this particular issue is part of our readiness action plan because it is also necessary to be ready to counter such hybrid warfare. headings said that, is this purely a nato issue? militaryn traditional means. propagandaludes information and dis operations, and that goes beyond traditional nato operations. it is an excellent example of an area where we need close cooperation and coordination with other organizations like the european union. but i would also think about other organizations. is of utmost importance that we improve our ability to

counter that kind of warfare. first of all,, there is no need to develop or create a specific picture of russia to reinvigorate our alliance. i think it is quite obvious to everybody why nato is needed. we need a strong collective defense to protect their populations against any kind of threat. so i would argue that it is russia herself that creates a very particular picture right now. in me remind you that november 2010 at the nato russia summit in lisbon, we decided to develop a true strategic partnership between nato and

russia. we have done a lot more in the last 20 years to develop a constructive for operation with russia, because we do believe that a positive engagement with russia is the right way forward. just to discover that russia sees it differently, and if you read the russian military doctrines, they point to nato not as a partner, but as an adversary. so it is russia that creates this particular picture. finally, on the open door me put it this, let way, at the end of the day it is a political decision where -- to open for is ripe membership. we are in close dialogue with

countries. for some of them we have developed what we call a membership action plan, and within that plan we define certain reforms, certain reforms to be carried out, certain --and withat must be regards to montenegro as an example, we appointed to reforms of their security sector as a particular issue, and we will now focus and intensify our talks with montenegro on that specific issue. aspirant countries know very well what is needed to enter the door. >> if i may, we're coming to the end of an hour, but i would like to ask the question. he have a ton of questions remaining. this will wrap up our

conversation today. as we talk about looking to the end of your tenure when you step down, you have an enormous plate, and enormous agenda still on your plate. as you think back on your time as secretary general, when you first came to the atlantic council, he said something that struck me as i was looking back at your original remarks, that i have to straddle the atlantic with one foot in europe and one foot in north america. when europe and north america come together, i'm comfortable. when they drift apart, i'm the one who feels the pain. [laughter] as you think back over your tenure as nato secretary, when have you felt the most pain? what is your biggest challenge to manage as someone who represents both sides of the atlantic? comfortable because i would argue we have seen a closer transatlantic

relationship during my tenure as secretary-general. you have of course seen our , and asn in afghanistan was mentioned in the introduction tonight, we decided on a search in late 2009 -- surge in late 2009. the american decision was followed by european commitment d inthe europeans surge libya in 2011. you saw the europeans take the lead for the first time in the history of our alliance. experience during my tenure as secretary-general that we have had more political consultations in the nato council and we had in the past,

also following as the new strategic concept in which we declared that any ally can request consultations on any issue of interest. so we have had a lot of consultations, also on issues where we did not have any as a natoto intervene alliance, but we have seen the north atlantic council as a for him for a very -- as a forum for every intensive transatlantic dialogue. when we're speaking about operations and about the transatlantic dialogue i think we have seen a closer cooperation developed during those five years, and that is why i do not feel pain, but i'm quite comfortable. >> terrific. i apologize to those whose questions i was not able to take. i want to remind those of you

that are watching online or through television, if you want to join the secretary-general in 35, we arere under recruiting right now for our nato future leaders to the summit in september. it your applications in. thank you, mr. secretary-general, to your team. you have been trafficked to work with as well as the atlantic council is delighted to have you. please join me in a the secretary-general. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain seated -- >> the content should remain free from regulation and especially by if not solely from the fcc regulation. it is like confusing the conversation for the sidewalk. of course we want the conversation to be free and unregulated, and the fcc has no place regulating content online. the pathways that

stay open, so today we have a regulated phone system. when i does not regulate call you, but they make sure that the pathway is open, affordable, nondiscriminatory. >> is true sure whether this platforms -- those platforms remain open as they have historically. the internet has grown up where anybody can get online. 18 the company can get access to ae network and become huge business. it is vital that not change as the internet evolves. fcc'se opinions on the open internet policy tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. on the next "washington journal," look at key issues before congress, including

integration. our guest is grover norquist. then questions about recent supreme court rulings on abortion and contraception. global oil at production in a report that shows the u.s. has surpassed saudi arabia and russia as the oil producer.t live every morning on c-span at 7:00 eastern. and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. now a discussion on the future of america are doctors and federal funding for those doctors. from "washington journal," this is 40 minutes. host: joining us is jane o'donnell. she is the consumer reporter at "usa today." you've done some reporting on the growing need for doctors. guest: there is a shortage and there is projected a much larger

shortage in the next 10 years. it is expected to be about 50,000 too few primary care physicians to few. the networks of doctors is shrinking. when you consider medicaid is being expanded in so many aging, and generally the population, there is a shortage of the kinds of doctorse we're supposed we going to. host: why is this this particular group of doctors? guest: it depends on where you live. if you can think about the kinds of doctors they get aid the best specialist get paid much more. they are right above hiv specialists. primary care is not a profession

that a lot of doctors want to go into. there is a lot of outcry that there needs to be more funding and there should've been more funding in the affordable care act. host: a massive number. have you heard anything from the medical community about how to close that gap? guest: they say there needs to be more funding for medical residencies. it should be targeted at that. a hospital is going to want to direct that money when they get the funding toward specialties are going to bring in more money. the physician groups say there needs to be more oversight on how that money is spent and strings on where it goes. host: jayne o'donnell as a

consumer reporter at "usa today." what is the role of the affordable care act in the shortage? guest: one of the key goals was to make us all healthier. one of the problems among lower income people is they don't visit a doctor regularly. they just go as a last-minute thing. they go to the emergency room. that is extremely costly. your insurance company, your employer really want to cut down on that. the affordable care act was to cut down on that. the government has to end up paying for a lot of that care. they have to subsidize that care. if everybody went to a primary

care doctor for their annual physical or just when they were sick or for preventative care, it would keep the cost of health care lower. that is pretty much it. we are trying to get everybody to go to a primary care doctor. they think the emergency room is their primary care doctor. that is going to drive a lot of it. so many more millions more people have insurance. these people all need to find doctors. if you're in a rural area or an urban area like we live them, it can be hard to find. host: jimmy is on the independent line. caller: i thought this is been discussed years ago. there was always going to be a doctor shortage and a nursing shortage. now all of a sudden we are worrying about the next 10 or 15 years. what is the underlying reason as

to why we have not done more to get doctors and people in the medical fields? what do they see as the future? a lot of people are screaming and about obamacare and rationed health care. even without the aca, we are headed that way. guest: like so many things in washington it comes down to funding. it is not that things haven't been done. if you're in the medical industry, most people would argue there needs to be more money to entice people to get into this. there is something called scope

of practice about who can do what in the world of medicine. in some states it is very restrictive on what nurse practitioners or physician assistants can do. we are finding that in our doctor's offices they are offering nurse practitioners to do some of the alternative things like a strep test or vaccinations. many people say that is probably ok for some of these more rudimentary things that a doctor does. we would save the doctors with so many years of training for the most serious cases. those are the two big issues. i will leave the people who are in the opinion business to address the other issues. host: our guest is from "usa today."

