it. essentially said we can bomb this thing away. if he is honest about it, other people say just go back and get another agreement. that is code word nor no addition for war. and we have spoken out on this very clearly. and it isn't as if we don't have other issues we need to deal with. the fact is, enough senators said they support the agreement to derail the effort to stop it. grow up, accept the fact and move on. using it in your campaigns, just as we'll use it in our campaign. i do not think the people of this country want another war in the middle east. and i feel very strongly. this is a conscience vote. so bring it up 10 times, i'm not going to change my vote, especially when i see playing politics has become are the way

my republican friends are dealing with this most sober issue. now, as you look on the horizon, we know there's a couple of real problems facing us. the budget -- the budget runs out in 14 days. are we going to have a government shutdown because some people don't think women should have a right to choose? are we? i don't know. but we've got 14 days to deal with it. why aren't we dealing with it? we voted on the iran agreement. it's not going to change. it's just politics as usual. people are sick of it. now, let's take a look at the republican budget. the proposed senate republican budget would cut over half a

billion dollars from the environmental protection agency's budget. i just came from a hearing, very important and good hearing, where we looked at a horrible tragedy that happened in colorado. e.p.a. went in there at the request of the state to check whether or not this old mine that hadn't been cleaned up in generations caused a risk of a blowout. and when they started to do their testing, there was a blowout. e.p.a. was devastated with that. and what our committee looked at is, how are we going to move forward? well, we're not going to move forward, i say to my friends, when we cut half a billion dollars out of the e.p.a. budget that could be used to clean up these mines not. -- these mines. when there is a devastating blowout, horrible chemicals get into drinking water supplies, like cyanide, lead and it

destroys communities. why would we want to have a budget that cuts so much from the environmental protection agency that 80% of the people support? it's so popular. congress is so unpopular. the e.p.a. is popular. people want a clean environment. you know, in all my years in office, mr. president, no one's come up to me and said, "the air's too clean, the water's too clean." they say the opposite. they say, "you know what? my kid has asthma, clean up the air." or "i'm worried that i can't drink the water, i have to purify it." so -- so instead of revoting on something we already voted on -- and every member -- it's not like anyone was hiding. we all came out. we were either for the agreement or against it. and i have to say, my colleagues were wonderful in explaining their positions. and i was proud.

but i'm not proud to see us now go right back to the same thing. when we have all of these problems facing us. the republican budget cuts $400 million from community health centers, preventing 620 new clinics from opening and keeping 2.6 million americans from getting preventive and lifesaving care. that's right, $400 million from community health centers. how about the home program, the nation's primary affordable housing program? it would be practically eliminated with a 93% cost. this would mean a loss of about 40,000 housing units across the country. the centers for disease control, we know how important they are when we have an epidemic looming it would be slashed by the republican budget by $245 million, hurting our

efforts to protect communities from diseases like ebola and the measles. we all thought the measles was gone. in came back in california and thank god for the c.d.c. helping us when we needed them. then there's the export-import bank. we extended its life and attached it to the transportation bill, which is great. but the export-import bank expired 78 days ago. and the transit bill, transportation bill that i worked so closely with leader mcconnell on and senator inhofe and senator durbin and others, it's stuck in the house of representatives. and i don't know what to think over there, what they're doing, but they need to get going and get that transportation bill into conference so we can do this. this is a bipartisan bill. but instead of pushing and

working on that, we're revoting on an issue we already voted on. now, the ex-im bank has real consequences. g.e., general electric, announced it will ship 500 jobs overseas because of the bank's closure. so anyone who tells you it doesn't have an impact, they're wrong, it has an impact. 500 families are suffering because the ex-im bank, which we did the right thing on here in the senate, it's stuck on the transportation bill over in the house and they have yet to mark their bill and i hope they will. then we have the debt ceiling, something ronald reagan warned us about over and over again -- don't play politics with the debt ceiling. i want to remind everybody, when bill clinton was president, we balanced the budget. i was here. that shows you how long i've been around. i didn't have these gray hairs then.

so in those years, we balanced the budget, created a surplus. and then what happened after bill clinton? immediately we had this humongous tax cut for the rich and we had huge deficits under republican president george w. bush. and thank god president obama has cut that deficit in half. but we still have a debt. and that's because two wars were put on the credit card and these tax cuts to the rich, which caused huge deficits. so the debt kept climbing up. now, we have to raise the debt ceiling to accommodate the past spending of this congress. and president reagan was right -- don't play politics with the debt. even thinking that you will hurts our economy.

the last time we played these games, it cost us a fortune. and it caused huge uncertainty in the markets. so we have the budget crisis, we have a republican budget with huge cuts to programs we need, like the center for disease control. we have a transportation bill, the authority for which runs out in october. we've got all of these things and yet what are we doing today? we are voting again on iran. no one, in my view, is going to change their mind. now, i was thinking maybe some of my republican friends might come over to our side in favor of the agreement since colin powell is for the agreement and richard lugar is for the agreement and john warner is for the agreement and brent

scowcroft is for the agreement. these are all leading republican voices and others, many others. i don't see that happening. and for those people who say that it's been partisan, it has been partisan. several democrats joined republicans against the agreement. not one republican -- not one -- despite all the leadership on their side outside the senate, joined us. so the partisanship has been coming from the other side of the aisle. we're voting again on iran. and so maybe, i thought next week we could take up some of these serious issues that i just outlined, these pressing, pressing issues -- the budget, the debt ceiling, the ex-im bank, all these unbelievably important issues that are facing us. but, no, next week the majority

leader has decided to take up abortion. abortion. and what we're going to be faced with is a bill that says to a woman, you cannot have an abortion after a certain period of time. it's a ban. no exception for the health of the woman. and i want to talk a little bit about that today. the bill, as it is coming forward, is extreme. it's a direct attack on women, on doctors, on the law of the land called roe v. wade. it's unconstitutional because it offers no health exception. it just bans abortion at a certain point in pregnancy. with no exception. no health exception. no help for a woman facing cancer. no help for a woman facing kidney failure. no help for a woman facing blood

clots. or other tragic complications during their pregnancies. this is a war on women and that's what they're going to. they're not going to the debt ceiling. they're not going to the budget, which must be fixed. they're not going to ex-im, even though jobs are leaving the country. this bill that they're taking up next week will revictimize survivors of rape and incest by assuming they're lying and forcing women to go through multiple medical visits to prove that they've been victimized. it would throw doctors in jail for up to five years for helping a woman after a certain point in her pregnancy when that doctor knows she risks paralysis, infertility. a woman who has cancer whose life would actually be in danger

if that pregnancy is continued. but, you know, don't take it from me. take it from the women who have had to have these abortions, women who desperately wanted a child like tayise from california who learned at the 20-week ultrasound there were multiple tragedies facing her baby's heart and lungs. the baby had no diaphragm, which means her baby would have suffocated to death once outside the womb. you would force that woman to go through a pregnancy, not to mention the impacts on the baby. then there's emily from south carolina, a 26-year-old mother of two girls. during her third pregnancy, she suddenly had extreme health symptoms, including blurred vision and intense abdominal

pain. after testing, she was diagnosed with preclamps ya which -- which posed a serious threat to her health. under this bill, she could not have been spared the risks to her health. so when we say there's a we're on women, we mean it. we're not just saying words. and, frankly, i'm confused with everything else facing us. we had such a bipartisan breakthrough on the transportation bill. i was so proud to work with the majority leader, so proud of the product that came out of that. i was proud to work with the democrats and republicans on the environment and public works committee, every one of whom was involved and who supported the deal that went through. as a matter of fact, we had a majority of both caucuses. why can't we build on that

