil or any other city that does not begin with a b. let's develop a plan that protects more marine habitats, and we will have an announcement regarding that. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today less than 2 percent of our motion is considered a marine protected area. where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem, less than 2 percent of the entire russian. there isn't anyone here does not believe we can do better than that, so let's start by finding a way to, perhaps, bring that number up 10% or more as soon as possible. and let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of plastic and other debris from entering into the ocean. everyone is seeing that massive array of garbage in the pacific

and elsewhere. we need a plan that helps cut down the nutrient pollution that runs off of land that is miles from shore and contributes to the dead zones that i mentioned earlier. i learned about that back when i was running for president in iowa and minnesota and mississippi and missouri rivers. and you learn about the flow of nutrients out into the gulf. we have a great big dead zone as a result. we need a plan that gives us a better understanding of the acidification effect that carbon pollution is having on our version. we know that in antarctic there was a reader -- regurgitation of carbon dioxide. every reached saturation? i don't know, but it is a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and maintain the emissions. we ought to be able to know where it is happening, how quickly it is happening so that we can find the best way to slow down. and we need to push harder for a

you in agreement to fight carbon pollution in the first place because the science proves that is the only way we will have a chance of reducing the impact of climate change, which is one of the greatest threats facing not just our motion but our entire planet. >> of part of secretary carey's remarks earlier today at the "our ocean" conference here in washington you can see all of his comments tonight at 830 eastern here on c-span2 or any time on line at c-span.org. >> tomorrow the confirmation hearing for the next secretary of housing and urban development he currently serves as san antonio's mayor and would replace sean donovan who has been tapped to head the office of management and budget. the hearing is held by the senate banking and housing committee live tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also this week, ceo maryborough

testifies on gm defective ignition switch recall which some people say caused 13 deaths she will speak in front of a house oversight subcommittee live wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> next to a discussion on their recent militant uprising in iraq and what u.s. options might include. from "washington journal", this is 45 minutes.>> last journal c. >> host: we are joined now by hillary mann leverett, a former state department and national security council official. thank you for joining us. i want to talk abouti want to td states options in iraq. what are you seeing? u.s. options are bleak but should be basically expected

among policymakers here in washington. ae invasion of iraq was historic mistake. there was no way to come out of this without some kind of low back to the united states. what we should do, first and foremost, no more harm. that is critically important on the political and military level area you hear a lot of discussion in washington that we should really go in and do something. first of all, he is not the problem and secondly, the ability of united is to micromanage a medical -- better political outcome is something we tried and we found multiple times he should not again. the other is the temptation to use military force to do something. airstrikes. limited we caused a lot of harm for a lot of civilians but are going to do anything to solve the urgent crisis in iraq today. theeed to think about diplomatic options short-term and long-term.

short-term, we have to start dealing more constructively with the players in the region. is therst and foremost republic of iran and secondly, saudi arabia. iran, we have to engage with them constructively and start with steve and intense dialogue in an atmosphere of mutual respect that recognizes iran posses central role in the region. for saudi arabia, we have to look at the mutual dependencies between united states and saudi arabia and figure out how we can extricate ourselves from that and really focus on reorienting a policy in saudi arabia so does not continue to support jihadist across the region. street journal and others reported on how to handle these threats. your perspective, what needs to happen in these talks? i helped initiate and

participate in the u.s. dialogue negotiations with the republic froman right after 9/11 2001-2003. we work closely together to cooperate in afghanistan. it was a successful discussion negotiation and strategy we work together. the problem at the end of the day was, after we had these escutcheons, we were together to rout the taliban in afghanistan, if iran was labeled. there is a myth in washington that we never talk to iran. we do. weincreased sanctions area talked in bosnia, where they have weapons in bosnia. we sanctioned them. us.fghanistan, they helped from -- for the iranians going into this, they will be clear eyed and skeptical and we will have two really go the extra mile to prove we are serious about reorienting our policies in the middle east.

a question on footer -- guest: that is a good question. you can look at it two waste. you can say possibly they control close to one third of the landmass. in terms of the population, it is much less fear the overwhelming majority of iraqis are shia and the overwhelming majority of the shia areas are firmly in control -- of essentially their security forces. for the shia, the iraqi military. greater than is the population we control. therefore, i am not as concerned that the entire state will fall. some are a bit more alarmist. >> any strategic mistakes, or what things let up to the point

we're at with iraq? one has received the bulk of the attention, the enormity of the mistake to invade iraq. not just that it was badly implemented. but the whole concept, the idea that we could invade a country and disrupt the whole political social security military order was a mistake. the urgent thing is not who did was, buthow about that a long-held american policy of arming, funding, and training. jihadist militants. goes back to the decision in the --ter administration in 1999 1979, in afghanistan, to entice militants to invade the country and then use it to get them into the strategic quagmire we had in vietnam. that hasgh people see

