wars of the 1980's when so much u.s. media and policy attention has been paid to the region. we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the surgeon these miners, but there can be little dispute over the objective conditions from which they come. according to our own department of homeland security, seven dorian children come from extremely violent regions where they perceive the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. is preferable to remaining at home. poverty levels in this northern triangle of three countries have gone down since the 1990's. it is still the case that approximately 45% of seven dorian's -- salvadorians are poor. there is no magic bullet to address these problems. the of taken decades, if not centuries to develop. progress is possible with the right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic

participation, and adherence to the principles of transparency and accountability. a critical ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself. i believe that a long-term solution depends not only on what the u.s. government is prepared to commit over the long term, but what responsibility central american actors are willing to assume to transform their own countries. i'm optimistic central americans came together with the support of the international community to in their fratricidal wars, a similar effort back in the may to convert this current crisis into an opportunity for building more inclusive and democratic societies. i would like to thank the associate director eric olson, and the interns in this building

or all of their assistance in putting the event together. i would like to now turn the program over to the distinguished host for national public radio, whose voice dominates the commutes of so many of us. it is an honor to have you here, and an honor to host these foreign ministers. >> thank you. [applause] i thought you must be referring to someone else. thank you all the same. thank you for your remarks. it's an honor to meet you all, and to share this platform with you. to hear a much discussed american news story from the perspectives of other countries that are so clearly affected. i'm speaking with three diplomats. i understand that.

i wish to begin with an undiplomatic question. we have heard the problem described, whose fault is it? [laughter] you looked down carefully. would you like to begin? >> thank you. i think this is, can i speak in spanish? i'm going to speak in spanish. it is more comfortable for me. [speaking spanish] this question doesn't get to the point. this isn't a matter of finding guilty parties or finger-pointing. it is a matter of sharing responsibility. we have been speaking to central america from the standpoint of

challenges. citizens challenges. we have this responsibility that we see as a shared one. that is differentiated. we have to, in the case of drug trafficking, we have to look at it from the span -- standpoint of the producing countries on the one hand, and consuming countries. hondurans, our belief is, that the lack of opportunities, the levels of violence, of cultural exclusion that we see in honduras, and have seen, are not only the responsibility of hondurans. this is a problem that is all

encompassing. it ties into the tragedy of our country, which has led us to situation of a war being waged in our territory about having been the ones to take the bulk of the hits by way of deaths. and having a large international crime organizations that have stolen our country, these can be separated in honduras. there are other problems, clearly. when i talk about transnational crime, i'm talking about certain difficulties, which are tied to the issue of migration. that is, trafficking of minors, sexual exploitation, labor exploitation. but the correlation in the case of honduras, organized crime and those cities from which the large flows of migrants, are one

and the same. that is why i strike this equation, to the principle of burden sharing these of the this phenomenon that we have seen over the last couple of months. i'm referring to this historic flow of unaccompanied minor immigrants. >> you can speak in spanish or any language you like. it will be translated. [laughter] i will just mentioned, because there is a webcast, if there is a portion you are able to say in spanish, that will be outstanding. to reach the widest possible numbers of people.

the foreign minister of honduras has talked about co-responsibility, multiple countries are responsible. let me dig deeper though. is there another way you would like to express this? who is at fault? we want to diagnose the problem so we apply the proper solution. please. >> [speaking spanish] i apologize for not speaking in english. i will be speaking in spanish. we take a cold hard look at the numbers. the crisis of children has very concrete policies that are resulting in the current juncture. it goes back 35 years ago, although it has reached a height in the last couple of years. now you've got the coyotes who have convinced the families of the children that at this point in time, if they bring the

children to the united states, they will be allowed to stay. then you've got the lack of [indiscernible] that believe that promise. it would seem like there was this migration of children. but it isn't really a migration. 400,000 new babies are born, and so we have a half million under 18 years of age. so this isn't jordan with refugees flooding in. this relates to this specific phenomenon, duping families into thinking they can bring families as a business. $2500 is the cost the coyotes

charge to cross across the river. or up to $7,000. this is so profitable that for the last year the number of coyotes offering this service has grown exponentially in many communities. that said, as this is a relatively small number compared to the overall group of children, it hasn't led to the wholesale displacement of communities. however, the migration of central americans into the u.s. generally speaking is something you have to break down and numbers.

i don't pick we have a single explanation in this case. the largest immigration has not taken place in the last 45 years, not even the last 50 years. in 2001-2008, and it stopped. the surge stopped with the economic crisis in the united states. before that, when hundred 80,000 would move every year. -- before that, when hundred 50,000 would move every year. overall, that 1.5 million who have moved are now citizens. only 100 some odd thousand are not yet citizens. they have residency of one type or another we think. 180,000 are already citizens.

