myself -- dr. wedgewood talked about tamping down isis to quote a manageable level. returning toout the war on terror. law-enforcement issue. it is also a military issue. i found it fascinating that a diplomat was the first to use the word defeat. followed by a journalist who said that beat. i will quote that is meaning defeat. the question is, without going if youe administration, were the president, what would you say i'm following up on what pat murphy said?

what is the mission? is it to tempt them down? -- tamp them down? >to contain them or defeat them? should not be to tempt down or contained -- tamp down or contain. we saw what happened with hamas. israel has attacked them. six months or two years later, they are doing the same thing again. wrong for thes way the u.s. and the europeans handle this by continuously beating up on israel. clearly, they going to eliminate them as a threat. same with isis. if you don't take this seriously

and have the cool be elimination, it will come back to bite us. that is my opinion. >> the objective is to defeat them. not all of japan or germany. the way we defeated the ussr. a long military, political, and social competition. if you get it right, you win. it doesn't take place all of the the war against japan or germany. >> there will not be a signing ceremony on a battleship or formal surrender. in addition, you can't kill all of them. and what they do every day needs to be replaced by something new. really up to the u.s. to replace their livelihoods and give them a new system. we are putting the pressure on baghdad where we can for a

better government. maybe we should for syria as well. i will return the focus. keeping our people safe is the job. keep isis at a distance. as soon as it is detected they have -- we have to counter that. i don't think the opposition will be too high. >> go ahead. one second. can you get him the mic? >> leonard, consulting international liaison. we have heard a lot about the responsibilities of various facets of the u.s. government and our policies. there was something that comes

to mind that i think may be a minor point, but maybe a significant point. i would like the opinion of some of the people who have spoken today. if it is a major point to them. one of the letter i's is iraq. iraq has northern iraq, kurdistan. the home of the kurdistan democratic party. the most able part of a rack for iny years -- stable part of raq for many years. which has had a good communication and relationship with the u.s. when we moved in, the u.s. did it was south korea, the

republic of korea, as part of the forces, that kept and helped to keep kurdistan very stable. is, why haven't we heard about the views of the republic of korea and their iraqiences and iraq -- in that were so successful following successes they had in vietnam? to staywith iraq -- with iraq? why haven't we heard about them? is there something you think republic of korea could contribute militarily and diplomatically?

and perhaps doesn't have something to do with our diplomatic relations with asia and japan? japan's current diplomatic questions with the republic of korea? that is it. as far as a comment about the republic of south korea, which i have a suspicion will be marginal, all of us have to be looking at the region and look at it to review previous concerns, policies. you talk about the kurdish part of iraq. that raises serious questions for us, the turks, the saudis, the iraqis. everybody. what is a direct -- is iraq? do we do with it separately or

as part of a rack -- iraq? what does it mean -- idle to think the south korean question will be relevant. is who islevant interacting with whom under what conditions and their ifhinations -- implications you want to deal with the kurds as a separate power, which is saying something about a rack. -- iraq. which the turks may or may not approve of. i don't have an answer except is about redoing the deck for your next hand of bridge. >> professor? one second. would you please stand up? >> thank you.

am a retired professor of engineering and applied science. i'm an oddball here. terrorismkground in and security, being a member of the israeli defense for many years. i would like to draw on the example of germany and japan. one of the reasons, i think, that the german defeat and japanese defeat were successful was that not only did we defeat them militarily, we changed the political and cultural situation. nazification prcoess in germany and the change of constitution and japan played a role. it is easy to kill people but

difficult to kill ideology. if you want to act against isis, when we act against isis, because act we must, it is not enough to kill or lemonade. -- illuminate. iminate. no matter what happens with the negotiation, the members of of the hot hot -- the fatah charters have changed. until that has changed, nothing will happen. until we learn how to change the philosophy in dealing with the we can defeat, some but we won't defeat them long-term. thank you. to pile on that comment a little bit.