short-term games in terms of getting soviets out of afghanistan, the policy has been disastrous for the united states. indirectly leads to 9/11 in terms of training these elements to al qaeda, and then after the invasion of iraq, as you are desperate to try to take in the groups, the upending of the political order we arranged, desperate to try to co-opt some of those elements, the surge, which was looked at here in washington as an unmitigated success, took us right back to the policy. it entailed, beyond sending 30,000 troops to the baghdad area, it entailed arming, funding, and training 80,000. that brought us back to the policy of training and funding, to fight their way into a political order, not to negotiate. we then have a military intervention in libya, adding to

the fire and unleashing dozens of more malicious -- militias. towards syria, we have worked directly and indirectly to arm, train, and oppositionists, would have really given fuel to the radical, extreme jihadist, insurgency in syria. it is all coming home to roost in iraq. the most urgent issue is not the problem invading iraq. the urgent issue is to deal squarely with our arming, funding, and training with jihadist for each of these conflicts in afghanistan, libya, syria, and iraq. on talkis a big topic shows. instagram had comments about the discussions the united states will reportedly start having. i would like to listen to those and get your take.

you --iranians can get provides some assets to make sure baghdad does not fall. we need to correlate with the iranians and get the sunnis back in the game. to dominatet iran iraq. that is where they are headed. the shia area of iraq, do not let iranians say baghdad. let us save it so there's a chance at second government. >> lindsey graham, your take? >> it is a remarkable turn of .vents to see figures come out i have spent a decade in u.s. government and out of it. the clear urgency to assess the republic of iran as a central player. , it is remarkable.

working with on and using iran in a short-term and bostonanistan and lebanon, to take advantage of military assets to help us in the short-term way. failed andpeatedly made the situation worse. here, it could potentially be disastrous to coordinate with them on an overt military strategy. for the u.s. air force to provide air cover for iranian troops. that is a trap and it has been the grand strategy of al qaeda for some time, to bring what they call the crusaders, the united states, and the infidels, to bring them in and then use their joint military intervention as a way to rally sunnis across the world who are not extreme, not violent, but feel they're under a threat from

crusaders. grandas long been their strategy. i'm afraid we could fall into the trap. military assets of what iran has to offer. an important peak -- piece of what iran has to offer is political. they have long held deep relationships with a range of their take on an involvement in syria, which people in washington hate to it knowledge as important, and their role in the region. and foremost, it is a deal diplomatically and lyrically, and not just to focus on a short-term military marriage that is convenient and could act fire. host: what is the impetus of the world syria. it is critically important. al qaeda essentially on the

roast before 2011. 2011 happened and the predominant conventional wisdom because obama withdrew the truth but i would argue that is not the case. the opening they had was the outbreak of violence in syria. the rush of judgment in washington and throughout the west and the arab states of the to arm, train, and fund sunni militants in the area to overthrow assad. neededve the trigger he -- it needed to come back and have further ground not just in iraq but serious. with protection from the united states. while we were using drones to , there was noa way we would attack them in syria because we supported the

overall goal of overthrowing assad. they have had safe haven protections, directly and indirectly from the united states and our allies, for three years. that had an immediate impact. first color is very in florida on the line for publicans. it says on the screen your former state department. does not say what administration. i would like to know because you seem to think iran is the answer. they have sworn to destroy israel. they have funded and sent the troops into afghanistan and to destroy those countries. you seem to think they are people we can deal with?

they have nuclear capability. coming from? as makes no sense to me whatsoever. i understand the caller is a prize. the analytic take i take are very much against conventional wisdom here in washington. was ald say first, i service officer with the state department. the clinton national security council and the bush national security council. i serve both presidents over a range of nearly 20 years. the focus is not my argument that iran is some great and fantastic place. is the united states, particularly with the class of soviet unions, at the end of the gave us a policy of where wen the region, tried to have at least constructive relationships.

and with the destruction of iraq in 1991, the iraqi military and the defeat of the soviet union. astead of bouncing and having relationship, that we would take on it -- take it on ourselves. state in the region to rise and challenge our power in the region. that puts us on a collision course with iran. iran has increased its gain in the region. do not become best friends with iran. countries do not have friends. i have interests. we have critically important interests of the public -- republic of iran that align. no country is perfect. but we see that often pretty much how we want to see it. the good guys always coming to

do the right thing and anyone who challenges us is the bad guy. that in history has not worked for us and has been disastrous with iran. we have seen them play a constructive role in iran. as much as people do not like to hear it, they have been much more constructive in syria than we have here it we have worked with so-called allies to arm, train, and fund. the militants who are now threatening to take over iraq. a news interview, secretary of state john kerry says the obama administration is willing to talk with iran over security conditions in iraq a is cooperation. john stice made the an option. kerry says option 10 is open to discussion with iran if the iranians can help with violence and restore confidence in the

iraqi government. ask about possible military operation in ironic, he would not pull anything out if constructive, but he said any contact with iran would move step-by-step. your thoughts? grahamlike senator recognizing the central role iran has to play in the region, it is instructive book that it hasn't can't continue to play in the region, a very important elites tor policy accept and embrace. the problem is there is not come at this point, a military solution. for the united states and iran to come together in a no vote -- overt military partnership, will be seen and throughout the sunni world as an assault on sunni power and we should not be shocked if