this is a long-standing process. from 2001-2008 there was a surge. there are a number of factors. chief is the u.s. economy, which is binar -- very dynamic. there was a demand for workers. another important element behind this migration, 2-3 tropical storms, large storms hit our country and others, contributed to the communities giving rise to immigration now. there is also a drop of mexican immigrants into the u.s. the coyotes had to make up for that loss by bringing in central americans. all this added to the fact that a wage difference between u.s. and central america is a factor now.

this can't be attributed to one administration, one given policy. this is a social phenomenon that transpired in a period of time that are still there from 2008 on. immigration growth has been relatively slow compared to earlier. >> with my poor spanish, i believe you're telling me that there was less demand by mexicans to travel to the united states, and they coyotes move south. trafficking networks move south in search of human beings and found your countries prayed that is what you are telling me. >> the total children coming to the u.s., you had at least

17,000 for mexico. a 2011, it was down to 11,000. when you see the trend of mexicans, when it reaches this low, the next year is when you see the surge in central american children coming. it's a good business. it is very profitable. there are very specific elements that have been created for illegal migration of people that explains this. why do i use this explanation? we always discuss it as a question of law enforcement. it is a question of how markets work. how the markets work, they will find solutions for the problems.

if we have the idea or follow the idea that this is a law-enforcement problem, and we can only solve this through law enforcement, we will stop it as well as the drug wars. >> how do you change the market for human beings? >> you have to attack the smuggling networks. this is something we haven't done. we capture smuggling networks seven weeks ago in guatemala. how much noise have you heard? >> nothing. >> it's not important enough. how many people did we capture in guatemala? 14. how many in mexico? 15. how many in texas? 45. they were based in texas. this is something, how this business has been developed over

the years. definitely we need to tell the story, with children you can't really get it. there are limits for everything. maybe an adult says i can give you money, and that is an a legal concept, but that is an adult. that type of network, we create many programs for children definitely. >> we have human smuggling. martinez, would you like to add? >> [speaking spanish] we have already said this

phenomenon has multiple causes. some reasons have been aired here by my colleagues. there is another situation, there has been a lack of opportunities in points of origin of migrants, education, and security. when weaver talking with joe biden with this, this is a matter of finding guilty parties in the short term, but to address the current crisis, and think in long terms, that lead to this migration are not [indiscernible] and we have been working in coordination with the northern triangle together. the traffickers and persons are pounding the borders more

carefully. we have a campaign in the three countries, making parents aware of the risk in sending their children to the u.s., and putting them in the hands of people who are involved. we can talk about the other things we've been doing to stanch this flow of unaccompanied minors but we have made a proposal to the obama administration about the measures that need to be taken now. these are in effect in the countries of origin. to create opportunism,

businesses, such that people feel motivated to stay home and work where they live. the second approach would be a wager on technical and vocational training. if we offer young children and teenagers good education, good training, for them to come into the labor market, that is going to spur them to stay in their countries of origin. the approach, we have been focusing the cities in each country where there is the biggest problem of violence and gangs, and we are going to have to create teams for law enforcement, and sure the reinsertion of those who have

been picked up [indiscernible] but you said something about needing to invest in security. >> is there a lack of government? >> no. the sheer size, this is not something that can be caught and isolation.

we have to tackle it. organized crime does not respect laws or borders. if we do not come together in a war against the organized crime, there is no other solution. certainly, the networks and trafficking have people who collaborate with them. the only way for us to tackle this is to join forces. those seizures or arrests need to be made with us. one country, operating alone, will not be able to do this. >> i think that a thing that has not been said and, i want to point out that it seems diverse, the response you have gotten from the three of us, you can complement them. if, you see it another way.

-- you can complement them if you see it another way. i fully agree and it was said by my colleagues that examining the causes for migration, it is a historical phenomenon. you have places where economic development is happening. this comes as an attraction for people to find a better life. even if that is not true sometimes. they think that they are looking for something better. i talk about violence and, in

the case of honduras, the homicide rates are high and we have data that supports that. it is related to drug trafficking. if you have that in mind and you have a small budget like honduras has, you give 20% of your gross national product to the cost of security. >> is that a correct number? you are currently spending 20%? >> [speaking spanish] >> let's say that 20% of gdp is devoted to the overall cost of violence and then 1.8% is for health care. how would it be possible when we talk about lack of opportunities? what we see is that if we do not

break from the vicious cycle, one thing impacts on the other hand, for any government, it is like a snapshot of our country that shows us what our vulnerabilities are and shows us the shared responsibility that needs to be taken by transit and destination countries. so, we should work together to break the cycle. violence does not encourage