bipartisanship. why do we have to go back to the usual corners here? it's sad. and unnecessary. but you know what? we're going to be voting on iran so i'm going to tell you why i'm backing the deal. i've got to go through it again. i'm going to go through it again. the key points of this agreement agreement -- one, it cuts off the uranium pathway to a bomb. it cuts off the plutonium pathway to a bomb. it uses the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. and when people say, "oh, but they have 24 days to stall if somebody wants to look at their past program." let's be clear. not one country in the world who's a party to a nuclear agreement has any deadline, even

the united states. if there's a suspicion of a past program being hidden, you can stall it off. but not this one. you've got to let them in in 24 days or they are in breach. there's a mechanism to require iran to provide the iaea with access to the suspicious sites. that is not present in any other agreement. it requires the iranians to disclose their past nuclear activities before they receive a penny of sanctions relief. and the u.s. and our allies, we have the ability to snap back multilateral sanctions. now, the bill that's now going to come before us for another vote talks about how we cannot lift sanctions in this deal until certain conditions are met. but it ignores the fact that

there's a whole other set of sanctions that are in place for iran's terrorist activity, and those sanctions are not touched. don't conflate the two and confuse people. there are sanctions for their nonnuclear activities, which include their horrific support of terrorism, and then there's sanctions for their nuclear activities, which we will be lifting if -- if -- they agree and carry out these agreements, particularly since they will not have one penny lifted until they disclose every bit of their past activity. so let's see what else i can share with you as to why i support this deal. i have to say, at a time when congress is not trusted, has the

worst, worst approval rating -- i'm so embarrassed by it -- i have come to the point where i look at third parties to make my case. 29 of the top -- of our nation's top nuclear scientists, including six nobel laureates, say this is a good deal. 60 bipartisan national security leaders say this is a good deal. over 100 former u.s. ambassadors say this is a good deal. three dozen retired u.s. gener generals and admirals say this is a good deal. 340 u.s. rabbis say this is a good deal. 53 christian leaders and the u.s. conference of catholic bishops -- and we're going to be seeing the pope here next week -- say this is a good deal.

the religious leadership on the side of this deal for the most part is overwhelming. because our religious people who lead us here, want peace in the world, they don't want to see an escalation of war. we've seen what war brings. we lost in the iraq war more than 4,000 of our people. i ask unanimous consent for one more minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. boxer: this is what our allies are saying. "if the u.s. were to walk away from this deal, international unity would disintegrate, the hard-liners in iran would be strengthened, and we would lose the most effective path to stop iran from developing a nuclear weapon." that is a direct quote from philip hammond, the u.k. foreign secretary. and he speaks for all of our partners in this, 100 nations who support this deal, 100

nations who support this deal. why would we want to stand with the hard-liners in iran? i know my colleagues wrote to them -- and they are partners with them, make no mistake. the hard-liners here and the hard-liners in iran. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. boxer: i believe, if you are a moderate person, support this deal. i yield the floor. mr. cotton: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: i feel at times as if i have exhausted my words against the nuclear deal with iran. i'vi inveigh against the wickeds

of the ayatollahs, their support for terror and their attacks on israel and other american allies. it is the height of folly, weakness, and credulity to give iran tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief and to put them on the path to nuclear weapons. indeed, i feel as if i can say nothing more than i've already said. but, fortunately, the democrats, who support the iran nuclear deal, have supplied cogent arguments against the deal. thus, rather than speak myself, i will simply let the democrats speak in their own astonishing words. here are the democrats on the expiration of the deal. "i remain extremely concerned that after 15 years the restrictions on how much uranium iran can enrich and to what level it will expire and iran will once again return to its current status as a nuclear state with a breakout time of just a couple months if not

weeks. it is disconcerting that iran can achieve this status without breaking the rules or bending the agreement. to be clear in 15 years iran will be allowed to be a legitimatized threshold nuclear state. my fear is that 15 years from now america and the world will face an iran that seize its enrichment -- that sees its rein itchment powers legitimatize, that is more economically powerful and an iran that is weaponized as icbms." senator peters. i acknowledge that legitimate concerns have been raised about iranian activities after the first ten years of the agreement, sometimes referred to as the out years. during this time, iran's breakout time could shrink substantially." senator reed of rhode island. "when key restraints begin to expire in 10 to 15 years, a blink of an eye to a country that measures its history in millennia, our country will still have to deal with an

iranian leadership that wants to build an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program. that's a big problem." senator wyden. "none is off us knows what lies 10 or 15 years on the horizon. i have deep concerns about p what the shape of iran's nuclear program could look like beyond this horizon." senator bennet. here are the democrats on iran's financing of terrorism. "iran will be disruptive in the middle east and fund terrorist activities. this regime will continue to deny israel's right to exist. the quods force will still be listed a as a terrorist organization." senator gillibrand. "let's be clear, iran is a sponsor of terrorism and an abuser of human rights. this deal doesn't change that." senator height cap. -- senator heitkamp. "phs probable that iran will use its additional resourcesources d

being a he is to additional arms to increase its support for terrorist groups." senator merkley. "i do share concerns about parts of the agreement, including how iran could use funds from sanctions relief to continue funding hezbollah and other terrorists around the world. it is clear they have been funding these activities despite crippling sanctions. and we are right to be concerned that additional funds from sanctions relief or any other sources from other countries, if this agreement is to the approved, could be used to continue these outrageous activities." senator stabenow. here are the democrats on iran's continued nuclear activity and enrichment. request, with this deal, we are legitimating a vast and expanding nuclear program in iran. we are in effect rewarding years of deception, deceit, and wanton disregard for international law by allowing them to potentially have a domestic nuclear enrichment program at levels beyond what is necessary for a peaceful civil nuclear program."

senator booker. "it is certainly possible that iran will use its nuclear research or nuclear energy program to provide a foundation for a future nuclear weapon program." senator merkley. here are the democrats on iran's adherence to the deal. "iran is a bad and dangerous actor, we all agree on that." senator boxer. "critics insist that america cannot trust iran. i agree. i still have serious doubts about their government." senator carper. "we need not and indeed should not trust the iranian regime. implementation of this agreement may be challenging, and we need to be prepared for the possibility that iran will violate the agreement." senator casey. "when iranian extremists chant death to america and death to israel, the first question we have is, how in the world can we trust them to live up to an agreement? the answer is, we cannot."

