reason to get in the united states. if you have a temporary visa program, you have something that allows a release for those pressures. most of the proposals have something like that. >> host: the opinion of james at twitter. i'm opposed to deporting them, but the penalty should be forfeiting the right to vote forever. that is according to james at twitter. we will point out that douglas holtz-eakin is present at the american action forum, headed the cbo. 2003-2005 and also served as director of domestic and economic policy for the john mccain presidential campaign edwards for president george h.w. bush as part of the national of economic advisers. >> guest: i worked for george h.w. bush and also george w. bush. >> host: republican, good morning. go ahead, nadine. >> caller: hey, thanks for taking my call.

i think the problem that we've in my circle is that a lot of individuals fear that the face of america is changing. you know, a lot of folks don't want their counties to be like counties in mexico or other countries. you know, they want america to be america essentially. are we all know, you know, from any standpoint if you pour enough of one thing into a jar, the properties of the charter change. we had an influx of undocumented individuals here. they changed the dynamic of our communities and we don't want that. a lot of folks i spoke to don't like that. but i'm against deportation. at least back to the areas of the strides the individuals come from and i believe we should help them like we help our folks

here and abroad. maybe put them in better places once we found they are here illegally, but to just throw them back in the that they just got out of, and really can have. so in the long defense. i do know and feel the pressure and the stress and individuals face when they think their communities are changing because of the overflow of a different element. >> guest: that's a great call. first, the future of america in the face of america, it is interest in to note that the nato born population doesn't have enough babies for the population to stay the same size. what that means is we literally shut down all immigration, america which are in the would be a lot like japan which is a golden smaller. if you flip back, what it said

is all future labor force growth, the face of america is going to depend on a choices we make you this is a big issue in trying to decide in the 21st century. i think a lot of people have the same mixed emotion. i don't want to condone illegal immigration. people broke the law. but i don't want to deport them. that seems too extreme. the debate has been about the appropriate level of punishment or a clear violation of the law that doesn't say hey, it is okay, but doesn't take the extreme case of deporting everyone. >> guest: democratic line. christine is calling. hello there. good morning. >> caller: yes, i would like to say that you guys are totally over complicating the entire issue. it doesn't have to be that expensive. south deportation would happen if employers did not hire people

find dramatically for hiring people that did not proper documentation. i do believe that we are to have the visa program and it is being overstated. the people are handed visa is that the border and they are never checked up on. we don't have the personnel to do that. as for america's shrinking, it is. no one says these people can't come back. let's pick and choose do we have come back. you can become a citizen of another country unless you have a certain amount of elements. i think we should have that as well. >> host: thanks for calling. how many here are here legally from a visa overstay. do they know they've expired? how can that be. >> guest: we actually is and

the minute the announcement is made that we are going to ruthlessly enforce current law and 20% of people built into these numbers about deportation for a large fraction of people. it is true that we have no great capability for visa overstay her and that is something people regularly point out is to be a part of any reform which is to have a system that tracks entry and exit. if there rants about, not their practice. also great employer verification. then accepted to be how they verification system so employers are put in the position of making a tough decision. are these documents real or not? they would have a place to go and have those documents serve. it would be important towards enforcing the immigration laws

that doesn't always solve the problem of the zero gravity. >> caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. i just read an article this morning on bloomberg about free trade and fear mongering with the illegal immigration and everything else. one thing that stuck out that said more americans, one of the surveys said more mexicans have left the u.s. since 2005 have come into the u.s. in the past 10 years or whatever. on top of that, they go in parallel to this article about a fact true burger and can type either lost his job making motors and dynamic and women gained a job making the same in mexico.

you know, the long and short of it is it's been going on since the industrial revolution. they last mexico in the fiery. in central america. the fact of the matter is nobody talks about the jobs gained in the past 15, 20 years and high manufacturing jobs is growing in the u.s. in coming back. i want to i want an ominous note that there's a reason why people have 10 to 20 grain of the u.s. north korea or anywhere else in the world. thank you very much. >> guest: all true. surveys indicate outside the u.s., roughly a billion people in the cave they would move to the u.s. if they could. as an economic magnet, you can't underestimate the importance of the united states. it's also true that there is a concern when immigrants come to the u.s. they start competing for jobs.

the reality is the competition and started taking place. moving on to the u.s. legally doesn't change the competition. it allows us to take advantage of the skills notched corners that come to the immigration pool. there is a lot to be said for thinking hard about the legal immigration system would want to take advantage of those opportunities. >> guest: there are going to be deportation, nor is there going to be a lot because of the limits of human powers. you want to read more about this, go to "the wall street journal." they took part of what you put together here and read about the cost to the mass deportation taxpayers ready to pay for players. they do write the end of the piece that defenders of deportation a state or local governments would local governments would save tens local governments with intensive month of dollars on social services for illegals. now it down next to the economic and human costs.

although such as deportatideportati on would be one more campaign promise that failed once it had the law of reality. any thoughts? >> guest: we were happy to have someone notice our study. i don't disagree with the sentiment. there is no question i mentioned to one of the callers. they bear the brunt of the expense for legal immigrant. one of the things the u.s. has done much better than other places, in particular europe which right now integrates into the economy and deporting non. >> host: republican collar. hi, bernie. >> caller: if you have employers don't have to follow in and they are fighting they have time to read other common that people would leave this country if they had welfare.

as far as people not wanting to do jobs, if you took away the welfare, there would be people to take those jobs. you have to work to survive. i guess that's about it. thank you. >> guest: and farmers sympathetic to that than you might realize. we know comes a flexible and will adjust to whatever the labor force might be. our goal is simply to get some sense of the mag to and do it so fast. >> host: tom from palm city, florida. republican collar, good morning to you. >> caller: good morning. i think i caught the gentleman in a big lie. he said the united states are of reproductive going down so if we didn't have immigration, we were just disappear. that is crazy. growth, growth, which we are using the many resources here the united states. we've got to slow our growth

rate down more than other countries that just need a bowl of rice or a bowl of beans to survive. we are destroying the planet. this gentleman is it's going to disappear for don't keep on bringing my immigrant too low a the wages. we need to get verified past. so if they don't have the jobs, they won't come here. i'm not against immigration. we give 1 million legal immigrants citizenship every year. we're a very generous country but wouldn't get rid of illegal aliens. just to remind us of the history of the verified. >> guest: has been proposed and a number of times. it's actually steadily been implemented. two instead of having a drivers

license with the electronic system, employers can tap into checking them and verify whether someone is eligible for work. we put everybody on a level playing field. you don't have to worry about taking the time to check someone's credentials. it will be part of the future almost regardless. >> host: north carolina, you are on the air. democratic line. >> caller: good morning. i just wanted to say this. i keep hearing people talk about mexicans coming across the border in doing this and doing that. i wanted you to know there are more spanish-speaking people besides these mexicans who are here and they are coming in through miami. these are the islanders. they are here. they meet up with their relatives then they disappear.

they stay up there beside them and their views as up, they disappear. i think you are looking at the border and you're not looking at other places where these people come in. there are so many of them in georgia. they are all over the place. you go to the stores, there they are. and they are not mexican. i think you are looking the wrong people. >> guest: no disagreement. the mexican order -- one of the discussion for years now, but the reality is we had an outflow of illegal immigrants from mexico and we have seen shifts to honduras, guatemala and other places which have come through the mexican border is a member of the children, which was the episode and all of other ports of entry. [inaudible]

>> guest: if you go through a mud through a month or places where immigrants -- this has always been a touchy issue, which is did i know the person is illegal? i looked at the papers. they seem fine, all of that. that's why there's so much pressure on the verify can obtain employers can use and not be liable for misusing. >> host: tom from erie, pennsylvania. independent collar for douglas holtz-eakin. >> caller: good morning. i've got a couple radical suggestions that will probably make me sound like a republican, even though i am not. the number one patent that needs done is to change the anchor baby law. that should be obvious to everyone. that can be done.