there is blowback to that kind of strategy. i think it would be very constructive for the united states and iran to have a deep engage political discussion negotiations and strategy together that is critically important but to rush to have a joint military operation could be a trap. >> host: philadelphia where richard richard is on the line for independent. >> caller: good morning. i would like to use iraq just to get some understanding and clarify my own thinking because usually when i listen to c-span i -- [inaudible] it gets to appoint other national security discussion where you can't get an understanding of what is the u.s. position in the region is about. so as i continue to hear the nation-states policy is a complex also about nonstate

development fai sis in development of nonstate versus nation-state? i would like to get some feedback on that and where's the military's arms sales? used thae here groups will be able to fight against each other, where are they coming from? the united states arms supplier, a large sales portfolio. the caller makes two very important points and questions. >> guest: the caller makes two very important points/questions. one is on the role of nonstate actors which which clearly isis is end this threat that isis poses as a nonstate actor is in

its ability to work in iraq to engender support in iraq to take over cities in iraq to do so in syria and to have related jihadist groups do so in libya means that for the first time we are actually seeing a significantly intensify terrorist threat jihadist terrorist threats because of the transnational one which not only threatens to be a platform for actual attacks against people civilians whether american or middle eastern but it does threaten the nation-states fabric of the middle east. one of the first things that isis did when it took over mozilo was a went back to the border with syria and took down the border. it's critically important for them to take down the borders, to take territory and to expand. it's another thing that's very important and threatening about isis is it's a nonstate actor. it is trying to take down the nation-state system and it is territorial if it expansion us.

there's no national reason to believe that they will stop with iraq. they are territorially expansionist and they are genocidal as we have seen in the cities they have taken. they have slaughtered the shia. they said they would continue to do so. their aim is to march to najaf. they are expansionist genocidal and this is a critically new element in terms of a transnational network of nonstate actors that not only threaten individual lives but the entire nation-state system. >> next up in bethlehem pennsylvania pennsylvania bob on the line for democrats. >> caller: good morning. i have a question. i don't know if you remember when we took over in iraq there was an earthquake at the border of iraq and turkey. our troops went up there and help the kurds and in the process it looked at the

military behavior, our militaries and they were much happier that they were helping the kurds than the ones that were fighting down in the other parts of iran, iraq rather. and in the process if our troops have higher morale when they are helping people you can go back to another area. did you ever hear of a thing called cooperation from the sea? it was russia and the united states had a similar earthquake and disaster drills in the pacific and they helped russia and the united states work together for four years in hawaii and the troops were very happy working together. it was a process of trying to help one another and the morale

was a lot higher. why can't this be used as a tool against terrorism? if you are going to choose weapons of war, then you get no help during a disaster. >> guest: the idea that u.s. troops are u.n. base troops can go into another country and win hearts and minds is essentially a cornerstone of general petraeus counterinsurgency strategy. it's something that has not borne out with any success anywhere. unfortunately the data shows that troops are perceived to be whether they are doing good, or not so good well-meaning or not, they are perceived to the occupation forces when they are from a foreign country particularly with a different agenda. i liken it to -- and there's a lot of date on that. but i liken it to the united states during the height of the financial crisis.

what would we have thought if the government of the people's republic of china had dispatched 100,000 ships likely sent to iraq which is 5000 to wall street to make sure the world's financial system everybody has an interest in was working soundly and smoothly? they didn't do anything violent and they helped us get our financial house in order. i think americans would rightfully see that as an invasion and occupation and we would resist it and that is what we have seen in each of these places all over the world for the united states goes. >> host: we are looking at the violence in iraq. is there a threat right now to the u.s. homeland? >> guest: i think there is. i think we see an increased threat by having a group like isis and its network of groups having a larger swath of territory in iraq and syria and an anonymous amount of money. al qaeda even on 9/11 was considered to be the wealthiest organization in the world. it was estimated at $30 million.

today isis has $1.5 billion. 500 million they just got from raiding the banks in mozilla. in terms of its military wherewithal it has had three years of armed training and funding to requiem indirectly from united states and our so-called allies so its well-armed and well-trained. this is a group that is well-financed, well-armed and well-trained with the huge swath of territory and the ability to go in and out of different places from libya to syria to iraq to afghanistan. so we now have these connections worldwide. the dni the director of national intelligence mr. clapper has briefed intelligence that thousands of the spiders in syria syria are foreign including europeans and americans. so i think anybody looking at this would certainly see an increased threat to americans whether they are at the embassy in baghdad which are drawing down for the homeland. >> host: stamos on the line

