question from twitter -- who has been the poorest ex-president? guest: probably mr. truman. he came in very poor. he was in the house of representatives. he did not make a lot of money. he did not make a lot of money in office. he didn't want to. he went to give public service. he went home truly dead broke. hillary said, we are dead broke. they were as broke as harry truman. you have to go way back. some of the salaries of these presidents, if you average them out to $2012, it is very interesting. in 1909, they had a $7,500 salary that would "let of $1.9 million.

-- the equivalent of $1.9 million. you need to keep that in perspective. i think truman is probably the modern times person who can clearly say he was dead broke. host: let us go to eileen waiting in california on the line for independents. good morning. you are on what james thurber. caller: this is my first time getting through to c-span. i agree with james. i think that jimmy carter deserves his pension. he is to this day -- he was never worried about a lot of money. he was considered a weak president, but his heart and soul was in the right place. i think the president to have a lot of money like the clintons and the bushes do not need their pensions as badly as some of the other presidents. we need to start thinking about when we can start giving back to america. our politicians really need to

start getting it together for most americans. i think that 70% of us are not getting represented by this two-party system. until they clean up their act, i do not think we will be. thank you. host: that is california. is anything you want to pick up on from her call? guest: i think people should think of presidents as public servants. when they leave and they make millions of dollars, mr. reagan left office and it was very controversial because he gave one speech in japan for $3 million. thousands you months after he left. that doesn't seem like it is in the public service. the way mr. carter left office, he really seems and i think it is accurate in giving. he defines himself a giving rather than taking. host: did this happen in the premodern president's era? did we see this from presidents in the early 20th

>> member of congress have a prorated pngs that's related to the number of years they spent on the year. it's about $40,000 a year for their pension. but many members of congress do they stay here and they are in the advocacy business. that means that they are lobbying sometimes when they are not federal registered

lobbyists. or they run associations and they can make quite a bit of money. there are those who left and headed the farma, for example. chair in the house of representatives, billy, did this, and he made $1.5 million. i think that americans are concerned about whether there is coin flict of interest in this revolving door -- conflict of interest in this revolving door because they are thinking of a job before they leave. >> before we get started let me begin by saying on behalf of the biden family how deeply appreciative they are of the outpouring love and support they have received since beau bidian's passing on saturday. there have been many kinds of words and gestures that have

been offered not just across the country but the world. and they meant a great deal to the vice president and his family. for those of you in this room, for anybody watching, who is looking for a way to pay their respects to beau and those who loved him, i would invite you to visit whitehouse.gov where we have set up a virtual condolence book. all of that will be collected and shared with the biden family w that, to your questions. >> sympathies to the family. wanted to talk a little bit about the action sunday of the senate. wonder if you could give us an assessment on how cases are being pursued any differently now that they are 13 hours into the expiration of those fiesa patriot act -- >> the failure of the united states senate to act to renew the authorities that were included in the patriot act has had an impact on the ability --

on the authorities that our national security professionals can use to keep us safe. what the president has advocated and what builds a strong bipartisan support in the house, and i believe has strong bipartisan support in the senate, is a piece of legislation that would both incorporate reforms, that would protect our privacy and civil liberties, when i say our, i mean the privacy and civil liberties of the american people, as well as renewing tools that our national security professionals use to keep us safe. and the fact is those reforms have not been enacted into law. and the extension of those important tools have not been enacted into law. as a practical matter, what that means is it means that our national security establishment is not using section 215 authority to collect bulk data. that has been a source of some

controversy and that is what the president and security team proposed to be reformed. those reforms are included in the u.s.a. freedom act. there are also a set of other noncontroversial authorities that are not curble available -- currently available to our national security professionals. that includes the authority to go and get a warrant and use section 15 -- 215 to conduct investigations of individuals who are suspected of having links to terrorism. it also means that our national security professionals do not have authorities that they need to go and get a warrant. and use -- and get a roving wiretap of individuals who are suspected of having links to terrorism. and it also means that our national security professionals do not have the authority that they need to go and get a warrant.

