i think you'll find, obviously there are going to be a few bugs when you start something new. now you have a choice. if the employer doesn't stick with your coverage, you can go to the exchange and you cannot only get the coverage, but get the support that makes it affordable for you. so that it is affordable. >> why are they making it harder for the working people? >> this should actually make it easier. >> you cannot work where you want and you're not stuck with your employer because because of the health care. >> sorry to interrupt -- i work for the mayor in pawtucket -- the mayor had a community meeting tonight and it ran over and they had quick questions. he asked me to thank you for you

and your staff do throughout the years. and tonight and coming out and doing this for the public so thank you very much. -- thank theayor mayor for me very much. thank you everybody and good night. as i promised, i will be the last person to leave and we can stick around and talk if you want to chat further. >> a look at president obama's plan for improving the mortgage finance system. we will discuss how sequestration is affecting national defense. begins aton journal" 7:00 a.m. on c-span.

today, the brookings institution discusses spending cuts in the 2014 budget and their impact on the pentagon and their strategies at 10:00 a.m. eastern. tonight, wendy davis's remarks from the press club in washington, dc and she talks about her future political lands and her 10 -- our filibuster in the state senate at eight 30 5 p.m. eastern. at 8:35 a.m.. -- p.m.. theill have the chair of "reign affairs committee on newsmakers." a.m.is sunday at 10:00 here on c-span. >> mayor adrian fendi and

councilmember vincent gray faced the most expensive election in recent ec history. adrian fancy raised nearly $5 million. benson great raised only $1.2 million. he won the public over. f he beatenty but shortly after he took office,suleimaon brown who ran for mayor said he was paid and promised a job in expressing for supporting fenty during the election. much of his story was true. they also uncovered an even bigger secret -- the shadow campaign. you had a campaign that was going on. then you had another set of folks who work in an office right next to thegray campaign.

there were several workers during the campaign complaining about the other workers because they felt they were getting paid more and there was confusion as to who was paying them. it was not until one year later that folks started putting things to you other when federal investigators began asking questions and they realized that the folks who were next door, we cannot find any record of them in the campaign-finance records. paid andhose folks get who was in charge of them? >> corruption in dc city politics sunday at 8:00 p.m. on cap --."" q and a peer >> from the east room of the white house, this is president obama's press conference.

>> good afternoon, everybody, please have a seat. over the past few weeks, i have been talking about what i believe should be our priorities building auntry. better bargain for the middle class and for americans who want to work her way into the middle class. at the same timei am focused on the number ,one responsibility as commander-in-chief, keeping the american people safe. in recent days, we have been reminded once again about the threats to our nation. as i said at the national defense university back in may, in meeting those threats, we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. and as part of this rebalancing, i called for a review of our surveillance programs. unfortunately, rather than an orderly and willful process, repeated leaks of classified information has initiated the conversation but not always in a very informed way.

i held a healthy skepticism of these programs as a senator and as president i have taken steps to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people. but, given the history of abuse by government, it is right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives. i'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because american leadership amount -- leadership or around the world depends upon example of american democracy and american overtones. what makes us different from other countries is not just our ability to secure our nation but the way we do it, in open debate and the democratic process. in other words, it is not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs.

the american people need to have confidence in them as well. and that is why i'm over the last few weeks, i have consulted members of congress who have come at this issue from many different respective's and i have asked the oversight board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension, and i directed our national security to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices. so i would like to discuss for specific steps, not all- inclusive, but specific steps we will be taking to move the debate forward. first, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act, the program that collects telephone records. as i said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt your wrist plots and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant.

but given the scale of this program, i understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. so after having a dialogue with members of congress and civil libertarians, i know that there are steps we can take to give the american people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse. for instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority. so i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives. second, i will work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, known as the fisk. it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the constitution. however, to build greater confidence, i think we should consider some additional changes to the fisc. one of the concerns people

raised is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic civilian -- conduct programmatic surveillance may only see one side of it. while i have confidence in the court and i think they have done a fine job, i think they can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives, security and privacy. so specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by ensuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary. numbers three best number three, we can and must be more transparent. i directed the intelligence community to making -- to make public as much information about these programs as possible. we have already declassified unprecedented information about the nsa, but we can go further. so the apartment of justice will make public the rationale under article 215 of the patriot act.