if you're in the medical community, we have a line. college park, maryland. caller: my question is about the educational system. and i feel like the education system is the problem and that is why we don't have enough medical professionals. it takes too long to go to nursing school and a medical school. i feel it there should be a system in which medical schools can just focus. there should be schools set up to focus on medicine and

nursing where yhey can accept more students. we take too many unnecessary classes and it costs too much. there should be something done about that. guest: i was going to talk about the cost. the cost is going up. anybody who is apparent or putting their kids to school knows that. we are not talking about moneygrubbing professionals only want to be plastic surgeons and make all the money. it is the basic fact that some of these doctors wind up with $250,000 in student loans. they have to pay them off. it will be much easier if they go into a higher paying area of

specialty. it is certainly not my position to address, how many years in school a doctor should have. it is important to note that nurse practitioners can go through far less schooling and perform many of the functions in rural areas or urban areas where doctors are not likely to practice as much. host: the next color is james on the line for independents. caller: a lot of money should be put on research for the family doctors. it seems like all the good research is going to specialties. guest: the doctors should be doing more research? host: i don't think he's on the line any longer.

guest: there is a lot of research being done right now on how to get more doctors to do this. there's plenty of research and what these doctors should be doing when they are doing it. i'm fairly new to covering health care. i am amazed at how many groups there are out there doing research. it is very heartening. there is a lot of research being done right now. host: can you talk about the impact of the rise in population on the issue of doctor shortages? guest: that is the biggest chunk of it. this is a very fast growing society.

so many of us are going to be in medicare. medicare is very costly for the government to pay for. it is a fact of life that older people go to the doctor more. they are going to need more primary care doctors. we're going to need all of those kinds of doctors. everybody needs to go to the doctor more often. whether it is people coming in from other countries or the baby and boom generation having thes just going to be population issues that doctors are not prepared to dress. host: dan is in pittsburgh in the medical community. caller: i've been practicing for 20 years. i see the main problem being access to care. we need more primary care providers. pa's and nurse practitioners are good start.

the same economic realities faced affect them. they have high debt. they go into specialties because they are reimbursed at the greater rate. student debt is a huge issue. i think medical schools should be free. that would encourage more people to go into primary care. guest: it is a good suggestion. with the amount of money that the affordable care act, and i know we will talk about medicare fraud. the cost of health care is so high. it is 18% of our economy. it is hard to imagine that medical school will become free. if there are ways to incentivize and make things less expensive, that would happen more quickly. host: how is the government addressing this issue?

guest: congress isn't around right now. they did ask for more money in their budget this past spring. we will see what happens. they don't always get what they ask for. they're asking for money. they want more money for these residencies. there is money being asked for for the national health service corps, for primary training. there is a commission called the national health care workforce commission. there are budget requests. there are things going on right now. it is easy to criticize the federal government. the critics that i talked to say that they should have anticipated they would be asking more of the primary care workforce. more should have been done to get more doctors into the system. some of the funding is scheduled to end next year.

this is something that will appear to be successful, to get 100 doctors to graduate every year -- host: is it clear from the reporting how likely this request is going to be honored? guest: there is so much rhetoric around the affordable care act it is hard to say. it is sad to think about what can happen to funding for things like this. host: let's go to the republican line. caller: i love c-span. i've been calling the show for 35 years. i think a lot of doctors are dropping out of medicine because they can't make enough money under obamacare. what we are trying to more business leaders appear that can

help cut the cost of obamacare or eliminate it so you're having so many primary physicians. they can't make enough money. i'm working to to send people up to washington. they worked 11 years to go to school. i would like to say what do you think about that? guest: that is an important point. medicare reimbursement and what the doctors actually get when a medicare patient shows up are getting smaller. medicaid is very small. he refused to just because it

was so offensive. it was such a small amount of money for a procedure. you get the high cost of primary care and the low reimbursements under medicare and medicaid. you could see why so many of these doctors are dropping out. there are scary things in cosmetic surgery where people are leaving primary care. they're going into these largely unregulated fields just to make money on the side. people will pay for these out of pocket. this is scary to think about what will happen if the reimbursements stay so low. host: a question from twitter. how would online medical practice affect shortage and cost? guest: i think he is referring to telemedicine.

that does show a lot of promise. i think it is more when it comes to specialties. there are a number of things of the doctor could do depending on the state laws if you have to see somebody in person. there are laws relating to whether they can prescribe without seeing somebody in person or whether they can diagnose without seeing somebody in person. if there was some sort of medical provider in a rural area, or do some sort of online care, somebody could be connected to the person without being there. that would help address the shortage.

caller: my comment is about medicare advantage. they were going to be cutting back $160 billion in benefits. thousands of doctors will leave the program. it is not so much the reimbursements as it is cutting back on the doctors. too, about the emergency room, i was to see a specialist. i chose to come here in my hometown. it was going to take six months to get in to see him. i chose to go where he was. people who cannot do that i can see why they go to the emergency room if they have something that can't wait six months. that is my comment. guest: you make several good points. the networks for everybody are shrinking. i talked to doctors as the exchanges were selling insurance toward the end of last year. they did know what networks they were in.

things are changing. you might have to wait a long time. sometimes emergency rooms, unless is extremely dire, may not see you. they may say, no, you have to go to a specialist. they are increasingly not being reimbursed unless they are true emergencies. there are stopgap measures in all places to keep people from doing things that are considered costly and unnecessary. caller: hello. i am a longtime listener. first-time caller. my dad was a doctor. i am almost 88 years old. he was a doctor in the days when the last thing you asked was how you are going to pay. now the first thing you are asked is how you're going to pay. i do remember during world war

ii and i can't remember what you call it, but nurses were given stipends and they were given their education free because there was such a shortage of nurses. my brother was a doctor. his training was shortened during the war. he could get through medical school. that was during the korean war. he could become a doctor and he went into the air force to be a doctor. i think perhaps if doctors went through medical school and were promised and did work where they were needed that their costs would be eliminated or diminished.

i think we would get doctors who are really doctors and not out to make money. it has become a business. i think that is sad. guest: well, it is sad. some doctors tell me it is a fact of life. it is very difficult if they are telling the truth and i think and i think some of them are exaggerating, but it can be very difficult to begin a medical practice when you have the costs of malpractice insurance and paying a staff when reimbursements are so low they do have to do things. they talk up front about if they are going to be able to pay. there are such high deductibles and copayments, a lot of doctors have to ask before they even say the patient. i don't mean the doctor, i mean the people of the front desk.

they ask for the money to satisfy the deductible. otherwise they will wind up with so many unpaid bills that they could go out of business. i certainly see the point. it does sound like there are high costs on the other end. host: were there areas where this was more acute than others? guest: it is in the more rural areas, states like utah or oklahoma, they are going to have big problems. i was in eastern kentucky because there are such incredible health care problems. and other problems, frankly, on employee -- unemployment. in the area of eastern kentucky where i was there was pretty good access to care. there are parts of the state where it can be difficult to find primary care doctors. there are a lot of health clinics around the country.

