better than anyone else. third, watch our track record. there is no facts behind what people have said. there are facts with other companies around the world, and people know it, in terms of direction. so you've got to earn their trust and confidence and say how do you achieve your goals in this country and how do you perhaps partner with them, with an sap to bring that to life? let me use an example of the same conversation in france, because i don't think that president would have a problem with it. when i met with him on friday, and it was a tough week. that would be an understatement. yet he was remarkably effective. spent an hour 15 minutes. we talked. we went through the issues, et cetera. then i did exactly what i did here. two of the heads of state, they visited the day before or the day of. we knew very well. and in palestine, we worked to take the economy from one half of one percent to 6.4% in four years. people would give cisco the

credit with our palestinian partners, to do it. in jordan, we worked on their education system. we've done that 10 years ago. currently we're working on the refugee capability, health care and education. we know how to transform. so the business or government leader, if somebody can bring you huge benefits that you want, as a track record of being trusted -- this is an issue for merkel to solve with a bomb. they've got to have rules of the road in conduct. they've got to resolve it there. you can't put your businesses in between. >> it's a fitting note here on u.n. week. just a few last things. speaking of heads of state hillary clinton, she came to address your sales meeting at tell us what happened. what was it like? does she have it? is she going to get it? >> well, it was interesting. i've had the honor to interview probably 20 heads of states. i've interviewed her husband

probably four times. she didn't want to know the questions ahead of time she gave a good opening comment for about 10 minutes. then we got right into it. and several of my strong republican friends came up afterwards and said, we've got a problem. she's really good. [laughter] and it kills me to say that. she would make a great world leader. she really would. >> and you're very good. so as someone who appreciates other people at the top of their game, what is the one or two things that she has that you think make her special in your eyes? >> she's got experience. she's able to articulate her view remarkably well. she listens well. she understands if you're going to lead a country, you lead it with businesses as a partner to create jobs, not business, the bad guys. when she says she's going to do something, she does it. and she comes with an experience that is very strong. having watched from the side, watched her as a first lady,

then senator, head of state secretary of state, and then i followed her around to the government leaders. the government leaders would be remarkably candid about our leaders, after our leaders leave. i don't share that either. but she has progressed. she's got a very good base. as a republican, i hope we get a candidate that can really give her a run for the money if she decides to run. >> do you have any names? >> well, i think we have a long way to go to have somebody in a position that will have that type of firepower. >> so you're willing to accept secretary treasurer for either party? >> no. i'm not into politics. but i like business. i love what i'm doing. obviously it probably comes across. i've been on the road for two weeks, running like crazy. it's sick, but it's fun. we're going to try to change the world. >> two questions. speaking of spraingses, larry -- transitions, larry ellison 70 years old. one awesome cup victory and one

awesome company to his credit. you're 65. do you have thoughts? >> just turned 65. so first of all, i thought larry did a very good job on transition. if you watch, they will make it run very smoothly. secondly, the next time i talk about transition will be when we announce it at cisco. so the next time you hear it will be when we make that transition itself. so suffice it to say, i've got a great number of probably five to ten people in the company that could be c.e.o. of almost any company around the world. >> speaking of pondering you spend a lot of time jogging. is that where you have your best thoughts? >> yeah. i think we shared it earlier. i think each of us finds different ways of thinking. i run the woods -- run in the woods. i'm not a fast runner, but i love doing it. and i run uphill first. so for the first half of the run, that's when i organize my thoughts, solve the problems,

think through the issues. and the second half of the run thank goodness i just enjoy it. my type of approach. >> let's go to q&a. please. >> thank you. thank you for the interview. my name is pamela teagarden. in my for-profit company, we look at employee engagement statistics. so i'm going to take the conversation just a little around the bend, because you spoke a lot about productivity. over the past couple of decades, we've known that a lot of the productivity is tied up in employee engagement. and we haven't come out of that yet. so as this productivity increases at unprecedented levels, that will increase operational well blg well-being but we need personal well-being as well in the office place. my question for you is not how will h.r. adapt, but what is the innovative crazy new idea that's

going to take people practices to another level? >> sure. >> i think it will be around social media and collaboration finally coming to life. just being very open microsoft and cisco are probably the two leaders in collaboration. we do very well with top of the organization. we do not do well with collaboration getting to productivity, as you rightly said down through the organization. i think the future is going to be all around collaborative capabilities with video at the heart of it, ease of use, not technology, better have a c.e.o. behind you to be able to do it. and you've got to change the processes that go with it. that's one of the other reasons i'm pretty bullish on the productivity. you can have what is a very advanced video capability that used to cost $20,000 in your home for $2,000. top box or on your top. so i think the ability to bring collaboration to its forefront is very important. being challenged, i think the

two leaders in this industry think to find ways we interoperate, because to put our customers in the middle, that's not good. i think also the ability to really be there when you're employees need you is a key element of it. i know every onus of every employee is life threatening for them their spouse, their children. we move heaven and earth to help them during the tough times and we save a lot of lives. but that's part of our culture as well. it's back to employee connectivity where the employees -- we hold our teams even during the tough times, pretty well. to answer your question very directly, it's going to be around collaboration. it's going to be around, how do we understand this new generation what they expect with the smartphones? and it's going to be around -- it has to be easy to use. that's what also is contributing. >> speaking about your employees, are they too distracted by their phones? >> not at all. that loads the networks, which i

love. [laughter] but to answer your question they are going to use -- the most important technology device to every college graduate is their smartphone. and if you don't understand that's the way you're going to interface to them, if you don't understand that's the way you're going to sell to them, if you don't understand, when they're in your store buying something they're going to be contacting through social media the people they trust most, their peers, to say, what do you think? i actually go to other way. this is one that you've got to find the device enable productivity and we've got to find a way to interface to every device to do it right. pro >> please. >> could you talk about cisco's cap net plans 2016 versus 2014 and what you see the telecommunications industry is likely to spend? and secondly, i come from the school -- i'm on the financial side. i come from the school of

thought that companies are supposed to buy back stock when it's undervalued. i think since 2004, we spent 76.6 billion buying back stock that obviously wasn't undervalued. what motivates the buyback that the company pursues to such a large point that prices that didn't seem to be particularly attractive? >> so a series of questions going in reverse order. this last year -- we have a com commitment to our shareholders. we're a very profitable pre-cash flow. we'll return that in the form of share buybacks and dividends. we actually bought back and gave 120% back to our shareholders this last year. you all deserved it. we're going to continue to give back a minimum of 50% of our cash flow, regardless of the tax laws, to our shareholders, as we move forward.

and to your point, the buyback has been both good for the people who bought the shares from, but also as a shareholder it has helped you, because the stock is up. to the first question, in terms of cap x around the world, it varies dramatically. the commercial and enterprise market is going well. in the u.s., when you look at i the last quarter this year -- we won't be able to maintain that rate -- and everything i say today should not have any impact on the current quarter. i want to remind everyone, i'm not making any updates on the quarter, nor should you interpret that. that's three years in law school. my parents will know they spent some money successfully. but if you watch, what is occurring, the u.s. enterprising -- they are realizing the technology again will get a huge change in terms of things that are important to productivity, interfacing their customers differently, taking on new competitors. it grew in the mid teens last quarter in the u.s. when you look at u.s. g.d.p.,

usually good news and bad news on the business side are a pretty good indicator. europe, germany and the u.k. both grew in double digits. again, you look where the g.d.p. growth is happening in europe, you can almost follow that. we did see emerging markets continue to be very challenging. service providers spending is tough. a lot of pressure on price points, a lot of pressure on spending around the world. the real issue service providers, they don't know how to make monies. they're competing against-a-an amazon or google model, they're competing with a very high overhead structure, where what they did before was provide transport. i said about 12 years ago -- i wish i had used a different word. i said 90% of the revenues will be free. same thing with data or video transport. they must transform themselves to a different level of content

to their customers. and many of them are struggling with this. there are some that are rethinking out of the box on how to get there. but spending, we're modeling to be tough over this next year. >> should verizon buy time warner or something like that? >> i think a lot of people are looking at how you add value that's sustainable to your environment. if you watch what comcast is doing in getting content they've been very successful. if you watch what netflix is doing -- it's where you're going to get your revenue streams. it's also, where do you have sustainable differentiation? it does you no good to get into something that you don't have sustainable disney disney dif --

