our lucky stars that no one was injured in the incident, but it could have been different. as my colleague from oregon pointed out, the proximity to mosier resulted in an evacuation of over 100 nearby residents and the kindergarten through eighth grade school with over 200 children and an air quality warning for vulnerable residents from the thick plumes of black smoke. we were fortunate. we are happy that no human life was taken, no injury occurred. let's take a look at what that inferno appeared like. this massive plume of burning bakken crude rising into the a air. and we see here the fire and the adjacent cars. we see the proximity to the columbia river. there could have been a massive release of oil into the columbia river as well.

again, we were fortunate in this regard. it is a very special place, the columbia gorge, but as this narrow channel through the cascade mountains occurs, these trains run through the middle of virtually every community along the way. they represent a rolling time bomb and citizens are right to have grave concerns. i don't think the citizens along the columbia gorge are mull identified by think -- mullified by thinking it could have been worse, we were fortunate this time. instead what the citizens of mosier are thinking and citizens along the gorge are thinking, our concerns about these rolling explosions hazards are confirmed and we need to take serious

measures so that one of these trains does not blow up in our community in the future. now, there are inspections that take place. the track was reportedly inspected on may 31. a track detector vehicle used lasers and other technology to inspect the track within the last 30 days. but what happened? why did this occur along this stretch of track? it is reported that a bolt or multiple bolts sheared. why did they shear? was it temperature differentials between day and night in our unusually warm spring? was it because of the weight of these trains rolling through? was it the volume of the traffic? was it the speed they were traveling? we have to understand every

detail so that we respond and make sure this does not happen again. that's why it's so disturbing that the national transportation safety board declined to investigate. in its mission, the ntsb is supposed to investigate accidents that result in the release of hazardous materials. well, that certainly was the case. that involve problems of recurring nature. there have been recurring derailments. that involve significant property damage. and there was significant damage here. this derailment sent oil into mosier's wastewater treatment plant. the plant has been closed down, amajor challenge for the city to cope -- a major challenge for the city to cope with. there has even been a pause on ink drg water because the modest oil sheen was uncertain where it was coming from and whether it

would get into the intake for the drinking water. so let's heretofore not have a situation where there's a significant crash and we don't have the investigation to learn everything about it so we can apply those lessons into the future. now, senator wyden has been leading this charge to make sure that we understand accidents, that we have the right set of precautions in place breaking standards -- braking standards on the brakes and speed standards on the tracks and upgraded railroad tanker cars that are far less likely to rupture. and i thank him for his leadership on this and i'm full square partner in this effort. the tank car that ruptured was not one that met the new

standards. it was what was referred to by the president of union pacific as kind of a medium safety, not the worst car, not the oldest car. it did have some upgrades on it but certainly not the new car that we've been setting and aspiring to have, that is a stronger car with more protections, minimizing the chance of a rupture. this is an issue we must take on seriously and urgently. let's recognize that it's one accident after another. in july 2013, a runaway montreal train spilled oil and catched fire inside the town of lakhani in quebec. 30 buildings burned in the town center. in december of that year, a tank

car on a santa fe train caught fire after a collision. 2000 residents were evacuated as emergency responders struggled with the intense fire. in january, 122-car canadian national railway train collided in brunswick, canada. three cars containing propane, one car containing crude exploded after derailment creating intense fires that earn abouted for days. -- that burned for days. 15 cars of a crude-oil train derailed in lynchburg, pennsylvania near an eatery and pedestrian water front sending flames and black smoke into the air and oil spilled into the james river. the list goes on. in february of 2015, in -- mr. mccain: if i could be recognized for unanimous consent and he will regain the floor. mr. merkley: i would be honored to yield to your unanimous

consent proposal. mr. mccain: mr. president, i understand -- i ask unanimous consent the senator from oregon can yield to to me for a unanimous consent agreement without lose his right to the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the following amendments be in order to be offered. durbin 4369 inhofe 4204. i further ask the time until 4:00 p.m. be equally divided between the managers or their designees and that the senate then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no second-degree amendments to these amendments in order prior to the votes and that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc. 4138 peters, 4293 baldwin, 4112

jill brand, 4354 leahy, 4079 heitkamp, 4317 hirono, 4031 cardin, 4169 coats, 4236 portman, 4119 roberts, 4095 ernst, 4086 mu murkowski, 4247 danes, 4344 sullivan. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from arizona mr. mccain reports amendments en bloc -- mr. mccain: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the clerk: 4138, 4293, 4112, 4177, 4354, 4079, 4317, 4031,

4169, 4236, 4119, 4095, 4086, 4071, 4247, and 4344. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now vote on these amendments en bloc. the presiding officer: is there any further debate on these amendments? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no? the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. mr. mccain: mr. president, i would -- we would have these two votes later this afternoon depending on agreement between the majority leader and the democratic leader. i thank my colleagues for their cooperation and we look forward to those two votes. and i thank my colleague from

oregon for allowing me to make this unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: the presiding officer: president amendments are agreed to. for the information of all senators, the senate is under order to recess at 12:30 p.m. a senator: mr. president? i would ask unanimous consent that senator merkley, my colleague from oregon be allowed to finish his remarks prior to the recess. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of this i be recognized for my remarks before we recess. eight minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. in february of 2015, valentine's day, a hundred car canadian railroad train hauling crude

derailed in ontario, canada. the blaze burned for days. two days later, is 09 car csx train derailed in west virginia leaking oil in the river tributary and burning a house to its foundation. the blaze burned for a week. in november of last year, a dozen cars loaded with crude oil derailed from a canadian pacific railway train causing the evacuation of dozens of homes near wisconsin. let's take a look at this chart. in all, there have been 32 crashes involving oil trains since 2013. so unless -- so in less than your years, -- four years, 32 crashes. i highlighted a few of them. we've seen a massive increase of crude oil by rail and, therefore, there's a corresponding concern because of

the explosive nature of this product and the derailments resulting in explosions and infernos. so senator wyden and i have been calling for reform and we're going to keep pressing. we need better information for first responders on the scheduling of these trains. we need better knowledge of where the foam is stored that can be used to respond. we need more foam stored in more places. we need faster implementation of the brake standards and faster implementation of the speed standards and faster implementation of the rail car tanker standards. but we have to understand in every one of these wrecks what happened. let's take the same diligence to this that we take to aviation. we study every plane crash to

understand what went wrong. so we can take those lessons and diminish the odds of it happening again and the result is we have incredibly safe aviation. shouldn't we have the same standards when it applies to transportation across america with trains full of explosive oil running through the middle of our towns, not just in oregon but all across this country? haven't we learned in crash after crash after crash that this is not a one time isolated incident but something that happens with considerable regular-- regularity? can't we do more? yes, we can. yesterday when i talked to the president of union pacific, i told him we were going to call for a moratorium. senator wyden and governor brown representing plumrepresenting bd bonamici joined in this effort and he heard our voice.

he understood the challenge to these communities, the concerns that until the mess is cleaned up and until we understand and address the fundamental problems that contributed to this crash, no more oil should roll through the columbia gorge. that is what we have called for and that is what we're going to keeper cysting in. let us stop this process of having oil train crash after oil train crash, explosion after explosion, inferno after inferno. the damage gone up dramatically as the transportation 6 this -- of this oil has gone up dramaticallily. incidents up from the previous year. so let's act.

