in you now know from the snowden disclosure that it is a lot of data. that may also include the information of americans even though that can't be discerned. what the amendment says is if you want to do search -- to search that data base for americans, you should get a warrant. but you can't get the information, get a warrant. that when make sure the nation relinquishes its control over the domain name system that we know we are getting ourselves into. shimkus. monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. is in british parliament

summer recess. members returned to the house of commons on september 1. we took a look back at the major events in british parliament the spring, including the lead up to the scottish independence referendum. .hanges to the house of lords the malaysian airliner that was shot down in ukraine. alicia mccarthy hosts the program. >> hello and welcome to "westminster in review," a look back at all the big events in parliament since easter. coming up, the government gets a stamp of disapproval as tens of thousands of people are forced to wait weeks. >> this is a sorry shamble. >> the government will do everything he can while maintaining the security to make sure people get their passports in time. >> sexual abuse of patients,

children, and the vulnerable is revealed. >> a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator. >> the rights and wrongs of assisted dying. and after the european elections, we ask what now? first, they might still have been munching the final fragments of their easter eggs. everything was far from sweetness thetwo business ministers were forced to defend the weatherization of royal mail. shares went up by more than one third. the national audit office criticized the handling of the selloff, accusing the business department of rushing. a committee of mp's insisted the selloff had been a success. >> these shares were undervalued

when they were floated. >> this was a successful flotation. we expected it to go to a premium on the first day. you would have been critical if it had been wrongly priced and people lost a great deal of money, including the people who worked for the company. >> the approach seemed to do everything to ensure that it was sold. money for the taxpayers was a secondary interest. >> no. >> the strong advice that we received was if we had attempted to push the price beyond the upper end of the range, there was a possibility that the large number of the people would have walked away from the transaction. >> you were motivated by a fear of failure. i understand that. i am happy with that viewpoint, but at

least the general public -- by all accounts, they lost between 1.1 billion and 1.2 billion pounds. if what you say about supporting your argument -- you were wrong. >> no apologies, no regrets. absolutely no apology and the recognition that hindsight is a wonderful thing about price. given the circumstances at the time and the fax that we had, the correct decisions were made. >> the issue appeared on "prime minister's questions" the next day. >> there are conditions by the postal workers. can he explain why postal workers were told they could not sell their shares for three years? but hedge funds were told they

could cash in on day one? who runs these hedge funds? they have been very coy on who runs these hedge funds. none other than the chancellor's lead man. it is one rule if you deliver the chancellor's best man speech and it is another if you go to a chancellor's post. he cannot talk about the deficit because it is falling. he cannot talk about the economy because it is growing. he cannot talk about jobs because there are 1.5 million more people in work. >> it is the government's confidence over the spending of royal mail was being questioned, it's experience in the air was questioned by travelers. it was estimated by some that over 500,000 applications for passports were stuck in the system. they claimed the normal

application process had reached six weeks in some cases. the home secretary said the majority of applications were being dealt with in time. that was no consolation for people waiting for the new passports. >> the government will do everything it can to make sure he will get their passport in time. there is no big bang single solution. we will take a series of measures -- so we will take a series of measures to address the pitch points and sourcing measures. >> this is a sorry shamble. a secretary who cannot even bring herself to say the word. government incompetence means people are at risk of missing their holidays, or honeymoons, their businesses. every mp has been inundated and the secretary does not seem to

know what is going on. >> ministers i know receive weekly updates about the flow of applications and the turnaround. it is beyond belief and not credible that ministers were not aware of this trouble. >> yesterday, the opposition claimed that tens of thousands of people were having their holidays canceled because of passport delays. meanwhile, the association of travel agents have seen no increase in cancellations because of past four delays. who should we believe? will the home secretary apologized to my constituents, who are foster parents, applied for a pass port, and weeks later, they had a phone call from the office saying that the passport was on its way and they book their holiday. six weeks after that, they still

had not gotten a passport. so the foster child was not able to go on holiday with his parents. will she apologize to them? >> at this time, they should be assisting their constituents and not cheap, smug, self-satisfied -- >> the conservative. one other government response ability service repeatedly over the last few months, the planned introduction of a new benefit him a universal credit. the controversial scheme, which rolls six benefits into a single payment, was meant to cover one million people by last april. but the program has been reset amid continuing problems. it is now being rolled out to another 92 centers and more changes are being made. >> we believe that everybody will be on by 2017. >> i think it is the first time

we have not heard the secretary of state say that this project is on time and on budget. but we still hear complacency. at this rate, it will take 1052 years before universal credit is fully rolled out. so what do we have? universal credit delays. personal independence payments delays. his incompetence is not only wasting tens of hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money, but it is causing untold pain and hardships for some of the most vulnerable people in our country. >> this government has entered into the biggest welfare reform program. you're getting more people into work. record numbers in work. more young people into work. more young people who have been long-term unemployed back to work. 42,000 people have been cap, 6000 have moved into work.

universal job match for 6.9 million people registered. the work program -- these are all records of success and welfare. >> smith defending his universal credit program. of course, when it comes to government competence, this man is concerned with one thing, the performance of the economy. chancellor george osborne has been keen to don a hard hat and go around the country. to show business is bouncing back. it is a point he has been hammering home in the comments too. >> let me be clear. we said we would get the deficit down. the deficit has come down. we said we would recover and the recovery is taking place. a million people would lose their jobs and 1.5 million jobs have been created.