the next day if they have this country is that are continually in turmoil, that are always sending refugees to us. if we can get the united nations to do something about that, they will invade the countries ourselves because that would be cheaper than what we are doing now. >> guest: to fairly radical proposals. one requires an amendment to the constitution or anyone born in the united states. i am not going to handicap the chances of that happening. second is, first is military ventures. i don't think we'll have much appetite. postcode you expecting a lot more in the campaign trail? >> guest: yes, if you look at the public in primary, it has been pretty thin on policy substance to say it as graciously as i can. the only thing that has come up

with international relations of that type. immigration, trade issues. i expect that to be the same going forward. >> host: republican line for thomas. you are on the air. >> caller: good morning, mr. holt. i had to deep into the gao irving county office and uncovered a lot of things that are very important to most hard-working payers of taxes. and that is $120 billion in excess money going overs these through the various visa programs of émigres better here and émigres but have not become citizens sending about $120 billion. in addition to that, found out that there is more than 1800 us dollars per person for the

social security and other administrations, giving to these person and mrs. solomon at the basis. so i mean, if we don't curtail that is going on as far as the amount of money leaving this country, not to mention the jobs at a party last, then we are in very serious trouble. and i made several hard action in congress must take place. i know it's a hard pill to swallow. but if we don't do something, and and i mean fast, we are going to be in a big, big trouble and financially. as far as the wto, we got taken out of that because they had been back since 1994 are most deadly anomie as far as economic growth. as for the jobs took this long to go overseas and that's why china built the big unfair by the way with hydroelectric power to have companies have power to take these jobs and don't bother

stuff over here which we have going on. and then you throw in the refugees and immigrants and people coming from a site of the board coming to this country never stand beside the injustice it. peer the equivalent pointed out, it's unbelievable. it's just unbelievable. we've got to put a stop to the borders and money leaving this country we've got to get our jobs back. i don't care how we do it. we've just got to do it. >> host: how do you do the last three things you laid out. any questions from your rent? >> guest: >> caller: to stop the refugees come at. that's the first thing. get out of nafta. that's the next thing. and all this other trade deals partnerships, that's a disaster. they then heard one democrat congressman. i'm a republican. he got up there inside is from new jersey. he said it was so secret he thought he was an economist

country. he couldn't write down anything, couldn't be anything, couldn't have any pictures taken. you have to be alone. then you win out of this secret room they have a new couldn't talk to others about what you just read. >> host: thanks for calling, thomas. guest on the transpacific partnership, very big trade deal, very controversial. for the first time, this is a step in the right direction. it's up on the website. you can read it in its entirety if you so desired congress will have a chance to review every line before they take about. i think that's appropriate because the way these things are done they get one shot. it is up or down. the money flowing out of the united states is not an illegal immigration issue. many people come to the united states. they were content money money back to families. those monies are one of the most

economic forces in central and south america. every are the flow of money back to those families is probably one of the biggest sources and economic prosperity. i would tell someone you're legally what they could do with their money. >> host: to oakland, virginia. democratic collar. good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. getting to be a nice spring day in southwest virginia. i am a small one-man policy shot basically geared towards technology. one of the things you learn whenever you deal with policy is things are rarely as you see them on the circuit. the immigration debate is another one. whenever we talk immigration, we always end up talking -- i hate to use the word low end. servers, people who pick our food, et cetera. you also find that the real money and driving force behind this is a high tech funds who

know that whatever immigration blog will bleed over to dad age when the visa people, engineering. they are the actual force behind it. i will argue for instant number of refugees from dearborn and i would fly out cold on the h.r. person. well, we only hire engineers because they were returning nine and $14,000 a year cheaper. in fact, someone here a few minutes ago texting and then the conversation totally ignored it. kind of confirms what i'm talking about here. what do i tell engineering students who can't get jobs who are now competing with the visa people who are being brought in by google, facebook, cisco, if better a?

i've got my tv turned on, but i see you smile. to my kids track of student loans, a day of funny. if you'd like to comment -- i would like to hear your comment. i got off the phone. >> guest: thanks for calling. the immigration population is two focal points. what was talked about reverse, that there aren't a lot of high school immigrants in the united states. they are big target for the immigration population. i can't immigration reform comes up, you get different natures raising their voices. today, we haven't done an immigration reform. most people have always thought you have to do the comprehensive bill. there is now maybe we just have to go through sector by sector into smaller pieces and deal with the piece says were there does appear to be a legitimate need for access to skilled immigration, but where people

are worried we haven't got the program exactly right. some companies have been found to abuse it. let's do a reform there and move on. we'll see how this plays out. >> host: d.c. in a presidential year anything passing? >> guest: all of this looks like 2017 or later. but it's genuinely important to continue to have the conversation, however unpleasant it becomes at times because in my career, beginning 2003 at the congressional budget office, every year we put these issues and every year we come to face with the reality that we built our immigration system on family reunification, honorable principles, but in the 21st century there's enormous economic power and that we have an upgrade of us to reflect it. >> host: independent in nevada. thank you for calling, brad. >> caller: thank you, sir. good morning. i was watching and the border

patrol on c-span the other night. they were talking about how bad of shape our borders or rent, how many people come over to her explaining 154 coming up on todd that only two regions. i know not all undocumented immigrants will end up in prison, but how many do we have now? how much does it cost to keep them there and how much will it cost and time and will they come back to the contrary with second time offenders. thank you for your time. >> guest: we have all of these facilities mentioned to do their job asked by donald trump and

ted cruz. he would have to make everything 10 times bigger. to get the answer you're justified by 10. 30,000 detention beds, 5000 officials out there trying to detain people. we detained about 250,000 a year and so that is the scale of things now. just has to be much, much bigger. >> host: glass ball from kansas city, missouri. [inaudible] >> caller: at several points. first of all, they said they are taking the high skilled jobs as well and i had that experience. i have a phd in biology and anatomy and my husband had a phd in biophysics. first he lost his job because of the immigrants coming in.

in academia, u.s. citizens pay for the laboratories, supplies, equipment and their salaries. we pay for their salaries. they command to take those jobs. so he lost his job and i lost $2000 off of my and come so that my boss to pay for people coming from europe and not from europe cannot swear he was found and of course the people from other countries prefer to hire people from other countries because they know their language and their culture and it is easier for them to interact with them. secondly, we can take their possessions in order to pay for the cost of the program, quoting none. we do that with people who sell drugs. we take their possession so we can do that with the illegal alien and maybe we won't do it

with the legal ones, but if they didn't break their visa that comport. thirdly, the illegal immigrant, they are effectively about a third higher than americans because of the taxes that they don't pay. maybe they pay for sales tax, but there's a lot of taxes that they don't pay at the local, state, federal level. so we did not children because we lost our jobs and we couldn't afford children. so that has been ongoing thing. americans have smaller and smaller families because they can't afford to live. >> host: is going to let you go. we are running short of time. final thought? >> guest: i'm sorry to hear it's not country and of course this summer that sounds sounds

like illegal immigration. i'm not sure this is a problem with the illegals here. i certainly don't think there is this massive tax evasion she is concerned about. people show up at her job, have a payroll taxes withheld come in contact with withheld. they pay taxes and they buy things. it's hard to imagine an illegal immigrant pining away to way to pay large-scale taxes. >> host: a look at the report infrastructure needed to remove all undocumented immigrants in two years from the american action form. american action form.org is the place to go to read up on that. our guest has been douglas holtz-eakin, former head of the congressional budget office and president of the american action form. thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you unappreciated. >> host: a look inside the brady briefing room waiting to hear from josh earnest, white house press secretary. before he arrives in the briefing gets under way, we will look at cybertechnology and national security.