let's act aggressively. let's act quickly. senator wyden's act would take us a powerful stride in the right direction. let us not look to our citizens in towns with rail tracks across this country and simply shrug our shoulders. let's instead say we know we have a major problem and we are going to be diligent and aggressive in solving it. thank you, mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment number 4204. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 4204. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the following senators be added to the inhofe-murkowski amendment numbered 4204 -- sessions, rubio , shelby, moran, warren, peters and menendez. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. be mr. president. mr. inhofe: mr. president, we have been here before. the same language that is in the base bill right now was in a year ago. last year on the floor, we passed the inhofe-mikulski amendment requiring a report by the secretary of defense on commissary benefits. it passed by unanimous consent with 25 bipartisan sponsors and

cosponsors, supported by 41 outside organizations and by the administration. it required a study on the impact of privatization on commissaries on military families before a pilot program on privatizing could be implemented and was to look at modifications to the commissary system. now, it also required -- and i'm sending actually for the language right now. i will get it in a minute. it required a comptroller general assessment of the plan no longer than 120 days after submittal of the report. now, here is the situation. the house passed the f.y. 2017 ndaa. it doesn't include privatization language. the senate version has the same language as last year that would authorize a pilot program to privatize five commissaries on five major military bases, but only yesterday we received the report from the secretary of

defense that we have not yet received the comptroller's review. now, congress asked for this study because of concerns about the impact that privatization could have on our service members and the commissary benefit. it seems like we are taking away benefits, we are working these guys and gals harder than we ever have before, and this is one very significant benefit that is there. senator mikulski and i along with -- it's now 38 cosponsors. let's see. last year, it was 25. and with the support of 42 outside organizations are offering a simple amendment that strikes the privatization pilot program allowing congress to receive and vet the secretary of defense report and the report of the valuation of the comptroller. it's not the first time this was done. in 1915, in january, there was a report by -- that directed the

military compensation retirement modernization commission, that they determined that commissaries were worth preserving and they did not recommend privatization. there report -- that report took place almost two years ago. then when we surveyed in 2014, 95% of the military members were using commissaries and 91% gave them a satisfaction rate. according to the military officers association of america, the average family of four who shops exclusively at commissaries sees a savings of somewhere between 30% and 40%. now, i have a number -- i'm not going to go ahead because of the limited time and read these that i was going to read before, but i have six testimonials of military members about using commissaries, and i ask unanimous consent that in my remarks right now these be

listed verbatim. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: and our commissaries are required to operate in areas, and a lot of these objections are from remote commissaries that are in remote areas where people are not -- they don't have any other place to -- to actually make their purchases. at a time when thousands of junior service members and their families use food stamps, we should not be making changes that could increase costs at the checkout line. the commissary benefit encourages people to re-enlist, preserving a well-trained, dedicated military. it ensures training investments are well spent, saving them the expense of retraining the majority of the force every few years. the commissary savings proximity and consistency of the commissaries also encourage spouses whose opinions may be

decided, a factor in the re-enlistment decisions. i know this is true. in fact, just last friday i was at the altis air force base. i went into the commissary and talked to someone who was reconsidering -- he was the wife of a flyer. up there right now, one of the biggest problems we have in the air force is the pilot shortage. they said that would be a major determining factor. so it's the right thing to do. it also provides jobs to families of servicemen, 60% of the commissary employees are military related. the greatest benefit is that their jobs are transferable. if they are transferred from one place to another, they are already trained and ready to go. the department of defense delivered their report, as i said, only yesterday. no one has had a chance to really go over it. the mandated g.a.o. review of this plan is already under way.

of course it will be up to 120 days after this for the next step to become completed. the report supports section 661 of the senate bill regarding optimization of operation consistent with business practices, but it doesn't affect 662, and that's the section of where we have the pilot program. we have addressed this before, but the report also acknowledges that privatization would not be able to replicate the range of benefits, level of savings and geographic reach provided by thg budget neutrality. it states the department of defense -- and i'm talking about the report from the department of defense -- is continuing its due diligence on privatization by assessing the privatization of all sorgz, and they are already doing that right now. in fact, some things have

already been privatized, such as the delis, bakeries. they have been privatized already in those areas where that is actually working. so the privatizing military commissaries before having the full assessment of the costs and the benefits i think is not the responsible thing to do. so we owe that to the -- to our members, and i would like to include after my remarks the 40 members that are cosponsors and the 42 organizations that are supporting the inhofe-mikulski amendment number 4204. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: with that, i suggest the absence -- no. i will just yield back. i think we have already made that u.c. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate

>> the senate has recess for their weekly party lunches. back at 2:15 p.m. eastern, then more work on defense programs with votes possible thismr. afternoon. here's some of the debate from earlier in the day. spoke the national defense authorization act is important for our troops. important for wounded warriors and veterans and to simple earned for national security. one way to help keep america safe is by renewing clear prohibitions on presiden obama's ability to mov dangerous guantánamo terrorists into our country. or release them to unstable regions like libya and yemen anx somalia. our country faces the most diverse and complex array of crises since world war ii since henry kissinger -- that's a bummer nonetheless states focusg on pursuing a stale campaign pledge from 2008. the president would spend his remaining months in office

working to defeat isil. he should work with us to prepare the next administration for the threats that is going to leave behind. he should don't waste another minute on his myopic, guantánamo crusade. just about every detainee that could reasonably be released from the secured detention facility has already been the released. some of our returned to the fight, just as we feared. some have even taken more interest in american life, according to the obama t administration. but the bottom line, the bottom line is this. a the hard-core terrorists who do remain are among the worst of the worst. the worst of the worst. is a president obama's onof secretary of defense put it. there are people in gitmo who are so dangerous that we can transfer them to the custody of another government, no matter how much we trust that governmengovernmen t. i can assure the president it

would be safe to do that. masted there's khalid sheikh mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11. is declared himself the enemy of the united states. wh there's the 9/11 coordinated was plan even more strikes when he was captured. and there's bin laden's formerf bodyguard, tears them up with the bombing of the uss cole, trained to be a suicide hijacker for what was to be the southeast 9/11 asia portion of the 9/11 attacks. these terrorists are among the worst of the worst. they belong at a secured detention facility. not in facilities here in our own community. not in unstable countries wheren they are liable to rejoin the fight entity even more innocente life. and have no doubt, t there are detainees would almost certainly regionally terrorist organizations, if given thetellf

opportunity. here's what the office of the director of national intelligence found in the report just this year. based on trends identified during the past 11 years we assume some detainees currently at gitmo will seek to reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities after they are transferred. l re commander-in-chief, whetherpu democrat or republican, will assume office confronting a complex and varied array of threats. that's why we must use the remaining months of the obama administration as a year of transition to better posture the incoming administration and ourt country. pre what we should be doing is making it even more challenging for the next president to meet with these threats. releasing hard-core terrorists was a bad idea when obama was campaigning in 2008. it's an even worse idea today. we live in a complex world with complex threats.