the strategy of killing as many bad guys as we can was a clear goal of the terrorism program for the past decade and a half. hold them in a box. we have forgotten the second half. that it is the harder part of the problem. and to we start addressing the start-- until we addressing the hearts and minds, it has been identified as a , until we do that, the supply will grow forever. are going to have to address the key problem. there is something missing.

another idea. something to rally around. i am not saying it has to be what rallies us. be the keyhe story thing that you need to do in your life is take down western people, we are never going to be safe. peopleow there are many that would like to ask questions. theave to be mindful -- question in the back? >> i want to make a comment. thank you. comment?e a, i am but a summative -- i am fascinated why how the conversation keeps returning to israel.

israel is not a key factor in the growth of isis. >> can i say something too ? it goes back to what our engineering friend said. several colleagues have said we should not confuse them with islam. we have to know more about islam. i lived in turkey for years. most of my neighbors were harmless. i agree with mike. we are so ignorant, and we know it. there is nothing wrong with that because we have other things to do in america. i follow tennis and baseball. distortsest in israel our perspectives. there is no question about it. we think about israel and its problems. israel looks at the world and away we should not look at it. it probably distorts the america and -- american and western view

of islam. if we don't understand that, we are going to have problems for a long time to come. >> i ready spoke. i made my comment. pithy that you missed it. >> i agreed with the professor, who had retired easily. -- rec ently. you are lucky. is, there is the military side, to degrade it. we also had to get them to change their ideology. is a longm is -- that process. it has been unsuccessful. fatah never took it out of their charter. in their charter,

says anybody who would negotiate or compromise even an inch is subject to the death penalty. we are left with a difficult situation. we have to do our best to counter it. it should be countered on numerous fronts. >> anyone else on the panel? >> one more. thank you very much. preference -- in a press conference, secretary hagel said iss is a threat to the u.s. and then later general martin dempsey said they are not plotting attacks on the u.s. homeland. what is the truth? is the homeland under attack? you all presented what should be

done or should be done. what is your assessment of what the obama administration will do? and going forward with congress demanding votes, what are the challenges the administration will face moving forward with whatever they plan to do? thank you. >> in answer to your question, is hard to say what their policy is and they are going to do. you did have both the secretary of state and secretary of defense on the same page, saying isis is a threat. a serious threat and your nationally and potentially domestically. we have to do something about it . there are no borders. it has to be syria, also. then when obama came back from vacation, they started to walk it back. what does that mean? that obama had a change of he art? because want to get too involved? who knows.

it is a very discombobulated policy. it goes off in different directions and changes from one day to the next. it would be possible for me to predict exactly what is on president obama's mind. >> they were waiting for the seminar. [laughter] >> quickly. >> this western may have been answered in part. i am interested in the effort by some, prime minister netanyahu, specifically hamas and isis. other terrorist groups as well. in an effort to say, it is all

part of the larger conflict democracy -- democratic states in the west and radical extremism, specifically islamic extremism. what do you think of this as a rhetorical strategy? what do you think of the relevance of it? what do you think of the consequences of using this approach? a rational, me like sensible position for men yahoo! to take -- in terms of his -- for benjamin netanyahu to take in terms of his interest. i don't think it is necessarily a relevant conversation in terms of the overall problem. he was conflating different

things. oranges and apples to make a fruit salad. it's not just a question of the or the terrorist threat against democratic governments. unless summit was to call the gulf states democratic governments. someone wants to call the gulf states democratic governments. they have a priority, which is to defend their next he read -- to defend their necks. it is not a question of democracy or israel parade -- israel. geology ofnge in the a major region of the world. this are going to wrap thing up. the panel has presented to all of us some good thoughts and

thought provoking ideas. any masterone, book on strategy talks not just about the military but the national elements of power. the economic aspects of matters. the political side of things. it talks about the technology the cultural aspects. that our president or any of the leaders of the free world as you know today will be military only and be successful. that is the first point. clearly wepoint is, need a global strategy to think about this challenge. it should encompass all the leaders of the free world. take into account what the people in europe think. what the people in africa think.

