under obamacare, and they, too, have come to see it as clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as many problems as it solves, end quote. that's from the politico story talking about many of the liberal policy experts who are now turning their back on the employer mandate. and then there is the potential for fraud with the health and human services inspector general's office reporting that the administration is not properly verifying that those receiving subsidies actually qualify for them, and the disastrous web sites have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. madam president, the list just goes on and on and on. whether they admit it or not, everyone knows that obamacare isn't working. it's time to start over and replace this law with real reforms, reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care. republicans have offered solution after solution to solve

the many problems created by obamacare. from senator collins' bill to repeal obamacare's 30-hour work week, which i just mentioned earlier, to a provision that i came up with that would exempt schools, colleges and universities from obamacare's crippling employer mandate, something that our colleges and universities across the country are feeling and it's impacting their ability to hire employees. instead of fleeing from obamacare or attempting to put a positive spin on its many failures, madam president, democrats should join republicans to repeal this broken law and replace it with real reforms. then the democrats would have a real accomplishment to take home to their constituents and they wouldn't have to worry about having the white house send a team of people in the war room assigned to democrats here on capitol hill who are trying to figure out ways to message the bad news that keeps coming out about higher premiums, higher

co-pays, higher deductibles, fewer doctors and fewer hospitals. that is the -- the message that democrats here in congress are having to deal with when they respond to the constituents that they hear from in their -- in their districts or their states. and that's why the white house is so focused on changing the subject from anything -- to anything from obamacare. madam president, that is the reality and it's an economic reality that is affecting and impacting way too many american families. middle-income families in this country are squeezed. household income's gone down by $3,500 since the president took office. everything americans -- middle-income americans have to pay for has gone up, from health care to college education to fuel, electricity, food. you name it. and so those -- those middle-income families in this country are increasingly feeling squeezed and pinched by this economy, made much, much worse by the passage of a health care

law that has driven up the cost of health care, higher premiums, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, fewer full-time jobs. omore part-time jobs. why? because employers are trying to avoid the heavy-handed mandates and requirements to provide government-approved insurance. and so they're finding more and more part-time employees when the employees, people out there in the work force, are looking for full-time jobs. so they can provide for their families, good-paying jobs with opportunities for advancement. that's where we ought to be focused, and unfortunately everything coming out of washington, d.c., and particularly the policies coming out of this administration, namely, first and foremost, obamacare, is making it more expensive and more difficult for employers to hire. it's costing middle-income families more to cover their families with health coverage and it's making everything else in our economy more expensive.

madam president, that's the reality that most americans are dealing with. we can do so much better. we should do so much better. and if democrats will acknowledge the error of their ways and the passage of this bad through start with, we can go back to the drawing board and do this in a way that actually does reduce costs and provide better access to health care for american families. madam president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak here in the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: madam president, thank you very much. while i was home over the recess, i had the opportunity to visit with lots of kansans. one of the conversations i had was with a county emergency preparedness director in advance of a 4th of july parade. and he brought to my attention something that we had heard just in the last few days about a development at the department of defense. and i want to mention to my colleagues and ask them but ask the agencies involved, which would be the department of defense, the department of agriculture, the environmental protection agency, to see if we can't find a solution to a problem that shouldn't be a

problem. in your home state, madam president, and in mine, we have lots of volunteer fire departments, and one of the developments over time has been their equipment is excess military equipment that is either loaned or given to those small-town fire departments. they're volunteers. my hometown, the fire whistle blows and men and women from across the community gather at the fire station, get on the truck and go to the fire and fight the fire. and their equipment is expensive and the budget they have to fulfill their mission is small, and one way that they've been able to overcome that small budget and expensive equipment is through the department of defense, which has over a long period of time donated excess military equipment to the local fire departments. they do this through the state

forester. and, in fact, 95% of the communities in kansas are protected by a volunteer fire department and 50 million acres of land is protected by volunteer fire departments. well, three weeks ago, the department of defense halted the transfer of excess trucks, generators, pumps, engine parts based upon a mission -- emission regulations and an agreement that apparently exists between the department of defense and the environmental protection agency. the e.p.a. apparently has to approve the -- the transfer of those vehicles because they may not satisfy the clean air standards. so what seems to me to be a commonsense solution to the need for fire equipment, including trucks, is now being halted

because of concerns of whether or not those vehicles, those old vehicles, no longer used by the department of defense, meet the emissions standards. well, i would certainly first remind folks that these trucks are very important when there is a fire but there's not a fire every day. it's not as if these vehicles are on the road in a constant fashion day in and day out. and i would also indicate that the fire as that they put out increase emissions. and so the -- the marginal increase in the amount of emissions because you may be using a firetruck that doesn't meet the emissions standards is well overcome by the fire that burns the grass, the forest, the trees or a home by what that fire puts into the atmosphere. since january 1 of this year, there have been nearly 92,000 acres burned and more than a thousand wild -- land fires,

grass fires, across kansas. and for most of those rural fire departments, the federal excess equipment is the only equipment they can afford to handle those natural or manmade disasters. and the kansas forest service, as i said, administers this program through the department of agriculture, the united states department of agriculture, and we provided, they provided 40-50 trucks per year, and they were able to set aside again that number for kansas, 40-50 trucks for kansas fire departments for this year. we currently have 445 trucks issued in kansas, valued at about $21 million, and there are 52 fire departments in kansas waiting for a replacement truck. the department of defense's decision to implement this policy will cost fire departments in kansas and across the country the opportunity to utilize excess equipment, save lives and protect property.

my request is that my colleagues who have an interest in this issue work with me and others and help us bring to the attention of the secretary of defense, secretary hagel, and the e.p.a. administrator gina mccarthy as well as usda that administers the program for the fire departments that we work together to find a commonsense solution. apparently, the alternative is that if these trucks are not available to be transferred to kansas and elsewhere to local fire departments, then the trucks are destroyed, smashed and somehow disposed of in a landfill. again, i would suggest that the conservation, the environmental opportunity to see the life of these vehicles extended as compared to be destroyed, smashed and disposed of would work in the favor of the environment as well as in the opportunity to provide safety

and security for hundreds of thousands of kansans, hundreds of thousands of americans who depend upon rural fire departments, hometown fire departments to meet the needs of their safety and security. it just seems to me that we're asking for something simple. we just need a little common sense and cooperation among three, an agency and two departments, and i would ask my colleagues that you help me find the solution to this problem by getting those agencies, the department of defense in particular to explain why this is a good policy with such detriment to the american people. i yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, i come to the floor today because it seems day after day, there is another story or two in the paper about what's happening

with the president's health care law. as i go home to wyoming each week, i go through denver and the airport there, and today the headline in ""the denver post"" has to do with the colorado health exchanges. the first line says colorado's health care exchange is expecting nearly twice as many people to drop or to decline to pay for their policies. they predicted how many people would continue to make payments if they had signed up under the president's health care law, and today they are predicting that at least twice as many as they anticipated would be either dropping or failing to pay for their health care premiums. "the wall street journal" today above the fold front page, "newly insured face coverage gaps." so you get people that may have signed up under the president's health care law, coverage gaps, not paying, dropping, truly not

the deal that the president has said was something that he thought would be helpful to americans. more and more people are finding out that they are having bigger problems under the president's health care law, problems with the promises that were made by this president, by this administration and by those who voted for the health care law. i get home just about every weekend in wyoming to talk with people, to listen to them, hear what they have to say, but also as chairman of the republican policy committee, one of my responsibilities is to also see how the policies, like the president's health care law, come out across the country, what happens in other states, how policies out of washington affect people all across america. so today i'd like to talk a little about how the health care law is impacting people, not just in my home state of wyoming, but really all across the country in addition to being in wyoming last week, i had a chance to -- to visit alaska, and what i heard from people there as well as people in wyoming is that people have been hurt by the president's health

care law, they are anxious about it in terms of their own health care and they are angry about insurance that they have had, that they have lost and the implications of the president's health care law where many promises were made and now people are finding out that the president's promises in terms of their own lives, their own health and their own families haven't been -- haven't actually been kept. the president, democrats here in the senate promised that their law was going to be grit for the american people. that's the -- to be great for the american people. that's the promise. i can tell you the people i talked to in wyoming, people i heard from in alaska are very worried about the terrible side effects that they are feeling, specifically as a result of this awful health care law. small businesses and small businesses are a major part of the economy in rural states. small businesses and the people who specifically work in those small businesses, they are the backbone of the economy for so many of our communities. so it's very troubling when i

read about something in the health care law that threatens the very health of the people who work in these small businesses. you know, when democrats, madam president, were trying to sell their health care law, they bragged. they bragged about something called the shop program. that's the exchange where small businesses in a state were supposed to be able to buy insurance for their workers, be able to shop for it, be able to get something that's affordable. that's the promises made by democrats who voted for this health care law. democrats actually gave speeches on the floor about small businesses being able to find affordable insurance. this program was supposed to open last year, but just like the failed exchanges that the president set up, when the exchanges opened october 1, this wasn't ready to go. so what the obama administration said is we will delay it for a year because the program wasn't

ready. they left all the businesses kind of in a lurch. now they say it might be ready this fall. well, time will tell. here's what "the wall street journal" found in an article last month, june 10. it said -- they ran a headline that said some small business employees to have only one health plan choice. only one choice. 18 states will offer only one plan when the small business exchange actually opens. the democrats promised a lot more than that, madam president, and those who voted for that promised a lot more. those who gave speeches promised a lot more. but in 18 states, there will be only one plan when they finally get it open, 18 states where workers in small businesses will not have any choice among insurance plans and no competition and alaska is one of them. less choice, less competition and of course that means higher premiums.