>> i think every c.e.o. has to make the right decision for their company, period. if you get cautious in this job, you can't lead. >> but the activists are winning. the activists are in control of wall street at this point. >> i respectfully disagree. i think what you are seeing is focus on the shareholders, which is right. it's the right thing to do to give 50% to my shareholders guaranteed. we should do it. if the right thing to do is to bet on some key acquisitions, i'm going to continue to do it. and if i get beat up for an acquisition that doesn't work and the major criticism is a company called flip, which we paid $600 million for, and i have 20 companies that i paid well more than that that have been successful, that will take that pressure. as c.e.o., you want to be your own activist. so i think you always have to listen to constructive criticism. i think you've always go t to

have to courage to do what's right for your company, period. if you make decisions purely for the short term because somebody puts pressure on your, your company is not going to have a future. that's like treating the symptom as a doctor as opposed to the underlying opportunity. >> huge commitments to shareholders -- that's a digression. other questions? if you could just -- state your name and where you're from. >> russ from sun garden. appreciate it. wanted to go back to the security topic. and, you know, you see what's happened with home depot and target and all that. what do you say to the leaders of those companies a? and b, from more of a standpoint beyond the governments need to trust each other, what are the things that you think the u.s. could do from a policy perspective that would engender more trust in even our allies at

this point? >> okay. >> so if you watch what is occurring in environment -- and i know i'll make some people uncomfortable here -- there is no safe data center in the world. as the c.e.o., you've got to know what happened to these companies could happen to you. every company in the u.s. has probably been broken into. people don't announce it for a whole bunch of different reasons. and the majority of time, it has nothing to do with our government or our friendly government counterparts. this is why we are going to try to become the number one player in security, because it will inhibit how fast the internet grows, it will inhibit cloud mobility. it will really hurt us as well. so i think what we have to do is be realistic, that the majority of security issues are because companies did not follow policy. i won't talk about either one of the companies you mentioned. but most of the time when

there's been a security breach, it's because somebody didn't follow the policy that they should have. they took code home or left a back door open or they were the systems administrator where you've got the password. it's like leaving the keys to your house on it. this is just going to get worse. organized crime, the sophistication of the attacks are unbelievably good. and the financially world unfortunately, is unbelievably good. the tax that you saw out of asia were way more than what you probably read about. unbelievably tough sophisticated type of attacks. so what i tell c.e.o. or the leader is first, you are exposed. secondly, here's how you can minimize the way to do it. third, i will at the right time do a good sales pitch. but i'll be realistic. you've got to get your attention on it, to really pay attention to policy and direction. that's actually what our companies have done together. but it's something that i think our country has to address.

this is where, i believe the country leaders have to come together with rules of conduct. it's the wild west out there today. there are no rules. and this is what government should do. they should say here's what we're going to do and not do. then as long as people know that, you don't surprise your citizens. you don't surprise your companies in terms of the directions. >> question about one or two specific things that you would recommend along those lines? >> first thing i would do is really educate your people that most of the problems come from somebody not following process and procedures. for all the complexity, usually the most important issues is somebody just left their password open. somebody took code home. there's good reasons for doing that. second you need an overall security strategy. and you need to put not somebody good on it -- because it's the kiss of death to say to your security officer, go fix it for me. it has to start with the c.e.o., to say this is a top priority

for us as a company. but it is the thing that will slow our industry and can do billions of dollars of brand damage just like that, if bad guys misuse the data. >> john? >> john, with the "wall street journal." take us back to india for a second and your enthusiasm about modi. there have been a lot of c.e.o.'s that have come back and said this is india's time. they've said that with congress in charge. what's different this time? >> sure. so i bet on india big-time almost 15 years ago as a vehicle for emerging countries and graduating 600,000 engineers a year. our country only graduates 60,000 in the category i'm interested in. it's the top 5% of their populous who goes into these

schools. unbelievably good talent. india's issues have been self-inflicted. and i think if you were to talk to c.e.o.'s three years ago most of them would point out that they couldn't solve their problems. 76% of their economy is internally generated, so they don't have the problem with trade that china or other countries do. that's a nice way of saying they control their economy. their parties were so divisive. there was clearly corruption at the top. they didn't execute. they had no courage. and so what's different is you have a leader who is going to execute. like anything else you don't want to make the expectations so high you can't deliver. he will make the tough decisions. he's captured the imagination of the people. he's captured the imagination of the business community. we all know spending is more than half confidence in the business community. and the citizens. and he's streamlining government.

he controls all the political operations. so he doesn't have to deal with a divided using our words congress and senate, in terms of the direction. so that's why you see people suddenly enthusiastic. if they don't mess it up, they're going to have a great run. again, i'm going to bet again on india in a big way. that's different than many other emerging markets. you've got the problems in russia and china in terms of the challenges. would you agree with that, john? >> i don't know whether he has proved himself yet. i'm not sure modi has had a chance to prove himself yet. there have been so many moments of enthusiasm about india that get caught in the bureaucratic traffic jam that then unholds. it was just interesting to hear you, this early in his tenure, so forcefully endorsing a belief that there's going to really be change. >> well, john, part of what i do i bet on market transitions. we won't always be right. but you've got to bet before it

becomes obvious. is it a given he'll be successful? no. they have all the weaknesses of the world's largest democracy. but they have the youngest world population, a great education system for the very top. they need to bring that through. so if they execute, i think they're going to have a great run. you can handicap it, in terms of it, maybe two times out of three or play out. >> over here, please. >> ivan. what was your thought process in the purchase of scientific atlanta? i always thought that the cable boxes, set top boxes were going to be the center of the connected home. when you bought it, i was excited, because i thought there would be no better company to make that happen. yet nothing has really evolved on the set-top box in the past 10 years. and the time since you brought it. >> three thoughts. whenever you interface to your customers, if you're trying to be something other than just a transport or network, you say, where do they make their money?

my view, and it has not changed the vast majority of service providers around the world make their money on video. it would not only be 95% of the load on the network, it will also be the entertainment. netflix, comcast are going after that. or some of the european companies, on buying sports teams. the scientific atlanta decision for us brought us into the most relevant space for the customers. and they had a unique expertise the customer did not have. what is occurring now, however, is the set-top boxes are comot commodityizing. so the ability to move from set-top boxes into the cloud with video into the cloud is the next transition we've got to make. it's hard to do. the margins on set-top boxes have dropped a fair amount. but there are areas you have to play for the service providers.

