quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the further proceedings under the quoarm quorum call being dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes. officer sphe without objection. mr. mcconnell: i understand there are two bills at the desk and ask for their first reading especially block. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 5447, a fen aact to provide aexception from certain group health plan requirements for qualified small employer health reimbursement arrangements. h.r. 5456, an act to amend parts b and e of title 4 of the social security act and so forth and for other purposes. mcmi now scw for a second -- mr. mcconnell: i now scw for a second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: the titles will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate completes iters business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, june 23.

following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate be in a pured of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2578. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if ther theres no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

>> >> and one house democrat staging a sit-in to diminish the vote to close the no fly no by the polls. and we demand a vote on gun violence before we recess. the house leadership plans a recess next week for the july 4th holiday the senate will be in session next week.

john mccain said etui, disappointed they block the amendment to give counterterrorism authority that the fbi considers number one priority. >> mr. president, i am concerned as a member of thehe appropriations committee what is pending here now with the mccain amendment we had a vote earlier this week, and sensible guns safety measures that the overwhelming majority of americans supported by senate republicans.o scare and now appears the leadership wants to move change the subject that there was the scare tactic be cr

from their failure to act we pu. should be clear we need universal background checks we need to give the fbi the authority to deny funds to the terror suspects we still have the chance to get in the affected tools that the laws make it easier to prosecute firearms and buy a traffickers i am a gun owner but i know that's if i a gun in vermont will have to go through a background check. for is somebody that has a restraining order againstng they

them to be convicted of heinous crimes walking into a gun show with no at a background check. criminal also by all kinds of weapons to sell at a great profit to criminal gangs and those to commit terrorism and hate crimes need to do that some of those resources combat acts of terrorism. detailed

so the decayed amendment to would require a court order j. about americas internet activities the national security investigation. you can almost terah that to say why didn't i have that in the republican side extensive information about americans communicate with chat and text messages and with the log onto the internet they go to social media accounts five overtime this provides highly revealing details about

americans' personal lives, that are totally innocent of any criminal activity to get all this without prior court approval that is why the amendment is opposed by a major technology companies and privacy groups across the political spectrum we cannot prevent people from gettingo firearms about due process in judicial review. but at the same time with the fbi was to find out what website americans are visiting to obtain the court order of the patriot backed desk

nobody would feel they can walk into our home rifled through the desk but because we do electronically to ignore any type of privacy so to distract us from the opposition of the is an issue is the opposition that has criminal indictments to stop me to go to a gun show to buy the guns like those of the amendment and myself gro, instead of kowtow to when i

listened to the lobby of the american people? so we hope to keep the country save when i see the togn distinguished senator on the floor in a yield. >> we have worked together the on this added is outlining the hypocrisy behind what is going space for the last few days. the due process octopi as itw relates to guns that it would not apply as the release of the activity of millions of americans. and my view

is, mr. president, that the country wants policies that promote of liberty that do not do much to be there but the vote mccain amendment suggests americans need to choose between protecting security and constitutional right to privacy this does not improve either but it gives the fbi field office text and new authority to scoop up administratively there e mail and tax records web browsing history and certain types of location information and the reason w

mrs. is why i have worked hard for this the freedom act there is a specific section that i worked for and authored in a separate effort in 2013 to allow the fbi to demand all of theseac records that i described in the emergency then go get court approval after the fact so unless you are opposed to court oversight even after the fact there is no reason to support this amendment the fbi has not in any way suggested that having this authority would stop the san bernardino attack for the massacre at the lgbt nightclub is in orlando and there is noco reason to think that is the case. can the founding fathers wrote the fourth amendment for a have

good reason and we can protect security and liberty and we can have both other sponsors of the mackay arguments amendment have said you can only have one or the heather fix the other argument made yesterday is some have said we have to have this l amendment because it will fix the typo in the law and that is just not true the record makes it clear it was carefully circumscribed the notion that this is some sort of typo does not hold water that the bush administration that was soft

on terror said that this was not needed that they would support that the statute should be interpreted hear -- narrowly just as the authors ine envisioned so mr. president i see how this is pivotal to protect the security of then american people that they suggested this would have prevented orlando under the legislation that i offered baking go get the records immediately then after the fact settle up.ni this is not a type though

this is what the authors had suggested in the bush administration hardly soft on terror did not believe what this amendment was all about was necessary to undermine the fundamental o american rights without making the country safer and to undermine the role of judicial oversight and when we have a specific statutory provision to protect the american people this defies common sense and i hope my colleagues will oppose it i urge them to do so it will be very hard to explain to the american people how they for approach that any field

office could it -- for a text message laws web browsing history you should be able to do that without judicial oversight when you have a specific law that says the government has the right to move quickly in the emergency it will be hard to explain to the american jeopards people how you have an arrangement like this thatdo does not make this a further in jeopardize our liberty in this does not do much of either i yield the floor.

