don't see more experienced members, even who may agree coming forward so recklessly. it says thomas massie says it's his business to try to overturn washington, d.c.'s gun laws. now, this is a straight out news report. massie's congressional district stretches from eastern jefferson county, oldham, shelby and spencey counties, all the way to the west virginia border. it his ibritarian has way, it will stretch to the district of columbia's gun laws. that's how it was reported in kentucky. there's an irony here that's not lost in his home state. or the "courier journal" in kentucky which ran an editorial

, big fought ined government. those who say they want government out of our life want more government in the district of columbia. tea party candidates, and they named rand paul, this is a man who wants to be president of the united states, you know, and he's putting in bills, by the way, that are -- bills that you might expect from the democratic side in order to try to make independents and democrats think that he is more accessible than his words have indicated he is in the past. but it says -- but says the "courier journal," the biggest newspaper in kentucky, the two

of them, libertarian leaning republicans, are pushing measures in congress to roll back washington, d.c.'s strict gun laws. adopted by its officials to try to reduce gun violence in the nation's capital. it goes on, but let me quote from another part of that editorial, too bad their concern doesn't extend to the right of residents of washington to have a vote in congress this edel gatt from washington has no floor vote which means ms. norton could only complain about the gun measure, but not vote against it. that sounds like taxation without representation. something anyone who purports to love liberty ought to oppose. and mr. speaker, not only taxation without representation, but the people i represent pay the highest taxes per capita to the federal government.

$12,000 perez dent. the highest in the united states. one ought to understand our outrage then, when people from kentucky or maryland or anywhere else in the country who pay less taxes try to tell us how to conduct our local affairs. well, the gun amendment ertainly riled d.c. residents, but that amendment is one of only two such amendments, one of two such amendments. the other, of course, is the marijuana decriminalization law that i mentioned when i began. it's interesting to note, mr. chairman, that when that law passed, the marijuana

decriminalization law, along with the gun law, "u.s. news & world report" had an apt headline, "guns ok, pot dangerous." tells you something about the republican house of representatives. the first response of residents in this region where we have lived as one region, we all use the same metro and have built the same metro, with taxes coming from the entire region, and even though we have different views on many issues, we try to live as one region and ot mess into, meddle into, the affairs of our neighbors. so this was a particular outrage, marijuana amendment, maryland came from a

representative. for the first -- so the first thing that the largest rights organization in d.c. did was to call for a boycott of the he ern shore, which represents. the eastern shore lived off of maryland, d.c. and virginia in the summertime. got to make it then or the eastern shore isn't going to make it for the rest of the year. when d.c. vote called for a boycott, it suggested that residents choose a beach in , or chiconteague island in virginia, but not the eastern shore. it said, they don't support us, why should we support them? and of course there will be allies across the region who

will hear that call. and who will not go to the eastern shore this summer. and residents continue to try in other ways to say to representative harris, stay out of our affairs, attend to your own. two dozen residents came here today to file complaints with representative harris. they say he's acting like he's a member of the city council so we're going to treat him like he's a member of the city council, they brought their complaints one by one and representative harris' chief of staff had to stand there to receive these complaints from the residents of the district of columbia. nathan harrington, who is a teacher in the district of columbia, said now that he sees he's coming wer, because there were some vacant

houses in his neighborhood and so he demands that representative andy harris take care of those vacant houses right away. he's got the power, he's shown us he's got the power. mr. harrington said, look, either he represents us or he doesn't. if he doesn't, then stay out of our business. if he does, take care of those vacant houses. now representative harris did not come to receive these complaints but his chief of aff did stand there and with civility receiving these office hours complaints. from d.c. vote residents. and there were a number of other to mr. ts that came arris' office, some -- one

resident said they wanted more visible street signs. one resident said wants more bike lanes. look, if you've got somebody who can put the big foot of the federal government on your back, surely he can do little things like get you some bike lanes this may be tongue in cheek but it does show you that the residents of the district of columbia are going to come at you more ways than one. yeah there's a sense of humor here and then there's something very serious, like that boycott. to his credit, when the boycott the eastern shore was initiated by d.c. vote, it sent chamber of ocal commerce, to its local

commercial sections, that it had absolutely nothing against them, that many of us have enjoyed the eastern shore, but essentially we were powerless here. our own member couldn't vote against the harris amendment. so don't expect the residents of the district of columbia to just sit around and take it. you want to mess with us, we're going to mess with you. we're going to mess you in your district, we're going to mess with you here. we are first class american citizens, we're not going to take it. we're going to do everything we can to blanket your state about how youred me -- how you're meddling in our affairs instead of taking care of their business. i didn't organize any of this. i'm expressing the outrage of the people i represent. and let me tell you, while they made light with this constituent

service day, in representative harris' office, it is deadly serious for us because our marijuana amendment wasn't passed because of some college students who, and this is a big college town, who lobbied the council about pot. a as passed in the wake of very serious study, actually two studies, by a very rep -- by very reputable organization the lawyers' committee for civil rights under law, and the american civil liberties union. that found that in this progressive town, 90% of those arrested for smoking marijuana were black. i can't tell you exactly why but it probably has a lot to do with where the political -- the

police -- forgive me, police presence is most likely to be. but these figures fly in the face of figures that show that blacks and whites use marijuana at the same rate. i don't know whether members appreciate what a, quote, drug offense, and that's what marijuana offense is, means. to a black kid. it's the end of his working life. he's likely to carry around a stereotype based on his color and often his gender if he's a black boy or black man. he won't be able to explain away this drug offense, marijuana offense, though it is very likely. that is what got the city council to pass this amendment, so anyone who messes with us on his issue is meddling with a

serious racial issue in the district of columbia. and we are demanding that you stay out of this very serious affair. the amendment was passed to combat racial injustice. 23 state vts legalized -- states have legalized -- have decriminalized -- sorry, 23 states have legalized medical marijuana, 18 have decriminalized marijuana, two states have legalized marijuana, we will not be treated differently from any other state in the union. we shall not. the one thing we demand is equal treatment. that while t note

here is growing sense among my epublican colleagues in this congress that marijuana should no longer be criminally treated the way it is, we don't treat alcohol, which does far more harm in a criminal fashion. while i'm the last one to say smoke weed or cigarettes, i don't think anybody wants anybody to get a record, a criminal record for having done. so but we do not see any consistency among my republican colleagues. when this amendment came in committee, republicans voted for it. and i want to say something about those republicans.

ken calvert of california, jeff herrera y, jamie beutler, david joyce, david valallo, harris, of course, and mark amodei. these members, along with mr. harris, violated their own limited, small government, local control, states' rights principles by voting in committee for the harris amendment. i want to say a word about mark amodei of nevada because he exceeded other members in hypocrisy. he joined a majority last month on the floor in favor of an amendment blocking the federal government from interfering with medical marijuana in those states which allow it because nevada allows it. he didn't want the federal

government interfering with what had been sanctioned by his own government. but he was quick to interfere with the local affairs on a related substance. ight afterwards. i call on my republican colleagues to at least abide by their own principles and to show some consistency of principle. on an amendment that passed bids the , that for federal government -- forbids the federal government from personalizing financial institutions that provide ' legal to states

marijuana businesses, understand what that means, you have a marijuana business in your state, the state says it's ok, then the federal government cannot keep financial stitutions from dealing in these nsactions with ocal marijuana businesses. 45 republicans voted for that amendment that passed. a large number of republicans who crossed the aisle and voted or that amendment. the house voted to block the drug enforcement administration om using funds to target medical marijuana operations in

states where those operations are legal, 49 republicans voted for that. be consistent. if you're going to vote to keep the federal government out of , ters involving marijuana where your state has sanctioned its use, then apply that same principle to the district of columbia. d that's why the u.s. news ok, rld report said guns pot dangerous. but like the harris amendment, sorry, like the massie gun amendment, harris amendment had unintended consequences too.