investment. we have been working over the last couple of years with large initiatives to create jobs and attract foreign investment. if the risk factor is high, how much can we actually do to really attract investments and jobs? the first thing is to focus on containing violence and creating a safer environment. we are talking about citizen security and legal certainty. there is trust in state institutions that are undermined by organized crime. this is the fight against corruption. organized crime has had -- has undermined the credibility of

democratic institutions, without a doubt. this is something that we accept and we are working on this. so, yesterday, there were non-government organizations here who had, fortunately, decided to join the government of honduras to engage in the process for purchasing medicine and helping honduras with what they are doing to ensure a more open and transparent administration. when we talk about violence and

we talk about market behavior, as huo was saying about the land of opportunities, these are things that we cannot see in isolation. all of these are part of an overall approach. there is no single cause or responsible party. we have to have a comprehensive and pragmatic approach for us to take care of the immediate crisis at hand and the humanitarian emergency of unaccompanied children and adolescents. also -- >> what is the u.s. responsibility here? >> we could spend a long time talking about that. i think that there are two things that have already been mentioned here and i will

paraphrase them in my own words. the fact that the united states, traditionally, views the issue of drug trafficking and the consumption of drugs in the u.s. as a matter of public security is unacceptable from the standpoint of central america. there has to be a different way to look at this issue. we talk about how many people there are. they are engaged in the trafficking of adults and, how many of them operate within the u.s.? i don't know if this was the diplomatic -- we had a meeting in panama about the issue of security and i started to receive a lot of information about how the cartel

were setting up shop. we have to ask how drugs are distributed when they come into the u.s. that is the huge drug consuming country. what we believe traditionally is the blessing of central america and the bank. it is the bridge between the north and the south and the heart of the hemisphere has become the biggest tragedy. as a result, there is a demand that is eager to receive a good

in the south that is transported through our territory now. drugs that come into the united states come to honduras. >> are there problems with united states? what about the assistance that the united states could provide? >> do you need more? >> we do. we saw the problem coming and we made a call to the international community. we call for a central american strategy that contains four

components. strengthening the institutions for combating crime and the law enforcement approach. and, a time frame of funds. now, there were amounts pledged and the execution of these projects are currently lower than the needs. we are not saying that this is something that has to be financed only by the international community or the united states. our countries are taking in resources. there are budgetary difficulties that we have to combat the enemy of such magnitude. drug trafficking, much more resources are necessary. also, the structural phenomenon needs to be attacked.

the lack of opportunity and in many of our communities, we have to with youth who being extorted by organized crime. they are told that if they do not collaborate, we will kill you and if you do collaborate with us, you will have the easy money to buy whatever you want for yourself. on the other hand, the children are excluded and they do not have sufficient educational opportunities or labor opportunities. what we have suggested to the u.s. and the international community is an alliance or partnership with these countries. ultimately, it creates prosperity for the united states because we are connected. there has to be a common front to solve this problem. >> getting back to my numbers, i find that the narratives are ideological and they are not based on facts.

>> we do not know anything in washington about ideological. >> i know. you guys are about scientific evidence for issues. [laughter] that is not just washington. that is everywhere. questions of governance, okay, poor governance is reflected on certain data. mortality rates should go up. murder rates go up. school cover should be going down or stagnate. health reform should be implemented.

no reform for the judicial or social security taking place. everything is happening in central america. you see the trends. look at maternal mortality. it is going down. primary school coverage is going up. murder rates are going down during the last five years in all the countries. so, numbers are not supported. the idea that poor governance is taking place, some good governance is taking place. a number are our countries. so, you can solve your problems. you haven't a billion-dollar -- you have an 8 billion dollar budget. it is a marginal part of it. >> you mentioned forms of aid from the united states and it would be less than $2 billion.

>> if we continue this way, when are we going to achieve a goal that is important for affecting migration? secondary school coverage is critical. we have secondary school coverage in guatemala. >> 27% >> secondary school coverage. if we continue with our resources, we will have secondary school coverage in the next 15 years. if you provided us funding, we can cut that to half. it is a question of funding. the political decision is there.

the institutional capacity you can believe. the money is not. the second part is a question about taxpaying in central america. it has to go up in countries like guatemala. taxpaying has to go up. we have discovered a push for fiscal reform in the beginning of the term. because of the constitutional norms and the elements, it is diluted. we are taxing personal income. how much taxation provides personal income in el salvador? that is nothing compared to the u.s. or other countries. still, 2%. the average in latin america is 4%. we collect is 0.7% in personal income tax.

to give you an example -- >> you are meeting john boehner later, right? >> i am meeting with anyone in the u.s. who is pushing for less taxation. i believe that our levels of taxation are so low that even conservative americans would not supported. i took the tea party manifesto on taxation and was going to publish it in guatemala to see the reaction. i was pretty sure that everybody would call me a communist. guatemala would be communist. we need to improve taxation. i am saying this. it depends on these elements.

larger contributions, definitely. and, improving taxation at the same time. >> i have many more questions and i see that our time is running down. we want to stay on schedule. i invite a few questions and the audience. if i call on you, stand and state your name. time is short. ask a direct question and we will answer as we can. right here in the front -- or, in the third row. >> i am penny starr. can you address more about border security in your country? they have to read the border -- reached the border of your country to get to our border.