he has broken them on the deficit. they are falling year on year on year on year. does this chancellor really think his economic plan is working? let him answer this one simple question. at the next election, after five years of this chancellor, will the working people be better off than they were in 2010? yes or no? >> of course written will be better off because we will not have the mess of an economy on the brink of collapse. >> george osborne in a characteristically robust exchange. down the corridor, many of the big issues of the day came up. there was also a small, quiet revolution. take a look at this. >> i move that this bill be read

for the third time. >> that this bill the not read a third time, millions treated in contempt. >> i beg to move that this bill do now, at last, pass. >> as many of opinions as our content and not content. the contents have it. >> that might not appear to be anything extraordinarily, but it masked the passing of a latest attempt to pass a bill that allows peers who retire or be thrown out for attendance and not breaking the law. this time, it went right to the wire of the parliamentary session before clearing its

final hurdle in the ceremony the next day. >> house of lords reform act. >> the lords reform bill just squeezing through on the last day of the session. the program for the next parliamentary year and a list of the new bills introduced in the state opening of parliament a couple of weeks later. mp's and peers took a break. that did not mean that politics was on hold. campaigning was in full swing in the northern elections and european elections. results, when they came, were dubbed by some eurosceptic earthquakes. labor came in second while the conservatives dropped behind. across europe, the number of

mp's from eurosceptic parties doubled. the success was not a surprise to many people here, but how was it seemed to the rest of europe? >> it was kind of a shock that not only were they successful in the united kingdom, but there were so many other critical anti-european parties being very successful in france, especially. and then in hungary and also germany. for the first time, you had a party that was not anti-eu, but anti-euro. >> what has been the reaction to the decision of the david cameron that he wants to negotiate britain's position with the eu? >> in general, it has been quite critical. it seemed like the united

kingdom wants special treatment. they already have a special rebate when it comes to the budget. they have not opened their borders. they do not cooperate in other areas. why do they now want to renegotiate european policies? >> do you think it is a suggestion that angela merkel is open to? would she be willing to get into renegotiation with david cameron? >> i think that is now a very critical question. angela merkel has a very good relationship with david cameron. that was proven last year when she invited david cameron with his wife and children to the official summer residence of the german government. that was a gesture from merkel personally to say i want a good relationship with the british government. after that, you had the arguments about the future

european head of commission, jean-claude juncker. not only in germany, but especially in germany, it was seen as a provocation. it has made it much more difficult for david cameron to renegotiate and get a better deal for the united kingdom in europe. >> is britain as isolated as it appears? surely other countries are skeptical about the eu project. >> there are a lot of european countries that are skeptical of the european union. the germans are also highly critical. the question is, how do you do it? do you do it in a friendly way and try to find consensus or do you do it, especially from germany and such, in a very controversial and provocative way? this is what the british prime

minister has done. by that, he has caused a lot of criticism. >> with the european elections over, it is time for parliament to reconvene. with all of the pop of the traditional ceremony, the queen came to open the procession. it was a rather gray morning in london. the ceremony can be traced back to the 14th century. this year, there was a modern touch. the queen traveled in the new diamond jubilee coach. once again, the duchess of cornwall us underlying that one day, it will pass to the next generation. a quick last of the trumpets and the queen moves through the royal gallery to the house of lords. the queen and the duke of edinburgh take their places on the throne. and the bit people always

remember, the slamming of the door in his face, a symbol of independence of mp's. black rod knocks three times and is finally let in. as usual, there is a very audible heckle from dennis skinner. >> demands the honorable house attends her majesty immediately in the house of peers. >> coalition's last stand. >> and the walk from the comments to the lords with rival politicians engaging in polite conversations. mp's slowly funnel into the lords and the queen finally reveals the secrets of her speech. among the bills, changes to pensions and child care payments and legislation and infrastructure.

>> my government will implement major reforms to the electricity market and reduce the use of carrier bags to protect the environment. >> the new session of parliament was dominated by events not of this government's making. widespread horror of the celebrity dj. major reports from two of them announcing the findings. apologized for what has gone on in the health service and said the whole entry would share a deep sense of revulsion at what the reports revealed. >> as a nation, at that time, we held him in our affection as a somewhat national treasure. today's reports have, in reality, he was a sickening and

prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly spited the trust of the nation. one of his teenage victims believed she was pregnant as a result of his abuse. he had jewelry made from glass eyes from bodies taken in the mortuary. other details are too horrific to reveal in this house. he was a horrific predator who abused many people, including young people. on such a day, i want to apologize on behalf of the government and the nhs to all of the victims who were abused in nhs-run institutions. we let them down badly. however long ago it may have been, many are still reliving

the pain they went through. how a celebrity dj and predatory sex offender came to have access to vulnerable patients across the nhs and the keys to its highest security hospital surely ranks as one of the worst failures of patient protection our country has ever seen. >> there will be incidents where we do not have evidence of the abuse. the complainant was unconscious at the time. does my right honorable friend agreed that no proof is not the same as it did not happen and that his welcome words of apology should apply to all of those who think they may have been abused? >> there are several people culpable in this affair who are still enjoying substantial nhs pension. why don't we consider docking their pensions as a consequence

for their behavior and a clear warning to others? >> i do not rule that out at all. if someone has behaved in a way where there is a way to have legal redress such that things like pensions can be docked, and i think they should face the full consequences of that. >> and with historical child abuse back in the news, an independent inquiry and how public bullies dealt with allegations of abuse. he also said there would be a second inquiry and how the office handled information given to it in the 1980's following the allegations that they were not acted upon. material submitted in parliament.