senator stabenow. "even under the deal we should expect that iran will cheat when it can, particularly at the margins, that it will continue or even ramp up its destabilizing achivities in sponsorship of terrorism with the additional resources provided by sanctions relief. that it will seek to break out if the opportunity presents itself after 15 years when inspections fade and many limits on its nuclear program are lifted." senator booker. "iran has misled us in the past when it comes to their nuclear program." senator markey. what a condemnation of iran. what an indictment of this nuclear deal with iran. but this indictment comes from the supporters of the deal. despite their own words, these democrats have chosen to give iran billions of dollars that will be used to fund terror and war and ultimately put iran on the path to nuclear weapons. so let there be in mistake for

history about the consequence this these democrats' choice. when iran detonates a nuclear device, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran launches a missile capable of hitting the united states, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills more americans, as it has in ir iraq and afghanistan and elsewhere, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran imprisons american hostages, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran attacks israel through hezbollah's missiles or hamas' tunnels, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills jews around the world in places like argentina and bulgaria, these democrats will bear responsibility. when iran kills its own citizens, these democrats will bear responsibility. president obama and these 42 democrats bear a direct political, moral, and personal

responsibility for the coming crimes and outrages of iran's ayatollahs. there will be brave consequences for them and for all of us. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the help committee be discharged from further consideration of senate resolution 242 and the senate will proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 242 celebrating 25 years of success from the office of research on women's health at the national institutes of health. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? ms. mikulski: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senate will proceed. culms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. i will call up amendment 2623 to

the resolution and i scw it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. mikulski proposes an amendment numbered 2663. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there further debate on the resolution? ms. mikulski: mr. president, i further ask -- oh, okay. the presiding officer: if not, the question is on the resolution as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution as amended is agreed to. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i further ask that the

mikulski-collins amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the title amendment be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? if no objection, so ordered. ms. mikulski: thank you very much, mr. president. i think what we -- the correspondenchoreography that wt through, the parliamentary choreography does not really show really what we just did. we are now, through a resolution, cosponsored by senator collins and myself, cosponsored by all of the women of the senate on both sides of the aisle, is to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the office of research on women's health at the national institutes of health.

25 years ago on september 10, 1990, the office of research on women's health was established at n.i.h. it ensured that women were included in n.i.h.-funded research protocols. it set research priorities, scientific peer-reviewed and scientific knowledge and it promoted medical research. one of the outcomes that i am so proud of -- there were two outcomes. number one, what we've done to improve women's health. and number two, we showed that a process of working on a the bipartisan basis actually worked. this is not to tell old war stories about legislative issues. 25 years ago women were not included in the protocols at n.i.h. there were many reasons given, most of it not scientifically reliable or accurate. working together, senator nancy

kassebaum and myself -- the only two women in the senate at the time -- joined hands with the house, with congresswoman pat schroeder, connie morella, senator olympia snowe, and we worked together to get legislation passed to get women included in the protocols, scientifically appropriate and to establish the office of women's health. we worked then with senator tom harkin and arlen specter here and senator ted kennedy -- again, senator nancy kassebaum -- to get it done. these roll calls, for people who are no longer with us in in institution and some who passed by, showed we got it done. it was modest in money, big in dreams, and i'll give you one outcome of what they did. george bush -- george bush, the elder, appointed dr. bernadine

heely to be head of n.i.h. dr. healy led a scientific study on hormone replacement. she was able to get the money, again, because of tom harkin, arlen specter, we all working together, i was an appropriator as well that helped and assisted senator kennedy, senator nancy kassebaum, now of course baker, and guess what? this is the outcome. because of that hormone replacement study, medical practice was changed because of the excessive use of hormones in inappropriate situations. as a result, it is estimated by public health epidemiologists that we save 15,000 lives a year because of the hormone replacement study, breast cancer rates went down 12%. so when they say can't you guys

and gals work together, when we do, we save lives. we save lives. it is estimated that over 600 lives were saved because of this one study alone, and more will happen every year. so when we get it together, yes, we save lives hundreds of thousands at a time. so i want to commemorate the great work of the office of research on women's health, and i want to once again, joining with my dear friend and esteemed colleague, senator collins show, you know when we work together, we can really make change and change that improves the lives of the american people and women all over this country thank this body for the leadership we've provided. mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. i am delighted to join with my friend and colleague, the dean of the senate women, senator barbara mikulski, in sponsoring

this resolution to commemorate the 25th anniversary of n.i.h.'s office of research on women's health. this office has improved and saved the lives of countless women not only in our country, but worldwide. it has been a great success. our resolution, as senator mikulski mentioned, is cosponsored by every single one of the women serving in the senate today. now, mr. president, i always point out that just as the men of the senate span the ideological spectrum, so do the women of the senate. but we have come together to endorse this resolution because each and every one of us

recognizes the critical lifesaving work that has been done by this office at n.i.h. as the senator from maryland has pointed out, this was a collaborative effort among women, including my former colleague olympia snowe, in both the house and senate 25 years ago to redress the fact that so many clinical trials that were being conducted by n.i.h. or through n.i.h. funding excluded women. i remember one on heart disease that was called mr. fit. mr. fit. not a single woman was included in this groundbreaking study. despite the fact that women die

of heart disease more than any other disease and despite the fact that women react differently than men do to different therapies, to different drugs. so our resolution commends the office for its work over the past 25 years to improve and save the lives of women and recognizes that there remains striking gender differences among many diseases and conditions on which this office should continue to focus. it also encourages the office to continue to focus on ensuring that n.i.h. supports biomedical research that considers gender as a biological variable across

the spectrum of research projects that we are doing. and it encourages the director of the n.i.h. to continue to consult and involve the office of research on women's health on all matters related to the influence of gender on health, especially those pertaining to the consideration of gender as a biological variable in research with humans. i am delighted that we have now been able to clear the obstacles to the adoption of this resolution and that it has been approved without dissent. as my colleague has indicated, it is an example of a development that was taken 25 years ago in response to a real problem of women being excluded

from clinical trials, from health care research, and we've made a difference with this office. and that is why i am proud to join with my friend, the senior senator from maryland, the dean of the women of the senate, in sponsoring this legislation with each of our female colleagues serving the united states as members of this great body. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m"

continues.recess until 2:15 p.m" host: and we are back with the former senator from oklahoma, tom coburn, represented the from 20 euros for 2015. remind folks why you left the senate and what you are up to now. >> i left the senate because i recognized the problems that we were facing whether it was under

democratic control or republican control. we have problems in our country but we have a political class that doesn't want to address them because they are more worried about the next election cycle than they are solving the problems and we are looking for leadership and we just don't see it. it's really interesting we have all the conversations about the presidential candidates -- i was listening outside. usually what you see is and isn't what you get months from now, so it's a process. for me what's happening in the country today we are focusing on the republican presidential candidates more than democratic, but we've taken our eye off the ball so when i left and i planned to leave early cause i felt there is another way to fix this and the founders gave a way to fix it and it's called article five and it's a convention of states and it's a

convention state and we enforced the term limits and have to use the general accepted accounting principles which they don't. every other business whether it is a grocery store would go to store could be jail if they counted the way the government did. you have to use the principles and balance the budget. you can't continue to mortgage the future and you have to fix the entitlement programs. everybody wants to but they are afraid that they might not get reelected so it's about creating honesty and truthfulness with the american people, they get it but even if you polled the millennial's for 68% of them don't trust the federal government and that is a group that is highly skewed towards the progressive fault. so we lack leadership and one of

the things that allows people to lead is talking to people about what the issues are and say we have been living for 30 years. and we are working on a convention of the states. first of all it would reverse a lot of what has happened. if you think historically the congress has given away its power to the executive branch and if you go to statehouses and you talk to state representatives and state delegates and senators when you look at their budget they decide about 30% of it so we've lost the freedom of the number one independent of the state level and number two, we have people

that don't really know what they are talking about making decisions for the state of oklahoma or new hampshire or alaska that have totally different requirements and needs and they are clueless, so it's about restoring the balance of power between the three branches in the courts and the legislative branch. it's about restoring the balance of power as an enumerated in the tenth amendment and others that gives back what the founders wanted which is laboratories of experiment but as long as they are in the confines of the constitution is not to be allowed to do with a want to do. >> host: per the 2016 contenders which will align themselves with what you're talking about. >> guest: it's a convention of the state because that is the true answer that we want to fix and it's really interesting that lieutenant colonel brought this