and under the lone wolf provision, this is a provision we acknowledged has not been used previously, but this is a provision that if it were needed today could not be used by our national security professionals. what we have said for weeks now is that the senate's failure to act introduces unnecessary risk to the country and to our citizens. >> in this period of time, granted it's only 13 hours, has the president been notified by either the intelligence community or the department of justice that there's been instances where they are now not able to pursue a particular specific case? >> i don't have any details to share about either ongoing or recently starts -- recently started national security investigations. what we acknowledged is true that our national security

professionals have other tools they can use to conduct investigations. they don't have tools that replace these important authorities, but there are other tools that they can use to conduct the investigation. >> as we understand it roving wiretaps that had already been approved those can continue during this period? >> there is what's called a grandfather clause, which means that for the routine use of sex 215, again, not the bulk data collection but the routine use of 215 that would allow an individual suspected of having ties to terrorism, that would allow national security professionals to examine related business records. that those are -- those authorities as they relate to ongoing investigations are not affected. those investigations continue. but our law enforcement and our national security professionals do not have the authority to

collect those kinds of records or to seek those kinds of warrants under a newly started investigation. >> senator mcconnell this morning issued a statement probably for passage of the u.s.a. freedom act enforcing several amendments. one would extend the transition period on the bulk collection of phone data from the government to phone companies to a year rather than six months provided in the u.s.a. freedom act. is that something the administration would oppose, support? >> it's something the administration views as completely unnecessary. the fact is our national security professionals have explained that in order to implement the reforms that are included in the u.s.a. freedom act that would require a six-month time period for them to carry out the change you just described. we are confident that that six-month time period would give our national security professionals amplele time to implement these reforms.

but if for some reason that amount of time is judged to be insufficient the president's directed his national security team to go back to congress and ask for additional time. that's why we believe that an amendment like this is not necessary. we believe that six months is enough. again, if they conclude upon the beginning of implementation period that six months is not enough time, then we'll go back to congress and ask for additional time. based on the comments of senator mcconnell and others, we feel confident kent that -- confident that congress would act quickly to give additional time in the unlikely event it's needed. >> bottom line, you would rather not have any amendments done? >> we would like to see the senate pass this piece of legislation as soon as possible. this is a bill, the u.s.a. freedom act, that collected 338 votes in the house of representatives, it got strong support from democrats and republicans. the senate should not get into a game where they start adding amendments to this piece of legislation that then requires

house consideration again. the president believes that the senate should act as quickly as possible to pass the u.s.a. freedom act so he can sign it into law. and we can do two important things. the first is begin to implement the reforms over a six-month period that are contemplated in the u.s.a. freedom act that would better protect our civil liberties. but also ensure our national security professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe. >> doesn't the senate have the right to assert its will on the legislation and part of the legislative process for them to change legislation? >> of course they do. that's how the process works. we'll see. i think i would just observe that they have had a year and a half to exercise prerogative. and now that they have blown through the deadline, i think most reasonable people would assume that that is a privilege and a right that they, for the good of the country, should

relink wish so that we can enact a piece much legislation that has the strong support of democrats and republicans. it has the strong support of our national security professionals. and of course has the strong support of the president of the united states. and rather than get into additional political gamesmanship the senate should pass the u.s.a. freedom act so the president can sign it into law. >> one of several americans being held by huttis in yemen apparently has been released following negotiations with oman officials. can you confirm that? >> i can't offer any details about those records because of privacy considerations. but we are working to provide additional details at an appropriate time, which hopefully would be relatively soon. but at this point i'm not in a position to talk about the case. julia. >> following on that has there

been any change in the way the u.s. communicated with these families the hostage policy? >> these families? >> families of americans held by -- >> the -- i'm not aware of any policy changes on that no. the individuals who are detained there are individuals that we are trying to secure their release. >> after secretary kerry's injury over the weekend it's concern that injury may clear him from participating in iran nuclear talks, and is there any consideration of sending someone to participate in his place? >> i understand that even now as we speak that secretary kerry is en route back to boston. for treatment on his broken leg. the secretary's doctor, dr.