and release information that entails authority and oversight. the nsa is putting in a privacy officer. and finally, the intelligence community is creating a website that will serve as a for further transparency. this will give americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so. fourth, we are forming a high- level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. we need new thinking for a new era. we now have two under -- we have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack" -- of global communications. madewell, technology has given

governments unprecedented capability to monitor situations.-- communications. so i'm asking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities, particularly our surveillance technologies and how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there is absolutely no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign-policy particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public, and provided an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign- policy. so all of the steps are designed to ensure that the american people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. and to others around the world, i want to make clear once again that america is not interested in spying on ordinary people. our intelligence is focused above all on finding the

information necessary to protect our people and, in many cases, -- are checkedies. our allies. it's true -- protect our allies. it's true, we have surveillance capability, but it is also true that we have shown a restraint that many governments around the world won't even think of doing or refuse to show. that includes, by the way, some of america's most of her -- most vocal critics. let me close with one additional not forget theld difference of our of lt to conduct surveillance under strict guidelines and the willingness of other governments to throw their citizens in prison for with they say online. let me close with one additional thought --the men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values. they are patriots. and i believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on the -- on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are

also patriots who love our country and want to live up to our highest ideals. so this is how we will resolve our differences in the united states, through vigorous public debate, guided by our constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws and with respect for the facts. so with that, i will take some questions. let's see who we've got here. we are going to start with julie pace of ap. >> i wanted to ask about some of the foreign-policy fallout from the disclosure of the nsa programs you discussed. your spokesman said yesterday that there's no question that the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladimir putin took office. how much of that decline do you attribute directly to mr.putin given that you had a good working relationship with his predecessor? will there be additional unit of measures taken against russia-- punitive

measuresfor granting asylum to taken againstfor granting asylum to edward snowden or is canceling the summit must make -- the most that you can do? >> i think there has always been some tension in the u.s.-russian relationship after the fall of the soviet union. that has been cooperation in seminaries and competition in others. it is true that, in my first four years, in working with medvedev, we've made a lot of progress. we got start 2 done. we were able to work together on iran sanctions. they provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan. we were able to get russia into the wto, which is not just good for russia, but therefore are companies and businesses -- but for our companies and businesses because they are more likely to follow forms and rules. so there is a lot of good work that has been done and that will continue to be done. what is also true is that, when president putin came back into

power come i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side that was anti-american that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war contest between the united states and russia. i have encouraged mr. putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success. i think the latest episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we have seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues, where it is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that rush is going, what our core interests are, -- where it

is that russia is going, what our core interests are, that what we're doing is good for for the united states and hopefully good for russia as well but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we will not be able to completely disguise them. and that's ok. keep in mind that, although i am not attending the summit come i will still be going to st. petersburg because rush is also in the g-20. that is important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are of concern to americans. i know the one question that has been raised is how do we approach deal of picks? i just -- how do we approach the olympics? i just want to make clear that i do not think it is appropriate to boycott the olympics. we have a lot of americans out there who are working hard and doing everything they cap to -- they can to succeed. no one is more offended by me than some of the anti-gay lesbian legislation that you

have seen in russia. but as i said, just this week, i have spoken out against that not just with respect to russia but a number of other countries. we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue. one of the things i'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home a gold or silver or bronze, which i think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we are seeing there. and if russia doesn't have gay or lesbian athletes, that will probably make their team weaker. >> [indiscernible] >> keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr. stood in -- mr. snowden. it was friendly on a whole host

of issues that russia has not moved. so we don't consider that street we punitive.-- strictly punitive. we are going to assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase descend stability and prosperity around -- he sent stability andthe world.prosperity around the world. we will keep on working with them. where we have differences, we will say so clearly. and my hope is that, over time, mr. putin and russia recognize that, rather than a zero-sum competition, in fact, if the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples. chuck. >> given that you just announced a whole bunch of reforms based on essentially the leaks that edward snowden made on all of the surveillance programs, does that change -- has your mindset changed?

