is anything healthy that has come out of this, people have viewed reparations for a long time as a radical idea that they do not need to take seriously. been radicals who advocated for it, in my view correctly. what i think the basic argument is not radical at all. host: thank you. weing up in just a minute, are going to take you over to the center for strategic and international studies. you can see that they are starting to get ready. customs and of the border protection unit is going to talk about his first 100 days in office, talk about some of the reforms he has instituted. .0,000 employees 12.4 billion dollar budget. if you have not heard already, we will be covering hillary clinton live tonight, 6:00 pm she is here in washington, speaking with the cofounder -- the co-owner of politics and prose, who is also a former

hillary speechwriter. i will be live on c-span two at 6:00 p.m. that will re-air all weekend. be with usrra will sunday, thanks for being with us, enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] good morning, everyone, welcome to csis. to beat pleasure introducing our speaker today and our discussant along with them. first is the honorable gil kerlikowske who is here as the commissioner of u.s. customs and border protection, sworn in in march. historyn extensive within the law enforcement community. now he runs the largest law

enforcement, federal law enforcement agency in the country. we are very much looking forward to his remarks this morning. customs and border protection has been very much in the news havey and he is going to some good questions put forth to him by eric discussant, adam at theho is a manager chertoff group and has had his own experience over the years on homeland security. without further at do, let me turn it over to commissioner gil kerlikowske and let him give his remarks. >> thank you very much, kathleen. it's a great pleasure to be here and back at csis. especially to be in this beautiful new facility. well over a year ago, i had the opportunity to deliver some remarks on another noncontroversial topic, drug said to be back and have another noncontroversial topic such as

immigration and border security is a delight. thank you again. let me go ahead and start with a few things. as thehad about 100 days commissioner so when you think of all the tough questions, i have only had 100 days so i will be able to dodge some of them if they're particularly difficult. i think it's a perfect time to talk about the evolving vision for cbp and talk about some of the very pressing concerns we face and also where our agency is headed. let me first talk about the workforce. i think that is the premier part. we are soon to have 62,000 employees in 40 countries. a wide range and diversity of people and skill sets. as many of you know from the federal employee survey, we don't do particularly well when it comes to the morale and the

department. -- in the department. working on that is particularly a critical item for me. i'm the first commissioner to be in nowed by the senate over five years and i think it's helpful when you have gone through the confirmation process. whoprevious commissioners were incredible people, i have the greatest respect and admiration for all of them. they did a tremendous job. they certainly have the full support of the administration. but i think it's also critical that you have the support of the senate and these issues. during the five years i served president obama as his drug policy advisor, i had that opportunity to work closely with people on the hill. communication, having the support of the administration, having the support of members of congress i think is helpful to

this large and diverse workforce. for most of the history, our workforce on the border was very much invited and very independent among federal agencies. borders, air operations, ports of entry were all certified different federal agencies. since 2003 and since the 9/11 commission and the founding of the department of homeland security, we have had one unified border agency. that has allowed us to really work and try to craft a comprehensive border strategy to not only secure those borders but also to support our economy. many of you know that we have this dual mission with the facilitation of lawful trade and travel and the security of the borders. they are not mutually exclusive. let me give you some idea of the breadth and depth of the people do on a people at cbp

daily basis. they process one million passengers and pedestrians, truck and seek containers, make 1000 apprehensions per day, they arrest 22 wanted terminals, sees about 12,000 pounds of -- 300,000about $300 dollars in undeclared currency, almost $5 million worth of product that violates intellectual property rights. in addition, 400 40 agricultural pests at the u.s. ports of entry, 4379 -- i'm being good by giving these numbers -- 4003 hundred 79 agricultural materials that require quarantine to protect our culture -- agriculture industry. if you want to in nor about beetles later, i will be happy to discuss those in depth. to carry out that mission, they have become the largest law

enforcement agency in the united states. we rely on our employees for our success. even when you look at our budget, the vast majority of our budget is in our salaries and personnel costs. in order to fulfill that mission, it is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to support that workforce. there are many ideas to enhance the workforce that involve also ation, support but strong mention from every leader within cbp to that workforce that peoples health, taking care their families, making sure that those things are premier are the critical and important things. we are doing lots of experimentation in expanding telecommuting, changing the environment within the organization but i think when that message comes across from all of the leaders, many of whom

are seated in front of me today, that message comes across from all of the leaders about the importance and the value that they place in employees that i think translates well. the better that workforce does, the more efficient they are, the less sick time and on and on but many of you know this. we are hoping that we are going to be able to improve the way we show on that federal employee workforce survey. this is also an important issue with secretary johnson and also with their deputy secretary. when we work with this vision, we will improve the productivity and we will be better table of carrying out our mission. mission out our involves sharing information and creating community. partnerships and information sharing are the heart of all that we do. first 100 days, i have worked very hard to travel across the country and many places around

the world to visit with our employees and listen to them and have town halls. also to enforce through relationships the important international relationships particularly with places like mexico. and lawer parts enforcement, customs, immigration, security and foreign affairs and in peru, i -- the directors general of customs of the western hemisphere to consider risk management strategies. we do a better job here in the united states government on interagency collaboration and in turn we have to do a better job on international collaboration. spain,he same thing in meeting with members of the world customs organization. only to promote the lawful trade and travel but also to make sure that the supply chain is secure and not vulnerable to crime and corruption.

in the middle east, i spoke with our arab leaders about building the capacity for more secure trade and travel. the unified border management system that is being replicated around the world is modeled on the good work that has been done by cbp here in the united states. it's a truly collaborative approach. these listened to all of counterparts whether it was in customs or border security forces, more and more, you hear the talk from them that it's not just about the collection of revenue. it's not just about the trade and facilitation which is often at the heart of customs organizations in other countries who don't have the dual responsibility that we have. security concerns were absolutely preeminent. they brought up increasing concerns about security. we have models and things that we can offer to other countries to help improve that.

we have to work with our industrial partners. we have an extensive interagency collaborative network. in washington, we have lots of interagency meetings and everyone understands and appreciates the value of those relationships. as a result, cbp and his partners have prevented potentially dangerous individuals from coming into this country. those are often cases we are not allowed to talk about publicly but i have seen it time and time again. we have private sector partnerships so it's not just the interagency and is not just our international partnerships. when you think about our networking and sharing of information with government agencies, we have to include the industry as part of that. as example would be the ac

system. thatthe screening system after the air traffic world what was disrupted in 2010 with the printer cartridges from yemen, things change dramatically and people stepped up to the light from the private sector along with the government to develop a system that is risk-based and makes so much more sense in protecting the country. we needed to receive data in advance on air cargo and the industry stepped up. fedex, dhl, ups and others cargosed all of the air that they handle globally. when we put the problem on the isle, what was discovered those private sector partners worked with us to come up with a solution. a perfects is

example. automated passport control would be another one. the more information that cbp customs and border protection officer has a port of entry, the more information they have were they don't have to spend time doing data entry and typing into the computer -- and they had information because someone has scanned their passport through that kiosk, then that is more information or more time they can devote to processing people and moving legitimate travelers through the system. perhaps, they spend more were additional scrutiny is needed. the automated password controls are important. you have read extensively about the syrian foreign fighter issue. we are engaged with that with the interagency. it has been no secret and the remarks that director comey and others have made about concerns. the concerns were recently raised in belgium and france.