dennis burke, is traveling with the secretary to boston to monitor his condition and ensure he re-- to assure he remains comfortable in flight. the president and his national security advisor, susan rice, each had the opportunity to speak with secretary kerry yesterday to wish him well on a speedy recovery. the secretary's made clear that he's going to pursue an aggressive but response -- responsible recovery schedule, and there's a range of recovery trajectories that are possible when we deal with an injury like this. obviously his doctors and secretary kerry himself will have more to say about this relatively soon. but the fact is that we do continue to believe that we have the time and resources necessary to pursue and

hopefully complete the iran negotiations. and i'm confident that those negotiations will be affected by the secretary's injury, but exactly how we move forward on this is something that we'll have more details on later. >> still unsure whether or not he'll be tible participate -- >> i'm confident that secretary kerry will continue to be an important part of this effort. whether he's going to spend every day over the next four weeks in europe negotiating face-to-face with his counterpart seems unlikely he'll be able to do that given the injury he sustained, but i'm confident that whatever capacity he's able to participate that secretary kerry will continue to play a critically important role in that effort. ok. jim. >> i just want to first on the security of americans right now, you aren't able to comment about whether these 13 hours

there's been problems. let's go back if we can in history here. can you point to anything in the past that would not have been successful under these current conditions? is there somebody who would not have caught? is there something you can explain to americans have this is so important using history? >> well, there are -- probably not in as much detail as will sea you, but i think i can offer up two compelling reasons why our national security professionals say that having these authorities is important to the national security of the country. the first is that there are recent examples, i can't go into those examples, but recent examples what our national security professionals say that information that they obtained using these authorities was information that they were not previously aware of. that's an under case that these authorities have succeeded in

listening information that's been critical to ongoing investigations. the second thing is that the way that our investigators talk about this information is that these pieces of ngs as they are -- information as they are collected are critically important building blocks to an investigation. what that means is it means that a clearer picture is provided when you put a variety of pieces of information together. that as it fits together you get a clear sense of what it is you are investigating. in some cases that could even be information or building blocks of information that can be used to exonerate somebody. and that's a useful thing, too. we have very limited law enforcement and national security resources. and if there are individuals who we conclude based on available information that they no longer are subject of significant concern, that means that we can focus our

resourcings -- resources in other areas. >> what many in the public might want to hear from the white house is, on a scale of one to 10, how much less safe are we today than we were on saturday? >> that is something that our national security professionals can speak more directly to. i think the way i would characterize it is simply this. that we have these authorities that are included in the patriot act. the majority of which are not controversial and have been in place since 2001. and as our national security professionals tell us, have been used to elicit information that's been valuable to ongoing national security investigations. and so the question that you have heard me offer up a few times from the podium here over the last week or so, is simply why would we add unnecessary risk to the country and our national security?

because of congress' failure to act. the fact is we have these authorities. many of them have not been controversial. the one controversial authority, the one that's been the subject of extensive debate, is one that would be subject to extensive reforms if the senate had just passed the bill that would -- was passed by the house of representatives. so i think that's the argument. which is why would we incorporate this unnecessary risk? apparently there are some members of congress who look for an opportunity, members of the united states senate, who look for an opportunity to build a political advantage, to gain a political advantage, and they apparently concluded that the risk was worts it. the president doesn't agree. >> if i could change subject to cuba for a moment. in panama the president said directly that the united states is no longer in the business --

yet the united states, including this administration continues to fund both the state department and usaid to the tune of some $264 million since 1994, with specific programs operating inside cuba. some of which have been embarrassing as reported by the associated press. why does the united states continue to fund these programs? and now as relations are very close to being normalized, do you see those programs being ended? >> jim, for specific programs that are being operated by either usaid or state department, i would refer you to those two agencies. but i will say that the u.s. government will continue to invest in efforts to strengthen in the engagement between our two countries between our two governments, even even between the citizens of our two countries. and this is a critical component of the strategy that the president announced at the end of last year. that for more than five

decades, the united states had pursued a strategy to try to isolate cuba to compel them to better respect the basic human rights of their people. and for more than five decades, we didn't see much improvement in that regard. so what the president has said is let's try a different strategy. let's try a strategy where we strengthen the ties between the united states and cuba. let's create opportunities for more commerce between our two countries. let's give more americans the opportunity to travel to cuba. and give the cuban people greater exposure to the kind of values and lifestyle that we so deeply value in this country. and that by promoting that kind of engagement, we can actually place additional pressure on the cuban government to do a better job of living up to the values and protection of basic universal human rights. that we hold so dear in this country. >> the usaid's mission specifically says that we use

this money to the goal of promoting a rapid peaceful transition to democracy. that sounds as though -- that sounds like a way of saying regime change. isn't that exactly the opposite of what the president said is going on? >> usaid can speak to the direct purpose of the programs they carry out. certainly promoting democracy and respect for basic universal human rights is part of our goal. >> the word is transition that's problematic. >> i don't know whether it's problematic or not. you have to talk to usaid about their specific programs. this idea that the united states is going to go and promote our values around the world is something that we have been engaged in for quite some time in a variety of countries. we are certainly going to continue 20 do that in a place like cuba that so frequently trammles those values. >> -- trammles those values. >> do you see any changes with that agenda with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent there, now there's a new era