with the people in the middle east think. our friends in asia. all of them have a stake in the idea. because of the ideology of what is going on. those of you interested in history can go back to the 12th century, 13th century. it it is all there. so-calleda radical school of sunni thought. the idea after the mongol invasion. he laid it all out. everything he said then is applicable, in my humble opinion, today. it was followed by the radical people. in the 18th century. this lasted until the 1920's when they were quote defeated.

but you never defeat ideologies because they come back like a bee flew. when you say defeat, you have to think about what you mean by the word defeat. really, if you read any of the books. john allen's book on the terrorists or any of the books on this kind of thing, you can get quickly a good idea of what the people really have in mind and want to do. whether they will be successful or not depends on the leadership of the free world. i don't think it will be successful. i think they can be contained in defeated,- and but be careful what you mean by defeat to read we need to these headaches it is not worth doing what you're trying to do. if you keep doing it, you are

going to get eliminated. is that simple. mine, read, for example, -- mein kampf. hitler said what he was going to do and we chose to a door it. -- chose to ignore it. they have said what they're going to do. they are going to take europe, the balkans, africa. inn they are going to turn 2019 to the u.s. whether that is true or not, they have said that is what they want to do. that is what the radical people are thinking. it is not a conflict between western civilization, east versus west. it is a deeper conflict. we have to keep that in mind.

when you say, what should the president do? he has to take the lead in as toping global opinion what has to happen and to do it quickly. we should support the country of iraq, even though it may be in somewhat of a shambled condition. wecreated that condition and had to stick with it. we have to stick with the kurds. we had an operation after the first gulf war where we went in with people and provided the kind of humanitarian assistance and support that you would expect our country and the free world to do. we did that very successfully. the kurds have never forgotten. the kurds are sitting on a ton of very valuable oil. keep that in mind as well. when you think about that, where is the money coming from to support that?

the islamic state? what about that? we did for a while have an effective capability globally to disrupt the finances of some of these ideological terrorist outfits. are we still doing that to the max? that has to be a global effort. as everybody knows better than me, there are better -- different ways to handle money. there are no baking systems like we'd know in this part of the world. we have to get with it. it is a total, comprehensive issue. against the threat. not just military. within the military side of things, you never want to make more enemies than you already have. part of this is a careful approach to how you get things

done. you want to keep the friend you have. you mentioned to south korea. south korea has always been with us in any kind of conflicts at the end of the korean war. they did noble things in the last confrontation. we are a democracy. -- they are a democracy and are going to be with you. sore many others if it is explained to them in the right way. you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets the credit and take a teamwork approach. "the long haul if you want to be ifgg in for-- date i the long haul if you want to be successful. there are lots of books on strategy. learn to deal with uncertainty.

speed, boldness, the light. -- like. the campaign plan, a long-term campaign plan is needed. economic, societal, as well as military. these are some of the things that have to be done. the sooner we get >> "washington journal on the next"- with theation political holsters about the november elections and kind man:. later, look at the challenges 18-24 young adults ages and we will be joined by tom snyder for the national education of statistics and the american you policy forum. we will also take her calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is luggage

morning at 7:00 eastern. tonight, our focus is on native americans. battle offf with the little big horn known as custer's last stand and the tour of a new mexico pueblo. we will also take a look at pictographs in montana and visit a spanish mission in florida devoted to converting native americans to christianity tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. next, president obama talks about the violence in iraq and syria. he also takes questions about the violence along the ukraine -- russia border, the u.s. economy, and immigration. this is 30 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i want to say a few words on a number of topics and answer questions. number of topics and answer questions. first, beginning with the number one thing most americans care about, the economy. this morning we found that our economy grew at a stronger clip in the second quarter than we originally thought. companies are investing, consumers are spending, and over the last 10 years our businesses have created 10 million new jobs. as everybody knows, there is a lot more we should be doing to make sure that all americans benefit from the progress we have made. i will be pushing congress hard on this one when they return next week. second, in iraq, are dedicated pilots and crews continue to carry out the strikes i authorized to protect americans and the humanitarian situation on the ground.