for republicans in florida. >> caller: good morning ms. leverett. i have two questions/comments. one mainly of historical interest and one more relevant to the discussion. the first one is what role do you think the first persian gulf war had in the lead-up to 9/11 and probably of more interest is i don't fault president obama for withdrawing troops from iraq. what i fault him for is the libya war because i think it helped kick off the serious conflict and now that has led to the iraq problem we are having now. >> guest: yes, again the caller is making two interesting points. there has been very little critical retrospective analysis of what that war in 1991 to 91

in the gulf did in terms of the united states. while we saw with lightning. >> how we were able to knock off saddam hussein's military get it out of kuwait there has not been a focus on that after that we decided to keep tens of thousands of american troops in the gulf especially in saudi arabia the holiest place in the world for muslims which help qaeda was able to rally against. that then gives the mujahideen what became a critical part later of al qaeda a place, a cause to rally round to get the united states out of the gulf. so i think that has not gotten enough critical exposure and is very important. i agree with the caller. the problem is not that president obama went through with president bush's decision

to withdraw american troops from iraq. that is not the problem and in fact if we had kept troops there or i'm afraid as the data shows in other countries that we would be perceived as a continuing occupation force and they would continue to draw fire against us in iraq and elsewhere. the problem in 2011 was a decision based on very faulty and i would say fantastical evidence and ideas, that libya had to be invaded and his government had to be overthrown. that was a disastrous decision followed only by the more disastrous decision to arm fund and train sunni militants in syria to overthrow assad. those two decisions i think i've had a direct impact on the current situation we see now with isis strength and iraq and syria. >> host: . >> host: richard harper hill massachusetts on line for democrats. >> caller: yes, thank you. hillary you are spot on. you are so intelligent about the middle east that hillary there

has always been like joe biden said years ago that possibly iraq split up like a federation and right now the kurds are controlling kirkuk in the oil area and sunni looks like they have the northern part of the country and we can eventually get out and that she is in the south. do you think that's a workable solution at some point maybe or is that not good? >> guest: thank you very much for your compliments. i appreciate it especially here in washington where i'm often under fire. the point about the break of -- breakup of iraq it may happen but the idea that some half in the foreign policy elite here is somehow it can be withdrawn and the united states can work to some other partners to redraw the map in the middle east.

nearly 100 years ago between the british and the french those days are over. the united states does not have that kind of influence or control in the middle east to do anything of the sword. what will happen in iraq is something i think entirely -- will be entirely decided by iraqis and those in the surrounding states. each of the surrounding states has a critical interest in helping iraq's day is a unitary state even if it has to become more highly federated. they have a critical interest so for iran they have no interest in their being just a shia state focused on the south. they want and have said clearly over many many years they are committed to a unitary iraq. the same thing a thing for turkey. for turkey to have an independent kurdish state on its borders would be something very much not in its interest. for jordan to have a terrorist

network controlling a huge swath of iraq and syria on its border is a fatal scenario and isis has already said that they are interested in turning their sights on king abdulah in georgia as well. each of the surrounding states around iraq has an interest in staying unitary and i think what the united states has to do is again get very serious about diplomacy. work with states that we have previously shunted like iran and get more frank with states like saudi arabia that we have prior to this just followed along with them. was going to ask you about a recent piece that you wrote called america's middle east solutions underscores the failure of america's political class sustainable to strategies for the country after 9/11. tell us a little bit about that. >> guest: well i think most of the commentary of what's happening in iraq is about the disastrous decision to invade iraq which was again i agree was

disastrous but it really doesn't ignore the more urgent problem that our political class has failed to deal with and in fact has fueled. so you have today, in is it administration president obama has fueled that with his demands that cut off a has to go and syria has to go and the decisions to arm, fund and train civilians. this is i think starts in 1979 under carter and it's more serious and escalates under president reagan and then what you have is that before 9/11 you have a think the coalescing of groups here in washington principally neoconservatives but fellow in the democratic party that see 9/11 as the opportunity as the window to go in and do something they wanted to do before 9/11 which was to destroy this power, this air of power this air of military power in iraq and they do so as we know

on exaggerated if not made up evidence of mass distraction and ties to al qaeda. the inability then for them to see, the impulse that they had to come together the neoconservatives and their fellow in the democratic party to use 9/11 to push an agenda from before 9/11 rather than to look frankly and squarely at what 9/11 represented why it happened and how u.s. policy needs to change to adapt to new environments where our old allies like saudi arabia like these arab gulf states that have armed, funded and fueled al qaeda before that, that they were actually sympathetic to u.s. policy. our inability to deal with what happened on 9/11 and to construct a policy for it has been very very problematic and instead there was this idea to

go back to pre-9/11 agenda, push it through with 9/11 rather than deal squarely with changes. >> host: on our line omar is in terre haute indiana. >> caller: hi hi. all i can say is wow. ms. leverett you are dropping some bombs that i have rarely heard on c-span and even though you are using diplomatic language basically what you are saying is the seeds seeds that u.s. policymakers have been planting throughout the middle east are bearing fruit today and i don't like the crops. create al qaeda and taliban and use them against the russians and after that's over and fire them to support sunnis were convenient and support sunnis fighting shiites were supported. but more importantly this is actually you are a credit to c-span.