is he more of a whistleblower that a hacker as you call them out one point or somebody who should be provided more protection? is he a patriot? and just to follow up on the personal -- >> i just want to make sure that everybody asking one question would be helpful. >> it is part of a question they did not answer. can you get stuff done with russia without having a good personal relationship with putin? >> i don't have a bad personal relationship with putin. when we have conversations, they are candid. they are blunt. oftentimes, they are constructive. i know the press likes to focus on body language and he's got that kind of sludge, looking like a bored kid in the back of the classroom. [laughter] but the truth is, when we are in conversations together, oftentimes it is very productive. so the issue here

really has to do with where they want to take russia. it is substantive on the policy front. no, right now, this is just a matter of where mr. putin and the russian people want to go. i think that if they are looking forward into the 21st-century and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some of our joint concerns on counterterrorism are managed effectively, then i think we can work together. if issues are framed as they u.s. is for it then russia should be against it or we will be finding ways for we can help each other at every opportunity, then probably we don't get as much stuff done. now i have forgotten your question, which is presumably is the more important one. no, i don't think mr. snowden was a patriot. as i said in my opening remarks,

i called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before mr. snowden made these leaks. my preference -- and i think the american people's preference -- would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws, a thoughtful fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place. because i never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws were put in place somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. that is exactly what i called for. so the fact is that mr. snowden has been charged with three felonies. if in fact he believes that what

he did was right, then like every american citizen, he can come here and appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case. if the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well before mr. snowden leaked this information that provided as a blower protection -- whistleblower protection to the intelligence community for the first time. so there were other avenues available for someone whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions. but, having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we have seen is information come out in drips and in drags, sometimes coming out sideways -- once the information is out, the

administration comes in and tries to correct the record. but by that time, it is too late or we have moved on and a general impression has taken hold not only among the mac and public, but also around the world, that -- the american publicbut also around the world, that somehow we are out there willy- nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it. and that is not the case. our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling u.s. persons without a warrant and their are safeguards that are put in place to make sure that that basic print bowl is abided by -- basic principle is abided by. the instinctive bias but intelligence community to keep everything close and probably with a fair criticism is my

assumption that, if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress, that traditional set of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurances that these programs will run properly. that assumption i think proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. i think people have questions about this program. so as a consequence, i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. what i will be pushing is, rather than have a trunk come out here and a leg come out here and a tale come out there, let's just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they are looking at. let's examine what is working, what is not. are there additional reductions that can be put in place and this move -- additional

protections the camby put in place and move forward. there's no question that mr. snowden unleashed a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if i had simply appointed this review board to go through and i sat down with congress and we had worked this thing through. it would have been less exciting. it would not have generated as much press to i actually think we would have gone to the same place. and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways a weekend get some intelligence we need to secure the country. >> i would like to ask you about this debate that is playing itself out in editorial pages about the choice you will eventually make for the next federal reserve chairman.

there is the perception among democrats that larry summers has been sidetracked and perhaps-- has had the inside track andperhaps you have made some assurances to him about that. jenny yellin is the vice chair of the federal reserve. are you annoyed by this debate i find it unseemly? and do you find this the most important economic decision you will make in the remainder of your presidency? >> yes.it is one of the most important decisions i will make in the remainder of my presidency. the federal reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policy makers in america. he or she is one of the most important policy makers in the world. and that person presumably will stay on after i'm president. so this, along with supreme court appointments, is the most important decision that i will make. there are some supreme

candidates and you mentioned to them, esther summers and ms. yellin. they are both terrific people. -- mr. summers and ms. yellin. they are both terrific people. i think the perception that mr. summers may have an inside track simply has to do with a bunch of attacks that i was hearing on mr. summers preemptively, which is sort of a standard washington exercise, that i don't like him. the kids when someone has woed because when someone has worked hard for me and on behalf of the american people and i know the quality of those people and i see them getting slapped around in the class -- in the press for no reason even before they have been nominated for anything, then i want to make sure that somebody is standing up for them. i felt the same way when people were attacking susan rice before she was nominated for anything.