as commander-in-chief, i will always do what is necessary to protect the american people and defend against evolving threats to our homeland. because of our strikes, the terrorist of isil are losing arms and equipment. isil poses an immediate threat to the people of iraq and people throughout the region. that's why our military action has to be part of a broader, comprehensive strategy to protect our people and the partners taking the fight to isil. that starts with iraq's leaders building on the progress they have made and forming an inclusive government and strengthening security forces to confront isil. any successful strategy needs strong regional partners.

i am encouraged that countries in the region, countries that don't always agree on many things, increasingly recognized the primacy of the threat isil poses to all of them. i asked secretary kerry to travel to the region to continue to build the coalition needed to meet this threat. as i said, ripping out a cancer like isil will not be quick or easy, but i am confident that we can and will working closely with allies and partners. secretary hagel and are joint chiefs of staff have compared a range of options. i will be meeting with the national security council this evening as we develop that strategy, and i have been consulting with members of congress and continue to do so in the days ahead. finally, i just spoke with chancellor merkel of germany on the situation in ukraine. we we agree if there was ever any doubt, that russia was responsible for the violence in eastern ukraine. the violence is encouraged by

russia. the separatists are trained by russia, armed by russia, funded by russia. russia has deliberately and repeatedly violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. the new images of russian forces inside ukraine make that plain for the world to see. this comes as ukrainian forces are making progress against separatists. as a result of these actions russia has already taken, and the major sanctions we impose with our european and international partners, brush is already more isolated than at any time since the end of the cold war.

capital is fleeing, investors are staying out, and the economy is in decline. this ongoing incursion into ukraine will only bring more costs and consequences for russia. next week, i will be in europe to coordinate with our partners. in estonia, i will reaffirm our commitment to the defense of our nato allies. at the nato summit in the united kingdom, we will focus on additional steps we can take to ensure the alliance remains compared for any challenge. i look forward to reaffirming the unwavering commitment of the united states to ukraine and its people. with that, i will take a few questions. i will start with somebody who i guess is now a big cheese, who has moved on. but this will be his last chance to ask a question. i want to congratulate chuck todd. >> thank you. let me start with syria. the decision you have to make

between, first of all is it an if or when situation about going after isil in syria? how do you prioritize that assad has lost legitimacy to lead and defeating isis could help assad keep power? talk about how you prioritize those pieces of your foreign policy. >> first of all, i want to make sure everybody is clear what we are doing now. because it is limited. our focus is to protect american personnel on the ground in iraq, protect our embassy, our consulates, to make sure critical infrastructure that could adversely affect our personnel is protected. where we see an opportunity that allows us with modest risk to help the humanitarian situation there, as we did on sinjar mountain, we will take those

opportunities after consulting with congress. but our core strategy right now is to make sure our folks are safe, and to do an effective assessment of iraqi and kurdish capabilities. as i said at the last press conference, in order for us to be successful we have to have an iraqi government that is unified and inclusive. so we are continuing to push them to get the job done. as soon as we have an iraqi government in place, the likelihood of iraqi security forces being more effective in taking the fight to isil significantly increases. and the options i am asking for from the joint chiefs focuses primarily on making sure isil is not overrunning iraq.

what is true, there is a violence that has been taking place in syria that has given isil a safe haven in ungoverned spaces. and in order for us to degrade isil over the long term, we have to build a regional strategy. we will not do that alone. we have to do that with partners, particularly sunni partners, because part of the goal is to make sure sunnis in syria and iraq feel they have an investment in a government that actually functions. a government that can protect them. a government that makes sure their families are safe from the barbaric acts we see in isil. right now, those structures are not in place. that's why the issue with respect to syria is not just a military issue. it is a political issue.