>> the investigation found that 114 potential he relevant files were not available. the home office and the investigators destroyed missing or not found. investigator made it clear he found no evidence to suggest the files had been removed or destroyed inappropriately. investigator was satisfied that the home office passed all credible information from mr. dickens and elsewhere to the police so they could be investigated. >> she then moved onto to the calls for a wider inquiry into historic allegations of abuse. >> i can tell the house that the government will establish an independent inquiry panel of experts to consider whether public bodies and other nonstate institutions have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. the panel will be chaired by an appropriately senior and

experienced figure. it will begin its work as soon as possible after the appointment of the chairman. >> her first choice was a lady butler sloth. she sit down after criticism she was too much of an establishment figure. her late brother was attorney general in the 1980's. >> the secretary is right to announce that she has changed her position and response. but i wanted to press her on the details. we need three things. justice for the victims, the truth about what happened and how the home office and others responded, and stronger child protection and reforms for the future. any allegations of a child who has been abused must be thoroughly investigated by the police, even if it took lazy decades ago. >> the senior ex-whip said that the office routinely helped mp's

with scandals, including those involving small boys and they did it to exert control over those individuals and prevent profits to the government. just one example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent just this from happening. this inquiry will consider not just the police and social services, but will also look at what happened in the heart of power. those systems will be overturned, whether it makes life uncomfortable for political parties, parliament. >> much of the discussion we have had today has been about abominable cases. is the lady confident that it would be treated in a much

better manner today? >> i would hope that if a similar bundle of documents was handed to the home office today, it would ensure that those documents went to the police and that they were properly investigated. in the case of the materials that came in, it was material that should have been handed to the police and was handed to the police. we will be looking to make sure that is what took place. obviously, i would also expect that appropriate records will be kept today if such material was handed to the home office and the home office would make sure that the police were taking those matters on board appropriately. >> theresa may, now a culture of fear and intimidation. boys and girls separating in class. people told of white prostitutes. some of the inspections in birmingham. the investigation into 21 schools was launched after a letter announced that muslim

extremists were plotting to take over state schools. six schools, including some that were rated good or outstanding, were put into special measures. another 12 all made improvements. the secretary summary of the trojan horse investigation was uncompromising. >> teachers reported an organized campaign to target schools with a culture of fear and intimidation. there had been nationalized and forced out of their jobs. one school leader was so frightened about speaking to the authorities that a meeting had to be arranged in a supermarket propose a narrow, faith-based ideology in non-faith-based schools by using school funds inappropriately.

at one secular school, terms such as "white prostitutes" were used in front of the assemblies by muslim staff. senior leaders told inspectors that a madrasah had been established and paid for from the school budget. the school was not adequately ensuring people had the opportunity to learn about faith in a way that permits tolerance and harmony between different cultures. as education secretary, i am taking decisive action to make sure that those children are protected. schools that are proven to have failed will be taken over with new leadership and taken in a fresh new direction. any school could not be subject to rigorous, on the spot inspections with no advance warning and no opportunities to conceal failure. and we will promote british values at the heart of every

school. >> our focus has to be on ensuring successful futures from schools identify today. what the recent weeks have shown is that the education secretary's vision of controlling every school from behind a desk does not work. he has to think about the nature of the inspection system. city council has knowledge, from top questions to ask to the quality of leadership and its children and young people. >> what is clear from the reports being published today is that the central charge is that there has been an organized stop has not been met. there has been bad governance which has let children, parents, and staff down, and each must be tackled.

>> this affront to british values might extend to schools outside the area. will my right honorable friend ensure that there is no hiding place in any part of the british education system for the misogyny and homophobia that underpins so much of the religious fundamentalism in so much of our schools? >> michael's statement came two days after he apologized to the home secretary, saying he had failed to drain the swamp of extremism. theresa may accused him of failing to act four years ago. the prime minister later intervened, telling the pair to, in effect, kiss and make up. speaking of apologies, david cameron apologized for pointing this man, andy kaufman. his former head spin doctor was found duty of one charge of conspiracy to hack phones. the jury was later discharged after it failed to reach a verdict on two other charges against him of misconduct in public office.

during a noisy session, ed miliband said he was wrong to take on the former head the daily news. >> the charge against the prime minister is not one of ignorance, it is willful negligence. that is at the heart of this scandal. an innocent victim of phone hacking that he did not stand up for. the prime minister will always be remembered as being the first ever occupant of his office who brought a criminal into the heart of downing street. >> all of these issues were examined by the levinsohn inquiry. if he wants to examine the calls we make and the leadership we give, i am happy to any time because it is leadership that has got this economy moving. it is leadership that has gotten our deficit down. it is leadership that is putting britain that to work. and it is the total absence of

leadership from the labour party that shows they have nothing to say about britain's economic future. >> david cameron. passionate speeches, our full arguments, and touching personal stories as they debated whether or not people suffering from terminal illnesses and close to death should be able to ask doctors to help them die. over 100 pm's for their name down to speak. a powerful argument with a persuasive case. >> the current situation leaves the rich able to go to switzerland. the majority rely on amateur assistance. the compassionate treated like criminals. no safeguards with respect to undue pressure now and many people caring so much for those who they leave behind, dying early or alone because they feared advocating their loved ones in a criminal enterprise. they put a plastic bag over

their head when they are alone. >> there have been several failed attempts to change the law. the former archbishop of canterbury declared that he changed his mind and now supports assisted dying. the archbishop of york reminded everyone of the official church of england position. he said the end of life should be a special time. >> when it was discovered she had aggressive throat cancer, she was expected to live a few weeks. she was able to live for 18 months. during this time, we were able to get to know her ran mother. this was a gift. >> this was 1990. my father, age 77, was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia. he was very ill. the doctors thought they could prolong his life for some months with chemotherapy.

he died before the chemotherapy began. 14 months later, why husband, age 38, was also diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia, which was well advanced and very aggressive. he was given less than two months to live. i do not know what the outcome would have been if my noble friends had been on the statute book, but i am profoundly grateful because i do know that my husband longed for relief and i do know that today, my son still has a father and i still have a husband. >> my own experience with leukemia did not have quite such a happy ending. she fought it as long as she could, made the most of her life, getting to know her grandchildren. in the end, she was in a hospital bed begging for help. she was in agony. i too begged for help.