the number one is video. the number two is mobility. the number three area is, how do they transform themselves to provide a different level of capability to their individual customers, to small to medium business and to enterprise? and how quickly they can develop these new services. if you align with their top priorities, you're going to sell them a lot. if you don't align with the top priorities and all you're doing is providing boxes, you're going to get killed by the white-label players. the boxes they sell it at extremely low margins. that's the play we're making, and it's been a good one for us in terms of relevance and service providers. >> a couple more questions for those who have them. all right. yes, please. >> i'm aning investigative reporter. i'm curious, if you would be kind enough to elaborate a little more on the organized

crime attacks on security. are they all in eastern europe, russia china? >> no. they're everywhere. if you watch what is occurring organized crime, you know, it's like in the movies. why do you rob a bank? that's where the money is. the organized crime everywhere in the world is beginning to look at if you're going to try to take money from people or from companies, how do you do it in this new electronic age? unfortunately, they're getting remarkably sophisticated. some of the strong players are out in eastern europe. some of them are out of lavin out of latin america. unfortunately, their ability to get the sophistication of the attacks down -- so many people think well it's just software connected to somebody's electronic device. 99.9% of the security issues are done different ways. this is one that i think is

going to be with us for a while. it's one that each consumer unfortunately, has to become educated on. what are the implications if you open up a letter that looks like it's sent from your bank that actually was somebody else doing fishing? and this is where i think there's opportunities for companies to really be successful in the security segment. we're going to try to take a negative and make a very positive. time will tell if we'll be as successful as i believe we can be. >> one last question. >> christian blum from. the name emc came up. you guys have been mentioned as being potentially in the mix. i was just wondering if you'd want to comment on that. >> first i think joe is a very good leader. emc is a very good partner for us. what we did with emc is in the

storage business, we partnered with them, net app, now ibm, to lead in the data centers in terms of direction. what we've done different than many of our counterparts is we've combined all of our products to work together. so we really have uniquely gone across each of our product areas and service areas, so it's one front in terms of direction emc decided not to do that, which perhaps opened up some of the challenges. you don't want to comment on activity with a given company but i'll make an exception on this one. we usually get the opportunity for almost every move in the industry. we usually -- we treat the people well, et cetera. if joe and i were going to do something here, we would have done it a year or two ago in terms of the direction. so that's back to the market transitions question. >> all right. that's a very candid answer. glad we could end on that. it's been great visiting with

you. my image of you climbing up a hill with a smile on your face is what i'd take away. great to have you. thank you very much. please give warm applause to john chambers. [applause] >> final words. >> thank you very much indeed. you're clearly getting more than enough sleep. time to come back to work. and john, if i may extraordinary, 20 years at the top of the technology sector, an extraordinary period of longevity. when you became c.e.o. of cisco, steve jobs was still in exile from apple. the first iphone was almost a decade way. mark zuckerburg was in the sixth grade. and allie babba was simply a fictional character. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed, all of you

for being here. you can see this again. please join us for our next viewpoints breakfast which will be december 8 with denise morrison, the c.e.o. of the campbell soup company. it will be december, it will be cold, it will be a perfect time to be talking about soup and all those other great products. thank you very much! enjoy your day! ♪[music]♪

>> coming up, the senate will start debate on funding the homeland security department, which is set to expire friday at midnight unless congress acts. senate republican leader mitch mcconnell is trying for a fourth time to bring the bill to the floor for debate. with democrats blocking the past three attempts because the measure would also prevent president obama's immigration executive orders from taking effect. the chamber resumes debate

momentarily, with the bill scheduled for about an hour now, 5:30 eastern. homeland security spending was a topic of conversation for president obama earlier today. he spoke to the nation's governors at the white house. here's more of what the president had to say. >> i'll keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crises and self-inflicted wounds that have so often bogged us down over the last five years. we've got one example of that right now. unless congress acts one week from now, more than 100,000 employee, border patrol, t.s.a. agents, will show up to work without getting paid. they all work in your states. these are folks who, if they don't have a paycheck, are not going to be able to spend that money in your states. it will have a direct impact on your economy and it will have a direct impact on america's national security, because their

hard work helps to keep us safe. and as governors you know that we can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> just part of what president obama had to say earlier today on homeland security spending. by the way the senate is back in, debating homeland security over on c-span 2. see the president's remarks tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> tonight, on the communicators, the senior vice president at erikson and cisco senior vice president talk about their expeans companies and the technology on which the internet, mobile phones and the cloud operate. >> we talk about something we call the network society. the network society is a society where everything that can benefit from having a connection would actually have one. we put a vision forward in 2009 in barcelona, in the trade show that's going on there, on the 50

billion connected devices in 2020, which has caught on very well in the world. that, i think, opened many people's minds that the mobile industry is not limited to the smartphones and the devices that we carry around personally. it also have a great technology to connect so many other things and to be able to build a better society based on those things. >> the internet started with this thing that people needed to get to somewhere or somehow, by dialup sections et cetera. we brought the internet from that thing somewhere to your home, to be with every device that you carry around. the next stage of the internet is about taking it from all these mobile devices to things, to information, and connecting not just people but things with people, information with people. and prophecies with people and things so we can create, what we call an internet of everything. >> tonight at 8 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2.

tomorrow on "washington journal," north carolina congressman jones discusses a new authorization for military force. then texas representative sheila jackson lee looks at immigration issues. after that, blake ellis talks about state and local government debt collection practices. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal," live on c-span. and homeland security spending was the main topic at today's white house daily briefing. press secretary josh earnest spoke with reporters about the friday night deadline that could result in a partial shutdown. this is an hour.

>> good afternoon everybody. appreciate your being patient through some of the technical difficulties we've had today. i want to do one thing at the top, before i go to your questions. this afternoon, as you know, the president is traveling over to the headquarters of the aarp. he's going to be talking about the fact that middle class economics means that americans should be able to retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work, but the rules of the road do not ensure that financial advisors act in the best interests of their clients, and it's hurting millions of working rg and middle class families. a system where wall street benefits or wall street firms benefit. they talk responsible americans into buying bad investments instead of recommending quality investments. it's a conflict of interest and it isn't fair. this administration is going to

take steps to try to correct it and make sure that americans can count on the kinds of advice -- or on the kind of advice they're getting from their financial advisors. we should stipulate, as the president will later today, there are thousands of financial advisors all across the country who are doing the right thing. we need to take steps to make sure that all of them are. with that, julie, let's go to the questions. >> thank you. the president mentioned the impending the deadline of funding dhs. i have questions. one, are you working under the assumption that there will be a shutdown of $at the end -- a shut down of homeland security at the end of the week? are you looking for some wiggle room on the democrats' position, or is it the strategy to hold the line and hope that either republicans move toward your position or take the blame for a shutdown? >> our position right now is congress should do their job. we continue to be hopeful that

members of congress, republicans in particular, will live up to their promise to do their job which is -- our founding fathers gave the power of the purse to the united states congress. republicans in congress aggressively campaign so they could be in charge of that legislative body. that means they have a substantial responsibility for funding the kinds of operations that protect our home homeland. and you're right. one week from today, if congress does not act, there will be more than 100,000 u.s. homeland security personnel who will show up and do their job to protect the homeland, but they won't be getting the paycheck unless congress shows up to do theirs. funding for homeland security shouldn't be controversial. neither should members of congress actually doing their job. >> obviously, it hasn't proven to be quite as simple as you

have hoped. >> unfortunately. >> do you see anything that the white house -- any concessions the white house would be willing to make, anything you're encouraging democrats to do to get a deal? or is your position where it's going to be at the end of the week? >> our position is a very commonsense when, which is the department of homeland security should get funding for the full year. everyone would knowledge that is the right thing for our homeland security, it's the right thing for the country. i recognize there are some republicans who do want to continue to have a debate about immigration policy. i have good news for them. the president is ready to have a debate and a discussion, even a negotiation about reforms that we can put in place to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system. the president and this administration engaged in those conversations two years ago. we got a bipartisan piece of legislation through the senate. but it got blocked. ironically enough, by house republicans. we're ready to have that debate and discussion and negotiation.