this is from today's "washington journal." >> host: patrick tucker, technology editor for defense when her to talk about cybertechnology and national security. good morning. thanks for joining us. i want to actually sever the piece of tape from defense secretary ashton carter. about a month ago, in front of reporters he knew a time in warfare cyber command capabilities than what they would be asked to do. let's take a look. .. to interrupt, disrupt isil's command and control, to cause them to lose confidence in their

networks, cute overload the networks so they can't function -- to overload -- everything to command and control forces there. control the population and the economy. so this is something that's new in this war, not something you would have seen back in the gulf war, but it's an important new capability and it is an important use of our cyber command. the recent cyber command was established in the first place. >> host: patrick tucker, that's about one month ago. ring us up to date on this cyber effort, this defensive cyber effort. where are things now treasury this was an historic admission by defense secretary carter they were using offensive cyber capabilities for technical specs on the greatest part of a large campaign. it's the sort of thing cyber

command was created to do but we don't have a great window into previous operations, offensive cyber capabilities that they were undertaken. so this admission is key. is basically pointing out that the future of cyber warfare in connection with other forces looks like this plan did affect whether attempted to disrupt the commit and control capabilities of isis, disrupting their ability to talk to everybody within the network. it's going to be a global organization and has to be able to community a lots of different channels at the same time. effectively disrupting that for the purposes of destabilizing their ability to govern and also in a very narrow and targeted way disrupting their ability to communicate as they are trying to coordinate forces to defend the territory they have taken. we know that something that's a part of the current offensive

against mosul, the iraqi security forces let against most that's taking place right now. something assistance the us is capable of providing that's really key for that offensive to take place. when he talks about this being the future, the first time this has happened, we can no with certainty that lots of different offensive cyber capabilities are going to play larger and larger role in conflicts in the future, not just against terrorist groups but also if ever, we've been involved in a much larger sort of conflict, there's an interesting darpa program called plan x. it looks at how a squad those deployed in a place like a for instance, of mosul or someplace like that, might use different aspects of signals intelligence hacking like on the move energy to understand here's where these

particular users or. here's where this particular user might have been involved in the past in terms of planting ieds or something like that. they give you a sense of this is the door we should knock on, this is a derbyshire pass. almost like exodus story, like passing the doors with lamb's blood or something. it's a magical capability but it's something we will be seeing a lot more of. >> host: we will put phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. patrick tucker is our guest, technology editor for defense one for nine years earlier he was deputy editor of the future. went to schools that hopkins and lawrence college. we should back up to ask about isis and maybe other organizations. and their own other technology. how would you describe it?

>> guest: so probably know about isis is they are able to use consumer available communications techniques. some of them very secure, consumer available techniques that are manufactured and designed by software designers all around the world, not just come less and less in the united states, to communicate to create propaganda, to spread propaganda. they are not that great at what we think of as packing. they probably can't take down a bank or commit sophisticated ask him cyber espionage or destruction. they may have an intent to do so but basically their level of capability right now is not in design so much as in the use of technology that's already been made available by companies for other purposes. they are savvy users, not so much builders.

>> host: one more question, again back in this country, what exactly is the subcommittee? it's not been around forever. neither conducting operations we've learned from the defense secretary. how did that get started and went and how has it been performing? >> guest: good question. i'm not exactly sure when it got started but the thing cyber command does with the nsa, headed by the same person, michael rogers. before the general keith alexander. so -- >> good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. happy easter hope you all had a pleasant we can. i do not have any announcements at the source we go straight to your question. kevin, do you want to start? >> chew. josh, any update on the investigation into islamic the

talk -- attack in brussels and the way law enforcement there has responded? does the u.s. have any concerns about the way things have been carried out? >> kevin, obviously this as an investigation is being conducted by belgian law enforcement authorities, and they have demonstrated i think seriousness of purpose that you would expect in getting to the bottom of what exactly transpired in understanding its are any potential gaps in their system that allowed extremists to carry out this attack. i should expect detroit to do we have offered up some assistance in the form of law enforcement -- expected the united states -- other expertise that hopefully can be used to assist in the ongoing investigation. we do that because the nation of belgian, we are committed to this acute upper alice. we also recognize that are direct consequences on the

safety and security of international institutions that are based in belgium but also consequences for u.s. national security. so we are going to continue to offer our assistance to the nation of belgian and to their national security officials as they conduct this investigation. >> is there any since the release of this guy walking in the white jacket and airport was a correct thing or a mystic? >> at this point i'm not going to provide any additional information sort of about their ongoing investigation. if the updates to announce about steps they have taken our mistakes they recognize they made in the past. those are announcements that we'll be counting on them to make. needless to say we take quite seriously response was that we have here in the unite united ss to support o them in ongoing investigation. and there have been times, particularly in the aftermath of

terrorist attacks where we have urged our partners and allies in europe to undertake some critical national city measures more effectively. let me give you an example that in the aftermath of a terrorist attacks, you heard the president of the united states quite -- talk quite correctly of european officials to do a better job of sharing information not just among themselves but also with the united states. there has been some progress made with regard to intelligence sharing but there is surely more it can and must be done. the attacks we've seen should serve as a reminder of how critically important it is for the basic fundamentals of intelligence and national security procedures need to be followed. we certainly are going to lend our support to the belgians as they undertake an assistant to protect their country. >> so fidel castro offered up a

1500 word critique of the president's visit to cuba, and is that letter a sign that the changes sought by the president are going to be a long time in coming, maybe more difficult? how much influence does fidel castro to have in the cuba? >> let me start by saying the fact the former president felt compelled to respond so fourthly to the president's visit i think is an indication of a of the significant impact of president obama's visit to cuba. we were quite pleased with recession president obama received from the cuban people. and look, we are also pleased with the kind of conversations that president obama was able to have with other cuban government officials. it is an opportunity for us to discuss what additional steps can be taken to normalize relations between our two countries.

the president made clear time and time again both in private meetings with president castro but also in public when he delivered his speech to the cuban people, that the u.s. commitment to human rights is rocksolid and that's not going to change. we are going to continue to be leading advocates your president obama will continue to be a leading advocate for universal human rights. not just in the western hemisphere but around the world. and the kind of engagement that president obama was able to pursue in the context of his visit is the kind of engagement that would not have been possible had he not made the trip. the president was able to go to cuba and urged president castro in person about the importance of human rights. the president was able to stand before a news conference at the assembled global media and make a forceful case for the cuban government to better protect universal human rights. but also created a venue were a

couple of your colleagues were able to ask president castro about this issue directly. that's the kind of thing that's never happened before and there is no denying that that creates some additional pressure on the cuban government. anakin the fact the former president felt compelled to respond i think it's an indication that the trip had its intended effects. thank you. >> i also want to give the chance to talk about the response to the easter terror attack in pakistan. >> listen, the united states condemns in the strongest possible terms this terror attack at a children's park yesterday. it's grotesque. in fact, that you have an extremist organization targeting religious minorities and children is an outrage. the other thing, kevin, i think indicative of what we talked

about up here quite a bit is that even though this terror attack was targeted at christian, religious minority in pakistan, again, that is in and of itself grotesque but the fact of the matter is that based on the names we are seeing now, the majority of the victims were actually muslims. and it demonstrates how important it is for the world to come together to fight this kind of extremism. and that certainly has been the approach the president has taken in making sure that peaceloving people of all faiths and of all religions must come together to fight this kind of extremism. and that's certainly what our values and our sense of o'reilly tells us. as a purely practical matter that's also what's going to be

required, and our success in fighting extremism around the globe is going to also depend on the ability of individual nations to fight extremism within their borders. certainly the government of pakistan understands this today, just a radically important that is. spirit do attacks like these point to our success or failure in the war against terror in the middle east? >> well, i don't think you can point to one specific event and draw a broader conclusion about the overall effort to stamp out extremism around the globe. i think it is an indication that there is, there is more that needs to be done. you heard in a briefing that was led by secretary carter and general dunford on friday, talk about the important progress we've made against isil in iraq and in than six, a number of leaders of that organization,

and many other capability including the ability to finance their operations has been significantly weakened by steps have been taken by the united states military and our coalition partners over the last few months. that's an indication of an important progress but the president's key understanding here is that our success is going to depend upon the ability of our partners around the globe to take action to protect their own countries and to fight extremism in their own countries. and we certainly have more work to do to get that done. the united states cannot be the worlds policeman. but our national security is going to depend on the building of our partners to protect their own countries, and that's what the united states is going to be very supportive of the pakistani government as they confront the threat from extremism. and they're not going to do that at our urging. again, they recognize it is their own citizens are being victimized by these atrocious acts of terrorism. roberta.

