even, the manufacturers of the american automobiles, they tot to take and continue build automobiles that you're going to be going out and replacing, either because you perceive it to be obsolete or it becomes obsolete because of the computer technology that goes into it. remy from baltimore. john is calling in from illinois our line for folks who own american made cars. john, good morning. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts, is the u.s. auto industry the best in the world? are.r: yes, they for 13 '94 silverado years, i sold it and bought all had a prompto, i with the instrument clusser and the dealership said -- an, andk had low mile they said i was out of my time frame on the warranty but the mileage was good. motors, toldeneral them and they backed it up, they problem. of the and i was glad for that, general motors stood behind their product. thing is i'm an

electronics technician and i computers.motive these people are buying to the technology that america does. trucks use ford computers. toyotas use general motors computers. lamborghinis use chrysler trucks use board don't realize computers. lamborghinis used chrysler computers. people do not realize that foreign trucks and cars use the shirttails of american technology. host: our last caller today on the "wa >> in addition to the awe the show the u.s. conference of mayors is meeting in washington this week, tomorrow we'll talk to two of those mayors. william joined by

kristol to discuss the future of the republican party. and then our guest is orris williams brown to discuss changes since hurricane katrina. president obama today created a task force to combat sexual assault on college campuses. the president signed a memorandum giving administration officials 90 days to come up with recommendations for colleges to prevent assaults. also today at the white house, press secretary jay carney brief red porters and among the topics, security at the upcoming winter olympics in sochi, russia. this is about an hour.

>> feels like monday, weirdly. my kids still haven't gone to school. i hope you're holding up in the wintry weather. this morning, the president and vice president held a meeting in the oval office with attorney general holder, secretaries hagel, sebelius, and duncan and senior officials to discuss their commitment to combating rape and sexual assault in all settings. during the meet, the president and vice president reiterated their deep personal interest in doing everything possible to root autothese types of abuse and take steps to prevent pro tect americans from it. they discussed the find offings a report issued by the white house council on women and girls that was issued earlier today and identified key areas to focus on as part of these key efforts, including working to change social norms, including criminal justice response and protecting students from sexual assault. each of the cabinet members tpwhreefed president and vice

president on various actions their respective agencies are taking to lead a coordinated, comprehensive effort to combat sexual assault from the military to college cam buses and beyond. later today the president and vice president and these cabinet officials will join additional representatives of the down soinl women and girls for a meeting in the east room, which i think you know, where the president will sign a new presidential memorandum to establish the white house task force on protebting students from sexual assault. in his meeting this morning, the president said he looks forward to seeing recommendations from the task force within 90 days. working to combat rape and sexual assault in all settings has been a priority for the president and vice president throughout their time in office and these new efforts build on steps this administration has take ton combat these crimes, including last year's re-authorization of the violence against women act which the president and -- which the vice president himself authored and

he regulations secretary hagel announced to combat sexual assault in the military. >> i have questions about iran and syria. what is the white house's understanding of what happened for the invitation to iran talks and having to pull that invitation back? >> i would refer you to the u.n. secretary general for more detail about this. i think he's spoken to it and explained. hour position never changed and remains today what it has always been, which, in order to participate in the geneva conference, you need to endorse the geneva communique. nd the purpose of the geneva two conference is the communique including the establishment of a governing body with full executive authorities. i would refer you to what

secretary general banh has said on the issue. our pgs -- our position is clear and we are certainly following area now as the talks have gotten under way. >> is there any concern that tension was created -- that was created from the invitation and then pulling back the inveighation might led lead to tex in the talks between the u.s. and iran? >> no i think we have made clear and the p5 plus one has made clear that the foe coufs the implementation of the joint plan of action and of the next step, the six month process of trying to reach a comprehensive resolution of this matter, is on how we can persuade iran to abide by its international commitments. how we can ensure iran will not

obtain, cannot obtain, a nuclear weapon. there are other issues, very erious ones, in the iran account that we have and that includes our profound differences over syria and the fact that iran has clearly played a negative role there and a violent role there >> on those talks, they're off to a bit of a rocky start. the administration see this is round of geneva two as the last, best chance to get assad out and can this round of talks end without a conclusion, where does the discussion on syria go from here? i note first of all, that this is the beginning of what will be a tough and complicated negotiation to end the war in syria. the meetings in monotrow are