and even work toward a solution to try to address our broken immigration system. but we shouldn't allow politics to get in the way of ensuring that our homeland security operations are properly and fully funded. >> if congress were to try to avoid it by passing a short term cr would the president sign it? >> we will continue to be engaged in this process and we'll be working with congressional leaders and both parties as they figure out how to avoid a government shutdown of the department of homeland security. it is our view that the best policy outcome is a policy outcome that fully funds the department of homeland security for a full year. the reason for that, based on conversations that i've even had with the secretary, the analogy that he uses is that continuing to just pass continuing resolutions doesn't allow the department of homeland security to effectively plan. the analogy that he draws is that it's akin to trying to

drive across the country but only filling up the car with five gallons of gas at a time. so you can do it but it doesn't allow you to as effectively plan. when we're talking about something as important of our homeland security, congress should have a vested role in working with the department to make sure that all of the priorities that exist in that agency, that ensure the protection of our homeland, are properly and fully funded and that they do that in a way that the personnel who are working there can plan effectively and maximize their efforts. >> but even if it's not an ideal scenario, you obviously can't realistically come up with a situation where the president would not sign a short-term cr -- >> at this point, i'm not going to commit to signing or not signing, other than a fully funded full year appropriation for the department of homeland security. that's not just the best outcome in the mind of the president. it's also clearly the best outcome when we're talking about the interests of the american public. so it's not a coincidence that that's why the president thinks it's the best outcome.

it also is fully within the scope of responsibilities of members of congress. so this is not about asking congress to take an unprecedented or special step. this is actually holding congress responsible for doing the absolutely bare minimum. >> one other topic. sounds like the keystone bill is going to land over here tomorrow. can you give us any sense of how quickly the president plans to veto this bill, whether he plans to do this in public or private? >> i would not -- i have been a little perplexed by the process and the way that it's unfolded. i understand that congress passed this bill like 10 days ago, yet it's just going to come to the white house apparently as early as tomorrow. but i would anticipate that, as we've been saying for years, the president would veto that legislation and he will. so i would not anticipate a lot of drama or fanfare around it. >> so nothing in public? >> i wouldn't count on that, no. julia? >> so just this morning, the justice department formally

filed its request for a stay in the texas immigration case. one alternative that they gave was for the judge to actually reverse the stay in all states but texas. what was the thinking behind that alternative and has the white house thought about the ramifications of allowing the executive action to play out in 49 states? >> well, let's start at the beginning, julia, that you are correct. the department of justice has asked the federal district court in texas for an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction that currently prevents the department of homeland security from implementing the deferred action policies the president announced back in december. the administration believes that a stay should be granted because the judge's ruling in this case only makes it harder for the department of homeland security to protect the american people and bring much-needed accountability to our nation's immigration system. that is why the documents that have been filed with the court

today first seek a stay of his injunction so that we can move forward while the case is being appealed at the fifth circuit. now, the -- so these two things are essentially operating on parallel tracks. so the other alternative here that has been put forward in the filing is consistent with the judge's finding that texas, the state of texas claimed some harm that he said he was sympathetic to. now, he did not find that other states necessarily would be harmed by this ruling. so that's why we suggest -- and this is consistent with the way that the law has been explained to me -- which is that when an injunction is issued by a judge that it should be narrowly tailored. so in the view of the federal government the question we're

asking is, if you won't grant a stay for the full injunction, then you should just grant a stay so that we can move forward with these executive actions in other states. now, there are two other relevant facts here. the first is there are actually a dozen states, in the district of columbia, is that that have affirmatively dom forward and said that implementing these executive actions would actually be good for our states. and it's consistent with that the economic impact of these executive actions are positive everything from job creation to economic growth to reducing the deficit to even strengthening social security. all of those things would be enhanced if these executive actions were implemented. that is why, you know, we are seeking to move in this direction, if a full stay is not granted. then let's let us at least move forward in the states where the

judge himself has knowledged or at least has not found that there is harm. >> okay. it's just that he doesn't -- if he doesn't rule by wednesday then they're going to try to go get a stay from the fifth circuit. so why even give him the wiggle room to say that, especially as there's so many undocumented immigrants who could potentially be eligible? >> again i think this reflects our commitment to trying to work this through the legal process as quickly as possible. one aspect of this that i have found somewhat curious is that the judge's ruling was one that was celebrated by a lot of conservative republicans. and the reason i find that curious is that the specific measures that the judge has prevented the administration from implementing are actually the same measures that would bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system. the judge basically said that you can't -- that you can't move forward with policies that are

going to bring millions of people out of the shadows. you can't move forward with these policies that are going to force people to pay taxes or submit to a background check. t these are exactly the kinds of policies that would bring greater accountability to our immigration system, that would bring a positive economic benefit and actually make our communities safer. this is consistent with filings in the case that have been put forward by local sheriffs and other local law enforcement leaders, who have said that implementing these executive actions would make it easier for local law enforcement to safeguard communities. so there are even some local law enforcement officials in the state of texas that have indicated that implementing these executive actions would make communities safer. there's a strong basis for those who are interested in doing the right thing for our imhi economy and public safety. >> the foreign minister said that negotiators are still a long way from reaching a deal on the nuclear program.

do you have any updates on the white house's assessment on the chances of reaching a deal >> i don't have any update. the president and i have, on a number of occasions, been asked this question. we have noted that our odds of reaching an agreement with iran are 50/50 at best. i think that is -- continues to be a fair assessment of where things stand. a lot of this, again rests on the commitment of iranian hardliners to move forward with an agreement that would resolve the international communities' concerns with their nuclear program, that what the international community alongside the united states, is seeking is a verifiable commitment from iran not to develop and obtain a nuclear weapon. and there should be an opportunity for us to reach an agreement around this. but there are some in the iranian regime who are reluctant

to make that kind of commitment. that is the principal barrier. that is why even as the negotiators make some progress, that we continue to be realistic about the likelihood of success that it's less about actually trying to reach an agreement around the negotiating table but about eliciting sufficient commitment from iran's leadership to move forward with an agreement. so -- but our negotiators are still hard at work on this. and they will continue to be, in the days and weeks ahead. okay? michelle? >> in the appeal that we were just talking about, the language in there says that, without a stay the department of homeland security would suffer irreparable harm and that the harm wouldn't be cured even if the defendants ultimately prevail. what harm would dhs suffer without this stay? >> well, to put it bluntly, the

department of homeland security was ready last week to begin taking the steps that would bring millions of people out of the shadows. these are individuals who have been in this country for a substantial period of time and have family connections inside the country. these are individuals who would begin paying taxes. these are individuals who would submit to a background check. so every day that goes by, we have individuals who will continue to be in the shadows, who will continue to not pay taxes. and who will continue to not have undergone a background check, which means they could pose a threat to public safety. so that is why you have seen so many states and their top-level leadership and local law enforcement leaders from across the country come forward and say we want to implement these accountability measures. but instead, based on the judge's ruling we're actually moving farther in the direction of amnesty, which again is why

it's curious that we've seen so many conservative republicans come out in celebration of a court ruling that essentially does move us closer to amnesty. >> you said that the department of homeland security could suffer irreparable harm -- >> because there would be a delay in collecting taxes, a delay in conducting background checks. those are two examples of things that would benefit our economy and benefit public safety. so every day that goes by is a day that we won't be collecting taxes or executing the kinds of background checks that would ensure we were doing everything we can to keep our communities safe. >> a few times when you were asked about the impact on national security, you would always refer reporters to dhs itself. but today we heard the president state this would have a direct impact on your national security. can you explain what exactly he meant by that? >> well, there are a couple of things. the first is i don't think that there's anybody who would say

that it's going to have a positive impact on national security for us to send people to work without a paycheck. and i think that is a large part of what the president was referring to. he also noted the negative economic impact this would have on communities across the country as well. you know, you've also heard the sectorsecretary of homeland security talk about how difficult it is for his agency to plan when they are facing looming deadlines that that would have a direct impact on the operations of their agency. while the vast majority of personnel at the department of homeland security are considered essential personnel, which means they will show up to work even if they don't get a paycheck, there are still tens of thousands of dhs employees that aren't. and therefore, they will be furloughed and won't be showing up at the office. and again, that's going to have an impact on the day-to-day functioning of the department of homeland security. again, you've heard me say that it's hard to imagine a good time for congress to be mucking