in thise highlighted particular threat and it's important that we are a part of that. the need for illuminating this and working more closely with our foreign partners is not only helpful to our safety and security here in the united states but certainly, more helpful to the security of our partner nations. the employee morale, i want to get back to that with more -- so much of what we do is also based upon those resources. huge, significant improvements in technology, training, etc but so much of what we do is labor intensive. when you look at all the technology and many of you travel extensively and go through the ports -- i hope you are a global entry member, by the way -- it is so fascinating

to see all of the technology that is so helpful. it is also so fascinating to see and experience unknowledgeable cbpo that is their recognizing the importance of their mission to protect this country but also having the skills to be able to identify. every single day when i mentioned those significant seizures of cash narcotics and others, the prohibiting of people who should not come to the united states, a lot of that is based upon the work and skill set that those people have. theirre we do to improve training and development and recognizing their performance and thanking them, the better off we all are. we are going to expand our ability within cbp with a large organization to let people know about career path opportunities and perhaps additional training and where we can also be a

iestner with the interagenc and let people have an opportunity to work in other locations and learn other things. i have never been more impressed with the workforce than i have been withcbp. when this job was being talked about within the white house and i was asked about it, in case i knew anybody, i raise my hand and said what about me? i had that opportunity because i have had the chance over the years serving the president to work on something called the southwest border counter border drugol policy -- counter policy. the first time i worked on those, i was able to spend a lot of time with cbp and a lot of time on the southwest corridor meeting with them. i said i knew this was a place i wanted to go. not that i was actors to leave the white house but i was anxious to get into operations.

let me talk about something that has been in the news a lot, the unaccompanied children. the number of children the cbp is encountering on the southwest border has increased by 92% over last year. i'm talking in the fiscal year numbers. many of them are girls. many more are under the age of 13. it has created a humanitarian crisis. secretary johnson on may 12 determined that this would be a of readinesstion within homeland security which is a determination that situation has exceeded the capacity of cbp and ice and we needed additional dhhs resources. he chose the deputy chief of the united states border patrol to be the dhs federal coordinator. it tells you the importance that he places on these individuals that are on the frontline but also the recognition that they were going to work closely with

their counterparts. making sure that these children are taken care of is a huge manage. act. i have been down there a number of times. i would tell you that those border patrols are doing yeoman's work. they are doing and a credible job. also the bringing together of the inter-agencies, having coast guard core man deal with these whom,ail home, most of have never been treated by a doctor or a clinician until they come -- have been encountered by us. job.has done a tremendous they know disasters and they know about coordination and they know about and gauging the interagency and i know about working close -- closely with state and local. administrator fugate and the men

and women of fema have done a great job on this. as you know from secretary henson's remarks yesterday, takes his very personally and is very high on his radar screen. as it is among every member of the obama administration. this group is all working together to ensure that these children are transferred out of our order patrol facilities quickly and they go to health and human services and that they can provide from the moment we encounter them, from the moment withcounter them -- nutrition, education, medical then we expand that later through hhs and others to include housing and mental health care, etc., many of these kids have been tremendously traumatized. the vast majority are from central america.

fleeing hardships and economic conditions. they are fleeing violence within their own countries many are also cq reader -- reunification with their families. the immigration proceedings that the children are under, hhs is working with the children and relatives to place them here and to longer-term facilities. cbp and many others i've talked about in so many volunteers. the texas baptist men's o'sociation -- many other ng are involved in preparing food and offering clean clothing and shower facilities. it is a tremendous operation. we are working hard to loss of public affairs campaign in these other countries to talk about not only the dangers that these

kids face by being placed in the hands of coyotes who are involved in smuggling them, not only those dangers, but also the dangers they face in other ways. recognition that regardless of what is being considered now in congress, for a comprehensive immigration review, they would not be entitled to a path to citizenship as a result of entering the country now. cbp along with law enforcement criminalhas surged investigators to break the backs of smuggling organizations involved in this, often times for larger amounts of honey and oftentimes they could care less about the safety of those children and their care. working hard to make sure those people are apprehended and the department of justice is working hard to make sure they are prosecutors. we have responded to the needs of these children.

our border patrol agent zeb at the in and our cbo's point of entry also where these kids can walk of a bridge and turn himself in. they brought in their own clothing and of done so many other things. we are working hard to make sure the policy changes and training changes are being done.

cbp to beking within more transparent and open, to improve policy and improve training and i think you'll see more to come in that particular. area hasme say that cbp succeeded in unimaginable ways to improve our technology, our innovation, our vision. we know that people want to come to the united states. even though we hear quite often about the wait times at airports or the weight times at seaports, people want to come to this country in over the last four years, every year we have seen travel and trade increase. they want to do business in this country. they want to trade in this country. this is a safe country and cbp help story much to make it that way. that is why people want to come here. also because, in many ways, you can do business in this country

without having to be overly concerned about corruption and payoffs. when i think about the work that cbp does to protect intellectual property rights and make sure that everything they do with the borders, to make sure this is a safe and secure country and to make sure that trade and travel can flourish in a lawful and legitimate way, is a huge difference. those are just a few small andgs of an organization workforce that i am extremely proud of and i could not be more honored than to have been nominated and confirmed and now leading that organization. i think i am ready. [applause] >> thank you all. moderate the discussion by starting off with a couple of questions of my own

and then i will look to the audience to follow-up with questions. i would ask folks to raise your hand when i call on you and identify yourself and your affiliation before stating the question. much forall, thanks so the remarks you made in depth and breadth. i want to touch on a couple of topics. about the tremendous increase in unaccompanied minors being apprehended on the south was order. -- the southwest border. you talked about the humanitarian response effort and touched a little bit on what the government is doing. to try and determine these journey years from being taken in the first place, can you talk more about whether you are seeing any impact from those

deterrence related activities and how you will monitor that and think about whether additional measures were required? withme of you are familiar the department of state and the department of homeland security prior programs to get messages out. a few years ago, they were concentrating more on mexico but certainly in the central american countries, that's where our concentration is now. an incredibly is dangerous thing -- it's dangerous to attempt in the summer months to come into this country and to traverse really rugged locations. every single day i get reports from the border patrol and our air and marine operations on rescues of people. cannot carry enough water physically to get across any of that to rent. we also need to make sure in

this new round of messaging that it's not only the danger to themselves, placing children in the hands of coyotes is incredibly difficult. there has been a lot of discussion and looking at our overwhelmedave been by the number of people. i guess we need to show the same level of concern by many organizations about the danger these kids were in before they ever encountered somebody from the border patrol or customs and border protection who is a safe and secure individual for them. of that message has to be that this is not a pathway to citizenship. what kind of an impact as this search having on the underlying enforcement interdiction mission along the southwest border? >> it has taken away resources within the border patrol to