>> i remember daily on the radio listening to paul harvey now the rest of theconsi. story and that is where we are. i give the senator a tremendous amount of credit for consistently providing the tools that law enforcement needs to defend the american people. that is fine. if that is your position that talk about fact. this statute was changed in 1993 and in some part of that legislation it was not carried over about the i sp responsibility to provide this information for law-enforcement 1993 through 2010 every technology company when requested by

the fbi continued to provide this information. 2010, , this is not a new expansion it is clearly something that continues 1993 through 2010, six years ago when all of a sudden a tech company said it doesn't state it so we will not provide it anymore. we have never had this all the we had a for a long time every company supplied that through 2010 to the fbi. all of a sudden when the general counsel says we don't see it so therefore we're not bound to provide that. we will fight terrorism or

we won't take away every tool because we use this excuse of technology that forbids us for accessing information. let me say that. to give you we have no content you have to go to the judge on the bench and they have to give you permission to read the content that in the case of reconstruction or trying to prevent an attack could be crucial the one fact i heard out of my colleague from oregon is this would not have stopped san for dino or orlando.dent. 100 percent correct but i hope there is no legislation that is about a single incident ended isn't about in

looking back so with the one inadvertent change it means that fbi goes from a one day process of getting that vital information to get the get the approval to seek p.m. information. over one month if it has to do with a terrorist attack, i hope the american people are comfortable to say that they figure this out among the indians we are okay. most cases the have no notice to give us a time that we needed and in many

cases connecting the dots that is also a matter of time. reviewed as and the comet about expediting the information of public domain and wanted to assure the americanthat procs people to be sure there is not to another cell. but this is part of that process.ma to process of us the information you need in ar timely fashion. this is the obama administration language. is not bush or clinton this is is that administration in providing the language to ask for this clarificationro to be made it was inadvertently left out in 1993. intrude in the

to fix something that is broken not to expand in any way, shape, or form but that is in privacy there is a l content collected. and for the tools to enable them to fulfill their mission to keep america safe. in addition, let me say to fores extend the old walls permanently to allow the government's ability to target nine united states persons to engage in international terrorism but does not show power to the terrorist organizations to be under the lone wolf provision. it is too important to let it expire it is not about

addressing or responding to a specific this particular if it is already manifested itself i urge my colleaguess to support this legislation the obama administration wants it, from 1993 through 2010 when the general counsel in one company decided to mess up the system and to say speller out or we will not do it. so we will spell out so law enforcement has the tool i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >>? >> 10 minutes remaining. b >> i will take the entire 10 minutes. his

i would be glad to yield for three minutes for the 10 minutes remaining so he can speak in his usual and articulate way. >> i thank you for the courtesy. have >>. >> i want to come back again to the argument that i made earlier the senator from north carolina says it they have to wait around if there was something that really have the well-being of the american people at stake. that is simply inaccurate. with the usa freedom act i was able to add a provision as it has the well-being of the american people on the

line the fda to move immediately to go collect all the information we have been waiting a for. under the amendment we put in the freedom act the government can go get that information immediately and come back and settle up later with the judge. want frankly that was something that i felt extremely strongly about because i wanted understood this is not privacy versus security.. but insuring that we have the both he mentions the fbi that i waiting around the safety and well-being on the line.

no way. not because it's of the specific language. and that my colleagues supported. that the american people can have both security and liberty.bout that was extended during the u.s. a free domestic. draw and not making the country saved but threatening the labor.tandard that is said we should have thatro as it relates to guns and i certainly support that idea of due process. there shouldn't be a double standard and not to these security letter.