i get so sick and tired of having to look at richard perle and david from robert kagan and kenneth adelman and elliott abrams and on and on and on and then for every speaker like you who comes on there are 10 of those others. i would encourage c-span watchers to go to you and your husband's web site right -- writes for iran.com as well as iran press tv to get an alternative point of view. you are a breath of fresh air and c-span really wants to be -- "fox news" fair and balanced than they need more speakers like you. i would ask you, you have been to the region. you are an iranian expert and we need to know both sides of an issue. if nothing else talk about you and your husband's visits to iran for example which is one of the main players in this current

crisis. >> guest: of course i think the caller for his comments about me. i want to focus on one point he makes in particular, which is the fact that i have been several times to iran, to iraq, to turkey, to saudi arabia. it was a student in egypt working at the u.s. embassy in a lot of these places. it used to be that if you went to a country and he spent time there, and you really vowed to listen to people they are people who you may not agree with them people have opinions and perspectives that are an announcement to you personally personally that is seen as scholarship. i used to be seen as trying to understand the other perspective on its own merits but also say you could inform policy debates here in the united states better. today that is dismissed as being an apologist. today today on her rant ewart distanced as an apologist in iran. in the push of ministers never

9/11 coming back to that issue one of the things that i thought was the most startling was that anybody who spoke arabic and a buddy who had real experience in arab world was seen with quite significant skepticism within the white house as an apologist for the air of us. rather than trying to tap into their expertise to try to see how we could reformulate policy they were dismissed as apologist for the arabs and people went about their own theoretical policies. the people who have never been to iran and never met an ayatollah claim to be experts on an ayatollah would do this or an ayatollah would do that. that is not just counterproductive, it has really been disastrous because it has allowed us to instead look at the prism through deeply ideologically motivated lenses that is not about good u.s. policy and certainly not about the benefit of april in the region. >> host: western virginia jack is on the line for independents.

>> caller: good morning. this is good morning. >> caller: two things are quick. you have people talking about the president not doing this and not doing that in the other day mitch mcconnell said rookwood we have to make sure this is a one-term president. no, no, no and then they come and say where the jobs? i remember when i was walking down the street with my grandfather almost 80 years old and the same nonsense had been going on. then it was the japanese. you have got people who create these weapons 24/7. where are they going to put them in warehouses? they have to use them. you are not going to have people to reference 24/7. there will be no place for the people to live. >> guest: a caller points to something that i found very interesting.

i think it has long been dismissed in political discourse mainstream political discourse as the rantings of people on the left of the military complex here in washington washington but they're something of import about that idea was put forward by a mainstream former general eisenhower in his farewell letter to the nation after his presidency. and i think if you look at how that has impacted the current dynamics in the middle east particularly what we see in iraq it is stunning to see the united states spent over a trillion dollars in iraq tens of billions of dollars in weaponry to the iraqis and now isis is just walking into those arms depots and taking them. this propensity and instinct to militarize a complex and to use military force as a solution has created a real blowback and i do think it is worth think its and commentary and in washington especially to go by air

refueling this complex -- and in terms of our lawmakers on capitol hill to have them think twice the next time they want to send for arms funding and support to militant groups. it's something we really need to explore why that happens in here in washington what are the answers that push it and what is the blowback? >> host: a couple of minutes left with hillary mann leverett. let's go to weatherford texas where mike is on the line for republicans. hey mike r. you dare? go right ahead. >> caller: basically your guests doesn't know what she's talking about on the sunnis in iraq. i got there in 04 at the triangle and the state department was very anti-sunni. we tried to get -- in bahrain on our side and the state

department was all against it. all the way through the state department was very pro-shia and anti-sunni and anti-kurd. they have parked off the saudi's we were dealing with and it was hard to keep them on our side. the anti-sunni within they government and especially the military if you look at the kurds after we left iraq in the military you have seen it collapsed. thank you. stay. >> guest: i think you make some critically important points. the united states government, clearly the united states government's decision to disband iraq's military that have been

foreign trained and given salaries from the city government to disband that, to fire sunni military officers who are battle trained but with no paycheck was a colossal error. the problem for the united states though i think is not whether someone is posting the its this point i'm that i'm trying to make the united states looks at the region that can maybe be described as fanciful thinking through rose-colored lenses in some ways that somehow when you talk to these ex-patriot specialist these ex-patriot experts who claim to know everything about a country and we use what they say to validate what we want to do, so of course we listen in the invasion of iraq to people like my kia who essentially were telling us everyone would welcome the u.s. invasion. when that didn't happen and we are in iraq and we have disbanded the sunni formed iraqi

