input before he published and he referred to the papers he produced for them as -- quote -- "deliverables." end quote. in case anyone listening doesn't know this, that's not how real science works. of course, none of this sordid financial conflict is even mentioned by "the wall street journal" editorial page. they'd rather pretend that dr. sun is being singled out for politically inconvenient views. please. it gets better. in the editorial, the role of neutral expert commenting on all of this goes to georgia tech's judith curry. she offers the opinion that my -- quote -- "demand for legal persecution represents a new low in the politicization of science." this is a particularly rich and

conflict-riddled opinion, as ms. curry is herself a repeat anti-climate witness performing regularly in committees for republicans here in congress. again, no mention of this interest of ms. curry's in "the wall street journal" editorial. the fossil fuel industry's climate denial machinerrivals or exceeds that of the tobacco industry in size, scope, and complexity. its purpose is to cast doubt about the reality of climate change in order to forestall moves towards cleaninger fuels and to allow the kochs angz the exxons of the world to continuing making money at everybody else's expense. and the "wall street journal" editorial page plays its part in this machine. pgh the clerk: even though it's only the editorial --

even though it's the only editorial page and not the well-regarded newsroom, facts and logic are supposed to matter. ignoring the successful tobacco litigation, omitting the salient fact of dr. sun being paid by the industry involved in his research, and bringing in a climate denier as their neutral voice without even disclosing that conflict? i'd like to see the "wall street journal" editorial page get that editorial pgh the clerk: -- editorial by the editorial of their own newsroom. so why, why all the histrionics on the far right, mr. president. why all the deliberate subterfuge between civil and criminal rico? why all the name-calling? have we, perhaps, touched a little nerve? have we maybe hit a bit too close to home? maybe a civil rico case is,

indeed, plausible and should be considered. are the cracks in the dark castle of climate denial as it crumbles maybe beginning to rattle the occupants? whatever the motivation of the "wall street journal" and other right-wing climate denial outfits, it is clearly long past time for this climate denial scheme to come in from the talk shows and the blogosphere and face the kind of truth-telling audience that a rico litigation could provide. it's time to let the facts take their place and let climate denial face that greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.

mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion for the burr-feinstein substitute amendment number 2716. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment number 2716 to s. 754, a bill to improve cybersecurity in the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send oo a cloture motion to the desk for

s. 754. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 754, an original bill to improve cybersecurity in the united states through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar numbers 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262 en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be

considered made and laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 261. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 261, designating the week of october 11 through october 17, 2015 as national case management week to recognize the role of case management in improving health care outcomes for patients. the presiding officer: without objection the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., wednesday, october 21. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired,

the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein. further, that the time during the morning business be equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half. finally, that following morning business the senate then resume consideration of s. 754. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

c-span has her coverage of the road to the white house 2016 where you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates and most importantly your questions. this year we are taking a road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our studentcam contest giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's studentcam and roadhouse coverage on tv on the radio and on line at c-span.org.

>> earlier today vice president joe biden spoke at a symposium on domestic and foreign policy issues central to the legacy of vice president walter mondale. he also discussed the obama administration's decision to go after osama bin laden or here's a look. >> for the president and i had only two others in the administration knew about abbottabad as early as august. we did not go for almost a year to get him and make sure players were the cabinet didn't know about it until january or february so it was something that was a difficult call for the president. we sat in the cabinet room and at the end of the day making the decision he said now i want everybody's opinion and everybody went around the room and there were only two people who were definitive. and for absolute. leon panetta said go and bob

gaetz had publicly said this, he said don't go and others were 59-41 and some ended up saying go but it was such a close call. i joke that i said you all sound like 17 larry summers, economists. and they said show what would you do? there was a third option that i didn't really think we should do. i said well i think we should make one more pass for another uav to see if it is him and the reason i did that is i didn't want to take the position to go if that was not aware we were going to go so as we walked out of the room and walked upstairs i said, i told them my opinion that i thought he should go but to follow his own instincts. it would have been a mistake you imagine if i had sat in front of everyone don't go or go and his decision was a different decision.

it undercuts that relationship created. >> i was a part of what vice president joe biden had to say earlier today. you can watch his entire remarks later in our schedule or on line anytime at c-span.org. >> this thursday former secretary of state hillary clinton will travel to capitol hill to testify before the house select committee on benghazi. members of that committee had been investigating the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in libya which resulted in the murder of ambassador christopher stevens and three others. you can watch hillary clinton's testimony live thursday morning starting at 10 eastern on a companion network c-span3. you can also see it on line at c-span.org or listen on c-span radio. >> a signature feature booktv is our all-day coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country with top nonfiction authors. here is our schedule beginning this weekend.

>> recapping earlier today the senate failed to advance a bill that would have withheld federal funding for sanctuary cities. the cities that don't rescue undocumented immigrants and comply with federal immigration laws. but what about senators ted chris and bob menendez came to the floor to discuss that legislation as well as other immigration issues. it's about 35 minutes.