the ndaa enforceable when you clear prohibitions against administration attempts to transfer these terrorists to the u.s. on its way out the door.eed we don't need to close a secured detention center.me we need to ensure the american people are protected. passing legislation force i represents an important step in that direction. it will help position our military to confront the challenges of tomorrow. it will help support the men and women serving in harm's way today. i want to thank chairman mccain of the armed service committee for his extraordinary, work on this very important bill, and i think senator reid, the ranking member as well. >> the assistant democratic leader. >> mr. president, do the math. a federal prisoner held in aa federal prison in america today cost us about $30,000 a year.

the most serious and dangerous criminal prisoners held in the federal prison system are put in super maxis of these for $86,00. a year.. that's what it costs. not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a super max facility in the united states ever. 30,000 for routine prisoners, 86,000 for the most dangerous. what does it cost us to at incarcerate one detainee each year at guantánamo? $5 million apiece. $5 million for each detainee. the budget to keep guantánamo open is about $500 million a year, and we have fewer than 100 detainees there. and there's a request for another $200 billion in construction at guantánamo. c so when senators come to the

floor and say we've got to keep guantánamo open for fewer thany 100 detainees, you have to ask the question, is there another place where they can be heldy justice have become just a securely at considerably less cost?us the answer is obvious. the edge is clear. the super max federal prisons can hold anyone convicted of terrorism, serial murder, heinous crimes, and hold them securely without any fear of escape. and in the argument was made by the senator from kentucky.ut well, if we are going to put terrorist -- >> we are leaving us are now. you can see all center for action on our website at c-span.org. instead will continue to the white house for today's briefing just getting underway with white house spokesman josh earnest. >> were the plans the president could hit the trail running for

hillary clinton on the heels of today's primary speak with these fundraisers have been on the books for quite some time, and i don't believe that most people expected that the democratic nomination will continue to be contested into the first week of june. so i can tell you the president does not expect to see or meet or appear with secretary clinton when he is in new york tomorrow. people to focus on a schedule that involves to fundraisers. >> thank you. >> -- the leaders of the two world democracies are meeting today and yet the decision was made not to take questions from reporters. did he go into why? is this administration is this one of after eight years of reaching a civil nuclear accord with india -- [inaudible] >> i will say that the schedule that was laid out for the president and the prime minister

was given the opportunity to privately in the oval office and then to spend some time talking with all of you about their meeting. they left afternoon so they have begun a privilege that is taking place in the cabinet room even as we speak. said was an opportunity to take questions today. typically when the president does meet with world leaders, they will often have a formal news conference. effect i believe in me than the philistine prime minister modi with your but we didn't do that today. as it relates to the announcements or the discussion with the prime minister there was extensive discussion about the leading role that india played in achieving an international agreement to fight climate change and fight carbon pollution. we have said on many occasions that india's role in the process was significant, and it's unlikely we would've reached an

agreement in paris last december and the indians that stepped up and shown some leadership. that's a testament to prime minister modi and his willingness to take a political risk to do what he thinks is right, not just for his country but for the planet. and he deserves a lot of credit for that. what i will also say is that prime minister recognize that there's an important economic opportunity. president obama servant recognize that and we've made the case it is more, countries around the world consider the move to a low carbon economy that creates important opportunities in the alternative energy sector. and they're sort of our important opportunities for american businesses, even india, in the solar sector and the wind energy sector. there's also an opportunity for the united states to work with countries around the world to

develop further nuclear energy technology, and that was the discussion between the two leaders about the investment and infrastructure in india, and we're pleased to see in the announced that it intends to build six westinghouse nuclear reactors in india. this is a project that would create and sustain tens of thousands of good paying jobs in the united states and in india. so this is a good example of how smart decisions about renewable energy and fighting climate change can have an important and positive economic impact in the united states at in countries around the world. >> are they near or still far away on finalizing the contract? >> my understanding is that they have made important progress. i don't know the exact status but we will see if we can did you ever update on that before

the end of the day today. roberta spirit did the president get a firm commitment from prime minister modi to ratify the paris the grid this year? >> i believe what prime minister modi is said about this is that that india shares the objective data united states has laid out which is to see the agreement, into force of this year. in india has committed to doing their part to working toward that goal, a shared goal, of entering the agreement this year. obviously, each country has their own unique process for signing on to the deal and i refer you to the indian counterpart for an explanation of how the process works in india. i did get a brief explanation of how it works but i'm not sure i could explain it accurately here so i will let them do that.

but it's more than just the prime minister himself signed on the dotted line. they will work through the process but they're working through the process with an aim to complete it before the end of the year. and that would represent substantial progress in meeting the bar for what is required for the agreement to go into effect. what is required is for 55 countries representing 55% of the world carbon emissions signing on to the deal for it to go into effect. and india i believe represents i believe it represents about 4% of the world carbon emissions. so getting them to sign up to the agreement this year would represent substantial progress towards that goal. and if we are able to achieve that goal and if the agreement were to go into effect this

year, that would be several years ahead of schedule. and i think would be a clear sign that leaders around the world have a sense of urgency about fighting climate change and fighting carbon pollution to ed would be a welcome step in a positive direction for the health of the planet and the help of the people who live here. spirit back into the details of the indian process, it sounds like they're some developers of advancement in terms of what the prime minister was able to tell the president in terms of -- >> is my understanding that represents a more ambitious goal that india had previously laid out in terms of their time and sign on to the agreement. so we obviously welcome that announcement from the indian government. >> is the president ready to endorse secretary clinton now that she seems have enough delegates to kerry the nomination? >> i know there were a number of calculations that were conducted by media organizations throughout the day yesterday.

those included an updated survey of superdelegates across the country, and some media organizations have concluded that secretary clinton now has been achieved a majority of delegates will be voting in the democratic convention. however, at this point there is at least one superdelegate, the when works in those oval office composed not prepared to make a public declaration about his endorsement at this point, but stay tuned and we'll keep you updated. okay? move around. >> thanks, josh. a couple of questions for you. -- a surrogate for donald trump was on television earlier, and if you worry essential excuse -- accuses president of being racist. there seems to be some kind of coordinated attacks from the trump campaign and will give any kind of -- >> coordinator is a generous description. >> loosely coordinated spent most of the charges of racism

war launched by republicans at republicans as far as i can tell this morning. look, in the discussion about the democratic nomination process yesterday i was asked about whether or not the president was concerned about how the democratic primary had lasted longer than expected. the fact is that it did last longer than most people expected as i acknowledge to kevin. what's true is that you've got to democratic candidates for president who campaigned across the country on a a platform that is quite similar. your candidates bill after a grisly talk about the need to expand access to quality health care for more americans, that health care is the right, not a privilege. if the democratic candidates campaigning in favor of comprehensive commonsense immigration reform. that would have a positive

impact on national security and on our income. democrats intend to fight climate change, together with a radio, to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. both candidates articulating a strategy for growing our economy from the outcome of making the case that's the most sustainable way to grow the american economy. both candidates are out there on the campaign to advocate for a higher minimum wage, for more support for education and job training to ensure that american workers are prepared to meet in the 21st century global economy. you've got both candidates making a strong case for equal pay for equal work. this has been a vigorous democratic primary, but there's a strong case to be made that the democratic party is united about it core set of principles that i think will energize voters in the fall. republicans, on the other hand, wrapped up the nomination process early but a fairly it