i ran around the hospital trying to find a medic who would do something. they argued that she was getting as much morphine as they dared to give her. anymore would be illegal and they could not help. the lady referred to this bill as offering a loaded gun. if my mother could have grass that loaded gun, she would have fired it. if she could not have, i think i would have fired it for her. >> this bill is about me. i do not ask for it. i do not want it. if anyone disputes this and if i ask assistance to die, i will be refused. you can be sure that there are doctors and lawyers. this bill offers no comfort to me.

the appearance of greatest difficulty. >> lady campbell. that phil will be considered in detail before the general election next year. it stands no realistic chance of becoming law. back to the committee corridor, where mp's are told that whales should be given more control over how it is police. they argued that it should be the responsibility of the welsh government.

the recommendation came in the second part of the silk review, set up the u.k. government to examine the settlement in wales. >> the evidence strongly pointed to the interrelationship between the police and services helping crime prevention. the other emergency services that are involved. and the bodies that we spoke to our very clear. it would be helped and improved if the strategy was confessed. >> was it cock-up or conspiracy that a man accused of bombing hyde park was no longer wanted by police. over 200 people were told they were no longer wanted for crimes committed before the 1998 agreement. it became the focus of controversy after the collapse

of the case against john downey in the 1982 hyde park bombing, charges he denied. the case was dismissed after it was revealed that there was a letter by government officials saying he would not face criminal charges for the bombing. >> you had to give advice under very difficult circumstances. the voice of the public, public opinion and all. was this conspiracy? >> the big thing i suggest you get from this is that it was a bona fide intention to deal with a difficult situation in a way which did not damage the justice system and did not involve removing people from prosecution in circumstances were prosecution was justified.

if prosecution was justified, they would not get a comfort letter. that is what the bona fide intention was. if it failed, it is unfortunate. to my mind, it does not have the legitimacy of process that was being undertaken. >> the committee heard from two families who had lost loved ones. maxine was killed in the 1974 public comings. michael lost his son. >> it appears the government were willing to do anything to placate the terrorists to the detriment of the victims. we have heard excuses such as, it was not an amnesty. we need to accept that it was deceitful and dishonest. the truth is, we were never expected to know about this had the downey kids not came to life. >> do your colleagues believe you have been denied justice because of this?

>> absolutely. what you have taken away, even though it is 40 years, 16 years, the problem is, why do you want to let his people off the hook? i want to make sure they are looking over their shoulder for the rest of their lives. why would you give them a letter that says you can go on and enjoy your life? >> there is never a face to put to a name. we think it is important that will you see who our sister was. maxine was murdered on the 21st

of november, 1974. for each and every one of us, our intelligent sister will be in our memories until the day we die. we miss her today as we have done. >> do you think that victims, in a perverse way, are even more forgotten? >> yes. we have been utterly and totally forgotten. we have a memorial in birmingham. do you know how long it took to get that memorial? 21 people who were murdered. without any shadow of a doubt. what is the purpose of our politicians setting their legislation to not follow the same legislation. what is the point if no one is going to follow it? >> separately, in mid july, a judge-let review into the letters found the system had systematic flaws but was not unlawful in system. the lady justice said she found two other cases where errors were made. anyone who received those letters should not regard them as get out of jail free cards. politics in scotland have been entirely dominated by the independence referendum due on september 18. the arguments for and against

surfaced repeatedly in the commons and the lords. here is a sliver of the debate. in may, the mp leader argued for no vote. he highlighted some of the tactics that were used. >> they are being subjected by the project fear campaign. described by its own supporters as negative, nasty, threatening. and that the prime minister is toxic in scotland. why are his own colleagues saying this? >> i have to see the honorable gentleman talking about the project when we has a first minister deliver what i can only describe as project ridiculous.

the fact of the matter, people living in the border constituencies, there are benefits to being part of the united kingdom. they want us to walk away from these benefits. >> leading members of his own campaign have told people in the borders and the rest of scotland that they will have to show a passport at the border, drive on the right-hand side of the road, worry about their pensions when people are being told they are safe.

the media in london -- why do his colleagues think that the people of the borders and the restless: will fall to this demeaning, insulting nonsense? >> on the question of borders, it highlights perfectly how the scottish nationals want to have their cake and eat it. on one hand, you tell us we can have a common travel area, which would work very well with the republic of ireland as present. at the same time, they tell us we will have a widely divergent immigration policy, which the republic of ireland does not have. >> it has certainly been a bloody battle on both sides. with me to discuss it all is david maddox. has it really been all about money? and arguments of heart versus

head, which i we had more often? >> it is a lot about money, much more than i expected. the leaflets i have seen have been promising people 400 pounds or 500 pounds or even 3500 pounds for different things. if they vote yes. it has been less of the heart than i thought it would be. it's negativity was focused an awful lot on scotland might lose. it went more for the heart in recent months. >> have we got any idea how many people have actually changed their mind from one camp to the other? >> we do not. my newspaper actually commissioned some of these polls, but i am not sure if we can entirely trust polls. this is an election like no other. when they said no to the pound, we saw it go up by five points. people are slightly worried about that.

when we had them saying the pound might stay with scotland after independence, then we saw it reversed. >> do you think that this election is going to be won or lost -- which is the key group of voters, as you can see? >> there are two key groups of voters. there are the people who have never voted before and will probably never vote against but will probably vote in this election. many of those fall into this very large undecided group. it is very difficult to read which way they will go. in our lower income groups could ominously, people are quite often aligned with welfare.