around with the funding of the department of homeland security. but now seems like a particularly bad one. >> do you think that the secretary overstated the threat to america over the weekend? >> no. i think the secretary was noting how important it is for the american people to continue to be vigilant. that said, the intelligence community has said that they are not aware of any specific credible plot against the mall of america or any other domestic commercial shopping center here in the united states. but we certainly are mindful of the threat that exists. and that's why, you know, dhs has their see something, say something campaign. we encourage people to be vigilant about that. the fact of the matter is, the intelligence community has indicated there's no specific credible plot against the mall and that essentially this is a reaction to a propaganda video put out by a terrorist group in

africa. and i recognize that may be why the issue of mall security has come to the attention of the people in this room. the fact of the matter is the administration has been mindful of this risk for years now. and that's why secretary johnson, yesterday when he was asked about this, was able to indicate we'd already been in touch with local law enforcement, with individuals responsible for security at shopping centers and even this specific shopping center, but i want to reiterate something that the intelligence community has said about there not being any specific credible threat that they're aware of at this point. chris? >> during a military town hall event yesterday in kandahar, secretary daughter carter said only suitability for enlistment should bar an american from

service. >> i've seen the reports of secretary carter's comments. i can tell you that the president agrees with the sentiments that all americans who are qualified to serve should be able to serve and for that reason, we here at the white house welcome the comments from the secretary of defense. in terms of additional steps the department of defense will take to address this matter, i defer you to the secretary's office. >> is there any coordination going on between the white house to coordinate this stuff? >> to talk about what those next steps might be, i'd refer you to the department. >> and hours remaining to act on legislation which would prohibit lo kal ties -- localities from passing lgbt discrimination -- >> i'm not aware of that legislation. ultimately, governors have to make these kind of decisions themselves. >> yesterday night the

reward -- about edward snowden? >> i was not able to stay up until the very end of the oscars. they started late. i obviously did see the news that documentary receiving the award. i don't have a specific reaction to it. our views on this matter are well-known. and they aren't affected by the decision of the academy. >> i wanted to refer to some reports over the weekend that the white house might not find any cabinet-level members. i wanted to know if you could confirm that. >> the answer to that is we are still in discussions with apack about what kind of representation they'll have at the meeting. you'll recall in previous years there have been representatives including the president on at

least one occasion, but we're still evaluating the invitation. as soon as we have some more information about who will be available to speak to the group, i will let you know. >> is the president considering going? >> not that i'm aware of. >> one other question, and i'm sorry to keep pounding on this. department of homeland security thing. today the president said, going back to what he said, it will have a direct impact on the economy, on america's national security. i just wanted to take one more opportunity to try to understand how it would have a direct impact on national security. the potential, i suppose, of people being here that don't have background checks, i guess -- that doesn't to me say it would have a direct impact. i just wanted to clarify that. >> well, i think the direct impact is that people who will be showing up to protect our borders, to protect our ports of entry, including our airports, individuals who are responsible for keeping the machinery moving in terms of responding to natural disasters and responding

to requests for assistance from states when they put forward those kinds of requests for financial assistance, that those kinds of basic day-to-day operations are affected. in some cases, it just means there is personnel not receiving paychecks. in some cases we're talking about personnel working on these important matters who are being furloughed. it certainly would have an impact on the ability of the department of homeland security to plan for the future and to implement new procedures and programs. there's always an effort to innovate when it comes to homeland security, to take steps that would keep us safer. this also plays to cybersecurity. the department of homeland security is the agency principally responsible for trying to keep americans and their data safe. so, again, i think it's very hard for anybody to make the case that stopping funding for the department of homeland security somehow enhances our national security. and i think that everybody would acknowledge that it's going to have an impact and it's not

going to be a positive one. that's the point that the president was making. that's why we believe that despite the differences between the parties, we should all be able to come together around the idea that congress should fulfill their responsibility to fund the department of homeland security and to do it for the full year. >> are you saying that people who don't collect a paycheck will not do their jobs as well protecting the border or doing anti-terrorist activities than if they were being paid? >> no, i'm not saying that at all. er think the -- i think the irony of this situation is that you do have more than 100,000 patriotic americans who show up to work every single day to keep our airports and the skies safe for the traveling public. they protect our borders. they work in cyberspace to try to protect our cybersecurity. these are patriotic americans. they're also middle class families. the thought that congress because they're not willing to do their job, are going to put

these patriotic individuals in a position of not being able to collect their paycheck, even -- >> you're saying the country will be less safe if these people are not paid, because it will have a direct effect on national security. you're saying these people are going to show up and do their jobs even under the -- >> i think i made it pretty clear that there are a variety of impacts from shutting down the department of homeland security. i think one of them, and it's principally an issue of fairness, is the fact that you've got more than 100,000 americans who work at the department of homeland security, who work to keep us safe, who are not going to get a paycheck, just because congress is not doing their job. i would certainly not question the professionalism and performance of these individuals. but i don't understand how anybody could make the case that their professionalism and performance is enhanced by with holding a paycheck. >> but we're asking about the direct economic on financial security, not the economic effect or the unfairness to

them, just the direct effect on national security. >> i get it. i don't think there is anybody that can make a case that there is a positive impact on national security by with holding their checks. >> it won't have any effect at all since -- >> in answering julia's question, i was pretty clear about the fact that there are tens of thousands of dhs employees that are furloughed as a result of shutting down the department of homeland security. if we actually want the department of homeland security to do everything they possibly can to keep us safe what we're going to do is give them the resources to plan and to innovate and to take all the necessary steps, whether it's cybersecurity, border security or airport security, to do their best to keep the american people safe. again, it's beyond me how anybody would try to make the case that with holding funding from the department somehow makes it easier for all those people to do their jobs.

>> i understand republicansthem i understand republicans are in majority of the house. but given what the president has said about how this can impact national security and a negative impact on national security, what is he doing to get movement out there? is he bringing the congressional leaders to the white house for an emergency meeting? what is he doing to try to prod them? i understand it is ultimately the responsibility -- if they are hurting national security, it is on his watch. what is his plan on getting something done? >> when they do make it back to washington ec after their recess, maybe there is an opportunity to come to the white house and meet with the president to discuss this. the fact of the matter is there is not that much to discuss.

the fact is everybody acknowledges it is the responsibility of congress to use the power of the purse to fund the government. everybody understands that funding the department of homeland security is critical to maximizing our efforts to keep the homeland safe. not everybody knowledge is that feeling to do so is not good begun for the country. it is not under "meant security it is not going to be good for the economy. the president stands that it is not going to be good for homeland security, it is not going to be good for the economy -- it is not going to be good for homeland security, it is not going to be good for the economy. >> you are seeing just fund the part -- fund the department and there is no other path yo here. >> what i recognize has affected the ability of some members of congress to actually do their job is they want to send some signal of dispute or objection

to the president's executive action on immigration. i have been very clear, and the president has been very clear that we welcome the opportunity to have a discussion with republicans on what we can do to fix our broken administration system. the president engaged in a whole series of discussions two years ago. that resulted in a bipartisan customized legislation coming from the senate. ironically back was blocked -- that was blocked by republicans. there is a common theme. the truth is it is not lost on many republicans pretty you saw senator graham go on the sunday shows and he has been talking about this over the weekend, and dictating he understood -- indicating he understood the republican party would you blame if they fail to fulfill their responsibility to fund the department of homeland security. >> do you see an avenue of

potential come from eyes were you give them something on this issue you they believe the president's actions were illegal. i'm they want it stopped -- they want it stopped. immigration is done through the department of homeland security. do you see a half for the president stepping in and being willing to put off his -- a see a path for the president stepping in and being willing to put off his executive order? >> we have indicated for years that the president stands ready to have conversations with democrats and republicans on immigration form. we are ready to have that discussion. we had a number of discussions in the last congress and with this to -- and with this congress. are they going to continue to accept their paychecks and not do their jobs wall departments -- officials in the department of homeland security and

frontline law-enforcement officers are going to be faced with the prospects -- with the process of doing their job. >> what he said specifically was if anybody is planning to go to the mall of america today, they have to be particularly careful. does the white house agree with that specific statement? summary is going to the mall of america today, they have to be particularly careful. i just the specific threat or a heightened threat level at a specific place. >> what i have said and what the intelligence community has assessed his we are not aware of any specific critical -- specific credible plot against any domestic commercial shopping center. i think what the secretary is trying to say is what his responsibility is to say. the american people should remain vigilant. if they see something they should say something.