so i tend to defend folks that i think i've done a good job and don't deserve a tax. -- don't deserve attacks. my main criteria for the federal reserve chairman is somebody who understands they have to do a mandate, a critical part of the job is making sure that we keep inflation in check, that our monetary policy is sound, that the dollars sound. those are all critical components of the job and we see what happens when the fed is not paying attention. we saw prior to paul volcker coming into place inflation shooting up in ways that really damaged the real economy.

but the other mandate is full employment. and right now, if you look at the biggest challenges we have, the challenge is not inflation. the challenge is we've still got too many people out of work for my too many long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy. but the other mandate is full we are not growing as fast as we should. so i want a fed chairman who is able to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation, makes sure that we are not seeing artificial bubbles in place, but also recognizes, you know what, a big part of my job right now is making sure that the economy is growing quickly and robustly and is sustained, endurable so the people who work hard in this country are able to find a job. and frankly, i think both larry summers and janet yellin are highly qualified candidates. there are a couple of other candidates who are highly

qualified as well. i will make the decision in the fall. >> defending larry summers as robustly as you just did [indiscernible] >> i just told you i haven't. i would do the same for you somebody was saying something about you that wasn't true. [laughter] i really would.in fact i have done that in the white house. [laughter] carol lee. imagination is.congratulations on hudson. do you have pictures? >> i do. thank you for making it a slow news week. i want to ask you about the surveillance issues. restoring the public trust and the public has seen you evolve from when you were in the u.s. senate to now and even as recently as june. you said that the process was such that people should be comfortable with it and now you

are saying that you're making these reforms so that people will be comfortable with those. so why the -- so why should the public trust you on this issue and why did you change your position miserable times -- position multiple times? >> i haven't evolved in my actual assessment of the programs. i consistently have said that, when i came into office, i evaluated them. some of these programs i was critical of when i was in the senate. when i looked through specifically what was being done, my determination was that the two programs in particular have been an issue, to 15 and 702, offer valuable intelligence that helps us protect the american people and are worth preserving. what we also saw was that some bolts need to be tightened up on some of those programs. we initiated some additional oversight reforms, compliance officers, audits and so forth.

and if you look at the reports even the disclosures that mr. snowden has put forward -- you're not reading about the government actually abusing these programs. and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading people's e-mails. what you are hearing about is the prospect that these could be abused. part of the reason they are not abused is because these checks are place and those abuses would be against the law and the orders of the fisc. having said that though, if you are outside of the intelligence community, if you are the ordinary person and you start seeing a bunch of headlines saying u.s., big brother, looking down on you, collecting telephone records, etc., welcome

understandably people would be concerned. i would be, too, if i wasn't inside the government. so in light of the changed environment where a whole set of questions have been raised, some in the most sensationalized manner possible where these leaks are released jerk by drip, one a week -- released jerk-by- drip, one a week to -- drip by drip, one a week to maximize sensationalism, in light of that, it makes sense for us to go ahead and lay out what exactly we are doing, have a discussion with congress, with industry which is also impacted by this, with civil libertarians

and see can we do this better? i think the main thing i want to emphasize is i don't have an interest and the people of the nsa don't have an interest in doing anything other than making sure that where we can prevent it terrorist attack, where we can get information ahead of time, that we are able to carry out that circle task can we do not have an interest -- carry out that critical task. you do not have an interest in doing anything other than that. and we have set up a system that is so far as failsafe to make sure that these programs are not abused. the people may have better ideas. and people may want to jigger

slightly sort of the balance between the information that we can get versus the anchor mental encroachments on privacy -- the incremental encroachments on privacy. can get versus the anchor mental encroachments on privacy -- the if people don't have confidence that the law, the checks and balances of the court, and congress are sufficient to give us confidence that government is not snooping, well, maybe we can embed technologies in there that can prevent the snooping regardless of what government wants to do. there may be some technological fixes the provide another layer of assurance. so those are the kinds of things