people that the party should be reaching out to better and has not. areas where the nationalists have managed to get a foothold in scotland. i think they are key to this. i also think that women are key to this. the polls have been strongly supportive of the a. it has been an interesting dynamic. alexander does not seem to be able to reach out to women voters. he has a similar problem in scotland. >> turnout will be crucial to this. you are feeling it will be massive. let's i think it will be of high importance to see people turn out for this i think it will be in the 80's and 90's percentagewise. almost certainly very high turnout. >> thank you very much for coming in.

a number of international office have dominated the news in recent months. syria continues into its fourth year. the government here has changed the way it provides aid to the country. the move follows the growing inability to reach starring civilians. almost 90% of humanitarian help has been going to those in government-controlled areas. urgently needed supplies have now reached more than one million people. britons have committed hundreds of millions of pounds to the international relief effort. iraq has been in crisis with a rise of the militant islamic group in the northwest of the country. isis once a separate state covering parts of iraq and neighboring syria. it has up to 10,000 fighters who have taken power in the region. the foreign secretary call developments in iraq extremely grave but said the option for britain did not involve military intervention. meanwhile, events in ukraine took an even more violent turn in mid july with the shooting down of a malaysian passenger jet over the country, killing nearly 300 people. the unrest in ukraine originally

again after a call for closer ties from the eu. since then, russia has annexed the crimean peninsula and is accused of arming separatists in southeastern provinces, who have declared independence from kiev. david cameron made a statement to the commons. >> alongside sympathy for the victims, there is also anger. there is anger that this could happen at all. there is anger that the murder of innocent men, women, and children has been compounded vice sickening reports of looting the victims possessions and interference with the evidence. and there is rightly anger that a conflict that could have been curtailed by moscow has instead and for mended by moscow. no one is saying that president putin intended for mh17 to be shot down. but this is russia's attempt to destabilize a sovereign state,

violate its territorial integrity, and arm and train militias. his is a defining moment for russia. the world is watching. president putin faces a clear choice in how he decides to respond to this appalling tragedy. i hope that he will use this moment to find a path out of this festering and dangerous crisis by ending russia's support for the separatists. if he does not change his approach to ukraine in this way, europe and the west must fundamentally change our approach to russia. those of us in europe should not need to be reminded of the

consequences of turning a blind eye when big countries bully smaller countries. >> all of us have been outraged by the images of the site, a site that is open for anyone to travel over, the way the bodies have been treated with casual indifference. we have all been horrified. what must it be like for the families of the deceased to see this? >> the prime minister also commented on the worsening situation in gaza. >> the council expressed serious concern about rising casualties and called for respect from international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians. we strongly endorse that call. it is vital that hamas recognizes the need to enter serious negotiations to end this crisis. we urge hamas to engage the cease-fire for postal put forward by the egyptian government. it is only by security of the cease-fire that the space will be created to address the underlying issues and return to a long and painstaking task of building a lasting security that we all want to see. >> since the start of this conflict, 20 israelis have been killed, 18 of them soldiers. over 500 palestinians have been

killed, including countless children. these are innocent, young children, their short lives ended in the most brutal and horrific of circumstances. you cannot reduce this conflict to a measure of casualties. but we must acknowledge the scale of suffering in gaza. the life of a palestinian child is worth every bit as much as the life of an israeli child. >> can it really be that israel, with all of the sophisticated military technology at its disposal, and only protect itself by the kind of operations which the secretary-general of the united nations has called atrocious? >> a lot is being made of what is or is not proportionate. the arguments being made that it should be an eye for an eye. according to international law, the response should be

proportionate to the threat. would you agree that israel has no alternative but to stop them? >> with my experience as head of the foreign affairs select committee, he is right to quote that informed definition of international law. that is the correct position. that is what israel understandably feels under pressure to stop the missile attacks that have brought this situation to come about. >> the last few months have seen a frenetic round of parliamentary musical chairs. two new faces at the top of common select committees. rory stewart was elected chair of the defense committee. seri wollaston was voted head of the health committee. culture secretary after maria miller resigned.

the most dramatic resignation was this man, patrick mercer, who quit parliament after being found to have breached lobbying rules. robert jenrette being sworn in in june. voted to suspend the conservative council leader for the rest of this parliament after it was decided he claimed allowances on which he did know parliamentary work. in mid july, a vid cameron surprised watchers with a comprehensive reshaping of his cabinet. out were familiar faces, including ken clark and the education secretary, who became chief whip. william hague went from common secretary --

>> he spent four years traveling the world. he has rubbed shoulders with angela merkel. he has hobnobbed with angelina. and now i am afraid he is stuck in commons. i do not know whether he would call that the motion, emotion, promotion, or locomotion, but we are certainly looking forward to it. >> the former education secretary, angela said he had not had the most auspicious start. >> yesterday, he not only lost his first vote, but he managed to get stuck in the toilet and nearly broke his own whip. >> william hague said he asked for this job. >> welcoming the new chief whip and made fun of us. knowledge of who is in the toilets is a very

important piece of information for any chief whip. i take this as evidence that he was carrying out his duties for his constituents. >> big winners including nicky morgan. philip hammond. and liz trust. those are all people david cameron wanted to move to new jobs. there was one man that prime minister could not budge. that is jean-claude juncker, the man being put forward as the next president of the european commission. david cameron made it clear he was resolutely opposed to mr. juncker, seen as too much of a brussels man. at a meeting of european leaders to discuss the nomination, david cameron insisted on a vote. in a show of hands, he lost by 26 votes. only hungary voted with britain. david cameron made a statement to the commons. >> i firmly believe that it

should be for the european council, the heads of national government -- it should not be for the european parliament to try to dictate that choice to the council. this is a point of principle on which i was not prepared to budge. facing the prospect of being outvoted, some might have swallowed their misgivings and gone with the flow. i believe it was important to push the principal and are deep misgivings about this issue right to the end. >> the truth is, the prime minister returned to britain on friday having failed. an appalling failure of relationship building, winning support, and delivering for britain. i know it is inconvenient to remind him, but he lost by 26 votes. and then he comes to this chamber and seems to claim it as a complete vindication of his tactic. his party may think it represents a splendid isolation.

it is not. it is utter humiliation. >> david cameron hit back. >> well, we have heard yet another performance -- endless wins and rhetoric. no questions, no grit, no ability to stand up for britain. >> go back to the decision of the prime minister when he was running for his party leadership to approve the withdrawal of the british conservatives from the people's party. juncker was the candidate of the e.p.p. at his party been a member, they could have influenced in private.