the district of columbia became gal, the law that was passed had its layover period of 30 days, 30 legislative days, at the end of that 30 days they became legal. now his law, right when it becomes legal, seeks to overturn it. but what happens when you use a preloaded federal political bomb against a local is clear from what has happened with representative harris' amendment. that amendment now would not only block the district from enforcing its laws, it would block the district from issuing with great t,

responsibility, a sense of responsibility, is put into law for those who, for example, smoke marijuana on the streets. unintended consequences, because you don't know what you're doing when you muddle in the business, the local business -- meddle in the business, the local business of nother jurisdiction. remarkable that mr. harris is a club for growth tea party acolyte who was known before he came here and is known now for his support of states' rights more than he is known for anything else. and it is remarkable to note that his own state, maryland, has decriminalized marijuana. so here's a member who has the ower in maryland, he could not keep his own state from

decriminalizing marijuana, so he tries to do in the district what he could not do in the state where the voters are ccountable to him. an article on mr. harris and the reaction of the residents f the district of columbia notes that when these residents eclared constituent services to be in representative harris' office and mine, i quote here, i thought this media stunt was going to be a closs rally -- colossaly goofball effort that had little to no effect on

harris or his views. and we still don't know if it will. but on the day -- on that day his employees were clearly rattled, so mission: accomplished. moreover, harris, who also has to district residents, congress is their local legislature. missed an opportunity to come across as something beyond another guy stuffed in a suit, overreaching his boundries. by leaving the completely manageable demonstration to his marginally prepared aides, his stance on what the city's drug policies should be came across as even more aloof and more

nonsensical than ever. look at how you are viewed. think before you decide to insert yourself against your own professed and often announced principles into the affairs of a local jurisdiction, not your own. i am here this afternoon to serve notice on these two members and we're not through with them yet, or any other embers who come forward. that, yes, you can vote when i can't, but you cannot keep the residents of the district of columbia from doing what they can to show you and to show america that we will not be treated as second-class citizens in our own country.

not by thomas massie, not by andy harris, not by any member of the house or senate. don't expect us to just lie down and take it. no red-blooded american would take what these members have tried to do to this city, with a gun eanled and with the medical -- amendment and with the marijuana decriminalization amendment. in the name of your own principles, principles with which i disagree, with which i ervently agree that matters in the states and localities are or them, and my friends, maybe even some of the things we do here can better be done in the states, but there is a small d

democratic way to accomplish this mission. an act of t by profound congressional bullying , where you exert power that even the member cannot respond, except on this floor, with her voice. not even with one vote. that homas massie decided he didn't -- he wanted to overrule his chair, they didn't pull him off the floor, they let him have a vote. i will not have a vote on any matter affecting the district of columbia. in the name of decency, if you're not going to give me a affairs, out of our of the district of columbia. i yield back the balance of my

ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. does the gentlelady have a motion? ms. norton: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next the houseleaving passed legislation to increase the child tax credit and make it available to more families with higher incomes. the credit would expire for low-income in 2018. 237-133.passed

the house also passed a barring the president troops to iraq. here is a look at that house debate. mcgovern for yielding but also for your tireless leadership on this very important issue. i am proud to join congressman walter jones and congressman mcgovern in introducing this bipartisan resolution and for their consistent support and work as great americans to address these serious issues of war and peace. this resolution simply prohibits the president to deploy armed services our to engage in combat operations in iraq without specific debate and authorization from congress. this resolution also seeks to reclaim a fundamental

congressional responsibility, the constitutionality protected right for congress to debate and to determine when this country enters into war. i also am personally concerned about mission creep. we hear many of the same voices who champion the unnecessary war in iraq, once again beating the drum for a renewed war in iraq today. last month, president obama announced that 300 personnel would be sent to iraq, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support supported by attack helicopters and drones. a few days later, he announced another 200 personnel were soon to be deployed. their promises to send many additional hell fire earth to surface missiles. now i, too, believe that president obama does not intend to send ground troops to iraq, but we need to make sure -- make sure, find you, that

congress reasserts its constitutional responsibility on this grave issue. after more than a decade at war in iraq and afghanistan, thousands of united states lives and billions of dollars lost, the need for congress to reclaim its war-making powers is more critical than ever. and let me remind you, it was the absence of full debate that led congress to passing the overly broad 2001 authorization for the use of military force in the wake of 9/11. this law was used to justify everything, from the war in afghanistan, warrantless, domestic and international surveillance, holding prisoners indefinitely in guantanamo and conducting drone strikes in countries that we are not at war with. i couldn't vote for that resolution because, you know, i have always believed that such consequences are grave for the united states' national security interests unless we

fully debate these issues and of course in the war, we didn't debate that resolution any more than one hour. and i continued to attempt to repeal and address the problematic actions justified under this law ever since. now, on july 16, congressman mcgovern, jones, rigell, myself and others, over 100 members of congress from both parties, we wrote a letter and we signed that letter to president obama to come to congress to debate and for an authorization before any military escalation in iraq. exactly what this resolution would do. madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to insert that record into the letter, please -- into the record -- excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: and also, let me remind you during last month, we debated the defense appropriations bill. over 150 bipartisan members

supported my amendment that would have prohibited funds from conducting combat operations in iraq. but this resolution, which is bipartisan, merely requires the president to come to congress should he decide to engage in an escalated combat role in iraq. the pretty is, though, there's no military solution in iraq. this is a sectarian war with long-standing roots that were flamed when we invaded iraq in 2003. any lasting solution must be political and take into account all sides. the change iraq needs must come from iraqis rejecting violence, in favor of a peaceful democracy and respects for the rights of all citizens. madam speaker, the american people agree -- mr. mcgovern: i yield an additional one minute to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: thousands of american lives and billions of dollars, the american people are rightfully war weary. before we put our brave service

men and women in harm's way again, congress should carry out its constitutional responsibility and vote on whether or not we should get further involved in iraq militarily. and of course after we pass this resolution, i urge the republican leadership to bring up our bill, h.r. 3852, to repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force. i want to thank once again congressman mcgovern for staying the course. he was one of the first members calling for an end to the war in iraq and to bring our brave troops home. he's provided tremendous leadership through a variety of legislative efforts. this is just another one of those efforts. so i want to thank you, again, congressman mcgovern, congressman jones. i want to thank all of the members who are supporting this, including our leadership. congress should never allow war authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. we don't do this for the farm

bill. we don't do this for the transportation bill. sooner or later, we need to repeal the initial authorizes. thank you, again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: well, thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. adam kinzinger, a member of the committee on foreign affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you. and i want to say thank you to the chairman for yielding me this time. thank you to both sides for your hard work. it's rare that we get compromises in washington, and i appreciate the work you've put in, but i cannot in good conscience support this. . i'm a veteran of irblinge. i saw many people that -- of iraq. i saw many people that fought hard to bring the iraqi people freedom. and i saw a war that was won in 2011. what we are watching happening in iraq right now is the worst case scenario in the middle east. there is a march of jihadism and