it is an issue that involves all the sunni states in the region, and sunni leadership recognizing that this cancer that has developed is one they have to be just as invested in defeating as we are. so to cut to the chase in terms of your specific concerns, chuck, my priority at this point is to make sure that the gains isil made in iraq go back, and that iraq has the opportunity to govern itself effectively and secure itself. when we look at a broader strategy, that is consistent with what i said at west point, at the national defense college -- clearly, isil has come to represent the very worst elements in the region that we have to deal with collectively. and that's going to be a

long-term project. it is going to require us to stabilize syria in some fashion. which means we have got to get moderate sunnis who are able to govern and offer a real alternative in competition to what isil has been doing in some of these spaces. last point, with respect to assad. it's not just my opinion. i think it is the international opinion that assad has lost legitimacy. dropping barrel bombs on innocent families, killing tens of thousands of people. and right now what we're seeing -- the places isil is occupying are not controlled by assad anyway. frankly, assad doesn't seem to

have the capability or reach to get into those areas. so i don't think there's a situation where we have to choose between assad or the kinds of people who carry on the incredible violence we have been seeing. we will continue to support a moderate opposition inside of syria, in part because we have to give people insight syria a choice other than isil or assad. and i don't see any scenario where assad is somehow able to bring peace and stability to a region that is majority sunni and has not, so far, shown any willingness to share power with them or in any significant way deal with the long-standing grievances they have there. >> i have consulted with congress throughout this

process. i am confident that as commander in chief i have the authority to engage in the acts we are conducting currently. as our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with congress, and it will be important for congress to weigh in, for our consultations to continue to develop so the american people are part of the debate. but i don't want to but the cart before the horse. we don't have a strategy at. what i have seen in the news reports suggests folks are getting further ahead of where we are at than we currently are. that's not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. we need to make sure we have plans and are developing them. at that point, i will consult with congress and make sure

their voices are heard. but there is no point in me asking for action on the part of congress before i know exactly what it is that will be required for us to get the job done. >> do you consider russia's presence in ukraine and invasion, and are you considering other responses going beyond sanctionss? >> i consider the actions we have seen in the last week a continuation of what has been taking place for months now. as i said in my opening statement, there is no doubt that this is not a homegrown indigenous uprising in eastern ukraine. the separatists are backed,

trained, armed, financed by russia. throughout the process, we have seen deep russian involvement in everything they have done. i think in part because of the progress you have seen by the ukrainians around donetsk and luhansk, russia determined it had to be a little more overt in what it had been doing. but it is not really a shift. what we have seen, though, is that president putin and russia repeatedly passed by potential off-ramps to resolve this diplomatically. so in consultations with european allies and partners our, my expectation is we will take additional steps.

primarily because we have not seen any meaningful action on the part of russia to resolve this in diplomatic fashion. i think the sanctions we have already applied have been effective. our intelligence shows it has been effective, though it may not appear so on russian television. and there are ways for us to deepen or expand the scope of some of that work. but ultimately what is important to recognize is the degree to which russian decision-making is isolating russia. they are doing this to themselves. what i have been encouraged by is the degree to which our european partners recognize, even though they are bearing a cost in implementing the sanctions, they understand a

broader principle is at stake. so i look forward to the consultations we will have next week. >> last year you said that democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress. you say you do not have a strategy yet, and we can do that going forward. why didn't you go before congress before the current strikes in iraq? throughout your career, you raised concerns with the expansion of power in the executive. are you concerned your recent actions have cut against that? >> no, and here's why. it is not just part of my responsibility, but a sacred duty for me as commander in chief to protect the american people.

