countries are already hosting very large you were ins of refugees, lebanon, jordan, and turkey. senator rounds: could you just check and see if the numbers you are providing are up to date? i'm curious about the number of individuals displaced in syria and the number of individuals displaced in iraq but still perhaps in iraq. ms. wormuth: we can get you that breakdown. senator rounds: general, the reason for my question is that it would appear this is a significant number. most certainly concerning military operations, regardless where you are at. our desire not to do more harm than good in what we provide yet at the same time one of our expectations is that we're doing ongoing air operations throughout the area. we don't want to get into areas where we're going to cause more damage. yet, right now, you're challenged because you don't

have the forward air observers that would make it more efficient than what you've got today. can you share with us a little bit about what you're doing to try to improve that situation and how you would like to see that handled? general austin: sir, we routinely use all of our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets, u.a.v.'s and manned aircraft, to make sure that we are understand what's going on on the ground before we employ weapons. and we are diligent in our efforts there, not overly cautious to the point where we -- where we're not able to take advantage of opportunities to engage the enemy, but we're very, very mindful of, you know, the possibility of committing civilian casualties. senator round: but we're not using any of our own forward air observers at all?

is that fair to say? we don't have any forward air observers on the ground at all? general austin: that's correct. our jtacs are operating in the command center. what that does is allows jtacs to have visibility over what's going on in the target area but also enables them to gain visibility of where the friendly troops are. this is one of the biggest challenges we encounter throughout this battle space. in a lot of cases, the folks we're trying to help don't have a good handle on where their people are. and that slows down the -- our ability to engage. senator rounds: currently when you're training individuals in iraq and those who want to fight back in syria, we understand, and i think -- i don't think there's anybody out here disagreeing with the fact that we're not on schedule for getting the number we want to have trained, that is a fair assessment in terms of the number of individuals we want to

have trained that are both iraqi nationals and syrian nationals? general austin: sorry, struggling with my sign here. you're right, sir. we would like to see a lot more forces available to be trained . and we're encouraging the government of iraq to recruit those forces, bring them on board so we can get them in training centers. what we discovered, not discovered, we knew this going in those forces that have been , trained by us are doing pretty well on the battlefield. senator rounds: fair to say, though, general, one of the problems we've got particularly with syrian fighters is our ability to actually discern which ones we can use and which ones we're not using based on our review of their background and what they intend to do, if they want to go in and fight assad, eliminating them from being part of our team? fair to say at this point? general austin: that's correct, we're focusing on countering isil. senator rounds: thank you.

thank you, mr. chairman. senator hirono: thank you, mr. chairman. both of you testified that a very strict vetting process has resulted in far fewer fighters for us to train. does this mean we're turning away thousands of potential fighters? ms. wormuth: senator, i would say two things. one, because the authority we have focuses our program on fighting isil, there are a number of individuals who might like to receive training from the united states or equipment, for that matter, but they want to fight the regime and that's not the focus of our program. and then the other way the standards affect the recruiting pool is obviously we want to make sure that we have confidence in the people we bring in to our program and that we can give them equipment and trust them to use that appropriately, trust them to fight on the battlefield in way -- in a way that's consistent

with the laws of armed conflict. in many cases, people who might be interested in volunteering don't meet those standards or are younger than -- are under the age of 18, for example, or who are otherwise not medically qualified. senator hirono: so is one of the assessments that you're doing is to review whether or not we're being unrealistic regarding the kinds of factors we want you to take into consideration before you train a particular individual, is that one of the areas you are looking to which may require congressional action? ms. wormuth: we are looking at our recruiting and screening process all the time. even before the first class was reinserted we were looking at how to speed up our recruiting process and speed up the screening process. we are looking at the kinds of criteria that we have in place

but i think our view is that right now, our criteria are very consistent with the requirements that congress gave us and if we were to loosen them, for example, i think we would absolutely have to come back to you all and ask for -- senator hirono: that's my question, whether or not you are seriously asking us to re-evaluate the criteria congress established. i know we're talking a lot about what's going on on the ground but a concern is also, and you mentioned this in your testimony, that you're looking for more effective ways to counter isil's very effective messaging campaign. there are concerns about isil's ability to motivate lone wolves who will take action without ever having direct contact with isil. so taking action in our country as well as elsewhere. so what are some of the effective ways you are countering isil's messaging strategy?

ms. wormuth: we are taking some steps that are effective, but we need to do more. we have been working, for example, closely with a number of countries in the coalition to identify communicators inside those communities who have credibility with muslim populations and who will be able to lay out a compelling reasons why isil's theology is completely bankrupt. we have been working with governments to counter violent extremism, we have been working to get our messages out about military successes that we have more effectively. but a lot of it is working with the private, sort of the private sector and civil society to try to get the right kinds of messengers to speak to these kinds of groups. it's a very challenging part of our effort and i think we need to do more there. senator hirono: i agree with

that. i think the lone wolf phenomenon, and the problem is one we don't have a very good handle on. general, i think you mentioned you thought there were signs that iran would like to be more active in supporting syria and possibly that -- because of the agreement and they were getting their hands on more money as the sanctions get lifted, you said you saw some signs of that. that iran would like to do more . what are these signs that you are referring to? because we know that iran is already supporting syria. are you expecting that they're going to put billions more into their support of assad? general austin: they are already supporting syria, you are exactly right. as things become more dynamic in syria and the regime is increasingly challenged, it's my assessment that iran will want

to continue to try to shore them up in a greater way. senator hirono: it's not as though our country will stand by idly as iran proceeds with that kind of program, correct? we're not going to just sit there. ms. wormuth: certainly not. we are very focused on countering iran's maligned activities. we have sanctions of our own that are in place to try to block arms, for example, going to countries. we have interdicted or worked with folks in the coalition to interdict weapons going from example, tos, for try to use those kinds of tools to limit iran's ability to support the syrians. senator hirono: thank you. senator lee: thank you, mr.

chairman, for calling this important hearing. thank you, secretary wormuth and general austin for taking the time to answer these questions. it's deeply appreciated. it's been one year since president obama announced to the world that the united states would undertake a strategy to degrade and defeat isis. in order to return some semblance of stability to iraq and create an environment that could lead to a negotiated end to the civil war in syria. it was my belief that president obama's overall goal and strategy he outlined to achieve that goal may have been beset from the outset by some flawed assumptions of some contradictions and perhaps an excessive reliance on political forecasting in a region of the world that is anything but easy to predict. this, compounded by a string of recent events, is why i think it may be time for us to reassess

the way the united states views this conflict and chooses to respond to it. and i think we need to start by making clear-eyed threat assessments and prioritizing u.s. national security interests. general austin, what's your assessment of the most significant threats that the conflict in syria and in iraq pose to the security of u.s. citizens and our freedoms? in other words, at the end of the day, what needs to be accomplished for the u.s. government to fulfill, perform its constitutional duty to protect the people of the united states and our interests? general austin: thank you, senator. this is a transnational threat. if left unchecked, it will continue to expand and to try to take up occupied territory and govern it. and in doing so, it will try to

erase international boundaries, it will try to do a number of things that will cause tremendous pain and suffering throughout the region. it will also export terror. in my belief it will export terror to other parts of the world and particularly to places like our homeland. we see the beginnings of this in this lone wolf activity that we talk about. we also see what we're concerned about, individuals who go into iraq and syria and fight as a part of this effort and return, potentially return back to our homeland and bring those skills back with them. so this is -- it is a threat to us. i think the threat will continue to increase. senator lee: the administration's strategy is to create an environment in syria that will be likely to lead to a

negotiated settlement of the civil war and removal of assad from power in damascus. in your professional military opinion, and given your knowledge of the region, what level of pressure would need to be leveraged against mr. assad and his supporters in order for them to capitulate? especially as many minority groups, some opposition -- view some opposition groups as a threat to their survival and how much investment would be needed from the coalition countries in order to provide security and stability in hypothetical post-assad syria? general austin: i think that assad would only be willing, as you have stated, senator, to come to the table to negotiate a settlement if he feels like he's

threatened. and as things continue to develop in the country, you know, we see a number of elements, al nusra and others fighting the regime, isil, their efforts come together and place increasing pressure on assad. he is lose he still has significant capability but he's losing capability every day. now, the wild card is, when countries like iran or potentially russia would -- could possibly move in and shore him up. it could extend things for a bit of time. in a post-assad environment, we have to consider that there are a number of elements there that will continue to be there, will continue to fight. al nusra is one of those elements. if there are remnants of isil there, they'll continue to fight. it will require some sort of stability force to go in and

make sure that whatever the transition government looks like, it has the ability to do its job. senator lee: thank you, general austin. i see my time has expired. senator reed: on behalf of senator mccain, i recognize the senator. senator kaine: let me start with a compliment. then i will refer to to the form and express some major concern. i was in urbil, kuwait, jordan, turkey in late june and early july, i was in president barzani's office in urbil, and he said if president obama had had not started his bombing campaign we would not be here , today, he meant we the kurd, , kurdistan. he wanted to extend his thanks. however, everywhere else i

traveled, to baghdad and to the other parts of the region, it seems like there's major problems. the effort to retake ramadi that was begun in mid july is apparently not going that well . and in syria, absent some successes in the kurdish area near kobani has been disastrous. i was not an original supporter when senator mccain raised the idea of a no-fly humanitarian zone in default to 13. i listened to general dempsey tellis why that was not a great idea, and i agreed with him. but by the time senator king and i went to lebanon in february of 2014 and saw a million refugees already into lebanon, i became converted. when senator mccain pushed the idea of humanitarian zone first, there was only about 750,000 syrian refugees in turkey. now there's 1.8 million and it will be 2 million soon. the number is four million syrians have fled outside the country.

there's 7.8 million internally displaced syrians in the country and they could easily leaf the country as well. a humanitarian zone in northern syria would be difficult to do but i think the benefit of that compared with four million and then climbing to could be six or seven or eight million refugees, something could be very, very dangerous leaving the country, i think we would have been wise to do it when senator mccain suggested it and i think we , would still be wise to do it . and from having met with a number of syrian refugees, an awful lot of those who fled the country would go back if they felt there was a place where basic needs would be met and they would be safe. i could encourage -- i would encourage that. that's not your decision to make, i encourage the administration. general austin, you said the war against isil would go on for years. is that correct?

general austin: it is. senator kaine: i don't think go on for years and the chances of success for isil are dimmed, i don't think those are compatible statements. i don't think those are really compatible statements. it seems like the isil threat is expanding geographically. we talking heavily about iraq and syria. there is isil presence in libya that we are paying attention to. isil presence in afghanistan, disaffected television were pledging allegiance to isil. -- disaffected talibam pledging allegiance. there may be some present in yemen, is that correct? general austin: that is correct sir, there is. >> so the potential battlefield against isil is expanding. we might be engaging in some new activity. my understanding, general austin, we have undertaken airstrikes to support, train

syrians in syria, when they have been threatened by al nusra, is that correct? general austin: correct sir. >> and we are prepared to undertake airstrikes to protect those syrian fighters if they fall under threat and attacked by the assad regime? general austin: that is correct, sir. >> i technically, completely agree with that. -- i tactically, completely agree with that. what is the military to get for taking -- military predicate against taking on the forces of the assad regime? ms. wormuth: as you know well, we can defend against isil and forces arend if our attacked under the regime, the president could exercise his article to write under the constitution's. -- his article 2 rights under the constitution. i meant our forces, meaning the

forces that we trained. >> i have not seen an interpretation of article 2, ever, that would allow the u.s. to undertake action under article 2, to protect other's fighters. you can take action under article 2 to protect the u.s., the president doesn't need to ask anybody's permission for that. but to protect other's figth hters, i've never seen an interpretation that will do this. last thing i will say, there is a lot more criticism i would get into and a lot of us have. i worry that congress it's criticizing you as if we were editorial writers. we have a lot of opinions. we are acting like fans in the stands. we still have not authorized this war. i believe it is being carried out in violation of basic legal principles because congress has not gone what congress is supposed to do. we can be fans in the stands and throw up all the criticisms we

want, but we are in the 14 month on undeclared war that is based upon a legal justification that is specious, in my view. but congress has allowed it to happen, completely giving up their article 1 responsibilities. now that we are told the war is going to go on for years, my question to my colleagues -- how long will we allow a president to wage an executive or without congressional authorization? i think we are afraid to touch this. we can criticize this only want. we will have many more hearings over the course of the years. of course we will have critical things to say. but if were not willing to do our constitutional duty, why are we here? we are not fans, we are supposed to be the owners of this deal. >> i recognize senator cotton. thatcotton: the answer is wars are not one with paper resolutions, they are one with iron resolution. that is clearly lacking in our strategy against the islamic state. muth,al austin, ms. wor

thank you for your service. i want to speak briefly about the reports that may have been efforts to cook the books about our performance against the islamic state. in your opening statement you acknowledged the problem, ongoing investigations to include with the ig. you have an ongoing challenge in your intelligence reporting in way that affects your operations. putting aside the ig investigation, can you tell us what steps you are taking to confront those challenges that you face on a daily basis? general austin: i have recently, and continue, to emphasize, senator, to all of my subordinates, that my expectation is that i get candid and accurate intelligence assessments from my staff. i also emphasize to my entire command, as i have in every command that i have had, that

the welfare of my people is extremely important to me. and so, i care about my people. my expectation is that they have a climate that is conducive to providing for a good, healthy and sound work environment. sen. cotton: as someone who regular consumes intelligence community products on the islamic state and our campaign against them, i was very surprised to hear allegations that the books were ". they are not painting a pretty picture of how this campaign is going. general austin, i want to move to events in syria, particular ly russia's military buildup. russia is sending aircraft there, air defense systems, armored personnel carriers, battle tanks, in addition to

invite support systems, like modular housing, designed for a large and continued presence. airstrikes is the coalition conducting on a daily basis in syria? general austin: we are conducting overall about 24 or so airstrikes in iraq and syria. 1/3 are in syria. sen. cotton: what efforts, if any, do we have to do you conflict this battle space? conflict this battle space now that we are faced with all these armored tanks and air carriers? sureal austin: we make that we have measures in place to ensure that we don't have an inadvertent encounter with russian aircraft or syrian aircraft. sen. cotton: do our pilots need

100% positive i can vacation that there is no russian --positive identification that there is no russian target before they can strike? not had totin: we've encounter that yet. clearly these are things, that from a tactical's perspective, he will continue to work and think through. assad's other supporter is iran. do our pilots have to have 100% positive identification that there are no iranian forces on the target? general austin: our policy to have 100% -- they have to have certainty, senator, that there are isil targets to be engaged. as you know we can see what we are shooting at or are engaging, this is not an issue. sen. cotton: there is a recently in the media that russia offered

in 2012 to help the west remove aside from power and that the u.s. declined that offer because we believe that us on would -- we believe that assad would fall on his own accord. ms. wormuth: i don't believe that is an accurate report. that is obviously from several years ago. i wasn't in his position at that time. so i don't believe it was accurate. i don't believe it is accurate. sen. cotton: do you believe that iran and the proxies can be a partner in the fight against the islamic state in any way in iraq or syria? ms. wormuth: no, not really. we are not cooperating with iran right now. in iraq, for example, we are de-conflicting. they certainly have a role with some of the shia militia on the ground, some of the popular mobilization forces. but we are not cooperating. and i don't see iran as having a productive role in either iraq or syria. sen. cotton; thank you, i would

agree. now they appear to be relying on russian forces and iran to backup their hapless efforts. they won't be a partner on trying to rely on iran in trying to defeat the islamic state. it's like trying to rely on gasoline to put out a fire. >> on behalf of the german, senator king. -- on behalf of the chairman. sen. king: i just want to touch for a few moments on the intelligence issue. i consider this extremely grave. a grave issue. if we don't have reliable intelligence as policymakers, and the president doesn't have reliable intelligence, we can't make a good policy. this keeps happening. this goes back to the bay of vietnam, the--- iraq war. thesellegation,

allegations are extremely serious. i understand we have an ig investigation, but as a commanding officer, i would hope that you would be all over this. i want to ask you a direct question. have you ever ordered, suggested, or hinted to any of the intelligence command that they should sweeten the the intelligence reports in order to try a more positive -- in order more positive view of our efforts in iraq or syria? general austin: absolutely not. sen. king: i hope you will stay on this. you know better than us, if you don't have good intelligence, you're not only going into the battle blind, if it's cooked intelligence, you're going into the battle with one hand tied behind her back. i'm externally concerned about this issue.

this is a question for the record. you used the term progress in your statement number of times. "progress"here and there. for the record, not now, but i would like a specific list of what you see is progress, where we are succeeding. generally it doesn't look like that. it looks like a stalemate. i think again, we should have this information. some of it is in your testimony. if you could, i would like a one-pager on where you think progress has been made. general austin: i would be happy to provide that sir. sen. king: thank you. on a broad question of policy, assad and isis are evil twins. isis largely came into existence in reaction to assad. in retrospect, and like senator kaine, i was reluctant about getting involved. in retrospect, the longer we left assad there, it has created

a situation, both military and crisis in a situation -- both a humanitarian crisis. isil didn't exist when we first started having these opportunity to make hay with the population. a strategy that ignores assad -- for example, trains -- to go into syria to only fight isil but not assad i think -- i think we now need to recognize that's not a logical strategy. part of good strategic thinking is you modify your strategy according to the changed circumstances. the circumstances are, you mentioned he's losing his capabilities every day, i'm sorry, general. i have been hearing that at every hearing since 2013. assad is about to go. he's about to collapse. i know you didn't say that today, but we've got to find a strategy that allows us to move

assad aside in some way working with the russians, if necessary, or the iranians, if necessary, because he's the irritant that's keeping this thing stirred up. finally, in terms of our troops, the fundamental problem seems to me is, we are not going to defeat isis with just airpower, everybody knows that. we are trying to rely on a weak force in iraq and no force in syria. how do we refine this strategy, general, and you know that -- in order to root them out of mosul or iraq or any place else, you have to have troops on the ground. we don't want them to be americans. how do we break through this? clearly the train and equip is too little too late. your thoughts. general austin: we are going to need a greater commitment from the partners that we are enabling, senator. again, if the iraqis make the commitment to put more troops through the train and equip

program, we'll get them trained and equipped and get them into the fight. senator king: are there signs the iraqis willing to do that? do they want mosul back? general austin: i certainly think so. they want to stabilize anbar, first. and then take on mosul. yes, i believe that. senator king: give me thoughts on the overall strategy here. ms. wormuth: certainly, senator. in temples getting more iraqis into the fight, they are, as i said, increased -- they are opening the aperture in terms of which units they are putting into our training sites. that's going to help create additional -- senator king: i would like specific numbers for the record. ms. wormuth: certainly. we see them starting to now plan ahead in terms of which units are going into the training pipeline, which again i think indicates a greater sense of urgency on their part. and on the syrian side of the ledger i would say it is clearly harder to find partners on the

ground on the syrian side of the ledger, but one of the things that we didn't envision a year ago was the partnership, if you will, that we have of our airpower with the syrian kurds and the syrian arab coalition that are operating with them. that group on its own won't be enough, but we are continuing to look for opportunities like that even as we review our own train and equip. senator king: i need to rethink a strategy about a safe zone, no-fly zone, some protection from assad's barrel bombs. this is -- i hate it when the chairman's right. he's been talking about this for two years, in retrospect i think he was right. we have allowed this to just -- atrocity to go on too long. it's impacting us. it's impacting the rest of europe. i really think that there should be a rethinking of the nonintervention strategy. not in terms of troops, but in terms of airpower in order to

level the playing field, bring pressure on assad and the russians because it doesn't seem to be a protect now. thank you very much. senator reed: on behalf of the chairman, senator. senator tillis: thank you. ms. wormuth, you made in your opening statement, i apologize i had to step out i had a judiciary committee meeting. you made a comment in your opening statement i want to focus time on through a series of questions that i can get briefed. you said isis it not 10-foot tall. the reason i have a concern with that statement is it's reminiscent of characterizing them as the j.v. team. they are a very serious threat. before i go forward, general austin, i neglected to do what i always do when i see people in uniform. thank you for your service. i know you guys are a part of the solution. but when we say that isis is not 10 feet tall, they are the

richest threat group of this kind in human history. through the seizure of assets for the iraqi national bank, i think they see some $820 million. last week we had a memorial for 9/11. it's estimated that the 9/11 attacks cost about $500,000. through that one asset seizure, if my math is right, that equates to about 1,600 9/11s having the resources to strike that kind of damage in our homeland, middle east, and europe and other places. i think we need to recognize them as one of the single greatest threats we have today. of course we have russia, north korea, iran. they are at the frontline for people that we have to take seriously. we have to figure out when we are making progress and when we are not. that leads to my questions. do you feel like you are -- the last 24, 36 months, whatever time horizon general austin, makes sense to you, does isis

control more or less territory or do they have greater or less influence in other areas that are merging as potential strongholds for isis in the future? more or less? general austin: last in iraq -- senator tillis: we know they are expanding elsewhere. we know they are changing jerseys in afghanistan, from al qaeda and other groups, and taliban into isis. we have them operating in other areas. what's the net? more or less? general austin: it would be more. senator tillis: ok. do they have -- if you were to compare their resource, economic resources, over the last 24, 36 months, do they have more or less dollars to support their terrorist operations? general austin: less. we have targeted their resources. they make money, as you know, senator, off things like oil collection. senator tillis: antiquity sales, kidnappings.

general austin: i have said on a number of occasions not only do we have to stop the flow of foreign fighters, but we have to take away this enemy's ability to finance. senator tillis: i'm trying to come up with this concept of a dashboard so when we have the next committee hearing i can ask you the same series of questions and see where the trends are. do they have more or less influence -- they seem to be winning on social media in terms of reaching out to people in the homeland. reaching out to people in europe about six hours ago it was posted some 15-year-old girl murdered her mother in europe. was convicted of murder as a result of being radicalized by some of the social media presence. have we stemmed the tied on their continued expansion of the use of social media to radicalize people internationally in the homeland? ms. wormuth: i think they do have a more effective counter messaging campaign at this point. that's an area we need to work on. senator tillis: it seems like again in terms of trends the

ground that they are taking, the places they are heavily influencing, social media. this is an organization that is trending in the wrong direction against the greatest superpower that's ever existed. i want to go back to chemical weapons. do you think that -- there's been reports, all i want to talk about confirmed reports. do you think that their use of chemical weapons have increased over the last 24 months or beginning to see evidence that they are being used in certain areas in syria and iraq? more or less? ms. wormuth: senator, given that they had no apparent use of chemical weapons at the outset, there have been -- some indications. senator tillis: ok. the last question i have is how -- i understand that most of the problem has to deal with the fact that iraq has failed to do what they need to do to engage the sunni population. but they haven't done it.

so over the course of the last 24, 36 months has the sunni population been more or less inclined to side with isis where the conflicts are arising in iraq? ms. wormuth: i think we have seen considerable outreach from prime minister abadi. there are now 4,000 sunni tribal fighters in anbar we didn't have six months ago. senator tillis: you feel like we are winning in terms of winning the hearts and minds of sunni population. general austin: i would agree they are less inclined in iraq to side with isil. they have seen what isil brings to the table and most of the sunnis don't want that going forward. they do want to be included in the government of iraq. senator tillis: i think they should be. if we are going to have long-term strategy that has long-term engagement. thank you very much, i'm sorry, ranking member, for going over time.

senator reed: senator king has requested additional question. senator king. senator king: it's not a question, mr. chairman. i want to submit for the record an extraordinary speech by robert gates in 1992 when he was head of the c.i.a. on the danger of politicization of intelligence. it's prescient and brilliant which is not surprising coming from robert gates. i want to submit it for the record. thank you. senator reed: without objection, on behalf of chairman mccain let me thank the witnesses and adjourn the hearing. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

duos is ambivalent president obama calls on congress to avoid a government shutdown by passing a federal budget.

samantha power discusses the upcoming united nations generally assembly -- general assembly session. >> on the next washington journal, we discussed the budget marcyne in congress with kaptur. roskam and peter stephen komerau about efforts to defund planned parenthood. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states, give your attention. petitioner versus arizona. >> roe versus wade. madison is probably the most

famous case the court ever decided. slavery was not legally recognized. >> putting a decision into effect would take presidential orders and the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that changed the direction of society and also changed society. him they would have to have a search warrant. demanded to see the paper, which they refused to do. thereafter, the police officer handcuffed her.

imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than to tell the stories behind great cases. he bravely opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being in prison for failing to report for relocation, he took his case to the supreme court. >> some of the most famous decisions are ones that are unpopular. >> if you had to pick a freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> a few cases illustrate very dramatically what it means to live in a society of 310 million togethero stick because they believe in the rule of law.

>> landmark cases. historication of 12 supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. producedies on c-span in cooperation with the national constitution center. a viewing october 5 at 9:00. , "landmark cases" the book. introduction into the background, highlights and impact of each case, written by rrow, and published by c-span. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. in a meeting with business leaders in washington, president obama called on congress to avoid a government shutdown by passing a budget before the

september 30 deadline. he discussed how he will address computer security in a meeting with china's president next week. this is an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] president obama: thank you so much everyone, please have a seat. thank you randall, and everyone here at the business roundtable. i will say a few words, and hopefully spend a lot of time taking your questions. seven years ago today was one of the worst days in the history of our economy. if you read the wall street journal that morning, you saw lehmancks from aig and were spreading worldwide. businesses would go bankrupt, millions of americans would lose

their jobs and homes, and the economy would reach the brink of collapse. that was where we were when i became chief executive. here is where we are today. businesses like yours have created more than 13 million new jobs over the past 66 months. the longest streak of job growth on record. the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in seven years. there are more job openings now than any time in the history. housing has bounced back. it was higher than before the recession. we have made enormous strides in both traditional energy sources and clean energy sources while reducing carbon emissions, and our education system is actually making significant progress with significant gains in reducing the dropout rate, reading and

math scores increasing. more than 16 million have health insurance that did not have it before. this progress is a testament to american business and innovation. it is a testament to the workers that you employ. but i will take a little credit too. it is a testament to some good policy decisions. soon after we took off as we rescued the auto industry, worked to rebuild the economy on a stronger foundation for growth. other countries in some cases embraced austerity as an ideology without looking at the data and the facts. the results speak for themselves. america has come back faster than almost every advanced ofion on earth and at a time

volatility, we remain the world's safest, smartest investment. of course, i will not be satisfied, and we as a country should not be satisfied until more working families are feeling the recovery in their lives. the fact is that what i've called middle class economics has been good for business. corporate profits have hit an all-time high. slowing health care prices, and plummeting costs have helped the bottom line. our workforce is more educated than ever before. the stock market has more than -- 2009.ince 29 yearis on pace to be the of highest consumer confidence since 2004. america's technological entrepreneurs have continued to make incredible products that are changing our lives rapidly.

you would not know any of this if you were listening to the folks seeking this office that i occupy. [laughter] president obama: in the echo chamber that is presidential politics, everything is dark and terrible, they do not seem to offer many solutions for the disasters they perceive, but they are quick to tell you who to blame. i am here to say there is nothing particularly patriotic about talking down america, especially when we stand as an economic strength in the world. right now we have a chance to build on progress that we have made and isn't knowledge acknowledged worldwide. we have a chance to grow the economy faster, create jobs

faster, lift people's incomes and prospects faster. we have to make some sensible choices. i am going to focus on one example -- america's next fiscal year is almost upon us. congress has about two weeks to pass a budget. if they do not, they will shut down the government for the second time in two years. democrats are ready to sit down and negotiate with republicans today. as we speak. but it should be over legitimate questions of spending and revenue, not unrelated ideological issues. you will recall two years ago republicans shut down the government because they did not like obamacare. today some are suggesting the government should be shut down because they do not like planned parenthood. that is not good sense, and it is not good business. the notion that we play chicken with an $18 trillion economy and global markets that are already

skittish all because an issue around a woman's health provider that receives less than $.20 out of every thousand dollars in the federal budget is not good policymaking. the last time republicans shut down the government it costs the economy billions of dollars, consumer confidence plummeted. i do not think anyone here thinks that will be good for business. i have always believed what our first republican president, a guy from my home state named abraham lincoln believed, that through government we should do together those things we cannot do as well by ourselves. funding infrastructure projects. educating the best work force in the world. cutting-edge research and development so businesses can take that research and create new services.

setting basic rules for the market place that encourage the innovation and fair competition that help a market-based economy thrive. creating safety nets that not only help the most vulnerable frees all of us to take risks. and welcoming instead of disparaging immigrants that have always been a source of dynamism in our economy. my hope is that congress aims a little higher than just not shutting the government down. that is a good start, we would like them to achieve that, but i think we can do better. we can actually do some things to help the economy grow. after the last shut down, both parties came together and

unwound some of the irrational cuts to the economy and the military readiness that is known as sequester. that agreement expires in two weeks as well. for those of you who are not st in federal budget terminology, sequester are basically automatic, topline cuts that do not discriminate, do not think through what are good investment and what is waste. if we do not reverse the cut currently in place, a lot of the things your companies depend on, research, job training, education for the workforce, they will be reduced effectively at a time when other countries around the world are racing to get ahead. on the other hand if congress does reverse some of the cuts, our own budget office estimates it would add 500,000 jobs to the

economy makes your alone. 4.2% to the gdp. keep in mind that we can afford it. all of the things i said in terms of recovery, we have also reduced the deficit by two thirds. right now, it is about 2.8% of gdp. we have reduced the deficit faster than some of those countries that pursued strict austerity policies that were not thinking about how to grow the economy. so we are well positioned without adding to the deficit. i want to repeat, since i took office, we have cut the deficit by more than two thirds, the good news is we may be moving beyond some of the stale debate we have been having about spending and revenue over the past few years if what economists and people who are

knowledgeable about the budget are listened to as opposed to this being given by short-term politics. people in both parties, including some of the leading republican candidates for president have been putting up proposals, some i agree with, some i do not. i will give you an example, you have two leading candidates in the republican side who has said we should eliminate the carried interest loophole. there is disagreement, but i you that you -- tell keeping this tax loophole that leads to folks who are doing paying lower rates than their not -- secretaries is not contributing to the economy. we could help 4 million students afford college. these are sensible choices that if you were running your business and took a look at it, you would make that decision.

america should too. this is an example of how we can maintain fiscal responsibility while at the same time making the investments we need to grow. the bottom line is this. seven years ago if we had listened to some politicians who said we could only cut the way to prosperity, the fact is we would be worse off today. now, westen to them would be worse off tomorrow. i hope that you will talk to your friends in congress, democrats and republicans alike as congress flirts with another shutdown, remind them of what is at stake. we will have disagreements sometimes. i cannot expect to get 100% from what i want in any conversation, including with my wife. but i do expect us to stay focused on why we are here. which is to help the american

people, and businesses like yours and your workers do better. that is our job, we are not supposed to be impeding progress, we are supposed to accelerate progress. if our leaders can put common sense over ideology and the good of the country over the good of the party, then we will do just fine. despite the perennial doom and gloom that is inevitably part of a presidential campaign, america's winning right now. america is great right now. we can do even better. but the reason i am so confident about the future is not because of the government or the size of our gdp or military, but because everybody in this country that i

meet, regardless of their station in life, race, religion, the region they live in, they do believe in a common creed, if people work hard in this country, they should be able to get ahead. and i know that is what you believe. those are the values you try to instill in your companies as well. my hope is that that decency and hard work, common sense will be reflected in washington. so with that, let me take questions. i will start with randall, since he volunteered for what i am sure is the thankless job of being here. randall: [laughter] i will get it going here. i know there are a lot of other questions. leader mcconnell was here a little earlier, he gave us all a cause to exhale talking about the budget. he seemed confident we would get to a place where we have a

budget. in the context of that, he spoke about house government can actually provide opportunities for getting big things done that might be hard otherwise. he gave you a strong complement over -- president obama: my head is snapping. what did i do? randall: you worked aggressively. about theplementary work. talk to us a little bit about your view of the opportunity to get the transpacific deal done. president obama: i am confident we can get it done this year. the trade ministers should be meeting again sometime in the next several weeks. they have the opportunity to close the deal. most chapters have been completed at this point.

i am confident that it will in fact accomplish our central goal, which is to make sure we have a level playing field for american businesses and workers in the fastest-growing region of the world. there are going to be unprecedented protections for labor and environmental standards, but also for i.t. protection. also for making sure that when any company here makes an investment they are not being disadvantaged, but are instead being treated like domestic companies for commercial purposes. the notion here is that we have 11 nations who represent the fastest-growing, most populous part of the world, buying into a high standards trade deal that

allows us and your companies on a consistent basis to compete. the good news is, with a lot of tough negotiating and pushing and pulling, occasionally i get to onein to lob a call of my counterparts, i think that we will get this done. the key then, once we close the negotiations and we have an agreement, is to get ttp through congress. we got it through, i will return the compliment. mitch mcconnell worked very hard to get it done. we should not assume know that -- though that because the authority was done that we automatically are going to be

getting ttp done. trade arecs around tough. i said this even in the run-up to getting tpa authority, a lot of americans when they think of of plants inhink their hometown shutting down and moving to mexico or china, and american manufacturing and good paying jobs being lost. the argument that i have made consistently to democrats has been that there may have been some mistakes made in past trade agreements, and not for example having enforceable labor and

environmental provisions that american companies doing the right thing at a disadvantage. that there were not enough safeguards for intellectual property, and the abuses of state owned enterprises and subsidies that companies may have been involved with. that is the status quo now. if you want to correct those things, we have to raise the bar. i did not fully persuade on my -- all of my democratic colleagues, because the politics are tough. i was willing to take my case to be democratic caucus and talk to my friends in organized labor and say that we cannot look backwards, we have to look forward. we will have to compete in these areas. here is the concern politically, is that within the republican party some of the same impulses

, that are anti-immigration reform, some of the same see the entire world as a threat, and we have to wall ourselves off, some of those same impulses start creeping into the trade debate. a party that traditionally was pro-free trade, now has a aybstantial element that m differently. to their credit, i think they are on the right program, they will need help potentially with membership. the closer we get to political season, the tighter the gloves get. i will tell you i am confident that if i am presenting an agreement to congress, it will

meet the commitment that i made that this would be the highest standard, most progressive trade deal in american history. it will be good for american business and americans. -- american workers. all right. >> hello mr. president, thank you for being with us. ask you about cyber security. we are very supportive of the legislation that has passed the house and is in progress in the senate. i wanted to get your thoughts on how you are thinking about this, and also with the upcoming visit of the president of china about cyber security and our relationship with china. president obama: this is an issue that is not going away. it will be more and more important, and it will be

challenging. it is challenging in part because the internet itself, the architecture of it was not intended to carry trillions of dollars of transactions and everyone's personal information. it was designed for professors to trade academic papers. the kind of security that we are looking for was not embedded into the dna of internet. the vulnerabilities are significant. they are being exploited by not just state actors, but also nonstate actors, and criminal at an accelerating pace.

this is something from a business perspective that we will concentrate on. one of the issues that you mentioned that we are focused on is this encryption issue. there is a legitimate tension around this issue. on the one hand, the stronger the encryption, the better we can potentially protect data. there is an argument that says we want to turbocharge our encryption so no one can crack it. on the other hand, if you have encryption that does not have any way get in there, we are now isil, child pornographers, others to

essentially operate within a black box in ways that we have never experienced before during the telecommunications age. i am not talking about the countries around nsa -- i am talking about the traditional fbi going to a judge and getting a warrant, but still cannot get in. we have created a process around which to see if we can square the circle here, and reconcile the need for greater and greater encryption, and the legitimate needs of national security and law enforcement. i will not say that we have cracked the code yet, but we have some of the smartest folks, not just in government, but also in private sector, working together to try to resolve it. the is interesting, even in

tech community, people are on different sides of this. with respect to china, this will probably be one of the biggest topics i discuss. we have repeatedly said to the chinese government that we understand traditional intelligence gathering functions states, including us engage in. we will do everything we can to stop you from getting into transcriptions i have had, but we understand that you will try to do that. that is fundamentally different, from your government or its inxies engaging directly industrial espionage and stealing trade secrets, proprietary affirmation from

-- information from companies, that we consider and act of aggression that has to stop. we are preparing a number of measures that will indicate to the chinese that this is not just a matter of us being mildly upset, but is something that will put significant strains on a bilateral relationship. we are prepared to take action in order to get their attention. my hope is it gets resolved shorter than that. ultimately the goal should be to have some a sick international framework that will not be perfect because there will still be a lot of nonstate actors and hackers who are very good. we will still have to have good defense. we will still have to find fingerprints of those and

apprehend them, and stop networks engaged in cybercrime. amongst states there has to be a analogous tot is what we have done to nuclear power. no one stands to gain, and frankly, although the chinese and russians are close, we are still the best. if we want to go on offense, a whole bunch of countries that -- would have significant problems. we do not want to see the internet weaponize in that way requires tough negotiations. if we and the chinese are able to coalesce around a process for negotiations, i think we can bring a lot of other countries along. >> we will work with you on that.

>> thank you for being here. it is also good to be reminded occasionally of some of the progress we have made. thank you for that. deal, ones, the iran that weare, the place have not made progress is on tax reform. we are getting now to being back in the corner. since you cannot get a grand deal, we are talking about some deals -- sub deals. these are destructive to the grants deal which is total tax reform. can you help us think about how we should negotiate this duality that we're in right now. where do you think we will end up?

obama: we put forth a proposal early on that i am confident i could sell to this group. not everyone would be thrilled, but i think i could argue that overtime would be good for business. wasntially what we propose was the traditional framework for tax reform, close loopholes, lower rates, we would address international taxation in ways that currently put american businesses at a disadvantage and would allow for repatriation, but would not treasury --up the empty out the treasury. we could also pay for infrastructure. that we would get nibbles on the other side.

to his credit, paul ryan expressed interest in negotiations and discussions, but your previous speaker, mitch mcconnell has said that he is not interested in getting tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform of that for done -- that sort done. we are still in conversations with mr. ryan, i know that senator schumer and others have been working on the possibilities of a fairly robust package. ultimately you will have to have leader of the senate majority party brought in to try to get this done. i understand why tax reform is

loose. those of us who believe in a simpler, fairer, more competitive tax framework in the abstract sometimes look at our bottom lines and say the deduction sounds good. has if this organization been supportive, there are other organizations in town that have pretty strong influence over the republican party that have not been as wild on it partly because their view is that the only tax reform acceptable is one that would lower all right -- rates, regardless of the effect on the deficit. that is not something that is viable. we will keep on working on it. my suggestion would be that the crc continue to encourage -- br

continue to encourage speaker ryan to come up with an ambitious package. i can assure you that the white house will take it seriously. we do not expect everything in the original package would go forward. the one thing we could not do and i get concerned sometimes that what is labeled as tax reform ends up being cuts. you are not closing loopholes, and as a consequence it is a drain on the treasury. we suddenly then are accused of running up the deficit to help your tax rates, and we are not doing enough to help grow the economy and help ordinary workers.

that is the one direction we cannot go. tom? tom: thank you for being here. i would love to hear your thoughts on energy policy. i know we talk a lot about all of the above, but i think what is changing in an unprecedented way recently our technology revolutions coming in the use of a way that give americans to play offense and a set of unprecedented challenges. what are your thoughts? president obama: i am more optimistic about our ability to around energy that is good for our economy, good for business, good for consumers, good for job creation, and maybe save the

planet in the process. i am more optimistic about that now than i was in i started as president. a good example is when you look at what is happening with solar. we are not at moore's law yet, but the pace at which the unit costs for solar energy have gone down is stunning. we have seen not quite the same pace, but similar progress around wind. our natural gas production is unprecedented. i have been very supportive of our natural gas production as being not only important to our economy, but also geopolitically. it is a huge recipe for energy independence, as long as we get the methane discharge issues right, i think there are ways with doing -- doing that with

sound science. that is on the production side. as you said on the utilization side, all of you, there is not a can of -- company here that is not producing significantly more energy than less you were 10 years ago, and certainly 20 years ago. seen the poweras of tracking, utilization, and timing waste, issues around when is energy expensive, when is it cheap? progress onnormous the commercial side, and then individual households now with things like nest, or equivalents

, we are able to fine-tune our energy usage. you have a hold transportation sector which we have continued to to make progress. in detroit as well as upstarts like tesla, there are still is to be should network issues around the transportation revolution. companies like ups are doing a great job, they are already experiencing with their fleets. that is all good news. that if we are going to realize all of the potential here -- is to work with utilities so that they have a business model in which they are making money while seeing this change in distribution patterns.

i think there are still legitimate economic issues that have to be sort of. -- sorted. it is a patchwork system. the second thing is, investments in basic research need to continue. battery technology is greatly improved, but we still have not seen all of the breakthroughs that i think we can make with battery technology that would make a huge difference in storage. for is an exciting area developing. i would urge the brc and some individuals have already done this, the issue of climate change and the conference at the end of the year should be used as an opportunity rather than as a problem. this is coming.

it is coming generationally. if you talk to your kids are my kids they are much more attuned to the issue. consumers are going to be carrying about it more and more -- caring about it more and more. the environmental effect is jerry, i will be calling brown to talk about california wildfires. the of you may have read snowpack in the sierra nevada's is the lowest it has been. the flooding problems we're seeing in south florida -- it is during high tide. billions of dollars of property is underwater. this is coming. for us to be ahead of it, and think about how our ingenuity, and our science can solve these problems is going to give us a jump on every one else.

that some pledge members of organized around supporting a strong paris agreement. i would encourage you to sign up on that and look for opportunities. companies that have been in traditional fossil fuel areas. do oil and how to gas well you can figure out solar. you can figure out how to make money doing it. you can figure out how to make efficiencies that help your bottom line. do with the clean power plan is to give state's flexibility understanding everyone has a different energy mix. down south we approved the first nuclear plant in a generation

because we think that nuclear needs to be part of the package. i am a big believer that there will be different ways to skin the cat. inhave to set a baseline which all of us understand the direction we need to go. instead of us spending a lot of time fighting science, let's go with science. we usually do better when we are taught -- on the side with facts and evidence. as a general rule, that has proved to be our strength as americans. m?jim: if i could turn back to china for a second, there are a lot of issues we have to sort out. security,ned cyber their feelings about tpp? there are economy. -- their own economy.

they have had protectionist elements we do not like. i think many in this room would like to see some kind of positive outcome from the summit that underlines our mutual benefit if we can figure out some of these things. if we can find a way for the told's two biggest economies see if path forward, as well as all of the issues we have. do you have a comment on the tone you will set with the president, and roles that we could play in supporting both our relationship as well as finding a future for it. obama: my view with china has been consistent, it is not jump up and down depending that chinay view is

should be, and will continue to that economic competitor we are to make sure that reaching an understanding with them about our presence is a pacific power. it is in our interest for china to continue what has been dubbed a peaceful, orderly rise. china is a big place with a lot of people. we are better off if those people are eating, and have shelter, and are buying consumer , and, rather than starving

rioting on the street. what i have consistently communicated first to be president when i came into office and now this one is our goal is to have them as a partner in helping to maintain a set of international rules and norms that benefit everyone. they were what facilitated china's rise. they were essentially writing on our backs for 30 years because we were underwriting peace, security, the free flow of commerce, international rules in as financial sector, and they have matured, what we have said to them is, with power comes responsibility.

now you have to step up. you cannot act as if you are a third world country and pursue protectionist policies or engage in dumping, or not protecting an electoral property at a time eventually now in the first largest economy in the world. you cannot simply pursue and export driven strategy because you are too big. he will not grow your economy at the same pace over the next 20 years as the last once your economy reaches a certain size, there is not enough level market to absorb it. that means that you have to start thinking about transparency within your own economy. how are you setting up a safety net so that workers have some turn are willing

to spend money as opposed to stuffing it in a mattress. you have to be concerned about environment issues, because you beijing, that in spills over all of us. country with a powerful military, you cannot go around pushing your neighbors around, just because you're bigger. ultimately you will be advantage by everyone following rules. areas the some chinese understand this. i think in other areas they do not. in other areas they still see themselves as the poor country that should not have obligations internationally. in some cases they still fill -- feel that when we call them on

issues like their behavior in the south china sea, or on intellectual property theft that we are trying to contain them, as opposed to us wanting them to provide -- abide by the same rules that helped create a situation where they could rise. that the states ,re sufficiently intertwined and in many ways they still need us more than we need them. continuehat they will to move in certain areas. as long as we do not resort to the kind of loose talk and name-calling that i notice some of our presidential candidates

engage in. people you know. it tends not to be constructive. is this summit will be useful. there will be a lot of outcomes around things like energy and climate change. how theyprovements in deal with investors. that will show constructive progress. i think our military to military conversations have been better than they were when i began office. the one thing i would suggest that the prc could do -- brc could do, two things, number one in your companies have a problem in china and you want us to help you have to let us help.

do not tell us on a side, we have this problem you need to look into, but then leave our names out, because we want to be punished. typically we are not effective with the chinese unless we are able to present facts, and evidence of a problem. otherwise they will stonewall and slow walk issues. if we are seeing problems in terms of the competitive environment there, in terms of protecting your ip, in terms of unfair competition that runs afoul of understanding the principles already established, you have to let us know and be your african -- advocates, that is important. the second thing everyone should do is not fall into the same aroundat we fell into

japan in the 1980's, which is -- china has taken over just like japan, and we are in inevitable decline. this whole argument, i will coat rant.on a >> rent --quick this whole notion that somehow we are getting competed out, we are -- no one outside of the u.s. understands what we're talking about. we have problems. we have issues. our biggest problem is gridlock in washington. overall our cards are so much better than anyone else's. cool of quality businesses and talent, and our institutions,

and our rule of law, and how we manage and adapt to new and changing circumstances, and our dominance in knowledge-based industries, no one matches us. we attract the best talent around the world -- they still want to come if we let them. i think it is important for business voices to point out every once in a while -- america is in the driver seat if we make smart decisions. that is not a partisan comment. that is just the facts. there is not a country out there, including china that would not look at us with envy. that china will out negotiate us, or that mr.

putin is out strategizing. has anyone looked at the russian economy lately? that is not our problem, our problem is us. -- i am being weerous when i say we, but engage in self inflicted wounds like this potential government shutdown, it is a nessus were -- unnecessary. how is everyone back home? this summer the expiration of the xm bank authorization. president obama: speaking of self-inflicted when. -- wounds. >> the senate has attached a

reauthorization as you know to the transportation bill which is now down at the house. on monday, the roundtable sent a letter to the leadership on both outs in congress pointing the benefits of reauthorization that some of those get lost in the debate. really it has been categorized -- characterized as only benefiting a few companies wishing -- ignores thousands of people employed by our suppliers across the country. the positive impact that has, as well as it is a net generator revenue for the government. have furtherto discussions later today and this week with leadership in the house. do you have any -- we had a good discussion with your team this morning, do you have any insight that you could share with us that would help us in getting that reauthorization. it isent obama:

this was not that reauthorized a year ago. it is this weird reversal in which the principal opponents are the tea party caucus and the republican party. -- xm banked them cause of -- what have presidential candidates called it -- crony capitalism. what is ironic, obviously some of you know the back story, i think a member of this organization started the whole thing because they were upset about some planes being sold to

a competitor on the route. suddenly this caught fire in the route -- right-wing internet. it is hard to explain. i had a group of small businesses, ranging from were people to a couple of hundred -- a couple ofto hundred people talking about how they use xm. as you said, xm does not cost the government. a money loser for us. jim how have to tell important it is. iq keep telling them i expect a gold watch from them because it aims like every time i make a foreign trip i had to sell a turbine or plane.

i was concerned about the announcement that jobs you're in the u.s. would not go overseas because we don't get this done. that is true of the supply chain and also true of smaller companies that use xm directly. it is not just that they are ge orf ger boeing -- boeing. this is the only mechanism they can use to make the sales. the good news is that mcconnell and they are both say they want to get done. as you said we have already showed their sick -- sufficient votes. we actually think there are sufficient votes in the house. i would concentrate your attention on house republican caucus members. i think you have to flood the zone and let them know this is important.

,hat includes by the way talking to individual members who in their districts potentially have companies that are being adversely affected as long as xm is frozen. --expectation is a gets done it gets done during the course the budget negotiations. we will push as hard as we can to get at them. >> thank you for being here today. one of the issues that we deal with, you talked about last time was regulations. one of the areas that the business roundtable is focused on these days is the ozone role le.ru the business roundtable position is that we need to maintain a 75 parts per billion to lower that standard when technology does , and when communities

already advancing for the 75 goal. if you lower to 70, it will introduce another 200 ounces -- counties in this country in nonattainment, that means they are not open for business. you have any thoughts on that or what the ministration plan is for that -- administration plan is for that? president obama: i will try to simplify as much as possible, number one, we are under a court order to do this. i think there may be a misperception that the epa can do whatever it wants here. there were lawsuits brought under the previous administration that continued into my administration. we went before a judge, we actually, i think properly got some additional time because there was the notion that we

a fewlower standards years ago and immediately get new data, we said, let's to this one time, the sensible ways of people can plan. we have legal constraints, this is not something that just popped out of my head full-blown. i always enjoy seeing the advertising for obama's ozone plan. rules date back to when i was still in law school, before i had gray hair. stringentsome fairly statutory guidelines by which the epa is supposed to evaluate .he standards

the epa is following the science and the statute as best as it can. we are mindful that in some cases because of the nature of where pollutants are generated, where they blow, this could create a complicated situation for certain local jurisdictions and local communities, and some states and counties and of being hit worse than others. we are trying to work with those states and those communities as best we can, taking their concerns into their account -- our account. i guess the bottom line is, you can legitimately go after me on the clean power plant rule. us. was hatched by i believe that we need to deal with climate change so we can

have a lengthy debate about that. on ozone, this is existing statute and mechanism and we are itrged with implementing based on the science that is presented to us. that is what we are trying to do, we are taking this input into account. i recognize some of these concerns. point,say this, the last costs associated lamenting the ozone role -- implementing the ozone rule, when you do a cost-benefit, the amount of lives saved, asthma ever did, and so forth is still substantially higher than the cost.

not necessarily resolve all of the concerns that people may have about local costs, where as the savings are spread , and legitimate economic issues that have to be considered. has been listening to every stakeholder there. i think what you will see in the analysis overall is we do not issue a regulation where the costs are not lower than the benefits. if you look at the regulations we generally put forward, the costs are substantially lower than the benefits generated. >> many of us are interested in cuba. the opening there has been positive. there are a lot of issues to get the normal relations, how do you see that happening?

what is the future in your opinion? president obama: i do not think it will be an over night transformation, but i am convinced that by reengage in re-engaging cuba and the people, that we are creating an environment in which a generational change and transit -- transition will take place in the country. already you are seeing conversations taking place about how will cuba accommodate an influx of tourists? how do they think about the internet? open communications in order to participate with the modern economy -- that inevitably leads to questions about -- can a

company hire a cuban directly, as opposed as going to the government. over time that create space for personal freedom and a long-term political transition. for now what we have said is will step-by-step look for areas and opportunities within our authorities. as long as congress to have the embargo in place there are certain things we cannot do, but there are certain things we can come up for example, telecommunications, we're looking for opportunities there. we will also continue to press the cuban government around andes of political freedom when his holiness, the pope comes, he will visit cuba.

that i think will be an interestingfor more conversations. my biggest suggestion would be to have ac -- brc conversation on a bipartisan basis of the lifting the embargo. it is not necessarily have to happen in one flail sweep. if you look at the opportunities presented, they are significant. it does not make much sense that a country 90 miles off of the shore of florida, that is not at this point a significant threat itselfnd it has shown beyond to at least look its borders for the first time. even it is still scared of what it might bring.

it does not make sense for us to keep sticking with the old ways. i will take one more question. --n i will say hide everyone say hello to everyone. >> and you. -- thank you. i know a topic near and dear to your heart has been education. you recently made a comment about computer science for all high school kids, which i think is an important part. technology is a broad topic, it will infiltrate all jobs. maybe a chance to make comments about how you envision something like that actually taking root over the long-term, we could make progress. obama: first of all i want to commend jenny and ibm, you guys have done terrific work. anyone who was inspiration go to the high school that ibm is

participating in brooklyn where kids -- a collaboration between the public school system, the city colleges of new york, and -- most have kids from of them, parents never went to college, a lot of immigrant kids. they are marching through stem education, preengineering education, they are getting essentially college credits by the time there sophomores or juniors in high school. they are able to save money because in five years in high school they come up with a's -- and associates dege, there then transferring to a four-year university with his credits, or they start to work with ibm because they have been an apprentice. the curriculum design gives them

confidence. something that we are actually looking to try to duplicate all across the country. the good news as i mentioned at the top is because of the strong work that arne duncan has done, because of the strong work that a lot of governors and local communities done to increase accountability, creativity, have high expectations for kids, bust through some of the old bureaucratic obstacles. highest reading, , part ofduation rates the goal here is to improve stem education generally, a critical element of that is, understanding this computer age that these kids are immersed in.

to just want them knowing how to play video games with their phones, i want to -- them to know how to use the phones and how they work. when i was in high school, i was about the age where my school just had the first coding class may be in seventh or eighth grade. you had cards. they were punchcards. now, the way these tools and kids,ces available for starting and second grade we have science fairs where these and scout troops come in they claimed that they designed their own games, simulations for entire town with people and all

sorts of scenarios that they have. -- figured out. it is actually something that they naturally gravitate to, we just have to start early. it is almost like a foreign language, where the -- where rather than trying to catch kids intent, or 11th, 12 grade, make it part of their broader curriculum and incorporated into how you are teaching math and science. that seems to be the way in which kids get engaged. we are doing a lot of working with many individually. hope that you will continue to participate. you have been great partners on that front. closing, it is always a pleasure to be here. want just reiterate -- to just

reiterate as we enter into the they season of politics, primary thing that is holding potential growth, lines,mprove bottom greater stability is well within our control right now. have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. getting tpp done. financing and infrastructure policy. i have had conversations where they are able and open to look at creative ways of financing, the notion we are not doing that right now makes no sense. investing in research and

development. these are not partisan issues. there are some issues -- areas where there have been traditional achievement are humans between republicans and democrats. onre are some issues, like environmental regulations or financial regulations where jamie and i may disagree, or nick and i may disagree. we can have those arguments, and we probably won't convince each other on some things. what i am looking at is the low hanging fruit that are no-brainers and no one here would argue with. the notion that we are not doing them right now because primarily a faction within one of our parties has gone off of the rails and sees a conspiracy run everything -- around everything,

or is opposed to everything i propose, even if they used to propose it. that is a problem. i think it is very important for all of you to step back and take a look at it. you still have influence on at least some of those folks challenge them. why would we not do things that everyone knows make sense. thank you everyone. [laughter] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] tomorrow the gold king mind spell -- mine spill. atwill have live coverage 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span

three. announcer: this sunday night on q&a, washington post reporter robert costa on the 2016 presidential campaign and the similarities between donald trump in 1992 presidential candidate and businessman, ross perot. >> the themes are overlapping, i think that perot has a distinct personality that is different from trump. the celebrity factor was not there with perot in the same way it is with trump. you see people throw themselves at donald trump. there is a power with donald trump's personality that ross perot did not have. the republican party relationship with trump has been rocky. people called a trump months ago and asked him to tone it down on immigration. -- signed ained pledge, who knows what it is worth? this year what

happened with perot happened with trump. to beks about wanting treated fairly, trump is if anything, unpredictable. announcer: sunday night on c-span's q and a. upcoming visit to the u.s.. c-span has live coverage from washington. september 23rd, pope francis will visit the white house, starting with a welcoming ceremony on the south lawn, followed by a meeting with the president. then on such over 24th, the pope makes history on capitol hill, becoming the first pontiff to address the house and senate during a joint meeting. follow all of the live coverage of the historic visit to washington. lives on television or online at c-span.org. congressman and gerry connolly is vice chair of the new democrat coalition.

on washington journal we talked to him about the new democrat political agenda and foreign policy. this is 45 minutes. , member of the foreign affairs committee. let us start with the first page of "the new york times." the headline, president obama considering talks with putin on syrian crisis. should he start talking to vladimir putin about syria decker -- about syria? guest: absolutely. burden ofre i put the the so-called cold war on president obama's shoulders right i think what prudent -- inst -- what