solution to the problem is dramatic reduction in the cost of tuition. you now have college for america, part of the university offering $10,000 degrees. all of these highly innovative approaches, delivering low-cost but effective higher education, accreditation. accreditation protects the existing provider it protects the large expensive universities. and you're right, tentatively and others have put forward proposals that would allow states and other institutions to credential courses and credit institution. that is an absolute essential feature of this proposal. ..

>> thank you. i'd like to join my colleagues. it's critically important that we have a dialogue that goes beyond money. for the past 40 years, the antipoverty expenditures, $15 trillion, 70 cents of every dollar spent on poor people goes not to the poor, but those who serve poor people. these professional providers ask

which problems are fund bl. so we have created a commodity out of poor people where there are perverse incentives for maintaining people in poverty. we wonder why it expands. and so it's important for us to recognize that this control has to change. but in addressing poverty, it's important that we tend to make the mistake of generalizing about poor people. not everybody is poor for the same reason. i identify four categories of pure people. -- poor people. the first category are people just broke. [laughter] they lost their job or a breadwinner died or there's a temporary illness. but the person's character is in place, and for them they use welfare and assistance the way it was intended, a as an ambulance service not as a transportation system. and then you've got category two, a person that confronts perverse incentives for maintaining, staying on welfare.

for instance, the single mom in milwaukee many years ago who saved $5,000 on welfare to send her daughter to college only to be charged with a felony. so she concluded, well, i'll just -- her character's in place, so perverse incentives. category three would be someone who's physically and mentally disabled. but category four that i think concerns most of us are those who are poor because of the poor choices that they make, the character flaws that they have. they're drug addicts, they have serial, out-of-wedlock births. just giving money to people like that injures with a helping hand. so it's important for us to disaggregate this population of the poor. people on the left tend to look at poor as if they're all category one, and people on the right tend to look at the people as though their all category four. so it's very difficult when we do that to have a meaningful dialogue because, as paul's

proposal identifies, you need a strategy address poverty, to address the needs of each of these groups. and at the center for neighborhood enterprise, we concentrate on all people in category four. 80% of my best friends are ex something. [laughter] and these are the people that i have taken paul around the country to see. the point is, these are the new poor -- both people on the left and the right have myths about the poor. people on the left, when they look at poor people, they see a sea of victims. people on the right see a sea of aliens. there's an old african proverb that says the elephant loses. what i've tried to show paul is that the real solutions for poverty and people in category four are the people who are resident in the community experiencing the problem. they are the healing agents, the

antibodies. and so it's important to go into these communities. the qualities that make them effective also makes them invisible. you've got to be like a geiger counter and go in and seek them out. and what you will find is what makes them effective is they provide character coaching and moral guidance to the people that they serve. they witness to people by their example that they can be restored and reclaimed and redeemed in the midst of poverty. so paul has gone to some of the most crime-ridden, drug-infested neighborhoods, and hes has witnessed redemption occurring among the most fallen, the most broken people you can imagine. it's important that any antipoverty approach takes into account these real anti-poverty experts that are resident in there. and so what we intend to do is take this proposal to our whole network of 2,500 grassroots

people in 39 states so for the first time grassroots groups who are suffering the problem will have a seat at the table. so their views, their opinions on what should be done to address poverty will be factored into whatever deliberations that we have. only when you allow people suffering the problem to provide their own input do we have change. final point is that also i think we have to destroy this false dichotomy that somehow if we spend more, we care more. if we spend less, we care less. and that is -- we have demonstrated this in our programs around the country that you visited in milwaukee, wisconsin, where we have for the past eight years an anti-violence effort where we hire adults from the same cull

cull -- cultural and geographic zip code as the people with the problems, and by put them in the school with moral mentors, and as a consequence, the kids are redirected away from those lives and we're able to reduce crimes by 25% in just three months well. started with one school, we've expanded to 12, and this is an initiative, paul, we want to take throughout the country. and also the running rebels organization has a very unique program where for the past eight years young men who are violent offenders instead of being sent to 22 and 30 years in prison are given community-based detention where they're supervised by other people every six -- every two hours they have to make a contact with their mentor, usually someone who's been in prison himself. but as a consequence, we have had 800 young men come through

that program with an 80% success rate. and the program gave -- [inaudible] to the milwaukee county commission for there are -- $63 million as a consequence of keeping these young men out of prison. that demonstrates the point that if we invest more wisely in creative community-based poverty warriors, we can help more people at lower cost and expand opportunity for everybody. thank you. >> congressman, you want to respond to those comments? >> sure. first of all -- oh, there. now we got it. thank you very much for that feedback. and as i mentioned in the beginning, the whole point of this is to start this conversation. and i just touched on a few of the ideas that is contained in this proposal. as the gentleman here mentioned, there are a lot of ohs that

are -- others that are this in here. i'll just go down and try and be as quick as i can to continue to open it up. both ron and stuart sort of used block grant. this isn't really exactly a block grant. it's not your garden variety block grant where you cut a check to the states and call it a day. this is very different because, as stuart mixed, there can be abuses with that. this momentum grant -- opportunity grant is designed to streamline funding streams into one grant that is there to have customized aid to each person. so to bob's point, each person has a different issue. there are different kinds of poverty. unfortunately, this washington one size fits all, first in washington approach treats them as if they're the same. so you have to bring this down to the local level and have a customized, personalized form of aid. it's not as if this is a new idea. this is actually working out there in the country if it's

ever been applied and where it's been applied. i can just point to in wisconsin alone catholic charities, lutheran social services where they -- in spite of the federal government -- offer very holistic services where they have a person that works with a recipient to come up with a plan for their lives to help them meet their benchmarks with carrots and sticks, accountability and rewards. and this, to me, could be so much better delivered and accelerated through the opportunity grant. the problem we have here is, you know, you can look at these things like the marginal income tax rates. there are a lot of economists that look at this stuff. right now we have such a disjointed system which inadvertently makes it less likely that a person's going to leave and system and go to work. we want to remove those disincentives which are just rational-thinking people making rational decisions to get on to a better life, and we think the flexibility of the opportunity

grant combined with work requirements and flexible time limits -- and, remember, that means work-related activities. working or looking for work or in job-training skills development getting yourself prepared for work. so it's a little pit more, i'd say, than a block grant. ron mentioned delivered results. we've spent the last year and a half, lots of staff research trying to find metrics, and there's just so little out there. and we don't do a good job of measuring success. so if i had to take a 30,000-foot view of this roam, it is basically this: our approach the fighting poverty has basically been let's measure it by inputs. success is measured by how many programs we create and how much money we spend, not on outcomes, not on results. how many people are we getting out of poverty? how many people are getting out of poverty and staying out of poverty? and so we need to do a better job of understanding how effective our policies are by measuring them better. and that's why we have a

proposed commission for a clearinghouse of data. plus we have to get ahead of the privacy issues that are ip evident bl in the 21st century with the kind of danish shoes we've got. so -- data issues we've got. and then remove the bieriers. accreditation redorm, i think, is a key way of lowering the cost of colleging making it easier and more accessible. licensing reform. this is not a federal issue, but it's a state and local issue. there are barriers to entry that are making it harder for people to get into professions whether it's somebody with a felony who wants to get a commercial driver's license to drive a truck or just wants to be a beautician or a barber. we need to do license and reform at the local levels. you also talked about, stuart, crowding out civil society and local organizations. i think this is among the other big points we're trying to make here is the federal government inadvertently has basically come into our communities with

strings and rules and duplicating programs and, you know, archaic formulas and has crowded out what we call civil society. economists, you know, if you talk to raj chetty or others, they'll tell you this is social capital. what that basically mean is the is these cultural social antibodies of people in our communities who care and are involved and want to make a difference in many cases the federal government's role has been to displace them, to crowd them out, to push them to the side. the government needs to respect its role. and the federal government here can provide resources. the federal government can man the supply lines. but, again, the people on the front lines, the people who are fighting poverty eye to eye, soul to soul, person to person, they make the difference. they're the ones actually achieving something, and if you bring the federal resources behind them in this kind of innovative way, i think we can focus on a more results-oriented result. i think that's really, really important. there's so many other points

that you mentioned, but i think the key here is let's stop focusing on treating the symptoms of poverty, let's stop propping up a poverty management system, let's get to a results-oriented system, and let's integrate. let's bring the private, public and profitable sector together not competing with one another so that the focus is on results. are we getting people out of poverty? and we have to know that when we do that, there are different kinds of poverty. there are different kinds of needs. let's respect those different types of poverty, those different types of conditions and bring aid that is customized and personalized. and that, to, me, is how you deal with a lot of the problems we have. this is the kind of conversation i think we have to evolve to so at the end of the day, we started welfare reform with waivers in the early 1990s. we did this in wisconsin to great effects. i -- effect. i witnessed it, it was very impressive. we brought those ideas to the congress and passed it in '96, and since then we've not been