>> they were saying be particularly careful today. not clearly implying a threat now. >> the secretary was very cognizant of the fact that it is his responsibility to remind the american people that if they see something they should say something. it is important for them to be vigilant. at the same time come in terms of understanding the facts about the threat we face, the intelligence community is not aware of any specific credible plot against the mall of america. >> does the president have a chance to talk to scott -- to governor scott walker at all? answering whether or not he was a christian. am i don't know if the president had the opportunity to speak to governor walker last night. >> does not conflict with what the president told vox.com, that these terrorist threats are media hype situation? is in very serious threat out there that the secretary was trying to

alert people to? >> i go back to the facts. the intelligence community is not aware of any specific plot against them on america or any's specific shopping center in the united states. the reason we are having this discussion is because of a propaganda video that out for bob did put out. the fact we are having this discussion in public is not different from the fact that for years this administration have been working with local law enforcement and even individuals who are responsible for mall security to make sure that americans can be protected, and that we are aware of the aspirations that groups like this have to strike against targets. the fact is the intelligence community has been clear about the fact that they are not aware of any specific threat against the mall of america. >> why was the secretary suggesting people be extra careful for that mall? did it

have anything to do with the funding fight to scare congress more to get that money? >> it did not. then i you are asked the secretary carter earlier. is this mostly about him, he told us about strategy. is it mostly the new defense secretary getting up to speed? a fresh set of eyes with information on the ground. >> this is something secretary carter will have the opportunity to discuss himself. to drugs is to meet with her military personnel.

>> he has challenged his team to constantly doing better things than that doing things better than what we are already doing. the secretary can speak for himself. i would have the speediest about that. this is an opportunity for those that for the secretary to hear from those who report to him. >> the various family members of kaylor that of kayla mueller get a interview. they said when the president swapped five commanders for bergdahl, that isis's demands to release her started increasing. they feel there was an impact. does the president have any regrets that the swap backfired

and made it harder to get other american hostages? >> i'm not even sure that is the case they were making. our hearts go out to the family. >> they directly said, i think it was her brother that was speaking, that once the swap happened the demands from isis got much stronger. how can you deny they are making that case? and i you tacked on something that said it would make it harder to get kayla mueller back. >> it is harder. >> the mueller family is going through a very difficult time. in the minds of all of us it is difficult to even imagine the pain they are going through as a result of this tragedy. it is true that the mueller family continues to be in the

thoughts and prayers of people here in the white house. these families are in a very in a particularly difficult position. the united states does have a policy that is clearly in our best interest and in the interest of the american people and our national security, to not make concessions and not negotiate with terrorists. in this case with her hostage takers. that didn't put them in a very difficult position. that is an important reason why what they are dealing with is so tragic. but the president is confident that his administration did it everything that was possible within the confines of that policy, using that military might and intelligence capability, using diplomatic influence to try to secure the safe release and return of kayla mueller. the president talked about the fact he ordered a daring military rate with dozens of

military personnel to try to rescue her. while the mission was executed successfully, it did not result in her rescue. as the president confronts this challenge in the future, and we are going to have to, we are going to continue to use every element at our disposal to secure the safe return of those americans. grandma just a couple of follow-ups on dhs and a little bit of beating a dead horse, maybe. i just want to make sure i understand when jeh johnson says you have to be indulging in a fantasy to believe that shutting down will have no impact on homeland security, and i understand what you're saying that it will certainly make things better. in terms of real tangible concerns that the white house has, can you detail what you think the impact would be in a negative way that would hurt

homeland security and that the average american should worry about. >> i refer you to the department of homeland security. i can tell you there are -- there are tens of thousands of dhs employees who do have an important function who will be furloughed. they will no longer be coming into the office. >> if they were considered to be that important they would be furloughed. the front-line people are the ones who have to work without pay, which is 100 -- a couple hundred thousand. they are considered nonessential. >> let me draw an analogy that some might resonate of it in -- that might resonate a bit in this room. you can do the nightly news tonight. impossible to imagine. even the people in my home may not know you -- know who a very talented producer is, it would have an impact on the broadcast

said. it may seem as if that reducer is not essential -- not essential to the broadcast. you understand just how important the work that person does really is. yes, these may not be people who are instantly recognizable to the american public, but they do play an important role in protecting homeland security. there will be tens of thousands of people who will be furloughed. there are, as the secretary said impacts on basic operations when it comes to planning. i'm trying to make plans to deploy or implement technology or policies that only funding the department of homeland security for 30 days or shutting it down altogether is going to have an impact on their ability to carry out operations to implement new technology and policies.

congress has a basic possibility to pass a budget. there's nothing that would be more important than funding the department of homeland security. it is not going to have a positive impact on homeland security. it is not going to be fair to the more than 100,000 americans who will continue to shoot the -- to show up. they are going to do it without a paycheck. it is ironic that members of congress are not going to show up and do their job their paychecks are going to come on. m of one some of those jobs essentially be done by fewer people? demo for the operational adjustments they will have to make as a result, if this eventual out that eventuality does materialize, i'm afraid department of homeland security can give us more because of the steps they need to take to mitigate the impact. >> there does seem to be people who support your position. a shift from what we have seen a from maybe a couple of weeks ago

when there was no way this was likely to happen. what is the assessment of the likelihood that it happens? >> trying to predict what congress is getting done is not something i'm willing to do in public or private. it is hard to really tell. i will say at the end of last year -- it is worth taking one second to remember exactly how he ended up in this. republicans can see they were going to put something together called the crummy bus -- the cromnibus, which holds back funding for the department of homeland security with the thought that it would allow republicans to do mistreat they are protesting the president's executive actions because of their political differences with the president of the united's eggs. it would not be a winning

position for a political fight. i don't think it has benefited them politically. senator graham, i think he is somebody who does have a good sense of the way his politics affect his party. that does seem to be where you are heading. they come to their senses. >> that does seem to be where we are heading? >> right now it does seem to be where we are heading. we will have to see. this will be the responsibility

of members of congress to do their next job. >> the afghanistan president is going to be coming here soon over the weekend. secretary carter was in afghanistan. they both indicated a slowdown and the drawdown of troops is warranted based on the situation on the ground. how firm, given those assessments, how firm is the 20 17th deadline? >> the president has been clear what our strategy should be. the president has sought the responsible drawdown of military personnel from afghanistan. this strategy has been done in careful consultation with our military leaders, including generals on the ground. it has been done with other senior members of the president's national security team, including national security council staff here at the white house, as well as