people all across the country are experiencing higher premiums. that's the thing that really causes so much anger and anxiety among families all across the country. when that letter comes and the newspaper stories are already starting to get out there as well as television, radio, reading about it on the internet, the question is how much higher. the president promised $2,500 lower premiums. nobody believes that. nobody in america believes the president of the united states and the promise he made. it's a sad situation when the president is not believed by anyone. yet that's what we have. we made a promise $2,500 per family lower. people know that all over prices are going higher. the question is how much higher. this is what an article said in the alaska dispatch. it said alaska small businesses feel pinch of rising health care costs. the article tells the story of a restaurant owner with 24 employees. the restaurant owner is paying

about $5,000 a month more than he paid just last week for his share of his workers' insurance. that's about a 40% increase over last year. 40%. the president said it was going to go down. 40% increase. this small business owner in alaska says the costs are crippling, and he said it's like meeting another payroll every month. small business owner says it's killing me. he said i just don't know how long we can keep absorbing these costs. those costs are a devastating side effect of the health care law. democrats voted for it. every democrat in the senate voted for that. there was a story on the television up there, channel 13, a television station in anchorage, kyur. they aired a story last month about linda peters. she is another local business owner. she had 14 employees, and she pays for the insurance for her

employees. her share of the premium has gone up, gone up from $600 per person two years ago to $950 today. she says it's gotten so expensive she has had to shift the cost of employees' dependents back to her workers. so she was providing insurance for the dependents of the employees, but no, she is now not able to do that. why? because of the president's health care law. she told the tv station it was really tragic. it's enraging, she says, in fact, as employers who care about our employees. tragic and enraging, but the president forced on her and every democrat in this body, every democrat senator who voted for this. now this woman in alaska, tragic and enraging. she is looking into just dropping insurance coverage altogether. now, she pays her employees well

so they won't get a subsidy in the state exchange. here is a small business owner who can speak personally about the expensive, the tragic and the enrageing side effects of the obama health care law on her employees. and of course there is a lot of uncertainty about what happens next and how much rates might continue to go up, and of course that makes it even worse. the business owner said i just can't penalize my employees by dropping the plan and i can't figure out where am i going to get the money? it's frightening, she said. what happens next year? it's a big concern, what happens next year. people worry about neck year, they budget for next year, they plan for next year, they think about their expenses, balancing their income. president obama says the democrats who voted for this law in the president's own words should forcefully defend and be

proud. should forcefully defend and be proud of the health care law. are democrats in this senate who voted for this health care law proud? are they proud of what they are doing, these people in alaska and other states? are democrats willing to come to this floor and forcefully defend and be proud of the extra stress, the extra cost that they are causing for these people all across the country? according to a recent study by the manhattan institute, people in alaska are paying a lot more for their coverage. they found that the average 64-year-old woman in alaska, her premiums would have been $693 a month in 2013. that's before they were forced onto the obamacare exchange. but in 2014 buying insurance through the exchange, her premiums jumped to $1,813 a month.

she is paying more this year than last year because of the specifics of the health care law. for a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $130 a month in 2013, but under the health care law and the exchange, he now pays $284 a month. it's more than doubled. it's an extra $1,800 more this year than it was last year. is there a senator in this body who will come to the floor and forcefully defend the fact that there are these people all across america who are paying twice as much for insurance because of the health care law? democrats didn't solve the problem with our health care system. they just mandated coverage and mandated more expensive coverage. they made it more expensive and they have more mandates. people wanted reform that gave them access to quality, affordable care, not more expensive coverage. republicans have offered solutions, solutions for patient-centered care, for

patient-centered health care reform. we've talked about things like increasing the ability of small businesses to be able to join together and negotiate better rates. about expanding health savings accounts and by allowing people to shop for and buy health insurance in other states that work best for them and for their families. in 18 states, including alaska, the small business exchange will offer just one choice for insurance. shopping in other states could increase competition and help lower premiums for people who work for those small businesses. now, that would have been a simple solution that works, that helped people actually afford coverage and care. it's not what democrats did with their health care law but it's what republicans are offering. we've suggested ideas that would give people the care they need from a doctor that they choose at lower cost, not higher costs with a subsidy for some people

but actually lowering the cost for everyone. republicans are going to keep coming to the floor, we're going to keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of these tragic side effects. and, madam president, i'm sure that tomorrow there will be another headline and another one the day after that of people who have been harmed by the health care law as we see more and more and hear from more and more americans who feel that the president has not kept his promises, that the democrats who voted for the health care law have failed the american people and have failed to answer the concerns of the american people, which was affordable, quality care. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. withhold the request for a quorum call. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate

previous order, the senate >> president obama will go to congress to ask for $3.8 billion emergency package to deal with thousands of children crossing the border without their parents illegally. the white house says it would increase detention, care, transportation of unaccompanied children and increase capacity of immigration courts. the request does not ask for legislative changes the white house wants. some members congress tweeted their responses to the issue. congressman roger williams of texas says, the president asks congress for 3.8 billion tax dayers dollars not to deport but

pay for lawyers to help illegal immigrants stay in the u.s. illegally. congressman jeff duncan, republican from south carolina, blames the president from the humanitarian crisis. this stems from potus refusing to follow the law. eric swalwell, democrat. same house gop is suing white house for executive orders, now wants the president to break congress's 08 law to deport minors? homeland security secretary jeh johnson and hhs secretary sylvia burwell will explain the president's request tomorrow afternoon in front of senate appropriations committee. c-span3 will have live coverage of that. it is tomorrow 2:30 eastern. on c-span3 today the senate foreign relations committee is looking into european energy security. committee chair, senator chris murphy, recently returned from a trip to eastern europe where they discussed the natural gas

pipeline from russia to bulgaria. live coverage of that hearing gets underway at 2:30 eastern. that will be on c-span3. after the senate here on c-span2, the house veterans affairs committee will hold another in series of hearings on issues in the veterans affairs department. they will hear from va whistle-blowers. live coverage begins this evening at 7:30 iron. >> now the lead engineer of the curiosity rover that landed on mars. he was part of this year's annual new york ideas festival. his comments last about half an hour. >> we're going to talk about mars for the next few minutes. this is adam steltzner, excuse

me. who is an engineering fellow at the jet propulsion laboratory in pasadena, california. you probably know him as the fellow who invented that crazy contraption helped land curiosity rover on mars. can you tell us, how do you beat that? what have you been doing since the landing? >> well, great. a come of things. no one person ever invents anything. it is always a great team effort and that is one of the beauties of enfearing it is a collaborative art -- engineering. the idea for many, many people ideas combine to make these great things that look break-through and look crazy, but are fantastic, come out of minds of many folks. so what i've been doing lately is working with a new group, a different group of great people which is fantastic to me because i always love interaction with new groups of bright talent.

we've been working on developing a system to sample the surface of mars and containerize it very safely for potential return to earth at a later date. so for our investigations to date on mars, we have packed the science instruments into miniaturized form and taken a lot of efforts to get them on to the surface of mars. we think, or certainly the science community believes that to answer the final questions of mars we'll probably have to do it backwards. which is go and package mars and bring it back to earth to use the science instruments and the various scientists on earth to do the investigation and i'm helping develop the first piece of that puzzle which is the sampling system. >> okay. that's great. what are the final questions of mars? >> is it alive? was it ever alive? are we alone?

those are some of the questions we're asking about mars. >> why do we ask those questions in particular? seems like when it comes to space travel, spacex more race, we can take many routes and -- we can explore for exploration sake, we want focus on rest of the universe. why do we think about life itself. >> we see life all around us on earth but when we look out into the stars we don't see it obviously and don't really see it at all and could we really be alone? could all of this, all of our experiences be a unique moment in unique location in our universe? it is sort of a profound question. it has religious implications. it is something we've considered since perhaps the dawn of our self-awareness. so we do explore for many reasons. i think we're actually driven by our own curiosities to explore. so i think exploration is a

fundamental expression of our humanity you about the question that we tend ponder more frequently than any other is, are we alone. >> right. what if we find out that we're not? >> well i kind of, am already there, just on the math of the thing, right? >> yeah. >> just on billions and billions to quote, good ol' carl sagan. i think for various people, it is, i hope, we're not alone. it would be, if we were alone, i would immediately freak out. everybody stop doing everything, right? we might break it. we might be the only thing that the universe has got. so it would be good for all of us to have a chance to acknowledge whether there's life in other places in the solar system and to understand that life can evolve in other places. it may also help us understand

our own evolution and, and some of the processes that support life here on earth. which is very important to us. >> yeah. well an alumnus, what do you think of the life of terraforming mars or other planets? finding, basically making a home on other planets in our own image in some sense? >> right. that's a great question. you know folks ask that a lot. spacex more race, where is it going? will we go to colonization? a lot of times people talk about colonization, they talk about because they are worried about what we're doing to this earth. so that is the colonization, the terraforming paradox for me. the skills, the engineering, the care, the discipline necessary to shape a planet for us, are the same skills, engineering and care needed for us to keep this

planet good for us. so, i don't think that, terraforming is a solution to our own lack of discipline. or our own lack of care and understanding. now, there rather risks to humans, other than ourselves. we are by far the greatest risk. but, you know, if you think very deep, long, time, horizons, you can imagine threats. sun going out. black hole wandering into your system. we are concentrated in a single location. so you could imagine in deep time, us thinking about diversifying our real estate portfolio but for right now, for solving threats that pose to ourselves we should not consider that a solution.