concentrate on caring for these individuals that would normally be doing other enforcement duties. we have to look at alleviating that. chief fisher and others have taken on temporary detail, 115 border patrol agent from other lessons where they were busy and i don't know any place on the border where they are not busy but where they were a little less busy and surge them into this area. the sooner they can get back to doing those other duties, i think the better. >> you talked about the use of force policy and the modification. can you talk about how it is being received in the field? >> the message i have tried to make sure of is that to the people scrutinizing the use of force by any law enforcement agency but particularly the border patrol right now, is that

a written policy is great for a start but it has to be backed up with training. we made changes in the training curriculum. we have made changes in the physical layout of the border patrol academy so that they have more of a real life situation use ofining without the force. has to be reinforced for supervision and people have to be held accountable if force is used improperly. i don't know any law enforcement officer that opposes these ideas. the message i have given and all of the town halls with the border patrol is that there is no apprehension of an individual, there is no seizure of any amount of narcotics and there is no vehicle pursuit that is worth being injured over. we will have another day. law-enforcement officers across the country recognize this. we do a very good job. we will work very hard but we

have to temper that attempts to theehend with recognizing risk not only to ourselves or to these agents but the risk to others. >> let me turn it over to the audience. please identify yourself and your affiliation, i would appreciate it. >> iq for your remarks today. and --th northrop, northrop grumman. discuss if you might what collaboration there has been with mexico for working on its southern border. what collaboration has there been with canada for the northern border? >> the mexican southern border

with guatemala -- any changes or improvements that could be made their would certainly be a benefit not only to the government of mexico, the country of mexico, but would be of benefit to the united states. many of these young people because of the changes in security along the border are not able to enter the united states or are being kept and what would be called stash houses. that has a direct impact on mexico. the united states knows something about the technology and training and skill set needed for border security. to offer and work with the government of mexico to help them with that issue. that is important. canada, when i was at the office of national drug control policy, we wrote the northern

border strategy. it's a difficult 4000 mile border. that is easily accessed. what i would say about both of these things is that it is not about the sheer number of people or the amount of technology. it's about intelligence and information sharing and focusing your finite resources on the risk. the lady in the pink shirt in the back? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am from kenya, thank you for your presentation. i want to ask if you can talk something about africa. this problem of the border is everywhere.

how do we develop an withnational policy security and customs because this will prevent terrorists? can go to another country and get another password and it is confusion. how would you look at that and how can we collaborate in africa and all over the world? one thing i would offer is a customs and border protection andpersonnel and attaches 22 countries and personnel in about 40 countries. we have advanced training centers and others and working with our partners at the department of state, we are very happy and have done it many times in many countries. we are happy to share our lessons learned. frankly, it is not the united

states coming in and saying that this is the way you must do it and this is the way it should be done. thate pretty happy to say here are the mistakes we have made, perhaps you can benefit from those mistakes. we are better at this now and when we leave those partnerships and when we leave from those training sessions which we do quite often, we are more knowledgeable and we have almost always walked away from those sessions having learned more than perhaps we have imparted by we have developed relationships. we would be happy to follow-up with you later and. help in any way we can >> in the front row here. the lady in purple. >> thank you. about air cargo as well as newport technology. how do you feel about the 9/11 commission 100% scanning policy

and the pushback? there is new technology out there that is effective and passive. attack contraband so how do you feel about that and the pushback? >> many people in the audience know that the law requires 100% scanning and provides the secretary of homeland security with the ability every two years to say whether or not that can be achieved. based upon the technology that had existed in the past would have left cargo and trade stacked up either in the air or stacked up in ships quite a ways out from our ports. technology has changed pretty dramatically and we are exploring a variety of ways to continue to look at this. know, radiation

monitoring exists with everything coming into the united states or almost everything. there are a variety of risk-based approach is that we are using. but may also try to make sure we have not just at the border, the security screening but then further inland. it's a kind of layered defense that we can take. i think we are very hopeful that we can continue to look at the technology that is available to continue to move toward that scanning. >> the gentle man in the blue shirt. >> thank you. mentioned it's not about the sheer number of people on the border or the technology but it's about information sharing. about howaborate more you can become more effective

with information shared? >> we have to develop those trusted relationships with other law enforcement organizations and those organizations such as interpol or others can be particularly helpful. we have also done a better job and continued to move in this direction with something called pre-clearance, pushing the borders out and expanding the borders beyond their borders. being able too clear people coming into the united states and entering through customs 3000 miles away , it makes anhabi awful lot of sense of those of the kind of things we want to be able to continue to work with. my law enforcement colleagues around the world, we have very much come to the conclusion that we are all in this together. the more that we can support and work with each other, the better off we all are. the gentle man in the yellow

shirt in the back. >> good morning and thank you. security measures have pushed a lot of microbes over the years to go through the more city focused -- less city focused areas. where's the highest concentration coming through? >> it is the rio grande valley. it is the shortest distance traveling from central american country through mexico. it is clearly in that particular area that we have seen the largest number of kids. apprehensions along the border had been decreasing. particularly difficult situation because of the terrain in that area but also because these are children.

apprehensions is probably the wrong word. and captures is a much better word. sayingre kids that are they want us to take care of them. >> they are less focused on being caught by border patrol? >> i'm sorry? >> there almost openly putting themselves out there? >> very much so. it is not your great detective work. jacket.entle man in the i just arrived from paris. thank you for the global entry. [laughter] it's very effective. -- on the process and the children going across

the border, some of them, as you mentioned, are coming in for reunification of the family. i was born in morocco. i went through the system and i understand how long it takes. can it take less time for these children or the paper process through the embassies to make it a little bit easier or faster? it can take years to get the paperwork done properly or legally. >> your point is excellent. the legitimate lawful way to enter the country going for the isassy and the system certainly something the department of state is well aware of. we also know that given the numbers of people that wish to come to this country and remain

in this country is an overwhelming amount. i think the question is better answered by the department of state but i'm glad you raised that issue. row.e lady in the third thank you for speaking today. in a recent csis event on the posture of the national guard, it has been said that more guardsmen might be used on the southwest border. can you comment if that is going to happen? there are already partnerships in place. who else might be utilized? >> i was part of the administration when the surge of national guard come i think about 1200 guardsmen were

ago, when few years secretary gates and secretary napolitano were involved. i don't know of any plans involving the national guard now but i know that customs and border protection has had a long and rich and fruitful history with the guard, particularly in the areas of intelligence and analytics, gathering information, etc. we have no better partner than to the -- than the department of defense and secretary hagel. he and the relationship that secretary johnson has is tremendous. the amount of technology that is being returned as a result of the drawdown in afghanistan is very helpful and a lot of that technology can very much be used by us on the border. we have seen a transition very quickly to that.

there are some very good relationships going on and improvements there, thanks. lady in the tent jacket four rows back? -- tan jacket four rows back? you mentioned the transition of vehiclet -- we are a manufacturer. this weekst informed that dhs has requested 350. we talked to the border previously made felt they did not need armored vehicles. is the intent of these to go to border patrols or are you aware of that request? >> i would like to pretend that i know the answer to that. actually, i'm very much unaware of it and i'm certainly happy to look into it and try to get back to you. backe gentle man five rows