>> you have three minutes. >> can i have additional 10 seconds? the amendment gives the fbi field office'' to scoop up all the digital material without judicial oversight. that is the mistake. i yield the floor. >> the senator from arizona. >> errors are colleagues to support this amendment and he knows about as much as this issue as any other member of congress and he is doing a great job but this is pretty simple. the amendment has the support of the aha fraternal order of peace though law enforcement agency association the national largest professional association the fbi agent association and the under law enforcement agency directorf

ronald reagan with a fax are stubborn stains but according to the director of the cia and nationalurope and intelligence, right now daddy is calling people to say get on this and get backtt to the united states or europe and contact s in we will attack and there willll be more attacks according to-r the director of national intelligence. right now there are people in this country better self radicalizing bad what vehicle is doing the self radicalization but the internet. says a way we have financial

records are telephone records. he has so i save for great respect he has my respect we know that the attacker is self radicalized and what did he use? the internet and though this attack could have been and prevented because that is the view of the intelligencerti. community and the fbi and the director of the cia and the director of national intelligence and they are to interested in carrying out there fundamental responsibilities all i can

say we need to protect the rights of all citizens we cannot intrude on their on finar lives there are some gray areas we need to debate and come to an agreement on overtime. investi honestly this is a no-brainer. in america when the director of the fbi with those individuals in america wrote admired andsh respected by all of us end i think we should listen to them and to say they are planning further attacks on united states of america we should give them the toolsil they need to prevent that.

the director of national intelligence testified before the armed servicesl committee that there will be further attacks. , should we give this rudimentary tool to basically have an oversight shouldn't we corrected that? can we protect the rights of every individual and every american to enact this modest change according toho the director of the fbi is of highest priority. or disap so let's listen to those that we entrust after going through the confirmation process of the members of this body to have been entrusted with the obligation of defending this nation, they are saying

unanimously they meet this authority to carry out their responsibilities. of to respect the views. should for those that are entrusted with defending this nation. i believe we should give them this authority. . .ople >> it has got the entire american people concerned. san bernardino, orlando, and i lope the senator from oregon and

those who vote no on this amendment understand in the view of the experts on terrorism in this world absolutely are convinced there will be further attacks. shouldn't we give them this fundamental tool? this basic tool they have asked for. i believe they respect american's right of privacy as well. so i urge my colleagues to vote positive aye on this amendment and we can move on to other ways to help our enforcement and intelligence agencies be able to defend this nation against this threat which are not going away. mr. president, i believe my time has expired. >> democrats have been holding a sit-in since 11:30 this morning chanting no bill no vote. congressman john lewis kicked

off the sit-in and tweeted we have to ask who we are as a people. as we a people of progress or in action. we caught up with the george democrat at the capitol. >> congressman, john lewis, when did you plan the sit-in? >> the past two or three days. we thought about it it and we made a decision that we should do something out of the ordinary. most of the members didn't even know, only a handful of us. we never said anything to our leadership. but we felt that it was time to do something. it had to be dramatic, out of the ordinary, and we acted. >> it has been going on six or seven hours. how is it going? >> it is going very, very well. we have heard unbelieve --

unbelievable statements from our colleagues keeping with the discipline of non-violence. i never thought when i came to congress, and been here almost 30 years, to see members do this. by sitting down they are standing up for the best of the american tradition. >> how are the negotiations with the louse leadership? >> we haven't had any direct talks. our leadership may be talking with our leaders but they are not talking to those who initiated this action. >> you can see our live coverage of the house sit-in on c-span and cspan.org.

>> on thursday, voters in the united kingdom will decide if their country should leave or stay within the european union. the prime minister wants them to stay part of the eu but there is a group advocating for the split. watch the cast, thursday on 5 p.m. eastern on c-span2 and cspan.org. >> and now the white house briefing today including questions about the democrats sit-in. >> all right. good afternoon, everybody. i do not have anything so we can go straight to your questions. darlene, would you like to start?