reforming. we've got 92 programs that are in dire need of reform so that we don't measure success on inputs, but based on outcomes. >> congressman, as you know, i was an administer -- administrator for mayor bloomberg part past -- for the past eight years, so i think you're tapping into something important there. but the biggest program you are puts in the opportunity grant, it seems to me s the food stamp program. and you're offering states, it looks to me, an option of not necessarily have that be a voucher and have the benefits associated with food stamps go for other needs in household. i was wondering if you'd address that issue and what is it you saw that led you to believe that this longstanding program finish this would be the big change -- is in need of that type of opportunity for experimentation? >> the critical part of this and the reason for that is to

combine it all together so that you can design an aid package. maybe she needs more for transportation, or maybe she needs more for childcare. right now you have these structured programs that don't recognize her unique problems and needs so that your case manager can actually adjust the benefit. if a state wants to, they can make it a cash assistance program, or they can have the ebt card which is what most states have designed within the opportunity grant. i also think that having the carrot and stick approach, having the work requirements or the work training requirements with a time limit that applies to the person's particular needs is really essential so that this is known not as a permanent condition, but as a helping hand for the able-bodied to get them up and on with their lives. and then the states can design it however they want to choose to, whether they want to put it on an ebt or a cash form of assistance that a person's manager works on.

>> thank you. want to open it up to questions from the audience and see what we've got. trying to see. right there in the first row there. wait for the microphone, and we want questions, not statements. if that's okay. [laughter] >> my name's caleb -- [inaudible] i'm an intern at the u.s. house of representatives. i know there are some policy scholars including aei's own who have advocated for a wage subsidy. and congressman ryan -- [inaudible] could you guys discuss the merits of a monthly paycheck that comes with a wage subsidy versus the annual lump sum of the eitc extension? >> i agree with jim's point, and i fort to mention this -- forgot to mention this. this is something the ways and means committee needs to get into. there are some fraud issues that we need to police and do a better job. i believe, ultimately, it's a good idea to get the eitc to become a monthly system so that you see it in your paycheck

every month. i think by reforming and working within the eitc structure, that's a more successful outcome and a more likely reform than -- the wage subsidy's a good idea, i just think we can apply the attributes to eitc because we have a ram that has a -- a program that has a good success rater, needs some reform monthly going after fraud. the other thing is it's works. uncle millty, we conservatives call milton friedman uncle miltie -- [laughter] this was inspired by some of his work. so this is an idea that has great philosophical, principled origins that has been practiced in society that actually shows it really does pay to work. here's the other point. 20% of americans between the ages of 020-21 are not working or are not even in school. so we need to pull people into the work force. when you take a look at our very

low labor force participation rates, it's the worst in this category. a childless adult who's 21-25. and these are people who are in the prime of their lives that need to get into the work force and on the merits point i would just respectfully say to stuart, um, i think, i think it shows that if you have a job, you're more likely to get married. if you're able-bodied and you're working, you're more likely to have a stable life, a stable marriage and a stable family. and so i think applying eitc to childless adults is actually going to help facilitate marriage. i think it's going to be good for the family. >> okay. next question. right there in the moustache in the back. sorry. in the miss catch. [laughter] >> that's great. did you put that on this morning? >> that's good. [laughter] >> congressman, you and several of the panelists mentioned college and nothing about vocational education.

is it your view that the colleges trump in terms of vocational -- >> trumped? >> yes. is it more important than vocational training? >> i know what he means when he says that. no, if you go into the report, i'm doing the cliff notes version here, voc-ed is very important, and i think in many ways it's primary. it is not -- i think we've overemphasized -- overemphasized in america you've got to get a four-year degree especially when, where i come from, vocational education is fantasticment look, if we can -- fantastic. look, if we can work on the resurgence of our manufacturing industry, we're going to need high-skilled workers earning great paychecks, and i think vocational education's a really important part of it. that's why we talk about job training reform, flexible job-training reform that's individual based that goes to the individual so they can take that aid and go to the provider

of their choice. be it an employer who's, you know, setting aside 50,000 square feet to teach people how to get a welding degree or a tool and dye degree or a vocational technical college or what not. that's why we put a lot of emphasis on job-training reform, i just didn't mention it in my opening remarks. >> i think we should also look at enterprise formation as one strategy too. for instance, paul met a man in indianapolis, kurt moore -- >> yeah. >> who spent 13 years in federal prison and came to himself and came to christ and came out, started washing cars in people's driveways. now he has 15 employees, other fenders, and just -- offenders, and just established his business because we connected him to some business leaders in the community who partnered with him. so we have a conservative enterprise partnerships, and there are about 12 other

entrepreneurs in this community with kurt's profile that need the kind of help that we can provide. so that would be another strategy to provide incentives and removed the the barriers for people like kurt moore the start a business -- to start a business. >> that brings up one important be, ill make it a brief point. right now we have a lot of silos and divisions within our society that are isolating the poor from the rest of our communities. and that, we need to reintegrate that. and i think the inadvertent design of the federal government's approach has been to basically reinforce the idea that this is government's respondent, you know? if there are poor people in your community and you're worried about them, just pay your taxes, and government's going to fix that. don't get involved. we need to break down that mythology. and i think this approach attempts to basically do that so that we localize, personalize, customize and integrate. one of things we're trying to do, say in milwaukee, is hook up

employers and manufacturers with people who are in need of skills and jobs together. we're getting suburban churches working with poor community churches so that we can help bring all the tools and the things that they have to help make a bigger difference. and i think this is, alocal with voc-tech -- along with voc-tech, is a really important area. not displacing these relationships that are happening today. i think you're going to make a big difference, and you're going to see, you know, really a thousand flowers bloom, what i call force enhablers that are going to help make this outcome-based approach really successful. >> we have time for one more question, and we'll take the lovely lady in the front row. >> so i'm joanne with the philanthropy round table, and i think that's going to give you a clue as to the question i'm going to ask. >> next question, right? >> well. no, i wasn't going to do that -- [laughter] >> that's usually what i get. >> it seems to me that this program, which is amazing, i congratulate you on that, open

toes the door for a new and expanded role for private philanthropy at the local level, state level and possibly at the national level. so what about incentives for private philanthropy? we are looking at the tax code, we're looking at some of the possibilities, some of the provisions that were in the camp draft. i think you know how the reaction has been from the sector. what can we do to insure that private philanthropy remains as healthy as possible and engaged with those boots op the ground? >> yeah. we will not solve these problems and get people out of poverty in a lasting way without private charity, without good works. and so digressing for a moment on the ways and means tax side, if you notice that draft, the one thing it did preserve of all the tax expenditures out there was the open-ended nature of donating to charities, of private philanthropy. that is a very important distinction that i think needs to be noted, and there are some other good ideas like letting

people file, take their donations that occur up until april 15th to claim on their tax return. i think there are a lot of innovative ideas that will help pull money into the private charity sector, and tax policy is a big way of doing that. so i think the right kind of tax policy can help integrate and expand civil society by encouraging giving. but the other thing is i think a lot of the problems we have is the federal government is displacing and crowding out and competing with private charity in many ways. and the purpose of this is to stop that competition and respect the good works that are being done by people on the ground, the experimentation that's occurring. that's why we want to respect it. what the federal government can do better is provide resources. what private charities, what public charities, nonprofit, for-profit, they can provide expertise, boots on the ground and customization. so by respecting these various roles, i think we can integrate

the roles so is they work better at the end of the day. and that, to me, is what we ought to do if we want to truly get everybody working in the same direction. i think tax incentives like we have in the code are something that ought to be preserved so that we keep this part of civil society or social capital going. >> thank you, congressman ryan. thank all of you or who are here. i wish you all would stay seated as congressman ryan leaves. arthur? >> we've come to the end of our session. very grateful to our panel, congressman ryan, and especially to all of you for giving us some of your time in joining the war for america's poor. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> today's white house briefing is coming up next hour. we're expecting remarks and questions on immigration, russia and ukraine, the israeli/palestinian situation, whether a temporary truce is under discussion with secretary of state john kerry. also the possibility that republicans may try to impeach the president. the hill is reporting today on the white house reaction to those rumors. spokesman josh earnest will answer reporters' questions starting at one p.m. eastern, we'll have it here for you life on c-span2. right now a conversation with a member of congress on u.s. foreign policy and a number of other items from this morning'si "washington journal." >> host: and joining us now issn representative congress isho rimming el -- scott rigell.d congressman, i want to start with this issue, local issue foo