it can be an urban area. i reported right at the beginning of the rollout of the affordable care act exchanges. there were parts of philadelphia where it might not seem like a long distance but if you don't have a car, it can be very difficult to get across town to see a doctor. it can be rural or urban. host: next up is jack on the independent line in oklahoma. he is a member of the medical community. caller: my wife is a registered nurse and i am a former paramedic. i declined acceptance into medical school. i declined because of the cost of tuition was very high. i considered going back and going to medical school. one of the reasons i won't because of the horrors of my life experiences a regular basis

dealing with baby boomers and drug addict. that is a large reason you cannot get people to stay or come into the profession. they are demanding and they think my wife is a maid. they think the physicians are their licensed drug dealers. they complain constantly. part of the problem in this country as we have lost our will to just deal with things. people go to the emergency room. i have worked in pre-hospital care, and people have lost their ability to just deal with it. the little things. my dad is the worst. he will go to the doctor for anything. if he has a snotty nose or pricks his finger, if he has a paper cut he has to run to the doctor. i got bit by a copperhead and walked back to the house and called a paramedic buddy. if i don't call back in 15 minutes you might want to call an ambulance.

most people would drop a helicopter in to save their lives. move on. one of the biggest problems is we have just lost our ability to be strong. i blame that on a generation of people who partied and smoked pot. guest: what do you really think? a couple of things in there. i hope your dad isn't listening. maybe you have told him this. you make some good points. the affordable care act addressed many of those. those of us who choose to go to the doctor, i tend to be one of those who waits too long. it ends up being something i could have nipped in the bud sooner. it can go both ways. we all have to pay a co-pay when we show up. we have to pay a percentage that

are not for preventive care. those of us go to the emergency room when they have the flu, that is what they really want to cut back on. it costs so much money. the caller made the comments in very strong terms but there are a lot of good points in there, and the problems and the cost of people who are either drug addicts looking for prescription drugs to satisfy habit have it or the cost of just caring for people whose health care is so bad that they are a big driver of the cost of health care right now. host: i want to ask you about a story in "usa today." tell us all about this. guest: one of the things that the affordable care act is trying to do is to try to have the medical community coordinate care.

you and i, when we go to different doctors, the goal would be that all of our records would be available electronically, so if i were on vacation at the beach next week, the doctor could see what prescriptions we are on to address the caller's issues. it has largely been addressed. electronic records will keep us from having the same tests done, it will make sure we don't have prescriptions being filled that might conflict. unfortunately, however, it makes it easier to commit fraud, and medicare fraud is huge. i've been researching this issue for months and there is a big story that will be in this week, hopefully tomorrow, on medicare fraud.

if the records are electronic they can frequently make changes, cut and paste, like we all do in documents these days, and put something for one patient into a document for a future patient that doesn't even exist or a treatment that doesn't happen. it facilitates it. there is an audit function that should be on all these kinds of records and these doctors and hospitals are being greatly incentivized to use them. $22 billion is being spent to get them to use these but there is not enough being done, according to critics and fraud experts, by not requiring this audit function to be on so it is easy to tell where the records might've been fabricated. it becomes something we are paying a lot for on both ends. host: next up, harvey is on the line, independent as well as the

medical community. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i have had 35 years of graduate teaching. i was an administrator with the largest public hospital system in the united states, and they are super, super, the new york city health and hospital corporation. perhaps we should increase the cost of health care, increase reimbursement, make sure there are training programs for doctors are the best in the world. make sure that at each level of care all these doctors have the best professors.

a surgeon many years ago told me, "harvey, i could make you a super, super surgeon and you would be able to take out an appendix as good as any of us. the question is, will you know when to take it out?" and that is the training. we are trying to seek all different levels of pseudo physicians. those practitioners, physician'' assistants -- what you are doing is filtering down the quality. every patient is custom designed. people must understand this. host: your thoughts? guest: there is a couple of good points there. any doctor listening would certainly agree that medical reimbursements -- it would be

nice if they went up. i can't imagine that happening too soon until we can get the cost of health care overall, some of the problems, addressed, such as poor people seeking and getting preventive care so that we are not having to spend so much money on the emergency room side. certainly, the training of doctors should continue to be an area of focus. it is something that the obama administration is asking for more funding in that area. but i don't think we are going to see more money going to pay doctors until we can get some of the money out of the health-care expenditures. maybe according to the fraud experts i'm talking to today, if we can get some of the money out of fraud, there is so much, it is really offensive when you think of it as the taxpayer, how much money is going to people who are not even performing the

services or could be complete con artists, frankly. host: our guest is jayne o'donnell of "usa today." next up is paul in georgia on the line for independents. hey, paul, are you with us? caller: yes. host: go right ahead. you are on with the jayne o'donnell of "usa today." caller: i have been disabled for about 6 years, and the doctors are having a hard time trying to figure out -- i've got so many problems and medical conditions, trying to figure out exactly

what is wrong with me, how can they fix it. and at the same time i got a wife and 4 kids. i understand obamacare can tax you for not having any medical -- i'm not sure what i'm trying to say, but i got medicare, medicaid, but i'm really concerned about my wife. she has got a lot of problems, and i'm wondering, what if she's got cancer or whatever, got back problems, she has had knee surgery in the past.

i feel like that -- because i am getting the help and she is not, i don't know, i feel like i should do more and i am not able to do more. guest: well, i would certainly hope -- it sounds like the caller -- he mentions medicare and medicaid. he is getting disability. as far as his wife, if she is not working, she should be able to buy a plan on the exchange, or if she is not working -- excuse me, if they are not making enough money for her to get -- to pay for a plan and she is not eligible for medicaid -- i don't believe georgia expanded medicaid -- then she should be able to find a health clinic somewhere in her area to get the

necessary testing done. up until the affordable care act, people like the caller's wife could get health care. they would typically be on a sliding scale at these health centers. she should have the testing done. it is hard to tell from the caller whether there was indication there was cancer or whether she may have had and it may have come back, but the necessary testing should be done at a federally qualified health center, and the caller should probably focus on himself and make sure that his children are getting the medicaid program called schip, because that is available to children in every state. host: mclean, virginia, ben on the line for democrats. caller: thank you very much. i appreciate, ms. o'donnell, your responses to the many

questions touching on cost and debt and the difficulty of implementing changes, such as, for example, changing the fee structure of medical school fees, but i would like you to go deeper into the issue of allocation of funds and incentives. if you are paying primary care physicians much less, you are going to have fewer people going into the primary care area. and if you are paying for cost of specialists, for their education, that is an extra incentive for them to go into specialization so that they can pay their very large debts incurred in medical school. it seems to me that one thing that could be done, and i don't say that -- is that the reimbursements, or payments for different types of training

reimbursed, but more money going to pay the costs of the first 3 or 4 years of education for doctors, and ask people would decide who go into specializations would be required to pick up some of the costs there. especially if they are getting their primary education for less money or perhaps eventually for free, although that probably won't be attained, they could afford to pay more for the specialization. could you talk about the incentive to structure and how it might be revised? guest: it sounds like a caller knows it pretty well and probably better than i do. in this is not my area of expertise. but what we learned from doing the story last week is that there are not enough incentives. there is too much incentive for hospitals to devote their