- the press conference yesterday you acknowledge complaints that have been made about order patrol officers. you said those complaints would be investigated. can you give a timeframe for those investigations and can you say when the names of the officers involved in those complaints will be made public? i think i have pretty much demonstrated my commitment to having complaints investigated, my commitment to making the information as a result of those investigations known. i would tell you in reading a few of the complaints that the lack of specificity particularly when, where, what station, let alone the names of individuals is extremely troubling. the vagueness of the complaints is very concerning.

that means it will take longer and we will have to look at that. the other part that i would mention to you is that i am extremely troubled by the i am extremely troubled by the fact that i've been down there a lots and spent a lot of time and i have seen these agents doing incredible things, taking care of these kids who were in a dangerous situation. i have watched them do every thing from change diapers to heat formula. they don't have very good skills in some of these things. having to tilt of my own, i know something about diapers but many of these are single young men who were not particularly good at that. they are really getting better. i have watched them bringing in their own clothing. i saw the pictures of a birthday cake for an 11-year-old who had never had a birthday cake. -- i have not

quite seen the kinds of complaints i am hearing about. i'm a bit troubled because these men and women need our support. i don't have a timeframe only because the complaints are so vague and lack specificity so that it will take a while to drill down into what is being talked about. -- with the red tie in the back. you had mentioned earlier about the apprehension of potentially dangerous individuals entering the country. or touch on the process which must be undertaken to eitherbar a foreign national or bring them to the attention of cbp or dhs? >> we have interagency

agreements, interagency relationships so that information about individuals in the united states who may be prohibited or barred whether it is on the no-fly list or other databases, that they, by law, would not receive admittance to the united states. we work with these other agencies. we are actually the gateway or enforcer oftene times of those regulations. . >> the lady in the front row here. >> thank you. you said that many of the kids are girls and many are under the age of 12.

many is a vague term. we are hearing that the vast majority are young males under between 14-18.ut can you give more specific statistics? if they don't have family here which already is kind of strange because the family are here illegally -- if our mission is to put kids to come in a illegally with the parents who are illegal, that's one thing. what if they have the family? they just come in and they are under 18 and we consider them minors. what happens to them then? will they be deported? >> the issue specifically around the numbers has been a bit difficult. we have a number of border patrol stations where these

encounters occur. we have a number of doors of entry. at times, we have definitional issues of family units as opposed to individuals. we have lots of information but what the secretary and i and others have stressed so clearly is we recognize that this is an overwhelming number of young people in need of care and in need of protection. many under the age of 18 but the vast majority of -- needing our services, needing our support. i would tell you that health and is doing anes admirable job under the circumstances to take these hours so theyn 72 can either be reunited with their family member or placed in foster care. i would not comment on the deeper rotation issue -- on the

deportation issue. >> the gentleman in the front. wonderful presentation but my question is this -- the president has done such a wonderful job in trying to push for immigration reform. which he hasys in been blocked politically by people who are in congress, against immigration reform, has been against raising false they say they want to be for immigration reform when

the border is properly secured. is there somebody in the administration with whom you would be in contact with who who can explain this or is chartered to explain this to the american people. not everybody can, listen to your wonderful presentation. that's really my question. are spokespeople for climate change issue but what about immigration? >> i think the person most knowledgeable and has been the spokesperson for the administration on the immigration issue is the head of the domestic policy council, cecilia muoz who is incredibly knowledgeable about so many details. the border security issue is important. often times, when we talk about border security and metrics, an eyeten discussed as of the beholder quality.

there is more resources, more technology, more time, efforts and focus developed for border security over these last few numbers of years than at any time in history. recognize all have to that we have finite resources and that we are going to continue to work very hard. willen and women of cbp continue to work hard to uphold that responsibility. >> the gentle man in the gray suit. you are talking about manpower and technology and barbara trover could could you what roles the systems have begun to play and where that goes in the future? >> the technology systems already in place?

was that --? i think the things that are most helpful that i have seen and listening to people on the border would be things like the tethered arrow steps, the technology -- we have unmanned aircraft also along the southern border. we have remote video systems. they can be deployed that are , the infrared systems that are a part of that also. all of those things i think are value added to the people that are working on the border. >> we've got time for two more questions. nice to see you again.

i was astounded by your comment that the increase in the number of children in this category from last year, i think you said 92%? that is an unbelievable statistic. i don't know what the numbers are present but normally, if you see an increase of this nature, it's due to some factor, it's not just things as normal. the draw weonomy had in the past, is there an effort to identify what specifically you the right interviewing these children or else where, what exactly is the spark here? is there an individual or groups of people? l working toaba take advantage of something? the real problem is going to be what started this and how can we deal with that issue? one in the administration

particularly the secretary has tried to couch this about the of othery in terms than what we are seeing and what we are hearing area this increase did not happen overnight. it said about 48,000 right now. that has already doubled the number from last fiscal year and is this a year over that which was an increase. nothing quite extent we are seeing this year. we have seen surveys from the united states conference of catholic bishops, we have seen of the surveys at igo that's of the issues. there has always been a pull factor for people coming into the united states. as we know, honduras has the highest homicide rate of any country in the world. gang violence, other kinds of violence within those countries

like el salvador and quite a concern. the quest for an education, the quest for a better economy, the quest for safety and security are there and so is family reunification a part of all that . that's why we are trying to address in our comprehensive message to be broadcast, the fact that it is not only dangerous but the fact that this will not lead to a path to .itizenship are guest: > last quest last question lady in black. >> what is your take on implementing biometric exit given your work on the southwest border and given technology now like smartphones and biometric software? >> the biometric exit issue is important and it has a lot of value. we can decrease

wait times in the united states for people entering the country. our continuing study of biometrics is important. theye end of this month, will be opening in experimentation center on biometric technologies. we will continue to reach for that. it's not just the biometrics that would be helpful. we know they have to be put into an infrastructure. our airports are really not designed for biometric exit. all that has to be put into an infrastructure and would also have to be able to aware -- to be aware of privacy in the personally identifiable information. it's a pretty complex set of things. we are exploring with the number of people and a number of very smart people in a very open way >> thank you for your time.staff

you have a complex mission. you talk about travelers. part of that is trying to find -- >> we will leave the discussion at point. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., june 13, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable thomas e. petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. the chaplain: let us pray --

chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you once again that we, your creatures, can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of this assemmably. send your spirit of peace, honesty and fairness during this long weekend of constituent visits. may their ears and hearts be opened to listen to the hopes and needs of those whom they represent. bless the people of this great nation with wisdom and understanding, that they might responsibly participate in our american democracy during this primary season. please keep all who work for the people's house in good health, that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them in their service to the work of the capitol. bless us this day and every day

, may all that is done be for your greater on the glory, amen -- greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. without objection, the house stands adjourned until noon on eric cantor is stepping down

at the end of next month after losing his primary in virginia last tuesday. you can follow the house live on c-span. the new york times is reporting that the senior shiite cleric in a call to arms. in a statement during prayers today, a representative said it was the legal and national responsibility of whoever could hold a weapon should hold it and defend the country. we expect to hear more today. panels will discuss the escalating hostility. yesterday, president obama says the u.s. plans to send more military aid to that country.

they are also considering providing airstrikes. we will bring you that live at 12:30 p.m. eastern. throughout the day, we are asking you should the u.s. .ntervene john brown says yes, but in a limited way. drones, missiles and limited airstrikes. no american ground troops. mark writes no, they had their chance. followhamed they cannot protocol after being instructed by us for nine plus years. you can weigh in at facebook.com/c-span. hearing president obama may come to the white house briefing room to make a statement. if he does, we will bring that to you. we bring you more about the situation in iraq right now.