[inaudible question] >> is there reaction to that from the white house that you know of and do you know if the administration will yield? >> my understanding is this is something that will be considered by the tenth circuit. i would refer you to the department of justice for the legal procedures at play here. we happen to believe that we have a strong argument to make about the important role the federal government can play in insuring that hydraulic fracturing that is done on public land doesn't threaten the drinking water of people who live in the area. that is a pretty simple proposition and it is indicative of the common-sense approach the obama administration has pursued. this is an approach that seeks to protect public health and

public safety while also creating space for innovators to strengthen the economy and based on the results we have seen in our economy from the dramatic increase in oil and gas produced in the united states much of which is attributed to developments like fracturing, i think it is an indication we have pursued this in the right way. that has been our policy approach when it comes to the legal authority at stake we will continue to make our case in the courts. >> on another topic, senator marco rubio, any surprise he has done an about to run against re-election? >> i think everybody is surprised about that announcement. but i will leave it to him to explain.

marc wasn't surprised apparently. marc was unpersuaded by the ten thousands times he said publ publically that he was going to be a private citizen in january. the rest of us took senator rubio's word, but marc sniffed this one out. [inaudible question] >> the president had his opportunity to support vocal support for congressman murphy. the president's endorsement outlines why the president believes that congressman murphy would be an excellent united states state senator and would do an excellent job representing florida in the united states senate. there will be an opportunity for

an aggressive campaign and debate. i know florida has their primary parties late in the season so that is something congressman murphy and senator rubio will have to contend with. both will have tough primaries and then there is a general election. the president has made a persuasive case, i think, about the credentials and experience and values congressman murphy brings to the table. aiesha? >> it seems like the technology doesn't seem to be calming down despite sanctions. i know you see before their actions will leave them isolated. but it doesn't seem isolation is leading to any changes from what they are doing and their behavior. is there anything that the u.s.

can do right now to influence north korea? i guess what -- is there more china needs to do? what can be done because it seems like what is going on there hasn't really affected them. >> let me start by saying the united states strongly condemns the provocative actions by the north korean government that is a flagrant violation of their commitment. we assessed two north korean missile launches yesterday. they were over japan and initial indications were they fell. norad was monitoring the launches also and determined that they did not pose a threat to north america but i do think that the impact of these

provocations will be to only strengthen the resolve of the international community that has such serious concerns with north korea's behavior. so be that it will do what we have done in the past which is work with the international community, particularly our aa i allies in japan and china. the key here is to continue towork with our allies and partners to address this destabilizing threat in north korea. >> president putin said today russia must boost its combat readiness and this comes after the german foreign minister warned them against fear mongling.

what is your response to a comment and what is your response to this might be heightening? >> we have been clear here as often as possible about the fact nato is a defensive alliance. the cornerstone of our national security policy and these were our allies to cooperate not just to enhance the united states and europe but to respond to other situations around the globe including the situation in afghanistan with regard to that effort. i am confidant the president will meet with our allies in warsaw next month and there will

be discussions about what steps week take that will strengthen that alliance that is so important to the united states. >> are you aware och trump's speech on clinton? >> i saw a little bit of the coverage. >> he said hillary clinton has the blood of many on her hands and was repeating a quote she should be in prison. he said a number of things that seemed not to be true and of course the whole thing will be fack checked to death. -- fact. >> i hope so. >> what do you think of that kind of rhetoric? a lot of these statements, even if some are proven to be false on face, that message still got out today. >> listen, i think the questions about how to most effectively cover, and fact check and hold public officials accountable for their statements is something you and the executives at your

media organization have to carefully consider. those are decisions you should all make based on your own professional experience and exp expertise. the president has embraced this responsibility which is to engage in debates that are rooted in fact and evidence and rationali rationality. our democracy is best served when public officials and those who are seeking power in our democracy willingly engage in the fact-based debate. and those who don't should be held accountable for that but that accountability is provided by professional independent news organizations and ultimately by the american people. [inaudible question]

>> to say she has blood on her hands of many and she should be in prison; does that strike you as, you know, more off the mark than other things? >> when it comes to directly responding to those kinds of charges i will defer to my colleagues at the clinton campaign and others who would have their own view to register comments like that. >> and can you respond to the democratic sit-in and your reaction to the fact senator collins amendment doesn't seem to be going anywhere. >> let me take the last one first which is that the department of justice and officials at the fbi continue to review the proposal that has been put forward, or at least floated by senator collins, and the position of the administration remains the same which is that we believe that