>> when it comes to actual work you're doing with sampling ever mars, i want to get back to that. you're essentially retraining yourself for a new mission, right? >> right. >> how do you go about the educational aspects of it as well as social aspects? >> great question. i happen to love doing different things. so this is, previously i was land, you know, helping the team developing a landing system. now we're talking about sampling system, very different set of physics involved. it is not burning up in the atmosphere, burning holes into rocks and preserving science found in it. i love that. i love learning about new fields. learning about new areas, of intellectual endeavor. i do it sort of, by reading. by talking to people. by talking to people smarter than myself and by assembling a team of people who hopefully are smarter than me and we learn together, about this new, new field. i try to make the team

environment full of play. because my daughter, i have kids, and i notice they learn through play. i think actually you can, choose, to never stop learning through play. so that is how i try to do it. and it makes it a little bit more fun for me. i think it makes it fun for the rest of the team. >> that is awesome. how does that manifest? >> not taking things of great gravity too seriously. >> no pun intended. >> and enjoying each other. word play. trying different techniques of looking at a problem. trying to think about all of the opposites. you know, sometimes when i, when we're in a development and team members want to bring an idea forward or change something we're doing forward i ask them to come with three central reasons for the change. >> okay. >> and the three central arguments against the change.

to sort of help separate yourself from the ideas you're bringing forward. so you can be warm and respectful to each other but brutal on the ideas you're playing with. >> yeah. >> by having that objective distance. >> whole bunch of different techniques we use to make it fun and make it fertile for innovation. >> how does that fit in with the overall infrastructure of jpl and nasa as well? is there sort of a bureaucracy to be dealt with or do you have a lot of freedom? >> a lot of folks work at nasa. 5,000 people work at the jet propulsion laboratory and doing something like building curiosity and getting her safely to the surface of mars required of those folks at the laboratory and about 10,000 people spread over 37 states and the better part of a decade. so you can not do all of that work in free association, word play, for like -- there is time

and beginning where you're developing ideas, you're understanding what you're going to do and when that open time exists. that's when you want to use the tools that bring in ideas from all sorts of different directions. there is implementation phase. where you have the thing you're doing and you got to make it happen. that many abouts much more structured. much more regimented and a little more hierachical. and involves a lot more people and a fair number about of dollars. >> yeah. a fair number, yeah. what about the public facing side? i think to me that one of the things so striking about the curiosity landing how much of a speckel it was in the best sense and reminded you how much this technology is fundamentally human. this is one of the first times we've had such sort of intimate access to you guys as engineers and sort of that technology. how do you kind of think about the social side or do you not at all. no, i do.

we worked on, put a pair of twin rovers, spirit and opportunity on surface of mars in 2004 and i worked a lot on that landing system and in 2004 social media existed, a little bit but not really. and we were the, on the top news stories for cnn until, frankly britney spears got out of a limousine wearing or not wearing something and all of a sudden, we fell off the list. in the era of nightly news they tell you five things. if you're seeing number six that happened that day, you didn't happen. now, this era is very different. social media, many different multiple parallel paths information, transmission, mean that people can become interested and spread the word themselves. and i've noticed a huge difference with respect to curiosity, her landing. her landing system was, even

wackier looking maybe? and she is big. by the way, the version downstairs, just in case everybody knows, is half scale. the real curiosity, might even be third scale. i can't even quite tell. the real curiosity head, sits slightly above the george washington bus that sits down in the lobby there. you can look up at george washington to get a sense of real sides of her. she was huge and outlandish in the way we, the way we landed her. >> just a little bit, yes. >> more importantly i think there were a whole bunch conduits, parallel conduits and information for contact with the engineers through social media and i think it made a huge difference. >> that's great. is that something you think about on an ongoing basis? how do we sort of portray this work as it is going on maybe not in full existence yet but how do we get the public excited about it? >> i don't. my strategy, which i hope is a

good one, it is slightly dangerous, is just to be honest and available because i think that connecting with the public, who frankly are paying for these efforts, and giving them insight as to why we do it and what drives us and who which are who do these things is important and useful. >> right. >> i think the idea that we engage the youth of this nation, which we do. i can tell you that i'm engaged all the time by young kids, young adults, across the country, who are motivated and turned on frankly by curiosity, and exploration. i think it's one of the greatest services that we provide to the nation. and so i believe in it. and so i, i welcome opportunities to share. >> yeah. do you think that's common

throughout jpl at least? >> in general, i think there's a lot of folks who understand the value of it. i can tell you it is quite frightening to share yourself openly with people. and so, to the degree that you can be less guarded, varies from person-to-person. i may be on the oversharing side of that spectrum. >> would you ever want to go to space yourself? >> so the more i look at space and the more i am involved in building robots that virtually explore space for all of us, the more i think of how delightfully warm and loving this planet is. i have a very nice garden in the backyard of my house. i have two lovely daughters. i'm very happy to stay right here. >> that's wonderful. and i want to circle back to, you call it curiosity, she. can you explain why you do that?

>> yeah. that's a good question. i'm not the only one. we tend to do that at the lab and it may be that sort of the tradition of ocean-going vessels, naval vessels or it may be that we think of her in sort of a protective way? >> interesting. >> i certainly do. and by the way, curiosity is better name for a girl, than a boy, don't you think? i do. so, yeah, however some collection of that, we just organically, unintentionally, without organization call her a she. >> interesting. very interesting. i think the social media team was run by women as far as i know. >> it actually is. mostly all women, that's true. >> okay. so i think this will have to be our last question. what's next for spacex more race after mars 2020? after mars itself? >> great, right. there are other places to explore other than mars.

you know, there's, the outer planets of jupiter, saturn, uranus, neptune, et cetera, those places are quite interesting. they're harder to get to. they take a longer time to get there. they have interesting moons about jupiter and saturn. europa, titan, these are places as -- astro biologists think might allow life to exist today. maybe great places, for us to go search for signs of a living universe. i'm hopeful we'll be doing work not only at mars, i love mars, been doing a lot of work at mars but beyond mars to the icy moons of the outer planets. >> wonderful. thank you. i actually, i think we have, one more question? yep. from mr. steve clemens here. >> hi, folks. i'm steve clemens. washington editor-at-large with atlantic. i've been obsessed having you here. i'm so excited.

this is not a commercial for siemens. i'm thrilled we were so obsessed and they would bring curiosity here and we would do it, what is the pipeline of younger adam sellser ins out there? is the country getting it right to do that? i know siemens donated billions of dollars you used to simulate landings. they have gone to places like cleveland, ohio, and i was just in worcester, massachusetts. they're going to richmond to look at consortium to give young people the opportunity to play around with this fancy software you used. made me think about, is the pipeline of young talent like you there? and what should we do to enhance it if it is not what it should be? we'll wrap it up. i get to interview the next guy on next stage. meagan. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> great question. i think for me, the key to making more people like me, well, actually i do that --

