targeting mothers and children who have left everything behind to risk deportation. : no criminal record yet not our present by council. the next president should use her clear statutory authority to bring temporary protected status to recent arrivals from the northern triangle.

temporary protected status, tbs will protect children and adults from being returned to dangerous conditions and even life-threatening situations. how can we ask our allies in the middle east and europe to keep their borders open to serious refugees if we return desperate children and parents at our own borders back to lawlessness in lethal violence? action from the next administration guaranteeing refugees from the northern triangle refuge from harm and fair representation in court will show the world that we are who we say we are, a generous and decent nation, a nation of immigrants. taking these three actions may not send the president's next president's poll numbers soaring, not at first anyway. history shows us americans are often slow to come to this issue. there's historic tale of the ss st. louis, a ship which sailed in 1939, a german ocean liner

that left nazi germany with 908 jewish refugees aboard. the st. louis was turned away at cuba, canada and the united states. the refugees were returned to europe. it's estimated a fourth of them died in death camps during world war ii. america learned something from the bitter experience of world war ii. and after that war, our attitude toward asylum and refugees started to change. but not without some public resistance. in 1958, 58% of americans imposed -- opposed taking in refugees. in 1979, 62% of americans opposed a plan to take in refugees from vietnam and indochina. look what's happened despite the initial opposition. we have absorbed over half a million cubans who came to us after the castro regime came to power. they were coming from a communist nation and yet we accept them and made them a

vital part of america. with accepted we believe somewhere in the range of 300,000 soviet jews who came to the united states from the soviet union which was our bitter enemy in the cold war, rocky or so they would have a safe place to live in practice the religion. we took in 1.9 million vietnamese americans in our country, many of the refugees are children of refugees. they have a higher per capita income than the national average, and lower unemployment. today's immigrants and refugees have the same potential to strengthen our economy and enrich our culture where ever they come from. for those who submit to build walls because immigrants are criminals, get your facts straight. study after study shows immigrants are more law-abiding than nativeborn americans. let's be clear, refugees are the most carefully vetted of all the travelers to the united states. before refugees are admitted to our country, they must pass careful rakers security screening taken last 18-24

months while the language any times in refugee camps. all of that takes place while they are still overseas, before they set foot in america. serious refugees are subject to another test beyond that called enhanced review. of the thousands of serious refugees admitted to the united states since september 11, not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism related grounds. not one. of the 800,000 refugees admitted into the united states, since 9/11, not one has engaged in domestic terrorism. not one. if it's terrorist threats we're worried about, let's be honest. let's focus on real threats and vulnerabilities. let's take a look at our visa waiver program. 20 million people from 38 nation's traveled to america every year without visas. that's the third of all the visitors to the united states. they arrive at our airports without undergoing fingerprint

scans or other biometric checks. dr. rice masala, the so-called 20th hijacker and 9/11 co-conspirator tried to enter the u.s. to the visa waiver program. so did richard reid, the shoe bomber. every participant of a terrorist attack last year in paris held a passport that was eligible for the visa waiver program. if we are concerned about protecting america from terrorists, we should be strengthening the visa waiver program and requiring biometric checks of travelers before they reach this country i don't know if you are in a global entry program, i am, it's a good deal in judaism international travel. when you arrive at airpor the at what did ask you for put your passport and your fingerprints. not too much to ask and it's pretty quick. we could be doing the same thing when it comes to the visa waiver program. we could expect of us are biometric checks before they come to the u.s. on visa waiver they will ask the same of us.

it is not a major inconvenience and doesn't slow us down at all but it adds a level of security. instead of picking on the refugees have a solid record of having been vetted and need our help in finding peaceful place to live, let's really make security stronger when it comes to travel by taking a look at this program in a reasonable way. if we're serious about protecting americans congress should also close the loophole that lets those who enter the u.s. through the visa waiver program by guns and even assault weapons and even if they're on the fbi's terrorist watch list. what are we thinking? i support the second amendment but i agree with abraham lincoln, being from illinois you might expect that, and justice robert jackson, the constitution is not a suicide pact. we must address the root causes of the current global refugee crisis. economic inequality, conflict, war and climate change. let me close with a little story. we went to georgetown school of foreign service at a professor in my first year. it was in the covert department

taught a course called modern foreign governments. is name -- i rewrote the class because he showed up every day in a suit, a clean white shirt, tie, sat there, ran raj to a lecture to us about governments around the world, particularly in your. that was 1963. now i am dating myself. my first year at georgetown school of foreign service, the height of the cold war. i knew he had been a polish army officer during world war ii but i did know the rest of the store and i didn't learn until much later. he'd been a member of the polish underground during the war. he told us that. but he didn't his assignment. we didn't know that they had sneaked into a warsaw ghetto so that he could see it firsthand as jews were being harassed and violated in killed. and they stuck them into a nazi death camp in poland as well so

hyou could see it firsthand. why? because they want him to come to the united states and to tell the story. he had been a career for the polish underground. he was assigned to carry messages from not be occupied poland to the polish government in exile in london and openly to the united states. he saw it and received a meeting with president roosevelt, justice frankfurter and told them what he saw. for many years he couldn't bear to speak about his role and what, how is one to fall on deaf ears. there's a court quote from the professor i think about. it echoes the words of men and women of great faith and moral courage to the ages. he said and i quote, self-imposed ignorance or insensitivity, self-interest or hypocrisy or heartless rationalization when others are suffering is a sin. i believe americans are good and decent people. although the ugliness of this presidential campaign might lead you to think otherwise, we are

more prepared to accept real comprehensive immigration reform now than we were since 9/11. i hope our new president would use her authority to help. i hope a republican congress and senators for political reasons or for the right reasons and maybe sometimes both, will join us in a bipartisan effort to get it done. i'm ready to try to. with that let me stop and answer a few questions. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator. i'm sure there will be some questions. i know you're just a minute or two, so let's look for one or two questions. >> i always got nervous when i was called on a georgetown law. >> i'm a congressional reporter for the hispanic outlook wanted to ask about the dreamers. does that also include the

children of temporary visa holders, or is it only for the children who are here illegally? >> may be an of and to do that, doris. i don't know. job, where are you? >> you are asking about -- >> the dreamers. >> in your dream legislation. >> does it include children also who are here under temporary visas come from a graduate as valedictorian's but they don't get a pathway to citizenship. >> many of them are undocumented because their visa expired. the visitor visa, the student visa spent so it's only for people here illegally speak was yes. >> what kind of universities and institutions do children part of the dreamers program -- >> i'm sorry, what? >> the children of part of the dreamers program, what kind of

universities and institutions are they having opportunity to attend? >> a lot. and many of these universities don't publicize it. let me give you an example. the stretch collison of medicine -- college of medicine, university of chicago. allowed dreamers to compete for admission to medical school. for many of them this is the first opening ever for them to compete. 20 of them are now dreamers, are now in the medical school. they don't get any help from the government being undocumented, but they have a program if they will pledge a year of service to element after to graduate from medical school, they will forgive the expenses for a year and eventually for their entire education. i've called other universities in my state. i'm going to hold back from naming names to ask them to give a chance for dreamers to enter law school, and they have done it. so i think there is a moot in a

large part of higher education that they want to be cooperative and helpful. [inaudible] >> this is when the question comes in the i'm 17, a freshman in college and in the fall i was accepted into new york university, but i cannot afford to go there. told my parents, police officers in new york police department new york police department. my mothers go back to work so she can afford to put me now through public college, a very nominal tuition compared to some of places i was accepted into. when we were talking on the panels before about what immigration has become such a hot topic in this election and why donald trump's rhetoric is resonate with so many americans, for me it's not a question. i mean, i grew up in a very middle-class neighborhood where we were not poor enough to get full tuition to the universities we were accepted into, but we were by no means rich enough to

be able to afford them on our own. so when we were wondering why there is such xenophobic tendencies running throughout our nation, for me i'm not some who supports donald trump, not saying that i agree with this policy what to overcome but it's not a question for me because is one of the other panelists listening as well how in middle america bears this view that immigrants are coming into our nation and taking our jobs. the i did not to get in response to that. >> thank you for what you said. because i really think you put the finger on it, based on your them and life experience. the uncertainty about their future where you're going to be going to school. at country her parents are sharing it with you because they want you to succeed. and to listen to politicians. they might listen to my speeches and waited met, what about my daughter? she's here illegally. why wouldn't she get the first chance?