residency dollars to the higher-paying specialties. it is difficult -- there are so many good ideas out there and the caller touches on several of them, but getting them past the medical lobby is a powerful one. and the specialists probably he have the bulk of that lobbying clout. i agree, it sounds perfectly and reasonable, what the caller a reasonable, what the caller is talking about. a talking about. and but i'm not in a position to really state my opinion as much and really state my opinion as much in as to say that what you and in are talking about is certainly something that the in primary care trade associations would agree with. and in host: new hampshire, where ray is on the line for republicans. a caller: hi, thanks for taking my call today. i have a couple questions. i see a lot of articles about in ai see a lot of articles about and how massachusetts had in a romneycare for quite a while now and they are seeing an increase in the people using and a people using

is emergency rooms for sniffles and the flu, non-emergencies. either it is because they don't have enough primary care physicians. here in new hampshire i am seeing small urgent care facilities opening up. i see articles about how the major drugstores -- walgreens, cvs -- are looking at having small urgent care facilities for the flu, what have you, you can take your kids there when they are sick, and would it be more of a nurse practitioner than a doctor. i don't know if you have looked into that. last question, with the

expansion of medicaid, is there a deductible or co-pay associated with that program? guest: yes, people often will have to pay something, but not always when it comes to medicaid. but what you bring up, the alternative when it comes to urgent care facilities or cvs or the drugstore or whatever it is, the key is to get people out of emergency rooms, and i have seen the same studies that the caller has about emergency room visits going up. yes, certainly one of the reasons cited for some of the speculation is that more people have insurance. some of the people i have talked to in kentucky, the guys would frankly left because they were supposed to be tough coal miners and they did not go unless a limb was falling off, but they had time, a lot of them were

laid off or simply had been out of work for a long time, or perhaps like the previous caller's father, probably retired, and we have people going to the doctor a lot. when you have people who are not working working and suddenly have access to care, yes, they do go to the doctor more often. the key is to get them to go to somebody who is a less expensive provider, and sometimes that will be the person who would be a nurse practitioner. i think the picture with my story online today shows the nurse practitioner at a cvs providing care. that is less expensive. you do want people to be treated and get the right care if they have a communicable illness like the flu or strep throat. just don't have them show up at the emergency room. host: our guest is jayne o'donnell, consumer reporter of "usa today." thank you so much for being with us today. and look atmorning

some of the key issues before congress, and immigration. our guest is grover norquist. the president of a pro-choice america group talks about recent supreme court rulings on abortion and contraception. and we will look at global oil production and report that shows the u.s. has surpassed saudi arabia and russia as the world's largest oil producer. at 7:00every day eastern, and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. earlier today, arne duncan discussed an initiative to have the best trained teachers distributed equally through schools. he was followed by josh earnest who talked about immigration policy. this is an hour, 10 minutes. good afternoon, everybody.

nice to see all your smiling faces this monday morning. we are joined by arne duncan. he is preparing to have lunch with the president and a handful of teachers here at the white house in a few minutes, so we thought we would ring him into the briefing room to talk about some of the announcements that were made at the department of education today to make sure that we have a good, quality teacher in every classroom. we will let secretary doug and make remarks, and then we will move on to our other business. mr. secretary? >> good morning, and over the past couple of years i have had the opportunity to meet with hundreds of fantastic educators, across 50 states. the president and i will meet with a couple teachers to talk about their experiences. helping students meet their potential is the life work of

educators, and the enormous challenges that students growing cann politics -- in poverty face. despite herculean efforts, students from low income families and students from of color face achievement gaps. on the 2014 assessment, only 24% of students eligible were mathcient on fourth-grade tests compared to almost 60% of other students. and as everyone here knows, access to great teachers has impactshing positive for students, including increased achievement levels, increased likelihood of attendance, and higher wages over their lifetime. other high-performing countries not only understand this truth, but more importantly to act upon it. in south korea according to one study, students from low income thanies are more likely students from wealthier families have access to high-quality teachers. but we have struggled with that

in the united states, today race and family income too often so predict student access to excellent educators. that is unacceptable and we must do better together. for example, in louisiana, the percentage of teachers rated effective is 50% higher in low poverty about low minority schools than in high poverty schools. similarly in tennessee, low party low minority schools have almost a 33% more teachers rated highly effective when compared to high poverty, high minority schools. in north carolina, highly effective teachers are 50% more likely to leave a disadvantaged school than a school of more privilege. by no means are the states alone. far from it. i applaud their courage in making this information public and transparent.

change can also come when we deal openly and honestly with facts. we need more states to challenge the status quo. this problem exists because of equities that sure changed certain schools, communities and districts across the country. teachers and principals are not the problem and they are an essential elements of the solution. they devote their lives to preparing students for college and careers and we need to provide the support they need to succeed and stay at high-need school where their talent and commitment is so desperately needed. today in collaboration with partners we launched the excellent educators for all initiative, a three-pronged strategic effort to help state and district support great teachers and principals to come to and stay in high-needs schools and communities. first, we are asking states to submit comprehensive plans to ensure progress toward educator equity raised on data and input from teachers and districts and community groups and submit that to the department by april 2015.

second, we will use $4.2 million to launch the new educator group to provide states and districts real-time support in developing and implementing their plans. third, equity profiles to help use data to identify gaps to expert teaching for low-income and minority students as well as schools and are consistently beating the odds and can serve as an example for other schools across the nation. we will update these profiles every two years using civil rights data collection project and monitor progress toward goals. we urge states to publicly report their progress on their own metrics each year, encouraging ongoing public dialogue, input, and ideas and revise their plans as necessary. this announcement builds on our reach to crucial partners at every level, including an inspiring conversation hosted by

the council of chief state school officers. we will keep pushing each other to be bold, act with urgency and meet these tough colleges with thoughtful, creative solutions. the simple truth is all students deserve excellent educators and all educators deserve our full support. to reach these goals, there are no magic bullets or quick fixes. the best ideas will not come from any of us in washington. we want to help states and districts to be creative in retaining and supporting excellent educators and encourage them to involve and listen to the teachers and principals that are doing the hard work every single day. this is one part of a larger educational equity conversation, in which we are working to promote fiscal equity as well and access to high-quality preschool, rigorous college course work, social and emotional support, and fair and appropriate school discipline policies. our department will not require any particular approach, but i can share common themes we have

consistently heard from fantastic teachers and principals across the nation doing this work. first, great teachers follow great principles, so we should all work to improve the quality of the ability of leaders of high-needs school. second, they work with teams in need time to collaborate so we need to provide flexibility to allow this to happen. third, great teachers need extra help and support, particularly early on in their careers so we should provide high-quality coaching, mentorship, and professional learning opportunities. fourth, great teachers want to grow and take on additional leadership the possibility so we need to create opportunities that do not require them to leave the classroom to advance professionally and have greater impact. fifth, great teachers absolutely deserve to be well paid for extra efforts and responsibility and effectiveness for keeping students on track to succeed in college and career. finally, great teachers and principals are in it for the long haul and we must be as well.

meaningful reform will take tireless work and relentless commitment. the good news here is across the country many people are taking real action, showing real courage and creativity in working to challenge the status quo. in boston the district and and is partnering to support and retain teams of the best of experienced teachers and the results have been pretty profound. in the louisiana, the state and in department of education implementing the task system for teacher and student advancement system with high concentration of minority and low income students, teachers there get differential compensation. their early results are very promising. the imbalance between highly effective and less effective teachers has basically closed in those schools. finally, in ohio, the state has youfinally, in ohio, the state has provided $15 million and the four-year grant of a collaborative to help 27 rural

districts join together in an addressing the unique challenges they face and injuring teachers have the in support they need. together let shape of a and in and in and conversation that is national in scopt, and find a way to support students and educators and keep working together until we make the change is a reality for every single child in the country. >> thank you. the nea seems to be pushing frustrations on you directly. they called for your resignation. i was wondering if you could respond to that call and broader concerns about the administration policies. >> i was trying to stay out of local union politics. and . .