everyone who is suspected of having ties to terrorism should be prevented from buying a gun. unfortunately, republicans blocked legislation that would do that. that is unfortunate, but look if there is a step that would prevent some people who are suspected of having ties to terrorism from buying a gun we support that, too. i don't understand why we would not go -- why we would prioritize the watered down version over the extra strength version but that is apparently the way the legislation process works. what we are working to determine is whether or motthe current proposal can be shaped to effectively accomplish the goal it sets out to achieve. we will continue to remain in touch with members of congress as they continue to consider it. as it relates to house democrats, i think they are

showing the kind of frustration and even anger that people around the country have about the inability of the republican-led congress to take common-sense steps that would protect the american people. i think they are resorting who what, i think they would acknowledge, is extraordinary step to change the status quo now to representatives that prevents even consideration of common-sense gun safety legislation. the thing to keep in mind is what democrats are asking for is neither radical nor controversy. they are asking for votes in bipartisan support for policies that are supported by a majority

of democrats, a majority of republicans, a majority of gunowners all across the country. they are common-sense proposals that don't undermine the second amendment rights for law-abiding americans but they will make it harder for individuals who should not have guns from being able to get their hands on them. it is not controversial. it is a common sense and democrats are rightly frustrated, i think, that those kinds of proposals haven't even been called up for a vote and they are taking extraordinary steps to change that. >> have you spoken with senator colins or others who are trying to hammer out a compromise? >> i don't believe if the president has been in that conversation. this is something that is being negotiated in the senate.

there is no ambuigity about our position on this. there are important technical questions that have to be considered and that is what the officials at the department of justice and fbi are doing. frankly, those are questions related to the technical way in which these new rules will be implemented. [inaudible question] >> i think what i would simply say is that for six years now republicans have vowed to put an

obamacare alternative on the floor of the congress and for six years now they have broken that promise. the proposal they put forward today does include some details but the details are widely unpopular which is why i suspect they will not be put to a vote in republican-led congress. these are things like priveatizing medicare and a whole >> hoshost of other details are not included and i suspect that is because they are worse than the details provided and these are details related to how much the program would cost. the republican proposal is repeal the obamacare measures that can reduce the deficit but the republicans believe they should be taken away. they don't want to get into

detail about how many millions of americans would lose health care as a result of their proposals. they are making decisions based on politics and not trying to get something done so this isn't surprising to me the most unpopular, controversial, unworkable parts of their plan are not detailed in the proposal rolled out. >> speaker ryan get some credit forgeting consensus? >> what consensus does he have? speaker ryan is not the chair of some think tank in washington, d.c. he is the speaker of the house of the representatives and wields the authority of a historically large republican majority in the house of representatives. so, no, he doesn't get credit for writing a white paper without details. if he were serious, he would put forward a proposal that will

pass the house of representatives but hasn't done either one. there we go. i am glad we would have this entertaining exchange any wap way. ron? [inaudible question] >> not at this point. as soon as we have more details we will let you know. >> do you think it will happen next week? sooner rather than later? >> we are interested in getting this on the books as soon as we can but i don't know yet if we will be able to get it done next week. once we figure it out we will let you know. >> the meeting between the president and secretary kerry this -- >> this is a meeting the president has can secretary kerry on a weekly basis whenever the two of them are in town. i think they cover a range of

issues. i would not rule out what could come up but this meeting is not focused on the so-called descent cable. >> what is the president's view of that? we heard the vice president dismiss it but what is the president -- i guess -- >> the president approves of this well-established process by the state department. there should be an opportunity for people who have a decent to register to do so. that is a healthy part of the process. look, the president has long acknowledged how difficult the situation in syria is and the president would certainly welcome new ideas that are put forward for confronting it. >> but there are no new ideas -- >> i haven't read the cable but based on the way it had been

reported they were things that had been previously considered. the president is determined to make sure that the united states is -- does not make the unwise assessment that somehow we can succeed in imposing military solutions on syria. the united states tried that when president bush ordered the invasion of iraq in 2003 and that did not lead to results in our country's best interest. the president believes we need to be focused on isil and if we take resources from them and put it toward the assad regime that will not improve our goal. >> [inaudible question] >> well, no, the cesession of

hostility is something we are working hard to keep together. there are places where it has frayed in a way where it had a very negative impact on the security situation inside syria. in the places where there were positive impact the benefit is humanitarian aid has been able to flow into those areas. some of those areas badly needed it. i think the latest estimate i have seen is more than 800,000 syrians have been able to get form of aid. there are far too many places where we have seen the hostility reserved and that is frustrating. i want to go back to one element of your question.