military player left with surprise, surprise the majority population of shia and sunni of which the shia are the majority. so the united states had to come up with a strategy to deal with them and away -- which i don't think was bad. maliki with all the criticism he gets here is the only figure in iraq as we have seen in the last election who can garner support and garner any sense of consensus. with all of this flaw is the problem is how do we approach the sunnis quickly fired the iraqi military and then we decided with the sunnis instead of really bringing them into a political process to arm, fight and train them -- that made it almost impossible for sunnis to become part of the process and open the door for their foreign patriots to send yet more arms funding and training to them in actual people. so you have saudi's, libyans,

syrians by the thousands come in to join their sunni compatriots. so i think of how we treated the sunnis in iraq is a serious one but it was one that was born from you know the most neutral term i can give the fanciful thinking of going into iraq on the advice that somehow all iraqis would celebrate our entrance. they would all end up to be secular liberals and form a government that way that could be evenly divided amongst all the communities. that was wrong from the beginning. let's go-go cotton would i do hope cornelia is on the line for republicans. >> caller: will good morning. i would like to echo the previous caller's comments. i do think that this lady is making a lot of good points that are major premise that the american military is somehow this invading occupying force is totally wrong. if you look at the history of the american military we have been a force for good in the world.

you look at south korea, if we had withdrawn from south korea like president obama did from iraq, guess what would have happened? when we withdrew from vietnam it was overrun by communists and christians were persecuted. our stabilizing force in germa germany. you take every country that we have actually so-called invaded even defeated, our military has been a force for good and the philistines i would add to that list. if you look over all and i don't know about the invasion of iraq, do not know. i i think history will only tell whether our invasion was wrong fair. you have got to remember that all of the democrats nancy pelosi, hillary clinton were all on board board for they are at invasion of iraq said to blame it on george bush and the republicans is ridiculous.

>> guest: well i am clearly a bipartisan critic and what's interesting is when i criticize the bush administration during their time after i resigned that was fine for much of the political hits in washington but when i made the same criticisms about the obama administration, there was deeply problematic. even though i respect our armed forces and i think they play a vital role in protecting the united states i would take issue with the caller in terms of the success of these invasions both in terms of what they have done on the ground in this country and the moral cost that much more importantly the strategic costs. i think after the invasion and occupation of vietnam, finally president nixon and henry kissinger realized the strategic quagmire and not only to did we leave it in him but just like i think we are going to have to today they turned around and said how can we have a different

strategy in asia and critical to that was going to beijing which is why i titled my book going to tehran. it that not only did you you turn and leave yet and leave yet nobody had to come to terms with the essential players in asia. first and foremost china when we had isolated ascension for 20 years before he left there. there was a tremendous success. we are going to need to do the same thing today because the strategic failure quagmire in vietnam is similar to strategic failure in quagmire that we have with iraq. .. we will not be able to be the hegemonic power in iraq, just like we were not able to in asia. need to pursue a similar strategy and deal with a central player.

host: >> he will talk about the latest on the situation in iraq. and then norman ornstein on eric cantor's loss and what it means for congress's policy agenda were the rest of the year. and then wendy young talks about her groups work to help the children navigate the immigration system. washington journal is live at 7

a.m. eastern on c-span. >> cable in the '90s, did have over 90% of the market. today it only has a little over 50% so the business has mature e matureedd and you have to lower cost or find new sources of revenue. i think they are attacking both. looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers so look at comcast and make video in demand more attractive and easier to use and the interface is web like and delightful. don't loose what you have. you also see them taking advantage of broadband, right? that is a blessed source of new business for our industry. it is growing faster.

has a huge market. good economics. and it is good business. >> the rapid change in telecommunication, technology advances and the future of the cable television with michael powell tonight at 8 eastern on the "the communicators." >> imf manager christine lagarde announced her agency plans to revise the economic growth to 2% and that is a decrease from previous decisions. it is half an hour. >> thank you and good morning to all of you. welcome to this press conference on the concluding statement on the article four of the u.s. and i will try to focus on the key

messages we have. by the background, it has been a while since we have not done a concluding statement when there is no domestic crisis and there is no recession and that has given us a chance to focus on growth, long-term growth trends and the structural reforms we see as ways to support both growth and jobs. turning to growth and numbers, you will have noted that we have revised downward our growth forecast for 2014 down to 2% and that is attributed to the poor results of q-1 when are largely, not entirely, but largely weather related. it isn't the main message we want to give on growth. we believe the slowdown is temporary and better prospects

lay ahead and we say that on the bases of numbers and industrial production that have shown gaining economic momentum. risk to the outlook and weakness in housing and business investment that can continue to be a drug in the future. we continue to believe there will be growth in the coming quarters at about 3% or possibly higher than that. in 2015, we expect growth to hit its highest annual rate since 2005. we have also looked at the trend for growth going forward and essentially based on the aging of the population and productivity trends when haven't

kept up with earlier provisions, we have revised our rate downwards to 2% and that is clearly significantly lower than the 3% average we have seen between 1948-2007. let's look now at what we call the score -- scars of recession which are still visibility. the long-term unemployment is too high with 3 ohio 4 million unemployed people and they have been unemployed for every 27 weeks. labor force participants is too low as too many productive workers have stopped looking for work. the third number, almost 50 million americans live below poverty line. so what are our policy recommendations in the face of that? they come in three key areas.

