much attention has been paid to the internal white house e-mails and changes to the u.n. ambassador susan rice's talkingpoints explaining the source of the attack. i believe that a key question still remains to be answered. why for two weeks did the administration propagate the tale that it was a youtube video-inspired attack when officials knew almost immediately that it was cared out by afil affiliates of al qa? that's a prist simple question. -- that's a pretty simple question. why were the american people told that an antii anti-islam ye video prompted the attack when it is known at that it did not? no one -- no one, mr. president, has answered this very basic question. instead of providing answers to these questions, a top white house advisor has impugned the integrity of those seeking the truth by decrying persistent questioning as a witch-hunt. it is time for the president to put politics aside, demand accountability from his staff, step up and do his job. congress is doing its part by conducting serious oversight hearings on both the i.r.s. overreach and the bengh

the u.n. system to adapt and in developing close and cooperative bilateral relationships across the globe. but cooperation, too, requires investment in diplomacy, in technical assistance and helping friendly countries do a better job of defending against common threats. according to surveys, the average american thinks that we give about a quarter of our tax dollars to foreigners. terrible. the truth is that our entire international affairs budget including everything from the protection of our ambassadors to emergency food for refugees is equal to about 1%. i don't know about you, but i am fed up with politicians who demand a strong america and then vote to deprive our diplomats of the tools they need to protect and advance our interests. and that's why our country should have a comprehensive national security budget that will enable us not only to wage war, but also to preserve peace and to lead both on the battlefield and at the bargaining table. our second imperative is education. the tech

. >> between a group of u.n. the president. >> in this town nothing happens behind closed doors which is okay. this needs to be something that is transparent. at the end of the day this will affect the lives of millions of americans in fundamental ways so it is going to be a process, patty murray will be involved, paul ryan will be involved and it requires a presidential leadership. if you look back whether it is tax reform 86 or whether it is social security reform 83 the last two examples where we did something significant to improve the economy and deal with what seemed to be a huge debt and deficit problem which by the way seems small relative to what we have not always involve presidential leadership. it must. the president had ultimately been in support in order to have it become effective and inactive but the resources of management and budget and the treasury department are critical to this. the president has got to step up and show leadership. >> do you believe he started? >> in a small way and that is i

but we're not relying on the u.n. alone. we are pursuing and gathering information independently of that and working with our allies and the syrian -- most importantly, the syrian opposition. i don't -- i don't have the depth of information about the progress that's being made to assess whether or not the report you said about the evidence available, whether or not that's the case. i know that we have been for some time now working in an effort to build on the intelligence community's assessment about the use of chemical weapons to make sure that we have a case, if you will, a set of facts that can be corroborated and reviewed. and from which we can make assessments about possible policy actions. even as that takes place as you have seen at the direction of the president, we have stepped up our humanitarian assistance, we have stepped up our assistance to the syrian opposition. we have made assistance available directly to the military, supreme military council of the opposition. nonlethal assistance, but we have stepped it

this working dialogue between the u.n. that was established several years ago is working dialogue. working dialogue without special relation center for everybody, i believe, it should be maintained for the benefit of european union and nay tow -- nato. [inaudible] and my third remarking, about necessary corporation between the both institutions but also for abilities of particular -- [inaudible] especially in the -- [inaudible] and smart defense. to what extent you can say that it -- [inaudible] it should be harmonized in the progress of both. thank you very much. >> translator: thank you for that very interesting speech. you said nato was a unique transatlantic forum. and there's no doubt about that. what i think is most encouraging is that nato has concentrated on the new challenges of cybersecurity and the like. and yet, there's a general view that nato is -- the u.s.a. turning in on itself has to, some extend downgraded nato. my question to you is, to what extend is the united states now less interested in europe. and my second question -- [inaudible] and the european enthusias