>> we just really want states to take this very seriously that if we are close -- serious about closing the achievement gap, we have to be serious about closing the opportunity cap.

>> we will look at this as a piece of what we are considering. having stayed focused on this and having public, transparent conversations about where they >> mr. secretary, last month the governor of louisiana talked about the common core. what do you think of that move on his part, and how are these new reforms relating to the common core? on top of it or in addition to its? >> great teachers are essential to everything we're doing to helping students. across the country is going to the fall, over 40 states are moving forward with higher standards. we think that is fantastic. we think in louisiana the government is a bit isolated. teachers are all moving forward. teachers need the support of statehouses to raise the bar. having high standards, telling the children the truth of where they are, we think is the right thing to do for the nation. >> high standards.

that is what we are about. preparing students for college everywhere. >> what you are talking about today has no congressional opponent it sounds like. is this coming about because you asked congress to do something and they would not do it? where is congress at? >> we would love to party in congress on any and everything we do. we would love congress to fix no child left behind, which is broken. one of the unintended consequences of the no child left behind law, 20 states found their standards to make politicians look good. that was bad for children and education in the country. and we want to raise standards and take on the equity challenge in a very serious way. and a perfect world we would address this in a bipartisan way with congress. we just cannot continue to wait.

our children have one chance so we will move now. >> the plans you are asking the school chiefs to submit were started under the two thousand six law, right? >> correct. >> are you asking them to update or lot of member sentiment in the first place? >> was saved committed before was seven or eight years ago so asking them to be transparent in the data, what is working and what is not, some places doing a great job, others not taking so seriously but giving them a chance to put their best feet forward. again, the state chief officers have been a fantastic art and are here. a real level of courage and commitment, which makes me hopeful. we want them to submit their plan and going forward, have clear metrics. be transparent in that. this be part of the business of what they're doing as we move forward.

>> we are also seeing in the documents released earlier today that inexperienced teachers are often in high need schools. so where do you think inexperienced teachers should go? >> you can have an first-year teachers obviously, but any team with a diversity of veteran and younger players as well. so when a school or school district has disproportionate numbers of inexperienced teachers, that is not a good thing. you want to balance them. we are looking to increase effectiveness in disadvantaged communities. as a nation, we have far too few incentives and lots of incentives for the most committed and hard-working teachers to go to the communities that need the most help. we have to get together to reverse that. >> i did not hear a direct response to julie's question kerry at the nea has directly

called for your resignation and appreciate the sentiment behind the call. the two, the largest teachers union, i'm like to hear your direct response, and is it your indication that when it comes to the kinds of reforms you and others have been pushing over the years, when it comes to tenure, charter schools being able to remove ineffective teachers, the teachers union is an obstacle to reform? >> randi weingarten, standing with us. the nea is finishing up the convention. so we agree on many issues. we disagree occasionally. i do not conduct -- get caught up in union politics. we continue to work with very -- very closely with both unions and generally have good working relationships. >> all right.

>> all right. i do not have anything to talk about other than what the secretary had to say. >> i wanted to ask about the reports about possible u.s. fight in germany. reports they strive for the u.s.. are you in a position to confirm whether that is accurate? >> i am not in a position to do that. we have seen those reports and are aware that a german citizen was arrested over the weekend, and alongside the claim he was purportedly working with a u.s. intelligence agency. the reason i cannot comment on this particular matter is that involves two things, the first is a pending german law enforcement investigation. i would not want to get ahead of that or interfere in the investigation. in addition, it goes to direct intelligence matter as related

to the united states. that is not something i frequently comment from the podium here. and i can say more generally here is the relationship in the united states with germany is incredibly important. it is a very close ardor shift we have on a range of security issues, including intelligence issues. the partnership is built on respect. built on decades of cooperation and shared value. all of those things are high priority. not just this administration but this country. we will work with the germans to resolve this appropriately. >> chancellor merkel said if the reports are true, that it would be a clear contradiction of trust between allies. >> obviously a big if. >> if this were to be true, to be the kind of intelligence the u.s. does in a country like germany, a close ally, is that something the president would be

comfortable with, given his close ally is seen as a close contradiction of trust? >> i understand the purpose of the question but it is based on a--- hypothetical. suffice it to say that does not change the fact that we highly value the close working relationship we have with the germans on a wide range of issues, but particularly on security and intelligence matters. that is very important to national security of the united states and allies. we value that partnership. built on shared trust, friendship, and build on shared values. we value that relationship. that is why we will work through this matter and ensure it is resolved appropriately with the germans. >> is this something that came up with the president on the station with angela merkel? >> did not come up in the call. the announcement of the arrest was made by law enforcement officials on friday.

the call between the president and the chancellor called -- occurred on thursday. >> you have said the president is looking for supplemental spending. exactly how much money will he ask for? can you provide more details about that? >> i am not prepared to write now. we will have an announcement about this tomorrow and then at that point, we will have a lot of details on what exactly is included. you know it is related to our efforts to add additional resources to our border, officials and others who can help us more rapidly and efficiently across the immigration cases that are currently backlog. >> with regards to the plan to move for hire more judges to handle the situation along the

border, are there concerns of displacing them elsewhere? >> the president talked already about this a little bit. i know is a view that is shared among both democrats and republicans that there is work we can do to continue to secure the border. processing these cases through the immigration system is a part of that. it is a part of our administration's commitment to deal with these in a humanitarian way. due process rights. the president believes it is important for those rights to be respected. at the same time, we should have an efficient process that reflects the state of u.s. law. in ministration is committed to

enforcing that law and if we can employ additional resources to ensure this is being employed officially, there is an element of that the president can do on his own sending them to the border areas. it is also why we are seeking additional resources, to further supplement the resources a employed. >> the president still has no plans to visit the border during his trip later this week? >> correct. >> a statement from the u.s. about this, is what you just gave going to serve as a statement or should we expect an additional statement in the coming days? that actually addresses specific allegations?