going and the -- in montrose are ongoing and will continue in geneva where the two parties are meeting. there will be establishment of a governing body including full executive powers over military entities. mutual consent for a transitional governing body means that that government cannot be formed with someone who is objected to by one side or the other. in other words, that means that bashar al ashaud -- assad will in thened -- will not and cannot be part of that. the most important will be coming up in the days and weeks and months ahead with the formation of the transitional

governing body. that will be hard work. today is the beginning of an important process that will hopefully lead to an end to that terrible war. >> given how haas -- hard it's been to get these parties to come to the table, do you see this as really the last, best chance to have a political solution? >> there is no alterntive to a political solution -- alternative to a political solution a negotiated settlement. and i wouldn't -- as these talks are just starting -- move ahead to an assumption that they'll fail, although i will recognize, as we all will, and the president will, that this is going to be tough and complicated work. but there is no alternative. there is no other way forward for syria. absent a negotiated political settlement absent a

based on the geneva communique which call farce governing body reached to by mutual consent. that's going to be hard work but it's important that it's gotten started. jeff? >> thanks, jay. the president spoke yesterday with president putin of russia. your readout says they discussed olympics security. what more would the white house like to see russia doing on security there? what more would the united states like to do or to be involved in to address the ounting concerns about security? >> let me say that starting with the call yesterday that the united states has offered its full support and any assistance to the russian government in its security preparations for the sochi games. russian authorities will be responsible for overall security at the olympics and the state department's bureau of diplomatic security has the

security lead for the united states. we'll send f.b.i. and other ents to lee aze -- to liaise with their security and that's standard for something of this size where members of the u.s. public, corporate sponsors and press are there for an extended period of time. the united states has been working with the russian government through the international security events group on sochi prep rages as we do with any host country. u.s. citizens planning to attend the games should be in contact with the state department psm ten rble threat to the security -- to security can be found on the state department's website. we have seen an uptick in threat reporting prior to the olympics,

which is, of course, of concern, though it is also not unusual for a major international event. and we have offered, as i said, assistance to the russians, any assistance they might need to counter that threat. >> [inaudible] >> i would refer you to the department of defense for details on assistance that's been offered, i would also say that we're having ongoing conversations with the russians about this and have offered any assistance that we can provide. they obviously have lead for security at the olympics, they are the host nation. >> does that offer come out of concern that they're not doing enough? >> no, i think that this is an international event. there will be a large u.s. citizen presence there for an extended period of time and we take the necessary precautions as you would expect. i think the pentagon said on monday of this week that the united states has offered its full support to the russian

government, that includes the two u.s. ships that have been sent to the black sea as part of the prudent planning and preparations that are required for an event like this. >> one other issue, "the washington post" today had a story quoting u.s. officials expressing concern that they would not be able to make good on the president's promise regarding the telephone records and n.s.a. proposal. how confident is the white house that the deadline can be met? was it realistic? >> i would say the relevant agencies are already at work on implementing the directions in the president's speech that he gave. as the president said, these are complicated issue bus they are not new to us. we have been working on them over the past six months and doing everything in our power already, we are, to meet those timelines. so it's complicated but the word has already gone out, some of

the work has already been done and the president looks forward to progress being made and completed. >> on russia, the kuhl with putin who called who? the president called or putin? who initiated the call? >> i don't know the answer to that, john. i mean they speak with some frequency, but i can find out if there was an initiator. >> and on this question of security at the olympics what is your assess snment what is the white house assessment? how are the russians doing on security? are they doing enough? >> well, again, what i can tell you is, there has been been an uptick in some of the reporting but that's not unusual. it's of concern but not unusual for an event like this the state department has handled and is handled the issue of travel advisories for u.s. citizens and we are offering the russians any assistance that they might require or request. in a situation like this.