>> cloning? >> not cloning. my wife and i have a whole program based on that. [laughter]. i'm sure my wife is loving that right now. oversharing right? so i think the most important thing that we can give our young people is a thirst, a drive, to search for that which is awesome that which brings awe and wonder meant to them. whether they find that in visual arts, music, politics, literature, or science and engineering, i'm not very concerned because our nation, filled with inspired young people, who are driven to see what they can do, will be a great nation and will make the world a better place. so, to the extent, that our efforts exploring mars, putting

a rover named curiosity, as our curiosity helped touch that in youth. it makes me very happy and very humbled to be part of it. so i look forward to any effort that we put forward to inspire our nation's youth. >> awesome. thanks so much. >> president obama is going to ask congress for $3.8 billion in emergency funds to pay for dealing with it thousands of children who are crossing the border illegally without their parents. white house says the money would help to increase the detention, care and transportation of unaccompanied children. it would also increase capacity of immigration courts. the request does not ask for legislative changes that the white house wants. also this from the associated press. a republican national committee panel is recommending that cleveland be the host of the party's 2016 presidential convention. the full 168-member rnc is

expected to ratify the choice next month. after the senate, which is away on their party lunches this afternoon, the house veterans affairs committee will hold another in series of hearings on issues in the vettance after fires department. they will hear from va whistle-blowers. live coverage begins at 7:30 eastern. we welcome your reaction via facebook.com/cspan or tweets at c-span chat. shortly we've bring you live coverage of today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest. this is a live look inside the white house briefing room. we expect questions on the immigration funding request the president made today, $3.8 billion. that brief something expected to begin shortly. that is live on c-span2. a discussion on immigration, on the gasto tax and increasing reform. >> host: our guest is grover norquist, president of americans

fort tax reform. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> host: where is immigration policy going in congress? >> guest: i think we need to do something sooner than later. we have high-tech skills that make it difficult. people get phds, instead of creating new companies. we have a tremendous advantage as a nation. thean reason why the united stas is the dominant powerful nation we've had a pro-immigration policy for 300 years. people have been whining about it since the germans started sneaking in pennsylvania in the 1600s. there is always, oh, new guys. marriedlw children of old guys. now we're whining about the new guys. this is our comparative advantage. why japan is not number one. remember the book, 1980s, japan is number one? they're forgetting to have children. they can't do immigration for cultural reasons. we're a culture that absorbs people from all over the planet.

and does it better than anyone else. not as well as we should always but better than everyone else. china is the not future. they're starting to see declining workforce numbers and overall declining overall numbers and people can't move from germany or france to china. as with japan. so, it is our competitive advantage. we should be careful and make sure that, you know, we have folks coming that want to come and not coming that we don't. we have a lot of people that will become great americans. have become wonderful americans through immigration. >> host: as far as the political will, eric cantor lost his race in virginia. a lot of people attributing that to thoughts on immigration policy was that a factor and do you think that affects whatever decisions are made on immigration? >> guest: there was effort to run that as panic at the time. the polling immediately that day found that 22% of the people who voted against cantor thought that was a key issue. when you asked people all the

issues, and ask them to tell you what was important, immigration was way down. and there are a number of issues in the state, some inside the party arguments and fights and so on. and if you're a national leader in congress, this has happened to democrats as well. you spend your time in washington. spend your time flying around the country. working think everybody in the district understands important work you're doing. on a national level they say how come you weren't here for the local chamber of commerce luncheon? so i think there are a number of challenges. eric cantor still has a great future of him. could be senator or governor some day. he has a lot of skills. this was a surprise to everyone, including the guy who won. he will be a great congressman himself. there is smog wrong with him. he is great advocate for limited government, and a good solid, free market professor. i don't think that's what did it. there are series of things. they have been discussed. there is lot of lack of trust

between congress and administration. the president keeps saying i don't care what laws you passed, i do what i want. his health care he theoretically wrote and supported and keeps on enforcing whole chunks of it because he chooses not to. how do you pass a law, a difficult, contentious law that republicans, democrats each may have different opinions on, and then hand it to a president who says, i will select which parts of this law i enforce and which i don't? that is not just immigration. it is everything. not like they're passing lots of different legislation and immigration is the piece they're not getting to. i think it has been discussed and talked about and certain pieces of it, the dreamer act, high-tech stuff. the stem, science, technology, engineering, math students being able to stay, coming to some legal status for people who have been here for a long time and been, good, almost, citizens. those things are, in the polling

tells us they are consensus issues. we ought to be able to do those. there is this lack of trust right now. >> host: from the immigration, is the immigration policy it wants to be done complicated by deportation policy, even today on "washington post," most kids being discussed will likely be deported? >> guest: that is very interesting question how we ended up all the kids showing up. was that the administration miscommunicating with the rest of the continent what support for the dreamer act was? what are his ambassadors doing? do they not go on television in these various countries to explain what is going on? i think that is sheer incompetence. i don't think it's a conspiracy. i think it is sheer incompetence. it is amazing you couldn't foresee exactly the same thing beginning to happen. we spend a lot of time spying on americans but don't we keep track what is going on other countries, if tens of thousands of people are moving toward your border? you might have noticed it.

there are real challenges. >> host: does it complicate immigration policy going forward? >> guest: yes, sir i do. this is not an administration that can chew gum and walk at the same time. when you ask congress to join them in that process, i don't think the administration has bandwidth to deal with it. i'm not sure newspapers can cover these as two projects. i think it all gets conflated. >> host: the president is set to go down to texas. how does he address this issue best way possible in your mind as far as immigration policy is concerned? how does he address it? >> guest: he has to address the crisis of the day largely his creation. apology every once in a while would be nice. we need to back up, what do we do long term? separate, here's a challenge right now. long term, what do we need to do? long term we need to take a lot more talent into this country. we need a guest worker program. . .

>> wrote an article making the case that every restrictionist policy on immigration that has been passed or even discussed seriously in american history going back to the chinese exclusion act, our first antiimmigration law, no chinese people allowed, were all pushed by the labor unions because they

have this zero sum understanding, we used to have three million people in the country, now we have 300 million people in the country. we are significantly wealthier today. more people do not make you poor. in a free market, in a free and open society, it makes everybody better off. middle ages or something like that. but in a free market, in a free and open society, more people are an advantage, not a disadvantage. ask and organized labor has done a lot of damp to the country because of its antiimmigration policies throughout history. >> host: grover norquist, our guest. if you want to ask him questions, the lines on the screen. 202-585-3771 for republicans and 202-585-3882 for independents. mark, good morning, go ahead. >> caller: yeah, good morning,

guys. grover, i just wanted to talk to you. i'm really concerned. you know, the republican party stance on drilling, you know? i'm a member of -- [inaudible] unlimited, an avid fly fisherman. can i still, you know, there was a song -- >> all right, good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. i don't have any announcements at the top, josh, so why don't you get us started with questions. >> thanks, josh. this morning white house officials said in working with congress the white house is basically asking for the same authority to send people from central america back at the border that the administration has for people from mexico. can you give that authority to a border patrol agent as opposed to immigration judges and still guarantee that these children have due process? >> what we are seeking, josh, is we are seeking a greater

authority for the secretary of homeland security to exercise greater discretion that would allow him to more efficiently and effectively remove and repatriate immigrants to this country that don't have a legal basis for remaining here. as you know, there are -- the law requires some additional steps as it relates particularly to children, and it also requires some additional steps for children who have traveled from what are described as noncontiguous countries. what this law did not contemplate is what we are seeing now along the southwest border. what we're seeing along the southwest border is a spike in illegal migration from a handful of central american countries. and what we would like is for the secretary of homeland security to exercise some

greater discretion after the due process rights of those individuals has been acknowledged and respected. so there is a due process system. what we are seeking are in addition to additional authority are additional resources where immigration judges, i.c.e. prosecutors and asylum officials can be made available to expand the capacity of that system so that we could reduce the backlog that currently exists. but, again, the bottom line here is this additional authority that we would like congress to give the secretary of homeland security would allow him to exercise his discretion to more efficiently remove those individuals that do not have a legal basis for remaining in this country. >> those due process rights are first respected, does that include appearing before a judge or appearing before someone other than just a border patrol agent doing an initial screening? >> yes, it does.

there is due process in place that those individuals are entitled to that will be respected. there are also certain humanitarian requirements that are in place. those are also consistent with the values of this country. we will meet both of those standards. we're committed to doing that. we're also just as chitted to en-- committed to enforcing the law. and when it is found an individual does not have the legal basis for remaining in this country, for being granted a humanitarian relief, then those individuals will be removed and repatriated in collaboration with their home countries. >> [inaudible] was here morning, talked about his concerns about the afghanistan election process dragging out. can you flesh out a little bit about what he spoke about regarding afghanistan and ukraine? >> why don't i start with a readout of the president's meaning, and we can go into additional detail. the president met with nato secretary general anders

rasmussen in what was sectarian genres miss seven's final visit to the white house. the secretary general's visit underscores the vital importance the united states places on nato as the cornerstone of our alliance with europe and the importance of rasmussen's critical leadership. you'll recall, josh, the president had the opportunity to talk about the strength and importance of this alliance during the president's recent visit to europe just last month. as you know, we have a nato summit in september in wales. that was an opportunity for them, the the two leaders, to review a number of issues heading into that meeting. they also discussed ukraine, including the implications of russia's aggression for european security and the effort allies have been making over the past several months to reassure the ironclad commitment to article 5 collective defense. they also spoke about the need the improve investment and

bolster the defense capacity of nato's vast network of partners. and finally, they spoke about afghanistan and planning for nay nato's noncombat, post 2014 higgs. in terms of afghanistan -- mission. in terms of secretary kerry's outreach to both of the candidates in afghanistan, the president spoke last night to dr. of abdullah as art of our ongoing effort to -- part of our ongoing effort to engage with the candidates. the president made clear that we expect a thorough review of all reasonable allegations of fraud and that there is no justification for resorting to violet or extraconstitutional measures. we've been clear that any such move would cost afghanistan the financial and security assistance of the united states of america. serious allegations of fraud have been raised, but they have yet to be adequately investigated, so we reiterate that the preliminary results that were announced yesterday

are neither final, nor authoritative and may not even predict the final outcome, which could still change based on the findings of afghan's electoral bodies. we continue to urge the candidates to maintain calm among their supporters. there's a process in place for adjudicate ugh the concerns -- adjudicating the concerns that have been raised about fraud in that election, and we're encouraged -- we're encouraging both candidates and supporters to allow that process to work its way through. to all of these claims or concerns that have been raised can be examined and adjudicated so that both sides can respect the outcome of this process. >> josh, israel seems to be escalating quickly, air raids this tel aviv and up to 40,000 calls for a possible ground invasion in gaza. what is the u.s. doing to calm the situation, and is there any effort to negotiate a ceasefire between hamas and israel?