>> i am not in a position to comment further on this matter. you are welcome to ask in the days ahead. if there is additional information to share, i will. >> on the announcement tomorrow, will that be the supplemental announced? so all these deals about how much money and which subcommittees, those will be addressed then? >> yes. it is a detailed compilation. we will endeavor to make officials available to answer those kinds of questions. >> there was a report over the weekend suggesting president obama is secretly interested -- i am wondering if you can address whether there is anything accurate to the report or whether he plans to be involved? >> still in the middle of 2014,

i am not aware of any particular position or candidates were all that thinking the president has done. i have not seen those reports. the president has got a full plate in front of him right now in terms of trying to move the country forward and expanding the middle-class. that will be focused on over the course of the next couple of years. if you want to talk politics late in 2016, we can do that. >> the president also asked for more latitude. have you gotten signals from senate democrats that there is something they might be interested in hearing? >> i'm not interested in specific conversations between democrats and the white house on this matter. both democrats and republicans,

we should see bipartisan support for this. there is concern about the urgent humanitarian situation we the in the southwest border. giving the homeland security additional authority and distraction he can use, making sure we are acknowledging this humanitarian issue, while also enforcing the law, is a priority, of this administration. it sounds like a bipartisan issue. when we are in a position to be more specific about what kind of authority we are seeking to use to confront the situation, we are hoping the response will be

bipartisan in its support for getting that authority. >> how do you get around the fact many do not want to do any little thing without also dealing with immigration reform? >> first of all, there is one reason immigration reform has not gotten done. house republicans have blocked a compromise proposal from coming to the floor of the house for a vote. effect, since bipartisan proposal has come to the senate, we are confident of the past. we are familiar and even share the sentiment that action on a comprehensive immigration reform proposal is necessary. what is also necessary is that we deal with this urgent situation that has cropped up in

the last few weeks in the form of a spike of illegal migration. we are seeking additional authority that can be used to do with the situation in a humanitarian way that is aligned with our laws, which means those who seek to stay in the country go through the due process. at the same time, there is a commitment on the part of this administration to enforce the law to ensure people understand that enforcing the law means if you do not have a legal basis for remaining in the country, that you will be returned to your home country. that is also one of the reasons we are seeking this greater authority. i will call you and you so that the question today. >> following up on what you just

said, you said this is an urgent humanitarian situation. are you not at all concerned about the option to raise political money but he cannot go see the humanitarian situation? >> we are not worried because the president is very aware of the situation that exists some the southwest border. senior administration officials, top cbp officials, even senior white house officials have traveled in the last couple of weeks to the white house border. we have seen an influx of illegal migration in central america. what we have also seen are the efforts working closely with hhs to set up a detention facility to ensure that while those that are apprehended are detained in

a humanitarian way, the law requires that. this is something the administration is committed to, enforcing the law. the president is well aware of what is happening along the southwest border here you have seen a wide range of steps to enforce the law. you have also seen -- and we will get more details tomorrow, on the request the president will make with congress to get additional forces to address the problem. it is my view that those who share the president's concern about the situation will be supportive of ensuring the administration has the resources necessary to deal with this situation and those who are genuinely concerned about the border more broadly should also be more strongly supportive with efforts to make a more historic investment, supportive of an effort to level the playing

field for businesses who hire immigrants, and the individuals who say they are concerned about the border should also be supportive about the kinds of compromise and bipartisan proposal that would reduce the deficit area all those things are contained in the common sense postal passed by the senate. those concerned about the president's travel this week should also be concerned about their support for a piece of legislation that would address so many of the problems they claim to be concerned about. >> when you say you want to expand authority to deal with this problem, you mean expedited the process by which these folks can be processed? to make the process more efficient? anything about the bottom-line issue here about families who come into the country and cannot be turned back immediately and

have to be dispersed with family members who have to live here around the country. you cannot expedite the process or can you, to the point where they're never introduced american study and therefore 90% of them never show up for their judicial -- >> the law requires -- this is an antitrafficking law passed by congress in 2008 and signed in by law in the previous administration. we should be clear about the law, which mandates how children are treated in the immigration system. what we are seeking is for that process to be made more efficient and there are a variety of ways in which that process can be made more efficient some of which by exercising the authority they arty have and some of it by

exercising the authority the secretary of homeland security already seeks. the bottom line is the law will be enforced. it means these children who have been apprehended will go through the court process. if they are found to not have a legal basis for remaining in the country, they will be returned. it is fair to say it is unlikely most of the kids who go through this process will not qualify -- it is unlikely most of the kids who go through the process will qualify for humanitarian relief, that is to say, most of them will not be found through that court process to have a legal basis to remain in this country. >> many of them do not submit themselves. >> that is one of the reasons we

are seeking these facilities that can house more children in a humanitarian way so we can do with the backlog more efficiently. we are seeking additional judges and lawyers so the weight is not long so the whole process can run efficiently in a way that is consistent with our values about away human beings should be treated and also in a way that is consistent with what the law but hires. we are committed to filling the tenets of that law. that is likely to require some children to be sent back to their home countries. that is why we have spoken in clear and candid terms that a parent who is considering putting their children in the hands of a criminal, with only the promise that child will be welcomed with open arms america should not do so. the journey is dangerous. the promise is one that cannot be fulfilled.

if the children to not have a legal basis for remaining in the country, and as i mentioned, it is not likely for those children -- unlikely to qualify for humanitarian relief, they will be sent home. >> thank you. i just want to clarify looking at it in a different way. you are saying most of these children will be returned to their homes in central america? that is not what we heard and certainly not in that clear of a statement. >> there is due process here we will respect that. we are trying to be careful about the way i am phrasing what i'm saying here. each case is specific and will be treated on a case-by-case basis. that is what the law requires and that is why we are again

seeking -- seeking additional judges and lawyers who can process the claims more quickly to ensure each case is heard and given the requisite amount of attention. based on what we know about the cases, it is not likely most of these kids will qualify for humanitarian relief. that means they will not have a legal basis for remaining in the country and will be returned. >> we know about 600 miners are from non-border states over the last decade or so. 95 last year according to the director, even as the flash flood from central america, five times more from two years earlier, has been pouring from the southwest border. why do you think now more children will be sent back when we -- recent indications say that is not the case. >> we will have additional resources we can use in the court system. additional judges and lawyers.

we will be able to put into place -- to add capacity to the system that will allow these claims to be a processed more quickly. that is in the best interest of those who are seeking to enforce the law like the administration is doing. it is in the best interest of the humanitarian concerns many people have about the treatment of these children. additional resources will be allowed for these two process. just from a policy matter, the overall apprehensions along the border have only risen by a slight amount. what we have seen is a significant increase in the processing of children and individuals from central america. there is a certain segment that accounts for the spike. overall levels are not far above

what we have seen in the last few years. what we have seen is a historic low. >> you are talking outside of guatemala and honduras. >> in terms of the broader security situation, we remain near historic lows we have been at for the last several years. there is a spike in this specific population. we would like congress to give the administration additional resources while respecting the basic two process rights these individuals have. in terms of enforcement of law and adults with children who operate at the border, that has not changed. it is important for people to understand efficiency of that important process has improved. the bottom line is the administration's commitment to

enforcing the law, at the same time we respect the basic humanitarian needs of those who are apprehended. >> what do you make of the video where the head of the islamic state in iraq [indiscernible] what does it say about the iraqi government? >> we have not been able to determine the authenticity of the video. it is something currently being reviewed i the community and the state -- the intel community and the state department. >> you have been cooperating with the yemeni government over the years. what does it say now about the new attack? are you reviewing in yemen?