>> the american people have demanded for years that the federal government faithfully enforce our nation's immigration laws. americans are tired of seeing their laws flouted in their communities plagued by the horrible crimes that typically accompany illegal immigration. but for too long the pleas of the american people on this issue have gone unheeded here in washington. you see when it comes to the problem of illegal immigration, the political class and business class our nations elites, are of one mind. they promise robust enforcement at some point in the future but only on the condition that the american people accept a pathway to citizenship now for the millions of illegal immigrants who are already in this country. not wanting to be swindled, the

american people wisely rejected this deal which the washington class calls quote comprehensive immigration reform. of course the elites don't like this one bit so instead they have taken matters into their own hands. they bend or got a lot to make it more difficult for immigration enforcement officers to do their jobs. we have seen this repeatedly with the obama administration. president obama has illegally granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants with no statutory authorization whatsoever. even though before his re-election the president assured the american people that he couldn't do so without an act of congress. as president obama said when asked about could be granted amnesty, i am not an emperor. well, i agree with president

obama buts a few months after saying he could not do this because he was not an emperor, apparently he discovered he was an emperor because he did for cicely what he acknowledged he lacked the constitutional authority to do. and although the administration today claims to be focusing its resources on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, it is adopted a policy where many illegal immigrants that the administration deems to be low priority will not be detained and deported but will be released back into our communities. remarkably, in the year 2013 the obama administration released from detention roughly 36,000 convicted criminal aliens who are actually awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings. these criminal aliens were responsible for 193 homicide

convictions. they were responsible for 426 sexual assaults convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1075 aggravated assault convictions and 16,070 drunk driving convictions. all of this was on top of the additional 68,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions that the federal government encountered in 2013 is never took into custody or deportation. dwell on those numbers for a moment. in one year the obama administration releases over 104,000 criminals illegal aliens , people that have come into this country illegally who have additional criminal

convictions, murderers, rapists, eads, drunk drivers. one wonders what the administration says to the mothers of the child lost to a murderer released by the obama administration because they will not enforce the laws. one wonders what the obama administration says to the child of a man killed via drunk driver released release by the obama administration because they will not enforce our immigration laws and while this administration's refusal to enforce the laws is and -- isn't bad enough, but scandalously poor enforcement of our immigration laws is made much much worse by their lawless actions of the roughly 340 so-called sanctuary

jurisdictions across the country. .. ers from cooperating with federal officers. some of the jurisdictions even refuse to honor requests from the federal government to temporarily hold a criminal alien until federal officers can take custody of the individual. not only are these sanctuary policies an affront to rule of law, they are extremely dangerous. according to a recent study by the center for immigration studies, between january 1 and september 30, 2014 -- just a nine-month period -- sanctuary jurisdiction released 9,295 alien offenders that the federal

government was seeking to deport. that is roughly 1,000 offenders a month that sanctuary jurisdictions were releasing to the people. now, of those 9,295, 62% had prior criminal histories or other public safety issues. and amazingly, to underscore just how dangerous this is to the citizenry, 2,320 of those criminal offenders were rearrested within the nine-month period for committing new crimes after they had already been released by the sanctuary jurisdiction. if that doesn't embody lawlessness, it's difficult to imagine what does. jurisdictions that are releasing over and over again criminal

illegal aliens, many of them violent criminal illegal aliens, and exposing the citizens who live at home to additional public safety risk, to additional terrorist risk. this same study found that the federal government was unable to preapprehend the vast majority of the alien offenders released by the sanctuary jurisdictions. 69% as of last year. even homeland security secretary jeh johnson has admitted that these sanctuary policies are -- quote -- "unacceptable." quote -- "it is counterproductive to public safety to have this level of resistance working with our immigration enforcement personnel." i'm thrilled to hear the secretary of homeland securitys. i assume that means that the

obama administration will be supporting the legislation before this body. after all, the secretary of homeland security says it's unacceptable. that it is countering productive to public safety and yet sadly the obama administration is not supporting the legislation before this body. indeed, it has taken the tragic and terrible death of kate steinle to galvanize action here in washington. kate died in the arms of her father on a san francisco pier after being fatally shot by an illegal alien who had several felony convictions and had been deported from the united states multiple times. her death is heartbreaking. the senate judiciary committee, we had the opportunity to hear from kate steinle's family. the heartbreak is even more

appalling because kate's killer had been released from custody and not turned over to the federal government to be deported because of san francisco's sanctuary policy. the city of san francisco is proudly a sanctuary city. they say to illegal immigrants across the country and across the world, come to san francisco. we will protect you from federal immigration laws. we, the elected democratic leaders of this city, welcome illegal immigrants, including violent criminal illegal immigrants like the murderer who took kate steinle's life. these policies are inexcusable. they are a threat to the public safety of the american people, and they need to end. that's why i'm proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the stop sanctuary policies and

protect americans act, which strips certain federal funds, especially community development block grants from jurisdictions that maintain these lawless policies. if these jurisdictions insist on making it more difficult to remove criminal aliens from our communities, then these federal dollars should go instead to dollars should go instead to the jurisdiction that will actually cooperate with the l federal government, that are willing to enforce the law rather than aid and abet the criminals.nd it makes no sense. continue sending federal money and local governments that intentionally make it more difficult. and costly. this build is not just address sanctuary jurisdictions.re it also addresses the problem of illegal immigrants who like the killer are reported but

illegally reenter the country which the felony.ne this class of illegal aliensrd has a special disregard and disdain for our nation's law , and too often these offenders also have serious rap sheets.he in 2012.de in 2012 just over a quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by border patrol had prior to flotation orders. that is an astounding 99,420 illegal aliens. and of the illegal entry offenders who are actually prosecuted in fiscal year 2014, that is 16,556 offenders, but a fraction of those who committed the felony.ri the majority ofthe majority of those who were prosecuted had extensive or recent criminal histories, and many

supported from illegally reentering the country. l i introduced kates line senate. and i would like to thank senators bitter and grassley for working with me to incorporate kates law,so elements of the law and of this bill. i want to recognize and

thank all of the original cosponsors to join me in this bill, senators bourassa, johnson, purdue, rubio, sullivan, and jimmy.an now, because of this bill in the illegal alien illegally reenters the united states and has a prior aggravated felony conviction or two prior illegal reentryte convictions will face a mandatory sentence of fiveri years in prison. we must send l the message b that defiance of our laws will no longer be tolerated. whether it is by the sanctuary cities themselves, or by the illegal reentry of offenders. the problem of illegal immigration in this country will never be solved until we demonstrate to the american people that weun are a

serious about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws. of course,ters we should not be releasing criminal illegal aliens.