that i am looking forward to have a recession about.-- having a conversation about. >> [indiscernible] >> the fact that i said that the programs are operating in a way that prevents abuse, that continues to be true, without the reforms. the question is how do i make the american people more comfortable? if i tell michelle that i did the dishes -- now, granted, it in the white house, i don't do the dishes that much -- [laughter] but back in the day and she is a little more skeptical, well, i'd

like her to trust me but maybe i need to bring her back and show her the dishes and not just have to take my word for it. so the program is -- i am comfortable that the row graham -- the programcurrently is not being abused. i am comfortable that the american people examined szekely what has taken place, how it was being used, what the safeguards were -- people examined exactly what has taken place, how it has been used, what the safeguards were and feel safe here in it is absolutely true with the expansion of technology, this is an area that is moving very quickly with the revelations

that have depleted public trust, that if there are some additional things that we can do to build that trust back up, then we should do them. jonathan karl.ho >> thank you, mr. president. you have said that core al qaeda has been decimated and its leaders are on the run. now that we have seen this character that resulted in embassies closed throughout the year of world, much of africa, do you still believe that al qaeda has been decimated? and in the interest of transparency, can you tell us about these journals strikes we have seen in the last couple of weeks in human? -- weeks in yemen? >> what i said in the same speech back in may that i referred to earlier is that core al qaeda is on it's heels, has been decimated. but what i also said was that al qaeda and other extremists have metastasized into regional groups that i pose significant dangers. and i would refer you back to that speech back in may. although they are less likely to

carry out spectacular homeland attacks like 9/11, they have the opacity to go after our embassies. they have the capacity potentially to go after our businesses. they have the capacity to be destabilizing and disruptive in countries where the security apparatuses week and that is exactly what we are seeing right now. so it is entirely consistent to say that highly organized and relatively centralized al qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 has been broken apart and is very weak and does not have a lot of operational capacity. and to say we still have these regional organizations like aqap, that can pose a threat and

drive potentially a truck bomb into an embassy wall and can kill people. so that requires us then to make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so they have their own capacities to deal with potentially manageable regional if these countries are stronger and had more effective and so forth. it means that we have to continue to be vigilant and go after known terrorists who are potentially carrying out a that scaring up plots or are going to strengthening their overtime because they are always asking the boundaries of maybe we can try this and maybe we can do that. but this is an ongoing process. we are not going to completely eliminate terrorism. what we can do is weaken it and strengthen our partnerships in

such a way that it does not pose the kind of horrible threat that we saw on 9/11. i'm not going to discuss specific operations that have taken place. again, in my speech in may, i was very specific about how we make these determinations about potential lethal strikes. so i would refer you to that speech. >> about the drones -- line >> i will not have a discussion about operational issues. >> i hope you would defend me as well. >> i would. >> thank you. october 1, you will implement your signature healthcare law. he resulted decided on your own to delay a key part of that. if you pick and choose what

parts of the law to implement, could your successors down the road pick and choose what to keep in place? you said on september 12, we will ring to justice the killers who attacked our people in a ghazi. where are they, sir? >> i also said we would get bin laden and we didn't get him for 11 months. we have informed the public of a sealed indictment. it is sealed for a reason. but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack. and we will stay on it until we get them. >> [indiscernible] >> i will leave it at that. but this remains a top priority for us. anybody who attacks americans, anybody who kills tragically for americans who are serving us inl

do everything we can to get those who carried out those attacks. with respect to health care, i didn't simply choose to delay this on my own. is was in consultation -- this was in consultation with businesses all around the country, many of whom are supportive of the affordable care act and many of whom who are already providing of interest to their employees but were concerned about the operational details changing their hr operations because i have a lot of employees which could because they for them and suggesting that there may be an easier way to do this.