that requires me to act fast, based on information i received if an embassy or consulate of ours is being threatened. the decisions i made were based on very concrete assessments about the possibility that erbil might be overrun and our consulate could be in danger. and i cannot afford to wait in order to make sure those folks are protected. but throughout the process, we consulted closely with congress, and the feedback i've gotten from congress is that we are doing the right thing. now, as we go forward, as i described to chuck, and look at a broader regional strategy with an international coalition and partners to systematically degrade isil's capacity to

engage in the terrible violence and disruptions they have been engaging in, not just in syria, not just in iraq, but potentially elsewhere, then does consultations with congress for something that is longer-term become more relevant. it is my intention that congress has to, as representatives of the american people. and the american people need to hear what the strategy is. but as i said to chuck, i don't want to put the cart for the horse. in some reports, the suggestion seems to be that we are about to go full-scale on an elaborate strategy for defeating isil. and the suggestion has been that we will start moving forward imminently and somehow congress

will be left in the dark. that's not what is going to happen. we will continue to focus on protecting the american people. we will continue, where we can, to engage in these of humanitarian acts that saved so many folks who were trapped on a mountain. we will work politically and diplomatically with folks in the region, and we will cobble together the kind of coalition that we need for a long-term strategy, as soon as we are able to fit together the military, political, and economic components of the strategy. there will be a military aspect of that, and it is going to be important for congress to know what that is. in part because it may cost some money. i will just take a couple more. >> do you regret not moving on isis earlier?

also, the iraqi president said iraqi forces are in no position to stand up to isis. will forming a new government change the situation? >> once isil got into mosul, that posed a big problem. there was no doubt they were able to capture weapons and resources they have used to finance additional operations. at that stage, we immediately contacted the iraqi government. keep in mind, we have seen indications with the iraqi government for more than a year, indicating we saw significant problems in the sunni areas. prime minister maliki was not as responsive as we would like to some of the underlying political

grievances that existed at the time. there's no doubt that in order for iraq security forces to be successful, they're going to need help. they are going to need help from us, from our international partners. they will need additional training, additional equipment. and we will be prepared to offer that support. there may be a role for an international coalition providing additional air support through the operation. but the reason it is so important an iraqi government be in place is that this is not simply a military problem. the problem we have had consistently is a sunni population that feels alienated from baghdad, that does not feel invested in what is happening. that does not feel as if anybody is looking out for them. if we can get a government in place that provides sunnis some hope that a national government

serves their interests, if they can regain some confidence and trust that it will follow through on commitments made way back in 2006 and earlier about how, for example, giving people opportunities so they are not locked out of government positions. if those things are followed through on and we are able to combine it with a sound military strategy, i think we can be successful. if we cannot, the idea the united states or any outside power would perpetually defeat isis, i think, is unrealistic. as i said in a previous press conference, our military is the best in the world.

we can rout isis on the ground and keep a lid on things temporarily, but then as soon as we leave the same problems come back again. so we have got to make sure iraqis understand that in the end they will be responsible for their own security. part of that is the capacity for them to make compromises. it also means states in the region stop being ambivalent about these extremist groups. the truth is, we have had state actors who at times thought the way to advance their interests was financing some of these groups as proxies. and part of our message to the entire region is, this should be a wake-up call to sunnis, to

shia, to everybody, that a group like isis is beyond the pale. that they have no vision or ideology beyond violence and chaos and the slaughter of innocent people. and as a consequence, we have to all join together. even if we have differences on a range of political issues. to make sure they are rooted out. last question. >> mr. president, despite all the actions the west has taken in ukraine, russia seems to be taking one step after another. at what point due sanctions no longer work? would you envisage the possibility, the necessity of military action to get russia to pull back from ukraine? >> we are not taking military action to solve the ukraine problem.