>> well, let me start by saying that we strongly condemn the continuing rocket fire into israel and the deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorist organizations in gaza. no country can accept rocket fire aimed at civilians, and we support israel's right to defend itself against these vicious attacks. at the same time, we appreciate the call that prime minister net an ya hue himself -- netanyahu has made himself publicly to act responsibly. we're concerned about the safety of civilians on both sides, both the residents of israel who are forced to live under rocket fire in their homes, and the civilians in gaza who are subjected to the conflict because of hamas' violence. as you know, secretary kerry spoke with prime minister netanyahu a couple times over the weekend and reiterated the united states' concern about escalating tensions and our willingness to engage robustly in helping to stop the rocket

fire and restore the 2012 ceasefire as soon as possible. so these kinds of consultations are ongoing. it is not in the interest of either side for this violence to continue and even to escalate. so we are hopeful that even as israel exercises their right to self-defense, that they'll leave open a channel for diplomacy to prevail and for a ceasefire or at least a deescalation in the violence to commence. okay? jeff. >> josh, back on the supplemental request, is the white house willing to offer any budget cuts elsewhere to offset this additional money? >> well, jeff, this falls in the category of emergency appropriations, and i think that even both democrats and republicans would acknowledge that what we're seeing is an emergent request, situation down there. there are serious implications as it relates to, you know, a pretty dire humanitarian

situation throughout central america, and the consequences for that are being manifested along the southwest border. so there is an urgent situation to respond to, and we hope that congress will act quickly on this emergency request for additional funding so that we can use these resources to address the problem. >> the answer's no, right? >> well, the answer is that this is an emergency supplemental funding request, and with an emergency request like this, traditionally congress has not sought to bog down that process in a search for offsets. >> speaker boehner also made a point of saying he wanted the national guard to be sent to the border, and that was not included in the request. any reason for that? >> well, there are a couple of reasons for that. the first is there is, you know, there already has been made a historic investment in border security, and we're seeing the benefits of that investment of resources along the border. to put it bluntly, the concern right now is that what we're seeing is that a lot of these

immigrants who are seeking to enter the country without authorization aren't seeking to evade protection by border patrol agents. rather, these individuals are seeking out these border patrol agents with the expectation they'll be detained and in the hope they'll be allowed to remain in the country. what we have made clear is that those individuals who enter this country without authorization will be put through the immigration court proceeding. and there are due process rights that they will, that they are entitled to. but at the conclusion of those proceedings if it is found that those individuals do not have a legal basis for remaining in the country, they'll be removed. and what we have sought in addition to this supplemental appropriations request is authorization for the secretary of homeland security to exercise greater discretion in insuring the prompt removal of those individuals. michelle? >> hi.

yesterday we talked a little bit about this, and you mentioned there was no piece in the request for border security, but it appears that there is some of that now, right? has that changed since yesterday, and if so, why? >> i don't remember ruling out any additional resources that could be deployed to the border. i think, in fact, the suggestion that i made was that we needed additional resources at the border to process these claims more rapidly and that is what a large chunk of this funding would be devoted towards. that's hiring judges, i.c.e. prosecutors and asylum officials who could address the backlog that is cropped up in recent months. by addressing that backlog, we can insure that those individuals have prompt is access to the due process to which they're entitled. it also means those cases are resolved, and as we expect in the majority of those cases, there will not be a basis for those individuals to remain in the country and be granted humanitarian relief. we expect that the homeland security secretary will be able

to exercise some additional discretion that would allow him to repatriate those individuals efficiently. >> and so things like surveillance flights and more resources for interdiction, that's not something that was added late? that was always going to be part -- >> that was always going to be part of the package. i would point out that those who are particularly concerned about these kind of resources being deployed to the bodder and the suggestion that these are badly needed at the border should be hints at immigration reform. even the important steps that are included in this emergency funding request are not as significant as the investment in border security resources that's included in the common sense immigration reform proposal that was passed by both parties in the senate. >> and this meeting he's going to have, that the president's going to have with the governor, can you talk about this? there's been this harsh back and forth at times. what does the president expect to gain from this meeting? >> well, we've been working on it for a couple of days, to set

up a meeting between the president and local officials in the dallas area to discuss the situation on the border. there are a number of nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofits and even some faith leaders in dallas, who have been trying to mobilize some resources to assist in the effort to meet the basic humanitarian needs of those who have arrived at the southwest boarder and attempted to -- border and attempted to enter the country without authorization. the president welcomes the efforts of those who are trying to contribute constructively to addressing this problem, and we're seeing local officials and even some members of the faith community in dallas try to do exactly that. the president's supportive of those efforts, and that's why we were seeking to set up a meeting with those individuals. when governor perry sent a letter to the white house yesterday indicating a desire to meet with the president, we thought it made sense here to extend an invitation to governor perry to allow him to participate many that meeting with other texans who are

seeking to address the situation in a constructive manner. so we're looking forward to governor perry participating in that meeting. apparently, he is just in the last hour agreed to participate, and we certainly are pleased about that. okay? mark. >> i just want to be clear, you're asking that the hhs secretary has greater discretion -- >> dhs secretary. >> i mean dhs. but you're not asking congress to change the law to make central american children treated the same as mexican children? you're not asking for a change in the law to correct the discrepancy between the way these children are handled? >> welt, i think what -- well, i think what we are trying to do is trying to restore some greater consistency in that in terms of the way immigrants from central america, whether it's mexico or other countries, the way that that law's implemented. now, there are some natural barriers to that, right?

if somebody is detained along the mexican border from mexico, it's easy to turn them around, and they're back in their home country. if someone, if an immigrant from honduras, for example, is detained at the u.s./mexico border, getting them back to honduras requires additional resources and requires additional steps. so there are some logistical impediments to enforcing the law as efficiently when it comes to those who originate in honduras compared to those who originated in mexico. >> not logistical impediments, they're legislative impediments. 2008 law says these children have to be treated differently. >> that's correct. >> and i just want to -- you're not asking congress to make changes to the 2008 law? >> well, right now what we are seeking is we're seeking the congressional authorization for the secretary of homeland security to exercise greater depression as he implements that law. so i don't want to suggest to

you that we're fine with the law the way that it is, because we're seeking greater discretion so that we can enforce that law differently. i'm not trying to be obtuse in answering your question, i'm just trying to be as specific as i can. what we are seeking is an end result that allows for the more efficient application and enforcement of that law that, essentially, means those individuals that don't have a legal basis for remaining in this country are returned to their home country. does that make sense? okay. olivier. >> a couple for you. you talked about the phone call last night? you talked about the risk of losing the financial and security assistance from the united states. is that money and material, or does that also extend to the present american forces on the ground? >> well, as you know, there is this issue of the pending bilateral security agreement. this is an agreement that was struck between the united states and and afghanistan many months ago now. what we have said is that we

would seek for that agreement to be signed by the new president of afghanistan. the good news is that both candidates, both of the remaining candidates in this runoff, have indicated not just an openness, but a desire to sign that agreement. we certainly would welcome that. we believe this bilateral security agreement is in the best interests of american national security and also in the best interests of the people of afghanistan. so we're certainly leaded that both of them -- pleased that both of them have indicated a desire to do that. of course, for them to sign this agreement, the election needs to be concluded. and because of the concerns that have been raised about fraud, the conclusion of that election is being drawn out a little bit. fortunately, there is in place a series of procedures to adjudicate concerns about fraud, and we have sought through diplomatic channels to encourage both sides to allow that process to work. and we're hopeful that both candidates and their support

beers will continue to support that process as it moves forward. >> and then there are administration officials -- [inaudible] lawmakers on capitol hill today about iraq and afghanistan. i'm wondering whether the timing reflects the conflict in either place shifting into a new phase, particularly as it relates to iraq. >> uh-huh. i'm not aware of the specific briefings that you're talking about, but because consultation between the administration and our partners on capitol hill on these issues is frequent, i'm not surprised to hear that there are some meetings to discuss these issues. as you point out, olivier, these are pretty dynamic situations that we're dealing with, so it makes sense that the consultations between senior administration officials and our counterparts on capitol hill are pretty frequent. i don't know that there's any specific hook to today's meetings, but rather that they are an indication that these conversations happen pretty regularly. be steven? >> thanks. your comments yesterday --