>> you are asking if they are trying to keep people in? >> i am asking about border security. >> what we were saying before, we have seen the flow of unaccompanied minors doesn't correspond with records that we have in official border points. evidently, there is a route that the traffickers follow that is the route that these unaccompanied minors follow. when they leave our country, they leave irregularly. in el salvador, our laws determine that a minor cannot leave without a notarized item from parents.

we are increasing controls throughout the borders. these individuals, these children, are leaving through regular points of exit. we have reinforced and strengthened our border to guarantee that we do not have a regular flow out of our country. as parents, we understand the feeling that a father or mother has to meet their children. we would like to say to them that it is not worth it. it is not worth risking the lives of your children. >> a related question. >> it is important, again, on the question of what we are doing and what we should do. we identified this as a problem. we have been working with mexico. one is the agreement that we

signed a few weeks ago in which they stayed in mexico for three days within a territory. the whole territory of -- that is if you want to go for tourism or business. you can do that. you would be amazed how many guatemalans do the supermarket and mexico. 50% of consumers come from guatemala. after the 80 kilometers, the controls get strict. you cannot go with that. the idea of the card is that everybody is identified. if you do not have a card, you cannot get in. you can say, i am a guatemalan

and i have my card. they will stamp it. after 80 kilometers, more strict. you are going to have three levels of control. you may say, they can go around the controls. it is so easy. they go in the river. you can go one by one, if you want to. that improves your chances if you want to go to the u.s. illegally. if you want to go to the u.s., you want to take a convoy. it is cheaper for everybody. that is what you need to control. that is what 95% of people go through. same thing in guatemala. we have a project of $350

million and 10 legal crossings with the same level of security on both sides. there is a security border. the engineers of mexico designed this crossing and we are going to have the same thing. it is a lot of money for us. it will be worth it. we think that we will have that in place. >> if you allow me, i have a comment. i've a quick comment in connection with what honduras is doing. in the past few weeks, the president decided to work with the director of migration in honduras. there were blind spots.

they are crossings that are not defined border crossings. activities were conducted there. illegal trafficking activities of minors. this had an effect on us. and, many of the coyote groups need to be brought in to justice. it is a good idea to make a distinction from regular migration from irregular migration. regular migration is a reality of the globalized world. no one can deny that. if we look at this viewpoint, there would be a contradiction.

the northern triangle countries have been pioneers. we have worked towards moving our goods and services quickly from one border to the next. the same thing happens regionally. one could say that there is a contradiction. on the one hand, we are facilitating the movement of goods and services. we have to stop the movement of people. so, how can we tried to solve this contradiction. we have to look at legal migration alternatives. the experience that has come out of this shows, once again, that the harder migration measures

are, the more sophisticated illegal trafficking networks are going to become. the hardest it is to me -- the harder it is to meet an objective, the greater the risk. there are issues that come out of the process that we need to address. we talk about resources and assistance from the u.s. i want to say a couple things about that. there was a senate decision that froze 35% of the funds for central american security

initiative because we have not certified that the efforts by the government are sufficient in certain areas. the question that we pose is, are the funds ready or are they not ready? they are there and they do not get to us. i am not good with numbers like my colleague from guatemala. my view, as a woman, is humanitarian in nature. apart from the figures and the way that we use these figures to base our opinions, we are talking about children and families that are being broken. i think this is important. i think we need to be logical when it comes to these prophecies and think about these

things. what have we gotten out of this? what have we gotten out of the strengthening and hardening of the border issues in the states? if the united states gave 10% to support employment programs, the story would be different. >> good morning. my name is jackie. i am from el salvador and i live in the district of columbia. my question is for the minister. i am sorry. many things have been heard and there can be campaigns for children not to come here. as the mother, if my child is

not safe in my country, i am going to run risks. if you do not have a good campaign, it is not going to work. we have a cancer here. you can close the border and we will find a way to get to the states. what is the plan to combat violence in el salvador? >> thank you for the question. i have talked about the measures already. we have focused on municipalities where we have seen the largest number of gangs and the greatest violence. we started with municipalities.