i don't think it is a matter of choice between fairness to the dreamers and fairness to you as well. we have really lost our site as a nation if we reach that point. a number of people we're talking about is relatively small percentage wise in terms of the impact on higher education. i think there are especially motivated people who will be successful in school and life. i have a larger view things, much like your own, in that students like you, mom and dad both members of the police force have every right to a good education in this country. i don't think there should be any obstacles, and there are. cost is the first one, if you're admitted into just mentioned new york university and the challenge he faced. it's shortsighted of us as a nation to think that this is a static pool of opportunity. it's an expanding pool and should be to include you as well as those who were willing to pay the sacrifice. i might add those who are dreamers going to school get no government assistance.

they really have to do it on their own, and it's very difficult and challenging. >> i have to actually stop you so that, because we need to let you go and if you'd like to talk about it further on the site what it is a. but what of like to do is allow the two people behind you to quickly state their point or the question, quickly, and then if you have a moment and want to respond. >> but thank you for your comments. >> i'm a business owner from the state of ohio. i own a christian early learning center for the last 11 years. i served about 43 immigrant families from rwanda, the congo and beyond. and my program is in the process of, they are trying to close it down. and i am going to hearing in the next four days to fight, of course, but i know that i, therefore, reason. i wanted to see if there's any feedback that you could give me in terms of, because the

population i served being so large with the immigration community, and what come if there's anything you might suggest that i could utilize as the resource so when i go into this hearing can approach it from this perspective. because i served the whole community, but my largest portion is immigrants. >> do you think most of immigrant families are undocumented speakers know. to actually come to catholic social service. i'm partners within in my state and we are the primary for my community, they, too might early learning center before they moved outward for early learning care. >> so if the choice i would say, if i were in your shoes, if the choice if you take someone who is legal in america and can work but needs a safe day care for their children during the day, if the choice of whether they should work or stay home, we want them to work, right?

and another country and to pay taxes and to be part of it and making sure they get to a safe place to stay, should be part of the equation. that images makes eminent sense. okay? good luck. thanks for what you were doing. >> take you so much for being here and all your work on behalf of immigration reform. do you have any suggestions for us advocates who want immigration reform to work with people who on the other side and help convince them, especially your colleagues in congress, what would our best arguments be and how can we best address the blockages as constituents compressed people who care? >> it was someone named jack valenti. jack valenti was around washington for a long time and he worked for president lyndon baines johnson and eventually became a lobbyist for the motion picture association. he was a pretty big deal and a very interesting guy. and he used to say every speech should include six words, six

words. let me tell you a story. okay? and the reason that he said that was the people i speeches but they like stories, okay? and what i found when i was arguing for the affordable care act against tea party folkestone into my office industry with television cameras going, i would just say what about social up in lincoln illinois 30 miles away quick do you know what happened to her? they finally reached a .10 minutes into this what they said stop telling stories. we don't want to hear any more stories. i tell stories about dreamers. i go to the floor and tell stories about dreamers. kay bailey hutchison, a very conservative texas republicans and said i want to talk about how we will pass the dream it. you are not even voting for it. i could vote for it. so we went through all the different things that were on her mind and her staffer, she returned to once in a while and

say what that take care of maria? she had met a dreamer who made an impression on the point i'm making to you, this issue as much if not more than any other issue is a very personal issue. an issue of stories. i tell them on the senate floor you need to tell them to people as well. why do you think we have marriage equality in this country? because more and more young people got to know people who are lesbian, gay, transgender and others and said why do we want to deny them this opportunity? this exposure to real life people, real life stories can even the hardest parts around. and i think ultimately that is the best weapon we have. and thank goodness these dreamers have such spectacular stories to tell. thanks, georgetown. [applause]

>> all right. thank you all. it's lunchtime. we are a little short for lunch so let's return as soon as possible and be back here at 1:30. is 1:30 -- 1:40. okay, 140 1:40. [inaudible conversations] >> this was discussions on immigration policy will be available later today on our website c-span.org. livlive coverage of the conference's afternoon sessions will move over to c-span3. starting at 1:40 p.m. with discussions about immigration and the republican party, and refugee resettlement in the u.s.

both the house and senate are back this week and here's a preview of what they will be taking up. brea >> host: on the phone to give us of what's expected this week, susan ferrechio up "washington examiner," chief congressional correspondent. good morning. morning >> caller: good to be on. >> host: with three weeks or a so left before the next breakk what are the major issues that congress has to type of us witht the issue of spending andn keeping the government from closing on september 30 transfer that scheppach september 30 is the final day of the fiscal year. they need to pass something by then to keep the governmenta functioning, federal government. there's a plan in the works right now beginning on the senate side of congress we have the majority leader mitch mcconnell working with the minority leader, democrat harry reid, and the white house. they are trying to come up with a plan that would keep the government open for a very short time until december 9. that legislation would include

funding for the federal government to help abate mosquito's and come up with a vaccine for the zika virus which is spread some in the southeastern portion of the united states.os that du is reportedly, supposedly in the works and the leaders, including house leaders would meet at the white house today to talk about the september agenda with the president. of course, that will be probably the number one issue that they focus on today. >> host: one of the discussions about the issue is the length, whether doing it now before i knew president has put in place were doing after the president comes into place. has that been resolved especially amongst republicans and democrats? >> caller: so right now they're working on a short-term bill that holds funding o at lat year's level the last until december 9. ll when they becom we could have elections have what they call a lame-duck session.

that usually takes place begin in november of last until the end of the year or less time than that. there's a debate over how they should fund the government beyond that december 98, and so there's a lot of republicans that don't want will be called a big hamas is built the packagesc everything together. they are talking about maybe doing smaller groups of combined legislation, instead calling it on the bus, you would call that a minibus that could fund the government through 2017 fiscal year. if they can get all of it done there may be a few pieces that they do need for the next a congress, and the next president. i think that's where they'rethe headed.ic there are some conservative republicans in the house who don't want a short-term bill that will require lame-duck action. they don't think lawmakers who come back after an election are accountable to the voters. they don't think they should be they w

working on a spending bill so they want to pass something that lasts into next year.. matters not if support for that. it's not going anywhere. i think what we're looking at right now is legislation that passes pretty much in a bipartisan fashion. it will probably exclude the support of a lot of the morevatd conservative spending talks over in the house who really want tot rein in what they consider ballooning or increased spending everybody. i think that's where they're headed. d we don't know the details of the deal at this moment but i'm told it's moving right along at that they're going to have a deal, and it will, from the senate first, potentially, and that may give the house a little nudge to get it done quickly. >> host: also coming under the spotlight possibly this week is the irs commissioner. what's the latest on that?

>> caller: we had the same group of republicans, the conservatives osha's talking about in the house. they were probably bring up a resolution this week because t t they would like the house to vote on in teaching john koskinen, the irs commissioner.o the republican leaders in thet house don't really want to do that.. they are more interested in maybe a sensor at the very extreme. that's what they think as far as they want to go with it. so if it does come to the floor, they will have the option of over the table it. they could also just vote on whether to impeach him right there or they could vote to send it to the judiciary committee. those are among the possibilities. i don't think the leadership really loves the idea of impeachment of john koskinen. it's a pretty rare thing. hasn't happened with a cabinetce member or a higher administration official since mid to late 1800s. i'm just not seeing the desire

among republicans is that they know it's coming because it's under discussion. there's a big divide in the conference whether it should happen. i suspect they may get a table it or send it to committee. >> host: before will let you go, real quick, susan ferrechio a story you posted today on the "washington examiner" website. if you could give a flavor what's it about. on either the headline. republicans zeroed in on obamacare, goes down call backer it's interesting. this past week there was a scare in arizona where they were facing the prospect of not having any health insurers listed on the affordable care act federal insurance exchanges. because of the law is having difficulty keeping his health insurance companies and the it's been all the news. big insurance companies are backing out because they tend to be losing money because they are not signing up enough young and healthy people to offset older and sicker individuals.