more than a few democraticin senators claim to have no responsibility for the 104,000 criminal illegal aliens released by the obama administration in the year 2013. the senators kind of no responsibility for the murder of k steinle, invited to san francisco by the city's sanctuarycity's sanctuary city policy. well, this will today willan be a moment of clarity. if they vote today. whenwhen the senatele judiciary committee heardal testimony from families who i lost loved ones to violent criminal offenders to one after the other after the

other after the other, children sexually abuse andam murdered by violent illegal aliens. family members who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, illegally in this country. at the time i asked the senior obama administration official how she would look in the j eyes of those family members and justifyre releasing murderers and. rapists and drunk drivers over and over and over again. how many murderers to the obama administration least -- released this week? how many rapist of the obama administration released this week? her answer, i don't know.

how many drunk drivers, i don't know. none of us should be satisfied with that answer. a president and administration that refusesnt to enforce the laws that is willfully and repeatedly releasing violent criminal illegal aliens into our committee do you stand with the violent criminal illegals aliens who are being released over and over again because of vote no is to say the next time for the next murder light case talliesr murder comes in we should not enforce the laws, have a mandatory five your prisons.in is that we could we should

welcome and embrace them. until perhaps it is our family members and lose there lives. it is my hope in this moment of clarity that members of thatbody will decide they stand with the american people and not with the violent illegal aliens, and it is worth noting that there is a rhetorical device to so many senators use to say, well, not all immigrants are criminals. well, of course they are not.ee i am the son of an immigrant who came legally to this country 58 years ago. we are a nation of immigrants, of immigrants, men and women fleeing oppression and coming to seek freedom. but this bill does not deal with all immigrants. it deals with one specific subset of immigrants. criminal illegal aliens. s

those who come to this country illegally andlegally and also have additional criminal conviction whethery homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping if it is the democrats position for partisan reasons that they would rather stand with violence, criminal, illegal aliens i, that is a sad testament on where one of the two major political parties in this country stands today. and i suspect the voters whoe elected them would be more than a little surprised at how that jives with the rhetoric they use on the campaign trail. if as many observers predict democratic senators choose to value partisan loyalty

over the children who will be murdered by violent, criminal, illegal aliens and sanctuary citizens if they vote on a partyline vote, as many observers have predicted, that will providei a moment of clarity. but i will also suggest, it will underscore the need for republican leadership to bring this issue up again, not in the context where democrats can blindly block it, obstructing any meaningful reforms to protect our safety to secure the border to enforce the law tohe stop violent criminal illegal aliens threatening our safety but rather for republican leadership top bring it up in the context of a must pass bill, to

bring it up and attach it to i legislation that will actually pass and law, iin m glad that we are voting on this this week. a good and positive step,t one of the few things in the last ten months that we have voted on that actually respondsresponse to the concerns of the men and women who elected us. b so i salutei saluten leadership for bringing up this vote. if a partyline vote blocks it the next step is notus simply to have a vote. the next step is to attach this legislation, the mustw, pass legislation and to actually fix the problem. mr. president, leadership, left to speak of what they call governance, and int washington governing is also -- is always setin at least an octave lower, governing. well, when it comes to stopping sanctuary cities we need some governing. we need to actually fix the problem rather than a showboat.

this should be an easy vote. my 2nd entry is to republican leaders. it is up to them to actually pass this on to law and solve us in the problem. it is my hope that is what all those two together. i yield the floor. >> the senator from new

jersey. >> i speak out against thesg bill that stands againstil everything that america represents s, that suggests that it will protect americans when, in fact,ur ite will protect americans less. been guided by core values of equality and fairness, freedom and power and in turn we have honored the many ways that immigrantshe have contributed to this country. yet the other side of the aisle is,is, once again, engaged in a stubborn, relentless, and shameful assault against immigrants.i. as the son of immigrants myself it is hard not to take offense at the anti-bl immigrant rhetoric we are hearing from their b b presidential candidate. is acceptable, deplorable, and should be an out --

denounced by every american.yi we are witnessing the most overtly campaign and native american history with a rhetoric that diminishes contributions to american history and particularly demonizes the latino community by labeling mexican immigrants as criminals. some of my colleagues have decided to jump on the bandwagon of law-abidingec citizens which is why we are here today . because that has made its way to the senate floor courtesy of donald trump

this is nothing more than an offensive anti- immigrant bill, another that wristho everything for another life, themselves in them there children,children, those who are left with no choice but to flee persecution and violence or else face certain death. that is what we are debating here today.today. m those are the individuals this legislation seeks to brenda's criminal. what happened was a tragedy. but such we will not be prevented by this legislation by real immigration reform. i am happy to have that debatemp, but that is not what

is happening in this bill. federal immigration enforcement duties benefitip the program grows local q economies and fuels the equality of life for families, has assisted hundreds of millions of people with low and moderate

income, stabilize neighborhoods,income, stabilize neighborhoods, provided affordable housing, improve the quality of life of american citizens service everyday by keeping ourer communities safe. they deserve better than being dragon the partisalin politics. now, my colleague from louisiana seeks to stripe funding from localities that undertake the balancing of public safety consideration and refused to act as immigration and customs enforcement. but this goes further. it is not content with taking discretion away fromin local communities. it takes communities. it takes it awayy from the judicial branch, adds new mandatory minimums when we are trying to move away from that approach.of the knew mandatory minimum sentences would have a crippling financial impactn with no evidence that they would actually deter future violations of the law.