you know that we started about two months ago. there are muses pallet is -- municipalities and we are going to apply measures to fight gangs and provide safety and opportunities to young people. we are acutely aware of the problem that you put forward. we know the causes of why some are coming to the united states. >> we look at this from a unilateral viewpoint. we are not strengthening borders. this has to do with trafficking and how the criminal networks use the paths to move. we look at measures so that

young people have opportunities. they have opportunities in their communities of origin. there is a technological institute built and the young people have something else to look forward to. they are no longer saying, my first option is to leave. they say, i have a technical degree that i am getting interest him -- in tourism. we have implemented measures in the western area and the coal so area of the country that allows us to provide opportunities. i agree that we have to intervene in those areas where there are violent acts. >> i am looking behind you.

i mean, you. please stand up. ok. do not stand up. >> i am asking my question in spanish. >> you had a meeting -- the president is holding a meeting with mr. obama. what to expect out of the meeting? are there questions that you would like to pose? specifically, looking at what happened to the u.s. congress and the freezing of the funds by the president? what is the success that the meeting is going to have? >> this meeting is part of a sequence that started with the visit of joe biden in quanah mullah.

-- want to mullah -- guatamala. we had a meeting with secretary kerry. we received secretary johnson and the secretary for mexico. i think that this is important. we see those events one after another and they are common ideas. the first is very important. stop the immediate flow of children. of course, the most important parts is stopping the flow of children. it is a humanitarian measure to protect the children. this is important to understand. you are only trying to stop migration.

that is not the case. we need to stop this as an essential manner -- matter. we are going to work with united states to top this -- stop this. the actions involved law enforcement. the other issue that is important is this idea to establish a pattern in the medium term and the long term. this is going to be put in the agenda at the meeting with president biden. these issues are going to be discussed with the administration and a branch of government.

also, with congress. congress and the executive branch are going to make the decision to respond to the situation. our position is a position of cooperation. >> i see there are so many questions here. perhaps some of you will be able to linger and answer. is there a final thought that you would like to leave the people watching on the webcast? >> in my opinion, the first thing that we need to remember is that this is a humanitarian story. there is a political background and a deadlock between different chambers of congress. there is a bipartisan debate in the united states. there are structural issues in

the country. we can talk a lot about causes and effects. we can talk a lot about specific situations and long-term solutions. the important thing here is that, in all of this, we have to think that, apart from the material elements that we have to have to solve the issue, there is a background that needs to exist and needs to provide moral options.

i do not think that i am going to start an ideological debate here. we need to look at what we need to do from a correctly humane viewpoint. specifically, when it comes to migrant minors. we are looking for the best interests of the child to do the right thing. >> it is a humanitarian story. >> thank you very much. do you want to add something before we go? no, no, go ahead. finish. >> i want to end by saying something very important. it has to do with the narrative of the debate here in washington. we are good partners and we can work together. that is very important. one cannot solve these problems if the government does not have the capability to meet the commitment. the united states now has an advantage.

three central american governments are meeting promises and have a realistic set of objectives. they do not have problems in facing institutional difficulties. we have political problems. the u.s. has political problems. the world has political problems. i think that the northern part of central america has a certain maturity. that is important to solve these problems. i focus on these and for these children, they had their rights respected. and, for them to be the subject of due process. and, for them to have the possibility of going through the instances in the u.s. and -- legislation.

i talk about the efforts that we are making in our country and we want the u.s. to give us a war. the second thing that we ask is who operation to delve into the measures that can solve migration processes and the root causes of migration. security is important. economic opportunities are important. if these individuals had the economic opportunities, many of them would never come to the u.s. we say we wanted to be an option and not an obligation. we want people to not be obligated to come here and migrate. we have people will have basic conditions met and then want to emigrate.

they have opted to emigrate. we want to help in that area. thank you very much. >> please thank the foreign ministers for taking the time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> mark johnson of the truman national security project looks at the obama administration's approach to foreign policy him including u.s. relations with russia and mideast turmoil between israelis and palestinians. debate over

antimissile defense systems on u.s. commercial airplanes. facebookr phone calls, comments and tweets. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, a conversation with president obama's senior advisor, dan pfeiffer. in the president meets with central american leaders to discuss immigration and border security. a house hearing on campaign-finance after that. >> senior adviser to president obama, dan pfeiffer says he would not discount the possibility of republicans pursuing the impeachment of the president if he takes executive action on immigration reform. mr. pfeiffer made those remarks at the christian science monitor breakfast series in washington dc. he also discussed sanctions against russia, unaccompanied immigrant children and the 2014 in 2016 elections. the christian science monitor moderator is mr. cook.

