and that is why you will see a lot in this bill about modernizing the electricity grid and why it is so important to our nation. again, from an economical perspective of having affordable, cheap, renewable, katrina energy power but d. clean energy power but also making sure that it helps us with cybersecurity. once again be, a quote from the report says, "dramatic changes in u.s. energy landscape have significant implications for infrastructure needs and choices. well-informed, forward-looking decision that lead to robust, resilient infrastructure can enable a substantial new economic consumer-service climate protection and system reliability benefits." end quote. so that is why you will see a significant focus in this bill on infrastructure, investing in technologies, cybersecurity, making our grid more intelligent, efficient, and

resilient, whic ways that we bee are going to help both businesses and consumers. the bill includes investments in energy storage which helps integrate renewable energy. it has provisions for advanced grid technologies, which really help make our electricity grid smarter and more intelligent to move energy around more efficiently. it has cybersecurity research and development. i don't think there will be anybody here in the senate that won't support this more robust effort on cybersecurity, given the challenges and threats we face. it has a focus on new renewable technologies, which are great brickintroduce in helping to -- which are great breakthroughs in helping to drive some costs. the cost is basically one-third to one-half less of new-generation services. this chart here focusing on that is the question of whether you want to pay 4.6 cents a kilowatt

for production or 12 cents a kilowatt for production. i know this: i'd rather pay 4.6 cents. i would rather drive the efficiency down to the consumer, whether that's from renewable energy, as opposed to making investments in what we know is going to be more expensive energy for the future. when it comes to r&d, we need to mawk sure that we are making -- make sure that we're making the right investments for the future and that we are sending the signals that capital markets will take as also a signal for continued investment, and we need to make investments in our workforce because, as the quadrennial review report shoarks wshows,we will need 1.5w workers by 230 in the energy sec -- by 2030 in the energy sector. that is a huge number. and i will say, madam president, that we do not have the right tools in place to quickly train as many people as necessary.

i'm sure the presiding officer would attest to this just in the biofuels area. i'm sure that there are institutions in her state that are working hard to help describe and train and educate those in the biofuels area so that we can have a robust infrastructure, the science, the r&d, the distribution, all of that. i know in our state we're working hard on this with our national laboratories in washington state university in getting an advanced biofuels for the airplane sector because we want aviation to move forward on using those fuels and getting even more efficiency. and there is advanced manufacturing here where it is about making sure that our trucks have the same efficiency opportunities that we were able to help usher through in 2007 with higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. now we want to make sure we're investing in the same level of r&d for our advanced truck

fleets in the united states so that they can reap the same benefits of being fuel-efficient automobiles. so, as i mentioned, the quadrennial review laid out of this out. that is why we took an effort with the committee on hearings that my colleague already outlined with more than 100 different energy bills and a variety of input from our colleagues. so, yes, energy efficiency is front and center in this debate. in fact, energy efficiency -- there were 22 different energy efficiency bills from 30 different senators and cosponsors in the discussion. i think in 2007 we definitely talked about some smart-grid demonstration projects and a few things. but nowhere was energy efficiency or the development of these policies, whether it is storage or distributed generation or protecting

ratepayers, none of them were as front and center as they have been in this debate today. and that's because energy efficiency just doesn't make sense for the environment. people have seen that it makes sense for the economy and it makes sense for our consumers. as i said, it drives down the cost of production and, obviously, when it integrates more sustainable resources, efficiency becomes a cheaper, better job creator, and carries lower environmental costs than the alternative. so now, not only does it save consumers money but it helps add to the flexibility of of our grid and reduces carbon. so i want to thank a few of our colleagues who have worked so hard on helping us put this legislation together. my colleague from alaska mentioned the shaheen-portman piece of legislation, which is a key cornerstone of this bill when it comes to the energy efficiency area. it encompasses much of their work, and they have obviously been stalwarts for years trying

to get energy-efficiency legislation moved through the united states senate and many of the provisions they have sought in the past are now in this bis- in this bill. obviously, residential and commercial buildings consume 40% of the united states energy. that's roughly $430 billion. so when you talk about focusing on making our buildings more efficient and attacking that sector of our energy needs, there are some true savings. in the past, energy buildings and equipment standards have lowered the costs and they expected to save something like 3 billion metric tons of energy. and basically that is the equivalent of the carbon emissions of 42 million vehicles. so just by focusing on our buildings, making them more energy-efficient, we can have a tremendous impact. that is why i worked with my colleague, senator murkowski, in

authoring a section of this bill on smart buildings. senator warren joined us. and smart buildings really will help us manage our energy loads better, particularly focusing on lighting, heating, cooling systems, and communications between buildings, and we heard from the department of energy that smart buildings really could be a game changer for the efficiency discussion. so i thank my colleague from alaska for working with me on that provision. d.o.e. has estimated that smart buildings can result in a 30% additional efficiency in the way buildings are operated when they realize the full potential of these technologies. so you can imagine, if you're an dry and you're trying to be -- if you're an industry and you're trying to be competitive, what that's going to mean to have that level of efficiency. every se sector is focusing on w

to be carpet any of an international market and i would say one of the reasons we have some of these -- what are now server farms in washington state -- that is, storage data facilities -- is because we have cheap electricity. so when you start saying you are going to drive down the cost of electricity by such a significant margin be, people are saying, i want to locate there. so we want to make sure we are empowering free capital and investments to help us reduce carbon emissions by focusing on giving those powers to help focus on smart buildings. now, this isn't just a u.s. strategy. this is something that the united states could be world leaders in. the international energy agency says that china alone is expected to use more than 1.5 trillion between now and 2035 when it comes to the energy efficiency market. you think about it,er they're

building so rapidly. and yet they could be incented -- that by the level of investment the united states is already making -- to further their own efforts in smarter buildings, reducing carbon, building more efficiently, and this is something where u.s. solutions could aid, and i hope that we will in the u.s. agreement with china continue to focus on these kinds of innovations. so, my colleague mentioned infrastructure as a key theme of this bill. i mentioned some of those provisions. as i mentioned, utilities and the fact that on average the united states spends nearly 29% of its total expenditures on utilities such as electricity and natural gas, and so we want to continue to make improvements there. data-driven intensive industries also, as i mentioned just a few minutes ago, are part of the

equation, and we know as they continue to grow, we're going to want to make continued investmentvestments. in the pacific northwest, the bullet center, which has been an acclaimed building, really focusing on probably the greenest commercial building in the entire world -- not hole a net-zero building but showing just how well you can build today the most efficient building using no resource, no electricity resource but putting actually back onto the grid. so we have many of these efforts in the pacific northwest. people have seen that smart building technology is expected to grow to to $7 billion now to $17 billion in the next four years. so it is a tremendous, tremendous market opportunity for u.s. technology. i would like to just mention a couple of other provisions that our colleagues have worked on in the bill and thank them for that. you'd like to thank senators

franken and heinrich and king and hirono for their efforts on energy storage that we've included in this legislation. and a program that is really focused on driving down the cost curve of ways to help with storing, whether you're talking about battery technology or large-scale storage. i also want to thank senator i wyden and king and hirono for their focus on advanced grid technologies. that includes demonstrating how multiple new technologies can be put into the electricity grid on a micro-level. and this is so important. my colleague from alaska and my dpleecolleague from both see the challenges. helping them on microgrid issues is critically important and as i mentioned making distributed generation more reliable, more

intelligent is a very key factor in this bill. senator wyden did incredible work on making sure that we added new renewables in the area of marine, hydro-kinetic and biopower into this legislation. i thank him for that. i know that my colleagues, senator king and sanders, and i know we'll be joined by senator reed on the floor, are continuing to push the envelope on innovative ways to paycheck e make sure that -- to make sure that solar has generated work. we certainly put some more authority to make sure that we are protecting consumers. but i think you'll probably see where people will want to go further to make sure that we are empowering what i call everybody from the tea party to the environmentalists who want to be in the solar business, put solar on their roof, or be in some other form of renewable energy