was early enough to allow the republican speaker of the house to basically call the republican nominee and basis and have the republican governor of new jersey try to defend him. so i'm not really sure if that's the way they drew it up b buddyo think it is a clear illustration of the cleavages within the republican party. i leave it to those are expressing concerns about their nominations -- nominees, 6.1 to continue to support them and how to vote for him in the fall. i think that's a position i would struggle to defend, but i suspect they will go ahead and try to do it. [inaudible] >> i heard a little bit about the but i'm not sure if they're worthy of a response here. >> another issue, the 9/11 comic book a letter to president obama

urging them to release the 28 classified pages and director clapper said it's possible those pages could come out in june, sometime in june. any update on the process because i don't have an update on the process. i have not heard that timeframe has changed i would encourage you to check with director clapper's office for update of the tony. there's another three weeks or so left in june, so i don't know if that time has changed i just haven't gotten an update on that recently. >> congressman hensarling put out a plan this morning that would dismantle some key parts of the president's dodd-frank law including stripping power from financial regulators. in response to the proposal? >> well look, there should be no more confusion about which party is on the side of big banks and large financial -- at a democratic party that is fighting for middle-class families. the president made this clear in

his elkhart speech last week in which is there a variety of reasons that people could be casting a vote. but if you focus on the economy and a focus of which party is fighting for the middle class, it's a pretty open and shut case. it's democrats who are out there fighting for higher minimum wage. democrats were out there fighting for wall street reform that did succeed in creating an independent watchdog for consumers that recovered $11 billion for 25 million families across the country who were cheated. so these are reforms that essentially guarantee that taxpayers will not be on the hook for bailing out big banks if they risky bets go south. but if you didn't like house republicans say that they want to do, that will allow big banks to go back making risky bets and put taxpayers on the once again for bailing out those bags,

prevent a second great recession. that doesn't make any sense, particularly when you consider that republicans warnings about the impact the wall street reform would have on the economy were wrong. republicans suggested that regulations associate with wall street reform would choke off innovation and the economy. they were wrong about that. our income is the most durable in the world, and we've seen important and sustained job growth and economic growth. we've also seen sustained and rapid growth in the stock market itself. so it's really hard for republicans to make a case that it is at all in our economic interest to tear down the reforms that have already done a lot to make our economy stronger and more stable. >> thank you, josh.

[inaudible] in that context how does that do with the idea of -- [inaudible] >> well, i can tell you that this question about coordinate our attendees when it comes to national security and counterterrorism was an important part of the agenda today. the president was innocent looking for ways that tried to deepen our coordination with india. obviously, the united states, under the leadership of president obama, has placed a renewed focus on our strategic interests in the asia-pacific and in the indian ocean. and i can tell you that was important progress on finalizing agreements relating to defense logistics, sharing of maritime information, and even the movement of u.s. aircraft carriers in the region. we welcome that improved cooperation and coordination, and we believe it will have a material and positive impact on

the national security of the united states in india. and the two leaders agreed to have their staffs continue to work on efforts to deepen that cooperation even further. >> china is the only country which is publicly come against india's partition. how does the u.s. plan to -- [inaudible] >> i have to admit i don't know the details of the related to india's possible participation in that group. what i can tell you is that the united states has sought to extend and deepen our relationship when it comes to india's work in diversifying its sources of energy. and that includes building nuclear power plants by westinghouse, a good american

company. we believe that what a positive impact on the climate and a positive impact on the coming both in the united states and in india. for overcome any obstacles to completing and implement that agreement, i would refer you to michael at the national security council come and i will see if i get a follow-up for more detailed answer. [inaudible] >> i did not, as you guys may know when the president has a formal lunch in the cabinet room, the white house chefs industry their versatility and italy to work under difficult circumstances actually set up a table right outside my office the stairwell. [laughter] so i was able to smell lunch as it was being prepared last night but i didn't actually see on the menu. as i was walking they seem to be preparing dessert and it appeared to be some variation on the strawberry shortcake. but we'll see if we will get you

more details about what is details about what a salad entrée course course may have been, all right? >> did you ask for a case and were he refused speak with i asked him to do. it would've been awkward if i want better and had a little whipped cream on the side of my mouth. >> is the u.s. process part of the climate change deal done quickly to the indian process is, is the u.s. whatever that, what is the process, is it done? >> what i can tell you is we have committed to completing it in implementing by signing onto the deal before the end of this year. that's a pledge with already. the state department is managing this process. secretary kerry who essentially will be running a process. i would reduce state department for an update on where the process didn't but we have committed to completing that process before of the end of this year. >> congressional action reports because there is no congressional action required.

[inaudible] >> either requires an executive order. then maybe some executive action required to i would refer you to the state department. >> of the new trip to for the president will tape the challenge of when does that ever speak with it airs on thursday evening. they are taking it one day in advance. spent a long period of time, like 20 some odd hours. but is there some reason for that? >> your colleagues at abc were interested in. but i don't know all the details. >> and given that, is there some likelihood that president will comment on the election, the primary results tomorrow morning before he leaves? >> that's possible. if there's an update to the president is scheduled we will let you know. >> he signaled some time ago that things would be clear or a figure but the words were. it would seem unlikely that he would do this day become a national show and si sent somewe

for that long a period of time having commented on in terms of the new cycle speed and we will keep you posted on the president's schedule. >> is he, in fact, a superdelegate are were you using -- >> my understand is that the present action is a superdelegate. that's my understanding. i was just what is right for a i walked to my disdain is a sitting president and vice president and former president and vice president who are democrats or superdelegate to the democratic convention. >> josh, thank you. three subjects as quickly as possible. on the visit of prime minister modi, you stated earlier in this briefing that the commitment of the presidency could from the prime minister was prime minister and members of his team would do their part to try to achieve the goal of ratification to the indian system by the end of the year.

why did the president not secure from the prime minister a commitment that the prime minister would get it done? >> jason for this goes to, what if i could describe to roberta, which is there is a complicated procedure that the indians have already begun to go about signed onto this agreement. i think the question isn't whether or not that procedure can take to complete before the end of year. prime minister modi made a commitment that is going to try to complete a procedure before the end of the year. [inaudible] >> that's my understanding of yes. >> we saw the announcement earlier about westinghwestingh ouse proceeding with the construction of six nuclear reactors in india, and presumably the white house disclosing the fact regarding this as good news. why does the white house not encourage westinghouse to build six nuclear reactors in the united states? >> i know there are one or two

that are under construction here in the united states. that are important to job creation here. and i don't think there's anything that would persuade us or anything that we would say that would discourage westinghouse from considering some similar additional investments here in the united states. >> you described in yesterday's briefing how good the president is coming your word, that campaign in general. is it the view of the president that his participation in the campaign, on the campaign trail, is essential to a positive outcome for the democratic party? >> i haven't heard him describe it that way. i think the president's thinking is that the when considering who should sit in the oval office for the next four years, the