extremism that makes al qaeda look like puppy dogs that's happening in iraq. a president that's indecisive on what to do. we have genital mutilations ordered in mosul just the other day by isis. and we are here in washington, d.c., debating what we need to do to hamstring the president who is already indecisive enough about this. you know, when american military, american marines and army get themselves into sustained combat, they often call on strong air support to help them win the fight. that's why as well as the strong marines and army we have, that's why we are so good at what we do. we are asking the iraqi military to take back their country and take land, but yet not providing them substantial airpower that's needed to destroy this very evil cancer that's growing in the middle east. that's what we ought to be here discussing today. is how to stop this cancer of jihadism in isis that's growing

in the middle east, how to stop that from growing, and ultimately prevent it from coming here to the united states of america and potentially to our allies. so while i again strongly respect and fully understand what my chairman is doing here and appreciate his hard work, i think instead of giving the president an ability to blame congress for his indecisiveness, i think it's time that we stand up and say we have to defend our interests and defend people >> the house passed the resolution today. page, we doebook not need to go back. any casualties are going to be on obama. another, democrats called for the u.s. to surrender before the surge worked. the house returns to capitol hill monday, noon eastern, for

general speakers -- speeches. among the bills next week, a lawsuit against the president to be filed in the house. republicans say it will force the president to follow the health care law as passed by congress. also, changes to the endangered species act. see the debate live here on c-span. our guest on this week's "q&a" -- >> part of my responsibility was representing the deputies committee, which is the seat lever groups, working through , a issues, develop options lot of crisis management focus. ad you are a think tank am

your you real utility is --right a second case second-guess the policymaker, over theirem look horizon, one of the issues i'm going to look over the horizon, five years from now, 10 years from now, about america's role in the world. flournoy, sunday night at 8:00 eastern. nancy pelosi held her weekly briefing with reporters at the capitol earlier today. she talked about legislation to address the number of immigration children at the u.s. southern border and called for immigration legislation to be passed in congress before the august recess. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning.

good morning, good morning. democratsgo house stood on the steps of the capitol to launch our middle class jumpstart. yesterday was the five-year anniversary of the last increase in the minimum wage. the minimum wage is a very important part of our middle class jumpstart. it goes along with our creation of jobs, building america, infrastructure, broadband, bridges, and the rest. while we were on the steps last week, at the same time the republicans were in the capitol planning to sue the president of the united states. visions are what we live by every day around here. democrats for progress, creating jobs. republicans for process and of structure and come obstructing

the president. while we are trying to -- tax supporting jobs overseas, democrats support tax cuts to leave jobs here. this is central to our middle class jumpstart, and that again has the minimum wage in their as wellat -- in there, as it as equal pay for equal work, sickly, and the missing link of place,n the work affordable childcare. the innovation, entrepreneurship, to make all this happen, to keep america number one, keep kids in the , and yet there is legislation to make college more affordable are reducing interest rates. while all this is possible to be done in a bipartisan way, the republicans keep harping on

their anti-obama agenda. it is not just against the president. it is against the interest of the american people. we know that we can work together, build infrastructure, and that has never been a partisan issue until now. when we passed the minimum wage, when we have the majority, president bush signed that, but we had bipartisan coming together over time. day, somealso was a of you were there, and those of you who were there are not here now. we met with president hernandez of honduras and president molina of guatemala, and the foreign minister of el salvador. they told us about their as what ise i happening on the border. we told them hours.

them ours. representation of judges to theiry hear their case, that, and that we have -- we protect our border, and when a decision is made about these children, to return them home, to do so in a way that repatriates them safely back into their country. sometimes we hopefully can consider, according to the press, process them in home countries so they can find out what their legal standing is and prospects are before they make the trek across the desert. -- across the whole country of mexico. andink i will stop there descriptive questions you have, because it is friday morning and we have young people coming in

to tell us their view of how we go forward and i think we can handle this more quickly. >> with the recess appr oaching, what do you think about the lack of a competent on capitol hill? >> the broader public should know that we are engaged in a drive-by congress. we are hardly ever hear, and when we are, we are engaged in process, not progress. is absolutely shameful that opportunities for job creation, which is what the american people want us to do -- create jobs, growth, in our economy, so that we have good jump start to the middle class. we are going to be in just a few days this month, and next month, we are in 12 days in september. now there is rumor that the speaker may cut off the last week of that 12 days. that is not responsible.

that is not responsible. there is a choice to be made as we go forward, as do we want bipartisan corporation to get , or do we -- job done want to obstruct, to be missing in action for addressing the needs of the mecca people? it is about progress. it is about bipartisanship versus obstruction. and people know i think that more and more that the public is aware that -- of the republican obstructionism here. but not good enough. we all have to try and keep trying and keep trying to find bipartisanship, and one place we borderthat is on this issue. under republicans across the country care that those children -- i know some about of our -- andcan colleagues do hopefully we can at least on our

values, who we are, and how we treat children, and how we expect our own due process in our country at least have that as the basis for coming together. yes, ma'am. >> in the past you said you wanted to the supplemental go through. [indiscernible] it does include changes. is there anyway democrats to get on board if it means getting a deal before the august recess, which is leaving and not addressing the money issue or any solution? >> is there anyway that the republicans will be on board to address humanitarian needs of the children? because that should be the priority. let me say, these are different laws that we are dressing. one is to address the needs, and we need a supplemental to do that, because we have an emergency situation and needs to be addressed. second, we are talking about immigration law. what is happening at the border is a case for passing

comprehensive immigration reform . some are using it as an excuse not to pass immigration reform, and any excuse will do. he said they are not going to do it. hope inot take any saying that because of this we cannot pass that, because of this we must pass comprehensive immigration reform. in the context of that then you is its to 2008 law, what purpose, what is the damage that in another to just bill without a proper review what does it do to change that law, because it relates not just to central america, but it relates to the american position on refugees and asylum seekers from around the world. do we want to check out of that and say to other countries you take them, but do not talk to us about that? again, it is important to see what the purpose is.

we should have a regular order of a congressional review, hearing, etc. subjectedwe passed is to a future review or looking back review. i think those are two different things. we want to talk immigration, talk immigration. if you want to honor the values of our country in terms of humanitarianism and due process, past the other bill. there is no reason why they have to be tied. and i hope that the republicans to come to that conclusion. and we are waiting to see what they will put forth, what can they pass in their own caucus. yes, sir. johnson said jeh he wants changes to the law and is talking to congress about doing it in context of this crisis. are you involved in those talks? >> did he say he wanted it in a supplemental? that is what he is saying. >> they want to do a parallel --

>> you know what? i do not think these children should be held hostage to the discussion that should be taking place over here. suggesting is properly discussed in the context of immigration law. we if they even want to say are not going to do comprehensive immigration reform, but we will get it it a proper congressional order to review this rather than making payhe price for children to in order to have humanitarian assistance. >> do you know what changes they would like to make? >> who? >> administration. >> no. i have read what you printed in the paper. shortly, on another matter, i will ask him about that, but i do not know whether he is speaking to expediency, we got to get the supplemental, so

let's open our minds to this, or if they really believe that we should be reviewing our asylum and refugee policy. i think this probably the former, but i do not know. ok. that's it? >> to clarify, would you accept as ahanges in the 2008 law price for a deal on the supplemental, no matter what the process or the linkage is? >> this is where we started this discussion. the president put forth a supplemental that met the needs of the emergency situation that we have on the border. it mitigated for some of the harm that could be done to children -- was comprehensive. it was about humanitarian assistance, due process to protect the border, repatriate children safely by addressing their return to their home countries.