but don't want to be gouged for the cost of doing that by the utility. they want the tuttle to make the investment and they want -- they want the utility to make the investment and they want to get a return for theme participating in energy -- for reducing energ. i want to thank those, as i mentioned mary anne portman, 2003 more than half of the cyber incidents were directed at critical energy infrastructure. half of the cyber incidents. the bill today basically says the department of energy will be the leader in coordinating our cyber response for the energy sector and that we will be working on the r&d in partnership with the private sector to make sure that we have the right kind of information sharing to continue to make the kinds of investments for resiliency that we need to have for cybersecurity. and lastly, i just want to mention a few things. the advanced vehicle

technologies program senators stabenow and peters and senator alexander all worked on this section of the legislation to try to, as i mentioned earlier, drive safe fuel efficiency into advanced trucks as we have in automobiles. this is something in my state where companies like pack car and the pacific northwest laboratories are already trying to drive down the cost of truck transportation. why? because they see how much freight the united states is moving to overseas markets. we see that we have products that we're going to sell to developing overseas world but we have to move them cost effectively, so we've put a lot of work into making our truck transportation more efficient. and i thank senator warren for her work on the energy information administration and senator manchin for his work on workforce issues which i'm sure we're going to continue to hear about when we come to the floor as it relates to our mine workers and a variety of other

people of how we keep transitioning to training and making sure we have the workforce for tomorrow. and lastly, i just want to mention my colleague, senator heinrich, who has been very active on the workforce issues as well in making sure that we have grants for workforce shortages and job training. so i think, madam president, my colleague from alaska said it best, that this is not a bill that is about what everybody wanted but about what we could do that is important to move forward now. that it was built on a good bipartisan process, that means that people had their input and we hope to follow the same process here on the floor. on this side of the aisle, i'm sure that my colleagues will want to talk about ways in which we would go further, the energy innovation act we introduced last september has many of these provisions.

things like having an energy efficiency resource standard at a national level, getting senator bennet and isakson's save act, which makes sure that consumers realize as homeowners the benefits of energy efficiency that they make investments in. i mentioned my colleague senator reid of nevada and senator king of maine who have innovative ways to make sure that consumers benefit from being in the solar business. and i'm sure is that we will hear many, many more from people on both sides of the aisle on their ideas of how they would like to improve this bill. but as my colleague from alaska said, it's important that we work together and not try to torpedo this bill, but move forward on what has been a good bipartisan process and continue to make investments for the future. one of the last things i want to mention as an investment for the future has been the success of the land and water conservation fund.

i'm so proud that the land and water conservation fund was an original legislation by my predecessor, scoop jackson, a senator that served our state many years, and the land and water conservation fund i think serves as one of the most successful conservation programs in our country's history. and it had been successful for more than 50 years before it was dismantled. and then in the omnibus we were able to reestablish it for the next three years. obviously our committee came to a bipartisan decision that it should be, we think, made permanent because it was such a successful program, at least it should receive the same attention that it did for the first 50 years and continue us on the same journey we've been making to make sure that we have open space in the united states of america as we continue to grow. these are important outdoor spaces that feels generated an -- that have also generated

an incredible outdoor economy for the united states of america. it has generated economic revenue by having the ability for people to go to the outdoors. so i hope that we will keep that as part of this legislation as it moves all the way through the united states senate and through the house and to the president's desk, permanent reauthorization of the land and water conservation fund. so, madam president, at this time i'm going to turn the floor back over to our colleagues who would like to discuss this bill or other things, but to say that this is about modernization of energy, the lifeblood of our economy, driving down the cost through investments on a new strategy for the future, not holding on to the past as much as moving forward to the future, and enabling our businesses, our ratepayers and all of those that we care about in that economy to continue to reap the benefits of next-generation energy technology, renewable technology that's cleaner, more efficient and will keep our economy in a

driver's seat for our own u.s. economy and be a game changer for the ability for us on an international basis to provide solutions that are cleaner, more efficient for sure, and will help us deal with the carbon issues around the globe. so with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i know we'll be breaking with the regular time for our policy luncheons. after i get through speaking here briefly, i of course yield to the senator from arizona for comments he has, and then i understand we'll be breaking for the policy lunches. but i just wanted to say just a few words about this legislation. i know amidst the polarization and the circus-like atmosphere

of our politics these days, people are really surprised to find out that we've actually been able to get some important work done here in the united states senate. in 2015. and i think it's important while this primary presidential selection process goes forward in iowa, new hampshire and south carolina and following that for both democrats and republicans, that we continue to do the people's work here in the senate. and i can't think of any better subject for us to legislate on than this bipartisan energy bill led ably by the chair of the energy committee, the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, and her colleague, our colleague, the senator from washington. we've seen in my state, and no doubt in other states, how important the energy sector can be to jobs. now we're suffering a little bit in texas, and i know in places

like north dakota and alaska and elsewhere, the big energy states, because the price of oil is down so low. actually that's good for consumers because gasoline prices have been cheaper than they have been in a long, long time. but we've been able to see how smart energy policies actually can have a very positive influence on jobs and stronger economic growth not just in texas but across the country. so taking advantage of our natural resources and diversifying our energy supply when we can is a win-win situation. this legislation, the energy policy modernization act, will update our energy policies for the 21st century. i can't tell you how many times i've heard people say, well, we don't have a national energy policy. well, that's, unfortunately true, but this energy policy modernization act will go a long way to developing sound energy policy that will help us produce more energy, help us use the

energy that we produce more efficiently, and allow consumers to save and businesses to save money. so this bill modernizes the u.s. electric grid, the infrastructure that provides us with electricity which of course we don't think about too often until we have a brownout or a blockout as a result of some incident. that is our electric grid. but it's real important that it be reliable and more economical in the long run. this bill also seeks to diversify our energy supply, including promoting research on renewable energy options while updating our policies on mineral extraction as well. so this legislation, i think, promises to allow us to continue to be productive now in this new year, 2016. i want to add one other word to the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, the chair of this important committee, that thanks

to her leadership congress was able to pass legislation to finally lift the export ban on crude oil, a ban that had been in place for 40 years. and so really that was the more, most contentious part of this energy policy changes. and now i think she wisely has separated those two issues and left the energy policy modernization act, one that does enjoy broad bipartisan support. but we also need to continue to expedite our exporting of natural gas, liquefied natural gas. this will help us, which this bill does, which will help us get more of our energy to international markets and will provide domestic suppliers a more reliable time line for building the infrastructure which is not cheap, to allow us to export more of our domestic resources. this has really been the story of our energy resources here in america, where we have constantly underestimated the

impact of technology and innovation when it comes to energy. because just a few years ago we used to talk about something called peak oil, as if all the oil that had he ever been discovered had been discovered and there wasn't any more there. and then people realized that thanks to the innovative use of horizon drilling together with fracking which had been around for 70 years or more, that america holds the promise of being a net energy exporter in the not not too distant future. and this is good also because the senior senator from arizona, the chairman of the armed services committee, i heard him make this point which i enthusiastically agree in, our energy resources here in america are a national security asset because what we see around the world, particularly in europe, where people like vladimir putin use energy as a weapon. and our willingness and ability to be able to export energy not only will create jobs in

america, it will help groal our economy by -- grow our economy by making sure our small businesses have access to reasonably priced energy. but it also will help strengthen our friends and allies around the world. so i look forward to discussing the bill. i hope we can move on some of the amendments that have been brought by both sides of the aisle and do so to strengthen america's hand as an energy powerhouse in the 21st century. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business for whatever time i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: last mongtd i came to the floor and called attention to a provision in the consolidated appropriations act for fiscal year 2016. i would remind my colleagues the 2,000-page omnibus bill that all of us had approximately 48 hours to view before voting on, "yes" or "no."