american people might be interested in the opinion of people who have previously sat at the desk. and as i made reference to yesterday, at least those who are still living, none of them have indicated their support for the republican presidential nominee at this point. and i think the president does feel confident that whoever does emerge as the democratic nominee, that h people have confidence in being able to advocate for that person's judgment, their values, their priorities, their approach to the job as something that's in the best interest of the country. and i think that as somebody was done the job for the last seven have used the american people will be interested in his opinion speed and lastly i want to return with some regret to the subject of the controversy over the official white house transcript of the press briefing of may 9. just by way of -- relates to the fact my colleague kevin as to

what you could say categorically that no senior administration officials had ever lied publicly about the iran nuclear deal. abc news, "bloomberg news," jason chaffetz, many others, this reporter included, state categorically that the video shows unmistakably that you answered no, kevin. and, in fact, he gave you a second chance during a break and enter the question because the answer was so striking that you misunderstood. you said yesterday that those a little crosstalk that made this exchange in audible. they very transcript of yesterday's briefing started with the word inaudible where it is appropriate. why did than a nine transcript not contain the word inaudible speak with james, i don't like the transcripts. obviously, we have staff -- [inaudible]

>> of course i do. here's the point. i've been quite clear about exactly what our position on this has been. the administration has worked very hard to present a forceful truthful case about the way that the united states and the rest of the international community benefits from iran that any a nuclear weapon and the truth is there are a lot of republicans who opposed the deal who sent a whole bunch of things about the iran deal that were wrong. and i do if they were mistaken. i don't know if they were naïve. i don't know if they were poorly briefed. i don't know if they were lying. they were wrong. i leave to them to defend exactly the position they have taken, and i think i have presented factually repeatedly exactly the case that we have made. >> my question was limited to the matter of the transcript and why as you asserted there was crosstalk the made something inaudible that the word inaudible did not appear at the appropriate place? >> i don't know. >> essentially, josh to what you're doing to stand at the podium and maintaining that you

did not say that which is plainly discernible you said? >> i think what i'm saying is there have been three follow-ups now to this question and answered quite directly exactly what our position is. so if you like me to do it again i can do it again. >> final question to are you willing to review that video one more time, josh, with an eye for possibly amending at? >> no. mike? >> slightly more technical question. today prime minister modi announced not a deal for the westinghouse reactors but pledged to get together are you disappointed the administration disappointed that when the prime minister comes he can't announce an actual contract on these things because no. i think the visit from the prime minister of india is one that we look forward to and we certainly were pleased with the uppity that the two leaders sat down and discuss some important issues.

[inaudible] >> no. >> as my colleague from india mentioned, it now looks like india will not be admitted to the nuclear supply group because of some countries object you the unfit is the administration -- >> i have to tell you that i mentioned -- i'm not familiar with the details of this particular dispute. so i will follow-up with you on the. >> the fiduciary rule, conflict of interest rule,. [inaudible] will you veto it? when will you veto with? >> to be clear what congress did isn't actually voted to overturn an executive action that would prevent investment advisors from acting in a way inconsistent

with the best interests of their customers. that kind of behavior has actually cost, on average, $17 billion a year in retirement savings for hard-working americans. the president just believes it's common sense that if you sign up with an investment advisor, to help you plan for your retirement, that that individual should have your own best financial interest at heart. the good news is, most of them do. most other retirement people out there who are offering retirement advice to keep their customers best interest at heart. in this world basically does have an impact on the way that they do business. the only people affected by this will a people who sign up clients but don't make a commitment to acting in a client's best interest. now again i believe it to republicans to explain how they going to be on the side of middle-class families except when it comes to the planning

for retirement, in which case they are with a large financial corporations who are already making billions of dollars a year. that's why the president is going to veto the bill because he believes this executive action is important to providing more middle-class families access to a dignified and secured retirement. i don't know exactly the president will sign the bill but i will be sure to let you know exactly win. and we will be sure to let you know exactly what he does. >> the house today described donald trump's comment about the judge in the civil case quote-unquote textbook definition of a racist comment. does the president agree with that characterization? >> as they make in yesterday i don't at this point weigh in on all the controversial comments that are uttered by the republican nominee for president. ..

>> i don't have any private conversations to discuss at this point. the lines of communication between the white house and the campaigns have been open throughout the campaign. throughout the nomination process. and i think that should be evident by the fact that those candidates have been to the white house for private meetings with the president of the united states. but i don't have any details about any private conversations that have occurred lately >> is there a theory to that phone call , that did present hillary clinton also receive one? >> i don't have details of private conversations that either presidential candidate shared at this point. >>. [inaudible question] when you

look at some of the comments that were made this morning by nancy pelosi, the speaker, and that they are getting the democratic party to rally and coalesce, does the president agree that the time is ticking, that there's a need for unity? >> look, i think the president's view is that we are nearing the end of the nomination process. and that democrats all across the country had an opportunity to weigh in on the decision about who should represent the democratic party in the general election and this is a process that has been energizing to millions of democraticvoters across the country . it's been a really good thing and as the process winds down, it will be important for the democratic party to come together in support of the party's nominee. the president certainly intends to make his voice heard in encouraging democrats to come together behind whoever wins. >> does the president see

himself as a unifier? is that a role you would describe in him? >> we take a look at some of the publicopinion data about the presidents pending in the democratic party . he certainly would be well-positioned to play that role and given how important he thinks this election is and how important democratic unity will be in the general election, yes, i think you can expect the president to play that kind of old. >> and you said that the superdelegates running to endorse yet but as you said, many news organizations, mine included have seen that hillary clinton has enough delegates, at least on the question of the symbolism, someone who's gotten a vote here to read lead a major party, that's historic. do you have a reaction or comment to that? >> not at this point and the

reason for that primarily is that even as we speak right now there are democrats in six different states that are out there casting a ballot, making the voice heard on this process. out of respect for their role in this process, were going to withhold comment until they had an opportunity to participate and we will try again tomorrow. >> is that a promise, tomorrow. [laughter] >> it's a commitment to try again tomorrow. at least as it relates to me expressing the president point of view. >> will we hear from you tomorrow if not the president? >> the president is traveling to new york but i do expect to do a gaggle of traveling press for on the plane. andrew. >> this morning .address parliaments and again showed he had no intention of leaving office. where do you thinkthat leaves negotiations ? >> i don't think it represents a change in his position and i don't think it

represents a change in mind. president assad is not legitimate to leave that country. he continues to carry out heinous acts of violence against his own people. he continues the order the military to drop barrel bombs on civilians. there were reports that the asad regime is engaged in efforts to obstruct the delivery of humanitarian relief to hundreds of thousands of syrians are suffering area that's why it's impossible for him to fulfill his rhetoric about uniting that country under his leadership. it's not going to happen. in fact, his continued presence in that office and in that job only exacerbates the chaos and turmoil and violence in the country. it's time for him to leave so that the rest of the international community can support the syrian people as they choose the political direction of that country from here. that's been our position for quite some time and there's nothing about mister assad's