are those valid? >> as it relates to reforms of the programs i refer you to the state department. chip nice to see you. >> you didn't answer jim's question about the scale. to put it bluntly, are the american people clearly less safe today than they were last week? >> well, that is a judgment that one of our national security professionals could make based on their own efforts to investigate. >> you went through this whole list of things that are not available now. it sounds the impli figures of that is that we are less safe now than we were a day or two ago. > i'll let people draw whatever conclusion they like. the fact that i can confirm for you is that there are specific tools that our national security professionals had previously used to conduct national security investigations that they can, as of today no longer use

because of the partisan dysfunction in the united states senate. >> c.i.a. director brennan said over the weekend if the law lapsed, it now has the f.b.i. would lose the ability to track team people intent on carrying out attacks on the homeland, is that correct? >> i'm certainly not going to contradict the director of the c.i.a. >> the f.b.i. has lost the ability to track people who are intent on carrying out attacks on the homeland. >> there are a variety of tools used by our national security professionals to conduct both law enforcement and national security investigations. but what is clear is that there are tools that are critical to that effort that are no longer available, as of today are not available to our national security professionals. that's exactly why we want the senate to act on usa freedom act. if they pass that piece of legislation, they got such strong bipartisan support in the house, the president will immediately sign into law and we will codify greater reforms

to that program. those programs that will protect our civil liberties. while at the same time ensuring the noncontroversial authorities that have been used by national security professionals can continue to be used to protect the country. >> the president follow senator paul's actions over the weekend? >> i don't believe he did. i suspect he did like many of us did read some news accounts. >> last question, senator graham today saying he's announcing for the president say said sad to admit barack obama has made us less safe. radical islam is running wild. they have more safe havens, monny, weapons, and cape ability to strike at our homeland -- capability to strike at our homeland than any time since 9/11. comment? >> there have been a number of pronational endowment for the humanities and accusation that is have been logged by those who aspire to occupy the office in early 2017. i have done my best to try to avoid getting into a back and forth with them on a specific

issue. while i disagree with the sentiments expressed by senator graham, i don't have an interest in getting into a back and forth with him. i obviously don't agree with what senator graham had to say today. cheryl. >> one of the things that senator paul said this weekend was that the situation is really the president's fault because he could have ended the bulk collection of phone records at any time. he didn't need congressional approval. do you believe that you needed congressional approval to do that? >> well, cheryl, we have made this argument in a variety of areas. this is true when it comes to a variety of economic priorities that the president has articulated. it's even true when it comes to immigration that the kinds of changes that we would like to see codified into law are more effectively changed when congress passes a law to do it. and the good news is that the

president demonstrating some leadership on this issue actually called for specific reforms to be put in place, more than a year and a half ago, or about a year and a half ago. he directed his national security team to travel to capitol hill to spend time in a large number of meetings with democrats and republicans on capitol hill working through the policy questions at stake here. and they succeeded in working effectively in bipartisan fashion to reform these programs. specifically reform the program that senator paul has complained about. so it's ironic to state least that senator paul blocked a piece of legislation that would have actually solved the problem that he was talking about. so that may have been an effective campaign tactic but it certainly wasn't in the best interest of the country.

general. -- jen. nice to see you. >> at what point legally does the president think that he or future president can no longer rely on the 2001 aumf? >> i think that's -- the 2001 aumf is related to countering the threat by al qaeda. the conditions for making that kind of assessment will be determined based on what kind of activity we see from al qaeda around the world and what sort of national security threat is facing the united states. i will say the president has already given a speech in which he called for, years ago, called for congress to act to refine the 2001 aumf in a way that would narrow the scope of that authorization to use military force. there continues to be a threat that is posed by al qaeda, and

the president believes our national security agencies and the president himself should have the authority that they need to counter that threat. but the president's been clear that he believes that improvements and even additional limitations on the 2001 aumf can be put into place. >> from 14 years ago will be stretched beyond what you are legally allowed to use it for if we send 10,000 u.s. military person overseas? stretched out for another five or 10 years. does the president believe the 2001 aumf can still be used? >> there were a lot of hypotheticals. let me illustrate -- try to illustrate the president's point of view talking about the authorization of force against issel that the administration submitted to congress several months ago now. included in that authorization