you, here'sut a richmond times dispatch, eastern shore of virginia, tornado kills two. this is your district, isn't it? >> guest: it is, peter. we had a tragedy yesterday morning. a storm, really a tornado came through and hit a camp ground. i've actually camped there with my children and came up very suddenly. we had loss of life, three confirmed, and also many more. injured. so i know the governor is going there today. i'm going straight from this interview to see what we can do as well. i'm going straight there.ight so we offer our condolences and ouras thoughts for the families who are going through this.m go and also we're grateful for theu first responders. they did a great job. >> host: and what, in your view, is the federal government's role when a tornado strikes or a job local disaster happens? >> guest: the state comes in,

really a tiered level. and depending upon the devastation, there could be, perhaps, some federal assistance. but there's a sequential order to it, and the governor has to request this. as of this time, we haven't received that request, and i don't know that we will. it just fends on level of def -- depends on the level of devastation there. >> host: i want to start with the cover of this week's "time" magazine, and you can see vladimir putin on there, "cold war ii," is what they have. are we entering a new cold war period with the russians? >> guest: well, i think we're seeing the true character of mr. putin, you know? a kgb agent who's just kind of risen up through the ranks there, and his autocratic and determined style that is, i think, increasingly isolating russia from the rest of the world really. there's no question that the connection between russia and the separatists both direct and

implied and implicit support of the rebels, has contributed to the destabilization of the region and its linkage -- that is, russia's linkage -- to the downing of flight malaysian flight 17 is unknown at this time. but it's clear that his both direct and indirect support of the rebels, i believe, clearly -- there is a linkage there at least in the sense that the rebels have been 'em bold beened by the actions of mr. putin and his words and his direct support. >> host: is there a role for the u.s. military in the ukraine situation? in your view? >> guest: there's a role for the united states, and that is to provide moral clarity here. and that is to make clear to mr. putin and to his top hue tents -- lieutenants that this is not the kind of behavior and the type of international direction that is going to be rewarded by the united states.

and to the contrary, what's going to happen is we've got to increase the pressure through every diplomatic means, financial means. they should be paying a heavy price now for their renegade actions. this is a dangerous world in which we live in. i mean, you could look at just about every continent, and there are some serious disruptions. it's becoming, in many ways, increasingly complex. and we need leaders of every good and free people to speak with clarity here. mr. putin's taking russia in the wrong direction and, in doing so, is taking the world in the wrong direction. >> host: we've sent some military advisers to iraq. do you support the continued role in iraq? >> guest: no, not at present. i've been very clear about this. i objected to the operation called operation odyssey don when president obama went in, you know, and took all the action, took military actions in libya. i led an effort to get the

administration to slow down in syria, no not one of the free provisions of the world powers act was in place at that time. and be now with respect to iraq, look, there's been a tremendous sacrifice by the american people first in the loss of life and also, importantly, in just the amount of investment we've placed there. and the iraqi people must themselves be willing to fight for that which they believe. and i am not seeing that level of evidence that the iraqi people themselves are fighting for a democratic goth. and -- government. and this is, i think, essential that they have to demonstrate this. >> host: numbers are up on the screen if you want to participate in our conversation with representative scott rigell. a lot of public policy issues. he's a member of the armed services committee and the budget committee. you represent the virginia beach area. a lot of military, a lot of military retirees. want the get your comments on what the veterans affairs

committee chairman in the senate had to say yesterday about the v.a. bill currently going through congress. bernie sanders. >> essentially, as you've heard from all of us and as you know from the veterans organizations, the v.a. today provides good quality health care for those people who get into the system. and i can tell you go to vermont, and i suspect many parts of this country, people will say there was just a story on today's paper, v.a. saved my life. you hear that story all over the united states. the problem that we're having is absolutely outrageous wait periods in various parts of the country. and the reason you have those wait periods is because we don't have the medical personnel and the space to treat veterans. and that is one of the issues that we have got to deal with and, of course, we have to figure out how we best pay for that. so i, again, dick blumenthal just made the point. you cannot talk about negotiations. you can't talk about a

conference committee when somebody says i'm asking you to join me in convening the conference committee for a formal vote on this proposal. who thinks that that's the way congress is supposed to work? >> host: congressman rigell. >> guest: peter, you mentioned the district that i serve. it really, truly is unique. of all 435 districts, we have the highest concentration of men and women in uniform be, active duty and retired, of any other congressional district. and i'm mindful of this every day. and i imagine my favorite veteran, my father, a 91-year-old iwo jima veteran. he's probably watching this show, knowing him. and he embedded in me a deep sense that we take care of our veterans. and i am prepared, and i truth and hope that my -- trust and hope that my colleagues are prepared, house and senate of both parties, to do what must be done, to give our veterans the care that they have earned and deserved. so to two things i think that are required there. the first is i think we need this safety release valve of

allowing certain service members to go outside the v.a. system to get their care. i think this is clear -- this is needed. the second thing that we need to do is we need to stay here, in session, until we pass the legislation that's needed to provide for that. i cannot reck asylum when this beautiful -- reconcile when this beautiful dome that i'm looking at here to my left, when we are going to shut down here perhaps at the end of the month without having, you know, passed this legislation. i think we need to stay in session. and this is both house and senate. until we get the job done. just by the leadership saying that of both the house and the senate that we're not leaving until we get this job done, i'm confident that that's pressure enough on members of congress to do what must be done, and that's to pass meaningful legislation. to help our veterans. >> host: that going to happen? >> guest: this place doesn't think like i think. i'm a businessman and a season of public service. you just arrange your calendar

to address the challenges facing the organization. now, in this case the organization is this incredible country that we're privileged to be a part of. so, peter, a direct answer is, no, i don't think that's going to happen. now, we've got time in september, we'll have a couple of weeks there, but i've made it clear since i got elected my first elected office -- my first several months up here i was talking to leadership about how is it possible that we would go into a recess when we haven't, for example, passed all of our appropriations bills? it's unreconcilable, in my mind, with the american work ethic. i've been a strong advocate for regular order. and on top of that when these crises -- and this truly is one -- comes before our cup, you also -- our country, you also have to pivot there, put in the overtime, just do whatever you need to do to get the job done. >> host: pat, fort worth, texas, republican line. you're on with scott rigell.

please go ahead. >> caller: hi. well, i just want to make a comment since you're on the budget committee about the crisis at the border. sort of thing. i think the way people in other countries like that, the ones that are coming over legitimately and not for terrorists, they look at it the government as the one that's got to help them. they know more about how to get the freebies than americans do. so why don't we just set up foundations or something to let people donate money to show that the people will realize that it's come from the people and not the government? because it's only the people out here who are helping people. churches are queuing up and helping the hungry in america. but i don't, you know, i don't know if they actually require an id to help over something, it's getting kind of strange out here. >> host: all right. let's get a comment from the congressman. >> guest: thank you, pat. you know, the american people

are the most generous people in the world. that's not just a feeling i have, that can be prune, that we are a general -- proven, that we are a generous people. there's no nation that does more around the world in support of, you know, creating a better way of life for so many across the land. now, with respect to the border, the idea of creating a foundation and allowing people to give directly, to be very candid with you, pat, i don't see that that could be, that we could all rally around one organization. how would the money be given out and all of that. i know individual americans can donate to organizations that help children particularly in countries that are struggling. now, the whole issue of how do we secure our border, what do we do about this other crisis -- and that is the one that's unfolding on the border -- if peter wants me to get into that, i will.

it's an important one, and i do have views on this matter, and they are different than the direction the president's taking us in. thanks, pat. >> host: let's base that on a tweet here: should the national guard be deployed at the southern border? >> guest: peter, i've been clear on this, and in a responseful way, the national guard should be part of the solution set, and that is not to be on the border. they don't have the authority, nor should they be on the border actually literally stopping people. that's not the purpose of the national guard. but they are well equipped, trained and fully capable of helping on the humanitarian side. and in doing so, would free up the border patrol agents and their assets to focus on stopping the migration. which i think is important. it's morally important because the children who are being subjected to this torturous journey, the coyotesties --

coyotes which i think is too benign a term. they're human smugglers, and i have no sympathy for them. they're doing this for a profit. they're collaborating with gangs to get these children over. and we have a moral obligation, i believe, to slow down -- and ideally stop -- the human smuggling that's taking place. >> host: nancy's calling from he grange, georgia, democrat. hi, nancy. >> caller: good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i wanted to get back to what he was saying about having moral clarity with mr. putin, because i'm a grandmother, and i try to be a democrat. i lived through ronald reagan and worked on the nuclear freeze, and i wondered if he remembers republicans like john warner who kept us free and safe all those years? mr. obama needs to have a summit with mr. be putin, because mr. putin has enough weapons to blow this planet up ten times over as does india. if you don't get that right, nothing else matters.