>> how is the kind of helping and coordinate with pakistan on the investigation was there's a report today that pakistan is trying to launch what they're calling a planned military crackdown on militants. entities to whether the president has spoken with -- [inaudible] >> i don't have any presidential level comments to tell you that but we'll keep you updated. the united states and pakistan has an important relationship. we certainly value the kind of cooperation we've received from them. in this instance this will be the response and investigate will be conducted by the pakistani government. if a request is -- assistance from the united states come it will be provided. >> turn back to belgium for a second, he noted that the u.s. is offering support but i'm wondering whether you can say belgian is accepting the support that has been offered and what you can describe at all the kind of support that is being provided? >> i'm not going, i won't be up

to get into details of what kind of support were providing. they are our law enforcement resources that united states has. with investigators, law enforcement investigation in this country have particular expertise in investigating these kinds of incidents. and there are also obviously importanimportant work to be don comes to analyzing intelligence and making sure that leads are being properly followed. but i'm not going to go to get into detail about exactly how that is being provided. but now is the time when belgian is confront every significant threat and the united states stands with them in a very real way, as they confront a significant threat inside their borders. >> when you said more can and should be done with consternation sharing and basic fundamentals needed to be followed, it sounded like maybe the white house is saying a little critical of belgian's

response to someone if you could expand all explained about what you meant? >> levies a couple things that the first as we have heard belgian officials themselves acknowledged in their own right, except responsibly for some shortcomings that they have perceived and the way they've handled this broader investigation of his terror cell that was linked to the attacks that were undertaken in paris. in fact, that there's some overlap with the cell that undertook this terrorist attack in belgium last week. i think is an indication that there is a very real threat inside of belgium. and that there is more than national security professional inside a belgian can do to address the threat and to protect their people. this is an admission that we've heard from belgian officials themselves.

but and, and what the united states is going to continue to do is continue to push them to take an assistant to make sure that if there are any gaps in their national security apparatus, that those are filled and that the united states can fill a useful role in filling those gaps, then we will do that. michelle. >> thanks josh. you've mentioned showtimes to. you've mentioned show time so close because the tories have been working with belgian at french authorities. the question could be, when you look at these shortcomings or miscommunications, couldn't the u.s. have helped the more in tracking down -- [inaudible] >> ultimate these kinds of actions and investigations and the steps are taken to prevent these kinds of incidents are the responsibility of the belgian government. and look, indie media aftermath of this attack taken place the president was on the phone with his belgian counterpart. for our coordination with belgian authorities starts at the top level.

but all the way down the chain at the level of homeland security, law enforcement, intelligence. the united states is able to offer assistance to our european allies so they can confront this threat. we are going to continue to do that. we do that because belgian is an important ally of the trade. we did it because they are an important international institutions that are located in belgium including nato, but we also did it because we understand there are direct consequences for u.s. national security when it comes to making sure that belgium is a vessel. >> there's such a lack of information on the communications leading up to the attack the is it a foregone conclusion that -- [inaudible] >> obviously the belgian authorities are trying to learn as much as learn as much as they can about this particular terror cell operated. so i information to share about what we've learned about how the cell operators or any method of

communication that is used. but obviously all of this is getting a close look from belgian authorities, and it should. >> you have a sense as to whether encryption played a role, the fact this couldn't have been uncovered? >> this is exactly what belgian law force the authorities are taking a close look at and i just don't have any updates and investing to share at this point. >> we heard secretary kerry say that the rhetoric of the republican party right now is an embarrassment to the country. does the president agree and do you agree? >> i think the president himself has observed that the kind of rhetoric that's emanating from the republican party, and it's not just one candidate, is from multiple candidates on the republican side, is directly contrary to our values, the values that generations of

americans have fought and died for. the rhetoric is also counterproductive when it comes to protecting the american people, and that's a significant problem, particularly when you're the commander-in-chief and you are on the hook, you are the ones primarily responsible for the safety and security of the american people. and the suggestion on the part of some of these republican candidates is to marginalize certain communities in a way that could be counterproductive to our national security. >> we've heard a lot of things about this rhetoric. you've even said something about donald trump in particular did you even make a comment about his hair at one point, but you are not willing to call this embarrassing, even though somebody like -- >> i don't disagree with secretary kerry's assessment at all. >> all right. >> you may be surprised to learn that donald trump in responding to what the president said this weekend about the importance of

an open door policy for refugees fleeing isil's violence, you may be surprised to learn that he called it in same, disgraceful, catastrophic and could lead to the downfall of the greatest nation on earth. could you give a response to that? >> as usual -- >> since you represent the views of a lot of americans. >> his comments to actually represent the facts of the situation. individuals who enter the united states to the refugee program are subjected to more intensive scrutiny than any other individual trying to enter the united states. typically takes between 18-24 month for an individual who is entering the united states for the refugee program. the reason for that is individuals who are seeking to travel to the united states as the refugee are subjected to in person interviews. they are subjected to background checks are their names are won through a bright of databases that are maintained by the u.s. military and the united states

intelligence community. these individuals are required to cement biometric and biographical information so that information can also be used to back them. at all of this is critical to our national security. -- to vet and. at the same time the united states takes in more refugees through the u.n. program and every other country in the world combined. and we are proud and we should justifiably be proud of the way that the united states is viewed around the world as a safe haven for people who have been targeted, victimized, in some cases even victims of genocide in their own countries. there was a big hole in the republican party i get asked about showtimes about whether the state department would conclude that genocide, accidents and were being carried out by isil in iraq and in syria. are republican suggesting to someone we should turn our backs on people that we have now concluded are fleeing genocide

in their own country? is that what you're suggesting? so they are suggesting so we should be taught by isil and we should protect people who might be victims of genocide but we should let them in the united states even after they've undergone two years of intensive background checks? that's not right. that's not what our values into a. and it's why i continue to believe and secretary care and the prejudice, that this kind of rhetoric from the republican party is counterproductive to our national security and flies in the face of the values that our country believes here. >> when the president years old trump and other republicans say things like this does he just get as fired up as many as heard reports that donald trump is saying things like this? how does he respond? >> his response i think is rooted in the fact that as the commander-in-chief of the united states, that his top priority is to keep the american people safe.

>> does he get angry? does he show his frustration back there in the oval office speak with well look there is no denying the president is passionate about these issues duty does not condone the comments we have seen from several republican candidates on this stuff. but look, i also think the comment you just ready that apparently are recent comments from a lease one candidate, they are difficult to distinguish from comments that we've seen these candidates make over the last year. so maybe i'm just feeling particularly animated today, but look -- [laughter] i got a chance to spend a little time outside before the briefing today. but look, we'r we are talking at core american values and we are talking about that kind of policies that it into place that is safeguarded our security made the united states the beacon of freedom around the world for generations. and the fact is that generations

to look at this, too. there are generations of americans have fought and died for those values. our country was established by people who were fleeing, who were fleeing governments that were targeting them because of their religion. there aren't refugees in this country, including from cuba, who were fleeing the fragrant violation of human rights by their government. and they all turned to the united states because of will to stand for and because of what our values are. and for those values and the principles and those policies to be run down by somebody pursuing a senegal ploy to win votes in a party primary, it's disappointing to say the least. >> during the trip to cuba visit press conference that president castro talked about -- >> yes, there was. >> he made an extra of the questions by saying the u.s. or

so to provide him a list of lists oppressors the computer i know you'll have said you readily bring up the issue of the political prisoners. i'm wondering in the days since then there has been an official deliverance to the cuban government of names of people that the u.s. believes are political prisoners? >> i don't have any recent conversations to give you a lot of insight into. you will recall though back in december 2014 when the president delivered a speech in the cabinet room to the country announcing the change in the policy towards cuba, part of the agreement was the cuban government being responsive to our request to release a bunch, to release about 50 political prisoners whose names were provided to the cuban government. so we are constantly in a position to be urging the government of cuba to do a

better job of protecting the universal human rights other people but we are also making a specific push to look out for those that we know are being targeted because of their political views. so that is to say, our call for greater respect for human rights on the island of cuba is both a generalized call about respecting the basic human rights of the cuban people but also a specific all about making sure that individuals who have been victimized or targeted or rounded up were tortured because of their political views are freed. and those efforts are not going to stop just because the president had a productive two and half day trip to cuba. those efforts are going to continue. and importantly the united states and our government is not the only one encouraging cuba to take these important steps.

one of the benefits of this policy change the president has announced is that for a long time, our policy towards cuba serves as an impediment to our relations with other countries throughout the hemisphere. and for a long time we saw country and western hemisphere who are more focused on the u.s. policy towards cuba and were on the policy of the cuban government towards its own people. now that impediment has been removed and we are seeing greater scrutiny applied toward the cuban government and tougher questions being raised about the way that the cuban government treats its own people. that's a helpful thing. and that added pressure will only be a good thing for the cuban people in the long run. >> i wanted to ask about the nuclear summit. there are some reports the turkish president request a meeting with president obama and that request was rejected. jeffrey goldberg in the atlantic describe the relationship between the president and the

turkish live as one of disappointment. i'm wondering if you could confirm that that request was made and then rejected, and its relationship has broken down between u.s. and turkey so that the leaders cannot even meet face-to-face. >> over the course of the last six months so the president has had the opportunity to appeal to meet in person with president or the one. you will recall when the president traveled to the g20 -- president erdogan. he had a meeting with president obama met with president erdogan face-to-face. just a week or so later when both leaders were in paris for the climate talks, president obama and president erdogan had an opportunity to sit down face-to-face. there have been a number of other telephone calls between the two leaders. you recall vice president biden just about four or six weeks ago was in turkey, met personally with president erdogan.