this is the way this is often considered and that is somehow the use of had u.s. military could be used to enhance the lev leverage of the united states. i think that means we should direct the force of the united states military against the assad regime and i think a lot of questions are raised about that. how do you do that without harming innocent civilians? secondly, i am not sure what legal authority the president would rely on to do something like that. and three it seems like a slippery slope. one round of missile strikes and spend a month trying to negotiate again? or do we ramp up the military engagement and at what point does that stop? it is hard to imagine where that stops or that that somehow stops

short of a war against a sovereign nation that is being backed by russia and iran in a way that it unclear to me how exactly that is going to apply additional pressure against isil which is the extremist organization we are quite concerned about. >> leave it to the military in syria, there are proposals like the safe zone -- >> i guess this is the point. i am glad you say that. this, i think, is the point. the president is relying on his military advisadvisors. the president is relying on them for the good military advice he is getting that is having the impact of applying additional pressure on isil. we have made progress in terms of regaining more than 20% of the territory isil controlled in

syria and did that just by training forces inside syria. we are making progress in terms of shutting off the border that they benefit from. so the point is the president is relying on the best military advice. he is following that military advice. it is showing results. not as fast as we would like, it certainly hasn't turned syria into a jeffersonian democracy but we are making progress and that is because the president is relying on the best advice out there. it is important to remember that for all of the criticism about how the president's policy has not led to the kind of results we would all like to see inside syria, it is not because the president failed to consider or

implement a proposal. there is nobody us who put forth an idea, with the possible exception of the safe zone, and i think the president laid out why he doesn't think that is a good idea. you don't hear people talking about it and i don't think if that was mentioned in the speech from the president's most high profile critic made today. >> i don't either. i didn't give it. >> with concern about the humanitarian situation continuing to fester, just wanted to ask, with fallujah another situation where there are now tens of thousands of people who are fleeing the city which is good they feel safe enough to do that. how concerned is the administration about what appears to be a developing

humanitarian situation there particularly in the sunni area? you have said on a number of occasions about the need for coalition partners and others to support those communities once isil is removed. how concerned are you about the evolving situation in fallujah right now? >> yeah, actually i was asking about this with some of our -- i posed a question similar to this with our national security staff earlier this week. it is important to understand there are two different situations here we are concerned about. the first is, and the president has talked about this publically including meeting with the gcc countries earlier this spring, and that is insuring the iraqi government has the necessary resources to stabilize the communities that are liberated from isis. ramadi is the best example of this. when isis controlled ramadi they destroyed a number of building

and the iraqi central government has been working hard to rebuild the city so the people can return home. that is a way to inspire con confidence with the government in iraq. they know the government is looking after them if they are working hard to rebuild the city. but the problem is the city is cash strapped so international financial assistance is critical to make sure they have the resources to accomplish that goal. ... >>

>> individuals that have been able to free fallujah because of the fighting there. while that doesn't sound like a good thing it probably is a sign of progress because previously they were holed up in their homes and isis to not let them now. so the question is once they fled their homes and city where did they go? that means there are now tens of thousands internally displaced iraqis that are fleeing violence and what united nations has banned as tried to step in to collect funding from countries around the world to provide for the and it -- to mediate humanitarian needs there are some refugee camps for those

that are internally displaced to incorporate the tens of thousands that are fleeing violence in fallujah. that it made a $20 million commitment we need to see a lot more funding from around the world. so the state department will host a donor conference with the stabilization funding that can be provided to the united nations as they organized to meet the basic humanitarian needs. >> is there a circumstance that you can envision whereby the north koreans stop? >> it would be in their interest to do so.