he moderated the one-hour event. ok. here we go. the christian for science monitor, thanks for coming. the assistanty is to the president and the senior advisor. he was here exactly a year ago. he is a wilmington, delaware native andy george towne university grad who by age 24 was already operating on the national stage as a spokesman for al gore's presidential campaign. he also worked for senators tim johnson, tom daschle before joining barack obama's presidential campaign. before taking on his current role, he was deputy communications director and later communications director for president obama. so much for biography. now onto the exciting matters of process. we are on the record here. please, no filing of any kind

while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what the guest actually says. there is no embargo when the session ends. you help you kurds that we willss selfie urge, send photos as soon as the breakfast ends. question,ike to ask a we send me a subtle, nonthreatening signal. will happily call on one and all during the time we have available. let me offer our guest the opportunity to make some opening comments. and we will move to questions. thanks again for doing this, dan. >> thanks for having me. the onlyhis is tweeting free zone and all of washington. let me start with a few opening remarks. began .14, the president declared it the year of action. forgoal here was -- to look

ways to work with congress. 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. thee were going to advance progressive agenda it was -- it would be through executive action. pollution, toon ,upport minimum wage increase things in the area around skills and education. leading up to at the end of the summer and executive action on dealing with a broken immigration system. because one, this is how you govern during a time of divided congress. tocan't expect republicans step across the line. congress has become so gridlocked.

whene dealing at a time there is tremendous frustration with a lack of action in washington. we want to make sure that the american people know that the president will act. we expected that we would get a reaction from republicans. there, as we went out you hear cries of imperial presidency, etc. we did not presume they would sue the president, but in some ways that is a validation of the idea that the executive actions we have taken are far from the small ball that accused it of being, but instead have forced the republicans to take in nearly unprecedented step of suing the president. that is going to come to fruition in the next week as a house will vote next week to authorize that lawsuit. aat is not going to cause loss of wind in our sails. said, at the end of the

summer, as the president promised because of congress is lack of action in immigration reform, he will do what he can within his power. i suspect i will generate a reactionrly aggressive from the republicans, perhaps one that exceeds any other executive action. that pathoceed with this summer, pushing on executive actions, because we think we're making a very real difference in setting up the contrast with the least productive republican congress in history. with that, let me take your questions. let me ask you first about republicans and compassion. the top republicans are staking out positions to appeal to a more compassionate

approach. rand paul is making a speech today on improving education and reforming the criminal justice system. yesterday, house budget chair ryan talked about steps to reduce poverty. a couple of those echoed proposals the president made to increase tax credits for the working poor and to lower the eligibility age. what do you make of the ryan proposal and the more general shift in republican approach. will it have any effect in your view? >> is good the republicans are engaging in a conversation about the working poor and trying to republicans adamantly refused to talk about that in the last election. there are potential areas for compromise in both

ryan's proposal in which he proposes measures supported by the president. paul ryan has proposed endorsing some of the criminal justice reforms the president has talked about. >> my boss just called, i have been laid off. >> in his conversation will be very useful for you. the challenge here is, the ryan proposals are still in the context of a budget that chooses balance a budget on the backs of the poor and those who need assistance. we need a fundamental shift in republican thinking. we can look for compromise if they choose to join the conversation on a different level.

i don't think rhetoric is going to get -- i think you can say this basket of issues and at the same time support national cuts to medicaid and food stamps and turning medicare into vouchers. that will supersede your rhetoric. there's a fundamental recognition in the republican party, at least among some, that these top-down economic support for those at the very top of corporations is a hallmark of the republicans and the romney particular, is a loser. >> there was criticism to the president's response to the shooting down of the malaysian airliner terror time magazine is running a cover this week entitled in russia, crime without punishment. is not particular positive, talking about the president being detached, but

there were even critics within with three senate committee chairs sending him a letter asking him to impose 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 routine yet -- by president putin? >> i think the first part of -- we live in a very polarized, pollard -- partisan time. everything a president does will be criticized by the other side. actual minutes from the around the malaysian andiner when john mccain lindsey graham are out criticizing the president for it. -- there are people who criticize a present -- the president for getting up in the

morning. if there is a different approach, i suspect that charles krauthammer and others will be ing us for that. i think it is important to recognize that there is this mythology, certainly among the right, where you have republicans reading president putin's talking points as if this were some sort of brilliant strategy. it is certainly clear that everything that russia has done is not understrength. the ukraine has been in orbit for a long time, choosing to side with the west over russia and thenmaking -- russia responding in a way that damaged their economy, isolated them further in the world. you see growing pressure on because of the economic hit they have taken because of sanctions.