we won't even get that debate because this bill is fast tracked and it did not go to the process. the u.s. senate cannot nurture and acknowledge an environment that demonizes and dehumanizes latinos and the entire immigrant community by threatening the strip funding from cities senate employees are saying it is a saying punishing state and local law enforcement agencies local

communities and law enforcement are better judges than congress the motives the committee safeaf hundreds of localities with support of some of theon toughest police chiefs and sheriffs have limited their involvement in federal immigration out of concern for community safety and w violations of 4th amendmentic. they need witnesses andea victims to be able to come forward without fear of recrimination because of their immigrant status. fear of deportation shouldre never be of failure. this fear undermines trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and create a chilling effect.oc

effective policing cannot be achieved by threat of sanctions why do my republican colleagues believe that they know better than the local towns and citizenstown than citizens who live in stay in and out?bu a talk about decentralizing government. the law enforcement task force, theforce, theom usio conference of mayors, that latino rights organizations, faith groups, among others, this bill is not a realst solution to our broken immigration system.

we passed bipartisan legislation but we have not had a real discussion in p t congress for two years. they should be given a pathway to staley legally. that bipartisan support is not new. had to prove their identity can't pass a criminalh background check so that i coul.d focus on the people who work through with public safety threats in the bill increased penalties for were crossing 2nd along the

southern border it increasednd the real gdp of our country were more than 3 percent in a 2023 and 5.4 percent but in the 1st ten years the 1.6 trillion would have reduce the federal deficit 197 billion over the next decade and another in the following. it's almost a trillion dollars in deficit spending reductions by giving a hundred, 11 million people of that --ac a pathway to citizenship. that was a a real solution, the type of reform we need.xi that is the opportunity that existed. unfortunately, the other body in the house of representatives did not even have a vote. and to the extent that americans are less safe is because of their hand action that realistic today so

tragedy should not be used to scapegoat immigrants. they should not be used to erode trust between law enforcement and our communities. we cannot let fear drive our policymaking. let us actively andns collectively resist theo demagoguery that threatens to shift american policymaking for the worst. i hope you can reject this quote with that i yieldi yield before. >> the senate went on to block that vote that withheld funding for sanctuary cities that don't fund sanctuary cities and

also we confirmed and probably to be district court judge to be and probably for district court judge of new york. and in that next couple of weeks senators will need to debate and pass several expiring measures including hiring funding which runs out october 29 and raising the debt limit for november 3. follow the senate live. we are live at the us capitol were in just a few minutes house republicans plan to meet to consider several legislative issues including raising the debt setting -- ceiling, and the selection of the new house speaker.

[inaudible conversations]

>> so, i don't have anything knew. we can go straight to questions. the united states and certainly president obama congratulates the liberal party victory. i would expect the president will have the opportunity later today to congratulate him upon that election victory i would imagine that both the president and the country is deeply appreciated for prime minister harper's efforts to build a strong us canada relationship.

and as you know, numberknow, number of occasions to meet firsthand and personally with prime minister harper and i am confident at some. in. [inaudible question] >> at this point i do not know, but if the invitation is extended i will be sure to let you know. >> relations with canada will get easier under the prime minister? i know that harper was a little annoyed. >> well, i think that it would be shortsighted to reduce the relationship to just one issue. like that's it obviously canada made a substantial and important contribution

to our counter i sil coalition. we know that canada has been an important part engaging in that process in an important way and made an important contribution of bringing those talents to a conclusion we believe that it will have a positive impact on and on -- on economies across the partnership. canada has made a substantial and important commitment in advance of the paris climate talks. we believewe believe it is possible that there is more that canada could do in this regard, but the fact that they're stepping up and indicating are making a commitment is an indication

of the important role the canada place not just in their relationship with the united states but in terms of their leadership around the world and as the united states is fortunate to have such a strong and close partnership with a country like canada the does have this global influence, and our bilateral relationships have helped enhance the security and prosperity of the american people. [inaudible conversations] and we would forward to building on the progress with the new prime minister takes over. >> you said earlier today,. [inaudible question]

[laughter] [inaudible question] [laughter] >> i'm just kidding. >> you know, the ones they are having this afternoon. how would you account for senator grassley denying? >> it is not unusual for the presidency can mean broader national security meetings or other domestic security meetings, and those that you would account for would amount to three hours everyday. they would include the vice president. this is also subject to the president's travel schedule. so this is not a daily occurrence but the timing window that he laid out his

seemed accurate based upon my reading. [inaudible question] >> my understanding is secretary kerry announced this earlier today. cheap and good at this. >> it would help no impact on the timing or the final determination of the project estimate three again, boost on what was said it does not sound as if the canadian election will have an impact [inaudible question] >> at this point, no.

pres. hashas said he was expecting all by the underground i walked in on a house with 200 pounds by to be an opportunity but the end is not currently need for not only make him look they. [inaudible question]

>> the united states, certainly the president has played a role in the conversations. let me say it this way. in each of the conversations that the pres. has been asked before leaders as of late he has been making clear he considers commitments in advance of the paris conference a high priority and has been encouraging the leaders of those countries to make an important contribution to success. that was part of the discussion with pres. pok when she was here, part of the discussion of the president had with president she couple of weeks ago, and obviously it is something that is a part of the pope's visit to the white house, and the president spent a lot of time talking about this in the context of the united nations general assembly. off the top of my head, it seems that in each of the significant engagements he

has had with world leaders over the last several weeks this is on his agenda, and i'm confident that will be the case when he speaks with mr. trudeau as well. >> withdraw from the fight against islamic state in iraq and syria. [inaudible question] >> obviously the obama administration and united states will be in touch with the arcadian partners. we are deeply appreciative of them landing there -- lending their talent and skill and effort and we hope that we can continue to count upon their ongoing support for this very important mission. [inaudible conversations] >> we value what we received support and are hoping that

they will to continue. [inaudible question]

>> interested in making a financial contribution to ongoing humanitarian relief efforts. the organizations that are involved what you recognize

it and i this is my but not me like i have given elderly updates of the get pope really you want to thank you [inaudible question] >> about the fact that these individuals are fleeing violence in syria and are human beings and have the same worries and concerns about the.