a provision specifically that i objected to is the egregious exercise of pork barrel parochialism, reverse reasonable restrictions on the air force use of the russian-made rd-18 ol rocket engine for national security space launches. i are explained how that provision was secretly airdropped into the 2,000-page omnibus bill and overruled the authorizing committee. in other words, an outrageous overruling of the authorizing committee. they dropped this provision in in the middle of this 2,000-page bill while we had had hearings, debate, discussion, markup and debate on the floor of the united states senate which considered some 1 hundred-some amendments. what we saw with this 2,000 -- buried in this 2,000-page bill was a direct contradiction to the authorizing process. this process must stop. we have got to stop giving,

allowing the appropriators to make policy. that should come from the authorizing committee. and i want to tell my colleagues now, i will not stand for it any longer. sometimes we wonder, sometimes we wonder why the americans are angry, why they're supporting trump or seanders -- sanders or some outsider. all we have to do is look at this process we went through with this bill. it wasn't just the rocket engines. it was hundreds of millions of dollars in unnamed projects. it was $225 million for a ship that the navy neither wants nor needs. by the way, the second one. we were supposed to build ten. so the appropriators, the senator from alabama, adds again $225 million ship that the navy neither wants nor needs that is made, manufactured in mobile,

alabama. we can't do that. it's got to stop. and of course now they acted in a way that now provides tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to vladimir putin and his corrupt cronies. how do how did justify such action? -- how do you justify such action? the american taxpayers should be outraged to learn that some u.s. senators want american taxpayers to continue subsidizing russian aggression and comrade capitalism, but those very senators thought if they snuck their blank check to the putin regime into a take-it-or-leave-it omnibus bill that no one would stop them. they're wrong. that's why i'll be joining with house leader kevin mccarthy to reassert the will of the

congress and the american people. it is morally outrageous and strategically foolish to ask american taxpayers to subsidize russia's military industrial base and vladimir putin, who the treasury department has reportedly accused of being personally corrupt, destabilizes ukraine, violates the intermediate-range nuclear force treaty, sends weapons to iran and bombs u.s.-backed forces in syria to prop up the murderous regime of bashar assad and all for the benefit of a rocket plant in alabama. i won't go into too many details here except to point out that after the u.s. imposed sanctions against russia in march 2014, russian deputy prime minister regosin, who oversees the space industry in russia indicates

that russia suspects that the u.s. will not use the military engines. "we're not going to delivery the rd-^18 0 engines if the united states will use them for non-civil porns. we also may discontinue servicing the engines. he also threatened to deactivate all sites in russia territory and ban u.s. astronauts from the international space station by 2020. he indicated that in the future the united states should "deliver" its astronauts to the i.s.s. with a trampoline. later that year, he appeared to reconsider. after all, in order to din desin and build more rockets in asia, he said, "we need more free money. this is why we're prepared to sell them, taking the sanctions very pragmatically." so what are russia's two desired outcomes?

on the one hand, america continues its dependence on russian rocket innocence. on the other hand, america helps the putin regime go around the sanctions by getting free money for rocket engines. and this is who u.l.a. and its congressional sponsors want us to do business with? at the same time russia has threatened to cut off supply, energomash has per sued their opportunities with other countries that would give russia a freer hand in making good on its threats, most notably china. in july 2015, president buthelezi signed a new law that skull -- president putin signed a wil new law that consolidateen entity. that was done to enhance the power of the russian government to better implement space policy and control the space industry. he signed an order that would effectuate this law.

a. pointed the chief executive of the newly created corporation koskomos. he was former chairman of one of russia's largest care makers, advisor to chemsov. chemsov is said to have served as a k.g.b. k.g.b. officer back in the 1980's and he has been targeted by our sanctions. under the same order, putin also appointed russian deputy prime minister rogozin and the list goes on and on. so why do we want u.s. taxpayers sending millions of dollars to the russian government when vladimir putin destabilizes ukraine, et cetera, et cetera. and to add insult to injury, this last year on the defense bill, we had to legislate to

stop -- to stop the united states defense department from giving $800 million per year to u.l.a. -- that's the outfit that now launches using russian rockets, u.l.a., russian rocket engines. we had to continue the prohibited payment by $800 million to stay in business. i figured out roughly since 2006 we have paid this u.l.a. -- which is a combination of boeing and lockheed martin -- that we have paid them some $17 billion to stay in business. it used to be called the military industrial complex that eisenhower warned us about when he was leaving office. it is now the military

industrial congressional complex that puts in a 2,000-page bill a requirement to build a $225 million ship that nobody wants. the navy doesn't need it. for the second year in a row. that's $450 million of your tax dollars that went to build two ships that the navy neither needs nor wants. my friends, do you wonder about the cynicism of the american people? do you wonder why they think that what we're doing business in washington is corrupt? when we spend $450 million in two years on two ships the navy doesn't want or need, when we subsidize an outfit, the only one that until recently that does space launches, pay them $800 million a year to stay in

business, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on unspecified scientific programs, to take hundreds of millions of dollars from medical research that has nothing to do with defense and take it out of defense? why would we wonder that the american people are angry and frustrated? look at what we're doing with their tax dollars in the mid-- i don't know if it was 48 or 72 hours that we had to vote up or down, up or down on a 2,000-page $1.1 trillion document. no amendments, no amendments allowed. and so i say to my colleagues, do you wonder, -- do not wonder, do not be curious why they're out there flocking to the banner

of senator san derk sanders, thy announced socialist in the united states senate, and on the other side, donald trump, who has never had anything to do with washington, d.c.,. they should not be surprised. well, all i can say to my colleagues is that i am not going to stop. because i owe the people of adds a -- the people of arizona a lt better than what we're giving them. we owe them an accountability of why we would spend $800 million a year to keep a company in business? why we would spend $450 million for two ships the navy would not want or need because they're made in mobile, alabama? i'll be glad to talk more about how each individual was blocked on the other side, would not agree to moving forward and the rules of the senate and all that.

that doesn't make much difference at the rotary club. what makes a difference is that we've wasted billions -- billions of dollars of their tax dollars that were neither wanted, nor needed, nor ever had a hearing in the authorizing committee. i'm proud of the work we do on the armed services committee. we have literally a hearing every day. we spend hours and hours and hours in markups of debate and discussion on these various programs. we have -- we have hearings with administration officials. we have hearings at the subcommittee. i am so proud of the bipartisan approach that we take to our defense authorization bill, working closely wit with senator reed and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i'm proud of the product, after literally thousands of hours of testimony, of study, of voting, and all of that, and then we get a 2,000-page omnibus appropriations bill stuffed with

billions of dollars of projects that we never, ever would consider in the authorizing committee. so the system is broken. the system is broken, and it better be fixed. and i am telling my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations committee, we will -- this will not stand. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

i never got a nickel from 5 p.m. corporations. [applause] >> don't want money from the billionaire class. but i am very grateful for the support i have received by from the steelworkers, in my political career, thank you very much. [applause] >> when i went to college i studied economics but the real economic lessons that i learned was when i was a kid. i grew up in a home where my dad

had come from poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket, never made much money, graduated high school, lived in net 3.5 room rent-controlled apartment in brooklyn, new york. we did not 4 but our family lived on the financial stress as was the case with millions of families in the country today. the major economic lesson i have had in my life was not in high school or college that as a kid, understanding what financial stress does to a family. understanding every decision that is a major, with a you can afford to do this or you can afford to do that, that, brothers and sisters, is a lesson i have never forgotten and never will forget. [cheers and applause]