[inaudible] implicated german anger about this latest spying row. could you give any more details about how the u.s. plans to go about resolving this, as you said yesterday? >> i'm not in a position to shed any more light on, either on those reports or on our efforts to try to resolve the situation other than to say what i said yesterday which is that the united states highly values the strong partnership that we have with the germans, particularly when it comes to security cooperation and intelligence-sharing activities. that strong partnership benefits american national security, and we believe that it benefits the national security of germany as well. that's why we are committed to resolving the situation appropriately. there have been some communications in both law enforcement and diplomatic channels to begin to resolve this issue.

but in terms of the substance of the reports, as i was yesterday, i'm not in a position to comment on them. >> in general terms, does the united states expect that foreign nations, including perhaps some allies, conduct kind of operations, intelligence operations that have been reported, you know, on the other side of the german media in the last few days? >> yeah. i'm sure there are some intelligence experts in our government who might be able to give you some greater insight into the intelligence activities of other countries, but i'm not in a position to do that from here. okay? ed. >> josh, could you clarify in terms of homeland security secretary getting more authority, congress has to pass a stand-alone bill to clarify this, or what's the hold up? what are you waiting for legally -- >> it's my understanding that for the secretary of homeland security to exercise the kind of discretion that we would like him to be able to exercise in terms of more efficiently removing those individuals that don't have a claim to remain in

this country, that that requires congressional authorization to give him that discretion. >> okay. >> yes. >> have you heard from boehner, anyone, are they going to do this? >> well, we originally made this request last week in a letter to congress. since then there have been a number of conversations between senior administration officials here and senior officials on capitol hill. so there are, the discussions about trying to work this out have been underway for several days now. >> in terms of the changes to the president's schedule, you kind of hooked it to governor perry writing this letter yesterday. >> i didn't mean to do that. the -- >> what changed? because for days you've been saying not only is he not going to the border, but he's just fundraising, and he's going to talk about the economy. >> i think i was pretty declarative about the fact that the president was not going to travel to border. he's going to spend tom time in addition to those other -- some time visiting with some texans,

both local government officials as well as the leaders in the faith community down there, who are seeking to mobilize resources in support of an effort to effectively deal with the situation at the southwest border. the president welcomes their involvement. he's certainly pleased to see their interest in playing a constructive role in meeting the humanitarian needs of these individuals. governor perry indicated a desire the speak to the president about this, and the president extended an invitation for governor perry to join this meeting with other texans who are -- >> political pressure because in addition to governor perry, you had democrat henry clay saying he believes this could be the president's katrina. how do you react to that, that sort of government's paralyzed right now, not being able to fix this? >> right. i think the steps this government has announced not just today, but over the last week or so are indicative of our proactive approach to dealing with the situation. the president has already directed the course resources be be moved from the interior to

the border region to address both this backlog, but also this influx of illegal migration from central america. we're seeking greater resources from congress that can be used to deal with this situation, to whittle down the backlog, that we prioritize more recent border crossers. we're also seeking, as we've been discussing now, the greater authority that the secretary of homeland security could use to more efficiently remove those individuals that don't have a legal basis for remaining this the country. i think that is indicative of the aggressive approach that this administration is taking to confronting this problem. >> two other quick ones. the u.n. high commissioner for refugees is p pushing for the administration to consider these central americans, adults and kids, to be refugees, at least many of them. that could potentially give them political asylum. is that even being considered here? is that on the table? that these adults and children would be considered refugees, not illegal immigrants? >> well, ed, these individuals from central america are entitled to due process, and

there is an immigration court system in this country to consider their claims on a case-by-case basis. what we're seeking are additional resources so that we can have more judges and more prosecutors and more asylum officials on hand to consider these cases carefully, to insure that they are subject to this due process, but, you know, what's also clear is our determination to make sure that once a ruling is issued in these immigration proceedings, that they, that if they are found to not be, to not warrant special humanitarian relief, that these individuals can be efficiently repatriated in collaboration with their home countries back to those home countries. >> [inaudible] related to governor perry repeatedly referred to this as humanitarian situation. you yourself were calling this an emergency a moment ago. the president's budget request is an emergency. why now is it being called a humanitarian situation?

is that an attempt to sort of dial this back and put pressure on the president? >> i think we've been pretty candidate about the urgency with which we are approaching this situation. and, you know, i think that is reflective of the efforts we have taken to try to -- >> [inaudible] >> well, i mean, we've certainly called it a crisis, as you pointed out. it's also an emergent situation. it also is something that requires the focus of the federal government making sure that we are insuring the continued security of our border but also making sure that we are enforcing the law and fulfilling the obligation that we have to heat the basic humanitarian these of those individuals who are showing up along the southwest border. none of those, none of those priorities are mutually exclusive. so we intend to meet the due process rights and insure that they are given a due process opportunity to appear before a judge and to have that judge make a ruling on their claim to

remain in this country. in the meantime, we'll meet the basic humanitarian these of these individuals. that's consistent with the values of this country. and at the same time, we are committed to enforcing the law. in fact, we are seeking greater authority that can be wielded by the secretary of homeland security that, where necessary, he can repatriate individuals that don't have a legal basis for remaining in this country. okay? welcomebob. >> josh, i tried to read the 2008 law and make sense of it. the law was, as we've herald a number of times, basically designed to prevent childhood trafficking and return children to their rightful families, etc. i looked for nuances about whether or not there could be room for children whose families have deliberately sent them to the united states. does the white house not see any knew want possibilities there, and has the counsel's office weighed in on this? i mean, you believe you need some new legislation, but could the president take some

executive action? >> well, i'm not steeped in the legalistic details of this law either. i do understand that there is some flexibility in the law, and we're certainly going to try to use that flexibility to implement this law in a way that reflects the situation that we currently face on the southwest border. as you know, bob, the president has already directed that resources within the homeland security department that currently are focused on the interior be directed to the border to try to reduce the backlog and meet the increasingly difficult situation along the border. so there are some steps the president can take unilaterally, and he's done that already. but in terms of enforcing the law and insuring the efficient enforcement of the law, it does require some authorization from congress so that the secretary of homeland security can exercise some additional discretion. april? >> josh, i want to ask you two quick questions. in light of the current political climate and your

request for supplemental as well as for this greater discretion for the homeland secretary, what realistically are you expecting to happen with your request to congress? >> >> sure. well, april, you've seen comments from both democrats and republicans urging the administration to take steps to deal with this urgent humanitarian situation. this -- in some cases, ed called it a crisis. i would expect those individuals who are talking about this issue to back up that talk with action x. what we'd like congress to do is to act promptly, maybe even with some, maybe even expeditiously to consider this proposal and hopefully move on it in bipartisan fashion. again, members of both parties have acknowledged that this is an urgent situation, and we hope that members of both parties will act promptly to address i.

i -- address it. >> are so is there a plan in case something does not get -- in case they don't act expeditiously? >> considering that just today we rolled out plan a and presented it to congress, you know, we're going to give congress a fair chance to back up their words with action and to consider this proposal and move quickly in bipartisan fashion to insure that this administration has the resources we need to deal with this urgent humanitarian situation. >> and ed asked a question that piqued my curiosity. you're not saying the word refugee. [inaudible] >> he deserves it. >> strategically, you are not saying the word "refugee." is there a reason why you're not saying "refugee," does it mean they are allowed to stay -- >> well, as i mentioned to bob, i'm not steeped in the legalistic details, but it is my understanding that describing someone as a refugee ascribes them a specific legal status,

and the legal status of each of these individuals who is apprehended will be determined by an immigration judge. and what we would like is we would like there to be more immigration judges on the case, so to speak, working to determine the legal status of each of these individuals who's apprehended. that is part of their due process rights, and we're committed to making sure we respect those due process rights. our anticipation, though, is that the majority of folks who go through that process will not be found by those judgings to have, to qualify for humanitarian relief, and that's why we want the greater authority that can be exercised by the director of of the homeland security to return them --? according to the convention, it says a refugee is someone who has fled his or her country out of fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

do some of these persons that are coming into the united states fall into this u.n. category? >> i think the point of my answer, april, was to say that it's not for me to decide that, it's for an immigration judge to make those kinds of rulings x. what we want to insure is that each individual who's apprehended along the border who's from one of those central american countries has access to an immigration judge so that that determination can be reached by that judge, not by somebody who's standing here in the white house. so, john? >> just a quick clarification on afghanistan. the president called both presidential candidates, was ashraf began any called -- >> no. the president telephoned dr. abdullah, but senior administration officials have been in touch with both candidates and with supporters -- >> why would he call just one of the candidates? >> dr. abdullah is the one who is expressing the most significant concern about reports of fraud, and what we