of the two weeks around then-secretary of state general colin powell giving his push for war at the u.n., february 5, 2003. a speech he would later call, general powell would later call a stain on his career. that speech was the final nail in the coffin for so many, because he had been hesitant about the war, so he had a great deal of credibility. and he said, yes, the evidence was in. there was, there were -- there was final proof that there were weapons of mass destruction. f.a.i.r. did a study to have two weeks around that address and looked at the abc world news tonight, cbs evening news, nbc nightly news and the pbs "newshour". in that two-week period six weeks before the occupation, this was extremely significant because this was the period when americans are making up their minds. about half the population was for the war, half opposed to war. in those two weeks, there were 393 interviews done around war in the four major nightly newscasts. guess how many were with anti-war leaders? well, you figure, you know, half the population for, half against, maybe 200, 150. three. three of

one is entitled -- "washington post," "iran paves over suspected nuclear testing site despite u.n. protest." the second is another "washington post" associated press, "iran expands new technology for program that could be used to make weapons." and of course it's of interesting, another one, "iranian soldiers fighting for assad in syria." i would ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i join with 90 members of the senate to support this resolution. this resolution has extraordinary bipartisan support. the senate will send a clear and unequivocal message to the regime in tehran, and that is this: the united states will not allow you to get a nuclear weapons capability. the dangers of a nuclear iran cannot be denied, diminished or dismissed. we must continue to ratchet up pressure through sanctions as this resolution suggests. but at the end of the day sanctions are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. and unfortunately, despite the unprecedented international sanctions that have been put

that would take agreement among the five permanent members of the u.n. security council. the only way forward is a political solution. but to that end, we need a strong and unified message from the international community. mr. glick asked me whether the so-called u.s. pivot to asia will weaken t transatlantic relationship. my brief answer is that will very much depend on us, the europeans. i think it's in our interests that the u.s. rebalance its interests and focus a bit more on the asia pacific region taking into account the rising powers in that region. but if we are to insure that the americans still find europe relevant as a partner, the europeans must also invest in that transatlantic relationship politically, economically and militarily. that's my point. i was asked pretty much the same question, would this u.s. pivot to asia downgrade nato? no, not in itself. but, of course, if the europeans don't invest in the transatlantic relationship, it may, it may weaken that bond. but actually we have seen a strong u.s. commitment to european security. for instance, the u.s

we operate on the basis of a u.n. mandate. we have an obligation to implement the u.n. pan kate to insure -- mandate to insure free movement -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> you asked me about afghanistan. there is a clear road map. by the end of 2014, the isaf mission will come to an end. that will complete our combat mission. but we will stay after 2014 with a noncombat be mission, a training mission to help the afghan security forces. mr. lisek asked me when we do anything to stop cuts in defense budgets. as you know, international decision. they toe as an alliance can't interfere with that. that's a national decision. we have a men be. mark according to which -- a benchmark according to which nato allies have stated that those allies that spent more than 2%, on defense commit themselves to stay above the 2% while those allies below 2% will try to work towards 2% benchmark. it's not a legal requirement, it's a political obligation. and whenever i visit capitals -- and soon i will visit warsaw -- i will repeat that message. and, actually, i can tell you that

just google the u.n. got the google. what made him say you lie was the reference that barack obama, president obama may to the fact that health care this law was not going to be readily available and easily acceptable to anybody in this country illegally. if you're here illegally -- so you're not going to get, it's not available for those who are here illegally and the cards and jumped up and said july. why do i raised that? i raise it because of all the things that barack obama said in that speech that this republican congressman had to disagree with, the thing that really got his eye was the very idea that the president would dare say that this is not going to happen with this card says your life. we know it is and we're going to fight against it. so years ago this health issue already has this color-coded notion connected to it. it's in the past. now going forward you've got a senator who is suggesting that you shouldn't healthier on the other side of this citizenship fight. talk to me about health care and where we'r

the u.n. is doing a great job. they are running out of money. jordan is about to fall if we don't stop this war. from a human point of view, senator mccain, we have got to get this war over and america needs to be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. from a national security point of view, syria is going to become a nightmare for the whole world, including the united states. mr. mccain: i thank my colleague. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a piece by senator casey called time to act in syria. it was in the huffington post, "washington post" editorial entitled repercussions of inaction, "wall street journal" article u.s. has warned planned syria arms sale, and finally a piece by leon wieseltier that is in "the new republic." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i thank my colleagues. i yield. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 601 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 44, 601, a