speech that will change that. >>. [inaudible question] >> i think you probably have to ask him exactly what his view of president assad is. i think what is true is that, i think this is relevant. what president putin himself has said is that a political transition in syria is necessary to bring the turmoil and violence inside that country to an end or it so it's clearly in russia's interest to try to bring about this transition. president putin has said as much so the question is, what is he prepared to do? to use that influence to

bring about the outcome that he believes is in the best interest of the country. we're going to continue to urge him to take those necessary steps but ultimately it's up to president. i would know that particularly when it comes to the cessation of hostilities, that president clinton didn't just state it as an affirmative fact. let me say this way. it is not just an affirmative fact that russia has influenced what the assad regime in syria, it's that in the context of the cessation of hostilities, president putin made a commitment to use that influence to get the assad regime to abide by the cessation of hostilities. and in the last few weeks, we have seen concerning pattern of violation to that

cessation of hostilities. and that's why we continue to urge the russian government to live up to the commitment they made to use that influence to get the assad regime to abide by the cessation of hostilities. [inaudible question] >> the un has kind of turned on the nuclear ... you think that us air drops, unilaterally is that something you would consider? >> at this point i don't have the details about what other options the united states might be considering. obviously we are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation. in the last week we have seen nato organizations including the united nations, the syrian red crescent and icrc

has succeeded in delivering some humanitarian assistance to a couple of communities that were in critical need of support. but there are other deliveries that were bought and prevented. our concern is that there are hundreds of thousands of people, at least that are suffering. the most effective way to bring them relief is essentially delivering these supplies on the ground . and into many instances we are seeing the assad regime prevent that from happening. in other cases, it's just violence on the ground that's preventing that from happening. so we continue to be deeply concerned about it.i know levers of the united nations security council had an opportunity last week to discuss what could be done to try to address the situation and obviously the united

states is an active participant in those discussions. it continues to be true as has been the case over the last several years that the united states is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to try to provide for the humanitarian needs of the syrian population. and the united states will continue to offer that support. >> just one more question. going back to the issue of the no press conference emerging in ... [inaudible question] ... was at a problem, you have the un delegation that they would be willing to hold a press conference because of them or what was the issue? >> the issue is just a matter of scheduling. between the private engagements that the

president and prime minister had both in the oval office and the relaunch, there was time for the two leaders to speak to the professional independent journalists that cover the white house and the indian prime minister but there was not time on the schedule for the two leaders to take actions. michelle. >> hillary has reached that magic number of delegates, is that how the white house is viewing the situation? >> right now the white house used the situation as ongoing. democratic voters in six states are at the polls even as we speak. casting a ballot and making their voice heard about who should represent the democratic party in the general election and out of respect to that ongoing process, i'm not going to declare a winner from here. we will let these votes be counted, we will let these voices be heard and then you i suspect we will know more about the outcome of the race at that point. >> but with the number of delegates already in

clinton's pocket, what is really going to change? since she's been called the presumptive nominee at this point , you are not calling her that, is that right? >> no one at the white house has labeled either candidate as the presumptive nominee at this point but obviously we are interested in the results tonight. we are interested in making sure that voters across the country can maketheir voices heard , president said as much last week. and it certainly is possible that we will know quite a bit more about what the likely outcome is going to be after votes are counted tonight but out of respect for those were casting ballots right now, we will continue for several months now to be fair and neutral and give the democratic voters across the country the opportunity to make a decision.

>> that's the only thing the president waiting before before he officially endorses hillary clinton is to let the boat be cast. >> i think that's the essence of the process. >> is it possible then that he will make a statement on this in some form as early as tonight? i can see you all are trying to plan your evenings. [laughter] i can tell you i do not anticipate the president making a public appearance to discuss politics tonight. but if there are any updates, we will keep you posted but you don't have to worry about the president making an appearance. none is planned at this point. >> every time the president speaks publicly now he's criticizing donald trump. sometimes without mentioning his name but he's gotten general, done very specific about certain things that donald trump has said so based on the things that donald trump has said most recently, is the white house considering the remarks to be racist or since the president

tends to speak more generally, given i guess the body of statements that are out there by the candidate, does the president considered donald trump to be a racist >> i don't believe the president has used that specific word . look, i think what's true is that first of all, the president is, it's not unusual for thepresident to make comments that have nothing to do with the presidential race and don't have anything to do with either of the nominees. in fact, the president did a couple hours in the oval office . and that's the first thing. the second thing is, there's a tendency on the part of some observers to assume that every time the president makes a comment affirming a court democratic or even american value, that is perceived somehow as a shot at the presumptive republican nominee. and i think that says much

more about the language that is used by the presumptive republican nominee than it does about the values that are championed by the president of the united states. let me also say that, and i've made this, this is part of the case i was making to james about the role the president will have in the general election. regardless of who the democratic nominee is, the president is a validator. he has somebody who's been doing this job for the past 7 and a half years and it will be relevant to the decision of many americans, not just immigrants by the way but some independents and some republicans who will be interested to hear what the president thinks about which candidate has the judgment , the temperament , themajority , the decision-making skills to advance us interests around the world.

the american see footage of the president meeting with the prime minister of the world's largest democracy, the american people want to make sure that our interests and our country are being well represented. it matters who's sitting in that chair across from the indian prime minister. that has significant consequences for our economy, for our planet, for our national security, or our alliances in that region and around the world. and i would anticipate that over the course of the general election, the president will be making the case about how important that leadership and that symbolism is and why he believes that the democratic nominee is best suited to fill that job. >> the president and yourself have used a lot of adjectives to describe donald trump's words in the past including

words like dangerous and divisive. republicans using the words racist to describe some very specific things that were said. is the reason why you don't want to say that unless you don't believe those words are racist? >> i guess one might observe that maybe ... i will just say that i'm not going to take the bait every time the presumptive republican nominee says something controversial. in this case, there are plenty of voices that are being heard area and i guess what i would say is that i suspect the president concerns art altogether different than some of the concerns that may be raised by republicans. >> okay, and very quickly. >> a rare moment of bipartisan unity. >> it's been interesting over

the past couple of days to hear the first lady get into a little bit of politics even though that wasn't the first time she's been critical of what seems to be things donald trump has said.do you expect to see the first lady on the campaign trail involve just as you describe the president as a very popular unifier? i don't know, the first lady at this point does not have any campaign events on the books but she certainly is somebody who is passionate about the future of this country. she is somebody who is passionate about progressive values. he certainly is somebody who's passionate about making sure that our veterans and military families are taken care of and that the commitments that our country makes to them are kept. the first lady is certainly passionate about healthcare issues and ensuring the health of the next generation

of americans. she's also somebody who's passionate about civil rights and equality and fairness and justice. and her commitment to those values and her commitment to those priorities have contributed to her large following across the country. but there are democrats and some independents and some republicans who deeply respect the first lady and i certainly wouldn't rule out that at some point she may express a preference in the election as well. sarah. >> given what you said about the president letting democratics voices be heard, do you think these primaries on june 14, you feel the democrats of district of columbia need a chance to weigh-in before he does? >> the president would certainly encourage cracks in the district of columbia to present me in that election and make their voice heard as well.