the senate has, although less money, less resources, but for shorter time, so it is commensurate, even a better bill to address due process. more assistance for representation and more judges to hear the cases more expeditiously. so either one of those two bills is what i would support. again, whatever the bill is that comes forth, we will all review very carefully, that it is not a question of when you support this, that we do not have any idea what else is in the bill. i cannot answer that, and i see the bill, i will let you know, but i very firmly believe that it would be a mistake for us to do immigration law in a supplemental bill. they are not supposed to be legislating on an appropriations bill. we have that every a on the floor when we try to improve the legislation that they have put on appropriations bills. for them it is ok, for us it is

not, but it is not a good ways to insert a clause that has such ramifications on a bill that has nothing to do really with the values that are put forth in a wilberforce law. it separate.ep immigration, emigration. you want to have a separate bill on 2008, discuss it there. do not hold the children hostage to the cosmetics of how tough you are on the border, because these are children coming over the border. they are children. before, thed you national catholic conference of bishops compared this to a be jesus fleeing violence. if you could speak about tradition, moses, what would we do if moses had not been next deck did -- had not been

accepted by the pharaoh's family? historically, we have a challenge, and we have examples of humanitarian assistance that should guide us in all of this. 2008, had strong republican support. there were many initiators. we had champions on the republican side who had been for human rights and respect for refugees and asylum seekers. there in the top of people in the country, in the world, advocating for that. so i trust the values that many the congress.n i hope that in their caucus they will have sway. we have to wait equity, and the equity we have to weigh is here. humanitarian assistance, due process, and the rest, or are we

going to take a cheap shot at kids? we will see. i do think it really is important and i respect the fact that there has not been enough are so many-- there back and forth on it, that the american people, in the goodness of their hearts, are humanitarian and would like to see this happen. but that they should not think it should happen at the expense of our border security. and that is the case that has to be made, because, again, when people react to something, sometimes insufficient knowledge and sometimes with well-founded concerns, we have to have that national discussion about why this is important. as i said to you over and over a gain, president lincoln said public sentiment is everything, and we should get a bill that comes together, and i think we have the values that make that capable.

we will see where the republican spring forth. >> two weeks ago you said the changes to the law would not be a dealbreaker -- >> didn't i just answer that? >> no. he said that the democrats would be willing to accept it. >> we have not seen a bill. you asked me about the president's bill. understand that. you're talking about a question. i answered when you asked about the president's bill. we do not have the president's bill. we are waiting to see what will we have. as i said earlier, if the bill mitigates for the damage it causes in one way or another, and believe me, it is last thing i need at the start of discussion is for the republicans to say he drew a line in the sand, there's no way we can go down this path now. so in the context of this debate, my priority are the children, and i want to see what

they are going to do about helping the children, and if you,seems inconsistent to i reserve the right to be inconsistent when we are talking about two different bills, maybe three, maybe four. we have the president's bill and the senate bill. we have yet to see the republican proposal. there is about forfeiting days left i believe. i understand there has been a lot of hope. do you actually believe there is a chance that a vote on some sort of supplemental the august recess? >> yes, i do. i am ever hopeful because i believe in the good eighth of many of my republican colleagues have on these issues, and i know the american people, for all the concern they have, with one aspect or another of what is going on, want to help their children as well. and you have -- don't take it from me -- outside validation,

the national catholic conference of bishops, save the children -- the list goes on amount about list goes on and on about people who care about this. the president met with the central american countries' presidents yesterday. i had visited others in brownsville a few x ago. now they came to washington to further advance the cause of the representative of the jesuit refugee service, whatever the official name is, the head of the desolate refugee service in that regard, catholic charities, sister norma of catholic charities, and a number of officials, to hear what they have to say what the impact of

this is on their area. i have always believed to things, because i've been there many time, to all of those any number of time -- when you're understand, you understand what an important part of america our border is. connection, is about very, very strong commercial relationships with commerce between x ago -- and u.s. that is facilitated there that is really important. there really -- they are very xcited that they have space coming out of brownsville. they see themselves in such a positive way, and as we debate this, we must respect that part of america that is so valued. and that is just another equity

peopleh -- how do the of the region, how are they affected in terms of how we deal with the humanitarian -- this is what is happening in any other place in the world if children were fleeing violence. you know that the american people would say what can we do about that? and that is what we are hearing now. so i am ever hopeful and prayerful that the outside validation, those who care about with have a good rapport many members of congress, but certainly within the republican caucus, will be persuasive in having us on are who we are, a nation of immigrants, unstoppably reinvigorated by country, coming to our making our country more americans by their commitment to family and faith and optimism and determination. so seeing it in the sense of how

it fits into who we are is a country, what our values are, how we have succeeded, and how this again is a part of our it isy, i believe that possible that they can come forth with something where we can find common ground. but we have not seen it yet. i would only hope they do not go with the convoy syria, go as -- convoy theory, that they go slowly, the cause we will not be able to -- because we will not be able to achieve what we can in the timely fashion to help the children. what is in the best interest of the children, that is what we have to do, consistent with our values, consistent with our laws, and very soon. thank you all very much. goodbye.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> john boehner held his briefing yesterday at the capitol. he talked about the emergency funding bill to address the humanitarian crisis at the less -mexico border. -- at the u.s.-mexico border. also talked about prospects for continuing resolutions to fund the government. his comments are about 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. americans are still asking where are the jobs. as the so-called obama recovery turns five this week, it is worth assessing where we are. simply put, the president's

recovery is the worst economic recovery in the president's own lifetime. record number of people are unemployed or have left the workforce. more have left the workforce than have found new jobs. income for american families have declined under this president. the cost of everything from gas to groceries has gone up. we can do better. republicans are listening to the american people, and we are focused on jobs. as weak we are sending more jobs ills to the democratic-controlled senate. i think it is time for the president to rake the senate -- to break the senate gridlike so we can bring more solutions to american families. i want to thank others for putting together some tough recommendations on how to address the humanitarian crisis at the border. we're continuing to discuss these issues with our members and looking at those recommendations. but the process has been hampered by the country -- the

bickering messages sent by the white house about the president us doing this to solve the problem. the administration started earlier this money -- this month by signaling changes in the 2008 the president called for this other administrations have called for the change. now the president and his team has apparently flip-flopped. they want billions in new spending with no commitment to actually solving the problem. we see a similar situation with the scandal at the v.a.. bipartisan bicameral negotiations were being made until the administration asked for no money with no strings attached. there will be no blank check for the president and his allies.

some in washington demand every new crisis for more money but the american people don't see it that way. they want solutions. i'm hopeful that common ground can be found. the priorities of the democrat-controlled washington and the american people, my colleagues and i will stand with the american people every time. questions? the working group has not put legislation out yet. their plan is very different from the senate plan. there are six legislative days left. is it safe to say that congressman not be able to strike a deal one legislation to deal with this crisis before you all go home from on? continue to talk to our colleagues in these conversations will continue today and tomorrow. it's time for the white house to

get their act together. they want to change the 2000 a law and address the real underlying problems or don't they? break do you explain the and the negotiations between house and senate on the v.a. bill? this is one more day that might go through the cracks before you leave. >> i'm still hopeful we can get this resolved. with ate house roles and request for $13.6 billion in new clearlyot outlined, no hearings, no nothing and expect us to just add it to this conference report. we will not do it. >> it was agreed upon that it was a crisis that needs to be resolved. how can we be months after the fact and still no resolution. what responsibility do you bear? counterpartsth our in a bipartisan way, i remain hopeful that we will be able to solve this.

the house can still pass a bill to change the law and force the senate's hand and forced the white house to discuss. where are you guys in doing that? >> we will continue to talk to our members. i've been pretty clear that i think taking some action to solve this problem is in order. the humanitarian crisis on the border is also in order. frankly, i've been clear with my colleagues about it. onregardless of what happens the border issue, do you believe the house will vote? >> i'm not sure where that issue will,. a 2015 spending issue likely to be dealt with in a continuing resolution that i expected this point will happen in sept number. in september.