>> obama ways direct action on the militants is the headline. here is the president from yesterday. >> it indicates the degree to which iraq is going to need more help area they will need more help from us and the international community. my team is working around the clock to identify how we can survive the most effective assistance to them. i do not rule out anything. we have a stake in making sure not these jihadist are getting a permanent foothold in either iraq or syria. host: and the "new york times" says u.s. scramble to help iraq fight off militants. you can see this picture on the front page here, some shiite muslim iraqis volunteering for

military service. , obama weighs air strikes. the white house confronted by an unexpected crisis on a battlefield it thought it had left behind, scrambled thursday to reassure iraq that it would help its beleaguered army fend off militants who have overrun much of the country and now threaten baghdad -- host: after that briefing on capitol hill, some senators took to the floor to talk about the situation. here's john mccain.

>> the president needs to replace his entire national security team which have been a total failure. they're the ones that described our departure from iraq as a great success. it can have many quotes that would attest to that. the president has got to learn that just because he dechairs a conflict over is not because it's over, and the president needs to get a reliable team around him to provide him with the options that are available and the course of actions that ould be able to reverse this disaster that's unfolding before our eyes. >> you said air strikes aren't enough -- >> no, i am not saying it's not enough. i am saying that we need to get the smartest guys. that's general petraeus, the people that won the war with the surge and get their advice and counsel. air strikes may be part of it. air strikes may not be part of it.

i would rely on their judgment. i am not calling for air strikes. i am calling for the advice and counsel are the smartest people who won the war in iraq before the president of the united states lost it. host: a little bit more from the "new york times" on iraq, u.s. scramble to help iraq fight off militants as baghdad is threatened is the headline -

ost: 202 is the area code. 585-3881 for republicans. iraq veterans, 202-585-3883. should the u.s. intervene in iraq is our question. we're going to begin with a call from jessica in l.a. on our independent line. jessica, you're on the air. caller: hi, good morning. i just to want say, i have more of a statement. i am just disgusted by this. i am so tired of being in all of these wars. we were over there, we're spending billions of dollars over in iraq and afghanistan. we have a crisis at our borders right now. we have all these children coming in. nothing is being done about that. the taxpayers are going to be stuck with that. i think america needs to wake up. we need to start hitting the streets. we need to start protesting. this needs to stop. i'm just totally disgusted. when is it going to end? all of our money is going over there. people can't even get unemployment. this has to stop. i'm totally disgusted.

host: the state department sent out a tweet yesterday saying that they can confirm that u.s. citizens under contract to iraq government are being temporarily relocated due to security concerns in the area. tyrone in north carolina, democrats line. tyrone, what do you think, u.s. intervene in iraq at this point? caller: no, sir. good morning. she shouldn't go over there, and john mccain shouldn't have said what he said, because he's the reason so many people are dead by sending them into iraq under false -- promising there was weapons of mass destruction, and there was none. we can't police the whole world. if they want to send somebody, let them send their sons and grandsons and daughters. this stuff need to stop. host: is there a solution to what's going on in iraq right now? >> yeah, prayer. put god first instead of man. that's the solution to all the problems in this world, pray. pray to god first and not man, and you'll see things change.

host: thank you, sir. diane f.b.i. stine is the chair of the intel committee in the senate, and she also spoke yesterday about this issue. >> i'm very concerned. i think it clearly shows that maliki was unable to make any accommodations with sunnis, and now the most violent of sunni extremist groups have grabbed hold of the situation and are on a march to baghdad. and this could be devastating. you know, i'd like an opportunity, assuming i'm asked, to give my views personally, but this is a very dangerous situation. host: and katherine is calling from north conway, new hampshire. hi, katherine. caller: hi, good morning. there is an adage, the pen is mightier than the sword. therefore, in like iraq and all arab countries, syria and

afghanistan, so forth, perhaps the solution to the terrorist threat and to reach the hearts and minds of the people would be to drop millions and millions of leaf lets, twitter, ut on computer, tv, radio, the following very brief and strong message. if mom mad was living today -- if mohammed was living today, would he condone terrorist violence? would he condone jihad? would he consider anonymous limbs infidels? i think not. being a spiritual prophet to many people, he would have grown and had new spiritual processes, just like other religions have. they've changed over women and gay rights in religion. they've changed about polygmy. they've changed about who can go to heaven.

and people can follow and have faith in a religion, all the while the religion is changing for the better. host: all right, katherine, going to show you the front page of the "wall street journal," iraq scramble to defend baghdad is the header. the story right below that, militants aim to redraw mideast map. at an annual security conference in israel this week, the head of the military showed pictures of two long-dead diplomats, an englishman and a frenchman, secured their place in history by cutting a deal that drew the borders of the modern middle east --

host: tone any fort worth on our democrats line. what do you think? should the u.s. do something? caller: well, i think we should go in in a very limited capacity, you know, because we done so much already. people saying we lost 4,400 soldiers or whatever the case may be, that we're one of those 4,400 more by going in again.

they've been fighting since the beginning of time, you know? iran stopped fighting iraq so iraq could fight us when we first went over there. there's always been wars in that region. we can't get involved in everything in that region. you know, if we go to war, he's wrong f. we don't go to wrong, he's wrong. if he gets on bergdahl in exchange for prisoners, he's wrong, and if he doesn't he's wrong. the president is in a no-wayne situation in this case. for john mccain to come on and make those statements he's made about the president losing the war, we never should have been in the war in the first place. i don't know what happened to john mccain. i think losing the presidency to president obama really changed his whole outlook on life or something. but i think we should go in, but where is nato? i think nato forces would be berti quipped for this instead of the united states going in. they talking about the budget,

we won't spend another trillion dollars on another war. i really don't know what the republicans want from the president. host: thank you, sir. the army statement on sergeant bergdahl, sergeant bergdahl was returned to the u.s. on june 13. he arrived at the san antonio military medical facility on fort sam houston early this morning, where he will undergo phase three reintegration. that's the army statement this orning on sergeant bergdahl, and shawna is calling from california on our republican line. shawna, what do you think? shawna, you with us? caller: korean war veteran, and we don't need to put any more money into any country that hates us. my husband is one of those veterans that's now sitting in a nursing home dying in a wheelchair permanently in

diapers because the v.a. broke their own policy in san francisco and sat -- host: do you know what? that's not quite what we're talking about this morning, but we got your point. i think we got your point on iraq. "usa today," lead story as well, islamist fighters set their sights on baghdad is their headline. and politte co-has this article -- politico has this article, "g.o.p. on iraq, we told you so." and from the "wall street journal," u.s. secretly flying drones over iraq. the u.s. since last year has been secretly flying unmanned surveillance aircraft in small numbers over iraq to collect intelligence on insurgents, according to u.s. officials. the program was limited in size and proved little use to u.s. and iraqi officials when islamist fighters moved swiftly this week to seize two major