>> one of the reasons i think our campaign is doing well is because we try to talk about the real issues impacting the american people, not necessarily what the media wants us to do but talk about real issue is. yesterday in iowa, 300 people out in the meeting, it kind of opened up the discussion, ask people what was going on in their life, what was going on in their lives in terms of trying to make it on 12, $13,000 a year social security. and what was it like in their lives if you can't afford the prescription drugs you need. i want to thank the nurses. [applause] >> who knows these the shoes, who know what it means to be

treating patients who -- i open it up for discussion. a woman gets a fair and says the madison her husband needed shot way up, shot way up to an outrageous price and we know tomorrow you walk into a drug store to refill your prescription, the price could be doubled or tripled from what it was, some of you have that experience. the pharmaceutical industry is ripping off the american people. [applause] >> we don't have blocked of money because prescription drugs, another woman says i was making the point millions of people in this country, we don't talk about it as much, trying to get by 12 or $13,000 a year social security. you do the arithmetic and tell

me how you pay health care, pay for prescription drugs, how you keep your home, how do you buy the food you need on $12,000 or $13,000 a year. you don't. you don't. [applause] >> then we have republicans going around the country lying as they occasionally do. and they are saying social security is going broke, we have to cut social security benefits. just stop and think about it. forget politics. tell me how somebody can go around the country when we know that millions of people, seniors, disabled vets, people with disabilities, people who can't make it on $12,000, $13,000 and they're talking about cutting social security

benefits. a thing a lot of people have not heard of called change cb i, and it is a fancy term from washington to cut social security benefits and argues the theory behind it is the cost of living adjustments that seniors are getting today are too generous. does anybody here know what seen years got last year? zero! too generous! got to cut it! and iowa falls we heard from people who told us i am not getting $12,000 or $13,000 a year, i'm trying to live on $10,000 a year. we heard another woman, about what it means to have minimum wage jobs and how difficult it is to survive. that is the reality for millions and millions of people in this country.

reality we don't talking about and certainly a reality we are not effectively addressing. here is the story. if we were a poor country and there are poor countries around the world, you have a certain type of discussion and you say it is unfortunate that we have to live in poverty. we are a poor country, we can't have good education, can't have good health care, can't have a decent -- we are a poor country. but the truth is as everybody here knows the united states of america is not a poor country. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. most people don't know that because almost all of the do well income is going to the top 1%.

brothers and sisters, what a sanders administration is about, and we will create working families are billionaires'. bit [cheers and applause] >> not only that. the last 30 years as everybody in this room knows. technology has exploded. almost every worker in america is more productive than he or she was 20 or 30 years ago. if you are more productive, if we are producing more, why are millions of people working longer hours for lower wages? why is almost all new income and

wealth going to small number of people? a smart group here. that is what we are going to deal with. we are going to tell billionaires who pay an effective tax rate lower than many of you do. we will tell large multinational corporations who make billions of dollars a year in profits and stash their money in the cayman islands and bermuda and the given year they pay zero in federal income taxes, we are going to tell them that it is time for them to accept their responsibility as americans to start paying their fair share of taxes. [cheers and applause]

>> and when we eliminate the cayman islands loophole and raise $1 trillion in new revenue you know what we are going to do with that? we are going to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of decent paying jobs. [cheers and applause] >> this is the united states of america, the greatest country on the face of the earth. tell me why our roads, our bridges, our water systems. >> we will break away from this momentarily to hear live from bernie sanders is finishing a meeting with president obama. >> one word and that is turnout. we are feeling really good about where we are and if there is a large voter turnout, not saying we could do what barack obama did in 2008, i wish we could but i don't think we can but if there is a large turnout i think we win.

if not we will be struggling. we are going to fight as hard as we can for a week in new hampshire, thinking we have a pretty good chance there and going to south carolina. by the way i think we will do a lot better in those things than people think we are. and we head to supertuesday. we are just in minnesota yesterday, phenomenal turnout, only 15,000 people out. in st. paul we have 6,000 people, we are feeling pretty good. i think the american people, working people, young people want to see real movement in this country and i think we are tapping into that energy and i think we stand a very good chance to do well in iowa. >> did you ask the president? >> of course not. what the president has tried to

do, what vice president joe biden has tried to do, is to be as even-handed as they could be and there was some discussion about political interview tipping the scale, i don't believe that at all. he and the vice president have tried to be fair, and we expect they will continue to do that. [inaudible question] >> no. everybody knows the last seven years, barack obama when he was united states senator was kind enough to come to vermont and campaign for me. i have never forgotten that. in 2008 i did my best to see that he would be elected president as i did in 2012.

as was the case in a democratic society. we have differences of opinion. i was on the floor of the center for three hours. by and large over the next 7 years on major issue after major issue i have stood by his side where he has taken on unprecedented republican obstructionism, and trying to do the right thing with the american people. >> will you go negative against hillary clinton? >> it was just a discussion to get myself updated on some of the current issues facing the country. and how we deal with isis, a testament about iran and how we work with iran and our relationship with iran. >> do you think hillary clinton

or anybody else -- has hillary clinton ever played for president with obama? >> the people of iowa will make that decision. >> how do you tackle the threat of isis differently? >> frankly we did talk about this. as you all know i voted against the war in iraq and that is a major point of difference between secretary clinton and myself. we receive the same information and came to a different conclusion. as i mentioned to the president, in my small state of vermont tie went to too many funerals of wonderful young people and i am happy to tell you the last few years have not gone to funerals of young men or women in the military. what the president is trying to do is the right thing. and what he's trying to do is

keep our young men and women in the military out of a perpetual war, in a quagmire of the middle east. what i will try to do is put together a coalition of major powers with the muslim people on the ground, muslim nations, at the end of the day, at as we were recently reminded this is a war for the soul of islam against people like isis and their barbarity that have hijacked that religion. what abdullah reminds us is at the end of the day it must be the muslim people and their military who destroy isis with support of major powers in the country and that is what the president is trying to do. we got to get going, thank you very much. >> in the debates --

>> the fourth debate! [inaudible questions] >> senator bernie sanders after his meeting in the white house with president obama, in mason, iowa, speaking tonight, live coverage on margaret: at 8:00 eastern. also live coverage of the white house briefing clear hope coming ashore the. we take you back live to yesterday's event with senator sanders and members of the steelworkers in iowa. >> they are going to get the best health-care available, they're going to get the benefits that they earn. [applause] >> here is the difference between secretary clinton and die on i on an important issue. i believe seniors the struggling to get by on $15,000 the year it

is not good enough to say, i led the effort on this, we won't cut social security. that is an abomination. what we must do, of course we are not going to cut social security but we are going to expand social security benefits. [applause] >> here is how we are going to do it. it is not complicated. somebody makes $5 million a year, someone makes $118,000 a year, they both contribute the same amount into the social security trust fund. if you lift that cap and you see $250,000 and above, top 1.5% of the american people what we can do is increase social security benefits for those now living on $60,000 a year by $1,300 a year. that is not insignificant for

people who are struggling. [applause] >> and when we do that we also extend the life of social security for 19 years to 50 years. that is my view. i think at a time of massive income and wealth inequality when the wealthy are getting much wealthier, i think it is just appropriate, just right to lift that cap and ask the wealthiest people in this country to make shore all seniors can live in dignity. [applause] >> that is my view, secretary clinton drops in after her view. i don't think she agrees. when we talk and see this, when we talk about why it is the great middle class of this

country is disappearing, why is it is we have 47 million people living in poverty, why is it is we have wealth and income inequality, one of the important reasons this our disastrous trade policies. [applause] >> you are looking at a former united states congressman, i represented vermont in congress for 16 years and senator today, you are looking at a member of the senate who in his life voted against nafta, against tntr with china. [applause]