up two days before the constitutional convention ended and said you can't trust washington to be the only one that can put forth amendment in the constitution because of the constitution because they will always retain power and so i left washington knowing that washington is never going to fix our problem and so we as americans demand that they fixed them and hold politicians accountable for just why i think that the seat of the problem of this we are not going to have a catastrophe and i don't think that we have to do that. >> host: he says he wants to make america great again and fix it. do you doubt that he can? >> guest: what does he know about what needs fixing? he hasn't answered a real question yet specifically so it is easy to put out a plan to fix america about what is your solution and let americans judge politicians on how they would go about solving it. he even takes the security for

example. a 20% cut and pay for people that are truly disabled and they are going to have aided munition and one of the things we have to do is you can't live off of social security. so, we have to enhance the benefit to the poor person on social security and diminish the more well-to-do. >> if you were going to keep a program that says here is our goal to help in retirement for those that would be able to subsist. >> host: here is the headline tom coburn despised this every 2016 candidates except marco rubio. >> guest: that is a headline. i'm not sure that is accurate. but i know his heart and speaking ability and leadership capabilities. i think carly fiorina -- we need

someone that will talk about the problems are coming into kind of brings me to another point. you had this whole discussion about outsiders and that's because they do not give a political answer and people are sick and tired of hearing the political excuse and that's why the balanced budget amendment is so important because no longer can the elected representatives give a political excuse. something has to get cut. tell me what you want cut and then i will vote for it. in other words we need to pin your ears to the walls. >> you were in washington for ten years making that argument. why is it a reality right now? >> guest: the first reality is if we don't fix it it's going to get fixed itself and the

consequent is a veteran to be tremendous. i wrote a book about it called the data bomb. the second is that it can get fixed if you send the right people here. but if the goal is was to stay in washington, the natural tendency is to not make tough decisions that might put that at risk. it's different than how the country was founded and how we won world war ii and the great vietnam vet. it's go out and do what is best and what is right and put yourself second in the country first and that is what we are not seeing in our elected leaders. >> host: viewers talk to the leaders over the senate so i know people want to talk to you now. tom from independent you are up next. go ahead. >> i wonder how come nobody is accountable for what's going on.

>> guest: how do you hold a member accountable, you do not reelect them so you have to be informed voters. what is the average turnout of 35% and 40%. we have seen some change in the house. you have seen people that have never been in politics before. i think that is tremendously refreshing. they are not going to play the game and there are some patriots are going to cause themselves to lose their own party to do what's right. so, hold them accountable for members to use and appear being at the townhall and if they are having town halls, force them to have town halls. that is the other trick politicians use now is they don't go home and actually make themselves available to their constituents.

i used to do 70, meetings a year. part of my job was to make myself available. >> host: randy next you are on the air. >> guest: good morning. i have a two-part question for you and it's because i oppose just about everything or have an argument for just about everything that you've spoken about this morning. the first thing that i would like to touch on is the republican and it is pretty striking of the federal government that is causing to create the worst welfare state and i give you this state of kansas which used to be a responsible state but now they get a dollar 39 for every dollar they send to washington in taxes. now, all of your allies are -- a

lot of these republican states are welfare states. so come if you are a free trader and you voted to give large amounts of money to corporations to move overseas to china and mexico, wherever and take these jobs, almost 20 million on over the last two decades and 60,000 factories gone, you and your policies and allies are creating a welfare problem. so, i would like to hear what you have to say about it especially kansas being the latest of the welfare state and missouri which is following in his footsteps. >> guest: i'm known for opposing nafta so i think that your history is wrong. we created dependency rather than independency in the states

and as the federal government has taken more when they hand they handed back they hand it back out, they handed over with restrictions. 75% of the highway funds in oklahoma and kansas have to be spent on money we've never gotten back the same amount that we have spent to because after the federal government but to come back with research and cause us that cause is not to be able to build highways to our standards and must follow federal rules when we build a highway in kansas or oklahoma when we are not taking federal money it costs us about five eighths as much to build a highway as it does when we use the federal money. so, my point is come and you can label me as a republican if you want, but most republicans label me as kind of a troublemaker. the fact is more involvement you have in the federal government and marvels that mournful but in the states the less efficiency

will have and the less capability is actually allowing people to be free and make choices and suffer the consequences of those. >> host: there are so-called troublemakers in the house right now. this is the house freedom caucus who wants leadership in the house to define the planned parenthood over the videos and another video released yesterday with one of the officials from planned parenthood talking about a pr issue as it got out about what was happening there. that video released, this is the tenth tenth one for some in the freedom caucus wants to be fun to planned parenthood, and they are willing to shut down the federal government or they are talking about it. where do you come down on this, do you have some strategies? >> guest: i don't mind shutting down the federal government if you know you are going to keep the shutdown until you win. but as we saw on obamacare, that was a failed strategy and this one would be, too. it is a poor a poor and what

they have done based on what they've done. but to say that the only way to do that in this environment with a democratic president that supports it, large majorities on the democrat excited of support even this abhorrent technique of the parts of aborted babies salvaged parts you have to have a strategy to win. and that won't win. if you can shut it down, but ultimately it will cave and it will open that up so you will have accomplished the goal but you will have grappled a lot of cages and people will say well why didn't you think through this? some things you can't fix with the present political run but you can talk about how bad it is and why you need to have a republican president to allow you to do that, to shut it down. .. will allow you to shut it down. sayingwashington times"

they are working to avert a shutdown. the bills up for a vote this week will put a one-year moratorium on federal funding for planned parenthood and impose criminal penalties on abortion doctors who forced to -- who refused to take my saving measures. now.at is the plan right let's move on to bob in virginia. an independent. caller: hi. , -- to overload the government with every social welfare program that you can. and then when the government goes bankrupt, they take it over and -- as a socialist state. >> there's another way that you need to look at. when government does go broke, the states, they stop paying

taxes to the federal government, let the federal government go into bankrupt. i don't know what repercussions would be of our government going broke. do away with the federal government for the time being and still have a national defense force with the force that is they have within their states, but it's going to come to something like that. that's another option. unless to have a socialist take over, go back to founding fathers and start all over again. >> first of all, i am familiar with that theory. number two, a lot of states

wouldn't be able to accomplish that and number three, what we are trying today -- to do is do the same thing before it gets that back which limit the scope and authority of the federal government. and actually if you go to the constitution there's a section called enumerated powers. italias outec -- it lays what te federal government is. it's their opinion, changed definition of meaning of words that allow the federal government to take on a greater role. that's where you have the most effect. that's where we catch most people cheating in government. andat so, what we are trying too

is head off the catastrophe that is here today, and by the way, the federal government is already bankrupt. let me give you a few number. the federal government told you deficitat was $480 billion, but they didn't tell you that the liability side of the balance sheet went up $5.6 trillion. actually what we had obligations for our children $6.2 trillion. now thinkil about that. divide that by 360 million americans and you get down to what that is personally, that's about a hundred household per household. that's just what happened last year that they didn't report, so having the federal government have to use accounting principles so that they had to be honest with us and continue to lie to us, that doesn't include the 4 and a half trillion dollar increase that some day is going to have to be

paid off or money decrease in value because of not paying it off. >> host: a democrat, roger, you are on the air with former senator from oklahoma. >> caller: senator when you talked about shutting down the government, the end of last year, i think it's a perfect example of when you take all of these trash bills that nobody wants to vote on and put into one, and they include things such as -- at the same time changing the laws that allows retired people's pension where everybody gets to be a coward in washington? >> that still goes on. last year it was run by the