>> i have not seen the reports of the situation you're talking about and we will have to follow-up view on the matter. >> there are only a few legislative days left in the next month and the trust fund will run out of money. is there a proposal on capitol hill you have seen to replenish that? >> the proposal i have seen that i like the best is by this administration. it is a commonsense proposal that deserves bipartisan support that is all too rare in washington. the report involves closing loopholes that only benefit a wealthy and well-connected. that generates some revenue that can be used to dress the issues that benefit everybody. it would create a lot of jobs

and support a lot of jobs that are at risk. there are a lot of reasons why would we put forward is a commonsense proposal. we are open to reviewing other proposals others may put forward. in terms of how we think the important piece of business should get done, we have been clear. >> on a budget request for immigration, will it only be immigration or are their talks on the hill? to oversee the terrorism partnership funds. >> it will include these other things as well. we will have that tomorrow. >> it was said this morning in the immigration system, if that is the case, why could they not say that when esther keely

yesterday, he could not say what he said. >> what he was very clear about was the commitment to making sure -- talking about other options. >> he was asked directly about whether or not the administration is committed to enforcing the law. >> will most of the children in this situation be returned to their home? we are looking at ways to create additional options for dealing with the children in particular. what are those additional options? >> as you know, the 2008 law requires a specific handling of the children who originated in these countries. when he is talking about additional options, he is talking about processing them through the system. that means in some cases sending them back to their home country. once they go to the immigration system, it is our view it is

unlikely for -- that most of the kids qualify for humanitarian relief. if they do not and do not have a legal basis for remaining in the country, they will be sent back. >> how do you react when a democratic congressman from texas said yesterday he thinks the white house has been one step behind and should have known months ago this crisis was developing and basically suggested he had not done anything? >> the administration has been proactive as we have dealt with this situation. we have increased the amount of resources currently deployed to more efficiently process the cases by adding judges and lawyers and officials. we can more efficiently process these claims. we have opened up the facility to make sure adults who arriveñr in this country have a place they can stay while the immigration process is playing out. we have improved our efficiency

when it comes to apprehending adults at the border and quickly processing their claims and in most cases, sending them back to the country where they originated. the demonstration has been working proactively in a difficult situation, with the idea in mind it is important to respect the basic humanitarian needs of those who show up on our border, but also to enforce the law. >> the department of homeland security had a contract for january of this year looking for escorts. if the administration in january had a contract out there looking for escorts to help those kids, does that not mean the micturition knew that was coming and is not actually go active if the contract was out there and yet you still have a problem developing?

>> i am not aware. >> the last one, senator johnson from wisconsin had a lot out there suggesting lawmakers of both parties and staffers should not have a health care law. you had speaker banner and the president's push on him in terms of his lawsuit billion terms of his actions. when you see the lawsuit, how do you react? >> there are republican members of congress who articulate they do not agree with the lawsuit would forward and they do not believe senator johnson's interpretation of the law is consistent with their interpretation. there is republican disagreement about the wisdom of the law secretary johnson is pursuing. the president believes the whole goal of the affordable care act in the first place was to lower health-care care costs and expand access to affordable health insurance for every american including those

employed by small businesses. we have been clear about what the goals are. i recognize there may be some who do not share the goals. that is unfortunate during our efforts to enforce this law and implement it in a way that expands access to health care -- major? >> i know you have spoken about due process repeatedly. it also sounds like you prejudged the outcome. >> it would be inaccurate to interpret the commons i have made here as an effort to prejudge the process. we are committed to the rule of law. it is important each of the cases is adjudicated on a case-by-case basis and evaluated specific claims. that said, our general knowledge about the children from central america who have appeared at the

border in rising numbers, that our knowledge, as a general matter of the case, indicates it is not likely the majority of those children will qualify for humanitarian relief. that is our effort to convey to you as much information as we have about this situation. it is in no way an effort to prejudge due process that each of these individuals is entitled to. >> you do not think there will be an indirect effect on those heading up to the border to carry out these due process procedures, to hear from the podium that most of them will qualify for humanitarian relief? i think the people being sent to do with this problem are highly trained professionals and that they will look very carefully at the claims of each of these individuals and they will carry out the proceedings in

accordance with the law. those are the restrictions they have received from the president and from the secretary of homeland security. that is what we have a high expectation they will do. >> be prepared to say what you have said this morning and let those who might be considering this as an option in central america -- because you are likely to be sent back and i will enforce the law. >> the present was direct about this a few days ago interview. >> you said something different. >> he said, do not send your children here. he went on to explain why that was the case. that explanation is in line with our laws. the other thing the president highlighted, what we're talking

about is a dangerous journey. in many cases, it is a journey being led by criminal matters seeking only to prey upon those in desperate situations. it is deplorable. it is one of the reasons the administration is receiving authority to crack down on them. criminal -- by handing out specific punishments for those caught in a very vulnerable state. our commitment to enforcing the law and the candid message being delivered to families throughout central america is that they should not entrust their children in the hands of criminals on the promise they will be welcomed in the united states of america. >> saying these allegations are true, you volunteered.

that is a big if and to my ears, that sounded like denial. >> that is not what it was. it was an observation about her question. not that it was an unreasonable question, just that it was predicated -- >> she was quoting the chancellor of germany saying, if this was true it would constitute a breach from our government. that is not a hypothetical. you said that is a big if and i am wondering what the context is. it sounded like you are saying these allegations are not likely to be proven true. >> that is not what i'm saying. it is an assumption based on my effort to be as candid as possible with julie. this is an intelligence matter. i am not in a position to comment on it from here.

as it relates to our relationship with germany, it is a relationship for a whole for irony of reasons, including the partnership we have when it comes to our nation's national security and our intelligence network. we value that relationship. >> win a judge on that set in some cases, the deportation hearing can take years. presently, word of that has been making its way to the back of the country. is that not undermining the president and vice president, even two or three years? they are being welcomed in the united states.

>> that meets a couple of things. it is one of the reasons again the president has directed the additional judges, officials, and attorneys be dedicated to deal with the back lots. the other thing that is important to understand is prioritizing -- people who are showing up in the next few weeks are likely to have their cases processed efficiently through the system. due process will be respected. humanitarian responsibilities dictated by the law to be respected, these children when they arrive will be housed in a facility maintained by hhs. the administration is committed to be enforcing the law.

>> you will do a last in and laughed out? >> it is more competition than can be described in an introduction to accounting. >> we are seeking additional resources so we can real down the backlog but also address the basic due process claims of the border. it is my understanding the releases take place because of the backlog. we are trying to trim the backlog but also prioritize those. >>, which of those promised a

court they are showing a further hearing? >> i do not have specific numbers. >> is there a reason? >> it is important to understand. if i have the number, it would not give you an accurate picture of what is happening. we have seen a recent surge in the last few weeks of recent arrivals. sometimes, because the backlog is lengthy, the notice to appear is a lengthy time. it might not necessarily give you an accurate picture of what happened. >> it is a small number. >> i do not have the number in front of me. >> is it closer to 10%, 100%? >> i think the number would illustrate it is not operating

as efficiently. that is why we are seeking additional resources to deal with those who have been recently apprehended and making sure we are enforcing the law. >> it showed back in 2008, there were more than 8000 miners sent back and last year, the numberñi had fallen to less than 2000. it was almost 1/5 of what it had been. does that not show that what you are saying is disinformation, that when smugglers promise [indiscernible] this administration has not really been deporting. >> what is important is the difference between 2008 and the more recent statistics. the passage of that law, signed into law by the previous president. what that law mandated is

different in the way children who arrived in the country from noncontinuous countries are treated in immigration system. the numbers you cite reflect or are the consequence of this it ministration's -- administration's consistent enforcement of the law. we are seeking greater authority for the secretary of homeland security to exercise discretion that would allow him to make that process more efficient and, in some cases, more quickly and probably -- promptly remove children from the country if it is found they do not qualify for humanitarian relief. understanding those numbers presented this morning in the times requires someone to take into account what the enforcement of the law requires. what that law required was a longer process for adjudicating the cases of these children from