>> by the way in helping to lead the opposition to the tpp. everybody in this room understands the disastrous trade agreements, you all know who wrote these trade agreements. is not complicated, the steelworkers do not write these trade agreements. they are written by corporate america to benefit corporate america, people who could care less about what these trade agreements did to working families. here is what they have done. since 2001 in america we have lost 60,000 factories. got that? in my state in iowa, all across this country, 60,000 factories, not all of that is attributable

to the trade. there's a reason factory shutdown. but a lot of it is attributable to trade it, when you lose 60,000 factories, many of them attributable to disastrous trade agreements you are talking about the loss of millions of good paying american jobs. [applause] >> everybody knows what the purpose of these trade agreements were supposed to do. they did exactly what corporate america wanted them to do. what they were designed to do was to say why should we pay workers in the united states $25 an hour, $30 an hour for decent benefits, negotiate with unions, protect the environment, why would any corporation want to do that when they could shutdown of

america, move to china, move to low-wage countries, pay people pennies an hour, not have to worry about, and bring products back into the country. the simple truth and is indisputable, these trade agreements have been a disaster for working families in this country. they have benefited ceos of large multinational corporations. no one can deny that reality. i am proud to tell you way back when, as i was on the picket line in opposition to nafta and led the opposition that these trade agreements have supported not just by republicans but by some democrats as well. we got to acknowledge that. where we are today is to say

that when our country is deindustrialized, you tell me how are we agree nation if we are not purchasing the products that we need that are made in our country? can you be a great country? can you be a great country where everything you buy is made in china? i don't think so. this is an important point. it is not only the loss of jobs but the race to the bottom. this is the good thing. we are seeing an uptick of manufacturing in america. and new manufacturing jobs, there was once a time when manufacturing jobs, the gold standard for the working class

of this country. and and middle-class wages and middle-class benefits. and in louisville, ky. general the trick announced they were expanding their manufacturing capabilities creating a couple hundred jobs and they asked this guy from g e why are you doing this? he said it turns out that if you add all of these things together, transportation costs and the fact that wages in america have gone down, it is more competitive to do manufacturing in america now than in china because wages have gone down so much. they are paying people in manufacturing $10, $12 an hour. >> see all of this event and our future schedule of white house coverage this evening at c-span.org. we will be this and take you live to the white house with a

briefing with josh ernest. >> i do not have any opening statements. let's go to questions. you want to start? >> follow up a little bit on the meeting the president had. i was wondering if the president's approach is similar. if he is -- the way he approaches west africa. leaving some sort of -- >> one thing that is important for people to understand is there is a significant difference, a number of significant differences between the ebola virus and the seat of virus. in terms of the way they are transmitted but also in terms of the health impacts. ebola is a deadly disease.

zika virus poses a different set of risks that are serious for pregnant women. that explains the kind of reaction you have seen from the federal government and the guidance the cdc has shared with americans who are considering travel to tropical areas in the western hemisphere. i think the president has spoken at some wink about the lessons welength about the lessons we can draw from fighting ebola, infrastructure is critical to positive helping comes. talked about the unique role the united states can play in mobilizing international response to diseases like this that pose a broader public health risk and we are mindful

of all of that as we consider the risk posed by the zika virus. most of our efforts now are focused on sharing information with the public about steps they can take to protect themselves. this is a risk that is most acute for pregnant women or women planning to become pregnant, people who are not pregnant, men and women, the zika virus is a mild non fatal form of dan gaetz fever and the most common symptoms are mild fever, rash, that said, studies show only one in five people who get zika will have any symptoms. what we are primarily concerned about is the link that is apparent between a particular birth defect in women who have

contracted the zika virus. i would anticipate in the days ahead that you will see more of conspicuous concerted effort on the part of the u.s. government to communicate with the american people about the risks of this virus and the steps they can take to protect themselves. >> the statement you released after a meeting the president emphasized research to make available better diagnostic and vaccine development and public information. the president asking for any additional money or do any of the things in these elements? >> there is no specific request i am prepared to make from here today but mobilizing the response that may be necessary certainly could require additional funding but i would expect the kind of funding we would envision would at least in

part be useful in building up the broader public health infrastructure that would have benefits in fighting a variety of diseases. >> switching over to the burn. >> you laugh when she said it. i get groans when i say it. >> did you hear what the senator said after the meeting? >> i did. >> did he seem complimentary towards the president? any early feedback from the president? >> the meeting had just ended. i did not speak to the president about the meeting. the two men spent 45 minutes together as senator sanders said, a one on one meeting. the president was certainly expecting to talk about how they

can work together to advance democratic priorities and values, that is work they have done in the past and the president hopes they can do it together in the future. senator sanders is as noted to all of you a part of a very active campaign right now. spending a lot of time on the campaign trail and enjoying the kind of response he is getting from large crowds across the country not just in iowa but other places including minnesota. when the president spent time on the campaign trail he had the experience of trying big crowds and he enjoyed that experience and i would anticipate there was an opportunity for the president to reminisce about his inexperience campaigning for president in terms of drawing big crowds and spending time talking to people in more out of the way places whether crowds

are not as large but the interactions do allow for a more personal conversation. the president even as he served in office has talked about how those opportunities are fewer and farther between when you are president of the united states. the president is constantly looking for creative ways to get out of it. when you spend time on the campaign trail running for president you necessarily spend time interacting with individuals one on one and the president enjoys the opportunity as a candidate and talked about how he wishes he could do more of it as president. last thing i will say about this is something the president expected to talk about the meeting and senator sanders alluded to this. is good for the democratic party for there to be such a robust

debate going on about who should be the party's nominee, that debate is good for democracy and good for the party. in the context of the debate senator sanders had great success in engaging and inspiring a large segment of the democratic party. that ability to engage democrats and excite them and inspired them will be critical to the sense of democrats up and down the ballot, with senator sanders is the nominee or not and it underscore is that while there is an important debate going on inside the democratic party, the real difference lies between republicans who advocate for the kinds of economic policies that mostly benefit the wealthy and well-connected and lead us to the worst economic downturn

since the great depression and democrats who continue to believe that our government policies should be focused on expanding economic opportunity for everybody especially those in the middle class and those working hard to get into the middle class. ..

the seven years of his presidency. >> more on the meeting with bernie sanders. who called for the meeting? and then also he has put a hold on the nominee to lead the fda saying has to close ties to the industry. i was wondering did that come up in a meeting? was that a plan to come up in a meeting? has the white house trying to been work with them to let that hold on your nominate? >> let me go to your first question first. the president and senator sanders had opportunity to visit at the congressional holeable at the white house last month, and -- holiday. at the party senator sanders noted to the press and would like to have an opportunity to sit down with a more formal meeting. the president agreed that would be a good idea and we've been working to set up this meeting

from within a month now. the president has had a pretty busy schedule the last couple of weeks come and senator sanders has, too. but this was a meeting taking together in the last week or two, and the president was pleased to have the opportunity to sit down with senator sanders today. i don't know whether or not the president's nominee to be the next leader of the fda come up in the context of this meeting. the president and the administration of full confidence in the ability of our nominee to make that kind of decisions that are in the best interest of the health and safety of the american people. the president would not have nominated him to the job if he didn't think he would be able to effectively look out for the interests of middle-class families. >> going back to the zito virus, are there any plans at this point to appoint a star or so

but to kind of lead even though yes, it is really primarily focused on pregnant women and the effects our focus on pregnant women, it still seems like it would be pretty serious if these mosquitoes that spread the virus do come to the u.s. is there a plan, does the white house have a plan to respond like officially becomes, start spreading in the u.s.? summaries of the country that just women not to get pregnant. that doesn't seem like that will fly in the u.s., so is there a plan in place? >> obviously our public health experts both at the cdc and nih are mindful of the risks that associate with the zika i restricted president himself is concerned about. that's why he convened a meeting at the white house yesterday to discuss it. what we will do is we will rely on the best scientific advice that is available to protect the

american people. first and foremost that starts with warning people about any travel plans they may have where this virus has been detected, and making sure that people are educated about the risks that it does. certainly the risk to pregnant women or women who could become pregnant is serious, but it's also important for people to understand that if you are a man or if you're not pregnant that the impact of the virus is relatively mild. so first of all we want to make sure that people are properly educated about the risks of this virus but also we are taking that kind steps necessary to do as much as possible to try to fight this disease. darleen mentioned a desire to sort of wrap up our efforts to look for a vaccine and other treatments. the other thing that scientists tell us is that they are trying

to limit the mosquito population is another way that we can fight this disease. we are going to avail ourselves of all of the scientific knowledge that's been accumulated to make sure that we are trying to stay in front of this disease. obviously, the mosquito population in the united states in january is not that significant but we are mindful that as, as the thermometer heats up here, that we need to be mindful of this risk. >> is the need for a czar do you think? >> at this point other than a catchy name like zika czar i wouldn't anticipate the need for that kind of position at this point. we did find it useful in the fall of 2014 of somebody with the skills to come in and help organize the interagency efforts