to use military force was essentially a provision that would place a time limit on that aumf. that proposal included a three-year time limit for that authorization. of course the 2001 aumf is one that is open-ended. some of the reforms the president has suggested do contemplate imposing a time limit on those authorities. the reason for that, this was true in the aumf against issel language that the president put forward, even if the authority or even if the threat that prompted that authority to be enacted still exists, by placing a time limit on the aumf you would force congress to come back and reconsider that aumf. and that means that after three years congress could just essentially approve an

extension, or they could consider whether or not there are certain authorities that could be curtailed. and the aumf could be refined in way that would start to put in place some additional limitations. again, all of this should be driven based on -- driven by the assessment of the ongoing threat. and the president does believe that the threat from al qaeda has changed significantly since 2001. it's changed in a variety of ways. object obviously we made significant progress. there continues to be a threat from al qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organization that is are or previously affiliated with al qaeda. we have to be very cognizant and vigilant about meeting those threats. and that's why the president believes that refining the 2001 aumf is something that congress should do. but i think even i would acknowledge and the president

would acknowledge this, too, that that's more difficult work than doing something as simple as passing a 2001 aumf against issel. everybody acknowledge that is we have -- just about everybody acknowledge that is we have a threat from issel that we need to mitigate. and the president believes that it would be wise and appropriate and even necessary for congress to pass an aumf that reflects that specific threat but we have seen very little movement in congress despite the fact that the administration has convened a large number of meetings with democrats and republicans to discuss this issue. despite the fact that the administration actually submitted draft language to congress. despite the fact that senior national security officials like the department of defense -- secretary of defense and secretary of state have participated in congressional hearings on this matter. we haven't seen any movement in congress. that's been a source of some frustration. the point is that's why

unfortunately, i'm not particularly optimistic that we are going to see the kind of refinements to the 2001 aumf that the president advocated several years ago. fran cska. >> i have a second question about the affordable care act. first i wanted to get clarification on your response to cheryl's question. when i asked you a similar question last week perhaps i misunderstanding. it seemed to me that you said that the president couldn't just change the ear way that the n.s.a. program was running. he couldn't issue an executive order to address that because only congress can make those changes. but in response to cheryl i thought that you said that congress would be more effective at doing that. >> i there is a difference between -- in terms -- in terms of making some changes that the president believes are important as it relates to the carrying out of these programs, the -- there is only so much

the president can do using his executive authority. so, for example, me, people had suggested even if congress did allow these authorities to expire, that the president should just use his executive authority to try to extend those programs or extend those tools. that is something that the president can't do just using his executive authority. what senator paul has advocated is essentially not using those programs anymore. and what the president has advocated is essentially reforming those programs. and many of the reforms that we are talking about are reforms that require congressional action. >> my second question related to that is also about senator paul. you said that the president didn't have a specific response to the comments he made. i'm specifically wondering if the white house generally has a reaction to him saying that people here in town think i'm making -- huge mistake, some of them i think secretly want there to be an attack on the

united states so they can blame it on me. any white house reaction to that? >> i think what chip was talking about senator graham and his campaign announcement. you are talking about something different. >> this is comments that senator paul specifically made. he said, people here in town think i'm making a huge mistake in relation to the patriot act and said some of them think -- you got the first part right. >> some of them think -- i think secretly want there to be an attack on the united states so they can blame it on me. >> well, obviously the president and his national security team goes to great lengths to be vigilant, to protect the country from any sort of terrorist attack. and what we have advocated and what the president himself has directly advocated is ensuring that the united states senate do the bear minimum -- bare

minimum that's required to ensure our national security professionals, some of whom put you their lives on the line every day have all the tools they need to do their job. and that's why we have urged the united states senate to do what the united states house of representatives has already done. which is to pass the u.s.a. freedom act which includes critically important civil liberties reforms. and extend the ability of our national security professionals. use all the tools available to keep us safe. justin. >> i wanted -- stipulating you guys don't want amendments. you want u.s.a. freedom to go through as quickly as possible. still seems like the senate will vote on them. i'm wondering if you guys perceived any poison pills to the amendments that have been floated already. things they could possibly -- i know one that senator mcconnell has said would essentially keep the fiesa court decisions