but i wouldn't -- i wouldn't be qualified, i wouldn't want to venture to assess overall except that these kinds of major events around the world present security challenges. this one is not unique. we take the matters like this seriously because of the presence of u.s. citizens. that's why we're working with the russian government and offering the assistance we're offering. as well as encouraging u.s. citizens planning to travel to sochi to be in contact with the state department to make sure they're aware of the advisories out there. >> but can you characterize our level of confidence in the steps they have take snn putin has talked about a ring of steel around the s oombings chi olympics. do we have a great deal of confidence that they've done enough? >> all i can tell you is that we have had conversations with the russian government about security in sochi.

the president spoke with president putin about this we have offered any assistance they might want to avail themselves of. and we're taking, i think, prudent precautions on this matter as evidenced by some of the steps the department of defense and state department have taken. i wouldn't want to assess from here because this is a complicated piece of business obviously, an international event like this olympics in general, because they, unlike already complicated events like a single day of a sporting -- sporting event, the olympics last over a significant period of time. >> the negotiations with iran on the nuclear issue, is it the white house's belief that if you can reach an agreement with the iranians that those sanctions can be lifted without congressional approval? could further sanctions be

lifted obviously on some steps which you are able to do but can you strike a deal with iran, lift sanctions without congress ok'ing it? >> i haven't seen that assessment made because it presupposes what is the only cceptable outcome to these negotiations which is verifiable, transparent agreement by iran to fore sake its nuclear weapons ambitions and you know, the promise of that for iran is that by coming into compliance with its international obligations, by offering in a way that is 100% reassuring to the p5 plus one and our international partners and allies that they will not pursue and cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. there will be an opportunity for iran to, you know, end its isolated state, that its

violation of its international obligations has brought upon it. so -- but thousand howe that process would work, i think, is -- i think it's a little early to discuss that because the six-month period that we've been talking about for the negotiations over a comprehensive solution is only just beginning. >> just one last thing. the first lady had her 50th birthday party. i believe you said the president picks up the cost for the party? >> i think we put out information, i don't have it here, i would refer you to the east wing. >> i was just wond forget you had an estimate on what the cost was? >> i don't, i would refer you to the east wing. >> on that uptick in threat reporting, you said it's something to expect with events like that, but going beyond that, part of this euptick is because of recent events in the area and he region we're talking about is that correct?

>> you're asking me sort of to assess the region. i think that international events like this always represent security challenges. and that's broadly speaking. obviously each event presents unique challenges but i'm not going to get into a detailed analysis of how this one might be different from another one, what the approach that the u.s. government takes and the administration takes is one of prudent preparation. because of any risk that might be out there. so as i said, as you might expect in the run up to an event like this, there's been an uptick in some of the threat reporting and we're taking precautions accordingly but that is not unusual. >> does president putin seem welcoming of u.s. offers for assistance? >> i think that we have communicated at a variety of

levels, including between the two presidents, that we are absolutely willing to assist the russian government where we can and those conversations are being engaged and i wouldn't characterize them, i can point you to the defense department in terms of conversations they've had and steps they've taken but we're going to continue to work with the russian government and have those conferrings moving forward. >> on the new yorker piece, the president said a couple of things about marijuana, he said that legalization experiments in washington state and colorado should, quote, go forward. he also mentioned that he didn't think marijuana was any more dangerous than alcohol. in 2010, this white house put out a policy paper on national drug policy stating that marijuana should not be legalized. was the president setting new drug policy? >> the president's position on

the matter hasn't changed. he was making a couple of points, one, that we ought to use discretion appropriately in our prosecution of priorities, prioritization. a. b, when it comes to marijuana use, he made clear he sees it as a bad habit and a vice and not something he would encourage, and this is a quote, it's not something i encourage and i told my daughters i think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy. but there's no question that we've applied our drug laws in a way that's being counterproductive. and that there are issues there that need to be addressed. what -- i think that it's important, because he's quoted extensively in that article, look at the full context of some of these quotes that have been taken out in phrases when at least in this since tans there's an opportunity to see him speak at length. >> but he does want to see those