democrats. you're going to see continuing resolution. both disastrous for the agencies of the federal government and to dig in those bills, you see all this actually un-american legislating, is what i would call, because you put things that nobody knows about. there's no transparency and discovered months after it's signed and in effect. so i think not having appropriation bills, not doing things as the constitution says, having a budget and passing it on time, passing appreciation bills. we are not having the discussion becausedi the next election is o important, we can't dare expose anybody to making hard choices. this country was built on hard choices doing hard work and the fact that washington refuses to make hard choices today tells you we need to send a whole

different group of people here and need to be nonpoliticians, that's why i'm advocate, one of our founders andof the rest of them didn't believe you needed to put it in the contusion. who would ever make a career in washington. i find that in the last three or four years i was there, nobody would defend them. just no opportunity and we are seeing the same thing now. it's great to service to the country and t not about representative government, it's about nonrepresentative government and the hiding of the facts and lack of transparency. appropriations bill have to come to this floor. what about, though, the fact that last week the senate spent a week on the iran nuclear deal,

the democrats re -- reunited. here is a headline of the washington times. they keep going down this road. >> first of all, you can handle either of the leaders in the last 20 years, any of the leaders have. thehe senate has plenty of time that if you go look at c-span they are on quorum call most of the time. i think the iran deal is a big deal. the reason i think it's a big deal it's not the context of the iran treaty, it's the fact that the president of the united states has refused to submit a treaty that is a treaty of the united states to the standards that the contusion -- constitution says, 67 votes to

become a treaty endorsed by this country. now, what has happened is we set a standard now that the president doesn't have to do that. you don'tt ve have a precedent. that's totally anticonstitutional. it's totally against what the contusion says. they worked themselves into that corner.at no, we are not going to do this we will let the supreme court decide. i think they've worked themselves backwards into a corner. i'm totally oppose to the process, the substance of it. i'm not even talking about that. you are undermining the power of theng senate when you agree to this deal. >> host: agree to the process, review -- 60-day review.

>> guest: the constitution says they have to be received by consent. >> the 60-day review is tomorrow the 17, and then the congress will have the 12-day review -- 12-day period for override veto expires after that, and this iran nuclear deal with the president an td five other countries negotiating can start taking place. lisa, republican, you're on the air. >> caller: , hi, senator, i hope your health is better. >> guest: my healthre is good. >> caller: i heard on the tv station and i don't understand it, clinton started talking about she is going to do fine because of superdelicates.

i don't understand what that means. do we really have a voice? >> you do have a voice. i don't know the context in which she was saying that, but -- and i think she was talking democratic party superdelegates rather than electorate college. my hope would be that we would bes a little more long-term in our thinking and thinking about the problems right now. when they do a continuing resolution, it's loaded with junk. you see years to unpack it because it's hidden.

it ought to be transparent. we ought to be able to see how they are spending the money and there's great new web scythe that -- that's available for you to see with transparency, how things will be spent in the past. i mean, even staff members of members of office are on appreciation can't get details of the continuing resolution until right before you vote on it, and, you know, that's a -- that's not representative republican. >> by the way, this fiscal year and september 30th, that's the deadline for the congress to passr all the appropriations bills. they come to agreement on each of them to front the different federal agencies. they haven't done that yet. a resolution that will have to be passed.

good morning. >> caller: good morning, senator, i appreciate you standing up for solving problems and all, and i was just wondering, well, actually where i come from actions speak louder than words and in oklahoma, i'm sure that's the same, but solving problems and you instead of continuing fighting, i just wanted to know if you filibuster the veterans bill before you left and senate floor when they needed after earthquake. how does that fit with problems problems, i appreciate you telling us that? thank you. >> i actually didn't filibuster. i voted against it. i was on the conference

voted out.hat it the va is cheating veterans on the vouchers right now. we have over 200, 300,000 veterans that can't get care right now. they're not implemented. so andde the haiti bill is not - not thats it wasn't needed, who was it going to be spent through, the money sent to people who could actually get it done versus people who had connections with unhrc but had no experience of getting it done. it's a matter of the details. when i spend a dollar of american's taxpayer's money, i to do what it says it is going to do. same with the veterans. we are still paying our veterans across the country in terms of veterans health care.

it's ashame. it's criminal what is happening today. i voted against the very bill that i help write because they did not go as far as they needed to go to accomplish what our veterans needed. >> host: putting out ways fraud and abuse, books at the end of the year. who has picked up in congress? >> there are material who are working on it. i'm going to try to publish another book as an outsider. when you have spending three and a half trillion dollars and spending other people's money and you see absurdities all across the federal government, we spent 2.1 on a zip line in an indian reservation that no one is going to attend. is this the best use of federal government.

what's the role t of federal government? and what's the number one role? number one role is providing for the defense of the country and establishing the rule of law, that's where we ought to spend our money and what's second, what's third and what's fourth, and then everything after that, we will say, is this really rule of federal government or the states. pretty soon -- you know, if you look at the projections they are back to trillion dollars a year. if you didn't have falsely low interest rates today, we had $750 million to interest cost right now. so what's going to happen to us? that's the critical thing. what's going to happen to the american people when all the lies and all the coverup and transparency comes due, when all this comes due, the standard living in this country is going to decline. most people don't recognize that

every family income in real dollars is the same as it was in 1988. we've gone backwards for the last 27 years. no wonder it's hard to climb up. no wonder people are having troubles. >> host: new york times with a possible shutdown nearing. president obama takes to the republicans, threatening to block a budget deal, includes financing for planned parenthood. pushing republicans to scrap a mlt billion dollar tax for manager. he will enlist business leaders to help him make the case. your reaction? >> guest: let's not do it behind closed doors. let's have a debate on the floor

or the senate where the american people can hear the pros and cons rather than a writing in a paper by a reporter who has one position. lets hear it all. we don't get to hear it all. that's the problem. there's no transparency. c-span does a great job, how how often do you see a real debate on the house or senate floor? not very often. that's what it needs to get back to so the american people can gather information by listening from people that have studied the issue and taken a position and actually hear both sides of the issue. that's how we used to do in our office. both sides of the issue to figure out which one -- which way we should go, not just one side because that happened to be in our side. >> host: karen wants to know about the convention of states. in otherov words, the influencef

money. >> guest: the application that we have made in 34 states, four have passed. you have to have 34 to have a convention. there are other peopleno working to try to get that as an application. it's very specific the way a convention of states work. you have to have ie -- identical applications, you have an application from oklahoma that wonts to have balanced budget amendment, they're not the same, don't have -- it don't count. if the people that want to overturn that get 34 states, they can have a convention of states just on that issue. it only 26 states, each state gets one vote to resubmit that to the states where 38 states to approve it. the plan is we have a lot of problem. i don't think money and politics is a problem. i think people in politics is r problem. career politicians is a problem,

because if you look across who's here the vast majority have never done anything in their life outside of politics. so it's not that they're not great people, but their frame of references is limited to politics. so you know, they never pulled an engine on a car, they've never farmed, they've never built fence posts, they've never signed a check on both sides of it, they never hired and fired people. they lack a lot of what the average american has done. they've never taught in a classroom, they've never been a policemen or a firemen. the vast majority. not all but the vast majority. we don't have the experience, when you don't have broad experience, you don't have broad understanding. >> host: thanks, john, go ahead. >> caller: i want to bring up about the government is going