but you know what, i also said yesterday is that once somebody has definitively demonstrated that they got a majority of delegates that will be voting in the convention that that person will have a strong case to make as they are the presumptive democratic nominee. so at this point, out of respectfor people who are casting ballots right now , we don't have a winner to declare. but the president is going to continue to watch this process moving forward and we will keep you updated if he's got some comments what's the difference? as we've been saying, there's for the mathematical case to be made that the democrats have a presumptive nominee at this point. there might be a stronger mathematical case but it we are talking about the idea that people need to get weigh-in before the president does, what's the difference? between the protesting today and the votes happening in 19

. >> part of the differences votes are taking place right now as we speak and certainly the president as deep respect for the process and for the people who are taking their lunch break or otherwise making time in their day to participate in the democratic primary. that's a good thing and it's certainly something the president respects and encourages people to do, to get engaged. but we will take a look at the tallies and keep you posted. okay? dave. >> i wanted to ask you about this case at stanford where the young male student was spending six months in a county lockup for sexual assault on a young woman. i know the president been very involved in violence on campus, sexual assault on campus. obviously as the father of two daughters i wonder if he's express an opinion about

propriety? >> i'm confident the president is aware of this particular issue given the widespread media coverage of it. i have not heard him weigh in with an opinion oneway or the other so i can't his views on this particular case . but the president certainly has spoken many times powerfully about his views on this particular issue. the president believes strongly that sexual assault is wrong, but there's no place for it in our military, there's no place for it on college campuses, there's no place for it in our society and the president and vice president have played a leading role on it's on us campaign to not just speak out against the scourge of sexual assault but also to encourage men and women across the country to shirk from their responsibility to intervene when the risk of sexual assault is heightened area that it's on us as americans, as active members

of our community to protect one another and look out for one another and where necessary, to intervene to stop a sexual assault. the president feels quite strongly about this. this is a priority of his. i'm sure this is at least partially informed by the fact that he has two daughters but i'm confident the president feel strongly about this issue even if he didn't. this is a case of right and wrong. and it's one that the president feels strongly about and given the immediate attention this issue has gotten, i wouldn't be surprised if at some point the president does weigh in. >> you have you on whether or not the judge should be removed from office? there's no view the president has taken on that issue. obviously there are people who have been quite outspoken in raising their concerns about the particular judges decision but i'm not going to weigh in on the details in the individual case.

>> i want to ask you about this argument from senator sanders and his campaign at the superdelegates to the convention and therefore it's premature to declare a winner. would you agree with that? the center is saying he may have something to say in this race in the coming days and tomorrow. if that's the case, how much are you rejecting that argument? >> byron, in some ways the president does have an established track record here. many of you will recall in 2008 that then senator obama's campaign went to great lengths to highlight the support of a superdelegate in his campaign and one of the reasons for that is that we saw that the number of superdelegates were switching affiliation between one candidate to support the obama campaign. and that was important to building support and momentum behind president obama's campaign.

we haven't seen a dynamic at play in this most recent election but there have been superdelegates that have weighed in on both sides but there hasn't been a lot of changing of affiliation so look, senator sanders and his campaign are certainly entitled to make whatever argument they would like. again, i would note this is a stark contrast to the republican nomination contest in which there's a lot of disputeabout the rules . i think senator sanders understands the role that superdelegates play, secretary clinton understand the role superdelegates play in choosing the democratic nominee. they understand the rules when they sign up and they're playing by them now and to the credit of both candidates, they've understood the rules and they have worked hard and both of them have succeeded in building a substantial

following and winning a lot of support at the convention. it's a testament to the aggressive campaigns that have been waged in the success that both democrats have experienced in building strong energeticsupport for their candidacies . >> it seems like senator sanders base of supporters have a push for long-term reforms inthe nominating process . it sounds like they're pushing for more open primaries and eliminating the rule of superdelegates. does the president have a position on either of those reforms, it would be like to see more open primaries question mark. >> i think every four or eight years there's a discussion within the party about what i think everyone would knowledge is a rather complicated process for choosing a party nominee. and sometimes that devolves into a discussion about the benefits and consequences of superdelegates, sometimes the discussion will beer into territory of the wisdom of

allowing states like iowa and new hampshire to enjoy their traditional special status. i speak with some personal experience on this. back in 2004 when i worked at the dnc, there was, this was at the end of 2003 and 2004, there was a careful review of the process for appointing or selecting the democratic nominee at that point and there was a vigorous discussion about how the process , the primary process could be changed to ensure that more democratic voters in more states had an opportunity to weigh in in the process of choosing the democratic nominee. that was something important in 2004 but that was less then a concern in 2016 because we saw this primary campaign extend to so many different states and we saw in 2008 that actually end up

benefiting that democratic candidate in the general election so these kinds of discussions are part of the process just about every four or eight years and i'm confident that the dnc which has a responsibility to administer that process will listen to the ideas and suggestions of democrats all across the country and make a decisionabout whether or not the process needs to be reformed . >> you been saying that it's good for the country and party to have todemocratic nominees and having vigorous debates . you saw that as a positive thing but would it be good for the party and the country to have a contested convention scenario # or does the president feel the party should have a firm nominee who's not being contested heading into november mark. >> i will say of the general matter, i don't have any update on timing but i'll say as a general matter that the president believes is important for democrats to come together at the close of the nomination process to

strongly support the democratic nominee because the states in the general election are very high. and because democratic voters despite their differences in some cases over which candidate would better represent the democratic party in the general election, the truth is both candidates are fighting for the same kind of things. both candidates are fighting for expanded access to healthcare. both candidates are fighting for immigration reform. both candidates are fighting to address climate change. both candidates are fighting in support of implementing the iran deal to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. both candidates are fighting for strategies that expand economic opportunities for the middle class. both candidates are fighting for equal pay for the equal work. both candidates are fighting to enhance education and job training in this country

because they understand that we need to train the next generation of american workers to compete and win in the 21st century global economy so it shouldn't be hard for democratic voters across the country to support a candidate that's been running on the same kind of platform even if the candidate they voted for in the primary didn't win. >> you mean the end of the primary? i'm beingintentionally made . >> . [laughter] it does happen. karen. >> follow-up to the stanford case, i profiled what happened on this that he went through all of that. without getting into the specifics of this case, is there a concern when there are life sentences like this working outrage that that sends a message to perpetrators of sexual assault and victims of sexual assault? >> again, i don't want my comments to be interpreted as weighing in on this particular case.