iraqi cities. before the islamist offensive, the program was expanded based on growing u.s. and iraqi concerns about the expanded military activities of al qaeda -linked fighters. anna, texas, democrat. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. may 19, 2005, my nephew was one of those 4,400 soldiers who lost his life in iraq. for all those people who want to spend our money and our young men's lives, young men and young women's lives, you take your children or your grandchildren down to the army, navy, marine base, and you let them fight the wars. we have lost so much of our young people's lives. general president eisenhower always spoke, and nobody speaks

about president eisenhower, because he said old men will start wars, and young men will have to give their lives for those wars. so for everybody out there, it's been devastating for our 25-year-old nephew to have -- he was the oldest person in the tank who was trying to save one of his soldier's lives and several other people. he was a gold star resilient. he has every medal, but that doesn't do anything for his child now. so if you think that fighting wars all the time will save anyone, those people are going to fight forever, and maliki should never have been put in place. this is not president obama's war. he inherited the war. we shouldn't inherit all of this mess. we should clean up our own country. and make sure that our young people are educated.

the shiites, they don't include anybody. saddam hussein kept all of those people out of iraq, but we went in and killed him because he knew so much on us. so for all those people out there who want it, you go down, and you sign up at the recruiting office, and also, on that young man who just came back, we should -- no, we don't leave him, and all of us who are piling on him, we should be ashamed. this is america. host: that was texas. national journal this morning, congress' iraq vets helplessly watch their gains lost. this article says that there are 17 members of congress who served in iraq, and our next call comes from an iraq vet. lee in sterling, virginia, here in the suburbs. hi, lee. caller: hi. good morning. thanks, sir, for taking my call. you know, it's with a heavy heart to see all this going on.

i was there five times. i was a navy corpsman with the marines, and i did search and rescues. i did a lot of pain and suffering. i lost a lot of my brothers and sisters, and i hope today i still have that guilt that why am i alive and they're not? but i got to say, i agree with the previous callers, one of the callers mentioned about her husband, about korean, vietnam veteran, suffering now, dealing with the v.a. i think that, first off, we do not have an obligation to go back. that's number one. we've been there. we've sacrificed so much, and to our own demise. so an obligation, we do not. i think it was extended up to 2011 so we had to get all our troops out. the iraqis, they are the ones

that didn't want us there. they're the ones that -- obama tried to keep troops there, but that agreement wasn't signed. for us to keep troops there without that agreement signed is essentially, you know, it's like we're committing suicide for our soldiers out there, and marines, sailors, etc. we just could not stay there. to me, iraq, they chose their own destiny. we do not have an obligation to go back. i'm very disturbed that senator mccain made those statements, made those comments, because that's shaping the public perception, but we do not have an obligation. i got to say, what we need to do is have an intelligent footprint because we still have to -- we have to protect our borders, and we know that our borders have definitely widened, and we know we have assets all over the world, and we have to take care of them. i think we do need to have the intelligence.

and that's all. that's the type of footprint we need to have. host: what about drones? what about the use of drones? caller: i think it has to be done very strategically. it nk, again, you know, has bob ton very strategically, like if we have to target the leaders, i'm ok with that. but i think it will have to be based on very hard intelligence, and i think that should be the focus. host: lee, what happens if maliki falls if iraq is overrun by the isis? caller: well, i think that's where intelligence has to come in, and we have to try to contain, but i think the reality is there's going to be a civil war there. just from being there, it's destiny. it's destiny. i know there's a lot of people with faith in the scriptures, but just seeing how they

interact with each other, you know, this goes back, you know, hundreds of thousands of years. and i think we have to respect that. i think we have to allow them to deal with it. i think the very fact -- to go back to the fact, the fact the agreement wasn't signed is a testament to that. we have to allow them to deal with it. i think for to us shed any more -- to provide any more resources, you know, our most valuable resources, i think we can't. we have so much -- look at this. the v.a. was on the front page, and we were still focused on fixing the v.a., and now we don't see it on the front page. that's the focus right now. we have an obligation to take care of those who have given it all. host: all right, that's lee in sterling, virginia. this tweet from jack said the u.s. should go in, train the army for two more years, and then watch the same thing happen again? senator lindsey graham also spoke about this issue yesterday. >> to the american people, i know you're world-weary and

tired of dealing with the mideast, but the people that are moving into iraq and holetting ground in syria have as part of their agenda not only to drive us out of the mideast, but hit our homeland. the head of the f.b.i. said that the pipeline for the next 9/11 attack is likely to come rom syria. there are numerous american citizens who have gone to the jihad in syria. european jihadists are now in syria. they're coordinating in syria and iraq. they hold terrain. it is my worst fear come true. host: editorial, "usa today," u.s. policy failures leave few good options in iraq. that newspaper writes that. the most telling aspect of the isis success was what it said about president al-maliki, who has stubbornly resist the u.s.

pressure to bring's sunni minority into his government -- host: next call is terry, dayton, ohio, democrat. you're on the "washington journal." should the u.s. get involved in iraq? terry? caller: yes, i'm here. thank you for taking my call. no, we shouldn't get involved, and i'm actually offended that

the newspapers, the media is trying to push us back into another war. we can't even take care of our own people here. we've been fighting this war for years for no reason, and now you got people like john mccain, lindsey graham talking nonsense, and it's just so disrespectful. it's disheartening that we are being tried and being pushed back into another war over there. wary done. we're out. take care of our veterans. take care of our homeless people here. feed our children. educate our children here. that's what we need to be thinking about. thank you for taking my call. host: here very quickly, iraq by the numbers. when the u.s. invaded iraq, that was march 19, 2003, eight years, nine months, and 12 days. 1.5 million americans served in that war. u.s. military deaths, about 4,500.

u.s. troops injured, about 32,000. we've set aside our fourth line this morning for iraq vets, 202-585-3883 if you want to share your experience in iraq and tell us what you think about whether the u.s. should intervene in iraq at this point, given what's happening. here's a headline, iraq disintegrating as insurgents advance toward the capital. kurds are now seizing kirkuk. we will be talking with michael gordon of the "new york times" about that a little bit later when he comes out here. "wall street journal," lead editorial this morning, the iraq debacle is the headline. here's the conclusion -- mr. obama now faces the choice of intervening anew with u.s. military force or doing nothing. the second option means risking the fall of baghdad or a full-scale iranian intervention to save mr. maliki's government, either of which would be a terrible strategic defeat --

host: james, arlington, texas, independent line. what's your view? caller: yeah, i can't believe

people want to intervene in that, because the sunnis and the shiites, they're headed for civil war. i mean, the sunnis regard the shiites as infidels basically. and basically, as long as you're right there battling each other, they don't have any time to concentrate on us. i mean, we should be more worried about it than united, all right? they're over there battling each other, and it's the best thing we can have happen for us, because i mean, granted, we got to keep our eye on them. we don't want them to come to our country, but they're over there battling each other, it ain't none of our business. that's a civil war between them. to get involved in it would be stupid. host: john, michigan, republican line. john, you're on. caller: good morning. host: hi. caller: i guess i have quite a few things that i'd like to express on this. first of all, i think that this

what's , a lot of going on, with the world economy. if we let this region collapse, it will dramatically affect the world. in saying that, though, this area has been, you know, battling for centuries. in the recent history, you take iraq, which we went in to take out, you know, a guy that, you know, was killing people in there. then we went into egypt, took out mubarak. then we went into -- and took out gaddafi. how are all those areas looking to you right now? now we're in afghanistan. that's falling apart. you got syria. hat's falling apart.