have done is all along in this process encouraged both candidates to remain engaged in the prosecution of adjudicating the election. so the president telephoned dr. abdullah last night to more forcefully keep up that case that he should remain engaged in the process. >> okay. and on these supplemental requests, i want to be sure i'm reading this properly. it looks like there is significantly more money in this request for providing and caring for these children that have crossed the border -- providing health care, shelter -- than there is for added border security or for deportation. is that correct? that the bulk of this money, by far, is to provide money for care for the children that have crossed the border illegally. >> i don't know if i would say bulk by far -- >> 3.8 billion, so -- 1.8 billion, so that's about half. by far the -- >> sure, but 1.1 billion would

be dedicated to homeland security resources to insure that we're enforcing the law and securing the border and efficiently reate rating those individuals -- repatriating those individuals. so i think the point is there are significant resources that are required to deal with this situation both in terms of, you know, meeting the various needs that i was describing to ed, the need to meet the basic humanitarian needs of those that show up along the southwest border. i think that is not just in line with the law, it's also in line with basic american values. at the same time, this administration remains committed to enforcing the law both in terms of processing them through the immigration system, but also in terms of repatriating them if it's found that they don't have a legal basis for remaining in the country. >> okay. and then on the meeting with governor perry, valerie jarrett in her letter -- and by the way, why was this letter, this invitation coming from valerie jarrett? >> well, as you know, valerie

has spent a lot of time maintaining our relationships here in the white house with governors across the country, so she was the one who responded -- >> thank you for your concern about the urgent humanitarian concern in the rio grande valley. obviously, the concern governor perry has been expressing has been some very harsh criticism of this president and even suggesting last week that there could even be a conspiracy, that somehow the president and this administration was in on the flow of children over the borders. either ineptitude or something else. and he said -- so i'm just wondering what exactly do you, i mean, what's the president's message going to be to governor perry? governor perry has blamed this problem directly on the president and even suggested that the president wanted to see this. >> i think that despite all of the differences that exist when it comes to policy between governor perry and this administration, that there should be a level at which we

can agree that it's important for this humanitarian situation to be addressed. pote for the well being of the united states, but also for the well being of those human beings who have been apprehended along the southwest border. i, you know, you can ask governor perry, i certainly won't speak for him. i know it's a priority of the president's. i assume it's a priority of governor perry's, but we'll find that out in the context of the meeting. >> he doesn't think the president cares about border security. >> well, i don't think that any fair appraisal of the president's record when it comes to border security would allow that criticism to withstand any scrutiny at all. the fact of the matter is, this president's made a historic investment in border security, and this president has worked with republicans in congress to try and increase our investment and increase the number of our resources dedicated to securing our border. unfortunately, it's republicans -- many of them from texas -- who are blocking the house from even considering that championship, bipartisan proposal that would make an

additional historic investment in our border. okay? roger. >> there is a members' briefing on the hill this afternoon, can you shed some light on that. >> >> yeah. that was the meeting that olivier was asking about earlier today. i don't have any details specifically about that meeting. i think, however, it reflects the robust nature of coordination or the robust coordination that exists between this administration and congress when it comes to confronting some of the national security challenges that we're facing right now these kinds of meetings happen with some frequency because it's such a dynamic situation over there, and we want to make sure that our congressional partners are briefed with the latest details. >> are they telling them anything new? >> presumably. again, it's a dynamic situation, so the conditions on the ground have been changing rather rapidly, and they've probably changed is since the last time they had to have -- they had the opportunity to meet like this. >> back to the supplemental, on the conference call it was stated that all the hundred is for fiscal '14.

thousand. >> uh-huh. >> in order for that to happen, congress has got to appropriate the money by september 30th. what's the thinking that that would happen? >> well, given the urgent nature of this humanitarian situation, we hope congress will act pretty quickly to insure the administration has the resources necessary to deal with this, to the deal with this situation. >> more of a hopeful -- >> well, again, if you take democrats and republicans on capitol hill at face value, then you would expect that their actions would back up their rhetoric. their rhetoric indicates this is a pressing situation that needs to be dealt with immediately, and we're hopeful that republicans will follow be up those words are action and insure that this administration has the resources to deal with this situation immediately. but, again, it'll be up to congress to do that. >> josh, did president obama tell abdullah that he is sending secretary kerry to afghanistan later in the week?

>>man, as you know -- mark, as you know, when senior administration officials travel to afghanistan, we don't often put out the details of that travel in advance. secretary kerry has been in regular touch with the two leading candidates in the afghan presidential election x we expect he'll continue to be in close touch with him in the days ahead. kelly. >> nice to see you, josh. >> nice to see you too. >> the president's scheduling, you're calling it an urgent situation. why wouldn't the president see a value in visiting the border? if not in trip, than sometime soon? >> the president's been to the border both as a candidate and as president of the united states. i'd also point out that in the last several weeks his secretary of homeland security, secretary of hhs, the fema director, senior white house officials have all made separate visits to the border to assess the situation there and to assess the strength of the federal government's response to that situation. the president is well aware of exactly what's happening on the border, and what we're focused

on reit -- right now are not political statements that would be made with an appearance, but rather with specific, concrete action. steps that can be taken -- >> photo op, is that what you're suggesting? is there a downside to him going personally? >> no. i'm suggesting the focus of the president's attention is on making sure that we are taking all the necessary steps to deal with this urgent humanitarian situation. we hope that congress will also take the steps that are necessary to deal with this emergent humanitarian situation to give the administration the resources that are necessary to deal with it. >> [inaudible] members of both parties are asking the president to visit those who reside in the border area, and clearly governor perry, i'm sure, will extend an invitation for him to go again. is there a downside to the president being there personally? >> downside for being where personally? >> along the border to see these current situations. >> no. i think it's important for the president to be keenly aware of

what exactly is happening on the southwest border and to have a thorough understanding of the impact that the government respond to that situation -- response to that situation is having. the president's been clear that it's important for us to meet the basic humanitarian needs of these individuals, to insure that they're given access to the immigration courts in a way that complies with their rights to due process but also insuring that we're enforcing the law. the president is regularly briefed op these efforts -- on these efforts, and those briefings often will, are the result of trips made by the secretary of homeland security and the secretary of hhs and the fema director and other senior administration officials including some there the white house who have traveled frequently to the border in recent weeks. i understand that a senior department of justice official is scheduled the travel there later this week to also assess the law enforcement situation. so -- >> does the president want to go himself? >> well, there are lots of administration eyes that are focused on this situation. and the reason for that is that

there is an urgent humanitarian situation that needs to be dealt with. and you've seen a very proactive response from the federal government, and we'd like, what we'd like congress to do is to act with the same sense of urgency and make sure this administration has all of the necessary resources to deal this situation. major. >> josh, on afghanistan, as you know, as you said, there's a process. but there is no history of a process like that resolving a dispute like this. this would be the first transition democratic power in afghanistan. as candidly as you can, what is at stake? and what's the forceful message, to use your words, the president gave dr. abdullah? >> the forceful message that the president delivered was to ask dr. abdullah to remain engaged in the process. as you point out, these processes are relatively new, they're certainly relatively new to the afghan people. >> [inaudible] >> well, i think they've been tested because there's been election that's been carried out. there was a general election, there was a runoff.

so there is an infrastructure that exists for conducting these kinds of elections and even for considering reports of fraud. so there are there's an infrastructure, a process that's laid out in the afghanistan constitution for this, but you're right that there's a question about whether or not these processes will hold up under the pressure of choosing the next president of afghanistan. the important principle that's at play here is that the afghan people should have a say. in fact, they should be able to determine the leadership of their country. and thrd to do that -- in order to do that, we need to have agreed-upon processes in lace to conduct those -- in place to conduct those elections and also dispense with concerns that have been raised about the conduct of these elections. so there's a process in place. the united states is fully supportive of the process and of

the afghan people as they go through this process. and that insuring that we have a leader of afghanistan with the stature he's to lead the country, it's important for people to have confidence in the conduct of the election and in outcome. so that's why we're seeking both candidates to remain edge gauged in that process. >> if i understand you correctly, the president called dr. abdullah and said if you pull out of this process, if you denounce it,you reject it, the fate of u.s. final and security support hangs in the balance? >> well, i think there were even some reports overnight indicating that some of dr. abdullah's sporters were urging -- supporters were urging him to unilaterally declare himself the president. there were a wide range of concerning reports coming out of afghanistan. what we're focused on is making sure that this process that's in place is followed.

and, the reason for that is simply if the process is followed and if the process is used to determine the outcome of the elections to address concerns raised about fraud, then we can insure that the outcome of that process will have some legitimacy associated with it. that we will be able to legitimately conclude that the afghan people have selected their next leader. that's what we're ebb couraging both -- encouraging both sides to do. >> you mentioned earlier there were diplomatic and law enforcement conversations between the united states and germany about this allegation. what is the nature of those conversations? >> i can't really comment on the nature of those conversations except -- >> [inaudible] >> well, let me just say that the conversations were designed to try to resolve the situation appropriately. >> what does that mean, resolve the situation appropriately? >> i think it means exactly what it sounds like it means, which is -- >> it sounded like nothing to me. what does it actually -- [laughter]