secret. are there areas of concern you think -- >> i haven't looked through each of the specific amendmentses. the reason i was able to talk about the amendment that jim mentioned is that that's a proposal we talked about here a few times. this idea of extending the implementation period. but i haven't considered those -- all of the amendments that may be volted on by the -- voted on by the senate. as it becomes clear, we'll need more information in terms of our position. >> more broadly in conversation, you guys have the house senator mccarthy today was a little unclear about whether or not they would be willing to even take up the amended version. do you guys have -- >> i think the concern that we have is that it will in any event take additional time if

the senate passes an amended version of the usa freedom act because it will be put back on the house to consider that amended piece of legislation. and that typically takes time. sometimes it takes a long time. hopefully in this case it wouldn't. but that remains to be seen. i think the other thing that we have expressed some concern about is the democrats and republicans in the house did work in rather painstaking fashion to build this commonsense bipartisan reform proposal. and for the senate, again, after they have already blown through the deadline, to start tinkering with that bipartisan agreement does put that agreement at some risk. that you may have an eventuality where the bipartisan agreement that was, again, painstakingly built in the house of representatives falls apart. and that would prevent the specific reforms from going into effect.

and it would prevent our national security professionals from getting the tools that they say are important in keeping us safe. again, that's -- that highlights yet another reason why we believe that the congress should act quickly to pass the usa freedom act in its current form so the president can sign it into law as soon as possible. >> the last one. obviously we are getting closer to -- i'm wondering if the administration has taken any steps to protect the u.s. financial system in case of a default. and tell generally how much of a risk that would pose to the u.s. economy. >> i don't know of any specific steps that i can share with you. i refer you to the treasury department. i would note that secretary lou -- lieu -- lew spoke last week

and urged all parties to find common ground and reach an agreement quickly. while he was there secretary lew also spoke with the prime minister from greece and emphasized that we remain engaged with all parties involved including greece. the european partners in the i.m.f. it is our view that these parties should continue to do the important work of trying to resolve their differences as soon as possible to try to prevent some instability and turbulence from being injected into the global financial markets. >> that instability would have a substantial impact -- >> we certainly do operate in an interconnected global economy. and instability one aspect of the global economy does have an impact on the united states. i think in this case it's

unclear how significant that would be or how significant the impact would be on the united states. but i guess to pick up on the theme of this briefing, that seems like an unnecessary risk. and that's why the secretary lew in particular has done a lot of really important work behind the scenes to try to bring or facilitate the efforts of those sitting at the table to reach an agreement. michelle. >> people opposed to certain parts of the patriot act have been pretty explicit in outlining these ways they didn't really help certain cases or there were other methods to get the same information. conversely, you and the administration you can't list or won't list any concrete examples of how it did help. you won't say whether the american public is less safe now. if this is so important, doesn't your argument seem to be weaker than those in opposition? isn't that contributing to the

controversy that's out there? >> that certainly is not the conclusion of 338 democrats and republicans in the house of representatives. who came together in a commonsense, bipartisan proposal that would implement, reforms that would strengthen civil liberties protections. while also re-authorizing tools that our national security professionals say are important to keeping us safe. i think the other thing that's true is that we have heard a lot of claims on the other side of this argument that haven't borne out to be true, and there has been an effort on the part of the administration, even given the constraints that we have, about talking about classified or highly sensitive national security programs, to be as honest and forthright and can dit about these programs and about the impact that they have on our national security. >> you mentioned campaign tactics. you mentioned that some people want to be in the oval office.

are you saying that these are just -- that some of the arguments out there are just political posturing? are you flat out saying that? >> i think what we have seen -- again, in the united states senate prior to the expiration of this specific -- a week before the exmyrrhation of the patriot act--expiration of the patriot act, you saw every single democrat in the united states senate line up behind the bipartisan proposal passed by the house of representatives. and unfortunately what we have seen is a whole lot of posturing within the republican party on this issue in the united states senate. and again, that's been the source of a lot of disappointment given that you had a piece of legislation that accomplished all of the objectives of the vast majority of people involved in this dispute. you had some people in the republican party who are saying we need to reform these programs. reforms are exactly what's included in the affordable care act. you have others in the republican party saying these are critically important tools that our profession assals need

to keep them safe. they could protect those rules by passing the u.s. freedom act. you saw so many republicans who didn't support this proposal when it first came up 10 days ago, i think that's why at least speaking for myself, i was not at all surprised that we saw 19 or 20 additional republicans essentially flip not on -- flip-flop on this. after spending a week on memorial day recess up against the deadline decide that they are going to support a proposal that just a week earlier they filibustered. i guess that's -- in terms of too go back to the strength of arguments, that's why i have a pretty strong argument when i say there is a lot of politics being placed on this. unfortunately it's at the expense of the national security and civil liberties of the american people. >> talking about national security, you use the word safe almost every other word. some of your statements.