>> this debate with mitt romney, the president said that vice president biden had advised him against going after bin laden. >> george, i was not in the room when these decisions

were being made: the president was consulting his advisors about this very difficult foreign-policy call it he made. there have been butchered or at least there will be more the dissection in the oral history to those who were actually there and to the extent that there is greater clarity that you would like to seek, maybe you will have an opportunity. >> as far as you know the president is still sticking with what he said in the debate? >> i have no new insight about the presence recollection. [inaudible question]

>> on many occasions i have declined provide insight into the private conversations between the president vice president of it in to tell you the president deeply values or advice. >> you can't tell me whether he values the truth? >> i don't have any insight to share with you. >> what are we to make of the fact that leon panetta said in his book that biden came out firmly in favor of waiting for more information , against the operation. clinton said that he remain skeptical. biden himself has said that he was against this. he said.blank my recommendation is don't go.

what are we to make of this? >> listen, i'm notlisten, i'm not going to be able to provide insight into private communication. >> let me ask you about something else. record of. >> the gaza conversations that -- the kind of conversations that president obama had about him coming on board as a running mate. so that you. >> you have --

[inaudible] [inaudible question] what you think the them out if they need -- [inaudible question]

possibly. [inaudible question] >> go forward with it. [inaudible question] >> april five years before

being hunted right now i cannot even one. if you take a look at the contributions he made on the ranges of domestic policy issues, the recovery act and his influence on a range of foreign-policy issues, particularly in managing hotspots like ukraine that clearly vice president biden plays a important role in conceiving of an advancing the agenda of the obama administration in the obama white house. so there is no denying his significant influence. >> that has been true for months. >> one way or the other

quality support in that way or just move on. >> welcome i feel confident. i thinki think the president himself has a knowledge that he has no immediate plans to offer an endorsement of any candidate for president. that could change down the line. that will be his decision regardless of what vice president biden makes. like all of you it's not as if they have the state today impact upon in the important work that goes on. >> now on the benghazi hearings my understand, thanks to hillary clinton's old on the media --

[inaudible] [inaudible question] >> well, therewell, there you go. breaking news, everybody. [laughter] >> très gallery is posing thales persons that he wants eae committee to have four questions which would meet out with this white house wants when it comes as it relates to benghazi. as the family of those who died. a boxer what i've been doing -- >> is exactly what the same

conclusion. i do think that republicans on the committee are going to be under intense pressure to justify the very existence. you would help -- and it is important, it would not be so freely subjected to partisan politics. unfortunately, that is precisely what has occurred. and given that pressure that ii answer republicans on the committee are feeling they will come loaded for bear and they will come out with aggressive, hostile questioning of the secretary of state trying to further the goal that the leader mccarthy laid out which is dragging down paul numbers. so that will be, well, i,

well, i expect something that will be closely watched by people in this room. and again republicans on the committee will be engaged in a vigorous, aggressive effort to try to justify the continuing existence of the committee. >> is the president believe the state department is under a microscope? his job as well and when this hearing takes place, she was his secretary of state. >> no, not anymore that he is every other day. connie. >> thank you so much. >> israel and palestine military aid. >> i'm not aware of anything like that being contemplated at this. the us position has been that a two state solution is

the best way to resolve the conflict between the two parties, and the only way to arrive at the negotiated settlement is to sit down face-to-face and negotiate directly. as you know, secretary kerry and many secretaries of state before him have extended significant efforts and energy to try to bring both sides to the table and bring conclusion to the issue. fortunately that has not occurred. we believe itwe believe it is clearly in the interest of our closest ally in the middle east and we also believe it would be in the interest of the palestinian people to resolve this conflict in that way which would prevent the national security interest of the united states. [inaudible question] >> again, i am confident that both sides, leaders of the palestinian people in the leaders of the nation of israel are under pressure from their citizens, from

their people and there constituents to end this conflict, neither side is well served. it has taken a cold -- taking a toll on the economy, taken a toll on the security command it is a significant loss of innocent life that is just tragic and hopefully both sides will be able to summon the political courage. [inaudible question] >> ii would refer you to the un ambassador's office for comment on that.

>> he said you would consider it a luxury to have someone running for president, the policies of this administration. >> another one, but yes. >> you don't see any circumstances under which joe biden gets into the race and it makes it more difficult for democrats? >> again, there is lots of political analysis that has been done and will be done around that specific question. >> but no concern around the white house? >> again, i think the view around the white house is that the democratic voters across the country will choose the person best positioned to represent the democratic party in the next presidential election. there is a lot of confidence to do exactly that and you can be sure of the democratic nominee is, if

someone who will understand the importance of building on the important progress that we have made of the last seven years, what is also a candidate that can count on the strong support of the incumbent president of the united states. i'm confident that we will spend a lot of time this time of year next year advocating for the democratic presidential candidate. >> you have not wanted to consistently, and you said you were not party to any conversations, but is the president staying out of this essentially? >> well, the pres. is staying out of it and that he understands the vice president has to make his own personal decision. he is staying out of it with regard to his understanding that this is only a decision the vice president biden can make for himself and his family. the president is sympathetic to have difficult decision

like this is to make, but make, but ultimately the president understands this is a decision that can be made by vice president biden and vp biden alone. >> which is not to say he is not offering advice. >> i'm not going to get into their conversations. they are having lunch today, maybe even right now. i would be surprised questions of politics came up, but i'm not. to the details of the conversation. >> would you discuss the gallup poll out yesterday? restricting regulations, and at least 33 percent said regulation should remain the same. i'm wondering, after the organ shooting an audible what -- [inaudible] what is the white house doing actively change that?