the ground zero for this, blue cross blue shield was aboutue insurance company. they said that they were not coming back in 2017. that left him with nobody. so the last minute they were talking -- talked into staying. they are sort of at the forefront here what the fear is for many counties in america. millions of people only have one choice of an insurance company. it's just the overarching problem with the lot outside of the big medicaid expansion, the people have to sign up for it and buy insurance with or without subsidies have had limited choice and higher premiums and deductibles. so it's a real struggle, republicans are zooming in on to repeuers gaza after all know, there are years long effort to repeal and replace the bill in congress which, of course, the democrats did not agree with. >> host: susan ferrechio with "washington examiner," chief the "washington examiner," chief congressional correspondent

kelly us and give us a flavor of what's expected this week by congress. thanks for your time callback thank you very much, pedro. spent more on the senate from the hills. the democratic party of wisconsin once the senate ethics committee to investigate $10 million in compensation that wisconsin focus under ron johnson received from his former company. the party is sending a letter monday to committee had senator johnny isakson and barbara boxer. requesting that the committee look into whether the payment violated federal election law. the committee should immediately investigate the apparent violations, specifically the committee should demand that senator johnson disclosed the deferred compensation agreement. senator johnson must be held accountable or his $10 million corporate payout. more out of the hill.com. coming up at 1 p.m. today's white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest.

we will have live coverage when it starts and leading up to that, a portion of today's "washington journal" look at the latino vote in the novemberst: elections. >> concerns of latino voters and campaign 2016, two guests join us for this conversation we're joined by clarissa martinez de castro with the national councie of la raza, deputy vice president also joined by ivan garcia-hidalgo who serves as the chairman. good morning to both. >> host: this culture, subculture of lectures and hispanics independent, what you most concerned about comingunits november? >> guest: the hispanic community some of the other voters. normally top of my issues can be economy and jobs and education. not surprising. having a good job allows you to provide for your family with dignity, having a good education allows you kids to do better than you did.id. as americans as apple pie.

i think one of the interesting things is that when the immigration debate gets toxic and i think it has been nothing but for many, many years now, it starts going up in the priority list for latinos. let's not forget let you in the united states, 76% are united states citizens.pe but because of how it permeates on how to hold let you know committee is perceived and immigration start again andpoll importance. in a recent poll released last week of latinos it had risen to number two as a concern of the community. >> host: is that a top list? >> guest: actual i disagree. when you look at the last poll it's number five. so to jobs, economy, education and health care, national security and this isand heal immigration. clarissa is right. the conversations become very toxic the democrats love using

that as a wedge issue. that divide people and just make it into something like a battleu cry. when you look at the dialogue and what people are looking for, every single poll i think right now, i think it's 53% of the country is looking for some type of immigration reform, some type of pathway to legalization. >> host: it's fair to say mr. trump brought us into the t campaign from the very start and get overshadowed a lot of otherr things, fair? >> guest: you know what, yes and no. i think the tone was wrong.funn. he says what donald trump says into a three words should probably be sent in about 12 or 15. that is very true. when you look at them take a wh step back and really analyze what he says, it's not that much different from what everybody else is saying.

>> host: would you agree what donald trump brings to the conversation affords that topic is aligned with what other people have said? >> guest: i think after one year of listening to statements come anybody who really wants to dig into the record would have to disagree with that statement. like a couple of weeks ago, yeah, we are addressing this particular issue, right? a couple of weeks ago when he made his speech and everybody was waiting, is it, isn't it, which what is it going? i think what became clear isy that while some folks were looking for a softening on immigration, and let me be clear what that is but it's not 50%. the last two polls show that 80% of the american public actually support solutions that include an ability for people of good character who are here to earn their legal status. that's been the case for over a decade. i think people, some people are waiting for a softening of that.

what we saw was not just a double down but a couple down. that's fine. i think providing details to people all asked them to make decisions. he'd not only reiterated an approach that will result in mass deportation even if you call it by another name, he talked about a massive escalation of enforcement which is already at record levels. and number three, the actually went as far, talking about legac immigration which, frankly, when we fix our legal immigration system, we are going to go a long way to make sure that people are coming in illegally invaded as opposed to the legal channels. >> guest: you know, the positions of donald trump has now are no different than what president clinton had. what secretary clinton has said in the past when she was a senator. it's a very similar situation as we got to get rid of the bad

element the obama administration has reported more than any other station before and combined. it's just an extension of what the obama administrators doing is we've got to get rid of the criminals. just the other day you saw how ms-13 guided an 18 year-old kid into a park and they killed him, stabbing and over 40 times in montgomery county, maryland.ti that's the type of stuff or people when they get out of thet country. t that immigration speech was exactly about that. it was not law-enforcement in order. securing our borders, we are aor sovereign country. we should be able to control who comes in and who doesn't coming to look at countries who recruit immigrants like canada and australia. how did he do that? data let everybody coming. they vet the. they make sure their background check is clear. they want to make sure the education, mbas, doctors. the same thing we should be doing the do we want to import people with low skills or do we

want to bring in engineers, mathematicians, doctors, scientists and people like that. >> host: let's let people on the phone lines if you want to call in and ask our guests questions. sorry, didn't interrupt. your t. initial thought just then i forgot. i'm kidding. i'm kidding. and back to trump's arizona speech. look, it was a policy speech he gave at a rally. so the tone was very raised. but when you look at the text and step back and read the actual text of the speech, it's exactly what's going on. it's about law enforcement protecting our border. let's picture we get the criminal element out and at the end is very clear. he says and nobody catches is

because everyone was so fired up about the raw meat in the speech was after we secure our border come after we get rid of a criminal element, we will evaluate what happens with those who remained. i think it should've been more than two sentences or three says that address that. >> guest: i think the thing i found most enlightening, and i want to see that political ad that says trump is just trying e to continue obama's immigration policy, which is what you just said. but there is certainly, the president has been called the border in chief even by myer organization to the interesting thing is that trump doesn't recognize that. i haven't seen many members of the republican party recognize that the and i think frankly that's why we're seeing voters as frustrated. that's just one example.

i think in this whole food fight, yes, maybe if you really are partial wants it or the other you can interpret the speech anyway you want. but that's kind of the problem, right? voters are frustrated becauseicc they feel there are no specifics the candidates are really providing to them. i would say that on the issue of immigration mr. trump has been fairly consistent. and i found him to stay very consistent through this whole time. the reality is that if 85% of americans support a solution that is not like what he's proposing, people are wondering why is it that we can't get this legislation done? that's what you get not just people running for president of congress and folks wondering, why is this is so dysfunctional, and why do we have to do voterst to picture solutions to problems, particularly on the one we agree on can get through? that's what i think voting is so

important and that's why, i met you to defend trump, or to defend hillary, you are doing a good job though, i'm here because for us what our concern is that are less and less americans voting, particularly in the primaries. we and we are so frustrated is when we need to engage more not less. a >> host: we will talk about voting issues, particularly partic participation in just to be. i do want to bring some calls to the conversation bob, springfield, virginia,, republican line. your first that for our guests.e oppo go ahead. >> caller: thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. latino vot i'm concerned about taking latino voters for granted at the risk of exploitation of latinose generally. when you have a family values issue which is very much ahave n bedrock, latino society, yet many latinos working in the military. yet many latinos working hard in

their families for several generations. the bottom line i'm asking about is do you feel that either party is trying to take latino voting for granted, take latino for granted as a group that is going to be in their pocket and not respect the fact that they think for themselves and may want to make decisions based on the with issues?i'm more not talk about either candidate in particular. i'm more concerned about the party trying to exploit the latino vote. >> guest: that's one of the reasons why we created the packr because like i said before, i'm not a surrogate for the trump campaign and i've no contact with the campaign. the reason we put it back together it because we think my party, the republican party has failed in engaging hispanic voters. whenever there is an election

cycle they come up with some spanish media, some pamphlets, whatever, outreach. and then when the election is over people disappeared. so there's a gap hosting why do you think they fail? >> guest: it fails for a lot of reasons. we don't know how to engage. maybe a 30,000-foot view is what people think will work, or it may be every election cycle. but i don't think there's a plan for a consistent, steady work of engaging the hispanic community as budget of the grass level. because at the grassroots level, because when you look and you compare you could draw a sharp contrast between the left and the right. a natural home for the hispanic community, issued the republican party for a lot of reasons. we just do a terrible job of engaging than. newt gingrich used to say it's not about outreach, it's about inclusion. i think that's what we need to start doing a lot as a party.