19 -- noncontiguous countries. >> showing some of the miners who come into the country illegally are i am large able to stay. there have been so few deportations. >> i am not blaming it on the law. i am merely citing this is what the law requires. there is a suggestion from our opponents that the problem is the president is not enforcing the law. he is. we are seeing a greater authority to more effectively enforce that law that would allow the administration to act more quickly to return children from the country they originated. >> i have a question from another subject if you can remind me. the president's tweets. i understand those are not directly written by him. does he even read them and know they're going out? are they reviewed by the white

house or is that simply doing something on his behalf? >> i am suspecting you asked me about a tweet i have not seen. the twitter handle is maintained by os a. that is the political organization, the offshoot of the campaign. it is a twitter handle maintained independently of the white house. >> what i'm going to ask about each -- about is, after the hobby lobby decision, a throwback thursday tweet to a throwback of last week when a woman made her own decisions about her own health care. does the president believe because of the hobby lobby decision, women were not allowed to make their own decisions about health care? >> that is certainly true of women in some cases, that what the spin court ruling, the

consequences of that is it will allow bosses to interfere with what the president believes should be the freedom that any woman has to make her own decisions about her health care. >> he was aware of the tweet as far as you know? >> i'm not sure. the twitter handle is maintained independently of the white house. i am not aware of it. it sounds like, based on your description, it is consistent with a priority the president and this administration have attempted to advance, which is that women should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their health care without interference from their boss. mark. >> the administration has made it clear from the beginning and during the latest crisis that the priority is for an increase in the national government. we heard overnight the iraqi parliament will not intervene

until the 12th. the government for nation is paralyzed. is the administration satisfied with the effort so far for iraqi leaders to overcome the issue and what else can be united states do to move along that process? >> i have been candidate -- candid, i think, that we will not move more quickly to unify that country. that nation faces an existential threat from is to confront that threat, they will have to be united. this has been confronted by an array of people, particularly the vice president, who has been on the phone. we made clear that is a necessary step. we also made clear that the

president has made it clear additional military involvement will only be done in coordination with tangible commitments from iraq's leaders to have a more inclusive government agenda. the reason is this existential threat has a security dimension to it but it only highlights the degree to which iraq is honorable. it will require iraq's put the leaders from each of the major communities in iraq, the shia, the sunni, to put aside those divisions and put the interests of the country first. we are urging iraq leaders to do that and to do it more than they have in the last few weeks.

>> vice president biden called and rather than move up, they're moving it back. are they brushing aside? >> no, we have seen constructive words from other leading members of her rack's society. we saw a representative comments and urge the iraqi political leadership to do the same thing. we have seen other countries in the region urge iraq a political leaders to come together and unify the country. i think there is widespread agreement in the region and around the world that the way in which this problem can be solved is pretty clear. i certainly have not tried to minimize the difficulty is making these kinds of decisions in reaching these kinds of agreements.

to be blunt about it, reaching those agreements and making those difficult decisions are necessary for iraq to survive. >> thank you. i was talking last week to the other josh from missouri, the cocounsel in the hobby lobby case. he noticed there are 50 other cases pending that involved nonprofits. he said the president, with a stroke of a pen, could set aside all of these cases of executive order that would either circumvent, using strong language, previous executive order health care, or designate certain parties, such as the

government or an insurer to handle health care, which abortion inducing contraception's are involved. what are your comments it is the president considering executive order? let's our belief for henry -- >> our belief for handling the situation is that hobby lobby and the supreme court struck down one part signed into law by the president. one few about how to resolve this situation is for congress to pass a law. the difficulty congress has in taking steps like this, i am not naïve. but in this matter, our first priority for resolving the situation is passing a law. >> no executive order. >> our first priority is for congress to take action and that is what i would like to see.

>> we talked a lot about the core of the immigration problem right now. the problem for our country is they are able to get past the border and the law in place that caters specifically to them. would you agree that is our problem right now? that is our root cause of the humanitarian crisis you mentioned. >> if we can enjoy success in cooperation that would stem the tide, that would be a benefit to our country. we are engaged in pretty intensive diplomacy. you have seen in the last couple of weeks the vice president and the secretary of state traveled to that region to meet with leaders of those countries to try to deal with the situation there. that involved increasing funding for programs that would promote community development and set up centers to make it more efficient to move children who

left the country back into that country. it also involved greater cooperation with law enforcement officials, that we have existing law enforcement relationships to improve citizen security in those countries. we are engaged in a variety of efforts, some of which are underway in the home country who are seeking to travel to this one. it is accurate to point out there is an urgent humanitarian situation that is in full bloom on the u.s. order. that is why you have seen the deployment of additional resources to try to do it that. >> if enforcing the law has contributed to the crisis, because we need to house and deal with them through the courts, with the president not then advocate for changing that law, or does the administration handle values of that law, or do you think expanding the leeway of dhhs will be enough? >> this is a multifaceted

solution. the first is the bed rock requirement. we are also seeking additional authority from congress that can be given to exercise some discretion more promptly on how to remove children who, it is found to the court process, that they do not have a legal basis for remaining in the country. >> the law basically needs to be changed? we know most of the kids will not have that remedy within their situations anyway. >> you're right. it is our expectation that after going through the legal process, the majority of these kids will not qualify for humanitarian relief. the law we are discussing is an antitrafficking law. there are important benefits. there are kids moving trafficking from asia, for example, who need to have the

kind of guarantees and protections in terms of ensuring due process is followed. the law is important. in light of the recent surge we have seen from central american countries, there is an additional story that can be used to enforce the law more effectively in the best interests of the country and the children. >> the supplemental request, will that include fees for border security or is this all remedied? >> the requests we are principally focused on immigration resources -- judges, lawyers, prosecutors, i would officials, who can make sure these cases are processed more efficiently. the thing now, i have seen

reporting's on your network and outlets that a lot of these individuals traveling from central american countries are not necessarily seeking to get through the border. they are seeking out border patrol officers so they can be detained and go through the immigration system. we are certainly interested in making sure we have the additional resources in place in the immigration does them to process those claims more quickly. in most cases, we are talking about adults, they can be returned to their country more quickly. those are concerned about border security, and i saw there were a couple of republicans forceful on their advocacy for increased border security on a couple of sunday morning programs. the fact of the matter is, copper has of immigration reform passed in the senate and is being blocked by republicans in the house including border security. those who claim they are against comprehensive immigration reform

and yet are committed to criticize and the president for his lack of effort to secure the border, are opened to have their motives questioned. i hope they will be when they do an additional interview on your network. thanks, everybody. have a good monday. >> a discussion of the legislative agenda in congress. the senate anding committee looks at sports injuries to the brain. the wilson center host a forum on the israeli-palestinian conflict. >> now you can keep in touch with current using any phone at