expert goes forward in washington state? >> i think the point he was -- again, i think you're probably not aware of the entire sentence. it's important for the experiment which is bracketted, to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished. he's talking about the issue of disparities in prosecution of ur drug laws that you know, an experiment like this may be addressing. he's not endorsing any specific move by a state. he's simply making an observation, his position on these matters has not changed. >> on syria, getting back to syria, there's been a huge cache of photos released showing what appears to be widespread killings, mass killings, mass torture in syria. has the white house examined these photos? does it have an opinion on what should happen with respect to those photos? >> we stand with the rest of the

world in horror at these images that have come to light and we condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions of the assad regime and call it on it to adhere to international obligations with respect to the treatment of prisoners. while we cannot independently confirm or affirm the information presented recently, these photos cannot be ignored or dismissed. they express widespread and systematic violations of human law and demonstrate how far the administration is willing to go in harming its own people. christie. >> back on the metadata program, can you say when d.o.j. began working on the new storage place for the database? was it 10 minutes after the president's speech? >> i refer you to them. >> you made it sound like -- >> i'm saying on the examination of these issues was part of the review process.

so moving forward, participants in that effort are not starting from scratch and that was the point i'm making, not that the president had issues specifically this directive prior to his speech but that there's a knowledge base there that was built in part by the review the president asked for and got and that will certainly be of assistance as the work moves forward to make some determinations about storage. >> do you know if the attorney general has assured the president that he can make the deadline he set? >> i think -- i would point you to what i said earlier. there's work that's been done on this issue broadly speaking so people aren't starting from scratch. it's a complicated piece of business but the president expects action can be taken in a timely manner. >> you also have needing congressional help on this. what if congress doesn't act to

set something up by the deadline the president is talking about? is the president willing to step -- he said in his speech the government will no longer maintain this database. would he stop doing that? >> we're going to work with congress because we think this is the kind of thing that can enjoy bipartisan support. there's a shared interest in moving forward on this we hope and expect congressional cooperation moving forward. >> on income inequality the president repeatedly made it clear this is going to be a big part of the next three years but with so little appetite in congress to do anything about it, how much effort will he put behind measures that can actually reduce the trend? >> there's no question as you ard the president say in anacostia late last year and as you heard him say over the years and earlier this year that the

challenge we face in -- when it comes to economic mobility in this country and the ability of americans from all stations in life to achieve the american dream is something he considers his number one priority. and that -- addressing that challenge, addressing that problem, making sure there's opportunity for everyone is something that we can do together with congress and it's so something he can tackle using all the tools in his toolbox as president of the united states. , you have seen him do that or rather you have seen examples of how he can do that recently with the promise zones he talked about and the manufacturing hub in north carolina where we can continue to work on the renaissance of manufacturing in this country and focus on

advanced manufacturing and the kind of industries that create well paying jobs for middle class families to live on here in the united states. you've seen it in the initiative last week with a hundred representatives from colleges and universities and elsewhere interested in improving thattion for americans and in turn helps address the issue because it's not something that a single piece of legislation will resolve. you've seen it in efforts across the states to raise the minimum wage. state by state. the president strongly supports action by congress, strongly supports action here in washington, raise the minimum wage because of the -- as a basic principle in this country you ought to be able to earn a

living, i.e., not live in poverty if you put in a hard day's work. that's certainly the president's view. and that's something that has enjoyed across the country and through the years bipartisan support. so there's an opportunity for action with congress on that specific issue and others. so the president's fiercely committed to this agenda that goes right at the heart of what he believes america has always been about which is the foundational belief that in in -- that no matter what the circumstances of your birth that you have endless opportunity in this country to advance yourself and your family if you're willing to work hard. if you're willing to take responsibility and if you're educate yourself and help your family move forward.