if you feel so strongly about some of these programs without being able to give any concrete examples of them working, why can't you at least say that the american public is less safe without them? it almost seems like you're going just up to that point. do you feel that way or don't you feel that way? >> i encourage you to ask some of our professionals. you heard jim comey talk about how important these tools are to their work. i saw the director of central intelligence agency, john brennan, was on chips network over the weekend talking about how these programs, authorities were integral to the efforts of the intelligence community. so i would defer to those professals. they can give you the best assessment. all i can say is make the fact-based observation that there are tools our national security professionals say are important to their work. that today they don't have because of a bunch of republican senators who play

politics with this issue. >> the last question, rand paul had his own plan to hire 1,000 more f.b.i. agents to do some of the work that would substitute for bulk data collection. what does the white house think of that plan to hire more people to do the digging instead of bulk collection? >> i haven't seen the specifics of that proposal. mike. >> given the president early queasyness with some these programs, some of the national security programs, that were left in by the previous question, is he comfortable that if and when this gets re-upped again in the next few days that history judges that this is now his program, that he now owns the bulk collection program by virtue of the fact that you guys have been out there arguing for it for -- so

vociferously and he's comfortable with that being and taking ownership of it. >> what the reforms that the president's national security team has had negotiated with democrats and republicans in the house are reforms that would actually end the government's use of these authorities to collect bulk data. that's what the reforms did. to the extent we are talking about the president's legacy, i would suspect that would be alogical conclusion from some historians that the president ended some of these programs and did raise concerns about those who prioritize the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. this is consistent with reforms the president advocate add year and a half ago. and this is -- these are reforms that require the president and his team to expend significant amounts of political capital to achieve over the objection of republicans. so i do feel confident that

based on the president's record that the kinds of reforms and changes that he promised to bring into office in 2007 and 2008 are reforms that he has succeeded over the objection of republicans of implementing. >> he's not ending government use of information. he's changing the way that it's held and collected and where -- who holds the data. but the government's still using the information under the u.s.a. freedom act. it becomes -- this becomes the first time he gets -- he put his imprimatur on that collection right? >> i'm not sure -- it may be worth us having a -- somebody from the national security agencies talk to you about this, because this is information that private sector companies are already collecting. they are doing it on their customers, right? when you get your bill every

month you see the detailed list of phone calls and phone numbers and the length of the phone call you placed over the course of that month. and yes, the federal government would continue to have access to that information if they obtained a warrant from a judge. based on authority that is given to the administration by congress. and subject to oversight not just by congress but by inspectors general and other national security attorneys in the executive branch. this is the kind of rigorous oversight and essentially a rules architecture that the president does believe is important. that is materially goinch than the program that he inherited. i don't have any telephone calls from the president to read out. >> how does he see his role in making sure this does get done

over the next few days? it looks like that is likely going to happen. what does he perceive his role to be? >> the president over the last couple of weeks has spent a lot of time publicly advocating senate action, but the president's efforts in this regard started more than a year and a half ago. where he contemplated and then delivered a speech laying out the kinds of reforms that he would like to see to these programs. he directed his national security team to go to capitol hill and engage in bipartisan discussions about how to institute these reforms in a way that would add protections to our civil liberties while making sure that our national security professionals had access to all the tools they need to do their work. and he has worked in bipartisan fashion to build support for this in the house and build support for it in the senate. the president continue tobs an

advocate of the u.s.a. freedom act. and again i don't have any specific calls or anything that i'm going to preview. but the president's feelings on this i think are quite well-known both publicly and in private. >> i guess what i'm saying the programs which you are arguing have expired, does the president need to do more than publicly advocate we need to go to kwlill chill, for example, picking up the phone on a regular basis, making sure that something does get passed in the next few days? >> the fact is that the president has been engaged in this. you have heard him talk about it publicly. there have been conversations that the president and senior white house officials have had privately on this over the last week or so. again, the president's efforts and administration's efforts in this regard go back a year and a half. >> let me ask you about the taliban five, the travel ban