>> to what level, and you have talked about this, to what level is your conference responsible if you have a certain number of people in your conference you don't want to spend money. it seems like oath of these issues in the v.a. am the border come down to money. where tea party conservatives just don't want to go there. what responsibility do you have? >> lesson. we are working diligently to get to an agreement on the v.a. veterans whoose have been waiting in line, those who live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility ought to have access to care and have access to care now. secondly, i think we need to understand how sick this patient is. i'm talking about the veterans administration. we have a systemic failure of an entire department of our government.

understanding just how sick this patient is is critically important before we start doing what washington usually does which is to just throw money at the problem. let's do what needs to be done quickly. again, i remain hopeful. when it comes to the border, look at it. this is a problem of the president's own making. and then he says he wants to solve the problem so we can stop this influx but then he changes his mind. we have a president that is awol. the president should get engaged if he actually wants something to happen. >> mr. speaker, there have been a number of republicans criticizing for president obama going on a fund-raising swing on the west coast with everything happening in the world including thewned plane, issues in

middle east. you feel like president obama should not be fund-raising while things like this are happening? >> maybe he should just reorganize his priorities. to ask a question about the debate about the faa decision to ban flights temporarily to israel. they reversed the decision but there has been some discussion about why they changed their mind and what politics were involved. what did you think the initial decision by the faa -- factson't know about the and why they put the ban in place. clearly they have a responsibility to keep americans safe and they believe that it was too dangerous to fly in their. they're doing their job but i don't know enough about the facts to know whether a decision wrong.ht or >> chairman ryan giving a speech today on poverty. how important is addressing poverty for your midterm message? how much will you embrace his recommendations? his've not seen all of

recommendations, but i think having an honest discussion of poverty islem critically important to the future of our country. ryan spent an awful lot of time on the subject and i'm anxious to hear what he's got to say. but i think everyone in this capital wants to help those that are in need but there is probably a debate about what that help looks like. you talked about jobs being an issue but immigration has pushed jobs out of the number one issue for most americans. you're coming up on an election. a lot of your members seem genuinely concerned about the inability to do something at the border when they go home. how big of a political issue would that be, what you termed a humanitarian crisis in the summer months before the election? >> it needs to be resolved. it is why we are continuing to

talk to our members on how to resolve it. the white house needs to get its not beogether where will resolved. frankly, i think it needs to be resolved. >> president obama signed an executive order banning discrimination against lgbt federal contractors. you have any response to that? ofthe president signs a lot executive orders. he will make whatever decisions he wants. you may have a handful of legislative days before the government funding expires. the chairman artie talked about another cr -- already talked about the cr. i expect we will do a cr next month and i would imagine it would go until early december. >> is it fair to say at this point that the house republicans will not be coming forward for a

on obama carrollton is before the election? discussions about obamacare and what the replacement will look like continues trying to build consensus around one plan. we are not there yet. cruz has been meeting with some of the house republicans about immigration, specifically the funding request the president has given. funding stopped and i guess i'm interested in what impact it has had on the caucus in terms of trying to get them to some kind of consensus. >> and focused on the recommendations of our border and we areking group operating within those guidelines. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

earlier today, president obama senior adviser dan pfeiffer spoke at the "christian science monitor" about republicans pursuing the impeachment of the president, if he takes executive action on immigration reform. this is one hour. >> ok. here we go. i'm dave took from the "christian science monitor." i guess today is dan pfeiffer, assistant to the president and senior adviser. he was here almost exactly one year ago. he's a wilmington emma delaware, native and by age 24 he was already operating on the national stage as a spokesman for al gore's presidential campaign. he also worked for senators johnson, tom daschle, and evan by before joining barack obama's presidential campaign -- and eva n bayh.

he was later communications director for president obama. matters ofe exciting process. as always, we are on the record. please no live blogging or tweeting or filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to actually listen to what the guest says. to help you curb that relentless urge, we will e-mail pictures of the sessions to all reporters here as soon as the reporters and the. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal. finger wave, eyebrow wiggle. guest offer our opportunity to make some opening comments and then we moved to questions around the table. thanks for doing this. >> thanks for having me. this is the only tweet-free zone and all of politics anymore.

let me to start with a few opening remarks and then take your questions on the wide array of matters in the news these days. when we began 2014, the president declared it the year of action. the goal here was to look for ways to work for congress because it had become pretty clear by the end of 2013 that congress was pretty broken because the republican majority was in the thrall of the right-wing. if we were going to advance our agenda it would be through executive action. we look for ways to do that big regulation to reduce carbon pollution to the minimum wage, equal pay for employees of federal contractors , things in the area around skills and education. leading up to the end of the summer, and executive action about dealing with a broken immigration system. this was done because this is how you govern in a time of

divided congress. even in the healthy days of bipartisanship we cannot expect them to pass large portions of our agenda particularly in this era where congress has become so gridlocked but also, we are dealing in a time when there is tremendous frustration with me lack of action. we want to make sure the american people know at of congress will not act, the president will so we're pushing aggressively in that area. going down this path, we expected to get a reaction from the republicans as soon as we oft out there you hear cries an imperial president, etc. i don't think we have presumed that they would sue the president but in some ways that is a validation that the executive actions we have taken that and are so significant that we have taken unprecedented steps. that is going to come to fruition in the next week here

is the house will vote next week to authorize that lawsuit. that will not cause us to trim our sails. it is probably a motivating factor to come up with additional executive actions. headed towards the end of the summer where mr. president promised because of the immigration reform that he will do what he can within his power there. i expect that will generate a particularly aggressive reaction from the republicans, perhaps one that exceeds all of the other executive actions we've taken to date. thee continue on this path summer through the rest of the year and the presidency pushing on executive actions, we think we're making a very real difference and setting up a contrast with a congress that is the least productive in history. with that, i will take your questions. >> i will do one or two then we will go to tim oliphant, susan keith epstein.

let me ask you about republicans and compassion. unity top republicans are staking out positions to appeal for a more compassionate approach. rand paul is making a speech to the national urban league on reforming the criminal justice system. yesterday, house budget chairman ryan talked about steps to reduce poverty and a couple of those echoed proposals the president made to increase tax credit for the working poor and to lower the eligibility age. of both themake ryan proposals and the more general shifts and republican approach? does it matter? will it have any impact come 2014 or 2016 in your view? >> it's a positive step to have republicans engaging in a conversation about the working entire 2012had an

campaign where republicans adamantly refused to talk about "47%." the theme of the thosessman ryan endorses measures supported by the president and also marco rubio. paul ryan in his proposal endorses some of the criminal justice reforms that the president has talked about. >> my boss is calling to say i've been laid off. i'm sorry. >> then this conversation may help you. >> i'm certainly over 25 and i would qualify. [laughter] positive.the the challenge here is the ryan proposal, all of them are still in the context of a budget that backss to balance on the

of the poor and those who need assistance. we need a fundamental shift in republican thinking here. the fact that they want to join the conversation is positive and we are more than willing to compromise. for the politics of it, i don't know what impact it will have in 2014 and 2016. i do not think you can just say you are for this basket of issues and that the same time support massive cuts to medicaid, food stamps, turning medicare into a voucher system. that will supersede your rhetoric. condition fundamental among some of the republican party that these sort of top-down economic -- the support for those at the very top of the corporation has been the cornerstone. >> on an international front, as you know there's been a lot of response and criticism to the