and the reason for all that is that turkey right now is going through a challenging time. that there have been terrorist incidents carried out on turkish soil and that is post a threat to national security of our nato ally. and the united states stand shoulder to shoulder with our nato ally. we also have important business to do with turkey would come to her daughter as a campaign and we've made important progress in ensuring that the trend and our coalition partners have greater access to military facilities inside of the turkey that allow for more efficient conduct of our counter isil campaign. we've also seen turkey in the last several months make important progress in securing their border with syria. this month we would like to see him do, but the fact is because of turkey's efforts to secure the border more effectively, we have seen the flow of foreign fighters be reduced.

and that has a positive impact on our ability to do great and totally destroy isil. so the point is there's a reason for all these conversations which is we've got a lot of important business with the turks to do. we've made important progress through that diplomacy. and i would anticipate that that diplomacy will continue when president erdogan visits the trick to attend a national security summit later this week. >> more on puerto rico. the house is working on a draft bill to deal with the financial crisis there. there some concerns from the puerto ricans about how the draft bill has been written. i wonder if the white house is engaged on this bill drafting process and whether or not you have any concerns -- [inaudible] about what republicans have come up with. >> the white house has been very engaged in this effort and we have been for a long time. it was through our engagement in

our joint work with democrats on capitol hill that speaker ryan made a commitment in the first quarter of 2016 that the house would act on legislation to address some of puerto rico's most serious needs. so those kinds of conversations continue and i think speaker ryan, i will that is office provide update on whether not to meet that deadline but i think his office has shown an understanding of how serious the challenges are facing puerto rico. when it comes to our proposed prescription for what we can do to offer our assistance, there are essentially four elements to the proposal. the first is providing puerto rico is a kind of orderly restructuring regime that will allow it to comprehensively address the financial viability. this is exactly the kind restructuring authority that's available to other common to every municipality all across the trinity we just want to

extend those kinds of authorities to the puerto rican government get we also believe that the puerto rican government should be subjected to independent fiscal oversight to certify that puerto rico actually adheres to the kinds of reforms they have committed to. we also believe that congress should address reforms of puerto rico's medicaid program. there's more that can be done that would provide better provide for the health needs of the people of puerto rico while also reducing the burden on the puerto rican government. and then file it would also believe that we should provide, that congress should provide puerto rico with access to the earned income tax credit. this is a proven tool that has bipartisan support that rewards work and actually supports economic growth. and i know in other contexts, speaker ryan has spoken warmly about the way that they eitc as a way of aligning incentives to both encourage people to be productive members of the labor

force while at the same time contributing to the economy. that's what our proposal is. you will notice that even in that long description of what we propose should be done that i never described a bailout for puerto rico. that's not something we support. but we do believe that there's a way for us to provide them with significant restructuring authority and oversight that would certify then following through on the reforms that would provide puerto rico with what it needs to get back on its feet. okay? go ahead. >> can i follow up on that? what about the outward migration? with any of those things you just mentioned last or have a lasting impact if you are by the tens of thousands losing people from the island to the mainland? >> a lot of these proposals would lay the groundwork for the puerto rican economy to recover. that ultimately is what is going to allow them to thrive. is we need to help them lay a foundation so that they can

build back up the strength of their economy. is the weakening economy that is coupled with a financial problems by the government have led to a very difficult situation in puerto rico. so by offering this restructuring authority to the puerto rican government we can allow the government and hopefully economy to get back on its feet. but ultimately will be good for the commonwealth of puerto rico speed to let ask you about cuba. it was asked by the president but he didn't enter it at the time, has there been an invitation extended for president castro to come here to the u.s.? >> not that i'm aware of the. >> is that something the president would be interested in? >> at this point i think a lot of the business that needed to get done was conducted on the price of his trip to cuba, but if we determine that there is a need for an additional this and that would serve a useful purpose, then it's something we'll consider but right now that's something i don't envision. >> let me also ask about this

will probably interesting are the folks in the art in state and law enforcement about the fugitive question that i asked about you briefly to the trigger on one with so many accused cop killers on the island in cuba, to that topic come up at all in a conversation between the president, if so when and what was said that is in the movement on rectifying the situation speak with the president had an opportunity in the course of his conversation typically the kind of work that is truly being done in law enforcement channels to try to coordinate the return of some of these fugitives is a priority of his. and he made at the highest levels of the cuban government, and we're going to continue to push for those kinds of issues to be resolved because they are a genuine. and in a relationship. >> just a couple more. special envoy lewis talking about gitmo detainees have been killed americans release.

that was last week. is there an official word from the administration is that true or not true? what can you tell us about the fact that there may be gitmo detainees out there harming america's? >> what i can tell it is that when president obama took office in 2000 the institute a tougher screening program to be committed to evaluate under what conditions certain individuals could be transferred from guantánamo bay to ivory coast courage -- to other countries. i can tell you none of the individual having gone to the process have been assessed to tear out acts of violence against american citizens. so that means no one who has been released from prison at guantánamo bay on president obama's watch has been implemented in violence against americans. that's what implementing those reforms are so critical to our overall success, eventually closing the prison and will continue to do two things. the first is continue to apply rigorous screening process to those remaining detainees at the

prison in guantánamo bay and that is also working with other countries to determine suitable locations with us and those can be transferred. but at the same time we will continue to push on congress to help encourage them, to urge them to remove the barriers that are preventing us am closing the prison. >> wasn't special envoy lewis gun was the wrong bus was referring to the previous administration? >> i think you should go ask them to. i think he may have been speaking to someone who was released prior to present upon taking office. >> last one on donald trump if you'll indulge me. i know you left out inconceivable among the descriptions. mr. trump used to describe this idea of encouraging the idea of having more soon refugees and others come your to escape problems in their homeland. i'm just wondering if you could understand the hesitance on the part of americans, some of them, many of them, feel like we have

enough issues here at home. we have joblessness here already. we did with crime and violence in folks here who need help. maybe we have to turn our focus inward. can you understand that? would be the president's response to people who feel that white? >> i think the response from the president would be focused squarely on the fact that protecting the state and security of the american people is the president's number one priority. that nothing exceeds that priority or a part of what keeps this country safe is the fact that continue to be viewed by the rest of the world as a beacon of freedom, that we don't do the things other countries do. we don't apply religious test to people seeking to enter the united states, for example. we don't marginalize specific minority committees particularly religious minorities and suggested that we would be safer if those communities were subject to additional control and surveillance. that's counterproductive to our

national steady but yet that's a we've seen be offered a suggestion by some republican candidate for president what the president has what the president has the for the sake specific plan with this agency good at american people american people foremost in his mind. that is ramping up our refugee program to bring more refugees to the united states but only after they've gone through the kind of intensive screening that makes refugees who enter the united states more thoroughly vetted, subject to more background checks and more screening and more information about them being collected and anybody else who tries to enter the country. that is consistent with our need to protect our values but most importantly to protect the united states. >> the process by which the san bernardino killers, for example, were subjected to. this is what people say to -- >> that's different. those individuals did not enter the united states as refugees. andrew. >> just want to go back to the

brothers involved or allegedly involved, are also thought to been involved in the surveillance of the leading nuclear scientist in belgium. i wanted to give any information about how close come how much closer they got to a corn fissile material other than shooting videos? and secondly, how does his feet into the nuclear security summit later this week that the agenda is changed? >> let me answer that a couple different ways. versus let me remind you the united states and belgium have a long history of cooperation on nuclear issues including nuclear security. both countries take those threats seriously and we're working together including on activities such as eliminating excess highly enriched uranium and plutonium and converting reactors do not highly enriched uranium fuel. we understand that the belgian government has decided to deploy

on site military quick response teams at nuclear plants and research centers while it determines what other actions may be necessary. obviously, ensuring the safety of those kinds of facilities can and should be a top priority to and again with other elements of the steps that belgium has taken to protect the country prepared to offer assistance if necessary and safeguarding belgians nuclear facilities. more generally what comes to nuclear security summit i would anticipate that, that issues related to nuclear material, safeguarding them is high on the agenda. i don't know that the specific threat is exactly -- let me say this would. this is something that is a top priority. to nuclear security summit i think is more focused on those nuclear materials are not under the same kind of careful watchful eye that they are in belgium. and if there are additional