and their economy is suffering under economic sanctions not just imposed by the united states and south korea but also as an impact on countries like russia and china. there is a clear incentive for the north korean government to those that apply a situation like this. but the choice is theirs. but until that time they will continue to be isolated as a result of the decisions made unfortunately those in north korea will suffer. >> i don't have an

assessment to share but i will see what we can get you. >> is it you're in the standing there is a strong and lasting relationship with relationship to funding that has taken place in the country? >> we have previously expressed significant concerns that north korea and iran are contributing to the proliferation. with of weapons technology. with the updated assessment how those countries have benefited but we can provide you more information. >> if that is the case have is that a good idea and american company might want to use l the technology well

refund a missile program? >> i think you're asking about bowling. the direct question there is this was written into the joint comprehensive plan of action from last year preventing a iran from getting a nuclear weapon. so their fleets of commercial aircraft was is aging dramatically and contributing to an unsafe situation. this is a good example of how their desire to be engaged the international community gives leverage to

make serious commitments with the nuclear program. this is a benefit that iran got only after we were able to independently confirm they had abided by the terms of the deal and have essentially rendered harmless their plutonium reactor have disconnected 1,000 centrifuges in the stockpile by 90 percent. only after we see them continue to cooperate, ed did we allow this to move forward. what it doesn't change of the sanctions in place against iran because of the nuclear missile program they

are in place and toughened been rigorously enforced and they will be as long as iran continues to have their international obligations. >> with those comments to a donald trump cited the video that secretary clinton may have been behind the attack didn't benghazi. to land under sniper fire and with those previous explanations with her server. he called her a world-class liar. your reaction? based on those examples? >> i think a direct response is to refer you to secretary clinton's team.

>> with the supreme court decision made in california is any consideration with a federal holiday is? >> i was not aware of that so i'm not aware of any consideration and surprise crime sugar that the president went out of his way to acknowledge the start major -- historic nature of the positive effects that would have across the country that is one that the president will remember.

>> and one of there will be any formal observance. >> going back to health care, the speaker talked about his plan today are there any changes they would still like to see made? >> we have indicated the affordable care act has been implemented this far 20 million more sensitive for will care act went into effect and is at historic lows since be affordable care act went into effect in consumer protections that americans enjoy especially for pre-existing conditions

and on parents' health care and that all across the country can get access to preventative services that is a requirement of obamacare. there are a variety of ways in which they benefit to the president has said we remain open. we would welcome the opportunity to do that but what we have seen is an effort to repeal in whole or part that doesn't keep health care costs low also did not win a presidential election in 2012. >>.

>> based on those details that we have seen i am not sure many people support them that is why he doesn't want to put them in position to go for that because i don't think they will. but with those details of her so popular they don't want to release them and i understand. that is what would happen if republicans were to repeal for the affordable care at that they have identified and they will be taking away health care from millions of people. we don't know how many because there are key details but i am understand why they would want to release the details but it is is worthy of consideration. >> there is a suggestion

there could be a deal you have gone over all the numbers, but if that is not in the car is he prepared to except -- except that? >> it is the top scientists did united states that say to do everything possible to protect americans from does he get virus provided no a i am a stop short of that. can we have seen a significant group of democratic and republican government beaters come forward to say that congress should improve significant resources to fight the zika virus. here we are four months

after the administration has our detailed specific legislative proposals and republicans in congress have not approved it. i don't think he would call the house version a half measure because it is barely one-third what is necessary to protect from the zika virus. so with those bipartisan negotiations with has been for months since there is a significant problem. so there is the national security team to be recognized there is four months since they put forward a specific proposal backed by our professionals to outline what is needed and a think congress should

stop short to provide everything that is necessary to do everything possible. >> something is better than nothing. >> i think if they don't get anything done by recess you'll find members facing very tough questions from their constituents like they're falling down on the job'' of something so critical to the health of the american people particularly with the threat posed to women and the newborn babies. >>. >> is there any plan for the

president to wait and -- to wait and? >> no. when the president earlier this year was asked about that with the robust explanations asking for a description and the immediate impact across the country with public opinion polling to see the outcome we have been very clear that united states benefits from having the u.k. as the member but also those that should defend for themselves

and the british people certainly are entitled with. >> you mention all of the hideous that have already been considered. so having that changed to a certain extent that was tried. >> i don't think so. from what we were discussing there are specific proposals in that. to enhance the leverage but that means in principle and

i think it exists. i feet there is of a risk multi fold to lung fluke into another grabher in the middle east it is not clear to me that the president would do something like that to have a positive impact so the president has been quite direct and for all of the

criticism. with the possible exception of the no-fly zone. our critics are not putting forward specific tangible alternatives a policy that the president is currently pursuing. imagine during that meeting if they have any interest for the secretary of state for the agency's by don't anticipate at this point.