across the federal government to fight the ebola virus. it's too early at this stage to say whether not that would be necessary when it comes to the zika virus. >> in present obama's interview with politico last week he called -- he again called are wicked smart. second time. that sounded to many listeners like a pretty glowing endorsement. >> well, i think i would encourage you to just take it at face value. it sounds like that is what you by piecing. the president had kind words for secretary clinton or she served the president a bullet in his cabinet as secretary of state. she danced in the interest of the united states all around the world. the president had the opportunity to watch up close as she campaigned for the presidency in 2007-2008 and he came away from that experience with a deep admiration of her

skills as a political candidate. and the president has made no secret of the fact that over the years of campaigning against one another and then working together in the administration that the two have become genuine friends. that said, the president has also been clear that at this point he does not plan to offer up a specific endorsement in the presidential race. you know, he's made a point of both saying nice things about his friends in public. he also as many of you have observed has also explained whether or maybe some differences, and sort depend on news cycle maybe that's interpreted as a jab at his former friend or a resounding secret endorsement of someone whom he has long admired. i think with all this reflects is a desire on the part of the

president to support democratic candidates and to position democrats to win the presidential election in november regardless of who the nominee is. >> he's had a few kind words for bernie sanders as well but at one point it seemed like he was describing in as a bright, shiny object which against you can interpret positively or negatively -- >> certainly has been described as worse. >> it seemed like he was also referring to a point where he himself at one point had been described in the same way. but anyway, he used that event at another point it seems almost like he might be saying that you need to have more than one focus, or you need to have more than what issue, as if he was saying that that was standard. by saying those things that we did but not officially endorsing someone, and the timing of this, does it is essentially have the

weight, the effect of being an endorsement of hillary clinton? >> no, i don't think it does. i think that the president did have the opportunity to talk in that interview about how important it is that somebody like senator sanders has succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of democrats all across the country, to attend his campaign events, become engaged in this campaign, contribute to his campaign, mba part of a broader effort to put another democrat in the white house. that's a really good thing for the for the president also thinks that's a good thing for the country because it will ensure that the next president, if the person is a democrat, recognizes the need to build on the progress that we've made so far and not go back to the

policies that our children to the worst economic downturn since the great depression. and all of the democratic candidates have given voice to that kind of commitment and that kind of view of the challenge facing our country. and so the ability of someone like senator sanders who engaged democrats all across the country in that debate and in that fight is a good thing for the country and a good thing for the party. and so that's obviously why what senator sanders has been doing over the last year or so is so important. i say that regardless of whether or not he's the nominee. spirit the president said as president you don't have the luxury of focusing on one thing. was he saying that at this point sanders has been sent to focus on one thing? >> i think the president was just making an observation that applies to all of the candidates. it certainly applies to senatorr sanders big also blasted secretary clinton, that the kinds of skills are going to need in a commander in chief is

not just a passion about what issue, although the passion is really important, and is critical to the success of any campaign, particularly national presidential campaign but you'll have to demonstrate an ability to handle lots of things, lots of different things at the same time. obviously the marketing people love opportunity to evaluate the capacity of candidates in both parties to do exactly that. >> the difference is that sanders and the president after which are well known, do they come any closer in agreement on any of these? what would you say, if it was a positive outcome to this feed today, what do you think it was? >> well look, i think was an important opportunity for the two men to sit down and sort of talk about their shared commitment to advancing the policies and priorities and values that they have in common.

and again, i don't have a whole lot more of a detailed readout to share with you from a private meeting, but i think there is value in having those kinds of conversations. i suspect it's not the last one. >> as far as foreign policy would you say they see eye to eye? were there any areas you could discuss they talked about? >> i don't have any more detail about that aspect of the conversation to share. >> on the president's interview with politico, hillary clinton seems to think the president's comments were somewhat -- an endorsement. she is best prepared to ask aspects of the job and that -- is that correct speak with the president has not issued an endorsement in the race. at this point he doesn't plan to. i would expect the president will vote in the illinois primary. he will vote absentee i do know that we will announce in advance exactly who he chooses to

support, but we will keep you posted if that changes. >> it a few months ago the president joked about the republican debate saying that if the candidates couldn't handle some of the moderators then how are they going to handle the chinese or the russians? given that what does the president think of donald trump's decision to skip the next debate? >> i noticed a spokesperson for fox news as a variation on that very statement. i guess imitation is the highest form of flattery the benefits fox news that is doing the imitating. look, i think what is true is that since you brought up the political interview, the president himself noted that he was not a big fan of participating in presidential debates but he never backed out of the debate two days before it was scheduled to be held at event that demonstrates his own commitment to the process and making good on one's commitment. we've seen over the last several months that mr. trump has repeatedly chosen to kick

reporters out of the room for asking tough questions. it appears he's taking that approach to a new level by avoiding those questions entirely. >> do you think it says anything about his temperament and his ability to do the job because i'm confident that his public opponents think so but ultimately it will be up to the voters to decide. >> josh, a couple of questions. i want to go back to bernie sanders, hillary clinton. he's met with the president and met with hillary clinton several times and he met with bernie sanders today. is there any room for him to meet with martin o'malley? is the i guess passed the mark to the meeting with them when it comes to his poll numbers? >> we are not examining poll numbers before decide on presidential meetings. i certainly would not rule out a future meeting between the president and governor o'malley.

[inaudible] >> i'm not aware of any active discussion right now but i wouldn't rule out that if governor o'malley makes a request like that that we wouldn't find some time on the president's schedule for it. [inaudible] >> i'm not aware of one. >> back on another subject. what is the expectation for the governor and the mayor, for all involved when it comes to water issue in flint, michigan? >> what is our expectation? i think the most important thing is that people of flint are looking to their state and local leaders who are responsible for the water safety in their community, to step up to the plate and fix the problem. the federal government is certainly committed to playing our important role in helping them succeed in that endeavor. there are a a variety of ways for us to do. we have the expertise of the epa

who has recently announced, ramp up testing of the water in that community. late last week the president announced he was expediting $80 million in funding to the state of michigan that could potentially be used to confront some of the issues that are facing flint and other water system right now. there is a federal official from the department of health and human services that is there on the ground coordinating the assistance that is being provided by the federal government. the reason it's an hhs official is about there's significant public health consequences for the water quality conflict right now and want to make sure we have the expertise on the ground that is necessary to deal with it and to try to support the ongoing efforts of state and local officials. >> it's been years in the making. why does it take this long and why is it not a view to buy many

in the country as a crisis? people are saying we're going to get someone to come in and test the water. we are talking about not charging people for water. people are saying out in the street, you can hear it from those who live in flint come here from people just in the black community trying to understand why has this not been placed in a higher priority than what we are seeing the? >> well again i think the president has made clear this is a priority and i think that is evident both from the tone of his remarks but also based on the kind of effort you see mobilized on behalf of the federal government. i think there's no denying that mayor weaver of flint continues -- considers this to be a crisis. you saw governor schneider dedicate first 10 or 15 minutes of the state of the state address to addressing this issue. that's an indication that he believes that this is a

significant problem that needs immediate attention. >> i think the other thing notable is that the reason that many people attribute, what many people attribute the problems with flint's water supply to visit this changeover from where the water was obtained, and that by getting the water from the flint river that raised significant questions about how clean the water is and what sort of threat it poses to public health. that's only a recent change that has been made i believe in the summer of 2014. there may be a variety of things that inspired to contribute to this problem that i think what most scientists have concluded is that this all stems from a decision made only about a year, a year and a half ago. >> the president has his my brothers initiative -- my

brothers keeper initiative. while there are many who are now saying, and doctors are saying there could be a lost generation in flint, michigan, because of the effect of this contaminated water. what is being done -- [inaudible] >> i think what's clear is that the potential, i want to underscore potential, public health impact here is quite significant. and that is why the federal official that is responsible for supporting the efforts of the federal government as an expert in public health. we are mindful of those risks, and certainly will be mobilizing the resources that are necessary to try to deal with it spirit you have led, i talked to doctors who said we have seen kids who are diagnosed years ago, like freddie gray, with lead poisoning. your thing potential.