what is true thatpolitical environment -- what is true is that, in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that does not go to the essence of the law. it has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers whether they are already providing health insurance or not? it looks like there may be some better ways to do this. let's make some technical changes to the law. that would be the normal thing that i would prefer to do. but we are not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to "obamacare." we did have the executive authority to do so and we did so. but this does not go to the core of implementation. to me tell you what is at the core of apple and tatian that has artie taken place. as we speak, right now, for the core of implementation that has already taken place. as we speak, right now, for the first time, if the kid is 26 years or younger, that is benefiting millions of people

across the country. it is whether of insurance insurance among young people has gone down. that is in large part attributable to the steps that we take. you have millions of people who received rebates because part of the affordable care act was to say that i might insurance insurance companies are not spending 80% of your premium on your healthcare, you get some money back. lo and behold, people have been getting their money back to it means that folks who have been bumping up with lifetime limits on their insurance, that leaves them vulnerable -- that doesn't exist. seniors have been getting discounts on their prescription drugs good that is happening right now. free preventive care, mammograms, contraception, that is happening right now. i met a young man today at the signing of the student loan bill who came up to me and said thank you. he couldn't have been more than 25-26 years old and he said thank you.

i have cancer. thanks to the affordable care act, working with california, i was able to get treatment and i am now in remission. in 53 days, the remaining 15% of americans who do not have health insurance, they will be able to go on a website or call up a call center and sign up for affordable quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market. and even with lower premiums, if they still can't afford it, we will be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. between october 1 and the end of march, there will be a note and enrollment period in which millions of americans for the

first time will be a will to get affordable health care. i think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends and the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail? their number one priority, the one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care. and presumably repealing all the things i just mentioned, kids stay on their parents plan, seniors getting discounts on prescription drugs, and i guess a return to lifetime limits on insurance, people with pre- existing conditions continuing to be blocked from being able to get health insurance -- that is hard to understand as an agenda that will strengthen our middle class. at least these to say, well, we

-- at least they used to say wewill replace it with something better. there isn't even a pretense now that they will replace it with something better. the notion is simply that those 30 million people or the 150 million who are benefiting from the other aspects of affordable care, will be better off without it. not backed by fact or evidence, it's just become an ideological fixation. i will tell you what. they are wrong about that. there is no doubt that in implementing the affordable care act, a program of this significance, there will be some glitches. no doubt about it. there will be things where we say, you know what, we should've thought about that earlier or this needs fixes. it was true of social security, medicare, the children's health insurance program, of

prescription drug program part d that was rolled out by a republican president, and true by the way of a car company rolling out a new car. it is true of apple rolling out the new ipad. you will be able to come up whenever you want during the course of the next six months and probably the next year, find occasions when you say, oh, that could have done -- that could have been done a little bit under.-- better. or they are making an administered a change good that is not the way this was originally thought it would work. yes, exactly. because our goal is to actually deliver high-quality affordable healthcare for people and to reform the system so that costs start going down and people start getting a better bang for their buck.

i make no apologies for that. let me make just one last point. the idea that you would shut down the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea. what you should be thinking about is how can we advance and improve ways for middle-class families to have some security so that, if they work hard, they can get ahead and their kids can get ahead. jessica. >> thank you, mr. president. following on what you just said, republicans in the house might give you that choice soon to either allow the government to shut down or c obamacare defended. -- defined it -- defunded. >> i will not engage in hypotheticals. i can tell you that the american

people would have difficulty understanding why we would weaken the economy, shut down the government, shut down vital services, have people who are not getting paid who then can't go to restaurants or shop for clothes and all the other things that we are doing here because republicans have determined that they don't want to see these folks get health care. again, they used to say they have a replacement. that never actually arrived. i have been hearing about this whole replace thing for two years now. now i just don't hear about it because basically they don't have an agenda. -- an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable rates. and the idea that you would shut down the government at a time when the recovery is getting some traction, where we are

growing, although not as fast as we need to, where the housing market is recovering, although not as fast as we would like, that we would precipitate another crisis here in washington that no economist thinks is a good idea. i'm assuming that they will not take that path. i have confidence that common sense in the end will prevail. >> you have to make that choice. >> we will see what happens. we have a couple of months. >> the last time you spoke with speaker boehner about it? >> fairly recently. before they left. scott. >> thank you, mr. president. part of the political logic behind immigration reform was a strong showing by letting the -- latinost november.