so this is obviously something the president has spoken about before, i think you can expect it will be something he'll speak about in the coming days and weeks and throughout his presidency. >> how would you measure -- how would he measure success? >> i think he would measure success by evidence that we have improved economic opportunity in this country for everyone. that the mobility that we've seen declining in this country is on the rise again, where you don't have, i think, surprising statistics that suggest that countries in europe have greater economic mobility than the united states, which sort of goes to the heart of who we believe we are in this country and what our hst rihab about when it -- our history has been about when it comes to

opportunity for people who have been willing to work hard and take responsibility. that's an agenda that could not have more presidential force behind it. >> there was a report last night that the pentagon sent the president a report or recommendation that there would be 10,000 u.s. military personnel in afghanistan after 2014 provided the b.s.a. is signed but that those forces would be removed by 2016. a, can you confirm if that's true, and if so, does it reflect the presidential desire to wind down the war pleatly by the enof his term even if the bilateral security agreement is signed? >> the president has not made any decisions about final troop numbers. i'm not going to discuss ongoing deliberations. we will be weighing inputs from our military commanders as well as the intelligence community, our diplomats and development experts as we make decision about our post-2014 presence in afghan stafpble as you

mentioned, in addition, our position continues to be that if we cannot conclude a bilateral security agreement promptly we'll initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no u.s. or nato troop presence in afghanistan. that's not the future we're seeking. it's not the policy we think is best. and we don't believe it's in afghanistan's best interest. but the further this slips into 2014 the more likely such an outcome is. meanwhile as the interagency convenes to continue considering options to present to the president for a post-2014 presence, we will have to increasingly take into account the lack of a signed b.s.a. in that planning. we'll have to frame decisions based on our clear position that 2014 t pursue it post mission without b. a b.s.a. and one ission would be with

tailored to focus on counterterrorism operations and the training and support of afghan security forces system of no decisions have been made. we're not going to get into ongoing deliberations and it's fortunate note in the context of all of these discussions that we are still waiting for the acting government to sign the bilateral security agreement. >> does the difficulty in obtaining a signature on the b.s.a. inject into the deliberations a new question about the ewe till i oif ty of keeping forces for a long period after 2014 because it appears the afghans may not want them there and therefore the utility might be in question now? loya hink in fact the jurga strongry -- strongly endorsed the bilateral security agreement and as a body that represents the will and opinion of the afghan people, we think

that is significant and it reflects the fact that the b.s.a. was negotiated in good faith with the afghan government and we consider that another strong reason why it ought to be signed. >> you know as well as i do that the succession of karzai and of, being a live issue sort if not overshadows, certainly presents itself within the discussion of the karzai government and is a factor being weighed not just by the loya jurga but by whoever succeeds karzai. >> i think that's probably the case but we're not basing the need for the b.s.a. to be signed that timeline in afghan politics. we're basing it on the fact that we have to make decisions, we and your nato allies have to make decisions and make plans for 2014 that need to take into

account whether or not there's a b.s.a. that's been signed. there cannot be a further troop presence beyond 2014 absent a signed b.s.a. the further we slip into this year, the more we have to take that into account as we make plans. >> it was suggested on a couple of sunday talk shows that there's evidence in posthofingse u.s. government that edward snowden may have received assistance from the russian government in transit on -- transit on his way to russia and he may be cooperating in ways that is harmful to the u.s. government on an ongoing basis. does the u.s. government agree with that assessment? >> this is an ongoing investigation and i have nothing to add. >> would you care to cast doubts on the suspicions? >> i don't have anything to add. there's a case that has been presented against mr. snowden, charges have been brought.

it is our firm position he ought to return to the united states and face the charges against him. here. where he'll be afforded all the protections of due process that our judicial system provides. >> in the new york herb -- in the new yorker piece the president said he was haunted by syria. you read a statement and you said there's no scral terntive to assad staying in power. why isn't there an alternative to assad staying in power? the military does not appear to be any less aggressive in its defense of the assad regime than when it split apart. the geneva two peace -- conversations are off to a rocky start at best. >> there's no future that the syrian people will endorse for their country that includes assad in the government or as

president. bloodsy saken in fashion any claim he might have to lead that country into the future by miss considering his own people. if you're asking me -- >> that may undermine his moral authority but the practical reality is he's there his military fights agrezzively to keep him there. >> and there's an ongoing civil war there. there's no solution, no end to that war, absent a negotiated political settlement and that settlement has to be based on the geneva communique which calls for a transitional govepbing authority based on mutual consent and there's no achieve mugechal consent in syria on the members of that governing authority that could include bashar al-assad in the government. it won't happen. it can't happen. assad can't be

part of syria's future isn't one we make on our own. it's one we observe in the fulfillment of the geneva co