steps the belgian state today, we want to make sure that other aspects of other countries nuclear programs are effectively safeguarded and secured. i should point out, i should hasten to add, that since they would be so many world leaders in washington, d.c. for the nuclear security summit, the president is planning to hold a meeting focused on isil, and focused on our coalition's efforts to degrade an old ugly destroy the terrorist organization. that is because our foremost concern is that isil is in grave danger of getting their hands on nuclear materials. to be focused on the broader threat but obviously the prospect of isaac an access to any sort of nuclear which it is something that must be avoided and that will certainly be part of the conversation. >> given that this is the last

such meeting of obama's presidency, how do you ensure that this continues beyond january next year? how can it not just fall by the wayside? >> i think, i should note that the incoming president would understand that safeguarding loose nuclear materials around the globe is a top national security priority of the united states. and president obama has made this a priority because, frankly, this is an issue he worked on prior to entering the white house as the president spent a decent amount of time working across the aisle with senator dick lugar of indiana on efforts around the globe to safeguard nuclear materials. so the president, this has been a priority since before he took office. that's why we created a venue like the national steady summit to get additional attention to this issue and make clear to the american people and governments around the world that this is a top priority of the united states. the next president will come in

with a mandate to make their own decisions about what elements of our national security to be prioritized and what's the best way to do that. we august he would welcome a future president convening additional nuclear security summit's, but given the important progress we've made over the last eight years on this issue, those kinds of some sweet different because of progress we've made. we will have more to talk about that later. >> i have a couple for you. in how many democratic primaries nationwide does the president endorse one democratic candidate over another? >> off the top of my head i don't know but we can surely take a look at it. >> how does he make that decision to? >> obviously the president has a political team here at the white house back and take a look at individual races in sort of assess what sort of impact the president's endorsement would have to obviously that includes careful consideration of the records and agenda put forth by

individual candidates. so obviously earlier today the president announced his endorsement of congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz in florida to choose somebody who has been a staunch ally, an advocate for the kinds of priorities president obama has put forward. we been pleased to offer support on important issues, including protecting the international agreement to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. she is somebody who has been a leader in advocating for strong relationship between the united states and israel. she understands the consequences are preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, not just because of the impact on u.s. national steady but the impact on national security of our allies in the middle east, israel. so having her support for a proposal like that for the international agreement obviously was important. that's why, such as one example of why the president felt it was important to announce his strong support for her reelection.

>> i couldn't think of another intra- democratic race when he weighed in. >> there's another one in florida. the president did endorse congressman murphy in the senate race but he's facing some competition and the democratic primary as well. i just think of the top of my head. there may be other examples but florida i guess is on both of our minds. >> and then on cuba, you've described latin america and happiness with the bark of the in the last seven years to the president ever ask a latin american leader to do something to do something to open something and been told no because of -- >> i think the issue, i don't know whether or not that's true. maybe it is, maybe it isn't. i think i mean it in a different way. i can tell you in every meeting the president had with a latin american leader in the first two years of his presidency that at some point in the discussion when they couldn't talk about and a port economic priority or import security priority related

to immigration or narcotics, that is somewhat the discussion was consumed by the nonsense the u.s. policy towards cuba. and that was getting in the way of the building of the united states to engage in the kinds of conversations that are helpful to our national security interest. in some cases that has opened up and created space for the president to have a conversation with other world leaders about the human rights situation in cuba which after all is the whole point of this exercise and was the point of that policy. that's why the president viewed it as a failed policy, that had negative consequences for our relationship with other countries like america that too often they were talking of the embargo and not about the serious human rights violations in cuba. >> what do you think the president's critics who are urged him to come home after the

belgian issue and he said he should have stayed for the baseball game and he should have stayed to tango in argentina? >> i think the president has the opportunity to confront this app the baseball game in cuba and that the news conference in buenos aires the next day. look, the goal of terrorists, particularly extremist like isis, is to carry out heinous acts of violence to try to be disruptive and to advance their agenda. and the fact is that as a country we are at our strongest when we are dictating the terms. when the president is the one who setting the agenda. and when the president sets the agenda, the item at the talk to the pockets of security and safety of the working people and that's what even on the trip the president had conversations with senior members of his national security team to make sure we are taken in assistance to protect the american people. the president was on the phone with his counterpart in belgium, to the conversation to talk

about it any u.s. assistance could be helpful to the belgians as they respond to this particular situation. at the same time the president was also able to undertake the critically important work that was part of his trip. and that meant seeking to normalize our relations with cuba and to make the kind of trip to argentina that could essentially transform the relationship between our two countries as a tremendous opportunity. oppressions trip sent a strong signal about the likelihood that this administration, in this country is going to take advantage of that opening. >> what was the president's involvement in the genocide decision, if any? >> this is a decision that was made by the secretary of state. obviously, the president agrees with it, but this was a decision made by the secretary of state, okay? john. >> thanks, josh. i didn't see if you answer this

question already so forgive me for asking. the conclusion of a joint press conference, joint statement between the president and cuban president raul castro, raul castro grabbed the president's arm, wish to raise and the president was reluctant to have his hand raised by the cuban president. can you explain a look at what happened there? i haven't seen an explanation. >> i do think that president castro think that president castro at him like a brother iconic photo with president obama and his arms raised together. i think president obama believed that would imply a whole lot more agreement on some priorities than actually exists. so the president was of course entirely comfortable appearing onstage with president castro. they had important conversations behind the scenes, but i also think their differences of opinion on some really important priorities was also pretty evident from that conference. and that's why the president resisted the idea of a

photograph like the one that president castro apparently envisioned. >> it was pretty quick thinking on the president's part. did he anticipate that they cuban president raul castro to something like that at the conclusion? >> i don't think that president castro has a standard protocol for the end of news conferences because i don't think they have news conferences as part of the standard protocol. so i don't know that anybody was expecting him to do that, but i think the president did observe that for an 84 euros, president castro still have some pretty quick reflexes. >> on that same subject, did you see any potential non-do with the fact that castro seem to be very uncountable answering questions given that this was broadcast on cuban tv? >> well, the observations that i could make is that obviously

president castro is not used to pressing questions, particularly when it comes to questions about human rights. and the fact is president castro would not have been subjected to this question that president obama decided not to come to cuba he would not have been subjected to the question at present, not insisted on the two leaders actually taking questions from reporters at the conclusion of the meetings. so this is a real-world tangible example of how the president's consistent and persuasive advocacy were things like the freedom of the press, actually bears fruit and a real tangible way. the president is out of the record anything that will be an important part of his legacy. >> was there anything calculated in trying to show that there's a lack of freedom from the press by having them answer questions? >> i don't think there's anything calculated about it. obviously the journals were given opportunities to ask questions were able to ask whatever questions they wanted to. they are server of the pertinent questions to clinton as the

think it's understandable that journalists would travel to did with an american present for the first time in 90 years might have some pretty direct questions don't ask the cuban leader about the human rights condition in his country. reporters could ask whatever he wanted but it wasn't at all surprised as they gravitated towards questions about the human rights condition in the country, and again i think this is a testament to the kind of advocacy that the president has regularly engaged in as his travel around the world and that hasn't been true just when his travel to cuba. that's been true in his travel to other countries, that don't have the kind of commitment to human rights that we see in this country. >> can you give may be a preview of what the president is likely to do at the drug summit tomorrow speak what we will have more information about that before the end of today but we will certainly all up, okay? >> at a briefing last friday chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general joe dunford

revealed that he and secretary ash carter were putting together proposals to increase the number of u.s. military on the ground in iraq. and i was just curious, are they putting it together as a result of any request of either the nsc or the president? >> the way the president has managed this policymaking process is one that has been focus on results. and what he's asked his team to put together are a variety of tactics that would be a part of our overarching strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy the iceberg there've been a range in fall. this example i could give it is sort of focusing on isil's financing and looking for ways to destroy the facility's where they store cash come to take out the latest other financing operations and in the context of that news conference that you mentioned in the department of defense did announce that they've taken action against the

so-called finance minister of isil. that's one indication that those tactics are actually bearing some fruit. the point is the prejudice direction to his team has been when we since there are some tactics like this that are shown some progress, then come back to me with suggestions about how we can reinforce that element of our strategy. so that is what has led to the focus on isil's financing. that's also why the president has approved a greater commitment of manpower to these expeditionary targeting forces that can be used to carry out raids against leading isil figures. that is always something we've been doing over the last several months, but that was in response to the president's request for how the comparative advantage of usability has come particularly