>> can you tell us the way you approach this? with the outcome? >> i know the president has been following the campaign. with the advocacy of all sides he won't be watching the returns he is traveling tomorrow and on the west coast. and once the result has been reached he should be anxious to hear what it is. and the stakes for the u.k. are quite high but this

significant consequences to the united states as well. in the interview president obama said he wants to catch up on his sleep. given way to quantify. [laughter] how much does he get most nights? tendency not to get enough? >> i think what the president would say is he gets enough but like most of us he would be happy to get a little bit more. of light-hearted exchange about poe's presidency he

would enjoy that opportunity to have more sleep and to have derived great prize -- pleasure to be the commander in chief and it gives him great pleasure and to influence the country and in our debates in the world consistent with his values that up to this point is throughout his career. with the post presidency.

>> not during the course of the work day, no. i cannot imagine him napping [laughter] i don't have as much detail as his presidency cabot says you may think i don't know why you think that i would. [laughter] but i don't but most people he probably allows himself to sleep a little later on the weekends. >> you etui both. >> but i am not aware of anything that is being considered through the chicago white sox but i

think the president has discussed previously he would have been interest previously of the opportunity arose under the right circumstances i dunno if that opportunity will present itself but i suspect interest. >> and from chairman alan to call all this a revolving door with is your relationship with chairman alan? and i know of the chairman

presented any evidence to the claim but when i will say as a matter of principle and policy of the president believes the united states benefit significantly from having monetary decisions made independently. that is then the country's economic success. and over the last generations. and with that type of independence and is drawn upon in choosing and the federal reserve to nominate chairman bernanke earlier to

nominate janet yellen as a chair the federal reserve was in part influenced by both of their commitment. they take that quite seriously. >> if the senate bill passes you will not get to adapt. >> israels in that category category, if we have a blanket statement we could have the common sense proposal to get the advice from the doctor a little bit. but congress takes a little bit longer. so it is hard to judge at this point how that will turn out.

. . >> republicans to do the common sense things that would protect the country from the zika virus. the president lent his voice and his team's legislative expertise to putting together and trying to advance the necessary to

fight zika. we continued to make the case for why that is important. we have given dr. freedman and senator health officials for the platform to help all of you understand why this is an important issue. doctor freedman and others have spent a lot of time on capitol hill. secretary burrwell has as well. those conversations are focused on how this money would be spent and why it is critical to the health and safety of the american people particularly pregnant women and newborn babies. but at some point republicans have to decide if they will do their job. this would be an easy one. i think that is why we advocated

for it. the president made the case this is important for congress to do. the president rolled this out with fanfare and discussed the proposal in a national televised interview and had had conversations with individual members of congress. we certainly have had -- you have seen senior officials at the cdc stand at this podium making the case why this is important. we have made a robust case. we have made a good case about why this is important. but at some point, republicans in congress have to do the job they worked so hard to get. >> hi, josh, over a hundred house democrats yesterday sent a letter to the president asking him to remove the citizenship

requirements for federal aid for education and federal health. do you know if the president has received the letter and if there will be any consideration on the matter? >> i am not aware of the matter but why don't i check on it and get you a response. yes, ma'am, last one. [inaudible question] >> that is just a regular notification to congress that our significant concerns about north korea's provocations persist. and you know, it explains why we continue to have tough sanctions

in place to isolate north korea and the work we are doing to try to persuade them to come to compliance with international obligations. that is just a notification to congress that is required on a regular schedule to describe why we continue to have significant concerns with the decisions that are being made in north korea. >> we don't have anything or taking action for the north korean's? >> at this point, it was just yesterday we did detect two missile launches from north korea. we are going to continue to consult with our ali and partners in the region and review and consider an appropriate response. >> one more question. the president stays gone every weekend

[inaudible question] >> that is a national security secret. that is just a joke. the president -- i don't know the president's handy cap but his golf team has improved. maybe we will have you out on the range some time. thanks, everybody. have a good day. >> coming up tonight on c-span2, republican presidential candidate donald trump responds to a peach by democratic candidate hillary clinton. -- speech. then an interview with democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders. after that, house republican leaders on their plan to repeal and replace the affordable care act. republican presidential candidate donald trump spoke to supporters in new york city calling hillary clinton the most