what we need to do is find a way to get out of there. we need to come back to our country. we need to develop the resources here so we're not dependent on that area of the world for our energy, and the way this country is going right respect ave lost the of the world, and until we get that back, we're in dire straits. i mean, i'm 70 years old. host: yes, sir. go ahead and conclude. caller: i'm 70 years old, and i see this country going down the tubes. host: all right. we're going to leave it there. in other news, this is from "the hill." congressman pete sessions, a republican of texas, is out of the majority leader race, and mccarthy rises. that's their headline. kevin mccarthy is the only declared candidate right now

for the majority leader position in the house of representatives. also from "the hill," cantor campaign manager blames the democrats. outgoing house majority leader eric cantor's campaign manager is pinning the blame on democrats for his loss. ray allen, in his first interview, told "the hill" said he believes cantor was a victim of meddling from democrats who crossed over in the primary to "we had nst him, probably 15,000 card-carrying democrats come into this primary. there's just no way to anticipate something like that." some allies are quietly furious that and he his team had no idea what was coming and blame a weak campaign for not recognizing he was in trouble. it goes on to say in this article that turnout was much higher in this primary than it was in 2012, but outside observers are highly skeptical that allen's analysis about the democrats is correct.

george mason university professor michael mcdonald, a voting model expert, has crunched the precinct level data on what happened and said it was highly unlike that will enough democrats turned out to swing the election, noting that turnout increased more in heavily republican precincts than heavily democratic precincts this year. that's from "the hill" newspaper. and also, one floor "the hill," this is the majority whip. if kevin mccarthy becomes ma jort leader, his majority whip position is opened up. that's the number three position essentially with the speakership being number one, majority leader, then majority whip. the two folks running right now, peter rossco of illinois, who's one of the current -- he's chief deputy whip right ow, and steve scalise, the head of a conservative group of lawmakers, those are the two

declared candidates for majority whip. harry, port roberts, washington, democrats line. should the u.s. intervene in iraq? caller: well, we should definitely keep our eye on what's going on there, and we need to let the president make the decisions he needs to make by including the countries that are in that area, and they should work together. i've come up with some solution or whatever they can do. as far as mccain and screaming like -- i don't know what they're screaming like, but it's pretty obscene what they're doing. it's up to the president. he's the commander in chief. he needs to go in there, see what he can do, see if he can fix it. if he can't, we shouldn't there in the first place, because iraq has always been a problem. when saddam hussein was in there, everything was somewhat calm, and now they've thrown an a bomb in there and they're trying to make it work, and it's not going to work. it's just impossible. they're going to have to try to

do the best they can to fix it. but not send troops in or send missiles in to start blowing everybody up. host: tracy on our facebook page, when we asked the question, should the u.s. intervene in iraq? no. how can we go back to iraq when we are in such a debt and supposedly pulling out of afghanistan? why would we go back to a country and spend billions of dollars again only to leave and it go back the way it is now? this is not going to end. i served over there flying missions, tracy says. i served in the first gulf war. it is not going to change. the best thing we can do is send drones to help and that is it. we cannot afford the money it would cost, and we certainly do not need to lose any more of our fine men and women serving. if you want to make a comment and participate in the conversation on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. here are some of the tweets hat we've been receiving --

host: from politico this morning, jill abe rack son to teach at harvard. she will be teaching a narrative, nonfiction course in he fall at harvard university. and from "the hill" newspaper, mcdaniel is up in a new mississippi senate poll. chris mcdaniel, 49 to 41 over thad cochran. that happened, that second primary in that race happens on june 24. frederick is calling in from west lafayette, indiana. frederick, you're on the air. caller: yes, good morning. i was motive ate to call because of what i car inflammatory nature of the

headline there. the term intervention is a very emotion-laden term. the callers that have come in before me have been, i think, pretty much emotionally involved, which is understandable. but what i would recommend is that when you talk about the u.s. government policy, to use a term like participation, going back to the second world war, the united states joined allies in that war, and that was followed by a korean situation where we joined the united nations in what was called the police action. people don't like that. they're emotional about it. they're thinking the united states is a big interventionist. well, when you go to the vietnam situation, that was a case where we set up a group of countries that were trying to work collectively, and we had a bunch of allies.

when you hear people talking about vietnam, they make it act like the allies that died alongside of us weren't there. then when you get back to -- host: can you bring this -- caller: the point is, the point is that, for your discussions to really be very beneficial, you should -- you should think these people, when they're waving emotional terms around, what is it we're really talking about? everything is for the benefit of the united states. if up to the make people get upset about stuff, we were in afghanistan because it was in our interests. if we were in iraq, it was because it was in our interests. we were in vietnam, it was because it was our interest. host: all right. we appreciate you calling in. bill tweets in, we lose iraq, we lose the ability to flank iran when we have to go in there, this is terrible. dean is an iraqi vet, calling in from pennsylvania. dean, you're on the "washington

journal." what do you think? caller: well, i just know one thing. if they're going to use missiles or if they're going to do air strikes, that i know they need ground troops on the ground to guide them in. what t fair, but that's happens. host: where did you serve and when did you serve in iraq? caller: i served in the early i got hurt, 3, and so did a lot of my buddies, and we came out, but we're still fighting our war at home with the v.a. but we do know that when you do missile strikes, you do need people on the ground to guide them in there. eople aren't thinking of that. i do believe that all three branches of the government need to work together in order to figure this one out.

the people that are incompetent incident need to just stay out of it and put the professionals in there that know how to solve this problem. right now it seems like everybody's fighting everybody, and they need to come together and work as one. thank you for your time. host: jose, new mexico, republican line. jose, what do you think? caller: yes, hi, good morning. yes, first of all, i agree with senator mccain that the president needs a new team of advisors. we need retired generals, people that really know what they're talking about, people that know what's going on in the middle east. i think the president is not being served very well right now with who he's being advised by. and america is not being served well. i also think that, you know, we need to open up the keystone pipeline and things like that,

so we're not dependent on the middle east anymore. and as far as military action in iraq, well, i don't want to see ground troops there, i don't think they can do any more. but we can't let these terrorists take over either, and i don't know, they just said we would need ground troops for air strikes, and i don't know if that's really the case. i trust he knows more than i do, but, you know, i thought perhaps air strikes would be a good idea, but that's why we need experts. we need military generals and so forth. but we do need to obviously look at the big picture. we need to protect israel, our friend, our ally, and we need to protect jordan, the king there, because these are people that are america's friends.