diplomats and intelligence officers. we have also worked carefully with the afghan government because ultimately there has been a partnership between the united states and the broader international community as that government and their security forces have taken on more responsibility. the strategy the president has laid out is one he continues to have confidence in. there continued to be around 10,003 personnel in afghanistan will -- fulfilling two important functions. the first is carrying out counterterrorism operations but also continuing to partner with afghan security forces to train, advise, and equipment of that equip them. government officials indicate they believe that operation has been youthful -- useful and ongoing. the president remains committed to those two tasks and believes

in the strategy that he is laid out so far. the president continues to be open to taking advice from his military leadership, from senior members of the national security team to tailor that strategy and reflect the situation on the ground. i'm confident this will be part of some of the discussions we will have with him when he is in washington. >> if it turns out the afghan security forces are not prepared to take over by the original deadline, is the white house open to push that beyond? >> that deadline has already passed. security forces are responsible for the security situation in their country. we handed over to them at the end of last year. was in places the effort to continue to bolster their capacity to safeguard their country. the president continues to be mindful of the security situation on the ground, of the contributions being made by our

nato allies. we will tailor the strategy to what the situation on the ground. >> a quick question, there is going to be some bilateral meetings between the cuban government and the u.s. government. i have a president has talked about immigration. does he plan to give a message -- especially those who are opposed to ending the embargo specifically because they have strong personal relations with countries and how they left cuba? does he plan to have a message tailored specifically to that? >> the goal is the president

will convene in miami this week. that will be broadcasted the president's ongoing effort to bring accountability to our immigration system and finally access many of the problems the broken immigration system as you possibly can. it is a town hall meeting. people will have the opportunity to ask questions of the president and given the sizable cuban-american population i wouldn't be surprised if some of you just choose to ask the president about this. i will not anticipate he has any new announcements. i you can hear the president restate his case for why he believes normalized relations for cuba is good for the united states, and is the best way to elicit the kind of social and political kit -- political change we would like to see in cuba. it is precisely because of his commitment to universal human

rights and applying pressure on a cuban human regime to spend any to protect those rights that he was to change this policy. for 50 years we tried the policy of trying and embargo. it had no discernible impact on the policies put in place by the castro regime. by moving to normalize our relations, what we hope will happen is exposed to cuban people to more of the kind of liberty that we enjoy in this country, cap that could further pressure the castro regime to make such changes in the way they treat their citizens. i also anticipate it will remove a barrier to our efforts to focus international attention on the cuban regime's treatment of its citizens.

anytime we want to go and reese concerns about cuba's policy toward their own people, other countries wanted to raise questions about our policy toward cuba. now we will focus on the way that the cuban regime violates the basic human political rights of its people. or to prevent groups of people from gathering to have political discussions, that they were very -- there are a variety of instances. we see the castro government try to squelch the basic human rights of their people. we believe we are going to be more successful in ratcheting up the pressure on the castro regime to change their ways. >> just back on keystone for a minute. it has been a few days and the assessment of the of two

omissions. has anybody started to move to the conclusion that this is significantly worse than carbon emission? >> this is where this study currently resides, and i am confident they will consider the epa and analysis, as they formulate a final opinion on whether or not the keystone project is in the national interest of the united states. >> it won't be about the actual project? >> that is correct. the process to evaluate the process that -- to evaluate that is still ongoing. the mechanics lien how you turn that around? >> i would anticipate a lengthy delay. i wouldn't anticipate a lot of fanfare or trauma. >> what the point of -- was the

point of that partly to get other governors in the room to help persuade members of congress that they should resolve this dispute before the end of the week? they obviously don't have a say in this current agreement about funding the government or reauthorizing. >> the president would certainly welcome the expressions of support from governors across the country that congress should fulfill their responsibly to pass a budget for the department of homeland security. the president pointed out that the impact of a shutdown would be felt not just in our homeland security but also in the economy , including economies in every one of our 50 states.

it is ultimately up to the governors to decide what sort of comments they want to make it comes to federal decision-making. certainly some governors have not shown any sudden in that way again. we welcome the advocacy of a nation's governor in making the case for congress to fulfill their responsibility to pass a budget for the department of homeland security. >> on the town hall meeting in miami, was the thinking on the timing of that. this is coming a few days before this funding expires for the home and security department. obviously have acknowledged the root of that dispute is opposition to the president's executive action on immigration. that is what the subject is going to be. is there any concern about raising those points in the middle or does the president feel like this is an appropriate

forum for him to make his case law congress is deciding what they should do? >> i will say a couple of things about that. the president has, for years now, talked about how reforming our broken immigration system continues to be a top priority of his. he continues have an interest in working with members of congress. he has already to mistreated his willingness to use his executive authority to fix as many of the problems with our broken immigration system as he possibly can. we are not pleased with the texas district court ruling. the ability of the administration to use prosecute -- prosecutorial discretion in

deciding who will be targeted for the partition still stands and will be implemented. demonstration can go forward in ensuring that our efforts are focused on felons and not on families. there is this element of accountability of bringing people out of the shadows making them doing background check and start paying taxes. i would anticipate the president will spend some time answering questions about significance of the ruling and the next steps in the legal process. talking about their priorities for the country. there is no question that one of the priorities is reforming a broken immigration system, because of the positive benefits it would have to rip -- for expanding economic growth and making our country more secure. >> -- >> i think congressional

republicans are under intense pressure to get it done. that is true whether or not they were planning a town hall meeting in miami or not. >> there were comments questioning iran's hard-liners, giving up their nuclear aspirations. we know any deal will have to go back and president obama is not willing to extend the deadline to the pace of talks is also pretty glacial and they do not have any talks as of next week. is there a sense of -- sense of urgency about these talks? >> these have been going on for a substantial number of months. and more than a year. as the president himself has said, he does believe we are getting closely time where we are going to find out whether or not a deal can be read.

there is a sense of urgency because the president believes it is clearly in the national interest of the united states for us to prevent a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this is a volatile region in the world. we do know the impact that iran would have i host of other countries in the region's, to say nothing of iran's support for terrorism around the world. the present believes the best way for us to resolve this situation is to do so around the negotiating table, that if we can reach an agreement in which iran will commit to resolving international community's concerns about nuclear program in a verifiable way that we could do you escalate the tension around that issue. this would be an important

accomplishment. it would be a good thing for national security. it also would be good of the national security for israel. the president is pursuing this and we do feel a sense of urgency that i try to get this done. we are also realistic about the chances of six is here. -- of success here. trying to reach an agreement around the negotiating table even if it is an uphill climb, is vastly preferable to the other options that are available to the international community. >> you put the likelihood of a deal at less than 50-50. what is plan b for april 1? >> we are focused on plan a. >> is there a plan a plan b you then hopefully -- a plan b?

>> hopefully we will have the opportunity to discuss that. thank you everybody. >> on your screen, indiana senator dan -- chairing the senate, just underway for the fourth time in the last couple of weeks. they are voting on moving forth for the homeland security measure that was passed by the house. attached to that bill are several amendments that would block president obama's executive actions on immigration. this vote is moving forward. they need 60 to move forward. you can follow that both over on our companion network. homeland security spending among the topics of conversation for president obama earlier today. he spoke to the nation's governors at the white house. they are in town for their annual interleague. here are some of what they had to say. >> we are urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crisis and self wounds that have so often bog us down over the last five years.

we have one example of that right now, unless congress acts. border patrol, ordered inspectors, tsa agents will show to work without getting paid. they all worked in your state. these are folks who if they do not have a paycheck they are friendly and spend that money in your state. it will have a direct impact on your economy. and it will have a direct impact on america's national security. their hard work helps to keep us safe. you know we can't afford to play politics with our national security. >> president obama the white house. see all of his comments. show you that -- we will show that you at 8 p.m. eastern area >> tonight of the -- eastern.