we should send the world a bill for keeping the world safe for democracy instead of people pestering us. >> guest: nancy, we're in agreement. the idea of the president having a summit and meeting with mr. putin, i think, is a good idea. when things are going sideways, when things are escalating as they are not only with russia, but in other reames, i think it's -- regions, i think it's important to communicate and not just, you know, go to the podium and try to conduct foreign policy that way. so i support what you're saying. i hope the president pursues that along with other measures that would make clear to mr. putin that he's on the wrong path, and he's going pay a price for it. >> host: jim, bay city, michigan. scott rigell of virginia is our guest. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. >> guest: morning, jim. >> caller: i wonder, you've got probably thousands of troops stationed in germany and japan and all over the, all over

europe probably. i don't think we're going to go to war with germany or japan in some time. why can't you take those troops over here and put them at the border, protect the border? you know, the troops are having a vacation over there, that's about it. so bring 'em home and put 'em on the border. what do you think of that one? >> guest: well, jim, i do believe -- and this is speaking as a member of house armed services, as just a fellow american who beliefs in a -- believes in a strong national defense, i do believe we're in troop countries. and i am -- too many countries. i am for and have advocated for consolidating our bases in a very rational and thoughtful way. now, putting our troops on the border is not something that i support. it's not the purpose of the united states military. now, it is the purpose as has been discussed to have the national guard pitch in and provide assistance right now

while we're facing this crisis, again, to free up the assets of our border patrol so that they can do the proper intervention and prevent more illegal migration over the border. it is, it is remarkable, isn't it, and very troubling that thousands, thousands of children can simply walk across our border. it leads me to this irrefutable conclusion, that those who make the claim that our border is secure -- including senator reid when he said as much, i believe, in the last week or so, he said our border's secure -- it's really laughable. i can't reconcile the reality of what's happening on the border with the statement that our border is secure. it just -- i can't process that, i can't agree with it. that is not common ground. i'm always looking for common ground, but there's none right there. >> host: so potential for a comprehensive immigration reform, is it as dead as it's been reported, and what would you like to see, if any?

>> guest: thank you, peter, for the question, it's an important one. i do believe that reform, that word itself probably has more meanings right now in the american lexicon than any other word. who's not for reform? virtually everybody in the house and certainly the president. and the senate as well is for reform. it gets down to what you mean by that. now, to me, the guiding principle is this: it should be easier for someone to come here legally. we are a wonderful mosaic of americans because of our embracing those who look differently than us, who might speak differently than us. and this is a wonderful part of our heritage that i celebrate. but we also, we are a nation of laws, and we need clearly right now to do a better job of making it more difficult for someone to come here illegally. there are a number of steps that we can take. i do believe that using

e-verify, i think turning off what i think of as the spigot, that is the incentive for the employers to hire folks who are not here legally, i think we need to ratchet up, we need to turn off the incentives for people to come here. and some of that burden can be placed on an employer. and i am still an employer, and i think this is a reasonable expectation. and it's a number of things that we can do, and we'll always with challenged in this -- be challenged in this area because this land so special. our country so special that it is not the fault, i don't really think, of the people who are seeking to come here. i have empathy for them, i understand why they want to get here. but we have to, we have to route them through the proper channels and not have people just come across our border. >> host: congressman rhode island get, i promised -- rigell, i promised a woman in

georgia i would ask you what have you done that you believe the president has done that is positive? >> guest: he made fort monroe a national monument. now, it may not sound like a bilge deal to someone from -- big deal to someone from another state, but it sure is in our district. there's so much history there. the first folks who kind of were protected in the civil war, african-americans, were protected by general butler there. and he described them as contraband as a legal theory to hold and protect those who were, had run from the south. this american history needed to be preserved, and i appreciate t that. i think that the's intent with respect to setting our country on a better fiscal path is genuine. i had the opportunity to speak to him directly about this for about 10 or 15 minutes. but i shared with him at that time that i was, i'm convinced that his assessment of the risks

that we're taking on as a country is different than mine. and i hope he's right. but i see us as in an extreme missituation. we've got to make meaningful, wise reforms to medicare, medicaid and social security so that they can be there for the next generation. and i don't see the leadership needed in that area. i think his intent is good, but the wisdom and the courage that tell the american people the truth is not there, and, peter, i really believe this from my own experience in virginia's 2nd congressional district, the american people are ready to hear the truth. they want men and women who serve up here to put their country first, and they can handle that. i've found that to be true in my own district. it's beyond partisanship. it's beyond party. it's just what's best for us as fellow americans? >> host: richard, philadelphia,

independent line. good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i'm not going to claim that i'm clear of what the government's global goals should be or is. that's information that can't be provided or information i can't actually have access to. but one thing, representative, i would like to know, if there was somebody that i should read that reflects your local perspective and relationship to america, i would like to know who that, what, what that book is or who that perp is that you look at that helps inform. and then the other thing i would like to know is america's global idea of democracy, i heard you just mention -- [inaudible] i notice that around the world people are using democracy, and they're taking it. and they're utilizing it. and be there may be a conflict,

their choice of democracy may be in a conflict with americans' view of what, how the individual s that are elected, the individuals that are put in place. so i'm trying to get what is america's view, as you see it, of democracy that represents -- >> host: richard, very quickly, give us yours. >> guest: well, as i said, it seems to me -- and i'm going use egypt as an example. they elected a democratic person, but then it was not considered, i believe, in the american press, i guess, where i would get my information as someone that the american government in general pelt and that was because of the muslim brotherhood that should be representing, and from there everything started to escalate one way or another. so i'm going to just use that

one example of -- and i think there are dozens where there are like democratic or organizations are put in place and america's view is different. >> host: all right. we're going to leave it there. congressman rigell. >> guest: richard, thanks for the call. that's an interesting line of questioning. i don't believe in my seeking office and serving over these last five years i've been asked quite that question. i've been wrestling with the answer to the first one since you asked it, that is who you might be directed to that would best reflect my world view as it relates to democracy and that general topic. i tell ya, after this minute or so wrestling with it, i still come back to one answer. i would appoint you to our web site. it's not a little promotion here, but it's the only way i know to answer the question, rhode island get.house.gov. my views reflect a blending of

so many things. first and foremost, i believe the founding fathers -- and i'd say mothers as well -- of our country set us on the right path. there's some deep flaws, indeed, embedded in our institution that we're all aware of and was wrestled with in the civil war and beyond in the civil rights struggle that led us in a better direction. but the core elements of that reflect what i think is the best form of governance for man. and i have overall what i would say is a restrained view on the use of force. it is not an unwillingness to use force, but i believe that we as a country -- particularly in the last few decades -- have been, we've had a bias toward engagement. and i am certain hi willing to use force. this is a difficult topic, but i think we've been too quick to engage ourselves in countries, and we've had profound difficulty in extricating ourselves from that.

so i think that that's where i'd point you to. now, the nations -- let's look at europe. great britain, for example, a far different form of government. parliamentary system there. i'm good with other countries, certainly, having their own form of government as they do in western europe. but they are elevating the values that i think are universeally regarded and should be. freedom of speech be, freedom of religion and the things that those attributes that i think merkel sates so well. -- elevates so well. any nation that's going to elevate those -- and that includes israel -- to me, is a nation i look to as being on the right track. thank you. >> host: congressman, you said you're still an employer. what's the business? >> guest: i'm an automobile dealer. and and, peter, if you would have told me five year ago that i'd be here with you today, i could not have believed it. it was not on the bucket list of

life, but here i am, and what a privilege it is to serve in this very challenging time. >> host: you're in your second term. >> guest: i am. three and a half years of service. >> host: what sparked an interest? what kind of cars do you sell? >> guest: ford and volvo. it's a wonderful opportunity to be part of your local community and, peter, i have to say i us with asked -- i was asked to serve. let's see, it was january of '09. now, if we roll back the tape, the economy was imploding. and we were losing so much money at our dealerships, i remember talking to my wife, terri, and i said if this keeps up for another 12 months, we're out of business. it was a time of great stress in our country and for the men and women who are here. president bush and following president obama, it was a very difficult time. i said no originally, and then i heard somebody speak three months later, and they said are you up happy with where your country's going? are you unhappy about where your own party is, my own party being