there is our reality that lead poisoning, other contaminants can lead to damage to present academically, physically speaking i was attempting to downplay the impact of lead poisoning. i think it is unclear at this point exactly the extent of the was in flint. that's what they're trying to take a look at the i'm certainly not downplaying the significance of the seriousness of it, okay? >> i'd like to ask you about the budget that's going on a couple of weeks and the white house today rolled out a program for school lunches. i wanted to ask, will the president's budget adhere to the spending caps that was just agreed to in the budget agreement in the summer? >> we'll have a whole lot more detail about what's included in the budget when we rolled out in a couple of weeks. so stay tuned for that. sorry i can't help you. >> on flint the governor has asked, specifically asked for a

medical care, long-term medical care -- and asked the federal government to help with it. is that something the president thinks is a good idea, something you're working actively towards doing that? >> we will take it, take a close look at any requests that are made by state and local officials for assistance the federal government can provide. and again the federal official on the current conflict that is coordinating the federal resources that are being brought to bear to the situation is the public health experts so she would be in a good position to evaluate the benefits of a request like that spirit this seems like a unique request because of the unique nature of this particular crisis. essentially federal health care coverage for minors under the age of 21 on a long-term basis i think it is very significant -- the federal government to make.

conceptually is that something the president do you think would support speak with i think would have to take a look at exotica with requested before rendering a judgment on it spirit it was a pretty stinging editorial on epa's role on all the are you familiar with the? >> i haven't seen it but go ahead. >> the basic point is that the epa knew there was a problem about a year ago but chose not to be very public about it, chose to deal with this more discreetly to the state department. but critics are saying essentially they knew there was a problem a year ago or more but didn't sound the alarm. is that a fair criticism? >> let me say a couple things about that. the first is that there is an ongoing department of justice investigation of this. i have to be limited at least measured by what i can say because i don't want to be perceived as weighing in on this investigation for trying to

defend or deflect blame from anybody. let me just say in general that what the president himself has identified is the need to take another look at the relationship between the epa and the states like michigan where it is state and local officials who are responsible for things like water quality. because it does raise exactly the kind of moral and some cases legal question that you're raising, which is that if the epa has a legitimate concern about something, but yet it is the responsibility of state officials to administer the water system, the question then is what does the epa to? particularly if their concerns are not being heeded by the state and local government. and what the president has asked

the epa to do anything to epa administrator made an announcement about this recently is to clarify exactly how that relationship should work so that the epa is not put in a position where they are expected to keep private information that is critical to the health of the public. that i this is a situation we need to avoid, and the epa is taking another look at the rules and regulations that govern the relationship between state officials and federal officials to make sure that situation doesn't arise in the future. >> apparently there's a situation where the epa would be illegal for them to essentially say there's a problem because it's state responsibility speak with there's a bunch of rules that govern the relationship between the epa and state and local officials. so they do have, or want to try to follow that procedure. what we need to make sure is about procedure doesn't unnecessarily inhibit the ability of the epa to make

public information that could have a significant impact on health and well being of the public spent the decision making by the epa, is a part of the focus of the doj investigation? >> you have to talk to the department of justice about what all their taking a look at what i want to be cautious about not unintentionally interfering in an ongoing investigation. >> one thing on the campaign. another what a look at this whole thing is about president obama appointed secretary clinton to a very sensitive position. they worked side-by-side in the situation room and in the trenches for years and years. why wouldn't he endorse someone like that? why wouldn't he come out and come it would seem perfectly natural the relationship he has with senator sanders pales in comparison at least by the what anyone would look at this. so isn't he just playing politics? why wouldn't he come out and say

something much more supportive of his own for a second of state speak with that's a entirely legitimate question. i think -- i just, well -- [laughter] here's the thing the president's thinking. it's simply that he's not the only person that should have an opportunity to decide. democratic voters should be engaged in this process. and there is a strong benefit to the democratic party to have people like senator sanders who doesn't have a long personal relationship with the president of the united states, but yet has been remarkably effective in galvanized support for skipping among democratic activists all over the country. he is somebody who has been able to engage democrats all across the country in the debate about the future of our country. that is a good thing for the

party. and the president and his vision for the future of the country benefits from somebody like senator sanders having success in mobilizing democrats to be actively engaged in the debate about the future of the country. and so, second, the president also believes that it's important that he himself benefited from the vigorous primary campaign, that anybody who followed the president election in 2007-2008, it was pretty obvious that the president improved dramatically as a candidate over the course of 2007-2008. it is the primary process had been wrapped up in late june at february the president would not have had the benefit of honing the skills both on the stump and on the debate stage. i will readily acknowledge that at the time that it was a little harder to discern that benefit, that those of us who had been

moving from state to state and certainly the president who was spending days upon days and weeks upon weeks on the campaign trail in a way that nobody really expected, at the time to like a little bit of -- in hindsight it's quite clear he benefited, that his performance on the stump and on the debate stage and his performance as a candidate improved as a result of that. any sort of presidential attempt to sort of had off that debate at this early stage by weighing in on the primary is it was going to benefit any of the candidates. the truth is the president wants to encourage a robust debate within the democratic party. that's going to be good for both inspiring people, to be active and engaged in the political process but also sharpened his skills while the candidates involved. all that said i wouldn't necessarily rule out an endorsement down the line. but at this point the president,

reserving his private preference, or keeping a private preference private, i guess, has had important benefits for the party and important benefits for the candidates. >> that not endorsement could be seen as negative. i mean -- >> i have no doubt some will see it that way but i think that, i think i've tried to let out what the benefits are of the president keeping his private preference private and a longer process to play out in a way that engages democrats across the country and sharpens the skills of the democratic candidates who are competing for those votes, okay? >> staying with a 2016, is it fair to say that the president believes that hillary clinton is better prepared to be president then bernie sanders?

>> the president hasn't made public an assessment like that at this point. again i think the president has talked about -- >> he said she's better prepared than any non-vice president to ever run for the office. >> i think i was a clear acknowledgment of the skills and experience that she brings to the job. but look ultimately his preference in this contest is one that will be expressed in his absentee ballot in the illinois primary. if we choose to make a public we will let you know. >> let me talk foreign politics are just a second or i'm sure you saw the reports of president rouhani making his grand european tour. it made a comment in which he said we'd invite american businessmen to join their european counterparts investing with us as part of a win-win collaboration after years of mutual losses. is that how the president would seek?