actually both parties should do the same thing. p the democrats taken for granted a they push this generationaley dependency message and they try and keep people, instead of giving them a hand up and want to give them a hand out. it's just a terrible mess, a triple situation and a terribley path that their guiding light community in. we can go into that a littlethio more.g >> guest: i think that's how a lot of voters are feeling and latinos for sure. we had a roundtable last week and the polling showed that 50% of latino voters alreadyve registered, having had many g outreach than anybody. i think that's part of what's happening. elections have become such specialized mathematical equations. if you don't happen to be in a competitive zip code in a competitive district in a

competitive state, you are not going to hear very much. you're not going to get a lot of attention. and latinos happened to be concentrated in states that foro better or for worse one party or the other considers not competitive. california, texas and florida which is eternally competitive. but i would say the rest of the electorate, what we are seeing unfold in the states in places like nevada and colorado with latinos have made competitive then we'll see, for me as a nonpartisan, smm of a nonpartisan organization i feel that when both parties compete aggressively for your vote, it's better not only for your community, it's better for the country as a whole. hopefully folks are competing this year puts the best solution on the table as opposed to just [talking over each other] talk that is dominating post a let's hear from a late tee no voter from andrews air force base on a good morning and thank you for accepting my phone call. and immigration topic i think is

a discriminatory policy alll along.you you can see it in the obama -- object people can come up to this country a visa is chile. in europe a whole bunch of countries come in without a visa.s the other thing is it's so it' political. if the republican party wereti really interested in immigration our concern, why don't they repeal the cuban policy?we spend which allowed illegal cuban succumbing to this country and where we spent over $600 milliot a year on them, okay? why don't we repeal that? the reason is because historically the cubans vote republican. mexicans historically vote democrat. it's just politics.

>> guest: i think our immigration policy right now needs a very significantly so modernization. i completely agree with the calv on that. we haven't done that in more than 20 years. imagine how much has changed in that time. 20 years ago a cell phone was on the side of my favorite in the meantime immigration which response to economic and other forces have achieved. what happens with those pressures is that is we don't have legal channels that work for people become fully better. then people come employers and workers are outside the system. we need to modernize the system. to the caller's point about cuba, what i would say is on ane is policy debate, balance is the elusive. yes, there is a very generous policy with cuba, maybe conditions have changed. what i would say is we should be guided by why the best solution rather than say let's treat

people as badly as the worst we treat other immigrants. let's figure out why there's a a right way to do this and be fair. the last thing i would say is that we are a nation of immigrants and would love to say that about ourselves. that includes the union to gainn with every episode of immigrants come into our country, we have expense a backlash when it was against irish, germans, ger italians, japanese. latinas even those as budget of us are united states citizens are the face of the current wave of immigration and that backlash is there. my hope is we learn from history, get through this chapter sooner and with less cars and we modernize our immigration policy so it can serve the social economic of the country. >> guest: we do have legal immigration and we do have a wan for people to come into theer

country legally but it's not a problem it needs to be reformed. so people can come into theor country legally. there is a way for people tot: come into the country legally the user we need to fix the system so people can come into the country legally. people becoming. the problem we have right now with immigration is that there's a lot of people but overstayed visas. there are people who come in illegally through the border we need to secure the border so people stop coming in and make sure we know what people are when they overstayed so we can ask them to go home. that's known to every country in the world should have the right to do that. now on the other side, lewis is right if employers are hiring illegal people because there's a demand for the labor, then something needs to happen. our member president bush talked about the guest worker visa, that there's been proposals in the past.com through. those things need to be is, coma evaluated. the other thing is if companies are hiring illegals they should be fined because if they are

hiring people that should not be and should not be working, they are also creating the demand for people to come in. so the responsibility goes both ways. it can't just be pushed on illegals coming in and it's all their fault and they're invading our country and that type of argument because there is a demand. >> host: the two guests joining us, ivan garcia-hidalgo, also served on the romney gingrich campaigned for president. clarissa martinez de castro the national council of la raza served as the deputy vice president for the office for research advocacy legislation. next call is from arizona, goodyear, arizona, under republican line, a latino voter. susan, hello. go ahead. >> caller: thank you both. ina way both of you guys are right in comments that you were saying today.

but with the young lady, i swear i think was yesterday when she was on tv talking with a group of other women. does she have a program here in? arizona? on guest: i don't, sorry. actually we had a roundtable onl latino voters in partnership with several other organizations talking about statistics, priorities, outreach for parties. c-span was kind enough to cover it so there's a link on their video library, but no, i work for a nonpartisan organization. we were just lucky to get the coverage by c-span. thanks for watching it.. >> host: that was susan.ar as far as participation, those statistics tell us that in 2012 for latino voters, about 11 million turned out to vote for that election in 2012. about 48-50% of the eligible latino voters participated. they supported barack obama over

the romney.e no what do those numbers look like nablus what about participation rate? is the latino community a block when it comes to elections?ot >> guest: i think there's a tremendous opportunity for both sides, democrats the last take i can see before they take it for granted. the republicans are doing a terrible job. there's a huge opportunity right now to engage the hispanic committee. we should be able to bring that voter onto our side. if we have a real conversation and compare and contrast. what are the policies of generational dependency versus policies of lifting people up and free enterprise markets. that conversation is going to win every single time. if you look at right now the number one issue is jobs in the economy. right now the economy is in terrible shape. country it's the slowest economic recovery in the history of this country.

we have the lowest participation rate, labor force participation rate in 38 years.minorities a the unemployment numbers of minorities than blacks and hispanics, they are so much more, there's so much higher than whites. every single factor that youwheu look at india, is not doing well.. this should be an excellent opportunity for the republican party to engage the hispanic community and when that vote overwhelmingly, and they aree not. because i think the candidate we have at the top of the ticket that is been so polarizing inhi. his message and has really driven a wedge or allowed theun left to drive a wedge with the community. i think we will see what happens. regardless of the outcome of elt this election, if trump wins or secretary clinton wins, i think we have to really evaluate whats happens down ballot. what happens down ballot with the hispanic vote. you look at some of these swing

states where secretary clinton is on top, you see senator candidates winning by big margins. >> guest: the interesting thing sensitive a lot of talk as of lately about swing voters is if you look at the patterns of the latino vote over all, they are very much part of how you would describe a swing voter.th. i think there's a long history.e if you look at the election results in many past cycles whether it's in florida,a,califa arizona, colorado, california ao and other places. will you see that latinos are willing to consider a candidate matter his or her positions matter and meaningful outreac is essential and they're willing to consider a candidate regardless of party. so you've seen races like what we are seeing right now were maybe the democrat is winning in one race, mature of latino votes, but the percentage is different in another race in the same ballot.

one of the interesting things is that after 2006 when the republican party started being seen as more embracing of anti-immigrant positions, that blunted that swing factor. but i would challenge people who would attempt to paint a latino voters as an aside if at the democratic team. with these voters with their actions are and who they support is the result of what the parties are doing. so that's why we're trying to make sure that more latinos are part of the electoral process so that candidates feel the need to come an in a meaningful way and with her positions, address these voters and who have told them a couple afterwards. >> host: nature from sam in downing than pennsylvania independent line. go ahead. you are on. >> caller: i want to know, both of these people were very intelligent. i would like to know why they

don't get together and run forad president? i don't know why they don't do that. run as an independent are run as another third party. they have very good ideas. this is what it's all about. this is about latinos. latina should be the one that have a say in this country. let's face it. i wish you would get together and come up with a positive. yog >> guest: but we need to get your information so you can be our campaign manager.wo [laughter] on the other hand, i would say seeing what candidates go through, it's kind of easy too see why so many americans who would be excellent public servants are not going down that route. so i think it's an opportunity for us as voters to also, yes,

we have to judge the candidates. we have told them accountable. but we also have told a mayor to us and a somewhat like to start asking ourselves these are the folks we'r we are helping electe are we asking ourselves in a way that rewards problem solving,ec that recognizes those who were willing to work with whoever needs to be worked with to actually get legislation passed for some of the problems we have? because if we are not doing that then we can't expect our elected officials to do it. this is a wakeup call for us as voters. i am hopeful that the frustration is going to go from venting to actually sing yes, we're going to reward problemfor solving, move this forward. because we can't stay stuck where we are right now. aspect of the flip that on the other side as far as latinos are hispanics who run for office. is there some type can we start marco rubio do it on the d

republican side but a source the future what your estimation or at least what is your help? >> guest: i think mark will be president, no doubt about it. we will see what happens in this cycle if we win or not. if secretary clinton wins i think he's going to run. he's definitely run in 2012. he would have to be the favored. it's just a matter of time. he's actually, super articulate, great guy, real conservative. the base really likes markle. i think he's going to put a major, major role in our party for the near future of hubble before the long future. >> guest: i think latinos are right that 50% of the u.s. one in 60 board in america's latino. i would like to see latinos represented in every segment of society, commensurate with the numbers of the population. in the workforce we are o definitely one of six, but in politics, in the board room we are nowhere near close that.