what we are doing is mobilizing the international community to apply pressure. but i think it is very important to recognize that a military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming. now, the fact that russia has taken these actions in violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the ukrainians has resulted, i believe, in a weakening of russia, not a strengthening of russia. that may not be apparent immediately, but i believe it will be increasingly apparent. what it has also done is isolated russia from its trading partners, its commercial partners, international business, in ways that i think will be very difficult to recover from. we will continue to stand firm

with our allies and partners that what is happening is wrong, that there is a solution that allows ukraine and russia to live peacefully, but it is not in the cards for us to see a military confrontation between russia and the united states in this region. keep in mind, however, i am about to go to a nato conference. ukraine is not a member of nato, but a number of states that are close by are. we take our article five commitments to defend each other very seriously. and that includes the smallest nato member, as was the largest nato member. part of why this meeting will be so important is to refocus attention on the critical function that nato plays, in order to deliver on the promise

of our article five assurances. part of the reason i will be going to estonia is to let the estonians know that we mean what we say in respect to our treaty obligations. we don't have those treaty obligations for ukraine. we do, however, stand shoulder to shoulder with them, and we are doing not just a lot of work diplomatically, but also financially in order to make sure that they have the best chance of dealing with what is admittedly a very difficult situation. thank you very much. >> how do external effects impact your decision? >> let me just say this. i have been very clear about the

fact that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. my preference continues to be that congress act. i don't think anybody thinks that congress is going to act in the short term, but hope springs eternal that after the midterm elections they may act. in the meantime, what i have asked jeh johnson to do is look at what kinds of executive authorities we have in order to make the system work better. we have had a lot of stakeholder discussions. we have a set of proposals that is being worked out. and one thing that i think has happened, the issue of unaccompanied children that got so much attention a couple months back. part of the reason why that was important was not because that represented a huge, unprecedented surge in overall immigration at the border, but i

do think that it changed the perception the american people have about what happens at the borders. one of the things we have had to do is work systematically to make sure that that specific problem in a fairly defined area of the border, that we are starting to deal with that in a serious way. and the good news is we have started to make some progress. what we have seen so far is throughout the summer, the number of apprehensions have been decreasing. maybe it is counterintuitive, but that is a good thing, because it means fewer folks are coming across. the number of apprehensions in august is down from july, and they are lower than they were august of last year. apprehensions in july where half of what they were in june. so we are seeing a significant downward trend in terms of unaccompanied children. and what that allows us to do is

to make sure that those kids are being taken care of properly, with due process. at the same time, it has allowed us to engage in a broader conversation about what we need to do to get more resources down at the border. it would have been helped along if congress had voted for the supplemental i asked for. they did not. that means we have to make administrative and executive choices about, for example, more immigration judges. that has kept us busy, but it has not stopped the process of looking more broadly about how we get a smarter immigration system in place while we are waiting for congress to act. it continues to be my belief that if i don't see congressional action, that i have to do at least what i can in order to make the system work better. some of these things do affect timelines, and will be working through a systematically as possible in order to get this

done. but have no doubt, in the absence of congressional action i will do what i can to make sure the system works better. thank you. [captioning performed by nation >> c-span presents debates this month on what makes america great, evolution, and genetically modified foods. looks atotlight with veterans health care, irs oversight, student loan debt and cap a sexual assault. new perspectives on issues including global warming, voting rights, fighting infectious disease, and food safety. our history tour showing sights and sounds from america's historic laces. find their tv schedule one week in advance at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching, 626-3400.t 202-

join the conversation, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. "washington journal" begins in a moment and we will take you -- your calls and look at today's news. later this my, discussion on race relations after the ferguson, missouri shooting and protest. civil rights advocates and representatives of the naacp spoke at the event in washington, d.c. that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern. > coming up this hour --

host: good morning, it's "washington journal" for august 29. for the next half-hour, we want to get your thoughts on foreign policy facing the obama administration. this as president obama spoke to media yesterday. it also contends with russian groups crossing to ukraine to support pro russia sentists. if you want to give us a call --