i think it is important to recognize that way we approach this is that sanctions work best when the world is united. we are working in concert with the europeans. not workinges means at the speed of the new cycle that cable news response. you can have good press coverage but not have the substantive impact. that is a challenge of foreign affairs in this partisan, hyperactive political mediation. these are competent issues that take complicated nuanced issues that take time. those strategies don't always dovetail with the demand for immediate response. the second part of your question, the question we ask ourselves in any of the

situations where there is a world event in the president is out on the road, is does -- is a substantive reason he needs to come back? -- if such a reason exists, he will come back. many of you pack your bags and go on a trip that is been canceled for reasons -- most notably around the government shutdown and possible default that is happily couple of times. we asked the question, that was clearly not the case last week. i think it is important that the american people expect the president to be able to do more than one thing at once. if we -- if canceling a trip and flying back here and sitting in the white house during the exact same thing we would've been doing from the road, maybe tactically smart in getting good press coverage, but strategically stupid because the next time you don't come back, "why did youll be not come back that time? "

in terms of public approval stop canwhat kind of you put to them at all? see a drop in public approval as reflection of the presidents performance or by extension your own? -- i put muchk less stock in public polling than i do in private polling that i see. that was born out in the 2012 election for the difference there. --hink that if you look at the long arc of it, the president's approval rating has traveled in a fairly narrow band of about 4-5 points. there've been a couple of peaks right after the first election, right after the second election, after the bin laden rate, but generally we have been in the same spot. i think our approval rating is

in the average of polls. there is one point -- it is one point off what was in 2010. we have been higher and a little bit lower. there is no question that everyone in washington, the president included, took a hit of thehe combination debate over syria, the and thent shutdown, the healthcare.gov problems. we had worked our way back to up, about a point in my through the first half of this year and what we have had -- the challenge we have had over the itt several months is that is a continuous cascade of events around the world. become problematic in terms of public opinion is that they serve as a blocker to message. ,f you turn on the news

american people are incredibly focused on the economy. they turn on the news and what iraq, more ukraine, ukraine, and a whole host of other things. that is not a criticism of coverage. those are all legitimate issues, but it makes it very hard to get our message out. i think we have based some project -- some progress on taking a step back. as we get into the fall and there is a sharper contrast between the presidents approval -- that would be helpful. i think it is worth noting that over the course of the last many years, there has been every institution has suffered in public polling. it has a lot to do with people's overall mentality. frustration with washington, the congressional republicans would kill for our numbers.

that gives you a sense of where we are. >> anita? to margaret.go i'm sorry, my fault, out of order. >> i want to get back to the year of action where you all put out this six-month or midway review of this year. i went through and looked at some of those. i wrote a story about it last .eek, about some of them for example my brothers keeper had been on the twice. some were granted you had artie been offering two groups. were private sector things that businesses are not even doing, even though you all supported. get as i just wanted to response to the opposite, which is that some of them are small. can you respond to that? the second part of the question is, i try to get a response from

the white house and i didn't. it was declined. know that person was, but. . . .. what is the point of not responding to that when the media is pushing? >> imitate the first part. , if you look are at the array of executive actions over the course of this year, there are a lot that are very large and some that are smaller. you have some home runs and some triples and doubles and singles over the course of the year. if they were small ball, the republicans would not be suing is over them. i think there is no question that around the minimum wage, around equal pay, around lgbt nondiscrimination which the president signed last week,

certainly what we're done around connect ed and technology in schools and the greenhouse gas regulation, these are all pieces of very big business. in each of those areas, the president has done more than the last several congresses combined. if you're looking for progress on the sort of things that american people are interested in, the only place that is happening right now is in the white house because of a dash of republican obstruction. i don't know why some and didn't respond to you, that is not our strategies. y. we're dealing with an array of things it anyone time. that may have fallen through the cracks. about theto talk child immigration problem and the solutions you're looking at. us on interesting story today about a potential plan for all i wanted toch is --

talk about both in connection with a series action. what is the kind of executive action you can use to push immigration policy? are you guys looking at just doing stuff and saying go ahead and sue us anyway? does honduras seem like a different case? broadly, children have always been broken off as a different piece of immigration. , theream act, the military trend now across central america is forcing them to take a different posture. i was wondering how that would come out. >> on the first part of your question, there are some things the -- in the ope" the new

york times. is rejectingm legal claims. that will be what guides how we handle this. in terms of executive action, i think what is interesting about what is happened at the border is this got tremendous attention, as it should. that has raised awareness in the research i've seen, tremendous awareness of immigration is an issue and increase the urgency that our people feel and fixing it. i think that gives us broad permission to take what executive action we can to help fix a broken immigration system, because they're frustrated that congress will not act. taking executive action along the lines of what the president was talking about in the rose