the republican party. and i said to myself, i am. and then the gentleman said our country's worth fighting for. and, peter, i just felt this wave of conviction really that three months earlier i'd said no because it'd be inconvenient, and things would be said about our family or whatever, all the things that come along with running for office. then i thought about my dad, and i thought about the sacrifices he made for us to have the privilege to live in freedom. you know, as tough as things are across the street, we are not settling things here with kalashnikov rifles. and this is an amazing blessing we have as americans. i treasure it. i know my democratic friends do. and we just have to, but we've got to find a way to make some better decisions. we are bifurcating as a country. we're demonizing the other side. we're not engaging in thoughtful, respectful debate. and that's one reason. i mean this, it's not

patronizing. i like to come on this show. we have 45 minutes to really talk to the american people and work through some things. and i deconstruct it to the best of my ability how we got on this path, and just as importantly how we can get on a better path. we can either cover that today or some other time if you'll have me back. >> host: bonnie, middletown, new jersey, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, yes men. >> guest: hi, bonnie. >> guest: good morning. what made our country exceptional and great was that our country as a people opened our shores -- >> guest: yes. >> caller: and our borders whenever there was a humanitarian crisis to people seeking asylum. be and i appreciate that most of all because i'm a first generation american. so these children are not illegals or aliens, they're victims seeking asylum. and that's the way we should treat this situation. and i'll leave that there.

but what i really -- the point i wanted to get to, your solution, and it seems your party's solution to problems especially concerning situations where there are social programs is to do the thing you do best, blow things up real good. your solution for the v.a. is the same for social security and for -- we'll privatize it. that's not the solution. >> host: happening on, bobny, let's -- bonnie, just hang on. let's see if congressman rigell agrees with that interpretation. >> guest: bonnie, you know, you've got strongly-held views, and i respect your views. i do hold ones that are really the reciprocal of ones you just shared. let me first say the notion that certainly my response or that of my party that i can speak with authority on my view for sure, and that is the response to blow things up, my view is the

antithesis of that. i led the effort to stop the president's assault on libya. and look what we have now? i'm not clairvoyant. i didn't know what would happen exactly, but i knew that not one of the three provisions of the war powers act was met, and it was a democratic president that led us into libya. and over the objection of my efforts. and i was working with dennis kucinich at the time who was in congress. i voted for his bill, he voted for mine. so this was a bipartisan effort to slow the president down. and i think our office and others, barbara lee who i respect and appreciate, a democratic colleague, we worked together to slow the person down on syria. now, i can't tell you we stopped a war, i've never said that. but i do know that the president took notice of this. so the notion that the default position is to blow things up, it's just the opposite of that. >> host: what about the privatization issue she raised? >> guest: well, what i'm saying here, bonnie, is, look, i'm

perfectly fine with the v.a. continuing to be through the form alva system to provide -- formal v.a. system to provide care for our systems, but this is logistically not possible for the v.a. to pivot as quickly as they need to the pivot. so this is a eventing system, if you will, to help with the demand that is very real. i know it because of the district that we're in. we have a wonderful stand member, a veteran himself, who is dedicated exclusively to trying to be a liaison with the v.a. and other members of our office up here. there are so many men and women who have served honorably who need help and aren't getting it. so to me, it's not a partisan issue to say let's allow our veterans at least on a short-term basis to go outside the v.a. system to get the care and allow the new v.a. leadership to get a handle on

that organization to. .. lots of problems that are well known, and i think this would be a great relief to the current leadership of the v.a. host: bonnie, quick response? caller: yeah, i think you're issing the point here. the way the post office dealt with was paying for pensions so that you would destroy it. the solution for social security with president bush was to privatize it. do you have any idea of what the very large baby boomers would be living with if that had happened after the biggest bank heist that this world's ever seen? guest: well, i don't want to be argumentative, but to provide the counter argument, if you look at what the president has offered, his solution set, as i describe it, as it relates to medicare, look, he doesn't have one that leads to the program being sustainable.

i am a person who's been working with numbers all of my life, and i go where the facts lead me. and occasionally, bonnie, this requires me to confront my own party and say no, what we're saying is not true, and i've done so. you can look at this with my position on the americans for tax reform pledge and grover nor quist's organization. this has not been good for america, and it's not my position. but those who go to the floor every day and say no changes should be made to medicare, medicaid and social security, t's either out of naivete or worse, that is, they know what must be said and are unwilling to say it to the american people. i've been very forthright with these wonderf i've been very forthright with these wonderfuls and neigos constituents and my friends and neighbors i had the privilege t serve on the second in the secod congressional district by being completelys, forthright that iso put their facts before them so we can get through our fiscalcis

situation we have to make wise decisions and find our ability.l it is a central for us to get outs of it. ho >> as always we appreciate you coming over and working with our viewers. a live picture from the white house briefing room where shortly the spokesman will take reporters questions. live coverage scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. eastern, so we suspect it will be a little bit late. we will have a life when it gets underway on c-span2. write a brief conversation with a democratic member of congress on immigration and of the impact of the influx of immigrants crossing the border from this morning's washington journal.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the ranking member of the judiciary subcommittee on education. congresswoman, you just returned from the border. >> a couple weeks ago, yes. >> we went to the calendar, we went to brownsville.

the chairman of the committee had arranged briefings. we arranged additional meetings and invited republicans to come although they were not able to do most of it. it was a startling experience in some ways. they didn't have the capacity to comply with the law that requires children alone be moved out of porter troll custody within 72 hours and they didn't have the space. that has since been corrected. and what i thought at the time was barely very young children including those in jail cells. it is very disturbing.

the secretary of homeland security called me a few days ago with the backlog being implemented which is good news. we also visited with the baptists running the temporary transit centers for these kids. they were doing a turkic job. it to protect job. it was primarily little boys committees or nine or 10-year-old and they were very orderly and nice little kids. one of the things i think people don't understand how effect if the technology is along the border. to observe the 24/max -- command

center. they are all a longer borders when the alarms go off into the cameras are swinging and you can see whether it is a cow or a person and if it is a person and it is an incursion in the border patrol is dispatched for an intervention. so if you have a mobile towers the infrared cameras it is pretty organized and pretty impressive. >> host: we are going to hear from the viewers in this segment about the illegal immigration ruining our country and that immigrants are getting benefits and we can't afford it etc.. >> guest: sometimes i feel it is a burden to have the facts over-the-top rhetoric on

immigration and often times that rhetoric is at odds with the law. i think we are going to be better off if we are led in a very dispassionate way to look out for thi is in the best intet of the country and following our traditions. immigration made this country. we are a nation of immigrants into sometimes i hear people say they should do it the legal way. when i think back to my grandfather, here's the process he used. he got on a boa boat and sailedo america, got off the boat. that was the process. obviously we have a more complicated law at this point. the supreme court called it as complicated as the tax code. it is a complicated area for the law but some people say it is illegal and often times it is

not if you take a look at the example, these young people come to the united states and it is within the immigration law to apply for asylum. that is provided in the law and has since after world war ii. there is a case-by-case review you might be the standard in which case you will get asylum and if you don't meet the standard you will be returned where you came from. we need to go through these issues in a very deliberative way and stand up for american values. >> host: presented as the lead story in "the new york times" the u.s. considering refugee status. >> i did take a look at that. what is your initial impression of that idea ex- >> guest: i think it is a reasonable thing to look at. we know that the initial asylum claims more than half are being

found that it's a terrible journey for people to make across central america all the way to the united states. it's pretty clear that these young kids especially the girls are being subject to abuse along the way. no one thinks that's right. and so the idea that you could sort through whether there is a claim or not without a youngster making that flight i think has value. it's been done in the past. it's worth pointing out that when we had a meltdown in haiti and people were fleeing, the determination was made with go to haiti and see if people have a valid claim or not. i'd represent san jose california and we have the largest number of the act and these americans in the

community. most of those that came to the u.s. actually came in on humanitarian parole. i think that it would solve some problems in terms of people just showing up at the border. >> host: before we go to calls this is sent out by the speaker strong public white house support for fixing the 2008 law needed. americans and house gop won't support a blank check without reform and then usa today opines on the 2008 law. the fraud law generates business for child smuggler. >> guest: it wasn't the 2008 law at all. dick armey was the author of it and that provided for the case-by-case review in 2008 children from the contiguous countries were removed from the

due process protections. this dustup has actually caused the review of the matter. one of the interesting things is the high commissioner for the refugees is to critique how the 2008 exception for the children from contiguous countries is working. and what they found was that we are sending human trafficking victims back to the traffickers. you have to remember the act was an anti-slavery bill. bill. anti-human trafficking bill. so, this is not to be tampered with wifely. i think it's interesting that we got a letter earlier this week from a broad coalition of the southern baptists and the national association of evangelicals is these were evangelical children that are

really more on the conservative side. they were part of the broad coalition that brought the trafficking bill back to the successful conclusion. they objected strongly to removing a protection for human trafficking victims. they have to change against human trafficking. >> host: congress represents the san jose problem in california. stanford graduate, will graduate from the university of santa clara school of law. the democrats whine please go ahead. >> my first question was basically with the political climate being partisan right now

do you think there is a possibility of immigration reform and company hinted reform done at least before the election and second president proposed giving refugee status i think that is a good thing and we as a country need to remember that it is still a humanitarian crisis. >> those are good questions. first on the refugee issue i don't think that a decision has been made. and it wouldn't be the grant of the refugee status to the children. it would be processing on a case by case basis whether a particular individual had a valid claim for that status. so, it is not at all clear that most people would necessarily meet that standard. but they would have an opportunity to meet their case in honduras instead of in burtonsville texas.