>> you heard the president in the news conference come as i did, but one week later acknowledged that his team was going back and scrubbing through the law to determine if there were additional authorities that could be used by the president of the united states try to have an impact on some of these rules, the president has made clear that he will do as much as he possibly can within his power to try to prevent those who should not have guns from getting them the 1st place. the president believes strongly that we can do that without undermining the fundamental constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. ..

until the commonsense view is strongly conveyed by members of congress and until members of congress understand that the boat they expect from their constituents will be contingent on them holding that same commonsense view and until that political effort has been mobilized we are unlikely to see congress take the kind of action that the president believes is long overdue. >> donald trumps of last night president obama is working on an executive order to take americans guns away something that's getting a lot of -- a

conservative media particularly. >> the president is prepared to use every element as his administrative authority to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but as they have person's track record makes clear that he not only respects but is willing to protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. those are the facts of the heart president's record and the presence pardon me it would certainly welcome others who share that common sense view for making their voices heard. >> is someone lying or misinformed? >> i have no idea what bob -- donald trump is doing. >> the first one quickly goes back on the biden thing. if you could possibly talk about the vice president or president

about this because there is a president actually of white house votes on this very issue. jay carney your predecessor is among the course of people who say that the vice president did advise the president not to laughter bin laden in the raid and since it was set from your podium just to clarify that point. >> i think what i would would do it at the next opportunity you have to ask the question either the present or the vice president you can decide what they want to ask them directly and if so you would have to rely on me. >> i wonder why to ask about cia director john brennan. obviously there were reports that the hackers were able to obtain a sense that sensitive data forwarded from the white house e-mail address and people that were visiting the white house and possibly receive information about intelligence assets but i wonder if that is

what to investigation here at the white house about his use of the white house e-mail and transferring sensitive data from white house e-mail to a less secure e-mail. >> just might haven't seen those specific reports and i'm not aware of any ongoing investigation but i'm confident in saying erector brennan understands better than anybody the federal government and handles all sensitive data with the appropriate level of caution so you know i think what is clear is that this underscores the importance of government officials as it sounds like director brendan did using their official government e-mail address for official government work. but it does highlight the risk that all of us face when it comes to the security of even our private e-mail and certainly

this is the kind of environment the cybersecurity environment that we are currently operating in is one that requires vigilance not just on the part of those of us, all of us have had private e-mail address is but also on the part of the companies that are responsible for ministering the security around those private e-mail systems. many of the best practices that the sequestration has abdicated are the kinds of things that would bolster cybersecurity and not just in the government space but also the private sector as well. >> i want to preview -- later this week and i know that the president kind of reference the need to end sanctuaries for terrorists or for the taliban and other terrorist presumably

so i'm wondering if there is a specific aspect and if there are other agenda items the president hopes to raise during this meeting? >> i don't have a conference the preview of their discussions at this point. obviously as i mentioned yesterday the united states has important security relationships with pakistan that our security forces have in a variety of ways been able to effectively coordinate our efforts in a way that enhances the national security of the united states and pakistan. obviously there are extremist elements inside of pakistan that have committed terrible acts of violence violence and terrible acts of terrorism inside of pakistan. i have on previous occasions read condolence statements on behalf of the american people to the pakistani people because of those extremist elements. i cite that only to note that

this is a shared priorities of our two countries, that this risk that we sense emanates from this broader region is a risk or is a threat that pakistan has had to deal with first-hand and it underscores the importance of our security relationship with the pakistanis. >> the only other thing the president mentioned was the need to push the taliban back into peace negotiations in afghanistan. i'm wondering if that's a topic you expected but also if you put it into that context a top taliban official and whether that's a carrot or a stick and how does that fit into that strategy? >> as i've observed before one of the early rounds of reconciliation talks between the afghan government and the taliban was actually hosted by the pakistani government inside of pakistan so it's clear the

pakistani government recognizes how important those reconciliation efforts are and we are pleased that they stepped up in trying to facilitate constructive conversations. as it relates to the treasury announcement by the treasury department about the individual sanction and what activities learned that individual the special designation. major. >> taking you through a couple of things the vice president said today. he said everybody in their job in relation to the present as defined by their -- would you agree with that? >> they a somewhat eyes on twitter which can be a little dangerous. >> the present divides your job as vice president. would you agree with that? >> i would agree with what the vice president said which a lot of the authority derived from the vice president is based on

the relationship and the president and the vice president i thank all of you have observed the closeness and respect that's included in that relationship between this president in this vice president. >> as vice president's role is defined by the president. >> it sounds like that's exactly what he said so he would know better than i. >> you agree with that? >> is hard for me to disagree with him. >> i bring that up as event that vice president runs in his already beginning to differentiate or in a robust way describe his role and there's no other person we can master rec league other than the president that you about what he did and what he didn't do and this is going to put you potentially in a position of litigating what his role is here vis-à-vis the secretary of state or secretary of state clinton or anybody also what i'm going to label for you is are you going to take up that role? you are trying to dance around it today because he is not a candidate but if he becomes a candidate are you going to take these questions and answer them as directly and fully as you

possibly can? >> i think what i would do as this and this may be getting out of ourselves but this is what i'd would do is what i should say. each of these candidates particularly secretary clinton and if he becomes a candidate vice president biden will be responsible for making their own affirmative case and if there is an instance in which the president's interest are at stake and it's my responsibility to go out there and make sure that his interests are properly and well represented that in a debate like this one that has emerged based on the vice president's public comments today it has raised questions among all of you about the vice president's role, what his views were at the time. those are all questions you can ask the vice president or his spokesperson. i've certainly had lots of positive things to say about the vice president because of his important contribution to our nations and art administrations success but if he chooses to become a candidate for vice president he will of ebola pretended to make his own public