expertise that comes to carry out these rates can be used to advance our campaigns. i don't know exactly what secretary carter and general dunford have in mind when they made that specific comment, but surely the president is eager to suggestions from his military leaders about the way that we could reinforce those elements of our strategy that have shown progress. and if that means a commitment of greater resources including additional personnel to that effort, then the president will give it careful consideration. consideration. >> and over the weekend that syrian military forces were successful in driving isis fighters out of palmyra, the ancient city in syria are actually take this city. is somewhat of a mixed bag? it's a victory against isis. doesn't get further entrench the

syrian military operations who, by the way, were successful with the help of russian airstrikes and iranian shia militias. so doesn't that in effect only cement bashar al-assad hold on syria? >> what it does remind us is will never forget what isil did to palmyra. this was a city that reflected sort of our common human heritage. and that those committee of those cultural sites were destroyed by isil. .. but what is also true is over

but firm the army under the shower -- al assad remained political solution to the conflict. as long as al assad is around and in charge of the country and in control of the military, we are not going to be able to resolve the political chaos inside of syria and that's why the united states has made this political transition of priority and we are pleased to have the support of the russians who also made that a priority but there's a lot of other important work to be done to bring about this political transition because that is the only way to address the root causes of the problems that are essentially in the chaos of syria. >> so the defeat of isis as a victory? >> we are pleased to see that isil has been driven out but as

long as al assad is in charge of the military there will not be peace in sight of syria and that's why we need to bring back the political transition in sight of syria because all the problems we see, terrorism, genocide, the millions of people fleeing their homes including two other places in the region and around the world, all of those problems at the root of them is the failed leadership of al assad and that's how we need to see the democratic transition in sight of syria. >> [inaudible] >> i've been up here since it occurred. i noticed the distraction between -- >> [inaudible] >> i am not able to comment on what's been going on. scott? >> [inaudible] >> the president is looking forward to the opportunity that he will have to speak at a dinner that is honoring the

memory. rabin was obviously somebody come a political journalist who understood how important political journalism is in the united states. she throughout her career placed a premium on understanding the issues and helping her readers understand what impact they would have on the country and on the world and that ultimately made the citizens of the united states better voters and better at making decisions about the future of our country. and the president wants to use this opportunity to pay tribute to robin and her career and life, but he also wants to use this as an opportunity as her family has done to rebar and recognize -- reward and recognize those that are committed to the same principles

and it will be an honor for the president to speak to the dinner and an opportunity for him to highlight the role political journalism has and the success of our democracy. but he will say more eloquently than i did and we will see you if we can get some excerpts. >> you talk about the polarization -- [inaudible] >> you are more likely to hear why political journalism is important for people to remember facts and evaluate on a fact basis, on a factual basis the statements and claims that are made by candidates for president and frankly on the ballot. this isn't something that is exclusive just for the office of the presidency and i think you will hear the president also observed that when you are in a position of power, having your assumptions challenged is

sometimes uncomfortable but it's necessary for the success of our country and the president would acknowledge it has made him a better president. >> as far as the primaries this weekend, are you concerned that we are going to turn ahead -- >> there might be some that say that we have already obtained the status. >> we've had an opportunity to answer those kind of questions after the new hampshire primary and after the michigan primary. and now here after the results in alaska, hawaii with my assessment hasn't changed.

i believe and the president continues to believe that in 2008 where we saw a similar dynamic ultimately made the individual candidates and democratic party as a whole stronger and i used this example before so i will repeat it again. in 2008, there was a primary in may in indiana, a place that isn't used to having the contests to attract a whole lot of attention but in 2008 they did. this is a state where democratic candidates at the presidential level haven't been particularly competitive but it did give a strong campaign across the state. the president did numerous events campaigning at trying to win over the support of democratic voters in indiana that but gave the voters in both parties the opportunity to see what he had to offer. the other thing he did his gave an incentive to the democratic party to invest in the kind of

grass-roots operations that are critical to turning out voters in indiana. low and behold six months later democrat barack obama won indiana so that is the best illustration i can give you of how these kinds of primary contests if they go on longer than expected, that can still has a positive benefit for the candidate and the party as a whole. it remains to be seen whether or not that will be true in 2016 and i don't know if we will be able to reach that kind of conclusion in the general election. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know a single republican who would say what is happening right now is good for their party. maybe you can name one but i can't.

[inaudible] because socialism, capitalism. i want to ask about that a little bit. we heard something a little bit more. >> the president have just the day before posted in entrepreneurship summit on a communist country. i think it is a clear indication of where the president comes down. the president is making a concerted effort to reach out to entrepreneurs because he understands that capitalism is a system that brings freedom better than any other one. i think what he is observing is the degree to which the government regulates the economy in a variety of countries and

you've covered these. you understand there that is a pretty vigorous debate about the degree to which the government should be regulating the economy. but nobody questions the fact that our economic and political and social strength benefit significantly from a robust capitalist economic system and the president certainly believe that making sure other countries understand how the united states benefited from this kind of system is an important part and that's why the president on a very busy trip where he had back-to-back back to back to back carved out of time in cuba to have a conversation with young entrepreneurs to encourage them to pursue their visions of an entrepreneurship society.

>> [inaudible] >> the united states isn't going to impose a system system on some other country that ultimately the citizens of the countries need to determine the path that works the best for them. the president was also clear that he believes that they would find that the path that is characterized by capitalism is the one that is most likely to lead to a prosperous and free country. >> [inaudible] >> we will have more details about the schedule at the national of the national security summit at the nuclear summit later this week so stay tuned and we'll have an update soon.

[inaudible] if he wins the gop nomination does the president agree president agree with that assessment? >> i think vice president joe biden is giving a voice to something others regularly urged democrats which is we shouldn't take this lightly. even if he is the republican nominee, the democrats are going to need to mount a serious campaign to ensure that he's not elected the next next president of next president of the united states and that's why you can expect both the president and vice president will be active making a case for the democratic nominee whether that is secretary clinton or senator sanders.

>> [inaudible] is it fair to assume that al qaeda is no longer a threat to the world about isis is now? >> we are concerned about the threat that continues to emanate from al qaeda. what's different now is that it previously operated with some impunity in the afghanistan pakistan region. it has been decimated because of the actions taken by the united states military in that region of the world. but there are other affiliates of al qaeda that remain dangerous, and this didn't get a lot of attention last week but i thought i'd point out last week the united states conducted an airstrike against an aqap target but took dozens of fighters off the battlefield. that is an indication that for all of the chaos inside of yemen and in spite of the region that is being perpetuated by isil

that this administration hasn't taken our eye off the ball and i think the fact that the president ordered the strike and that was a strike carried out by the military is an indication that it's a threat we continue to take seriously. >> [inaudible] >> the fact that what the white house believed [inaudible] >> obviously there is a serious extremism and problem the pakistan government understands that and the united states has been supportive and encouraging of the government as they consider the steps necessary to combat the threat. this attack that we saw over the weekend is grotesque and

chilling but unfortunately it's not the only effort that we've seen on the part of extremists in a large-scale way to carry out and atrocity against a large group of innocent people including children. it's just a year and a half or so ago that we saw extremists inside of pakistan attacked the school and we saw a think more than 100 kids were killed in that attack so that an indication that there continues to be a serious problem and the united states will continue to support the pakistani government as they try to confront and combat that extremist element in their own country. >> [inaudible] >> we will have more details for later in the week this week. thanks a lot, everybody. [inaudible] >> we will follow-up with you.