>> down the corridor, what did they make of it all? >> it is hard to find a normal person who knows why this job is so important. might it create public support for the government's eu reforms if they were to reveal the commissions role to execute all eu law and regulations binding in all eu countries? or could it be that the government shares the bbc's view that if the british people understood just how irrelevant this parliament has become and how antidemocratic the eu really is, it might become irresistible? >> the last word for now on a subject that is not going to go away in the run-up to the next election. do join us when parliament returns at the start of

september. until then, goodbye. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> 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.

>> 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.

next, a discussion about veterans health care and what to expect from the next veterans affairs secretary, followed by a

house hearing with sloan gibson. then, q&a with former under secretary of defense shell for neu -- michele flournoy. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs evidence from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on, watc facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next, a look at veterans health care. from washington journal, this is 45 minutes.

is joining us for the next 45 minutes talking about efforts in congress to approve veterans health care in the wake of the many problems the v.a. has had, particularly in the health care area. thank you for being here with us this morning. we have you with us because a deadline awaits next week in congress. there are efforts to pass both a bill in the house and senate and get legislation out and approve before the august recess. what does congress primarily want to do to fix some of the health care problems, particularly the ones we saw at the v.a.? you are correct. the house and senate already passed measures now being conference. they have a conference committee that consists of lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and chambers, sitting down and trying to work out some of the differences between the two bills. we believe, because we have been

involved in some of the discussions and have been privileged to be asked our advice and counsel on some of the measures, we believe they are very close to reaching a deal now. we were a little disappointed when they did not reach a deal prior to the july 4 break. now that we're coming into the summer break, we are confident a deal will be reached in a day or two. >> take us back. why is congress on such a short deadline to get something done for the v.a.? veterans are dying waiting for the health care. it is an important issue that lawmakers need to address. the v.a. needs help. the v.a. can only get that help through congressional efforts. in some cases, additional laws. not odd -- not all, but some cases. definitely additional funding and resources. most important, the v.a. needs open ande to be more

transparent with stakeholders and congress to let them know what their needs are so we can try to help them. -- : aside a special line for veterans and we want to hear from you this morning. is the legislative director with the american legion. where have your efforts been focusing in the past couple of weeks? have primarily been working with veterans at the ground level to work with each of the sites identified as trouble spots within the department of veterans affairs. we have been speaking directly with veterans and we have been helping them process their clients, helping them get through the bureaucracy. we are identifying some of those folks who have waited longer than necessary and we are working not only with veterans but the department of veterans affairs to try to ensure these veterans get the care they need.

closely with congress to try to develop legislation that will address getting these legislations off the backlog. i especially appreciate the fact you set aside a special line for veterans because they are the quintessential nonpartisan issue in congress that really does not need partisan bickering. that is why it is important we work on this together. like things were working along pretty well but late last week, we saw senator bernie sanders very frustrated by a situation that arose last week. i want to show you some of his comments and hear what you have to say. >> i have been working, we all have, with our republican colleagues in the house, led by jeff, chairman of the house committee on veterans affairs. we put good faith offers on the again and try to

meet republicans more than halfway. i am sad to say, at this point, i can only conclude with great reluctance that the good faith we have shown is simply not being reciprocated by the other side. know what led senator sanders to express this frustration? >> i do not know we particularly grew at that feet -- a grew that viewpoint for the negotiations have come a long way and are in good shape at the moment there it congressman miller, for the house side, has proposed what we believe is an extremely reasonable offer, which basically says, the senate bill you have produced into the conference committee, we accept your we will go ahead and take that at face value. in addition, we will go ahead and authorize $10 billion to get through 2014. we are not really sure if there is more than -- that is needed at this point. one of the things that seemed to

throw a wrench is when the secretary testified last week and then proclaimed that the department of veterans affairs need an additional $17.7 billion in order to continue to see the veterans necessary to catch up. >> the committee did not see a coming. >> nobody saw that coming. >> reflected what you said, this is the release that groups hit sanders of the negotiations, three veterans organizations, not just yours, for inserting that $17.6 billion supplemental negotiations on veterans legislation, regardless of the merits last minute, the veterans request for 17.6 mike dollars in addition to spending only hampers an already difficult v.a. conference committee negotiating process. despite that, you say you are will work towards and come to an agreement? as we are confident.

one of the reasons we were upset is because the primary reason for the conference committee to exist was to address the immediate backlog of veterans who were not being seen. we thought the conference committee was doing that to a sufficient level. we needed to make sure we understood where the money was going to be spent. that is why we have a hard time supporting that request, because we are just not sure what the plan is for those dollars. >> we have a veteran waiting on the line, james from miami, arizona. good morning terry >> good morning. let me say this. i think the v.a. citizens, i am a 75-year-old disabled veteran. i will be 76 in january. served from 1957 to 1961. there should not be politics for every veteran.