garden a few weeks ago would allow us to redirect resources to the border to deal with it very that is particularly important because a house republicans have decided that they're going to head home for the month of august without the president supplemental request, which is exhibit 1000 in the case of the broken republican congress. what we do in case on all ofs, the test these things is 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 we 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 valerie, 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 tgs. now you recognize that these books flush through the system pretty quickly. i don't thipeople 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 electi

on 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 the koch 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 the most divisive issues wasn't 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 families 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 been 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 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, whether i still feel the -- i 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 today. 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 would be foolish to discount the possibility that the republicans would consider going down that path 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 this, the secretary kerry has 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 the circumstance and how israel has been allowed to carry on killing so many kids? >> i think as we said, israel 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 hearses 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 malaysian 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 malaysian 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 other 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 question, no 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 kumbaya. 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. lauter. >> you mentioned earlier about the problem of foreign crisis and blocking the message. i wonder whether that, whether that tends to be pushing towards 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 secretary 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 territory. 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 expansion, 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 out 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. i 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 mentioned, you brought up the presidential

library. don't be alarmed. >> good thing the security people are not here. [laughter] >> looking at the proposals that are there, mrs. obama [indiscernible] can you describe a little bit of what he is doing? >> a vast majority of this is being handled outside the white house. >> this is something that the president and first lady lady, this is obviously important to them. people who are very close to them, involved in this process, i do not know if the resident has look at the bids or not. if he is not coming you will of the appropriate time. >> the perfect time is coming up now and >> i have not asked him,

so i do not know the answer. >> what about giving the museum to dallas? put your politics hat on again. i am wondering, as uss the 26th team field with republicans, do you see -- who do you see is the most formidable and the most beatable?

>> the caveat i would give here is a stage of the game, if we judge the 2016 elections in 2014, it would be like deciding who would win the 2016 super bowl based on the 20 14th and a fell season. two of the smartest political reporters around in june on six wrote a book called the way to win. do not hold me accountable for anything i'm about to say. i think senator cruz is a particularly interesting candidate for democrats. he is deeply out of step with the country on a wide array of issues. i have to admit i was rooting a little bit for the convention to be invalid because i thought to be interesting if he ran to austin how he would handle the nominates the of another person -- nominating of another person. i think one of the most intriguing candidates is senator paul. i think he has a message -- he is the only republican president equated a message that is not -- pardon is potentially appealing to younger americans. every other republican is just yet romney when it comes to younger americans. they come from a different era.

the libertarian bent of senator paul, he bears -- there is a germ of something there. whether he can pull it off, i do not know. he has said some things that

could be problematic in the larger electorate. i will be an interesting one. >> would you rather run against cruise or rick perry? >> that is like would you rather have ice cream or cake? >> i'm going to speak to the -- i'm going to stick with the 2016 theme. in recent months and had to just pull themselves on foreign policy -- discipline themselves on foreign policy, and did not say anything about a second term with gaza, ukraine and iraq. have you talked to the president? >> i have a different interpretation of this than i

think you do. i think up until the moment when secretary clinton decides she's going to run or not and beyond that, there will be a massive amount of attention to try to divine meaning and everything -- in everything she says. it would've been an awkward sentence construction to go out of her way when talking about her own experience in the first term to then associate herself with a second term. she has been very supportive of the president on issues like the efforts in iran around the broader foreign-policy. i do not think they will all agree 100% on every decision that was made before or since. she was incredibly loyal to this president, he is area

-- she is very appreciative of it. all of us who work with are very appreciative of it. i suspect that there will be a lot of criminology into every word she says for a long time. but i'm not concerned about that. >> is it going to hurt the president if she starts to [indiscernible]. >> i do not think so. in a long list of concerns that i have in my life, political and otherwise, this is pretty low in my list. i do not think she's trying to distance herself, i think she would say she is. decisions that were made when she was secretary of state into the things that we have done now, it is a fairly natural thing.

what is notable is given the very highly charged primary campaign the two ran against each other, only six years ago, it is notable how close the relationship is, how close they have been on core issues and their loyalty to each other. >> thank you for doing this. we appreciate it very much. [laughter] thank you. are you having a good time? did you do anything fun? >> i had dinner with [indiscernible]. >> how fun. >> here's a look at her primetime schedule on this he's been better -- on our c-span networks. coming up, another chance to see dan pfeiffer talking about the agenda. on c-span two, virginia congressman scott russell discusses relations with russia.

>> president obama says children without a proper claim to stay will be returned to their countries because the u.s. is a nation of laws. this is 20 minutes. thank president melina, president hernandez for being here today. our nations share extdi