broke. the federal government can never go broke? where does the money come from? it does not come from banks. when banks give you a loan you have asset and liability for zero dollars. government investment is a good thing. roads, bridges, schools, if the doesn't doesn't spend, the senator would have the coal on its back. i just want to bring up that point. foreign exchange rate, currency. he needs to get the facts straight and stop spreading lies. >> host: all right, lets hear theno response. >> guest: the federal government is broke. we have unfounded liabilities of 142 trillion, what that comes up

to right now and the ramifications of the government spending money that they don't have on things that we don't absolutely need is the value that this gentlemen makes will markedly decline. all you have to do is study if you don't think we are broke. it's a classic example of their banking system creating more and more money but ultimately less and less value. all you have to do is look as we've.e increased worth of debt and unfunded viabilities, what had been the standard living change over the last 32 years. the reason it hadn't increase because the government is printing money which is decreasing the value of the dollar that you earn every day. you know, you are taking -- we

ought to be doing infrastructure. it's about $400 billion a year. sixli years in a row of waste, fraud, duplication. you can see it. continue toal spend money that e actually are borrowing against our children's future. to me it's criminal, specially when it will not accomplish the things that they say it will. >> good morning, i'm pro-life. when you say planned parenthood, you know, that even though they are wanting to cut the money to them, they are giving millions a year to israel. i looked this up because i couldn't believe it that they

liberal abortion laws in the world. i mean, a teenager doesn't have to notify parents. they abort up until birth. the government pays for it. why are we sending money to countries that are doing something we're trying to fight against. >> that's a great question. >> host: execution. wh ao is the man? >> guest: the person who actually did the murder got life sentence and there's some real questions in my minds as to the evidence that i've seen that he actually did what he was

convicted of. so there's been a request by several of us that delay this until the rest of the evidence can come forward. i believe in the death penalty, i'm probably the very few that do. i think it needs to be applied appropriately and we shouldn't do making mistakes. there's a potential for mistake. >> host: you haven't heard anything? >> guest: i have not. most common sense people will agree. >> host: what are you hearing from people in oklahoma? >> guest: i'm not. i only signed onto this because i think it's a human rights issue, you know. it's as bigger issue. one of the things that's happening in our country today is the underlining of the rule of law, and when you think about why has donald trump got so much claim of his border situation.

it's not about borders and latinos, it's about the rule of law. anthd we for years assumed thatt applied equally to all of us and then we see examples where it doesn't. and so the boarder is an example where itex doesn't. there's a federal law against it. sanctuary cities where there is a law against it, they do it anyway. the thing that holds our country together is all believing in the rule of law that we can get almost always a fair deal. but when you have government deciding to ignore the law or which i -- and so you get the response that we ought to be paying attention to. the dangerous of the republics,

we are the longest established republic ever. the government can print all the money you want and there's no consequences. that's just not true. he needs to go back and study economics. it's impossible to print money and impact people that you are printing it for. so we're in trouble in a lot of ways and we really need great leadership. leadershipow is about what are r problems, how we solve them. somebody that creates a vision that the americans trust and do the right thing to solve those problems. >> host: you have battled against cancer. how are you right now? >> guest: i have great reports, i have great doctors down there.

nih sent me down there. i'm pleased, i'm happy and i feel well. >> host: glad to hear. we appreciate your time. >> guest: thank you. >> a live picture from the white house briefing room this afternoon. in a few moments press secretary will appear, visitor pope francis next week and scheduled address to congress, all topics that we hear brought up. we will have live coverage here on c-span2. right now a discussion of the syrian refugee crisis from this morning's washington journal. >> we want to thank member of the foreign committee. lets start with the front page of new york times. president obama considering talks with putin on syrian

crisis, a personal cold war has been going on between the leaders where president obama has shunned him. >> i think we shouldn't be afraid to talk to anybody, i'm not sure i put the burden so called personal cold war on just president obama's shoulders. >> host: what does the united states states do? equipment to syria has brought to head since putin return to presidency, engaging with russia and trying to isolate it. >> guest: when we look at a little bit of history with russia and soviet union. syria is the oldest state in the

middle east and now russia. the relationship goes back decades. assad's father cemented that relationship so that prime military supplier on nuclear technology supplier, training and equipping was the soviet union and now russia. it was no coin -- coincidence, for example, thae,t putin and russia negotiated an agreement with the western allies including the states to remove chemical weapons, which were provided by -- at least technology from the so -- soviet union and russia. that's an old, old relationship. they are not going to give up easily on that. syrian military is crumbling and

assad's position within syria continuing to erode. it's not an overnight thing, but it's a steady errosion. putin has motivation to try the salvage the situation before it collapses. >> host: the united states training syrian rebels who are trying to fight against assad. >> we will go live for white house briefing. >> before we get to the questions, let me do announcement. the president looks forward to discussing with the prime minister regional security, impleciónation of -- implementation comprehensive issues and the president looks forward to discussing israel's

relationship and the need for the advancement of a two-state solution. president visit is a demonstration between united states and israel as well as unprecedented cooperation to further enhance israel security. that's november 9th. [inaudible] >> sure. check with the department of justice. you want to get started? >> please. syria and admission that there are only four to five trained syrians in the fight against isil. [inaudible] >> calling this program a total failure. >> well, mark, we've acknowledged for some time the challenges that we have encountered in training and

equipping and sending to the battlefield moderate elements of syrian opposition. the administration knew that this would be quite difficult task and it's proven to be more difficult than we thought. general acknowledged the challenges that they were facing and acknowledged that the program would require some changes, clearly those changes are warranted. for what sort of changes they believe will be more effective, that's the public of defense. more broadly the antiisil coalition has been effective coordinate with other fighters on the ground, syrian kurds, that has succeeded in driving out isil out of some important strategically territory in syria. clearly, we have a whole lot more work to do. much of that progress would not

have been possible without the support of the antiisil coalition particularly in air strikes. [inaudible] >> the strategy that outset to put so much trust in the u.s. training syrians. i know you talked about changes that have to be made. isn't it time to scrap that part? >> how the program should be addressed to correct some of these problems, i direct you to the department of defense. they can talk about the operational details about the specific programs. i would point out that many of the most critics of this administration particularly when it comes to our syria policy have suggested that a much more significant investment in this training effort is what the administration should have

pursued years ago. so it is true that we have found this to be a difficult challenge, but it is also true that many of our critics had proposed this specific option as essentially the cure-all for all of the policy challenges that we're facing in syria right now. that's not something that the administration ever believeed. >> to stick with syria, the discussion of the russians. ..