presidents response to the shooting down of the malaysian airliner. a cover storying on russia without anna schmidt. not surprisingly it is not particularly positive talking about the president being detached. there were even critics within his own party with three senate committee chairs sending him a letter asking for him to propose a broad sanctions and seeking swift action. my question is how would you assess the president's record so far dealing with the threats posed by putin? was it a mistake to stay on the road earlier in the week with fundraising? >> i will take the first part of your question first. polarizedve in a very time and everything the president does will be criticized by the other side. actual minutes from the around the malaysian

airliner when john mccain and lindsey graham were out criticizing the president for it. there are people who criticize the president for getting up in the morning. ,f there's a different approach we will be criticized for it and that's just the nature of the business. what we have done here is run a deliberate strategy to put increasing pressure on putin and the russians. it's important to recognize that there is this mythology -- certainly on the right -- they are reading vladimir putin's talking point that this is some sort of brilliant strategy. to be very clear, everything russia has done has been out of weakness, not out of strength. ukraine has been in their orbit for a long time choosing to side .ith western russia

russia responding militarily in a way that will damage their economy, isolate them further in the world and overwhelming all because ofin the economic hit they have taken because of sanctions. it's important to recognize the way we approach this is that sanctions work best when the world is united and we are working in concert with the europeans. that sometimes means not working at which the speed the news cycle want to do have a response but it makes it more effective because we can go out and act unilaterally and maybe get good press coverage. have the actual substance intact. this is a challenge for foreign affairs in this partisan, hyperactive, political media age. these are coupled gated issues that take time. the strategies do not always dovetail with the demand for an fromiate response

politicians, the press, and pundits. the second part of your question , the question we ask ourselves in any one of the situations where the president is out on the road or about to go on a substantivethere a reason that he needs to come back? if such a reason exists, he will come back. and if you have packed your bags to go on foreign trips with the president that we have had to cancel for reasons because his presence was required here, most notably about the pending government shutdown and the default that has happened a few times. in dutch it was clearly not the case last week. it's important that the american people expect the president to do more than one thing at once. canceling a trip and flying back here sitting in the white house doing the exact same thing we would have been doing from the

smartay be technically but strategically stupid because the next time you don't come back, the reply will why did you not come back that time? we need to make a choice on substance and let the chips fall where they may. dan, thanks for coming. what kind of stock in any in them at all way, do you see a drop in public approval? >> i think if you track -- i put much less stock in public .olling that was sort of worn out in the 2012 election with the difference there. i sayk if you look at -- a few things. the long arc of the president approval rating has traveled in

a fairly narrow band of about five points, a few peaks right after the first and second elections and after the bin laden raid but generally we've been in the same spot. our approval rating in the average of polls is one point off what it was at 2010. we've been higher. we've been a little bit lower. that's no question everyone in washington, the president included most notably, combinationfter the of the debate over syria, the , and thet shutdown healthcare.gov problems. we worked our way up half a point. the challenge we've had the challenge everyone has had is it is just a continuous cascade of

events around the world. where this is problematic in terms of opinion is it serves as a blocker to the message. the american people are incredibly focused on the economy. that's what they want everyone to focus on. they turn on the news and what they see is -- ukraine, iraq, more ukraine, and a whole host of other things. these are all incredibly legitimate issues that should be covered the way they are. it makes it very hard to get our message out. back.e taken a step as we get into the fall, there is a sharper contrast between the presidents approval rating in their approach and that will be helpful. over the course of the last many years there has been every

institution that has suffered. people it has to do with in the sort of overall mentality , frustration with washington. the congressional republicans would kill for our numbers. that gives you a sense of where we are. and need a zen margaret. sorry, out of order. my fault. -- anita then margaret. >> when you put out the six-month or midway review of this year, i went through to look at them. and i wrote a story about some .f them my brothers keeper had been on there twice, some grants you had , someffering to approve more private sector things on how you had been doing. despite what the speaker is

notng, you said they were small ball and i wanted to respond to the opposite. some of them are. can you respond to that? the second part of my question, i tried to get a response from the white house and it was the client. on, whatour media hat is the point of not responding to something like that when it is something that you all are pushing? what's the media strategy? >> let me take your first part. theink, if you look at array of executive actions over the course of this year, there that are very large and some that are smaller. you will have some home runs, doubles, triples in terms of the ho -- whole thing. if they were not small ball, the

republicans would not be suing us over them. there is no question around minimum wage, equal pay, lgbt, discrimination. certainly what we have around connect-ed in the greenhouse gas president hase done more than the last several congresses have done combined. if you look at the things the american people are interested in, the only place it's happening right now is in the white house because of obstruction. i don't know why someone did not respond to you. that's not our strategy. sometimes, it happens to you guys as well, you aren't dealing with an array of things and things fall through the cracks. >> margaret, i'm sorry for being out of order. that's ok.

i wanted to talk about the child immigration problem and solutions. one really interesting story today about honduras being treated differently than other countries. is this a test for how much executive action you can use to push immigration policy depending on how to repel such a to d republicans are --depending on how recalcitrant republicans are? it seems like a different case and then more broadly, in my observation, the president has broken off a different piece. they did not choose to come here. the dream act. now across central america is forcing him to take a different posture towards children. how is he weighing those two things and how will it come out in the end?

>> on the first part of your what i would tell you now is that all the steps we're taking are centered around two principles. one is deterring illegal migration and those with legitimate claims to be here. not a precise answer to your question but i am limited here. that will be what guides how we handle this. in terms of executive action, what is interesting about this is it has gotten tremendous attention, as it should, and that is raised awareness, tremendous awareness, around immigration as an issue and increase the urgency the american people feel in fixing it. i think that gives us a broad

permission to take whatever executive action we can because it's your ministry frustrating congress won't act. taking executive action along the lines of what the president talked about in the rose garden a few weeks that's particularly important because the house republicans decided they're heading home for the month of august without passing the present supplemental request which is exhibit 1000 in the case of broken republican congress. in terms of whether we do things and say just sue us,, the test on all of these things are we on solid legal footing. the president insists that that analysis is done before we take any executive action. now, i don't think that is going to stop the republicans from necessarily suing us, so do what we think we should,

not what we think drives the republicans. >> should we expect more executive actions on immigration specifically and just to clarify on the honduras, the story was right, it's not locked down, but they broadly described what he is considering, right? >> i'm not going to get into details of things that may or may not be floating around out there. if there are, others will make announcements on that. >> so yes? [laughter] >> so what i just said. obviously the president has said he wants to take executive action, what he can do within his authority as soon as possible. he is waiting for, he tasked the attorney general and the security of homeland security to come back at the end of the summer. that will be a very important step substantively. a pretty important step as you look at the arc of the

presidency and what happens when he takes that action. >> susan. >> dan, you have this very rare perspective because you have been there from day one at the white house. you and valley, anyone else in the senior rankings? >> we are the only ones left. >> i wonder if you can talk about how the second term is different from the first term in terms of both how the president can operate in washington and how he can operate around the world, is the second term different than the first term? >> i think, yes, it is different. part of the difference is just the president has been here longer. we have all been here longer. that gives us additional perspective. there are things that would have caused us to set our hair on fire in the first term that we now know are fleeting things. we can separate the noise and we talked about this earlier, when secretary gates' book came out in the first term, there would have been 1,000 meetings and we would have spent all night having all of these