case about why the american people should promote him to the top job. >> he said as he did today that when he traveled around the world world leaders know that i'm speaking for the president. is that true? >> i think that is true and those world leaders know when they are speaking to the vice president as if they are receiving him because they know the president has asked him to go. >> and that should be interpreted yes or no as him being a more significant voice than the present secretary of state or defense secretary? >> i think the same thing could be said about the secretary of state or any other senior u.s. official is representing the interests of the u.s. government before another government. they are there are representing the interest of the american people and they are there to represent to try to advance our priorities and i think that's true. >> the vice president suggested he was speaking more powerfully on behalf of the present than anyone else in the capital. >> i think when people are

receiving the vice president they understand they are receiving somebody who has a very close personal relationship with the president then somebody that has a very detailed understanding of the president's views and priorities so i understand why other countries are eager to have the opportunity to receive the vice president so i guess to that extent that's the significance of a vice president visiting another country. >> he was asking me about what to make about the political tds and what he was asking about was operational debates toward pfizer things that were set within the confines of this white house. it wasn't a political question and i wondered why your answer went to politics. do you think that this has become a political debate even when it goes to what the vice president said to the president or what his role was with regards to cabinet or veto

power? those are operational questions. they are not innate lee political questions. >> i don't exactly remember john's question which i gave that answer. i do believe it was a question about the political consequences of evolved to look when we are talking -- a couple of important things to separate out. these conversations are operational and that's the reason we talk about them in the immediate aftermath of successful completion of the mission. what's also true and the reason they are talking about now is because of politics. and so separating that out in some cases may be a little bit in the eyes of the holder but i will do moving forward is what i have done in the past wishes to do the best that i can to try to help you understand the president's view on things and to represent the president's interest when they come into question but if it's a question. politics that only has tangential interest or tangential impact on the president then i will at least be less likely to weigh in.

but we will see how this works going forward areas. >> someone they president knows and respects jim clyburn said it was his opinion and point of view that the vice president should not announce that he's going to run for president that he should say he is available at necessary. what do you think of that? >> that's creative. everybody is entitled to their opinion and certainly someone like mr. clyburn who has been a close observer of presidential politics for decades on the prominence that his home state has an a process of choosing a democratic nominee so mr. clyburn certainly knows what he's talking about but with all due respect to somebody as significant and sophisticated as mr. clyburn there's only one person in these matters and this place is vice president of the united states. spudeck is very feeling on pakistan from the administration that they are not doing enough to tamp down extremist interest

in that country and how would you describe u.s.-pakistani relationships now? are we frenemies? is there still anything lingering? >> is that a technical term? >> is there any lingering friction over the bin laden raid >> well i think it's been well-documented that there have been some peaks and troughs in the relationship between the united states and pakistan when it comes to the relationship between our two countries. i think something similar could be said about the united states and our relationship with a variety of countries around the world in the last couple of decades. what the president hopes to do is to strengthen the relationship between our two countries based on our shared interest. as i mentioned either to make major or to chris there is a shared interest that the united states and pakistan has in

countering extremist forces in that region of the world. this is something pakistan has to deal with on their doorstep and to the extent the united states can be helpful in that regard we would like to be principally because we believe it's in our interest for pakistan to succeed in their fight against extremist elements and to make the country safer. we have been supportive of their parts to do that. >> but there's not a feeling that they haven't done enough? >> again i am confident that they are -- this is true with our closest allies that we are always encouraging to to do more. even our nato allies who regularly get into this debate about how much more with financial contribution we would like to see allies make to their defense budgets because we believe there's more they can do to advance our shared interests and to strengthen our reliance

and i'm competent at present will come to his meeting with prime minister sher reef was some ideas about what more the pakistanis can do to strengthen their relationship between our 22 countries into advanced this ear curry interest of our two countries. >> thanks josh ray has a present met justin trudeau? >> i'm not aware of off the top of my head but we can look into that for you. spudeck thanks appreciate that. now the trudeau is leading canada and australia and france also have progressives leading the way as does this country what does that say about the job last among some of the major economies of the world's? >> i think it's hard to compare those broader trends. i think ultimately these are citizens casting votes based on the political climate in each of their individual countries pretty think it's hard and maybe there's somebody that knows more about current international

politics than i do that might be able to draw a line between all of those elections but my sense of politics is that each of these electorates is responding to their own country. >> keystone we have talked a great deal about it. this is tamp down that division or that divisiveness between this administration and the canadian administration now the trudeau will be moving into. >> my sense is the strength of the u.s. canada relationship is based on all those areas where we have been able to effectively work together to advance our shared interest whether making commitments to the climate process in paris, to fighting isil in iraq and syria are working cooperatively with 10 other nations in the asia-pacific to advance their economic interest in the context

of the transpacific hardener should. each of those represent substantial areas where they sit in canada have been able to pursue joint ventures. >> is not a big deal. is that we were staying? >> all. those are the things that i just named very much bigger deal and ultimately a decision will be rendered on the keystone project but i'm confident that regardless of what the final decision as i have confidence and will continue to have confidence in the strength of the u.s. canada relationship areas. >> jim www.steps out of the race on the democratic side. you feel like his voice has it place in democratic politics in what he feel he resonates? >> again i will let you all speculate on what senator webb they been able to do differently to try to get more traction inside the democratic

presidential primary race. obviously senator webb is somebody who has made substantial contribution toward nations nations national security both the service in our military and get him to his service in the regan administration but also his service to united states senate. he has had quite an interesting career and i think like many people i'm quite interested to see what is going to do next. >> is he making his way here perhaps as soon as this evening, set your understanding? >> is my understanding he could come in the next day or two. i'm not sure exactly to what to attribute the delay in delivering the legislation to the white house but maybe some of our republican friends on capitol hill could explain that. i think we all know the outcome here. >> talking about the biden question and the things he said today having tangential importance but the reason is so interesting is because it's different than what we have heard from other people afford

it goes directly to a what happened that night and have felt what about and what kind of pressure the president was under and the president himself talked about in that context when he said even the vice president wasn't for this. is there any reason to doubt what the president said when he said his words were not accurate? >> no, i don't think i'm trying to indicate a change in the president's view. think what i'm suggesting is that the people who are in the room at the time are the ones that should be consulted but ultimately the decision that mattered was the decision that was made bye bye the president of the united states to carry out a mission against osama bin laden and thanks to the courage and professionalism and effectiveness of our men and women in the intelligence community and men and women in uniform that daring mission was successful.