>> well look, president rouhani will have come is taken advantage of the opportunity to go and make his case around the world while his country is open for business again. and it makes that claim based on the significant steps that his nation has already taken to dismantle a significant portion of their nuclear infrastructure. they have also they did that by eliminating 98% of their enriched uranium stockpile, by essentially gutting the core of plutonium reactor, dismantling or at least unplugging thousands of centrifuges. and a green to the most intrusive step up inspections of the event imposed on a country's nuclear program. and in exchange we have the international community has allowed iran to try to reestablish business ties with other countries and other companies around the world. what's also true is that iran

continue to be subject to significant sanctions. not just here in the united states but also in europe because of the ongoing support for terrorism, because of the human rights abuses that are all too common inside of iran and because of their continued development of a ballistic missile program in violation of their international obligations. >> -- sort of opening the possibility for investment, does the president feel that he can take some credit for that, that by creating this iran nuclear deal or at least having a hand in it, but now he's been able to assist the iranians in opening their economy to the world against? >> the goal of the nuclear agreement with focus on making sure iran's nuclear program existed only for peaceful purposes. and that -- at the international community have full transparency into the program so they could confirm for ourselves that the program existed only for peaceful purposes and that is an objective that was achieved as a

part of the nuclear for the. i would acknowledge that president rouhani pursued that the grid for different reasons. but ultimately our goal of preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon was achieved. >> last one. you probably read the reports about afghanistan as a potential that american troops could be there for decades. does the president see it that way? isn't this an acknowledgment that his best laid plans when he campaigned on the idea of any the worse in iraq and afghanistan are going to play out? >> the president when he ran for this office in 2007-2008 talked about the need to intensify our focus on afghanistan, to make sure we are confronting the extremist threat that has led to the worst terrorist attack on american soil in 2001. and under this president's leadership and because of the strategy we put forward and principally because of the courage, bravery and

professionalism of our men and women in uniform with decimated core al-qaeda that previously did capitalize on the instability in the afghanistan-pakistan region. and -- >> decades? >> what we have always said is that the united states envisioned a long-term partnership with the government of afghanistan, and that our commitment to economic development and shoring up their governance structures was a long-term commitment. and again this is a commitment made not just by the united states but by the broader internatiinternati onal community. and we always did envision a scenario where they would be a u.s. embassy in afghanistan that would be guarded by u.s. military personnel. we envisioned the establishment of it, a security cooperation office at the embassy that would strengthen the military to military ties between afghanistan and the united states. so we always envisioned a long-term relationship between

our two countries, but right now there's a military presence inside of afghanistan by the united states and our nato partners to focus on counterterrorism and on continued to train and advise afghan troops that are currently provided to the sake of the situation in their own country. that effort continues. >> if i'm understanding you come you're comfortable with the idea that for decades potentially there could be thousands of american troops in afghanistan, that after 15 years of tireless effort by the men and women who fought in that country, blood, treasure, it will not be nearly enough and you're comfortable with that spirit the scenario we envision right now is that we would essentially draw down troop levels to about 5500 troops by the end of this year. moving forward, the next commander in chief and his our national security team, taking

advice from our commanders on the ground in afghanistan will have to determine what sort of troop presence is appropriate for the country moving forward. with -- what the president envisions as a continued decrease in the number but ultimately it's a decision for the next president. what is clear though again is that our goal was to destroy the core al-qaeda cell that had planned and supported the worst terrorist attack on american soil back in 2001. and that objective was achieved. >> you said if i heard you correctly can use of the present as the republicans private preference and the democratic primary context. does that mean he has with what he is the approaching to feud with an open mind speak with i'm confident the present approach this with an open mind.

i don't know whether or not the president has made a decision about, about which candidate he will support in the illinois primary, but yes, it's fair to say the president is considering that decision or at least consider that the city with an open mind. i don't know if it decided to. [inaudible] -- be there when he was in the senate or administration would you describe senator sanders role in advancing the president's agenda as instructive, constructive, obstructed or love it of both? >> there's one way to measure this, that is that during the two years that they serve and the united states senate together they were about two and a piece of legislation that they either sponsored or cosponsored. i think that is at least one, i would concede as relatively arbitrary measure at least that's one way to quantify the depth of their cooperation in

the united states senate. obviously senator sanders has made a name for himself in part because of his passionate advocacy for wall street reform and stand up for and fighting for middle-class families. that's also been at the core of the president's domestic policy as well. and while there are some differences in the details when it comes to their approach to those two issues, they are agreement about championing the democrat -- class, i think it's probably the most prominent. but, you know, the arkham as relates to other issues where they agree, based on what senator sanders said at this statehouses those accused supporting of the present

approach of fighting isil, against iran and foremost a sugar when it comes with a senator sanders agrees with all the things you would probably have to ask him. >> have they met privately in the oval office before? if they have was a meeting that took place in the summer 2014? >> yes. >> you know what happened there? >> i don't. i think that was frankly a similar circumstance to this one where senator sanders basically inform the white house of his intent to seek the democratic nomination for the office of president and he i think understandably concluded that one thing to do might be to ask alaska who successfully obtained the democratic nomination for the office of president and spent some time talking to them and that's what they did. i do have a detailed recount of that meeting either but, so yes,

there are at least two occasions in which senator sanders and president obama have met privately in the oval office in the last year or so. >> does the president think there should be more democratic debates? something of some controversy? there's talk of adding some unsanctioned debate or re-examining the debate. what does he think? >> the present with the democratic national committee i took is neutral in this race should decide exactly what that debate schedule should be. it's my understanding that will be settled -- that was settled many months ago. >> questions about senator sanders and then an unrelated question. [inaudible] senator sanders was saying he believes the president has tried and evenhanded as possible. process wise to the president extend to any kind of conduit or contact that he can use to make sure his relationship with the

white house shootin should you t is facilitated in anything akin to the way that secretary clinton can access the white house? >> i think the fact we were able to set up this meeting is an indication that went senator sanders needs to committee with a present or senior members of the white house team that he is the capacity to do that. >> but other than -- [inaudible] -- to the president said that any meeting? >> no, i'm not aware of anything like that was necessary. unconfident it again and senator sanders need to get the attention of anybody on the senior staff that he's able to do that. >> one other question to follow up. because the president has said he wants to be a single issue voter, or assistance up and the democratic party on gun control, can you clarify whether they talked about gun control debate and whether they are on the same page? with the president have any hesitation to be supportive of

senator sanders on the basis of that issue? >> i don't know whether or not this came up in their private conversatconversat ion. and again as we talked about a couple of weeks ago it's apparent from senator sanders whose public comments on this issue, that he has arrived any position come at an agenda that is consistent with the kind of agenda we would expect of a candidate who supports commonsense gun safety measures like those the president has said will have a significant impact on who he chooses, not just to vote for but also to support and campaign for in the next election. >> unrelated question about guantánamo. you asked about the budget but i want to ask you, can you say whether the president, the budgetary implications of this proposal to shutter guantánamo as a prison will be included in the budget that would be released in early february so

congress can see what the implications might be? >> i don't know whether or not this will be included in the budget but we can talk about that when we roll out the budget. i do know that part of the plan the department of defense has been working on for a number of months now includes a discussion of the fiscal impact of closing the prison at guantánamo bay and find a more cost-effective way to detain those individuals who post a threat to the united states. >> the plan will be public before the release of the budgets because i don't have an update for you on the timing of the gitmo plan, but when that plan is presented to congress we will make sure that all of you get a copy of it. >> in the past the present has taken counsel of michael bloomberg, particularly on guns. does the president believe there is room for another billionaire

in this raised? >> mayor bloomberg was just at the white house a couple weeks ago to discuss the effort that he has undertaken to to make our communities safer from gun violence. obviously, the president has been deeply appreciative of the kind of investment and commitment that mayor bloomberg has made of this issue. the president thinks it's important as well and had opportunity to talk about their efforts in the oval office. mayor bloomberg will have to decide for himself if he wants to run for president. it does seem like come on about every 12 of the month we do see anonymous sources claimed to be similar with the think of mayor bloomberg come speculating he might even be considering a potential run for the presidency. so look, as i noted in the context of vice president biden's deliberations, everybody around her is mindful of the

kind of personal considerations that are included in a decision like that. obviously, that's a decision the only mayor bloomberg can make for himself. it's not that anything that can be made by an anonymous source who claims to be familiar with his thinking. >> going back to the political interview. there's a comment president obama made when talking about hillary clinton. he made that reference for the ginger rogers analogy. she has to do everything i did except backwards suggesting she had a partner does the president think it's harder for female candidates to run for office? [inaudible] -- -- physically demanding, and

as tiring as the president found that process to be, it must have been even more challenging for secretary clinton. again he noted, he cited this example in his interview. one example of that is i would assume, based on very little personal knowledge, that it takes secretary clinton a little bomb in the morning to do her hair than it does for the president of the united states to do his hair. and that may seem like a rather prosaic observation, but ultimately when you are talking about an 18 or 19 hour day, that matters. that's the observation that the president was making. >> he wasn't necessarily only thinking of hillary clinton in thon