the second on the comprehensive immigration reform, i've worked on this for so long as you may know we had a bipartisan group in the house that we actually met for four and a half years to see if we could reach an agreement and the good news is we actually did write a bill. it's not everything i would have wanted but it was a workable bill. unfortunately, that effort and a bipartisan effort in the senate have run into a brick wall in the form of the speaker of the house. he told the president a few weeks ago we are just not going to do immigration reform committee and i think that is a shame because the country by large margins wants to clean up the mess that we have made in this law and allow people to get right with the law and move on. i know that if we put the immigration bill up for a vote coming u,it would pass. so, i think it's just really

unfortunate that the speaker made the decision he did. now, the president has broad authority under the existing l law. the concept of using that authority to the maximum amount of benefit for america is something i have urged and others have urged. i don't know what the president is going to do. from asheboro north carolina on the republican line. go ahead. >> caller: yes, i just want to know why o her you letting them cross and talk about the kids on

the strip of israel. i just want to know how many will she support [inaudible] athat's the bottom line. >> thank you. the issue of the refugees from other countries is an important one. as a matter of fact, i cochair the refugee caucus in the house as a bipartisahouseas a bipartiy to admit refugees from serious people who can make their claim. obviously we don't take every person who's been persecuted in the world in the united states.

there's limits on what we can do, that we are part of an international coalition to play our part in providing a beacon of hope for people who are around the world. you know, the issue of our own children here in america are absolutely right we need to make sure that that young people in the country have the best chance possible for a great future. but i don't think those two things are inconsistent. in my own home community in san jose, we have people stepping forward who are raising their own children, but also saying can be about fun of these victims of violence? we are the best country in the world and i think we have the capacity to move forward with those full of love and hope and

not despair. >> host: not only as a lawyer but she practiced immigration law. >> guest: in some cases they make it dysfunctional. here's one way we made a mistake. how unsatisfactory are the words i told you so. [inaudible] every other white house briefing is outside.

[inaudible] it is. i don't know why that is always the case. just a couple things. it is a beautiful day here at the white house but me and some others -- it is the final day of service of a couple of my long serving colleagues. the first as many of you know the director of broadcast today is his last day at the white house and he's served since the early days of the presidential campaign. i heard they are is a profile of him [inaudible] -- served the president for a long time and really gets the kind of asked relationship that is rare and valuable and we are going to miss him but we wish

him well as he pursues endeavors in the private sector. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> good question. i also acknowledge mac sitting on the site today. matt has been a spokesperson for the president since early 2007. he started on the president's campaign in new hampshire and we first had the opportunity to meet in south carolina in early 2008 on the president's primary campaign down there. and everywhere that i've gone since then i wanted to have him come work alongside wherever i was. he has been a loyal and ticket for the president and we are going to miss him. with that, let me move to one other piece of the presidential business and we will open up for your questions. earlier today the president spoke with the presidential candidate to thank them for their leadership in reaching an agreement to the national unity government to accept the outcome of the full audit of the june 14

runoff election currently being undertaken by the election commission. he commended the two candidates for putting the interest of afghanistan first an firsthand d to working together as partners and governments. knowing that the audit is steadily progressing, the president encouraged both to endorse the previously agreed political framework and continue their dialogue on the details of its implementation to ensure the afghan people have full confidence in the ongoing electoral process and outcome. he reiterated there is no justification of the rhetoric that threatens extraconstitutional measures and urge the doctor abdullah to continue to move forward in the spirit of collegiality to maintain unity during this historic democratic transition. the president indicated secretary kerry would continue close consultations with the candidate and president karzai in the days to come and the president also affirmed the entering american commitment to the afghan people and their future. so, with that, darlene do you want to get started quick

>> do you have anything to add to the reports [inaudible] as you know, the president sent secretary kerry to the region earlier this week with one specific goal to bring about an end to the violence as soon as possible. so, secretary kerry has been very deeply engaged in those efforts and he has traveled and has been in cairo -- i know that he also traveled to jerusalem this week as well. he's been in contact with un officials and officials in the arab league and counterparts in jordan and turkey as well as dealing with the israeli and palestinian leaders. he's been deeply engaged in conversations and it is a dynamic conversations i wouldn't want to get ahead of any announcements they are preparing to make. i know many of the details are also being carefully negotiated

so i wouldn't want to interfere in the negotiations. so, secretary kerry has been hard at work this week in pursuit of an important goal which is bringing in that violence as soon as possible. and if there are any announcements or any progress that is made an effort i will announce that out there. >> [inaudible] >> our priority is trying to bring the cessation to the violence as soon as possible. but every hour in which the violence continues, there are innocent civilians on both sides of the border that are at risk. and those that we are quite concerned about. this ongoing violence has had tragic circumstances or tragic consequences i should say for the civilians in both sides of the border. we mourn the loss of innocent civilians on both sides. and we are hopeful that

international efforts to bring about a cease-fire as soon as possible will be successful [inaudible] what did he specifically asked them to do? >> today's meeting is part of the whole of government approach that the nation has pursued to deal with the urgent humanitarian situation on the southwest border. over the course of the summer, there has been a steady influx of unaccompanied children who have been apprehended along the border. as i mentioned, i believe a week or so ago the early trend for july indicated that it was starting to recede a little bit. but our efforts continue. and one important part of our effort has been trying to stem the flow at the source. and that has meant that this

administration primarily through the cpp but also the state department has been engaged in the public messaging campaign in honduras and guatemala and el salvador that campaign has been focused on making it clear to the populations of countries that they should not send their children on the dangerous journey to the southwest border. that messaging is also made it clear that even if against the long odds those children are able to safely make the journey they will not automatically be welcomed with open arms in this country, and that is an important part of our effort into the president will certainly talk with those presidents about the ongoing effort. another thing we've done in coordination with those countries is try to establish and efficient way for those that have been apprehended in the country. we have demonstrated our commitment to enforcing the law and also to ensure that those

individuals get the due process which they are entitled. there have already been as you all have reported the flights sponsored by the u.s. government to repatriate some individuals back to their home countries and those efforts are ongoing and they are done in conjunction with local efforts as well. after all, we don't want to be in the position where we are repatriating individuals back into a violent situation. we want to try to find a way that we can meet that demand to connectivity needs of the individuals working with the governments to establish the repatriation centers is an important step in that process. >> [inaudible] >> there have been some programs the state department has announced that has been instrumental in this effort. there are already some ongoing critically important law-enforcement operations and programs that beef up the citizen security efforts in the

country. many of the individuals that are pursuing the journey are in pretty desperate situations and the desperation that they are feeling is fueled by violence in the community. so, using united states law enforcement programs and resources to try to improve security in the communities is a part of this effort and there arthereare and development progn usaid that can be useful in improving the economic circumstances or even just the living conditions of individuals in the countries. so, there are some existing programs into some programs that have been enhanced to try to address some of the root causes of the migration that we've seen in the summer. >> the u.s. ambassador today said more than 15,000 troops

[inaudible] set to transfer more rockets. i'm just wondering if you have any reaction on the latest developments come and second, whether this is getting more rooroom that the sanctions regie at this point is having the intended impact of getting the attention to the escalade. >> we have been saying for a few months now that we are very concerned about the transfer of the weapons material from the russian side of the border into ukraine into the hands of the russian backed separatists in ukraine that has fueled the violence and the conflict that we have seen in ukraine. unfortunately it has also had tragic consequences for citizens from countries around the world after the malaysian airlines jet on. the day before the downing of

the jets they announced a new set of sanctions against russia. we noted specifically that the sanctions were aimed at russia's continuing efforts to provide weapons and material to the russian backed separatists. we've also called president putin and other leaders to use their influence with those separatists who urged them to abide by the cease-fire agreement. in terms of the sanctions regime that has been put in place, there are a number of steps the united states has taken against individuals in russia but also against some large commercial entities into the banking defense and energy sectors. there is ample evidence if you look at some of the economic data out of russia that the sanctions are having an economic effect. they have had an impact projection that have been performed by the outside agencies and the imf and others.