things. now you recognize that these books flush through the system pretty quickly. i don't think people do too much sweating over that. the one thing i can say for myself personally in this is that probably every day from the midterms in 2010 until election night in 2012, there was some part of the day where i thought about the possibility of losing and not having that i woke up the morning after feeling lighter and not having that thought in your head is different. the other thing i would say about this is you, in all of these cases, you do what you think is substantively right. the re-election serves as a strategic felter as you think about things. you think every decision, particularly in this environment, even if this is a completely right thing, you got to be away that karl rove or brothers can buy ads

distorting what you just did. then you think about the long game. i spend more time in the second term thinking about how is barack obama going to feel about this decision 10 years, 15 years, 20 years from now when he hanging out in the presidential library. there is a little more thing about the long-term aspects of each individual decision and the short-term politics are incredibly important, the substance is incredibly important, you build a longer perspective. >> sarah. >> going back to the executive action, many of the executive actions is -- >> can you be a little louder, the aged among us. >> sorry. so many of the executive actions the president will keep

democratic authorities, lbgt action, immigration, equal pay, i was wondering how much of the politics of 2014 influenced the decisions he brought us? >> i'm not going to say that politics plays no role in the decision-making process. as you weigh equities in any individual decision, i think this is not unique to this white house or any white house or any politician around the world, politics are inequity. a lot of times, a lot of times to my chagrin that the other equities will beat out politics and you'll do things that may have consequences in the elections, but it's the right thing to do, so you have to do it. we have to think about it. i wouldn't tell you we don't. at the end of the day, he is not going to do something he disagrees with substantively because it's good politics.

we took a lot of heat in the first term because they were bad politics at the time, bailing out the auto industry, helping president bush pass the tarp before we were even sworn in office. anyone with half a political sense would know that would be really bad for us. you can make an argument, taking on health care, one of wasn't divisive issues good politics. we weigh those issues and sometimes we decide the politics, the bad politics is worth doing because it's the right thing to do. >> let me do a time check here. we're halfway through. we're coming to lauren, reed, paul, susan, sam, alex, david, alexis, francine, lynn, and todd. >> the basic message here is give shorter answers? >> no, if you play your cards right, you don't get to face a question -- >> when it's hot. >> when does sam come up?

>> lauren. [laughter] >> i wanted to ask, in terms of the executive action on immigration that we might have at the end of the summer, do you expect the president will be weighing the children who are coming across the border now or do you expect it will be wider action that affects amilies or others? >> i don't want to -- we haven't gotten the report back from the attorney general and second johnson, so i don't want to get too far ahead of it. we have two separate issues, separate but related issues. one is we have a specific challenge at one portion of the border in the rio grande valley and we have to deal with that and that requires sending additional resources, both redirecting resources and asking for new resources from congress, so we're dealing with that. secondly, we have to deal with -- you know we were talking about executive action around

immigration long before we had the specific challenge to the border. obviously what is happening at the border is part of the backdrop for the decision for the thinking behind this decision will make, i think it will probably increase the angry reaction from republicans. you already have senator cruz threats saying that he will not allow there to be a vote on the immigration bill unless we agree to deport all of the dreamers who have received deferred action under the president's executive action in 2012. i think that speaks to both the tremendous cross currents in the republican party on immigration reform where you have people like john mccain and lindsey graham, others in the republican house who have very open about immigration reform and a nativist tendency that has been

very damaging to the republican party politically. we talk about the lawsuit and then you have sarah palin out there talking about impeachment. i saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the republican party base saying they support impeaching the president. a lot of people in this town laugh that off. i think it is, i would not discount that possibility. i think that speaker boehner by going down the path of this lawsuit has opened the door to republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future. i think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point. they really came down and i

think we heard a little bit about what you guys plan to to do with the college issue with the nonprofits. i'm curious how the administration plans to act if you do executively to fill the coverage gap for the female employees of for profit corporations who were immediately affected, i think there were a few thousand and up to millions could be. what do you plan to do about that? >> i think the first best solution here is congressional action. we supported the legislation in the senate that was voted down in the last couple of weeks here. we are going to keep pushing for that. i don't want to preview anything here yet, but we're looking at what our options are. like i said, congressional action is first best if unlikely in this environment but we'll keep pushing for that because that's the best way to do this. >> do you have any sort of time frame as when you might announce? >> we're working as quickly as

possible. i don't have a date as to when the announcement. people are analyzing the situation and see what there is to do. >> reed. >> dan, how long do you expect to stay in the white house and have you told the president when you expect to leave? >> no, only because i don't know the answer to that question. i'm there as long as certainly -- as long as he wants me to stay. i say this. i'm there as long as he wants me to stay with one caveat which is i think my practice has been at the end -- as susan pointed out, i have been there for a very long time, which you can all judge whether that's a question of endurance or stubbornness. at the end of every year to take a look and see whether i still have the fire in me, the -- i still feel

think during any given day, if you can go spend a day in the white house and not feel the excitement and thrill and opportunity of that job and the place where you are and the history and opportunity to do so much good for people, then that's the time to leave. i don't suspect that that is coming any time soon, but i think i'll always look and see how i feel about it. i have no plans to go, but someone asked me at one of these events whether i would definitely be there on the day power is handed over to the next president. i think that would also be a particularly presumptuous statement to say. we'll see. we haven't made a decision or told the president, unless you have heard something different? >> no, i haven't. [laughter] >> if i can ask a follow-up on the impeachment thing. do you think that would be good

for the president to be impeached by the republicans? >> no, i don't think so. impeachment is a very serious thing that has been bandied about by the recent republican vice presidential nominee in a very unserious way. no one has even made, has any allegation of anything that would be in six universes from what is generally considered in that space. no, i think that we take it very seriously. i don't think it would be a good thing. i am, you know, but i think it uld be foolish to discount the possibility that the republicans would go down that package at some time in the future. [inaudible] if this has been the spanish and the i.r.a., you wouldn't

have supported it and tolerated it. shouldn't you have gotten angry about this earlier, would that have made a difference? >> the president has addressed has the secretary kerry addressed this? -- we have made clear about the casualties on each side. secretary kerry is helping them come to a cease-fire. he is going to keep working very hard on that. he is still in egypt right now working on that. we'll see what we can do there. i think that more than anything else is the most important step right now. >> other allies may be treating israel umstance and how has continued? >> i think as we said, isner isreal has a

right to defend itself. i'll let you judge if there is a different standard. >> let me ask this first, as i was watching the images on wednesday of the dutch morning ceremonies and the herses and the caskets come streaming down the street, i remember the white house put out a statement that it would stand shoulder to shoulder with the dutch people in light of the may layan crash and takedown. i wonder if there was an opportunity or discussion between the dutch leaders and the white house about whether the president could go to that memorial service. it seems like that would be a literal standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and also project a message to europe about where we stand in terms of russia right now. i'm wondering, first of all, i want to see if there is a discussion on that and

wondering how much the political capital the president would lobby europe for more sanctions, sanctions with russia. >> i'm not aware of any discussion like that. the president spoke to the prime minister a number of times. it wasn't a discussion we had in the white house. second, you know, i don't know if it's a question of political capital. i think the president has pushed europe very hard. he spoke about this in an interview he did yesterday about how hopefully the malaysian -- that the tragedy that has helped with may layan airlines would serve as a wake-up call for some of the european nations to step up here. he will continue pushing them because it's the right thing to do. like i said earlier, the best way for sanctions to work is when everyone is united on this. i don't think he views this as

an expenditure of political capital, more the right thing to do to get to a good public policy solution. >> sam. >> senator bernie sanders the ther day talking about the relationships with the republicans, he made the point that or he made a criticism, i should say, that the president took too long to essentially recognize that congressional republicans were not good negotiating partners. it led me to recall after the 2012 elections, they did predict that it would be broken . is the senator right in his criticism and if not, why not? >> well, i think first to the one, certainly not the president when he said that believed that all partisan

divisions would go away and we would live in a world of consume about a yay. we would pass large pieces of bipartisan legislation. the question was would we be able to make some progress. in some cases, the fever did break on revenue. we were able to get republicans for the first time in decades to agree to raise taxes on the wealthy and protect taxes on the middle class. we would all like there to be less, to have the republican party that was less extreme and it was the hope that the election would have that effect. it did not. it even may have had the opposite effect. that remains a challenge. i think that as someone who was there for all of the discussions in the 2011 and 2012 after the republicans took over is the president is willing to listen to the other side and see if they can come to an agreement. he certainly spent a lot of time with speaker boehner and others to try to get that done. that was the right thing to do.