one focuses on jobs, growth and poverty reduction in the face of the numbers i mentioned. second area for policy recommendations is the macroeconomic policy and third one deals with the financial stability. let's tart with how to create more jobs, create stronger growth and allevate poverty. and there is no single measure that is going to deal with all of the those issues and is going to be an issues of putting all hands on deck in order to address all of them. we believe that for one, the united states should invest in its future. and as we emphasis the priority is to invest in people and infrastructure and encourage

innovation and stimulate productivety and get people back in the labor force. growth will not be enough in and of itself. and we believe additional measures should be taken to mitigate inqualities. you heard niasia ellis -- he say that on a global bases because it affected the entire world. we recommend targeted policies that help poor families make ends meet. first of all, we recommend an expansion of the earned income tax credit. the eitc. it is program that work and has been around for 40 years and it is currently restrict today families with children and we certainly recommend that it be expanded beyond the family

circle. to compliment the expansion of the eitc we also argue for an increase in the minimum wage which in the united states relative to median wages is among the lowest in advanced economies. 38%. so two key measures. expansion of the eitc coupled with an increase in the minimum wage. second set of recommendations that relate to fiscal and monetary policy and they are there to lay the groundwork for growth and jobs that i have just mentioned. starting with fiscal policy. as we said before it remains important to adopt and implement a credital medium term fiscal plan to bring down debt and secure sustainability.

now we say that and have said that and will continue saying that because we recognize it is quite difficult to achieve from a political point of view. however, we also acknowledge there has been progress, demonstrated by last years passage of the bi-partisan budget tax. and we see room provided there is a medium term fiscal plan, room for targeted fiscal support today to help lay the foundation for higher growth tomorrow. and that includes spending on infrastructure, education, job training programs, and child care subsidies. yet, making room for these important policies require also getting to grips with long-term drivers of rising debt. and this will need to involve controlling health care cost,

reforming social security as well as improving the tax system which is too complex, too many write-offs and loopholes and generates too little revenue. finally, i would highlight our recommendations on changes to the fiscal framework the goal of which is to try to avoid the recent debt ceiling issues and government shutdowns. that is for the fiscal policy. turning to monetary, we believe a gradual interest rate normalization is the right approach. our forecast suggest that the economy will only hit full employment by the end of 2017 and inflation pressures will stay muted. here is a bit of -- it is a bit of inconsistency between the

uncertainty around the outlook that requires the feds be nimble and it is. there seems to be a large amount of certainty in markets on the way policy rates are going to go. in the face of that, we believe the feds should continue to deploy clear communications which will be more important than ever. we made some recommendations in the field of communication and we believe notably that possibly more frequent press conferences by the president of the fed, sorry by the chair of the fed, might prove efficient in order to disspell this risk i alluded to between the uncertainty and the certainty displayed by the market. and that brings me to my third and final area of policy recommendations which touches on the financial stability.

the crisis maybe fading but financial staability risks haven't gone away. they are gradually build up during the period of low interest rates. the current is very low market voltility creates the potential for a shift in financial markets. don't get me wrong. monetary has been the right thing to do in the wake of the crisis. the challenge now is to minimize the potential side effects and here we believe that the united states needs to continue to play close attention to what is happening outside the banking system. in the so-called shadow banks and in other non-bank.

these activities fall outside the nets of supervision but can be the magnets for excessive risk taking. what do we recommend? we recommend oversight and a pro-active approach. some offer specific recommendations including super sup supervisory scrutiny, and stronger norms for holding secureatized loans. we see scope for a larger federal role in insurance supervision and regulation and while there has been progress in those areas there needs to continue to be such progress. let me also point out we are now working with the u.s. authorities on our next financial stability assessment program.

it is work that will require a bit of time and our team will work for the next 12 months so when we see each other next year same time you will have the concluding statement of article four but you will also have the report on the financial s staaccount assessment. we see progress looking up but attention must lay to the policy needed to lay the foundation for growth that is going to be sustainable and create jobs and that will require investing in the long term and not being shortsighted from investment and fiscal approach. thank you very much and i will take a few questions which i see

already. >> may we focus the questioning on the u.s. and keep them short. starting with the lady in the middle. that is you. >> thank you. my question is on the communication system of the federal reserve, you said the chair woman would have more pres conferences and now they have about four times after the fmoc annually so what amount do you think is appropriate? and how would you value the communication system between the united states and other central banks in terms of the changes of the policy macroeconomic policy. thank you. >> so your question is two-fold. on the first part of your question you are saying the fed

today communicates four times a year and has those heavy-duty press conferences. what is our recommendation? we would observe the communication by the fed is efficient and needs to continue to be efficient. given what i described as the uncertainty versus certainty. uncertainty about the outlook and question about the texture of had labor market. questions about the participation rate, questions about the longer term unemployment and the certainty displayed my markets. we think that it is really important that the feds continue to do that. how can you do better as the economy evolves and that is the crisis, you know, as the crisis goes away and monetary policy

will evolve, we make two recommendations. one is there be more frequent press conferences and that from four it could move maybe up to six gradually. and you know, that it would be as often as required given this discrepancy between the uncertainty and the certainty. as the certainty becomes more explainable the feds take the opportunity to explain. the second thing we recommend is a monetary policy report. that is often used by monetary institutions that adopt an inflation target monetary policy in various places. that is the case in some countries like the uk, australia and new zealand. it could be considered.