there are plenty of people on the outside who are weighing in on the case, i'm not going to do that from here. what i will tell you is the president, and in this case i feel confident in speaking for the vice president that both ofthem view sexual assault as a scourge . sexual assault has no place on our college campuses, no place in our military, no place in our society. the vice president in particular has been a leading advocate of combating violence against women. the vice president authored a bill called violence against women act would ramp up funding and resources for law enforcement organizations to combat that kind of violence and sexual assault in our communities. so the president and vice president certainly think this is a high priority and that a very clear unambiguous message should be sent that sexual assault and sexual harassment and violence against women will not be tolerated in any way shape or form in this country. and they feel strongly about

that, both as a moral issue but also as a law enforcement issue as well. and again, i suspect that given the amount of media attention that this particular case has generated, thepresident may choose to wait in one way or another at some point . likely in response to a question but i'm not going to talk about the individual case but when it comes to this question about whether or not sexual assault is a serious problem, i think our country needs to unequivocally make it clear that sexual assault is not something that will be tolerated in our society. [inaudible question] i'm not suggesting that he does and i don't want to send any mixed signals here. there's no plan for the president to wait in on this but i suspect at the next

opportunity for the president to take questions that i wouldn't be surprised if one of you asks and the president has a possible answer to share . >> the city council to increase the minimum wage. earlier on the democratic candidates, they are pushing for that. you said it was quote, do more harm than good. is there a way forward with action on this issue? i haven't seen the issues on the dc bill, the president has long advocated for national legislation that would increase the minimum wage. minimum wage hasn't been increased i believe coming up on nine years now. that's too long for hard-working americans to go without getting a raise. and the fact is right now, if you are an individual working full-time making minimum wage and trying to raise a family of four, you're raising a family of four below the poverty line so for republicans who claim that they believe that there should be a strong linkage between hard work and the ability to raise a family, you would think that if

republicans were actually committed to that principle, that they would support raising the minimum wage. but for some reason they keep locking it . and again, i will leave it to them to try to come up with a rational , legitimate, intuitive explanation for why that is. right now, it just looks like anybody who's paying attention that they are doing the bidding of this business and they're not concerned about the impact on working people. that's just the way it looks. that's not the way it is i'm happy for them to clarify what anybody who's paying attention, that sure is the way that it looks. boil. see like a good day to call on you. i know the president was eagerly engaged on an issue you're quite interested in. >> quickly, i understand that mobile and president obama left several times in his two-year term and they call each other friends.they

have deep relations i believe in two years and also making the case for initial loss in the us and in india. my question, how does the president compare for mister modi with other world leaders that he needs hundreds of times in the white house and why has the president invited him to the tarmac? >> let me just say that i think what makes the relationship between prime minister modi and president obama so strong is the shared commitment may have two warm relations between our two countries. both leaders recognize that a strong relationship between the united states and india benefits the economy, national security and the people of the united states and india. and i think that is what animates the relationship.

obviously has had an opportunity to spend time socially with prime minister moti. he hosted a very nice steak dinner for president obama in india on republic day when the president was there last year. unfortunately, the president was not able to visit the taj mahal on that trip but the president is certainly looking forward to having an opportunity to visit the taj mahal atsome point . >> the india, the us made history for the first time that over 200 items stored or smuggled out of india and they were presented or given under the presidency of obama to the prime minister for what we would call artifacts. what you think, how he thinks

about those items being stolen every day from india and also at the same time the commitments to the us and he was talking there about the stolen money from india by the politicians or what they call black-market money. if the president is going to the us and help india just like they helped to bring these out of the black market, billions of dollars out of india. >> listen, i can't speak any details. i'm not aware of the conversation you referenced their . look, what i can tell you is that i think what is evident in the conversations that you heard today is that the president is committed to strengthening the relationship between united

states and india and we will look for every opportunity we can to remove impediments in that important relationship because the world and surely the citizens of our two countries benefit from a stronger relationship so we are seeking to get our cooperation on economic issues, national security issues, on terrorism, climate change. there are a whole host of ways in which the united states and india can work together to improve the world for the citizens of the article present president obama has made this relationship a priority. in fact, president obama was interested in strengthening us ties with india even before prime minister modi took office. from the first state dinner, the president obama and first lady hosted here at the white house was to host prime minister modi's predecessor at the white house and that was an important event and i think it was an important symbol about the priority the president places on us relationships with india and the president is pleased that he has found a partner in prime minister modi to extend and strengthen the

relationship. >> quickly, prime minister, attorney general robert took over and presented to india and he says that more relations on this because 1 billion in india are put on facebook for the great relationship between the chief inspector ... [inaudible question] with the us help india to getthose items ? >> i'm not aware of that particular issue but obviously president obama believes in the importance of a strong relationship between united states and india, that

there's a opportunity for us to remove impediments and we want to take advantage of the opportunity to do so. john, i give you the last one. >> there's an experience for a historic precedent for the president. do you know the feeling that supporters had back in 2008 when president obama became the presumptive nominee, when he became ultimately the nominee for the democratic nominee, becoming the first african-american candidate and be the nominee for the party of president. can you get a sense about what supporters of hillary clinton are feeling right now with some news organizations saying she is now the presumptive nominee for her party? >> listen, secretary clinton's candidacy was historic back in 2008. and the president deeply respected the challenges that she encountered and overcame in running that campaign.

it was a campaign in which she got 18 million votes to be the democratic nominee for president over a remarkable achievement in 2008 area and she set out to pick up where she left off. and that process is coming to an end. i think what i can say at this point is that one of the things that was important to president obama was that the country could be quite proud of the symbolic process that we have made my nominating and then electing and reelecting an african-american to serve as president of the united states. that represents tremendous progress in our country and

the president has observed many times that he owes a deep debt of gratitude to civil rights activists of all faiths and all races who fought hard for the progress that our country has made and he's a beneficiary of that hard work and of the sacrifices that they made. there's a similar story to tell about the progress that our country has made when it comes to the rights of women. and there's a similar story to tell about how even secretary clinton's candidacy for the democratic nomination is a reflection of how much progress our country has made and how she has benefited from the commitments and sacrifice made by previous generations of americans, men and women, black, white, hispanic and i think she will at some point speak much more

powerfully and cogently than i can about how she is a beneficiary of that work and an inheritor of that legacy. but that's something that she will i'm sure discuss more once this nomination process is to its conclusion. thanks everybody. >>. [inaudible conversation] earlier today house speaker paul ryan disavowed presidential candidate donald trumps comments about a

mexican american judge presiding over a lawsuit against trump university. the remarks came as he unveiled a new plan to fight poverty in the country. we will show you as much of this as we can until the senate reconvenes around 2:15 eastern. >> we are going public. we will be watched by our friends and people across the country. and i would hope as i said before that the senate may change but not as an institution. but maybe become a more efficient body because of the televised proceedings.the proceedings of the united states and its are being broadcast to the nation on television or the first time, but not that we have operated in secret until now. millions of americans have sat in the galleries and observed senate debates during their visits to washington.

but today, they can witness the proceedings in their own homes and in effect, the senate floor has been kind of a stage. the senators have been acting on that stage. the audience is in the gallery. and by our action today we haven't really fundamentally altered that situation, we simply enlarge the galleries. we have pushed out the world to include all of the american people who wish to watch. >> commemorating 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span two. >> we are now back at the u.s. senate where they are expected to reconvene momentarily. they will continue work on a 2017 defense program and policy bill, amendment votes are expected around 4 pm eastern.

>> ms. mikulski: good afternoon, mr. president. the presiding officer: good afternoon, the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise to speak on behalf of the inhofe-mikulski amendment to the national defense authorization act, but before i proceed in my remarks, i ask unanimous consent that jessica armstrong, my legislative fellow from the department of defense, be allowed floor privileges during the consideration of the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: thank you, mr. president. so, mr. president, i rise today to offer