voters lastthat doesn't seem to september. resonate with a lot of house republicans who were present overwhelmingly white districts. what other political leverage can you bring to bear to help move it in the house? >> well, we have an economic report that shows that our economy would be a trillion dollars stronger if we had immigration reform done. we have evidence that our housing market would be stronger if immigrants are in a situation in which having paid a fine, having paid back taxes, that they now have the ability to actually enter into the housing market. we have strong evidence that our technological and research edge would be better if we get immigration reform done. we know that the senate bill strengthens border security and puts unprecedented resources on top of what i have artie put

into border security. if your main priority is border security -- i have already put into border security.-- i thinkif your main priority is border security emma then this is the built-in we know it creates a system in which employers are held accountable for when they hire undocumented workers. this is something that people say is a bad thing. i agree. but make sure that that system for holding employers accountable is in place. so when i hear the opposition to immigration reform, i just run through the list of the things they are concerned about and i look at what the senate bill does and i say to myself, you know what, the senate bill actually improves the situation on every issue that they say they are concerned about. now what they may argue is that it doesn't solve the problem 100%. i don't know a law that solves a

problem 100%. social security lifted millions of seniors out of poverty, but there are still some poor seniors. the civil rights act and the voting rights act drastically reduced discrimination in america, but there is still discrimination. it doesn't make them bad laws. it just means that there are very few human problems that are 100% of all mobile. -- 100% solvable. what i see is a strong bipartisan vote coming out of the senate. i think the speaker and others have said that they need to do something. and ironed, when they get back, that they do something. -- and i urge, when they get back, that they do something. it may not be precisely what is in the senate bill.

my purpose would be for them to go ahead and call the senate bill. but if they have some additional ideas, the senate is happy to consider them. and give that bill -- and get that bill on the floor. but it up for a vote. i am absolutely certain that the votes for the senate bill, which strengthens border security, demands responsibility from undocumented workers to pay fine, pay penalty, get to the back of the line, reforms are illegal immigration system, hold employers accountable, i am absolutely confident that if that bill was on the floor of the house, it would pass. so the challenge right now is not that there is not a majority of house members just like the majority of senate members who are prepared to support this bill. the problem is internal

republican caucus politics. and that is what the america people don't want us to be worrying about. don't worry about your washington politics. salt problem's. -- solve problems. and this is one where you ask they have some pretty well consensus. i don't know an issue where you have labor, chamber of commerce, evangelicals, student groups, you name it supportive of a bill. let's get it done. all right, thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] we will have a discussion on the defense institute at the

brookings institution and later, michael hayden. >> some people say if we cut the military we will not have the temp tatian to fight as much. if we have a smaller military, we will be disinclined to get involved. i don't want to fight the chinese. if you look historically at when we fight, i don't see a correlation between higher defense budget and greater likelihood of intervening. the world wars begin when we were not prepared. the korean war began when we were not prepared. the vietnam was more complex. to the reagan years, in many ways, the reagan years, people can correct me afterwards, they are seen as the golden years of american defense also because we built of the

budget and did not use the military. isn't that a wonderful outcome? was ronaldnk it reagan's great judgment that led to that that there was no correlation between increasing the budget and increasing the proclivity to engage militarily. >> a discussion on upcoming defense department discussions at 10:00 a.m. today. then the history of the muslim brotherhood later today at 7:00 30 p.m. the internment of japanese americans during world war ii and the political battle for redress sunday at 12:00 15 p.m. -- 12:15 p.m. >> next, " washington journal." on spendingndtable

cuts under sequestration. dangoure joined by and winslow wheeler. ♪ washington journal" good morning. president obama addresses the disabled veterans convention in orlando, florida before heading on vacation. this is the president in a press conference yesterday, promising to reform the current nsa surveillance program. he listed a series of proposals. a advisory group released review of communication technology by the end of the year. the president wants the american confidenceave "more in these programs." for the first 45 minutes we will discuss the proposal.