i think it's not company be clear. i don't think it's because only if you have a latino elected officials will latinos be represented well. not at all. but i think it's because as a country we are all served better when all the different opinions are at the table. i do think that there's hispanic vice president and president in the horizon. look, we're living a historiczo. time. we have elected our first american president of african, who is african-american.n. there is a woman running for president these are historic times so i do think it's coming but i do hope people see it as an american who happens to be a woman, african-american, latino rather than say a hispanic who can speak for hispanics. >> guest: that's one of theesper problems is there so much play right now on this identity politics. it's the first woman, the first african-american, the first

hispanic the instead of why don't we pick the best person? regardless of what race or gender that person is.a republin at least i can speak as a republican, that's what we look for. we are always looking at who's the best person? we don't care what their skin caller is, whether religion is. we don't care whether they have an accent when they speak by the other side seems to play that identity politics from the race card all the time and it's just disturbing. l because you look at the toxic, right, you know, environment we're living in right now in this election. it's out of control. where you have a candidate for president dismissing half the country, what did you call us was a bucket of -- crazy.crazy. >> guest: i feel that it's a little unbalanced because i'm not here to defend democrats. and, obviously, you were

defending republicans.oc i think one of the things that voters are also very frustrateda with is a level of false equivalency that is talked about in this campaign. i mean, i can be completely impartial and say okay, when you talk about its the other side that is making racism issue, come on. >> guest: both sides are responsible for its.s. >> guest: but it's a false equivalency. so the issue to me is we know that divide and pocket is a strategy that works. that's what it's been used for ever. i think that one of the interesting things about the trunk era is that people talk about the trump phenomenon, you know, the negative talk about muslims or mexicans or latinos, anything that he created. but, unfortunately, those kinds of toxics have been used for a very long time to divide fromote each other everything is to come together to solve problems. what he has done its ripped the

veneer of civility that was covering that strategy, many politicians have been using and sadly too many in the republican party, he has sold exposed it. so now i think folks would have to make decisions about okay, i need to see which candidates more in line with my position of which candidate less offense my value to make a choice. let's not be distracted by false equivalency is. >> host: this is a sergio from new jersey. independent line. thanks for waiting. to go ahead. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. i appreciate it very much. i don't even know where to start. let me start with what he said about rubio being a future president. he's a hypocrite.he's a he called trump a condom which i

agree with the he's a racist, trunk. he's not going to get the latin vote at all. mexicans are people who are hard-working people. they are not robbers, the they e not rapists are either nobody comes from. these people think they own the country. the only people who own the country are the indian people. this guy, they're going to lose. they're going to lose all the minority, women votes because they are racist the it's true what interested it's just that she's running for president and she couldn't help herself to its true. >> host: how do you respond? >> guest: look, the rhetoric and the tone is really, really elevated right now as i said before. both sides are playing in the divide and conquer strategy. i think it's terrible. and you look at it every single election cycle it gets more and more toxic.

one of the biggest problems that everybody talks about is the redistricting that this happened at the house level across the country. you see people in the house and they are so polarized. they are so far away from each so fa republicans and democrats that you don't see that division in the senate. but in the house you see really, really partisan people that are really to the left overly to thr right and it makes it very hard to the dialogue in the mood for legislation forward. as far as rubio races and all the stuff, i'm not even going to respond to that. .. together. that doesn't merit a response. do agree. i think this is important because we are four years out next round of redistricting. tos is a wake up call voters. right now, redistricting is

re- redistricting is in theg hands of elected officials. that's like having the fox watch the henhouse. what happens is people try to favor whoever is already in there or try to concentrate the power of whoever is leading the state legislature at the time. what happens is we are electing people who are less and less willing to govern. agree, we whatever one position might be on the role of government, i think we would all agree that we need governments to govern. that's where we as voters comments.o if we are not rewarding people who are willing to govern, and that requires compromise. i right now people talk about compromise as if it's a weakness. frankly, compromise is not for the week. it takes a lot of work and a lot of courage. we are not rewarding those members. so we need to look at that whether it's rubio or whoever it

is, look at people and asked them what have they gotten done because words are, we are burieg in words. i think compromise will play a good role. work and your personal life and everything, you don't always get what you want. >> you don't always get 100% of what you want always. so polarized and toxic that somebody gives a little bit and they are gone from that person's head. let's raise money, let's throw kno out because we had a deal. even the president, he didn't win hundred% of the vote. he won 53% or whatever it was. so that's the type of situation

that unfortunately when you're talking about isn't happening. about rewarding those who work to represent everybody, that's not happening. everybody is so focused on their polarized district that it's crazy, but redistricting does need to happen. if you you look at maryland right now, that's a disaster. you look at district to, look as that district, it looks like a spider all over the place. it's ridiculous. how can that be possible? how could anybody have approved that? whoever approved that should be thrown out of office because when you look at district six, the district is also totally a mess. it's ridiculous. situations like that across the entire country make this conversation worse and worse and more more toxic.

>> evelyn, you are next on the democrats line. >> good morning. thank you for taking my call. you guys have gone way past. [inaudible] when the lady said something about immigrants not being vetted before coming in, that's not true. i happen to be one of the immigrants in this country and i was well vetted. the issue is those people who are coming into this country illegally, when you come in with a visa and at the end of the day you're saying you're welcome and nobody's doing anything about it , people are breaking bounds and doing things they shouldn't do.

most times and often times, immigrants are the ones that are doing everything they shouldn't do, that's not true. i see all the people we have there, black, white, there are all guilty of doing things they should not do. to cut everybody out, that's the area they're supporting. >> host: who would like to go first? >> guest: my apology to the caller, i think maybe my comments were misinterpreted. i think people who come through the legal immigration system, vetted and that's what we want as a country. what you were saying is it's not that we don't have legal immigration. it's that we have not kept up with the times. we need to modernize our system so rather than people going

around the system, we have legal channels that are wide enough for people to come through fully vetted as the caller did. that's what we don't have right now. we haven't modernize that system in more than two decades. we have high-tech and different needs and all of that. the other piece of the puzzle, this is where amazingly, even with this rhetoric, 80% of americans agree that we know we have a population of 11 million who are currently here. whether you think. >> good afternoon everybody. it's been a while since we been in this setting. thank you. before we get started, i do have one piece of scheduling news. on october 18, president obama will host prime minister for an official visit. prime minister randi's visit will be an opportunity to recognize the depth and breadth of our relationship with italy.