we want to make sure that a couple of things. the first as any efforts by russia that are motivated, that are geared toward doubling down on their support for the assad regime would be counterproductive and destabilizing. and the reason for that is simply that the support for the assad regime only has the effect of propping up a leader that has utterly lost the legitimacy to lead that country. and it only further divides the population in some ways makes it

more likely that we are driving some citizens in syria directly into the arms of isil or other extremist groups that oppose the government. so what we would welcome is an integrated, coordinated, constructive effort on the part of the russians to support the 60 member coalition of nations that is working to degrade and ultimately destroy i saw. >> gwen moore about the business roundtable regards the president had. seems rather pointed more for all the difficult talk teaching from republican candidates, maybe should stop talking america down, america is winning now. first of all your shirt he's not going to watch the debate tonight last night and second are you sure that maybe a

certain one of those candidates isn't getting under his skin a little bit? >> i'm confident that the president will not watch the debate tonight. he will be interested to hear what happens but i don't think he would be watching it in real-time. the comments you hear from the president applied to a significant number of candidates in the republican field. and it is, it's part of politics which is part of political debate. you've heard me say before that there's a lot of value in having a robust political debate in this country as we make decisions as collection of citizens, which direction we put our country should move. the president believes that debate should be rooted in facts and an accurate assessment of this kind of tremendous advantages that our country has begun to think the president be the first to point out that those advantages our hard-won. and those are advantages that can be frittered away if the

next leader of the country doesn't appreciate the way they contribute to the success of this country. >> sound like. >> i think it is an effort -- [inaudible] -- a clear, accurate assessment of precisely the damages that our country enjoys and to make sure that we are mindful of those advantages so that we don't end up in a situation where three series of bad decisions we further away the advanced so critical to success of our country and our citizens. julia. >> also at the business roundtable the president asked about chinese cyber hacking and he said the user preparing a number of measures that will indicate to china this is something of a significant strains on the u.s.-china relationship and that the us is prepared to take countervailing actions. can you shed some light on this,

what does he mean tickler speaking at sanctions are more? also job sometime as women may seem measures addressing this issue be rolled out a special as they relate to the visit from president she's because i think he was specifically none specific in making the reference to countervailing actions. however, it is consistent with what we discussed in this room yesterday about how the united states has a series of tools that can now be used to counter the activities of those that are using cyberspace to try to gain an economic spanish fork to carry out acts of vandalism. end-user tools not available to u.s. policymakers because of a policy decision made by the president of the united states. we have found that even having

those kinds of economic sanctions available to the president and to the secretary of the treasury you have a deterrent effect on those who may be contemplating nefarious action. we saw that that wasn't true in confronting iran, that one of the levers of influence the international committee was able to exert on iran was the prospect of additional and tougher economic sanctions. so i think the point here is that there are a range of responses that are available to as the president said in a roundtable discussion, hopefully it will not be necessary to use them. >> following up on something you said yesterday about -- crude oil exports.

[inaudible] does that mean the president would veto th that bill should e it to his desk? >> i don't hav have a veto threo be shut this one but clearly it's not a piece of legislation we support because of this is essentially the domain of the commerce department. >> to follow up, does the president believe he's made america great again? >> well, i guess to put another way you might say that the president is quite proud of this country. and he is certainly proud of the tremendous progress that the citizens of this country, in part because of the policies put in place by this administration have had them coming back and worst economic downturn since the great depression. we got so much to show for all of our progress but the president is mindful of the fact that the next president will enter into office at a point

where the tremendous gains are reversible, and that if there is not someone with a clear economic vision for the country that is rooted in fighting for the best interests of middle-class and advancing policies to expand to economic opportunity for middle-class families, that those gains could be reversed. and given all the hard time and harhard work that depression is personally invested in those games, given all the hard work the american people, american workers and entrepreneurs have invested in those games, the stakes in this election are high. again the president believes it's a worthy part of the political debate for us to discuss what progress we have made so far, what advantages does the country and our citizens enjoy, and how can we capitalize on those advantages to ensure the long-term success of our country?

again, these are weighty decisions and they are certainly worthy of extensive debate, and they will be worthy of consideration by the american people if they vote in the next election. >> last night the vice president was speaking about donald trump positions on immigration or his comments on immigration, called the basic message. the president when he was in iowa described some of his rhetoric as being un-american. it does sound as though, you sort of shied away from talk about donald trump in the briefing room, but the president and vice president are starting to comment on the gop field more. would be unreachable to. >> the vice president might do some of the fall of the debate as sort of a rebuttal to what we're going to hear to? >> i don't have a preview of any future vice presidential remarks to share with you. you can check with his office

about that. i think the president when he was speaking in iowa went out of his way to the clerk he wasn't talking about just one candidate in the field. we have seen what i described as an alarming number of republican candidates demagogy on this issue in particular, seeking to single out and target immigrants to this country. as the president said it's not all consistent with the kinds of values that have made our country great, to borrow a phrase. >> getting back to russia and syria, i recall that during the time when the coalition airstrikes were beginning, this administration warned assad that he should resist any temptation to interfere in any way whatsoever. is the same warning being issued to russia in the same regard?

>> well, i think that you have hurt me raise concerns about the possibility that if uncoordinated, that there could be some potential for interference in the activities of some russian military personnel to efforts of our anti-isil coalition. we obviously want to make sure that doesn't happen. >> on china, this is my last thing, you just had to julia that the president was intentionally nonspecific. what does that mean? why not a specific? is it that you want to let president xi is a past and then reassess things after? why nonspecific? >> what is clear based on the readout you received from our office over the weekend, the u.s. and chinese officials are

engaged in candid, blunt discussions about our concerns in this policy area. and i would expect that those kinds of candid discussions will continue, even when president xi visits the white house the end of next week. so there are some ongoing discussions that are taking place at a high level -- >> does the president intend that to be a warning? >> no. i think that he really was stating a fact, which is that the united states does have a range of tools to respond and we're hopeful it will not be necessary to use them. the reason i don't think they warning is necessary is at this point, it is quite clear to the leaders of the chinese government how seriously the obama administration takes this issue. the are a variety of ways to assess our seriousness here.

the first is, and each other previously president obama has raised this directly with president xi. the department of justice has taken aggressive action to try to bring to justice by indicting five chinese military officials for the action in cyberspace. and in our public comments on this issue over the last several months you heard the united states government may clear the way significant concern for chinese behavior, and it is good that the chinese government has been responsive to the concerns by least engaging in a candid discussion of those issues. a discussion that will continue at the end of next week when president obama hosts his counterpart here at the white house. spent it was two weeks ago today that the president had called chancellor merkel to thank her and to show his support in her coping a deal with the refugee crisis in europe, especially in germany.

in debt two weeks there's consideration and disillusionment within the eu itself since open borders are basically a basic premise of what the eu is all about. how's the president had another conversation with her or other leaders to show support, to show personal concern that what is going on in europe, largest immigration movement are refugee movement since world war ii, is something that is on his mind? >> i don't have any new call to tell you about but the president has continued to be concerned about this significant humanitarian crisis. there are millions of human beings who have fled their homes, have fled their communities. many times with their children in tow, seeking refuge, and it's tragic. that's why the united states has stepped up to be the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to try to meet the

needs of these individuals who were in a desperate situation. you have hurt me previously conflict the response of germany in particular, both the government and its citizens, for being so generous in trying to meet the needs of these individuals that are in such a desperate situation. what's clear is that there is no one country that will solve this problem on their own. you need to see the kind of cooperation that is the hallmark of the european union to take, to confront this challenge head-on. >> -- meeting with individuals from the eu when he is in new york city to discuss this topic? >> i don't have any belief at this point to share with your entrance of the press is scheduled for new york but we should have more details on that next week i would assume. >> how did president obama come to post a tweet about a high school student in texas who made our clock with some wires protruding out and why did he

choose to tweet about that? >> welcome i think the president like many of us was struck by the news reports of this particular incident. the fact is america's best teachers in our schools and our best schools valleys nurture the intellectual curiosity of all of our students. in this instance is clear at least some of his teachers failed him. that's too bad but it's not too late for all of us to use this as a teachable moment and assert our own conscience for biases in whatever form they take. this episode is a good illustration of how pernicious stereotypes can prevent even goodhearted people dedicate their life to educating young people for doing the good work that they set out to do. so the president was pleased to extend an invitation, or the white house was pleased to extend an invitation to try five