the world bank i believe have downgraded their future economic projections for russia in terms of economic growth in the country. we've seen a lot of capital flight out of russia and that is an indication that international investors are wary or reluctance because of the unstable situation in russia to continue making investments. we are also seeing that the central bank in russia is concerned about the health and well-being of the currency pair. we have seen the russian central bank extend significant sums of money trying to shore up the strength of the currency. so it's clear that russia has had to take a number of steps to respond and deal with the sanctions regime of the united states coordination with our allies. so the economic cost have been imposed on russia and built by russia. but if your suggestion is that

they have not yet had the desired effect in terms of getting russia to adhere to some basic international norms in their dealings with ukraine but that is correct. and that's why the united states continues to be in touch with our allies in western europe about additional economic costs that could be imposed. the president stood at the podium last week indicated his assumption that the downing of the jetliner would be a head snapper frohecksnapper from thel community. and it is clear that russia is more isolated than ever in the circumstances because of the aiding and abetting of the russian separatists who killed 300 innocent people. is it, this is something we can do to be focused on even if the president traveled this week he's in touch with counterparts in europe. i would anticipate the conversations between the senior administration officials and counterparts in europe doing with the situation in ukraine

will continue. >> what is the latest reaction to the ukraine prime minister how much additional turmoil does that situation have? >> we have seen the reports of the resignation. i would refer you to the craniums for the detail about the status of the coalition government. the president was recently elected and remains in place and we continue to cooperate closely with the ukrainian government. you'll note the president has made a couple of phone calls just in the last few weeks coming and that is an indication that the ties between the two countries and the cooperation between the two countries and and doors. any country will have varying views among the parties. we have expected at some point that there would be a new election in ukraine so this is part of the -- this is part of

the domestic politics in ukraine but it doesn't in any way affect the united states relationship and support for the ukrainian government and the ukrainian people as they confront the destabilizing activities of the neighbor. >> on the issue of the sanctions it sounds that there are active conversations going on. how long do we see the sanctions and how confident are you that the u.s. has another round of sanctions >> all of the europeans themselves speak to the willingness and desire to put in place additional economic costs. given the tragedy that we saw last week and given the russian complicity in the tragedy, i think that it's a reasonable assumption for many outside of the server that the international community, including the europeans are more motivated than ever to impose additional economic costs

against the russians but i will have ttherewill have to be a det they will make for themselves. they will, however, i'm confident continue to make those kind of decisions in coordination with the united states. that's why there've been so many phone calls between the side of the atlantic and this side of the atlantic. in terms of timing, i'm not in a position to offer specific details of the timing of the new round of sanctions as we have discussed before in this room. it would be unwise strategically for me to send a signal about the content or the timing of the sanctions that would only allow those who've been targeted in the sanctions to make an early effort to try to get around them. >> going back to the point on the sanctions the former secretary defends said the president hasn't shown enough leadership. what do you say to those criti critics?

>> we have seen the president played the leadership role in organizing the response to the destabilizing activities in ukraine. i say that not just as an observation about the president's comments in the aftermath of the malaysia airlines tragedy, but this is all a long international community has been closely towartoward making with this government under the leadership of this president to respond to this situation. the president continues to work closely with our allies on the international community is united. and the russians are isolated. some of that is as a result of the outrageous actions we've seen from the russians. but some of it is also the result of the president's leadership organizing the international response to the situation. >> is a domestically the administration is considering the refugee program that would impact a small number of kids in

central america can you tell us where those considerations stand and what the number would look like? >> this is among the things the president will be discussing with the leaders later today. as you know, for a number of weeks now this administration has been focused on what kind of steps we can put in place to deter the illegal migration and central america. we've taken a number of steps on the campaign that i referenced earlier that focused on ensuring that individuals do not make that long journey has been a focal point of our efforts. we also sought additional resources to expand the detention facilities so that when individuals were apprehended at the border, they can be detained and processed in the system. we also devote additional resources to that so that the cases can be processed more quickly and efficiently. the reason for that is that we

want to enforce the law and that's why you've seen these repatriation flights take place because we are committed to not just enforcing the law but also demonstrating in front of the international community in the eyes of the public that we are committed to enforcing the law. that serves as a deterrent effect. that is clear evidence that making the journey and arriving on the southwest border does not grant one free access to the united states of america. we have also sought additional authority and deployed additional resources to counter the criminal networks that are facilitating so much of this illegal migration and breaking up the criminal networks continues to be a focal point of the u.s. law enforcement and also the officials in mexico as well. so we are certainly gratified in the cooperation we've gotten from the mexicans in particular on that matter. and the contemplation of a pilot program that would allow some in-state processing is merely the continuation of our effort to try to deter individuals from

traveling from central america to the u.s. border. >> [inaudible] >> no specific positions. i'm in the position to announce from here. but this is the program we've talked about internally at the white house and the president will be discussing with the central american leaders. but it's important for your viewers to understand that this pilot program is aimed squarely at deterring those individuals that may be contemplating a trip from central america to the southwest border of the u.s.. mark? >> how many people would likely be involved in the program and is that going to be a sizable dent in thevent and the numbersn at the border? >> our intent would be regardless how many people are able to go to the program at this stage it is too early for me to say what those numbers would look like. but the broad impact is a broad message of deterrence.

they make the claim that they could be processed in their own country. it is a pretty effective deterrent and we see that is the point of a pilot program. this is in the discussion phase and if we have more to talk about today after the meeting we will try to get additional information at that point. it's all contingent on the changes [inaudible] it's usually the reverse i guess

in this case. and i appreciate that. it's one of the many things i appreciate about you. i think that it's actually rated in the comments from yesterday. i sa saw in the news conference where he was asked basically the question that you're asking me. is it safe at this point that the congress won't be able to strike a deal in the legislation to deal with this crisis before you all go home for a month. that is the question that was posed to the speaker. the speaker responded by saying we are continuing to talk to our colleagues. and these conversations are going to continue today, and again tomorrow. those are not the words of somebody that the president might describe feeling the fierce urgency of now. the president and his administration three weeks ago forward to congress a very specific proposal for the resources that this

administration needs to deal with what even the speaker himself acknowledges is a pretty serious problem at the border. and obviously from the congress is a lot of talk but not really any action. and that is a disappointment. both because it is an indication that they are not willing to live up to their own rhetoric when it comes to dealing with this issue. i think we also have seen that this is a pretty strong feeling by the american public that this is a situation that needs to be addressed and to be addressed in a way that is consistent with american values in terms of providing for the basic humanitarian needs of these individuals and also to ensure that the law is enforced. there's also a public safety question here. governor. when he met with president obama raised concerns about the public health impact of having individuals that were apprehended at the border detained on american soil. he expressed concerns about whether or not he ha they had in immunizations and other basic health needs that could be meant

included in the supplemental appropriations request. is additional money for hhs to make sure that those basic health care needs are met, both to meet the demanding. neither those that have been apprehended and also to ensure the safety of the public in thee communities where these individuals were detained. so, republicans themselves acknowledge that the proposal that is included in the appropriations request with me to some of the needs, many of the needs that they themselves identified as a priority that all we see from congress is the conversations that are going to continue today and tomorrow. that is rather disappointing. >> we cleared up what we think that they need if there are additional proposals that congress will actually act on.