italy is one of our closest and strongest allies. we cooperate across a range of shared interest from addressing climate change to promoting security and inclusive economic growth. the president and mrs. obama will host prime minister and his wife for a state dinner on the evening of october 18. this is something to look forward to but without we can go to your questions. kevin, do you want to start? >> i want to start off, senator mccain and biden put out medical records when they ran for president. does the president think it's essential for voters to have more information about hillary clinton and donald trump's health? the president believes the responsibility of the two candidates to make their own decisions about their campaign. what is true is that as

president, president obama every couple years had asked them to put together memo that he released to the public detailing the president's health. we did something similar when senator obama ran for president as well and obviously the requirement that the american people have some understanding of the health of their president is a pretty common sense proposition but for individual candidates they ultimately have to make a decision on their own about what kind of information and what kind of detail there prepared to disclose. >> so the president sees this entirely as the responsibility of the candidate, he doesn't view this as something that the american people should have? or are entitled to have before

they make a decision? >> i think the presidents opinion on this, i think it can be judged on the way that he has handled this question when he's been president and he has arranged for his position to communicate information to the american public about his health. i think that's a legitimate question but how they are answered is something the candidates have to decide for themselves. there is a reason we've had a long-standing tradition in this country of individual candidates disclosing information about their health before the election, but i don't have any advice to the individual candidates about how they should handle this question. what i can do is point you to what senator obama did when he was running for this office and what he has done while serving this office. >> thank you with the movie about edward snowden coming out, can you. >> guest: whether the president would ever consider a pardon for snowden before he leaves office?

also earlier in this administration he said the leaks were damaging to the united states and damaging to our capabilities. just thinking about snowden over the past couple of years, is it possible that he did perform a public service? >> the president has been asked that several times and i think he's been pretty consistent in answering this question. the first is mr. snowden has been charged with serious crimes and it's the policy of the administration that if he should return to the united states and faceless charges. he of course will be afforded due process and there are mechanisms in our criminal justice system to ensure that he is treated fairly and consistent with the law and that's what the president believes. with regard to the impact that he has had on the broader debate, the fact is the manner

in which mr. snowden chose to disclose this information damaged the united states, harmed our national security and put the american people at greater risk. there are mechanisms that he could have availed himself of if he had concerns about information that he had access to to communicate information more responsibly. and address some of the policy concerns that he purports to have. the impact of his actions, because of the way he chose to disclose this information did harm our national security and the president has said that on a number of occasions in his assessment of the situation has

not changed. >> i am not going to get into the presidents thinking about anybody being considered for a pardon. obviously there is a process that people can go through in requesting a pardon, but right now mr. snowden has not been convicted of crimes with regard to this particular situation but he is charged with serious crime and it's the view of the administration and the view of the president that he should return to the united states and faceless charges even if he enjoys the section of due process and other rights that are afforded to american citizens. >> could you preview the meeting with congressional leaders this afternoon and in particular, the governor is asking for two poignant elements in federal standing and health, will that

be part of the hearing request? >> kevin, the meeting with the president has arranged today is an opportunity for the president to sit down with the democratic and republican leaders of the house and senate to discuss the rather long list of priorities that congress needs to address. it's hard to rate them in priority order because so many of them are important. the failure of congress to act on some of these priorities would have significant negative consequences for the american people. some of the items i'm referring to are the need for the united states congress to pass the continuing resolution of a government shutdown, it continues continues to be our view that the continuing resolution should be short and not freighted with the kind of ideological riders that have led

to a government shutdown in the past. we are hopeful congress will act on that before the end of the month. that's the deadline we are facing. we've spent a lot of time talking in this room since february about the need for congress to pass funding to fight the zika virus. our public health professional need to say they need additional resources to do everything possible to protect the american people and i just saw an op-ed in the newspaper earlier today on behalf of governors all across the country, democrats and republicans urging congress to act to provide funding to fight the zika virus. there are other priorities like the approval of the transpacific partnership, criminal justice reform, even the consideration of the supreme court. there also top priorities.

these are priorities where congress has not fulfilled their responsibility to the american people. each of these are areas where there should be some, there is some bipartisan common ground but the republicans who are in prior charge of running the congress have refused to capitalize on it. with regard to the situation in louisiana, it's quite serious. last month there was a conversation about whether or not the president should interrupt his vacation to go and visit people in louisiana. at the time, i assured all of you that the president was focused on doing his job and focusing on the fundamentals of the situation in louisiana. what we have seen there is an extraordinarily effective partnership between state and

local officials and the federal government to ensure a professional response, significant federal resources have already been expended to try to meet the emergent immediate needs of people affected by the flooding more than 63000 louisiana families that have received federal assistance through one of the housing options available to them including rental assistance or paying for a hotel and motel stays, $260 million in total payments to flood insurance policyholders and the president recently, just last week announced that the federal share of these expenses would increase to provide additional support to the state government. it was trying to meet the needs of all the people there. so we've been focused on an

effective federal response to the situation, the president also traveled to louisiana a couple weeks ago and i had an opportunity to tour the damage and visit one of the communities, one of the neighborhoods that had been so negatively affected by the flooding, devastated in fact in the president had the opportunity to comfort some of the people who had lost so much. there's been a lot of attention on whether or not the administration is going to fulfill its responsibility to the people of louisiana. the president believes there are additional resources and he agrees with the assessment of the governor that additional resources are likely to be needed. they need to help the people of louisiana recover. i recognize there's a lot of moralizing about how the president should do his the job. he's done it.

the question now is, are republicans in congress going to do their job? they just got back from an uninterrupted seven week vacation. are they going to do right by the people of louisiana? i think we will find out. >> following up on the meeting that is most happen this afternoon, there was talk that republican lawmakers might put forth a cr that would include funding for zika of $1 billion it wouldn't have the planned parenthood riders that cause some concern but it would pay for the funding with cuts to other programs. is that something that the administration could get behind? >> this falls in the category of the kind of things that if it was just a couple reasonable people like you and me sitting

down across the table to figure out what we could do to meet the country's priorities including fighting zika virus, it's something we could figure out in a couple of hours. that's not the situation that we have here. instead we have republicans in congress who have capitalized on this opportunity to play politics. it wasn't just riders related to funding for planned parenthood that we objected to. the irony of course is the fact that the zika virus is a sexually transmitted disease so the fact that republicans want to blunt funding for contraception is not just ironic, it's dumb. but we also saw there were riders associated with limiting or constraining the epa's regulatory authority and even a writer associated with confederate flags being displayed at certain federally run areas throughout the country. they have been playing politics with the zika virus since before most americans had even heard of the zika virus. the president put forward a specific funding proposal almost

seven months ago. this is a funding proposal that was developed by the nations public health experts who itemized exactly what they thought was necessary to do everything possible to prevent the zika virus from harming the american people. congress has not acted on that funding request and it's quite unfortunate. the president is once again going to make the case that that is exactly what republicans in congress should do but again i think it's an open question about whether or not they will fulfill their responsibilities. hopefully they will. >> what would the white house be willing to support? would they support 1.1 billion which is less of what you asked for and cut the other programs? >> again, the american people would just be fortunate to have you and me negotiate this out but unfortunately they're stuck with mitch mcconnell and paul

ryan being responsible for this. hopefully they will step up to the plate and do their job. >> so the house has a bill that doesn't allow victims families of 911 and this could be aimed at saudi arabia. i wonder if in the past they would said they would veto this bill. is that still the plan? is the plan to veto this? >> that is still the plan. the president doesn't plan to veto this legislation. let's talk about why. currently there is a process inside the executive branch of the united states government for designated certain countries of state terrorism. there's a couple of countries that fit that category. it's a very serious designation. it submits those countries to a whole set of limitations and

restrictions that isolate them not from the united states but also from the rest of the world. there is a threshold that has to be met before reaching that kind of designation. that designation is made public when it's reached. the impact of this legislation could set up a situation where you have judges at a variety of levels, in a variety of courtrooms across the country making a similar designation. you could have judges at different levels and different courtrooms reaching different conclusions about the same country. that's not an effective forceful way for us to respond to terrorism. the way to respond to terrorism is to thoroughly investigate which role individual countries may have in supporting terrorism and if we find compelling evidence that they are, and label them accordingly and act accordingly. that is what the president

believes is the best way for us to confront the state sponsors of terrorism. the other concern that we have also articulated is that this law actually opens up the united states to risk being hauled into court in countries around the world. the concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the united states as much as any other country in the world. given the way the united states is engaged in the world. it's not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul u.s. diplomats for u.s. service members or even u.s. companies into court all around the world. so, the president feels quite strongly about this and our

concern is not limited to the impact it could have on our relationship with one country. rather it could have an impact on our relationship with every country around the world in a way that has negative consequences around the united states and for our men and women in uniform for the president feels strongly about this. the zika legislation has not been presented to him. >> back to concerns about hillary clinton's health, does the president think she should have disclosed pneumonia diagnosis sooner as she gets ready to go out and campaign, does he have any concerns of how her campaign is handling this? >> i'm not sure, i haven't heard the president way and with no opinion on this. i think it certainly does not impact his assessment that she is the best person in the country to succeed in the oval