to participate in astronomy night that will be hosted here at the white house next month. astronomy night is an event which previously held here but we bring together government scientists and nasa astronauts and others to spend some time with young people examining the wonders of the heavens and have an opportunity for them to talk about science and our sources in the universe. it should be a big -- a good event, or at least we're hopeful that ahmed will feel right at home. >> does president obama billy bias was a factor because the young man is muslim? >> well, i think it's, from this distance is far too early to draw that direct assessment from here. we've seen the local mall enforcement officials have closed the case. and i think there are some difficult and penetrating questions that you need to be asked in pursuit of the

information that you just presented. >> thank you so much. [inaudible] well, obviously we've been following this crisis closely here at the white house. the principle that we have championed is one that is rooted in a common human decency. these are human beings who are in a desperate, even tragic situation. they have been forced to flee their homes and their communities because of terrible violence that is taking place there. and we've seen a response from

many european citizens and european governments indicating the generosity of spirit that's required to try to meet somebody basic humanitarian needs of individuals that are in a terribly desperate situation. but what is true is that it's not just one country that's going to do to save all these charges at the united states is committed to do our part to continue to put a leading role in the nation response enemies continue to be the largest donor of bilateral to the largest bilateral donor of humanity businesses. the announcement we made last week about our intent to step up our process for taking in sudan refugees, a minimum of 10,000 in the next fiscal year. so that's an indication that the united states is stepping up and would like to see other countries both in europe and around the world step up to do their part to respond to this particular crisis. >> but on a human level, there

is a war -- to come to europe. so what is the white house reaction to this war? it's all over the news in europe at the moment. >> again, what would going to need to see is the by government and citizens in countries across europe to germany as likely to be a position to solve this problem alone and that other countries have shown a generosity of spirit and accepted significant number of migrants will not be able to do this alone, and we're going to to be just a coordinated effort on the part of countries around the world, including a large number of countries in europe to do more to respond to this crisis and to respond to the basic humanitarian needs of these fellow human beings who are in a desperate situation. the united states has led by example. we've seen a tremendous a commit from germany to cite just one example. and it's important for other countries to step up as well.

>> just another question. the former uruguayan president had presidents from all of the world -- [inaudible] >> i'm not aware that that's the policy being considered at this point, but there is a well-established process here in the united states for recently refugees. this is something we talked a little bit last week but it bears repeating, that for the specific category of a refugee as defined by the united nations, the united states takes in well over half of those refugees that are identified by the united nations to resettle them. put another way, the united states takes in and we settles more refugees as described by the united nations and every other country in the world combined. so it is clear that the united

states is willing to do our part, and boyfriend of those efforts in response to this latest crisis. but the united states can't do this alone. germany can't do this alone. we are going to need to see other countries in europe step up to the plate to respond to this particular crisis. we are also going to need to see countries in the region and other countries around the world about traditionally participated in these efforts, step up and offer their support even if it's financial support, okay? all right. move around a little bit. leslie. >> raul castro scheduled to go to the u.n. next week. satellite. >> i don't have the present schedule for the united nations i don't think we'll have that for this week. but as with more details of the present schedule next week we will know if that's something that's on the agenda. >> i asked you last week about cuba releasing prisoners and

advanced to the pope's visit. [inaudible] none of the prisoners were in the category of political pressure and? >> i'm not aware of the details of any communications between the united states and keep on this particular issue but let me see if i can have someone follow up with you and give you a better sense of what it stands. >> can ask you about the president -- call governor brown, can you tell us all a bit about what they're going to speak about? >> the state of california hasn't just the last couple of weeks sustained significant damage and even some loss of property as a result of widespread wildfires in the state of california. i know that officials in california including governor brown had been in touch with fema. this is the federal agency that is responsible for supporting the response and recovery effort that already underway and being led by state and local

officials. the president will be calling governor brown later on this afternoon to get an update on the situation to determine if there is additional support the federal government can offer to california as they endure this difficult situation. and i'm confident the president will also convey his support to those californians that in some cases have had to flee their homes or have had over the course of the summer to sustain a significant loss of property. you know, let them know the prayers of the first time in the nation are with them in these difficult times. [inaudible] are you prepared to condemn those actions and? >> well, i think what i am prepared to do is to continue to urge countries, government and the citizens all across europe

to step up their response to reflect the increased need in this situation. we have seen hundreds of thousands if not millions of people flee their homes in a desperate attempt to find refuge somewhere. some of them are even fleeing to europe. include this is a difficult situation. we are talking about a large number of people in some cases we are talking about countries that are mostly small and don't have the kindf infrastructure and resources to a least smoothly take it all in. but what we are hopeful of is that the government leaders and citizens in all of these countries will keep in mind the basic unit of these individuals. again where talk to people who have in some cases fled their homes with none of their possessions except for the close on the back. in some cases they have their children in tow. they are just looking for some

safety and some relief. this is what i think the conscience of the world is stirred. and hopefully we will see governments and citizens respond accordingly. >> they don't want to stay hungry. they just want to get too hungry. city officials take down the wall speak with at this point i don't have a specific policy prescription to add, but rather i have merely a value that we in the united states have prioritized. we are hopeful that by focusing on the humanity of those who are in a desperate situation, that we will see governments and leaders and citizens make the right decisions. spirit are we showing basic humanity? >> we certainly believe that around the world we believe there is more that can be done to offer up support to these

refugees that are in a desperate situation. >> i also want to ask about the vice president's comments yesterday. does the president also believe that donald trump has a sick message about illegal and? >> i think the president spoke at some length about the kind of rhetoric that we've seen from the republican candidates for president on the issue of immigration. i think the president was quite start in suggesting that it was un-american to single out and target those individuals just because of either of their race or ethnicity or their immigration status spirit along the same lines the vice president also said last night the american people are with us. i know it doesn't feel that way but i'm telling you the american people agree with us. he was talking about immigration in the context. he believed that, does the president believe that?

it seems the american people, at least republicans agree with donald trump? >> i don't think that's too. most of the public point we've seen on this issue indicates strong bipartisan support for the kind of bipartisan legislation that had strong bipartisan support in the senate and would've passed the house if it were not blocked by house republican leaders who had apparently a different goal in mind. so we continue to take a lot of solace in knowing that the business community, the law enforcement energy, even the faith community all have indicated their strong support for common sense immigration reform that includes not just increase investment in poor security which are important and strongly supported by the president and/or blocked by republicans in congress, but also things like a path to citizenship for those who are here in this country and are

basically american in italy except for their papers. >> josh, thanks. i want to give you another run at the scene of training store. you said it is proven to be more difficult than we saw. can you expand on that? it seems like a awful lot of money and a lot of investment for very, very little production. >> i guess for a lot of details about it relates to the program i will refer you to the department of defense prevent responsible for limiting and carrying out this mission. >> -- this is what happened was i was a kid your understanding of what they didn't tell you. >> the president has been updated on the challenges they have encountered in trying to train and equip a moderate sunni opposition to the challenges that are soldier with his ever the are not difficult to imagine. the security situation in syria is extremely chaotic, making, it means is for difficult to recruit individuals. even if you do recruit them,

that chaotic sticky situation means you need to intensely that they. we don't want to be in a position of training and equipping individuals that may not share our goals. so that is a time-consuming effort as well. and then you are essential asking these individuals to take up the fight against a brutal terrorist organization. that is renowned or at least has received worldwide condemnation for their inhumane tactics. and violence. that's a tough assignment. i think that's not an excuse but it is a fact. and that is why the department of defense, the thank you the gels