>> [inaudible conversations] an update from capitol hill after reports that shots had been fired at the u.s. capitol visitors center and the police have been telling people in and near the area to continue to shelter in place. that notice is still in effect although others are reporting from the capitol sergeant at arms that a shooter has been caught and that one police officer was shot but not

seriously. the easter egg will that's been going on this morning at the white house attracting 35,000 visitors, but also the folks at the white house on the grounds are also being asked to stay in shelter. a picture here of the singer being escorted off the ground. he was supposed to be performing at the capitol at the white house easter egg roll. and again, people in the area at the capitol and the white house should remain sheltered in place, congress and the white house reportedly on lockdown following reports of the shots and the washington examiner saying that many reporters on the scene described an active shooter situation. police e-mailed all capitol buildings with a notice no one will be allowed to enter or exit any buildings though you may move about within the buildings and underground between the buildings. we will bring any updates we get on the c-span networks as they

become available. again,, be part of a shooter captured and possibly one police officer shot but not seriously at the u.s. capitol visitors center. the police telling people to continue to shelter in place. we will let you know also this afternoon over on the companion network c-span we will have live coverage at 5:30 p.m. eastern. former white house domestic advisor will talk about private philanthropy and its role in keeping u.s. communities healthy and the economy growing lives when the american enterprise institute here in dc 5:30 people we will have that on c-span. >> our 12 part series explores life stories and constitutional drama behind some of the most significant decisions in

history. john marshall in marbury versus madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document and sets up the political structure but it's also the law and if it's the law we have the courts to tell what it means and that is finding other branches. >> it's the ultimate anti-presidential case. it's exactly what you don't want to do. who should make the decisions about those debates and the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those debates. tonight we look at the case that established the constitution as the law of the united states and affirming the cover of the judicial review. mulberry versus madison tonight at ten eastern on c-span and c-span.org. this week on our program the communicators, we focus on encryption, privacy and surveillance. here's a look. >> the chairman of the house

judiciary committee is our guest this week on the communicators. hearings have been held on the encryption fbi apple issue. what's next? >> those earrings were helpful at educating members of the committee and other members of congress and the general public about the importance of this issue. interestingly we had already scheduled the issue before the apple fbi controversy broke out into the public's attention, and we were i think pleased with the presentations made by all the witnesses at the hearing. but i think the number one thing that comes across is that encryption is a good thing and important thing and we've got to find our way through this not by weakening the encryption but continuing the efforts to strengthen it. you only need to look at the problems that we've had with the

foreign government and criminal enterprise stealing millions of documents from government agencies and millions of credit card records from retail establishments and financial establishments to know that we need to be moving towards stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself so that's got to be the foundation that we look at this. having said that, it's also important to recognize the problems that this ever increasing use of end-to-end encryption cause is for law and force it as they attempt to solve crimes, prevent crimes and to keep us safe. so, we are going to continue to work in a direction and as the production and as we do so, we will recognize this is not an issue of safety versus privacy as some people have tried to characterize but it's a matter

of safety versus safety and privacy because encryption is a tool used to keep people safe come information about them safe, keep their property safe, and therefore it needs to be a critical part of how we move forward. the judiciary committee has long played a role dealing with these issues from both a technology standpoint and a law enforcement standpoint and we will continue to do that. the energy and commerce committee also has an interest in this so we are going to work in a collaborative effort between the two committees and in a very bipartisan fashion to continue to develop the record and look for solutions that will help make sure law enforcement has ways to gather information to keep people safe. part of that is going to be the law enforcement having to find new ways to approach gathering

information and utilizing more traditional ways of gathering information because i do think that over the last few decades the reliance upon electronic information gathering has probably grown too great and the reaction has been an awareness on the part of the public that unlike 20 or 30 years ago the most valuable information is now on these devices and in the cloud if you will whereas back a generation ago, they were in safe deposit boxes, file cabinets may be just in maybe just in your desk drawers at home so the public is aware of the fact that these are important things to protect and that's going to continue and we shouldn't discourage that. if you simply allow the law enforcement under any

circumstance to have a backdoor into everyone's computer, it can be entered by all those other bad actors as well as by law enforcement and that's the number one concern we have to address. >> are you seeing a growing consensus for legislation? spinet i think think there's growing interest for legislation but i don't think that yet it is at all clear what that legislation would be so it's important for us to work on this and to work on it thoroughly and expeditiously but also with the recognition that we shouldn't jump at the first possible alternative. and the congress itself should work on this and the important committees of jurisdiction should work on this and i don't believe that we should turn it over to an outside commission as it has been proposed by some. this is our responsibility. we have the expertise, we have the access to the advice from the outside but we need to get

both public hearings and classified briefings and i think that we ought to proceed. >> (-left-paren politico into the conversation. she covers technology for the publication. >> you announced you were going to market the e-mail privacy act to require law enforcement to get e-mails and during the hearing on the issue you expressed some concerns that the bill as written could hinder the ability to get information that the need for investigations. are you planning to try to change the bill at all that goes through the committee clacks >> there've been a number of concerns expressed about the language in the bill. so, let me start by saying that the core concept of the bill i have always strongly supported and that is you should have to get a warrant in order to get information from a third party that may be holding information like we spoke about that belongs

to somebody else. now, the bill in its current form will make that difficult if not impossible for agencies that do not have criminal warrant authorities. the fbi into the dea in organizations like that have no problem because they are in power to conduct criminal investigations but if you are a simple agency single agency that still conducts investigations like the securities and exchange commission, then you have a problem that we have had a lot of discussions with a with a lot of people about alternative ways to handle it but that is only one of a number of other issues issues in the bill which was not written by the judiciary committee or even any member of the judiciary committee and therefore those discussions are going on now both among the committee members and with others to find ways to fix a number of concerns and the bill without changing the concept of

the bill which i support and that is the old method of requiring that you get one standard of the e-mail and another standard for different age. we think that is by the board and we think that a warrant should be required anytime you want to get information from a third party but there's a lot of fixes that we think are necessary and that's why we would be holding the markup and having a good discussion about how to do that work even whether to do that. >> do you think you were growing consensus in the lead up to the market? >> there are members on both sides acknowledge the need to be some changes, but which changes and under what language is yet to be determined. >> i wanted to shift a little bit to the online sales tax which is something we've been debating for a long time. the senate teen up the bill when they passed the customs bill that included your permanent

moratorium on taxing internet access and for a long time that obviously has been tied up in the senate. it's sort of passed to the customs bill and the senate committed to debating the act. you've obviously proposed different ways to tackle this issue. so i'm kind of curious now that there's a pressure in the senate if you plan on taking out their bill or if you are still pushing their bill or if there is a third party like representatives bill that you are looking at? >> we will not be taking up the senate bill. we are interested in working with any senators that wish to help us address this issue but this is an issue where we think that it should be addressed those both from the standpoint of the state meeting and being entitled to the revenue that comes from online sales but also the standpoint of fairness among

the different retailers, brick and mortar always have a physical presence with whatever state they are doing business in they may have to collect a sales tax if the customer goes out of the state online to a business elsewhere they may or may not have to collect a sales tax if they have a nexus with my state of virginia or whatever state the state was taking place so we think it should be addressed and we set forth quite a long time ago several principles that are available on the website that we think any legislation should have to meet and we don't feel the senate legislation which this isn't new. they've been working on this and they passed the bill in the last congress and on a number of occasions there've been attempts to try to tie that to other legislations that have been unsuccessful. we would like to work with anyone who is concerned about making sure that we don't set a

precedent for allowing states to reach out and regulate businesses outside of their jurisdiction and that's what we feel the senate bill does is it requires businesses to comply with all of the rules and states and all five subdivisions of the state's that may have different ad on taxes in different localities. there is a simpler way to do this but more important than that, we believe there is a way to do this without having any state giving the authority to regulate outside of their jurisdictions. we looked closely at the trend we are seeing with a number of states attempting to expand regulatory and taxing powers by shifting from what the supreme court set forth in a long series of cases including the decision based on the physical nexus they would like to move to what is called the economic access so if

you have any kind of economic activity that might have an impact on a particular state they would say i'm going to regulate your best us they shouldn't have the right to do that because those business are not represented in the state legislature they are represented in their own state legislature so we put forward a plan for how to do it in an alternative way. it's got good reviews from technology companies and online businesses and tax payer organizations and conservative groups, but we are still very open to having discussions with the state to work this out. i felt when the issue first started coming up within two decades ago that the states would work together and form a compact where they would find a way to share the revenue without having the congress have to give authority to regulate outside of their jurisdiction and they come to the congress and we simply have to vote 20 to 25 states

that have engaged in the discussions but a lot of them including the big key states have not so that's why this has come back to the congress with you fix it for us but in a way that we like. i think we should fix it but in a way that protects the american taxpayer and consumer and/or economic system that's built upon having businesses easily do business across the boundaries without being regulated by a multitude of different states. you see this not just in the sales tax issue but california right now is regulating the production of eggs by telling nevada and utah and any state that wants to ship into california if you want to sell in our state you have to raise the chickens and the bags tags in a way that meets our regulations. all 50 states decide to get into that and have conflicting regulations oe