has been extended y did it take so long? why did it take coming right up against the deadline to make that happen? >> well, the priority that the administration's placed on this particular situation is ensuring that steps are implemented to ensure we are mitigating the risk to our national security from these individuals. and there are restrictions have been in place for a year. that continue to be in place today. and we continue to be in touch with our partners in qatar who have imposed those restrictions about what our path forward will be. those restrictions under the agreement that was initially reached would be put in place for a year. and the path forward is something that we are discussing now. it is still in place. but for the longer term path forward, that's something still under discussion. >> how long will it be in place

under the current plan? >> i think it certainly will be in place until an additional agreement can be reached about steps we believe are necessary to protect the national security of the united states. >> there are reports that three of them have tried to reach out to their terror networks. what safeguards are being put in place? >> we have a variety of safeguards. very few in any of which we can talk about publicly for reasons that should be fairly obvious. >> are you confident that the safeguards will prevent them from taking action given the fact that there are these reports they have reached out to -- >> most importantly before these individuals are transferred from the prison to guantanamo bay the secretary of secretary of defense had to sert -- certify that there was a strategy for mitigating the risk that these individuals pose to the united states and our national security. that strategy has been

implemented by our partners in qatar and we continue to be in touch with them about what strategy, what system will be in place moving forward. >> isn't there some concern if they have reached out to their ter lore network? >> these are individuals -- yes. that we are concerned about. that is why we have put restrictive measures in place to prevent them -- these are individuals who we have been working with our partners in qatar to restrict their movements. and to restrict the impact that they could possibly have on our national security. >> one about secretary kerry. is the president concerned at all that he -- the nuclear talks will be hampered because he will be out for a period of time. >> as secretary kerry is treated for his injuries, from

over the weekend it's likely to vn a impact -- have an impact on the manner in which he participates in those discussions over the course of this month. as i mentioned earlier, do i anticipate that secretary kerry will continue to play a critically important and leading role in conducting and hopefully completing those negotiations by the end of the month. kevin. >> thanks, josh. i want to add to that and get your thoughts on ambassador rice. can you sort of outline her role and how that might change given the injury to the secretary? >> at this point it's too early to tell exactly what sort of change we'll have to incorporate into secretary kerry's role. he's played a leading role in this previously and i would anticipate he will continue to play a leading role. his injuries may prevent him from having the kind of aggressive travel schedule that you-all are accustomed to him having. but i have no doubt that he will continue to play an important role in this effort.

>> ambassador rice's role? >> i would anticipate any change but if it changes we'll let you know. >> how engaged was the president in the conversations about the taliban five up until the extension that you mentioned moments ago? >> the president's directed his establish channels for having these conversations and for reaching these kinds of agreements with our partners around the world. in this case in qatar. there were a set of restricted conditions that were placed on these individuals when they were transferred to the custody of the government of qatar. our partners in qatar have lived up to the economiesments they made in the context of those negotiations. as we continue to talk to them about a -- the path forward, those restrictive conditions remain in place. >> just follow up on something michelle asked you. you seem to be very forceful about a number of issues. i also can tell when you're being careful. it seems to me when you won't

just come out and say we are less safe. there's a reason behind it. i'm just wondering is it because frankly we are not less safe? because the patriot act provisions have elapsed? are we basically the same because there are plenty of other tools available already? >> kevin, all i can do i can illustrate to you very clearly that there are tools that had previously been available to our national security professionals that are not available today because the senate didn't do their job. because we saw republicans in the senate engage in a lot of political back and forth as opposed to engaging in the critically important work of the country. and as a result there are programs and tools that our national security professionals themselves say are important to their work that are not available to them right now as we speak. and that's why we urge the senate to setaside the politicking and actually focus on their basic responsibility.

and we are hopeful that they will vote in favor of the commonsense bipartisan reform proposal that's already passed the house of representatives. >> we are going to leave this now. take you live to the floor of the u.s. house. it's been coming back in going to be considering four bills dealing with natural resources. also including protecting cultural artifacts and safety for native american children and votes expected in the house after 6:30 eastern time. also in the senate continuing work today on the u.s.a. freedom act dealing with n.s.a. surveillance. watch live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain,