the u.s. versus canada. we'll see you there for that. cannone fire at the white house on this olympic tuesday as president obama welcomes his french counterpart for an official state visit. the two leaders right now hosting a joint news conference, a live look inside the east room at 1600 pennsylvania avenue. we will go there in just a moment. also today, cannon fire over th debt ceiling. charlie rangel will talk about that and the latest obamacare delay. shaun white going for the gold today on the half pipe that everyone has been talking about. we'll get to all of that in just

a moment. but we start at the white house where a live news conference is underway with president obama and french president francois hollande, only the fifth state visit by a foreign leader during this administration. the first by a french president in 20 years. it's following a morning welcome ceremony in bilateral meeting of shared concern, the ongoing civil war in syria and climate change and of course the global economy as well. also, president obama announced that he will be accepting president hollande's invitation to attend celebrations in france to commemorate the 70th anniversary of d day later this year. however, on the subject of syria and its civil war, this is what president obama had to say. >> syria must meet its commitments and russia has a responsibility to ensure that syria complies. as talks continue in geneva,

we'll continue to tren then the moderate opposition and call on the international community to stem the flow of foreign fighters into syria. >> steve clemens writes on foreign policy for "the atlantic." we heard the president there, negotiations in geneva are going slowly and that's probably being generous today. james clapper called syria, an apocalyptic disaster and france was the only country willing to go along with america if strikes -- if we decided to take the strike route last fall. at what point does president obama have to revisit his syria policy this year? >> well, i think it's probably likely that they are doing that right now because it's very clear that the geneva process is not yielding much. there are bits and glimpses of possibilities that are so low on the totem pole i manage secretary kerry has been sending

signals and his comments that we're revisiting it now. your comment that france was with us with the responsibility of strikes in syria is important to remember. it's one of the things i think that president hollande and obama are doing, while many people look at the so called special relationship as being the british and united states, they are reminding people that the original special relationship of the united states was with france. and france has been with us more often than many other allies. >> even if obama wanted to go in a new direction, steve, how willing are allies to join and step up the pressure on syria? >> i think after the first chemical weapons deal there was no doubt at that point in my mind as you and i discussed before, we walked away from the insurgency and civil war on the ground and notion of trying to help regime change happen there. but now syria has gone soft on chemical weapons and russia has been using the olympics as kind of cloud cover to remove the

global attention on the chemical weapons deal. so assad is really gaming this. and i think it's going to be hard for the united states to automatically bring everybody back into a marshall position to try to compel syria to go a different thing. it's a real mess. and one can hope through diplomacy and maybe ships coming online and i don't think obama has any kind of appetite for coming back and pretending we might go to war again with syria. >> while you are talking, this is a live look inside the east room where president obama and president hollande are holding the joint news conference. steve, this is a rare sight for a lot of folks. we're talking about a state dinner here. i did not realize until this morning that state dinners for this administration have been fairly rare, no? >> well, this is the sixth one. i've got the privilege of going tonight so i'll be there. in some cases the united states has been some sort of a bind recently in state dinners. the president of brazil rejected hers and a lot of european countries are upset with the

united states about the nsa scandal and spying on their leaders and people. and so we needed somebody to take a state dinner to some agree. i know the white house will be upset with my saying that but hollande coming here not only punk waits the significance but helps to some degree show that the united states is trying to get back on track and get beyond the nsa scandal, which has been so hard for a lot of european citizens to digest. >> iranians celebrating the 35th anniversary of the revolution. since the sanctions have been eased, as you know, steve, hundreds of french businessmen made the journey to tehran. what's the nature of our relationship with the french with regards to iran specifically? >> well, when president sarkozy was in place, he and his foreign minister were very, very militant in their concern about iran's nuclear program. and it's not to say that that militancy has subsided but when

you looked at president obama's op-ed in the "washington post" two days ago, it started with how important it was to move iran and the needle on the nuclear program in a different direction. so they are absolutely joined together in using this moment where there seems to be a thaw in iran and french and their president signed on in a major op-ed with the president saying we're together and we're going to move this. it's a very different position than we have with sarkozy. it's not necessarily -- it's realistic saying this is a revery unique opportunity for the work and relationship between the west and iran. we're tied together on that. >> steve, stand by for me. we want to listen in now as this joint news conference continues inside the east room again between president obama and french president francois hollande. >> recognizes that if we're going to solve this problem, then we have to find a political

solution. and the first geneva conference committed to a transition process that would preserve and protect the state of syria, would accommodate the various sectarian interests inside of syria sew that no one party was dominant. and would allow us to return to some semblance of normalcy and allow the people displaced to start moving back in. we are far from achieving that yet. i would not completely discount the fact that in this latest round of negotiations, what you saw was a coherent, cohesive reasonable opposition in the same room for first time negotiating directly with the regime. the regime assad's regime wasn't

particularly responsive and some of their patrons were disturbed by their belligerent, but we're going to continue to commit not just pressure the assad regime but also to get countries like russia and iran to recognize that it is in nobody's interest to see the continuing bloodshed and collapse that's taking place inside the country. now, you asked tangible steps that we can take, both france and the united states continue to support a moderate opposition. we are continuing to provide enormous amounts of humanitarian aide, one of the problems we have right now is humanitarian access to deliver that aide. and as we speak, today the u.n. security council we will be debating a resolution that would

permit much greater access for humanitarian aid workers to get food, water and shelter, clothing, fuel to people who need it. now, there is great u.n. nimty among most of the security council. russia is a holdout and secretary kerry and others delivered a direct message to the russians, that they cannot say they are concerned about the well being of the people when they are starving civilians and it is not just the syrians that are responsibility. the russians as well if they are blocking this kind of resolution. so that is an example of the kinds of diplomatic work that we are engaging in right now. but, mark, nobody is going to deny there's enormous frustration here. and i think the underlying premise to the question may be

is there additional direct action or military action that can be taken that would resolve the problem in syria? i have said throughout my presidency that i always reserveg the right to exercise military action on behalf of america's national security interests. but that has to be deployed wisely. and i think that what we saw with respect to the chemical weapons situation was an example of the judicious, wide use of possible military action in partnership with france, we said we would be prepared to act if syria did not. syria and russia came to the conclusion that they needed to for first time acknowledge the presence of chemical weapons and then agree to a very extensive

deal to get those chemical weapons out. you're right that so far they have missed some deadlines. on other hand we completely chronicled the chemical weapons inside of syria. a portion of those chemical weapons have been removed. there's been a reaffirmation by the seefr syrians and russia that all has to be removed and concrete steps are being taken to remove it. we'll continue to keep the pressure on but we now have a u.n. mandate with consequences if there's a failure, something we did not have before. whether we can duplicate that kind of process when it comes to the larger resolution of the problem, right now we don't think that there's a military solution per se to the problem. but the situation is fluid and

we're continuing to explore every possible avenue to solve this problem because it's not just heartbreaking to see what's happening to the syrian people, it's very dangerous for the region as a whole, including friends and allies and partners like lebanon, or jordan, being adversely impacted by it. let me just make one last comment with respect to the iran sanctions. we have been extraordinarily firm that even during this interim agreement, we will fully enforce all applicable sanctions. in fact, we have taken various steps just over the last six or seven weeks to identify companies that we felt were violating those sanctions. and have been very clear to the iranians that there's not going to be any let-up. in discussions with president hollande, he feels the same way

as do all of the p5 plus 1 members. so businesses may be exploring are there some possibilities to get in sooner rather than later if and when there is an actual agreement to be had, but i can tell you, that they do so at their own peril right now because we will come down on them like a ton of bricks. you know, with respect to the sanctions that we control and we expect full compliance with respect to the p5 plus 1 during this interim. we don't want new sanctions because the ones are already squeezing iran and brought them to the table. we also want to send a message to the iranians, if they don't resolve this broader issue of their nuclear program, that there will be consequences and that the sanctions regime not only will stay in place, but are -- will likely be tightened

in the event that these talks fail. >> translator: iraq gave you their expensive answers, sketch the french issue, first of all, geneva. the only purpose of the conference is to -- >> i want to make steve clemens back. you've been watching as we watch president obama and his french counterpart, very interesting what president obama said about syria, once again saying that there is not now a military solution in that country. also expressing frustration with russia as well, being a holdout with regards to advancing the process there. what else did you glean from what the president said? >> i think the president using

his best option, shining a big spotlight on how embarrassing this should be for russia in the eyes. world while hosting these amazing olympics and at the same time is russia itself is spoerting a torturer and someone engaged in horrific treatment of his own people. and so what obama is doing is trying to effect assad's c calculus and trying to use that as opposed to a military prod, using the prod of media during a time when russia is trying to show what a great power and what a good place for investment it is while its supporting one of the cruelist regimes in the world. the president is using the resources at hand quite well. >> steve, what are the other options that the president alluded to there? he said that they are exploring other options. what else can be considered at this point? >> well, i think he did say he

always has the military option on the table. that's a tough one to pull together given the a.m. bifl ens in congress for action. fundament fundamentally, you've got turkey and jordan and iraq who have concerns and can basically rach rachet up the heat in serious ways. what you did see in geneva is for the first time you did see more co-heerns and unity among some of the factions and we can give more resources and more intelligence and capacity to take a fragile situation and create some kind of internal game changer. there's that element. primarily the president's tools are optics and trying to shine an ongoing light on how horrific it is. we're getting reports on the torture of children. we amazingly horrible photos of

adults that had been tortured and starved inside syria. >> this weekend, when you've got a u.n. convoy that comes under fire as they are trying to deliver humanitarian supplies. it would seem though, steve, that the language that the president has been using -- this is the same language we've been hearing for several months now, does not seem to be having a great deal of effect. >> well, i mean, bottom line is there are some like senator mccain and others calling for humanitarian zones or no fly zones, almost all of those military scenarios are being resisted by the pentagon because they would involve potential direct involvement of u.s. military forces. so there's a lot of resistance in that front. there are differences of opinion out there that i respect. but nonetheless what the president is trying to do, we don't have a military option on the table. we need to basically look at other elements of state craft to do it. they are not highly he have

kashs, most who look at what's happening there and look at it realistically, think it's going to be a ten-year global hemorrhage of horror and death and ongoing civil war, so that's the downside. it really -- there are not a lot of options if that's the realistic solution. it's practically like genocide in some levels. but the tools to go in and do something are very limited unless you want to go to war against assad directly. and i know that the president is not suggesting that. >> and by the way, the chemical weapons component to all of this, it appears as if syrian regime now also dragging its feet on that. what more can you tell us about the delays there? >> well, i think that's more serious because russia is directly on the line with that. this would hamper russia's credibility on a lot of other fronts. remember, russia has a lot of other objectives in the world than protecting syria. so to a certain degree they are trying to highlight that again and basically tell russia, you

can't use the olympics as a way to hide your responsibilities for delivering syria on chemical weapons. that is the one thing if push came to shove, if there was a return, a lot of americans may not like it and members of congress won't be supportive, but if syria slips out of the track, then i think that the president might look at action again. >> steve, let's listen in again as president obama prepares to take another question. >> in that role, if so, why not extend to france the no spying agreement that you have with england after the big scandal of the nsa surveillance program. >> translator: mr. president, you praised the excellency of the cooperation, but on iran, are there differences in terms of analysis between france and america on the necessity to have

an ambitious agreement? do you feel americans be prepared to make too many concessions? thank you. >> well, first of all, i have two daughters. and they are both gorgeous and wonderful and i would never choose between them. and that's how i feel about my outstanding european partners. all of them are wonderful in their own ways. >> what i do believe is the u.s./french alliance has never been stronger. the levels of cooperation across a whole range of issues is much deeper than it was i think five

years ago, ten years ago, 20 years ago. and that's good for france. good for the united states, good for the world because we share certain values and certain commitments. and are willing to act on behalf of those commitments and values. with respect to the nsa, obviously i expressed my strong commitment to making sure that our rules and how we approach intelligence and surveillance, not just here -- not just with respect to any particular country but worldwide, that we do it in a way that takes into account the incredible changes in technology and the new capacities that have evolved over the last several years. and the first place that we look

to in terms of how do we make sure that our rules are compatible with partnerships and our friendships and alliances was were countries like france that have been long-time allies of ours and closest partners, it's not actually correct to say that we have a quote/unquote, no spy agreement with great britain. that's not actually what happens. there's no country where we have a no-spy agreement. we have like every other country, you know, an intelligence capability and then we have a range of partnerships with all kinds of countries and we've been in consultations with the french government to deepen those commitments. at the same time, what i've also said both publicly and privately and want to reiterate today to the french press, is that we are committed to making sure that we

are protecting and concerned about the privacy rights, not just of americans and not just of our own citizens but of people around the world as well. that's a commitment by the way fairly unprecedented in terms of any country's intelligence operations and what we've said is that we are putting rules in place so that we're not engaging in what some of the speculation has been when it comes to ordinary citizens in france. we're respectful of their privacy rights and going to make sure our rules are abiding by concerns about those privacy rights. we do remain concerned as france is and as most of the eu is, with very specific potential terrorist networks that could attack us. and kill innocent people. and we're going to have to continue to be robust in pursuit

of those specific leads and concerns but we have to do it in a way that is compatible with the privacy rights that people in france rightly expect, just like they do here in the united states. and the last point, just because i know you asked it of president hollande, but i want to go ahead and comment on this, the reason iran is at the table is because we have a very high threshold in terms of what we expect out of iran to prove to us they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. we were able to stitch together an international coalition to apply sanctions to make sure that would be the case. i don't think the concern during the course of these negotiations is whether or not we're going to be making too many concessions. i think the concern is going to be whether or not iran can recognize the opportunity to prove in a verifiable fashion to

the world, in ways that scientists and technical experts can confirm, that any nuclear program they have is for peaceful purposes. the facts are what will guide these negotiations. if they meet what technically gives us assurances, there's a potential deal to be made. if they don't, there isn't. it's not subject to a whole lot of interpretation. there are judgment issues involved but part of the reason we're where we are right now because iran hasn't been able to give assurances to anybody in the international community that they weren't pursuing a nuclear weapon. that's why there was such u.n. nimty in keeping them in place. >> translator: in response to

your first question, while i have four children, so that makes it even more difficult for me to make any choice at all. we're not trying to be anyone's favorite. there are historic links, we share common values and i can see that views convert on many issues but it's not about hierarchy, it's about being useful to the world because the french between the united states and france is not just about strengthening our ties, economic ties and cultural or personal ties. and that already would be a great deal. it's not just about bringing two societies closer to one another. it's just about sharing technology. what makes this friendship between the united states of america and france is the fact that we can hold values in -- at

a specific point in time with this american presidency and with this french presidency, if i may say so. with regards to iran, your second question, just as the united states, we wanted to work on the basis of the p5 scenario, this was the basis of our action. nothing prevented us from having bilateral contacts and i had some bilateral contacts in new york i received president rouhani during the general assembly, it is perfectly legitimate for discussions to take place. however, we had to meet together in order to be strong together. and in order to make sure that our toughness brings about this interim agreement, which it did. but there is still work to be done just because we signed an

interim agreement for a few months, doesn't mean that there is no longer an iranian problem. there is an iranian problem for we need to make sure that iran renounce the nuclear weapon in a definite and comprehensive manner. the nsa now, i was going to say the question wasn't asked to me, but president obama answered the question, so i'll answer the question too. even though if you choose to ask me more specific question, i can be more precise, but following the revelations that appeared due to mr. snowden, we clarified things, president obama and myself, clarified things. then this was in the past. then we endeavored towards cooperation. we wanted to fight against

terrorism but we also wanted to meet a number of principles. and we are making headway in this cooperation. mutual trust has been restored. and that mutual trust must be based on respect for each other's country, but also based on the protection -- protection of privacy life of personal data, the fact that any individual in spite of tech no logical progress can be sure he's not being spied on. these are principles that unite us. >> national public radio. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, yesterday your administration again delayed the aca employer mandate for mid-sized companies. last week your economic adviser jason furman talked about the new choices people have to find health care outside the

workplace. i wonder if you can first explain the delay and also talk about whether over the long term you see a future where health insurance is less tied to the workplace? >> well -- >> i'm sorry. >> if i may for president hollande, you both talked about the pursuit of the trans atlantic trade agreement. i wonder if you have followed the domestic battle here over fast track authority and that raises questions in your mind whether such a deal could be ratified? >> you know, the announcement yesterday was fairly straightforward. the overwhelming majority of firms in this country already provide health insurance to employees and are doing the right thing. the small percentage that do not, many of them are very small and already exempted by law. you have some small category of folks who don't provide health insurance, who aren't exempted by