he never had any misconceptions about the challenges of the republicans passing anything, the weakness of speaker boehner's position when he had a tea party that would refuse, they thought that defaulting on the national debt for the first time would be a good idea with a deputy who may not have been the most loyal deputy in mr. cantor. so we understand that. we also had a situation that had to be dealt with. there was no path to, at the time to dealing with the debt limit than having to work with republicans. so we had to do that. now i think over the course of time, there is no doubt that the more you deal with them, the more you know and the more you refine your approach. i think in the showdowns we have had to have with them over the years, the president has a pretty good record. he stared them down on the

payroll tax cut, the shutdown, the fiscal cliff and has achieved pretty broad public policy gains without having to give up very much, which is a pretty impressive thing in the course of divided government in a very partisan time. >> alex. >> as you know, the president's agenda, the democrat agenda has stalled in the senate. the republicans are still very angry about the filibuster reform. that has poisoned the well with the gridlock. the president is getting nominees through. was it worth it and how hard did the administration encourage that move? >> i think it would -- it's not exactly like republicans in the senate, the democrats passed a whole heck of a lot of legislation before the change in the rules. i don't think there -- i think that's a little bit of excuse making on their part. i think that the ability to get

our nominees through, especially our judicial nominees, has been tremendous benefit. we basically, none controversial nominees being held up for 200 days for no reason prior to this and i think -- we have been able to make tremendous progress in reshaping the judiciary especially in the last year or so since that. changes have been made getting four judges appointed to the d.c. court of appeals. they said we would never get one for the rest of our presidency, that's huge progress. we were very supportive of senator reid's effort to do it. >> given how dysfunctional it has become, do you think the president would like to see further rules reform no bills can get past any of the -- >> the problem is not the rules. the problem is that you have a republican minority who decided six years ago that they were

going to block everything the president wanted to do. that is where they filibuster everything. that is a fundamental problem there. i don't think it's a wise thing for one branch to suggest a bunch of changes on how the other branch does that. we have been in close contact with senator reid throughout, over all of the years, but as he has contemplated the changes in the past. if a desire comes up again, i'm sure we will be talking to him about it. >> mr. louder. >> you mentioned earlier about the problem of foreign crisis and blocking the message. wonder whether that, whether that tends to be pushing owards going bigger on immigration later as one of the equities that this is an issue that the public is focused on

where the president can come through and say i'm doing something and then he'll get more attention if it is big rather than small >> the president's goal is to do this in a way that is most impactful consistent with his authority. that will be how the filter by which he makes his decision on this. like i said, we're still waiting for the attorney general and second johnson are still undertaking the process here. i think that this executive action will be very significant in not just its public policy, but in terms of the politics of immigration reform going forward. now you have, you have a world where you have senator cruz demanding that we deport all of the dreamers, you can imagine what the reaction to this will be and the represent party has a choice after that, which is are they going to double -- are they going to go back and try to pass comprehensive

immigration reform which the president will rip up whatever executive action he does the day they pass that or are they going to set themselves up for the next 2 1/2 years here to be arguing that, to elect the republican in order to deport all of these people. that will be a really interesting question about how to handle that. so they would have -- >> the one you're going to do that you haven't announced yet? got it. >> well, what i said, the substance, in terms of the politics of immigration reform will have a significant impact. >> at the end of the summer. >> yes. >> in one block? [laughter] >> as you look at keeping your political hat on, as you look at the landscape of the house and senate races, how can you examine them and think about how they might affect the presidential race? what do you think in the races now that hits you in terms of

the larger race to come? >> i think just one note on the 2014 election is you wouldn't know this from reading the coverage, but as someone who has spent a lot of time looking at the data and talking to the people in the race and the president has been out with the fundraising committees recently, it has strengthened in the last few weeks here somewhat significantly. it's a tough terri. we have a lot of work to do. you would think reading the news that they got it worse. a lot of people including us believe it's gotten stronger where democratic incumbents have strengthened their hands in alaska, arkansas, north carolina. now tough states, a lot of work to do. i think what is interesting about these races for the long term is probably just because of where the senate races are

per se, they're not happening, with a couple of exceptions, happening in states that will be determined by a presidential election under most scenarios. where people should pay attention is the governors races. it's always helpful but not determinative to have the governor of your party in charge of a big battleground state. you have better political, nuts and bolts political in that state and the like. it has impact on democratic governors makes it hard for republicans to undertake some of these very onerous positions to cut down on voting rights. and then long-term in the governor races have to do with censuses and redirecting. in losing the 2010 governors races like we did was very impactful. democrats going forward have to be as focused as republicans are on those races for that

very reason and because where washington is so, having so much trouble passing anything, a lot of the public policy stuff is happening at the state level, looking at the 13 states plus district of columbia that passed minimum wage since the president called for raising the minimum wage in state of union. look at a.c.a. and medicaid extension, it makes a big difference on who controls the statehouse there. it needs to be a focus for us. >> are you projecting, predicting that democrats will hold these? >> i don't think anyone would tell you that it is easy, but i believe they will hold the senate. i think we have better candidates and the republicans made somewhat of a fundamental error in deciding that their best candidates in a lot of these states were members of the tremendously unpopular republican congressional house majority. it's tough. it requires a lot of work. we got good candidates and we

expect the president to help them. >> what are the prospects of changing the 2008 law bringing any details in congress onboard with that? is the president going to come t and reiterate his favor of adjusting that law the way speaker boehner, but also henry has asked him to do? >> well, i was sort of mystified, but i guess not surprised by speaker boehner demanding that, raising questions. the president wrote him a letter three weeks ago specifically asking saying that we wanted changes in the law. we sent that request up when we sent up the other request, however many weeks ago that was. we believe that. we're working with, we're talking to members on the hill about the best way to go about doing it. think we can't do is hold up

resources over this issue if we can't come to a resolution. we need the resources. changes in authority without resources, nothing to solve our problem. we need the resources and we need them sooner rather than later which is why i pointed out it's disappointing and frustrating and the republicans have decided to hang up the closed for business sign so early before august and just declare they're not going to act. we're going to keep working, as we said many times, and our, we said yesterday from the white house that we continue support or changes in the law, we're going to work with congress to make sure they're done in a way that dematerials illegal migration, protects legitimate claims. >> why separate the two when it could be done? > well, you're going to have theoretically a version that passes the senate and a version that passes the house.

you have to reconcile with them. a lot of proposals is one where we disagree with the way in which they do it. it has to be done in a way that meets the test we just laid out. we don't believe the current proposal does that. >> dan, you you brought up the residential .ibrary -- presidential library don't be alarmed. >> good thing the security people are not here. [laughter] looking at the proposals that obamaere, mrs. [indiscernible] describe a li