and i agree with the previous caller, we definitely need to pray. host: a couple of polls that have come out, americans like hillary clinton a lot less now than when she was secretary of state. this is from the national journal. she's been voted most fired woman 18 times, and her favorability rating, which has dropped five points since february, remains positive, but americans like clinton a lot better when she was secretary of state before she became a speech-giving civilian who's toying with the idea of running for president. 54%, current favorability rating. obama as unpopular as george w. bush in a new poll. this is a new poll out by cnn. just over half of those polls, 51%, have an unfavorable view of obama, and 51% currently feel the same about bush, according to a new poll. 47% of the public has a

favorable rating of obama, which cnn said is a new low for him and roughly identical to ush's favorable rating of 46%. finally, from "the washington post," a poll finds in a polarized u.s., we live as we vote. political polarization is now deeply embedded in the u.s., more so than at any time in recent history, according to the study, and it's intensified in recent years. the percentage of americans who hold either consistently conservative or consistently liberal positions on major issues has doubled over the past decade and now accounts for 1/5 of all americans --

host: that's a little bit from "the washington post" report on the pew poll. laura tweets in that joe biden's idea that iraq should have been divided in thirds not sounding so wacky anymore. joe, should the u.s. intervene in iraq? joe is calling on our democrats line from baltimore. hi, joe. caller: how you doing this morning? how you doing, america? the last caller got me a little bit fired up, and this is off topic a little bit. you talking about israel being our friend. israel is not our friend. the jews are friends, but israelis, they're not so crazy about us. now, should we intervene into iraq? we're already in iraq. let's tell the truth about it. remember, the reason why we pulled out of iraq was because we wanted to leave a residual force there.

they agreed to leave a force in iraq from 3,000 to 6,000 troops. these no doubt are those ones who are taking over mosul, and the all the way into baghdad, they really work for us, so we really can't intervene. we can't drop bombs on people who already working for us. the weapons that they're talking about sending in there to help the baghdad troops, to help the troops in baghdad to defend themselves, these weapons aren't really going to baghdad troops. in fact, if you look at the news, been reading the news, you'll see the baghdad troops have been leaving the towns and cities themselves. the reason why they're leaving because their weaponry cannot stand up to the weaponry that the foreign fighters have. remember, these foreign fighters worked for the united ates, military groups that band together to take over iraq y.? all because. oil. people, don't worry about it. the president will not attack iraq, would not drop a bomb on any one of those terrorists

over there, because they work for us. bottom line. that's the truth. host: joe in baltimore, and this is janine in columbia, missouri. caller: hello. yes, i really basically -- my daughter, like i said, she went to iraq 10 days after high school. they pulled her in into the military, and not long after the things started in baghdad, they were there. let me tell you, listening to everything, like my daughter said, if we don't -- if we don't keep them over there, if we don't keep them over there, they're come here. and you know what? they were already here, like i told my daughter. the thing that disturbs me the most, i'm listening to all the conversations over the tv, and i'm just listening to a gentleman, and i ado agree about the oil and everything, but the thing that bothers me the most about united states is we are united states. democrats, republicans,

independents, we are all united states, and i hate to see this division between us. i hate to see parties, like people saying, oh, i'm a democrat, i'm a republican. no, we're all united states citizens. and together we stand and divided we fall. you know, the thing that's keeping us with problems, even within our own country, within our own boundaries, is we have a division amongst ourselves. and until we can get that division amongst ourselves, we don't have to like each other. we don't have to like race or whatever, just get together, get the job done, then go your separate ways. host: all right, we're going to leave it there and go to john in michigan. john, you're on the "washington journal." john? caller: hello? host: we're listening. caller: yeah. i want to say a couple of things, and i don't want to be cut off every time that i say something -- host: john, you're going to have to be kind of quick here. we're almost out of time. caller: yeah, ok.

9/11 was an inside job -- host: all right. we get the point. thank you so much. we appreciate it. a couple of tweets to finish it out. here's jan. you know, when they were mulling going into iraq, i had that sick feeling in my stomach. it hasn't gone away. and terry says, didn't we learn suffer enough already in blood and dollars? and jim says, only if they want to hearare expecting from president obama. he will be speaking about the growing violence in iraq. the terror group isis has been making its way in swath across the country. officials believe they are headed to baghdad.

according to "the hill," officials arif -- are worried more weapons could fall into militant hands. pictures ont twitter that showed they acquired u.s. humvees. the insurgents have forced the obama administration to continue -- consider military steps as it is focused on u.s. troop drawdowns in conflict areas. the president is not contemplating reinserting u.s. troops, but drug trikes are under contemplation. michelle obama is traveling this afternoon to north dakota for an event on an indian reservation. they will be heading to palm springs.

we expect the president to make a statement in just a moment.

>> a live picture from the lawn of the white house as we await a statement from president obama before he takes off for north

dakota. he is expected to talk about the growing violence in iraq. we expect him in just a moment. while we wait for the president, we will take you back to this morning cost of -- this morning's "washington journal." >> we have advisors there, but an extremely limited capacity. if you are talking about airstrikes, the iraqi government has been talking about that for month. president obama said yesterday all options are on the table. he cannot be excluded, but i do not think it is likely in the immediate future.

house, when president obama took office, one of his signature foreign-policy accomplishments was ending the war in iraq. from a political standpoint, he is reluctant to acknowledge that the war never really ended. what ended was the military presence in iraq. >> looking at your article, the army was crumbling long before its collapse. and toe time to ponder to look at the situation for a while? >> the time to have done this was a year were two ago. immediately after american presidentt iraq, obama's national security advisor gave a speech that said violence was at a historic low. the message was that everything was in good shape.

in reality, all of these factors were at work. if there's going to be a solution for iraq, it has to be a holistic solution. it has to involve political reform, more inclusive armedment, reform of the forces, better commanders. standpoint, it is logical to think that as the situation deteriorates, iraq, who has no air force, may need help from the united states. baghdad in danger at this point? >> i do not think so. as a sweeping as the follows , i do- the fall of mosul not think so. i think they will infiltrate the

areas around baghdad and use them as sanctuaries to launch suicide and car bomb attacks into baghdad. there is some of that going on now. this is the tactic they used against the united states and so they were pushed out by the american surge. it is likely they will return to that. >> were you surprised at how fast this seems to have come on? though idays, even , i am note iraq war surprised that al qaeda and iraq , which is basically the group that has come back under a new moniker. i am not surprised they have come back. that does notp

respect borders. they are in syria and in iraq. no one is putting the heat on them in -- >> i want to take some time to give you an update about the situation in iraq. meeting with my national security council to discuss the situation. over the last several days we have seen significant gains made , a terrorist organization that operates in syria and iraq. iraqi security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities whatever let the terrorists to overrun part of iraq's territory. this poses a danger to iraq and its people and could pose a threat eventually to american interests as well. this threat is not brand-new.

beenthe last year, we have steadily ramping up our security assistance to the iraqi government with increased training, equipping, and intelligence. needs additional intelligence to break momentum of the extremist groups and bolster the capability of iraqi extremist forces. security forces. we will not be sending combat troops into iraq. i have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options i and i will be reviewing those options in the days ahead. i do want to be clear. or primarilyolely a military challenge. over the past decade, american troops have made extraordinary anrifices to give iraqis opportunity to claim their own future. unfortunately, iraq's leaders have been able to -- unable to