office. he has had an opportunity to work closely with her when she was secretary of state. they traveled around the world, she pulled long hours and bore a significant burden both mentally and physically and she didn't just succeed in that role, she she thrived. in the interest of the united states were well represented as a result of that. he is confident she will bring those same skills in that same endurance to the job as president. >> when we talk to transparency, they pry their self on a certain level of transparency. is there any concern about a lack of transparency from the clinton campaign fresh mark does the president with his former advisor that the clinton campaign as an unhealthy. [inaudible] for privacy? >> the president has not conveyed that phenomenon to me. you're right this administration

has prided themselves and made transparency and government a genuine priority. i believe the merrick and people are well served by that and the government is more effective because the way he has made that principle a genuine priority in this administration. other candidates are going to have to make their own case about what they believe is the best way to run the country and the president has taken a close look at the agenda and philosophy that's been put forward by sec. clinton and he has enthusiastically endorsed it. i think the president belief that she would be an excellent president is something you have heard him say many times and i can tell you nothing happened yesterday that would change that assessment at all. >> does the president call

hillary clinton at all after he found out that she was not well? >> i'm not aware of any call to president clinton, but, no i'm not aware of any call. >> is he planning to talk to them? would you be surprised if he were to call? >> if we have any telephone calls, i will make make sure you're among the first to know. >> also, i want to talk about health on the road. when president obama. [inaudible] everybody kept talking about. [inaudible] when does it change on the road? [inaudible] >> i think i can answer that question in a couple ways. many of you have spent time on the road with these candidates. i think you can observe for yourselves what kind of pace

they are keeping. based on the fact that you have to do these trips as well and you are responsible for filing summaries on the event. you can assess just how demanding that is. it's hard for me to draw comparisons between the schedule that the candidates are keeping now and the schedule that senator obama kept in 2008 primarily because i'm just not following the minute by minute schedule of the candidates in 2016 that i was was in the way of 2012. >> donald trump said something very interesting about our values of tolerance when it comes to the community and talking about. [inaudible] is there something that discusses the value of tolerance?

do we tolerate one another? do think the nation of different cultures and different communities tolerating each other? >> religious tolerance is a principal that was discussed quite extensively by our founding fathers. >> what about now in 2016. >> i think think there are a lot of ways to talk about the way that we embrace diversity in this country and the way the united states benefits from the right people and faith and races and ethnicities that make up our country. the president certainly has given voice to the idea that that diversity makes our country stronger. the president genuinely believes that. i will at the republican candidate for president describe his own views of the impact that

diversity has on our country. >> we've talked about priorities is the funding. [inaudible] will you'll recall when this issue first emerged in the late winter and early spring, the administration mobilized resources to try to address the emerging situation. some of that assistance took the form of expertise with scientists and public health officials on the ground to try to assess the situation and offer advice to local leaders about how to ensure the safety of the water supply. the administration expedited funding for infrastructure

projects for the state of michigan that could be deployed to address the situation in flint. they put forward funding to expand medical care for young people implant who were at risk of lead poisoning. there are a lot of resources and arguments about how to address the situation in flint and the administration indicated we would support congressional action to offer more assistance. it's clear that the problem in flint is deeply entrenched in the administration would certainly be supportive of an effort in congress to offer it to additional assistance to the community of flint but republicans in congress have

failed to make progress on that. [inaudible] there are more communities that have discovered they have lead in their water supply. are there more conversations about how to address this? >> i don't want to oversimplify the situation. i think each situation is unique and the epa has been quite conscientious in redoubling their effort to make sure that the water americans are drinking is safe and that involves effective coordination with state and local officials were responsible for providing water to their citizens and the epa has done a lot of work to clarify those relationships and

the regulatory role that they will play to make sure it's a safe water supply. there's a lot of important work that has been done over the course of this year because of some of the concerns that were initially raised in michigan. >> republicans are now fundraising like crazy. you feel like that was a mistake >> i will let all of you quarterback that campaign, to use a phrase, i guess it feels appropriate after week one of the nfl season. i think what's true more generally is that we have seen a disturbing tendency on the part of republicans in washington d.c. to try to appeal to extremists for political support. those appeals take a variety of forms. we've talked extensively about

the cynical tactics around the federal flag including attaching a writer to the zika bill, we've discussed many times, house officials republicans elected a guy who described himself as david duke without the baggage to be a leader. we've heard from republicans both a variety of candidates, and some members of congress talk about the benefits of imposing religious tax on people seeking to enter the u.s. to try to keep muslims out. i think it's pretty well documented that there has been a consistent willingness on the part of republicans in washington d.c. to appeal to extremists to build political support. it's distressing. it's not new. >> it sounds like you don't disagree.

>> again, i'm not going to armchair quarterback. i will live that to others. does the president feel like he needs to do some damage control for the way that they are jumping all over them? >> no he doesn't hurt i think you can look forward to him making a strong case for why he believes she would be an excellent president of the united states and why he is supporting her campaign. >> the first campaign, and pretty soon after has started to regress after that. doesn't that necessitate some kind of, i don't know if damage control is the right word. >> again i'll leave it to them to make decisions about the most effective way to run their campaign. >> the president will be in a mode tomorrow where he is enthusiastically advocating for her election. >> is there any regret for her using the phrase, does the

president share that regret. >> that's not the president's phrase so again she can describe a situation however she would like. i think i've given my own explanation and offered my own observation about the cynical tactics we've seen republicans employ. again, it's not just limited to one candidate for president. this is true for a variety of candidates for congress and it's true of sitting members of congress and again, it's a distressing temptation that republicans have given into. it's not good for the country and look, i guess this is the other thing i would say, there are plenty of republicans who stress their own deep concern about this. there are a lot, you have made a living regarding the discussed

republicans have offered about the state of the party. that's just the state of play. >> some have seen her quantify on her description of abortion of donald trump supporters for her campaign that expressed some kind of regret over it, but defended it at the same time. are we seeing her have an issue medically and then her campaign says. [inaudible] to think this is sloppy handling? >> no, again, i will leave the armchair quarterbacking to all of you in the variety of pendants that make a good living this time a year, every four years. i don't begrudge them of that, that's their job.

>> now we see the polls tighten up, are you worried this could hurt her? >> again, were still a still a couple months from election day and i know the president is determined, over the course of the next eight weeks or so to make a forceful case in support of her campaign. he certainly believes the stakes are hi, he believes that it's important for the next president of the united states to be somebody who is committed on building of the progress of nato over the past eight years. you've all heard him make this case before it's now it's an hear make it again tomorrow. >> going back to the terrorism act, obviously this has been going on for a long time and there was some discussion earlier this year that the white house was going to try to look for ways to address these issues short of what. [inaudible] has done.

has that ever happened or can you characterized what's been done and are we trying to get congress back up to speed? >> i think we've not made it a secret that we have significant concerns with this legislation and there were a number of conversations that originated at the white house with members of congress in both parties to try to persuade them to pursue a more constructive approach. that's not what they chose to do. >> can you tell us what a more constructive approach would look like? was there alternative legislation that could have addressed the president concerns? >> there was a variety of conversations. i'm not going to get into the details of those kinds of conversations but i think the concerns that we've expressed are significant and the concern that we have is that the way

this bill is currently written exposes the united states, u.s. diplomats, u.s. service members and in some situations even u.s. companies to significant risk. that is a concern that we have expressed to members of congress in both parties and in many cases we had members of congress were sympathetic to our concern but i think those same members of congress were concerned about the impact it would have on their political standing to oppose this bill. there's no denying the political potency of this issue they believe it's important to look out for our countries and look

out for our diplomats and allowing them to have this bill come into law would increase the risk that they face looks almost certain that they will have the votes to override, are they doing anything to prepare for that? given what you've talked about in terms of the great consequence of this legislation? >> i would anticipate the president will continue to explain his position to this legislation and we will do that up until congress openly makes a decision about whether or not to override his veto. >> he thinks there's still a chance to change plan. >> we will see. i think i have a pretty persuasive case to make in terms