let me say this about the republicans. any never wanted to have kind of socialized medicine. shame on them that that they do not want to work together. i do not even have medicare. there are problems with it but it is still the best in the world. god bless america and god bless all active food -- active duty. is his experience typical of your members? glad that was the first call because it sets the tone for the rest of the conversation. the v.a. was0 when developed. i was one of our primary goals. we believe in the v.a.. by and large, our members are letting us know the v.a. care they received, once they were able to get into the door, is some of the best care in the

world. we support the v.a.. the active secretary announced at the hearing last week that $17.6 billion over three years, they would hire an additional personnel, 10 billion of that, to higher medical personnel, and also infrastructure improvements. bill is arepublican 10 billion dollar bill. the senate democratic bill is $45 billion, house republicans, $10 billion over two years. on the issue of robert mcdonald, the nominee approved by the veterans committee, is it likely his nomination will be secured next week? we are fairly confident there will be relatively no issues confirming him. we have heard no pushback through our congressional liaisons that there will be any problems with that confirmation whatsoever. host: did you get a chance to talk to him before his confirmation hearing? guest: our organization has, i

have not. host: texas, republican line, hello. ask,r: i just wanted to compare the v.a. with the g.i. bill. vouchers toe given go to any school. it was not a special school set up for veterans. why does there have to be a special bureaucracy for veterans question mark it is bureaucracy that is the problem. not the doctors and the nurses. why can't we just give veterans the same kind of insurance our congressman gets? everybody can choose their own doctors and they have access to the best medical system in the world, our medical system. an excellent question. there are a couple of answers to that. the first answer is that we feel there are no better specialists in the world than v.a. doctors to deal with veterans.

veterans come with specific needs. tdi, there are real unique and specialty care needs that v.a. doctors have an in london's of experience dealing with an a veteraning how needs care and what they're thinking. the other thing is studies have shown time and time again that v.a. health care is not only excellent care but some of the most cost-effective in the world. of the most cost-effective care in the united states specifically and one of the largest health care networks. run with some problems recently but we believe it can be fixed and continue to save taxpayer money. that is the reason we support the v.a.. was sense of talking about letting veterans go outside the system. the american legion would have limited support or not really favor that? >> we support that measure

specifically to get veterans the health care they need immediately so they are no longer waiting. we see it as a pressure release valve. get them the help they need now because -- but that is not a prom either because in some communities, they are not in a position to see anybody in a timely matter, noxious veterans. host: let's hear from another veteran. hollywood, florida. veteran ofm a actually 14 years. my statement and comment, or question, would be, the backflow to the backg, due laws we are seeing right now, currently, doesn't that affect how veterans get their health care? if you are waiting to be seen on a backlog come if you are waiting to 100%, independent care, in the backlog that has been going on for years, because i have been waiting since 2001.

. . .

ronald brings up an excellent point. there is more than just one backlog we are dealing with. more importantly, we are also dealing with the backlog of the veterans benefits administration. we are trying to get the veterans the care that they need based on their service. that backlog has been troublesome now for years. that was the major news long before the scandals broke out about whistleblowers. has veteran legion service officers all over this nation. we have been stationed in every area in america. we have posts all over the country and we help veterans file these claims. veterans will come to the american legion. we will help to file their claims and turn them in and monitor them for them. that doesn't mean we can push

them through the system any faster. we will make sure they are correct so they don't get rejected. host: next up is tennessee, paul on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for your opportunity to give me to speak. i hope that you will give me just a minute to say what i want to this man. first thing is, i want to thank all the military for doing what they do. the democratic party is the evilest bunch of people that could be on earth. i have friends that are veterans that have been in board. they treat them like dogs. we have marines in mexico. this president won't even make a phone call to help the man. memorial inwn the

washington dc when he couldn't get his way in congress. on them. >> president american legion has regular meetings with president obama and his staff and our national commander has been in his office twice to discuss issues just like these. as a matter of fact, we were instrumental when the -- when the federal budget was not passed and the monuments closed and we stood and held press rallies in fronts of those monuments demanding congress get back to work. >> louci, the issue is parties remain at odds about funding for the va as both the house andnate working separate legislation who

come to discuss it. here is what he had to say. >> we are working diligently to get to an agreement on the va. we believe that those vet transwho have been waiting in lives, those who live more than 40 miles from a va facility ought to have access to care, and have access to carenow. secondly, i think we need to understand we need to talk about how sick this patient is. we have a systemic for sale of an entire department of our government. i think understanding just how sick this patient is critically important before we start doing what washington usually does, and that's just throw money at the problem, throw money at the

problem. i remain hopeful. >> talk about this paint, the va and the issues that have risen with the va. the va believes they need oversight and resources. we can only address issues we are well aware. the scandal recently disclosed that va wasn't even wear this is june in heartley delaware on our democrats line. >> good morning to you? >> good morning. >> thank you, c-span for providing valuable service for the american citizens. there has been an ongoing problem with the vet service

throughout administrations. my frustration and i am pretty certain the frustratation of a lot of taxpayers is that with every issue there seems to be a republican agenda to block any solutions to any problems for the american people under the obama administration. voters need to look at this. the republicans are not providing any solutions to any problems. they are the problem. the issue is people need help. they need help. we have the best medical system in the world, and solutions can be made if they don't politicize it all the time. >> when these two bills come together, do you think these will be real solutions to some of the issues that have been brought in the guest: i think it will be a

solution to getting vet transthe he healthcare they need. june with brings up a point that i think a lot of americans are struggling with, the partisanship that seems to be surrounding this most recent issue. by and large as we discussed earlier in the program, the veterans committees on the house and senate side had a historically been a bi-partisan working committee. we are very proud of that. if we look at the house, the house has been very bi-partisan and worked not only with veteran stake holders but with each other to make sure they produce legislation good for veterans and not their party. >> screen the conversation on twitter twitter@c-span. one from free mind who asks the question of louci, any comments on the new means testing with the va, ssa, and irs now tremendousingability the to pay? >> one of the issues being discussed within the conference committee right now is accountabili accountability, not only of the department of veteran affairs

but of senior officials and the ability of the leader of the department of veteran affairs to be able to move, fire, or suspend san senior officials. we support that whole-heartedly. we can't understand how the any leader may not manage his or her department as they see fit. . >> jesse is a veteran, an independent caller. jesse, good morning. >> good morning. how are ya'll doing? >> fine. >> my thing is, back in 2001, i mean i started my va. i was put out of the military in 1982 for medical discharge and nobody ever addressed that, that i was supposed to file a claim back then. so, therefore, when i did file a claim in 2001, because i kept on working because i had to work, and i had bad knees.