>> well, there have been reports in the german media, reports on which i am not able to comment, but there have been german officials who have raised concerns about those reports. >> highest level? >> sounds like you've read the same reports that i have. so it is our desire to resolve those concerns that have risen from those reports that i'm not in a position to talk about. and that's the nature of those conversations. >> forgive me for being dense, but how do you resolve something without even saying to the germans we will investigate it? >> well, i'm not in a position to talk publicly about the nature of the private conversations currently ongoing between german and u.s. officials. >> [inaudible] >> i'm not in a position to comment on those conversations. >> your use of words "prompt," "efficient," and effective ring in the ears of these advocates of these unaccompanied children. they feel there is something potentially inhumane, cruel and indifferent about efficiency and

promptness and effectiveness in the deportation process. how does this administration respond? >> well, i would respond by saying that it's important for everyone who considers the remarks that i've delivered today and the remarks that the president has delivered, more importantly, that they be viewed in the context in which we confront this situation. the context is simply this: we are focused on meeting the basic humanitarian needs of those individuals who are apprehended along the southwest border. that's what the law requires, first of all. in the view of the president, it's also what the values of this country require. and that's why, as john pointed out, we have sought additional resources from congress to make sure we have the bandwidth necessary to meet these basic humanitarian needs of these individuals. now, on top of that it's also important to understand that those who are apprehended along the southwest border are entitled to a certain process, and they'll be put through the immigration system. and if they are detained at the border and found not to have the authorization to enter the

country, over the course of that immigration proceeding there will be an impartial judge who will evaluate on a case-by-case basis the legal standing that an individual may have to remain in the country. if it's found to, if it's found by that judge that a particular individual does not have a legal basis for remaining in this country, what we would like to see happen -- efficiently and effectively and promptly -- is for that individual to be removed from this country and returned to their home country. now, we will also undertake that repatriation effort in close collaboration with that home country. some of the resources that we're seeking from congress are also dedicated to working with honduras and el salvador be and galt mall that to -- galt mall lo to -- >> [inaudible] >> well, to, first of all, make sure there is in some cases a repatriation center so we're not in the position of just returning a child who was fleeing a crime-ridden neighborhood back into that

crime-ridden neighborhood. you know, one thing that we could do and one thing we have done is establish a repatriation center so that there is a place for this child to go and for this child to insure that it's returning somewhere safe. but again, this is primarily the respondent of these home countries -- responsibility of these home countries, to insure the security of their citizens. but if they need the support and even the contribution of some resources from the u.s. government to insure their security, that's an investment worth making because it will contribute to stemming the flow of these individuals from this country. >> to get to bottom line of the supplemental, is your message to congress, any member of congress, if you want these things to happen, you have to provide this funding? absent this funding, the hands of this administration are tied? or can you do some of the things you've outlined and wait for a continuing resolution sometime late september? >> well, there are some things that we can do immediately that

we have already undertaken to the try to address this surge in illegal migration that we've seen. so there have already been some resources that have already opinion funded by congress that were already operating in the interior of this country that have been sent to the border to try to deal with this situation. in order to have the necessary bandwidth to deal with this emergent humanitarian situation, we need additional resources. and the only way that this administration can get access the additional resources is for congress to appropriate them. and so what we're seeking is congress to take action promptly to insure that this administration has additional resources to meet all of the goals that we've been talking about here today. okay? >> follow up on that. so you want in this language at the end of the -- [inaudible] official authority -- [inaudible] why don't you put that in bill language and get very specific about what you want in terms of

money, why don't you send them a bill that gives you the authority they want? >> first of all, we're talking about two different processes -- >> [inaudible] >> you're a veteran of capitol hill, so you understand it better than i. just for the benefit of the thousands of people who, i'm sure, are watching at home -- [laughter] >> radio listeners. >> -- are just absolutely enjoying this conversation, so we're talking about two different processes. and so what we have laid out is a very specific funding request for additional resources. there's a separate process for the legislature giving the executive branch the authorization to use -- >> you need a bill, you need the house to the pass and the senate to pass. are you going to get that done by the time -- i mean, how quickly do you need that? >> we would like that to happen quickly. >> you sent them a bill for the highway trust fund, for supplementals. >> right. more often what we have done when we are seeking legislation from congress is to basically tell them what generally is a

goal that we would like to achieve. this this case -- in this case, allowing the director of homeland security to exercise greater discretion, and then allow congress to do their constitutionally-apossibilitied duty -- appointed duty. so we're certainly willing to work with them. i wouldn't rule out that we may give them some suggested legislative language or work with them in a collaborative process to design legislation that would accomplish this goal. but ultimately, this is congress' responsibility to insure that the executive branch has both the resources and the authority necessary to deal with this challenge. and based on the rhetoric that we have seen from members of congress, we hope that they'll act quickly. >> we're not going to see you for a couple of days, and the secretary general is here, and so i want to ask you a question on a different subject, ukraine. >> okay. >> the president says we'll have a chance to see what mr. putin does in the next two, three, four weeks. we've discussed this in the past. and if he remains on the current course, we've already indicated the actions we're prepared to

take. that time frame is gone, mr. putin has not changed course. what's the president going to do? >> well, the one thing that he has done is he's had a number of conversations with our allies in western europe. you saw from are a readout that we issued yesterday that the president telephoned president hollande of france, with germany's chancellor, angela merkel, to discuss next steps. as we've said all i long, the economic costs that can be impose toed on russia for their failure to respect the territorial sovereignty of ukraine is most ebbfectively when we can work in -- effective when we can work with our partners. when we can implement a sanctions regime that has the buy-in of not just the united states, but also of nations in europe, that sanctions regime is more effective. it's also in the best interests of american businesses, right? they're not put at a disadvantage as it relates to

their competitors in earn europe. so the -- in western europe. so the president has been working very closely with our allies to insure that we are working in close coordination to further isolate russia if necessary. so what we are doing is we are watching very closely whether or not president putin is heeding the urgings of the national community to stop the transfer of heavy weaponry and material from the russian side of the border to separatists on the ukrainian side of the border. we've been urging president putin to play a constructive role in encouraging those separatists to lay down their arms. and we will be continuing to evaluate his performance when it comes to those metrics. and we will always leave on the table the option of the united states acting alone or, preferably, in concert with our allies to impose additional economic costs that would further isolate russia and make

it more likely that president putin might adopt and abide by generally-accepted international standards. okay? david jackson, i give you the last one. >> there won't be a private meeting between president obama and governor perry, they'll just meet together at the finish. >> well, the scheduling's still coming together. if something like that occurs, we'll try to let you know. okay? [laughter] >> we're looking forward. >> it should be good. >> the active president, the governor, correct? >> that's what we're aiming to do. >> thank you, josh. >> okay. thanks, everybody. have a great day. [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate taking a break right now for weekly party lunch meetings. they'll return for floor action

at 2:15 to continue on a bill expanding hunting and fishing on federal land. negotiations have been underway off the floor on possible amendments. we'll have live coverage when senators return here on c-span2. over on c-span3 today, the senate foreign relations committee looks into european energy security. committee chair, senator chris murphy, recently returned from a trip to eastern europe where they discussed a natural gas pipeline from russia to bulgaria. live coverage of the hearing starts at 2:0 eastern on c-span -- 2:30 eastern on c-span3. and after the senate here on c-span2, the house veterans affairs committee holds another in a series of hearings on issues at the veterans affairs department. they'll hear from v.a. whistleblowers. live coverage this evening at 7:30 eastern. weigh in with your thoughts both on our facebook page and on twitter using the hashtag

c-spanchat. >> now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capital using any phone any time on add audio know and hear concern audio now. every weekday listen to a recap of the day's events at five p.m. eastern on "washington today." you can also hear audio of the five network sunday public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio on audio now. call 202-626-8888. long distance or phone charges may apply. >> president obama soak with teachers -- spoke with teachers yesterday to discuss a new administration initiative that would insure that every student is taught by a highly trained educator. the excellent educators for all initiative aims to bring all states into compliance with a teacher equity mandate in the no

child left behind act. reporters stopped by the event. president obama's comments are just under five minutes. >> well, good afternoon, everybody. i am here with some outstanding teachers, as well as secretary arne duncan, and, you know, the reason we're here is with the school year now over, it is a great time for us to focus on what we need to do to make sure the next year and the year after that and the year after that continues to improve for students all across this country. the one ingredient that we know makes an enormous difference is a great teacher, and we have four of the best teachers in the country here. but what we also know is that there are outstanding teachers all across the country. and arne, myself, i suspect many of you had wonderful teachers that made all the difference in your lives andlo