i am not suggesting it should be implemented right away because the fed is long-standing with particularities and they have been respected. but more frequent press conference is privileged over the other. you asked me about the intercentral banks communication and there i believe whether it the occasion of the g20 meetings central bank meet on a regular bases. they don't comment for you the scope, depth and frequencies of their meetings but they do meet. and certainly reassured that that communication is increasing and improving because there is a wider recognition of the spillover effects and spill

backs to the territoryies where the monetary is decided. >> robin harding from the financial times. the bank of england warned that in the uk the in the rates need to raise earlier than the markets expect. do you see a similar experience is in the united states? if not, why not given they follow similar paths. >> the market assessment is once tapering will have been completed to the point there are no longer purchases than tightening might in short order take place. we are not that certain about the short order. the forecast on unemployment and employment number and the hollow

uncertainty around those numbers coupled with the fact inflation will remain under target for a period of time. we don't see that short ordered to be march 2015 let's put it that way. >> can you give us more indication when ims speaks and when the rates are at 0? what do you think the markets are not understanding or is the fed not communicating it right? >> i want to dispel the idea we

would argue the fed isn't communi communicating. we are saying it is communicating rightly and we are saying it could communicate more frequently as the economy picks up and the markets move in the direction they seem to move in order to clarify the uncertainty surrounding unemployment numbers, core inflation numbers, and it's forecast for growth. we suggest a bit more frequent to explain it's monetary policy

going forward. as to figure out the tea lev leaves of the market reaction i don't think i could do that c p comptentally. we don't have a fixed date. we don't think it would be in short order after the end of the tapering programs. that is watt what we assess. do you want to add to that? >> we make an assumption that the feds along the market would lift off around mid-15 and move slowly after that. but in our forecast we have inflation well below target right through until 2017 and we have a high level of unemployment and slack left in the labor market. >> yes, sir? >> madam, the most important question, the u.s. is facing off

against ghana and with who are you supporting and favoring for the larger tournament? and secondly, what are the consequences of the u.s. and global economy if the feds move in line with market expectations instead of your prognosis or recommendation for a slower outlet. especially in line for the financial risk you outline. >> i would guard against any prognostic concerning soccer or what i call football. good luck to all of the teams. it is really difficult to

speculate about what is likely to happen or we don't think will happen. earlier than timely tightening, could possibly have consequences on the u.s. economy in the first place and could possibly, you know, constrain and restrict the recovery momentum that we have observed and would not be, you know, positive from an employment view and second could also have more severe consequences in terms of global economy outlook where the spillover to emerging markets would leave a mark on their respective growth. it is from that sort of two-fold perspective we would be looking at it. >> lady right here.

>> thank you. in the report there u.s. prospects have been lower down to 2% from 2.8%. to what extent will the lower down affect the rest of the world especially emerging markets like china? thank you. >> we have revised downwards but on the bases of this very low and unexpectedly low q1. we have seen the final number by the way of q1. and given the weight in the annual growth number of any 1st quarter, i think our key message is this we see as temporary and we see numbers going forward in

quarter two, three and hopefully four as being stronger. and trending around 3%. so yes, there is going to be spillover to other markets to the extent they are strong connections but i would not over emphasis them given the temporary nation of this bad number in q-1. >> yes, sir? >> hello i have a question on the minimum wage. where do you see the adequate level of minimum wage and don't you think this is dead from the political deadlock in washington? >> we believe the increase in m minimum wage would be helpful

coupled with an increase in the eic. we look at the number today and it is within the three lowest relative to minimum wage in all of the oecd countries at 38% of the median wage. and given the other numbers that i mentioned, the $50 million living below poverty level and the number of unemployed number we believe an increase of that minimum wage would be helpful from a macro point of view. we are talking about significant numbers. when you have 50 million people below poverty level and many are working people, not people who are just not doing anything, that is why we are recommending it. as to give you a number, is it

10.10? this is something that needs to be decided by the legislators. but i would also observe there are states in which minimum levels have been raised to try to reduce those poverty levels. >> thank you. gentlemen in the front? >> good morning. the statement doesn't mention the ongoing support against supporting the imf reforms. have you given up hope? >> no way. i would never give up. i was a player in this organization except on the other side when the u.s. authorities campaigned for the reform and i want to see it through so i would hope the authorities at the administration and

legislative level understand how important this is so they can continue to play their role as prescri prescribed boy the articles. c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cbl