>> worsened. i have to have double knee replacements in five years. i have 54 years old. nobody ever told me that i was supposed to put a claim in. and that -- and then when i did this in 2001 because i couldn't go back because of the statute of limit assess won't allow you to go back so far, so it took me forever to get some va. and another issue i have besides what's going on right now, in columbia, south carolina, is that back in 2012, filed for unemploymentability. i am at 80% now. i also was told by the c & p doctor i spoke with -- i won't mention no names. he told me you might as well also file for social security disability. so, i did this. i was turned down because that's the protocol. everybody seems to be turned down the first time. i hate that, but that's just the way it is. i won my case. but in the meantime, i would filed for unemploymentability

and because of what the social security doctor said i could go to work and stuff, i ended up going. i ended up being denied and they took that information at the veterans affairs office in columbia and went against me and denied my 100% unemploymentability, denied it. but they wanted more information, but they didn't wait for the information to come in. >> so jesse, are you getting benefits or not? >> i get 80% now and i am back to filing unemployment. but it took me eight and a half months to get a j and p exam to get this started again. >> anything in the legislation that's going to speed up that process? >> there is. jesse brings up an excellent point, the outreach from not only the department of defense but also the department of veteran affairs that let's these veterans know that they have a responsibility to act once they are discharged from the military, especially under medical conditions. >> we talk a little bit about this earlier, about the american legion's role in terms of the medical process, a daily news story, the veterans are turning

away from the va and towards the american legion for medical help. they write about a woman, rebecca king in el paso say with her issues on domestic abuse, they say she is now among nearly 1800 people who have turned to the american legion which has hold meetings in phoenix, fayetville, north carolina and el paso. she can gain access to health and benefits, schedule doctors' appointments, enroll. it eliminates false recordkeeping and long wait times and are being established in towns where the va audits show wait times were longer. assuming the legislation passes and some things begin to move forward, what's the role of the american legion going forward? how does this change your procedures in terms of these town hall things and being able to move people into the va system. >> the american legion has had veteran service officers. we are accredited veteran service officers all over the country.

those are the folks we have deployed to these town halls so that we can help people just like this get the claims service that they need. people feel much more comfortable when they feel like someone that they know understands the process, is able to track and monitor that for them. >> we encourage our veterans to call. we have set aside a separate ca line. we heard from jesse a few minutes ago. newark, new jersey is next. janelli is on the independent line. >> hello. >> good morning. >> good morning. i am starting off, my father, 33 years government, fought world war ii, fought korea and then worked for government. my brother, 12 years government. m me, i make phone calls to d.c. most of the time as an activist, moderate activist, both sides of the table. so veterans, i cannot understand

and it boggles my mind. the bill passed in ' 93 to 3 in the senate. >> right. >> and congress saying what the money can be used for. bernie sanders and john -- not boehner. john -- bernie sanders and john mccain came together and explained what it would be used for. it can be used for doctors, more doctors, more nurses, and more households, very much makes common sense. we spend $40,000,000,000 a month given to wall street. they don't need more cushion but we give them $40 amount not to make them sustain themselves.

they have not gone away. we give them $40,000,000,000 a month. >> let's get back to the figures for the bills in the house and senate. 25 billion over three years for the senate legislation, 10 billion proposed over for the house version. where do you think about it will fall? and is that enough to resolve some of the issues the va is having? >> i am glad james brought that question up. it talks a little bit about the responsibility of the vet a to do their job in the ad miles per hourstration when it comes to predicting how much money they will need. what we are trying to address now is an emergency situation for this year. so the senate has a proposal that talks about an upcoming two or three years and the american legion believes that the appropriations process is in place just to do that. so an meanency appropriations should address an immediate backlog of need that exists today. >> that's what that $10,000,000,000 is designed to do. the additional money should get absorbed into the appropriations proce process, go into a budget

request, go through the proper channels. >> right. >> so congress can authorize it and make it a permanent project and permanent program of the department of veteran ay. >> the money outside of the normal preparation process, 15 or beyond? >> yeah. >> in terms because we have heard of this on other segments talking about vets and vet' vet healthcare in particular. there are people who love their care, veterans who will call and love their care. there are spots where the care, they will complain greatly about it. >> right. >> is there a common factor in what separates a really good va health center from one that's just not living up to what it's supposed to do? >> absolutely. transparency leadershi oversig oversight. more transparency, bedder leadership and greater oversight are those centers where our veterans are telling us, they are getting extraordinary care. the centers that have the corporate culture chronyism, of hiding the facts, of just trying to look good on paper seem to be

providing the worst levels of care. >> shelby, north carolina, good morning. this is gerald. you are on the air with lou celli, the legislative director for the american legion. caller: thank you for taking me call. host: you bet line caller: my daughter has a very simple, helpful absolutely shwould sharply volunteer for no pay if the va would make sure that she doesn't have to pay her malpractice, also make sure that whatever the recommendation is that it be actually doable. the president even with my condition, i cannot get into a va facility. i have been in va facilities over the years. some are good. some are terrible. at the present time in new york and mur feesboro, tennessee, there is no doctor