>> that's again went interesting because the people in that room are saying all kinds of different things and today the vice president said there were only two people who were definitive in their views than that and but that's different what we heard from hillary clinton. when the vice president said that today, he was in that room. is there any reason to doubt what he said? >> historians would probably tell you this is not the first time a significant political event has prompted different recollections from people who participated in it and that's not to call into question the integrity or for a city or honesty of people who participated. i think it's an acknowledgment that particularly when the stakes are really high and the pressure is on in hindsight the situation looks different. processing all that out. >> this being one of the most important moments in the presence term and something that is talked extensively about is there concern that there might need some misremembering going

on on the part of the vice president? >> again for an accurate accounting of what happened you'll have to talk to people who are in the room. >> in general, let's just say generally speaking here that somebody was going to jump into the presidential race at this point. >> just anybody? >> anyone generally in numbers were showing about one third of all democrats didn't think it was a great idea and another third didn't care would you ever think it was a good idea for that person to get in and we did not possibly think it might be bad for the party? >> i don't think it's bad for the party for somebody who has spent a career fighting for advancing the priorities of that party and of the country are making a decision to get into the race but ultimately the vice president will have to decide for himself if that's the right

call for him personally and for his family. >> jordan. stanek thanks josh. a follow-up on the mba. speaker boehner indicated indicated he was signed that bill today so does the white house have a sense of one president obama will actually veto the bill? >> i don't but we will let you know when it's done. >> is out-of-pocket veto the? >> i would not anticipate that we are going to wait 10 days even if republicans waited at least 10 days to send it up here. jared. >> josh are republicans in congress friends the way the vice president said yesterday her enemies like hillary clinton said last week in las vegas? >> i guess they have their own individual views on this. obviously you've heard me talk quite a bit about how disappointing it has been to see

republicans in congress engaged in a strategy to reflexively oppose strictly for partisan reasons everything the president has tried to advance. in some cases that has led republicans down a path of actually opposing ideas that they previously supported and i think what republicans found that in the short term that ended up being a particularly effective political strategy. after all they want some significant congressional elections as a result of it. it did not however succeed in accomplishing leader mcconnell's. >> we are going to cut away from today's white house briefing now to capitol hill represented peter king coming up in speaking to reporters after the republican caucus meeting. >> they said he would support. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] again you see a live shot there from the capital, republican caucus members coming out trying to get some comments.

a bit earlier speaker john boehner and "fox news" saying he expects paul ryan to announce that he will make a decision tonight. right after that the communications director for mr. ryan said no he didn't think you would tonight so we are waiting to see and as members come out we will take you back to that white house briefing from earlier today. >> i didn't see a sexual comments and i can speak to the presence of view view. that view. that's simply as we are in a divided government and the american people and their wisdom elected a republican majority in both the house and the senate and that means that we are going to advanced nations priorities we will have to fight would you do it in a bipartisan fashion and choose policies that can get the support of at least some republicans on capitol hill in support of the democratic shared interest. the president has long been committed to that principle and unfortunately we have seen too

many republicans on capitol hill long resisting that. as bennett disappointment and it's not been good for the country and of the long-term it's not one that is dance the political interest of the republican party. >> is friends with their friends without too many benefits? >> i don't think i'm going to go there. [laughter] >> thank you josh. just that to justin trudeau and i wonder if you would clear something up. while he is professing his position in the campaign was he whispered going ahead with the keystone xl pipeline no different from prime minister harper save for the fact that he wanted environmental standards that he thought would bring president obama and administration along with what would you say that would have no effect on a report from the state department nor the demonstrations positioned?

>> secretary kerry has indicated that the timing of the election and the outcome of the election would have no impact on the timing or the outcome of the keystone pipeline so i take him at his word on that. see that the other thing is a few weeks ago i know you made very clear the administration's opposition to politically based riders that would be fun planned parenthood. congressman mike kelley has taken a different course calling on the irs to audit planned parenthood from the defunding effort to what is the administration's position on that? >> the irs is an independent enforcement agency and this administration has worked hard to ensure that the irs' activities are not compliance by political debate and that is a principle that we have worked aggressively to uphold and certainly one that i believe

every member of congress should respect. >> at a recent town hall in new hampshire hillary clinton acknowledged her evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage saying personal relationships -- support marriage equality. she didn't support same-sex marriage and till 2013. aware of any recent secretary anson endorsed as her time as secretary of state? >> i am not that but i did work at the state department so i didn't have the most keen sensitivity to what pressure she may have been under. you can certainly check with their campaign and they can give you their sense of it reeves you think it's fair to claim that because she did not say anything about the issue that she does not support same-sex marriage even after president obama came forward in 2012? >> i don't know what her views are in the topic. see the hack one more question and that is do you think given the presence on evolution on

this issue do you think are changing views on marriage should the scene differently than her other positions that have change such as keystone xl? >> i think there's an understandable tendency to want to try to make all those things the same or to try to divine some elements of her personality by looking at her views on a range of topics but when it comes to her views on same-sex marriage i take her at her word, that her views on this topic underwent that kind of change that a lot of people's views have over the last several years and i think many people have noted the significance of this changing debate in our country and our political system and the president certainly believes that it