>> why is the president going to send an assessment team to the border to determine if it is a national guard >> well as you call the president of the opportunity to visit with governor kerry in texagovernor.texas just a coupls i mentioned. in the context of the conversations come he indicated that it might be helpful to deploy national guard resources to the border. we have made pretty clear that those individuals who are interested in adding resources to the border to provide for the border security should be strong supporters for the accompanying immigration reform that would invest about 20,000 boots on the ground. governor. suggested that the national guard troops to the border would serve as a deterrent. and despite the slight intellectual consistency that is articulated by the governor, the president demonstrating his commitment to acting in bipartisan fashion said he would at least consider the request that the governor had made.

made. made. supportive considering that request sending them to the border the president directed the department of defense and the secretary of homeland security to dispatch an assessment team to the border to see what sort of dod resources might be useful in helping address the situation. after all, we would want to make sure that any additional resources that are sent to the border are closely coordinated with the widespread efforts that are already ongoing. >> what they say they want to do at this point is allocated money to basically pick up the task in the national guard. would you be in favor of that portion of the proposal? when this has been done in the past there were conflicts with existing law enforcement what are your concerns the national guard could be effective in stopping the flow with existing

law enforcement? connect to take thconnector takf your question first the problem that exists at the border is not that there are individuals seeking to evade the detection of the border but rather individuals are crossing into the country and seeking to turn themselves into border patrol agents, state law enforcement officials and law enforcement officials in an effort to escape the elements that are pretty severe at this time of year. but also to pursue the claims through the immigration process. that is what is difficult to explain about the national guard request that the issue is not ensuring that we can detect everyone. the concern is about having the resources to process those who are detected in the pretended through the immigration system

in a way that is consistent in our efforts to the law. that's why the request included a request for the resources that can be used to hire additional judges and prosecutors to process the claims. >> it is an argument for allowing them to detain people which they wouldn't be allowed to do unless the president actually made that stipulation in his action. is that what the president wants to do quick >> with governor. said as he wants to send the national guard to the border because it would be an important symbol and serve as a deterrent to those that might be contemplating traveling to the southwest border. i'm not sure the governor said himself that he believes they should be given the kind of law-enforcement authority that would allow them to detain individuals. but you do highlight an important issue that is also -- at warren's mentioning. if there are additional resources from the department of

defense the national guard or anyone else, we want to make sure that they are appropriately integrated with the efforts that are already ongoing along the border. right now we've got a border patrol, icd, state law-enforcement officials in the texas department of safety and local law-enforcement officials who are all working together to try to address the challenge into those are just the individuals who are actually serving the function in terms of apprehending the individuals. there is a whole separate set of hhs, dhs and those who are coordinating the humanitarian response to make sure that those individuals have been apprehended can also be detained. there are a lot of resources deployed to deal with the situation and anybody that is contemplating adding to the resources we want to make sure that they are integrated appropriately into the system that's already in place.

okay? >> as you know they've been making [inaudible] making these realms yesterday and there was a call yesterday for the white house for the education initiatives in the country in the efforts but it came as a result of the other effective programs in colombia. and i wonder if that is on the table and what is the white house response to the idea that you also have to change the condition of the countries to be a part of that in order to change the reason why people are coming. >> the substance of the conversation the president will be having with officials is to talk about what we can do at the source. there are some programs that have been put in place through the usaid to try to address the

economic quality of life concerns individuals in the country may have. there already are resources being devoted to that effort. the other thing we can do that is the subject of a lot of conversation even outside of the latest situation is enhancing law-enforcement agencies in central america and in the united states. in some cases that means offering expertise in the resources about the steps that they can take to enhance their country. the citizens activity initiative is something that the president talks about when he traveled to central america a couple of years ago. the service would be the subject of the ongoing conversations. it had been so far.

we would refer you to the state department for the guidance of the resources that have already been devoted to the effort and additional resources that are available her to your asking the president to stop russia. the president has a power if that's a good idea quick >> i haven't seen the letter from the congressman hensarling so we will take a look at the letter to see if we have received it and get back to you with an answer. >> another question there are two federal reserve board governor's.

we are not in a position to make any personal announcements from here. it's reporting back to the fed. >> i don't have anything at this point. >> we have seen a pretty small track record. there is ample evidence to indicate that there has been unfortunately a steady flow of heavy weapons. we can be concerned about that and we do know that there was a essay that was in the hands of the protests that brought down the malaysian airline last week.

that is why the russians are responsible for that and why the international community is now focused on isolating the regime into getting them to change their behavior in your train. [inaudible] i'm wondering what you do that quick >> i'm not in a position to offer a specific detailed intelligence assessment about today's movement of heavy weapons. >> [inaudible] >> we have seen in the last couple of days the social media reports and some intelligence assessments that have been released by the intelligence community. the reports that there've been firing of the russian heavy weapons from the russian side of the border at the ukrainian

military personnel. we have detected that firing and represent an escalation of the conflict. it underscores the concerns of the united states and the international community has about the russian behavior and the need for the regime to change the strategy. >> we are going to continue to work with the international community to further isolate putin and russia and to discuss imposing additional economic costs. >> what you have been saying all along there doesn't seem to be much change. >> as i mentioned, there is ample evidence to indicate that these economic costs have been imposed on russia have been told by russia's economy. there are a number of steps that have been taken by going to try to short the currency.

we have seen outflows of capital which is an indication that the investors are aware that they've been investing in russia and that will have an impact on their economy. so there is evidence to indicate that the sanctions regime has had an impact on russia but whether you point out that it hasn't yet changed the calculus for his intervention in ukraine that is why the international community is actively engaged in the conversations about whether or not and how to impose additional economic costs and further isolate. >> the president nine days ago announced a sanctions regime against some entities in the defense financial energy sectors in russia so there've been a number of steps the president

has already taken and those are at some point about more serious depth than the european counterparts have taken so far we have seen indications that they are preparing to take additional steps and they've made a preliminary steps to that effect just yesterday i believe. so, we are going to -- the president has as is evidenced by the fact way to the international response to this effort and he's continuing to play the leadership role in focusing the international community on this urgent problem and using that attention to further isolate vladimir putin. >> at the briefing yesterday they blamed america's appetite for the illegal drugs and the flow of american weapons south for creating the conditions for the american countries and the kids tried to get away from. how much responsibility do we bear for this quick >> i'm not enough of an expert

on the central politics to give you a very good assessment of that claim. what i will say is the desperatt desperate conditions that exist in central america is feeding the flow of illegal migration that we've seen from central america to the u.s.. fortunately, according to data that we see in the flow that was received the first couple weeks of this month our efforts to confront this problem continue that will be the substance of the conversations the president has later today. it's why we continue to push congress to take action on the resources requests that have been sitting on their doorstep for three weeks now. there are additional resources that can be used to improve security at the border and more efficiently process those individuals in the court system and make sure that we are repatriating those that do not have a legal basis remaining. >> some activists in this

country say the speaker signaled comprehensive immigration reform wasn't going to happen this year and the president began to look towards an executive order. they feel that executive order would be aimed at reducing deportation from the u.s.. is that a proper? >> anyone that claims to have action the president is contemplating is merely guessing. what the president said is that he wants his attorney general and secretary of homeland security to conduct a review of the existing law and determine what steps the president can take within the confines of the law to address the more persistent problems caused by the broken immigration system. so they are out of their casting a wide net and they intend to further that th the president of the united states before the end of the summer and i would anticipate the president will act quickly after that. but in terms of what that -- with the results of those

executive actions will be it ist clear yet because it isn't clear what those executive actions themselves will be. there is only one thing that is clear and that is house republicans have blocked the kind of solutions that would be far reaching to address those problems and that is unfortunate because there is a proposal passed in the senate that has the support of the business community, labor community, law enforcement community and strong support for the compromise proposal. the only reason it isn't in the wall right now is that the house republicans engaged in a political strategy to block it. >> but they are here at the white house advisers are they being told the president would like to reduce the deportation quick >> i'm not going to give a detailed readout of the conversations. what i know about them is most of the communication is the other way. as the secretary conduct the review without authority is available to the president

within the confines of the law they are interested in the ideas of the activists and other experts who may have suggestions for how that could be used. but again in terms of what the outcome is going to look like we have to wait until that review has been conducted into the president made a decision what he would like to exercise. >> when you were talking about the pilot program earlier you were talking about a program that would start in honduras and then move to el salvador and guatemala. >> i think some of these details are awaiting a presidential level conversations i don't want to get ahead of the conversations but what has been discussed is a program that would set up facilities in some central american countries to allow asylum claims to be processed in those states were

in those countries. right now if we would say is individuals if they had asylum claims making a dangerous journey to the southwest border where they are then put in the immigration system in the country they are detained in this country while the asylum claim is considered and the idea is in order to detour them from making that journey we would set up a system in coordination with these countries to allow the claims to be filed in the country without them having to make the dangerous journey. that's the idea and why it is consistent with our other efforts. >> but you are not confirming into discussions of it that it was a pilot program cracks the >> i'm not in the position to confirm that right now that you understand the general idea.

>> on ukraine does the administration have any doubt the plane was brought down by the separatists [inaudible] is there any doubt about that now at this point? the >> we have seen that there were heavy weapons moved from russia to ukraine but they've moved into the hands of the separatist leaders and they were traine iny the russians to use those systems. those systems include anti-aircraft weapons systems and according to social media reports, those weapons include the 11 system. ..