of the forceful nature of a terror designation and the sieve significant policy decisions that go with that and the restriction we face around the world as a result of that designation. i think it makes a lot of sense that that's more forceful way to face state sponsors of terrorism as opposed to delegating that decision to judges in different courtrooms all across the country. and, i think it's persuasive that we would want to protect sovereign immunity in a way that doesn't increase risk for our service members or diplomats or even u.s. companies. we've got a forceful case to make and we will continue to make it. >> to the president see the video of secretary clinton getting into that van and was he a lot alarmed? i ask that question that way

because i think people would be rightly alarmed. >> i don't know what he thought. >> i think it would be pretty shocking if he hadn't seen it. >> i wouldn't be surprised if he did but i didn't talk to him about it. >> let me ask about the comments about removing american forces from the southern part of his country. what is the reaction to that? >> surprises not the word i would choose, primarily because of the tendency of this individual to make some rather colorful comments. what is true about this military presence in the philippines is that this president has been in the philippines for number of years, at the request, it is an

indication of the alliance between the united states and the philippines. we have a wide range of shared concerns and shared interests and the united states and the philippines have been able to work effectively together in a variety of areas to advance our mutual interest. the president is certainly committed to continuing to do that over the four months that are remaining in his second term >> we were just there in november and everything seemed like it was moving along and then they had an election and i think it's an indication of how important elections are. the filipino people made a decision and the filipino people has enormous affection for the united states. they are deep ties between our country. when the philippines was hit by a devastating cyclone, it was

the united states who led an international response and mobilize millions of dollars in resources to meet the basic humanitarian humanitarian needs of the filipino people. when he was in the philippines back in november, 11 of the things he did was to appear and visited a ship that have been provided by the united states to the philippines coast guard to assist them in their maritime security efforts. that's indicative of a strong relationship between our two countries and the effective cooperation. i think it explains why the filipino people hold the united states and president obama and such high regard. but yes, elections have consequences elections do say a lot about what kind of person is going to represent your country on the international stage. it's why. [inaudible]

qualities like decorum and temperament and judgment can cast votes in election because you know that person will represent you on the international stage and i think that is certainly something that the filipino people are well aware of right now. [inaudible] >> i guess some people could draw that analogy if they wanted to. >> we are eight weeks before an election. it's natural that you might interpret many of the things that i say through the prism of a national election. >> let me ask you about the dakota pipeline project. i think it survived some people that the administration way and after a judicial review had taken place and this was a pause from what i understand.

can you explain why the president and through the average or agencies decided this was the right decision. >> this wasn't a decision that was made by demonstration, was made by the army corps of engineer. a federal court judge did rule and uphold the approach they had taken to the decision to move forward with this specific project. it was based on their own judgment at the department of interior and the army corps of engineers. >> this is a decision they made, i can't. >> guest: the decisions they may have had at the white house because it's ultimately their decision but they made this decision to ensure that the interest and concern of everybody who's affected by this project for properly taken into account. i will let them speak to that.

i think they are trying to do the right thing here in terms of making sure that everyone's interest are taken into consideration, particularly when it's in structure that so significant. >> last one, syria, syria, can you give us an update on the negotiation on the apparent cease-fire? >> i know this is something that sec. carey is likely to discuss a little bit later today. the arrangement that was announced at the end of last week is one that places a lot of pressure on russia to deliver. that's the way the arrangement is structured we need to see

seven continuous days of reduced violence and unimpeded access for badly needed humanitarian movements. securely in aleppo but not just in aleppo. only after we have seen a sustained and continuous implementation of those arrangements will the united states move forward on the element of the arrangement that we know russia is quite interested in. that is, enhanced military cooperation with the united states focused on al qaeda and isil targets in syria. the book, we've been talking for months, if not years about how russian credibility is on the line. based on our collective

experience here in observing the situation inside of syria over the last year or two, we have some reasons to be skeptical that the russians are able or willing to implement the arrangement with the way that it has been described. we will see. the reason we reached in the first place is that we prioritize going after isil, i al qaeda and other extremist insight syria that could be a threat to the united states. if there's more can do to be more effective and not fight then we will pursue it. we prioritize trying to bring an end to the violence and bring relief to innocent civilians inside that need it. we've said that reducing the

violence inside of syria, at least inside the opposition is the only way we will be able to create faith for the political transition that even the russians acknowledges necessary. the arrangement as it is currently structured advances all of our goals but i think secretary carey would be the first to acknowledge that this arrangement is only going to exceed if the russians live up to their end of the bargain. are you concerned that all by the warning that hezbollah will cover all of syria? was that just talk? >> it is true that we are more focused on action and talk. it is also true that the russian government exercises at least

some leverage over the asad regime and they have made a commitment to exercise that influence in a way that's consistent with the arrangement which is essentially to say we are going to reduce the violence once we have gotten to a position where we are providing humanitarian relief and once the united states and russia have been able to coordinate our military efforts against al qaeda and i said other groups that will involve the grounding of the syrian government. >> what about american influence that the united states was backing, are you satisfied?

i think what we have seen is a willingness on the part of opposition groups to abide by the possibilities. the reason for that is these opposition groups represent the people who are being slaughtered by the government. use opposition groups are clamoring for's opposition inside syria. a cease-fire, as we described distant with the interest. that's why we can have some confidence that they will abide by the terms of the arrangement. the real question is whether or not the russian government is able to or willing to exercise their influence over the asad regime to get them to do the same thing. >> you said the president had

seen this video and hadn't communicated with her directly by phone. he's aware of this health issue. >> he has read the news in the last 24 hours and i didn't say he hadn't seen the video, i just i just don't know if he seen the video. as a guess i said to michelle there's nothing that's happened in the last 24 hours that caused him to reassess in any way his enthusiastic support that she would be an excellent president. >> has the white house reached out to secretary clinton in any way to offer concern or best wishes. >> i think you're sort of putting your finger on the difficulty of having to answer your question. i. [inaudible]

>> i'm sure those warm feelings are extended all the time. >> someone said she's recovering well and her health is great. he hasn't talked to her. was he just speculating? >> i don't know whether vice president biden has spoken to jerry clinton or someone on her team but you can check with him his team. >> is it safe to say there's some concern that the president has about his voters really turning out enthusiastically for secretary clinton. i think what's clear is that the president does have a lot of influence over a large number of voters that hadn't previously

been regularly involved in politics. the key to president obama success from the very first contact at the iowa caucus in january 3, 2008 was to motivate and turn out people who hadn't regularly participated in the past. you did see the surge in participation in the caucuses and that was a hallmark of president obama's victory throughout the primary process in 2008. it was also critical to his success in the general election in 2008 and in 2012 that in particular, young people had been genuinely inspired by his candidacy and his presidency. the president will make a forceful case to those voters in

the same way that he will to all voters about how important it is for him to be succeeded by someone who's committed to the same vision of the country that he's been fighting for for the last eight years. >> are they targeting places where voter registration is wrapping up in early voting registration. [inaudible] is that part of the strategy? >> you can talk to the campaign but i know they have indicated they expect to use the president in that way. they are hoping the president will be helpful in making the case on their behalf to motivate voters to registry and participate on election day. >> while we are discussing transparency, in 2002 and again and again in 2007 george w. bush came to power briefly. [inaudible] did he ever procedure of any

kind where he was sedated? >> i will check on this answer for you but my understanding is there's never been a situation in which the president has undergone a medical procedure that required him to delegate any authority of the vice president or anybody else for that matter. >> is there something you'd like to tell other candidates? at the candidates lived up to that tradition? >> you guys are the one offering assessments to the candidates and offering your advice and doing the arm chair quarterback thing and there are plenty of people willing to do that. i'm going to focus on my day job. :

i'm going to let the individual campaigns manage their own relationships with the press corps who covers them, but speaking for the president i can indicate that the president does believe that the protective pool is something that's important for reporters were coming the president of the united states. it's not always convenient for him but yesterday was a pretty good example. the president decided to go on a hike with his daughter in great falls yesterday. most americans when you see the weather is nice they can just decide to head out the front door and go spend some time with their kids, but the president has made different arrangements, not just for security but also to make sure all of you can