>> tonight on the communicators -- they talk about the companies and the technology in which the internet, mobile phone, and cloud operates. >> we talk about the network society. a network society as a society where everything can benefit from having a. we put a vision forward in 2009 in barcelona in the trade show that is going on there. that opens many people's minds that the industry is not limited to the smartphone -- to the devices we carry around personally. it is also a great technology to connect so many other things and build a society based on those kind technologies. >> the internet site with this thing people needed to get to somehow with connections create

a we bought the internet from that -- brought the internet to your home. it went from your home to being to every device we carry around. the next stage is taking it from all of these mobile devices to information and connecting not just people do things with people, information with people and processes with people and thing so you can actually create an internet of everything. we are at the early stages of building of the estimates with everything. >> tonight on c-span two. >> tomorrow morning, north carolina congressman walter jones discusses a new authorization for the use of military force against isis, being debated in tina committees -- in two house committees this week. and then immigration issues and the gridlock over homeland security spending. after that flick ellis and melanie hagan -- blake ellis and melanie hagan talk about that

collection practices. tomorrow at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. also tomorrow, federal reserve chair janet yellen will december the semiannual monetary policy report to congress. -- will deliver the semiannual monetary policy report to congress. next up here on c-span, a discussion on why the cost of federal student loan programs continues to grow from washington journal today. this is 40 minutes. now is the time. every monday, we have a segment called "your money." we looked at the effectiveness of federal programs. joining us to talk about federal loans is beth akers of the brookings institution. first of all, take a big book at federal loans. how many loans are out there now?

what are the conditions of loans? guest: there's a lot. $1.3 trillion is the number we have probably all heard and read about in the newspaper. it is important to remember that these are investments made in education that will pay off over the course of the lifetime of the borrowers. we should not be to alarms abide the number and not forget about the context. host: how much is the federal government involved in the student debt? guest: every student should be borrowing their first dollar for student loans from the federal government. they're getting the best rates there and protections like pay as you earn. host: pay as you earn is what we want to talk about here. it has been in existence for how long? guest: the idea of income based repayment -- pay as you

earn, basically means instead of having a set schedule of payments, the payments that students make each module is a function of how much they are making. this has been in existence roughly since the 90's, but started playing a bigger role in 2007. host: only available on direct loans from the government. it has lowered the cap of payments to 10% of income. what was it previously? guest: admixture that a student is not pay more than 10% of its disposable income. previous to that, it was 15%. students not in any sort of plan may have been paying whatever amount. host: it reduces the years of payment to 20 years. debt forgiveness is available under certain conditions.

the program was expanded under executive action back in june of 2014. at brookings, you cope wrote a report. "do not loans safety nets." what did you find? guest: we are try to get a sense of the cost of the program. there were a couple of components from the students per stuck in -- students perspective. there is this forgiveness component at the end of a 10 year. or 20 year. depending on your sector of employment. not surprisingly the forgiveness component is very expensive. host: let's invite viewers to share their questions and comments. we are talking student loans specifically the pay as you earn program.

we have lines separated geographically on the screen. if you live in the eastern or central time zones, (202) 748-8000. if you live out west, (202) 748-8001. and a separate line for people who currently have student loans, (202) 748-0003 is your line. we will get your calls in a moment. this program allows for debt forgiveness. how does that work. is it a good idea? guest: i does a good idea that we have safety nets for student borrowers. it is a tremendous investment and sometimes it is a bad investment. students will certainly end up in bad circumstances, and we want a safety valve for that. forgiveness is a part of that for some people. it is unfair if the provisions are not the right ones. host: what is it costing? guest: it is expensive, but it

is important to remember that is it is a critical program. it is not on the table that we will eliminate the cost of having forgiveness for students. host: one of the figures that we are rating is at 22 billion dollars. guest: that is how much the loans will cost in the federal budget. what happened there is the president in executive action increased eligibility. part of the cost is being german by increased eligibility. the other part is the increase of how people are taking up this benefit. students were under and rolling. there were people eligible who were not taking advantage. we think more people will be taking up advantages because of

the ability to do so. host: from "the new york times" -- "flipside of reducing student debt is increasing the federal deficit." guest: the burden is being shifted to taxpayers. it is not necessarily a bad thing. host: are these programs easing the pressure of student debt around the country? guest: absolutely. one of the real concerns of student debt is that they have to pay back quickly after graduation. a lot of them face fluctuating incomes because they are young or because there are fluctuations in the macroeconomy. providing an extension of that. of raiment -- period of repayment is critical. host: our first caller, surely, a loan holder. caller: thank you everyone who

is listening. i appreciate you for letting me express my opinion. i am a federal student loan holder. i am 63 years old. i am unable to work. i graduated as a funeral embalmer. however, i miss the national board by five points in alabama. i have not been able to pass it yet, retake it. my united states veteran elder brother -- older brother is disabled, vietnam era. i have been taking care of him since 1980. he needs 24 hour around-the-clock care. he is doing well. he has nine medications. he is a medical marijuana patient, and so am i. every time i tried to go get the disability form field filled out

by my physician they do not want to fill it out. it's as if they are scared to fill it out. they know that i am 100% disabled. i receive ssi from california because we have a rental property out there because of our legal status as marijuana patients. traditional medicine was not working for me. host: do you have a question for guest? caller: yes, how do i go about getting this way. i'm not able to pay. guest: surely, thank you for the question. unfortunately, this is not the right thing to be think about here. when you could do is go on the website and look at the options that exist for borrowers in your circumstances.

there are some calculators online that may be a good place to start to figure out which repayment plan may be the best option. host: let's go to wave from california. caller: i do not have a loan, but i want to know what best thinks of executive actions making these policies. should that be done by congress? shouldn't congress be taking care that business? it seems to me that too much is being done by executive order. when i read the constitution, it says there is a process that we need to adhere to when we do things in this country. host: thank you. what led the president initially to increase the number of people in this pay as you earn program? guest: i think we need to record

highs that congress is not particularly nimble in creating these programs we did have action in 2007 and 2000 11 to increase eligibility of the income-based repayment programs. the president expanded that in 2014. the result of this variety of action is a piecemeal program. it has created a lot of confusion for borrowers. i understand where the motivation for the executive action is coming from. really what we needed congressional action to clean up this mess of programs that we have so that we have something simple for borrowers. host: what is the prospect of that? guest: i will not even take a guess. host: let's go to marry from michigan. loan holder. caller: i want to know how i can get my federal loan paid off like the federal workers do. thank you. guest: sure.

i think you may be talking about some of the public service loan forgiveness programs that exist. we talk about pay as you earn borrowers eating eligible to have their loans forgiven after working for 20 are eligible to have their loans forgiven after 10 years. you have to be enrolled in one of these repayment programs to receive that benefit. host: columbus, ohio. caller: my daughter had a student loan. she made payments on it for a while and then she went bankrupt. the attorney applied $3000 to her student loans, which we are not sure was ever applied. the government turned her student loan program over to a loan agency or one of these outside contractors and demanded

she make payments again. she asked for accounting and they would not give her accounting. every time she asks, they stop calling her. apparently it was turned over to another agency. there is a $3000 fee for collecting on top of that. the federal government came along and took her social security -- or income tax refund. this is criminal activity. they will not answer you by letter she cannot get a recounting of her loan demands. this is criminal activity. tell me what do you think of

this? guest: the practice you are talking about is standard practice. i would encourage any borrower to continue to try to communicate with their service or and if that is not successful, reach out. host: we have been talking about student loans, specifically a pay as you earn. our income-based programs sustainable over time? guest: i think they are if they are done right. to me, and is something that is going to be costly to taxpayers. it costs money to subsidize loans.

i recognize that cost. we want to make sure we are doing it in an efficient manner. caller: i had a student loan that went into default from $30,000 went into $75,000. i do not know if it was the present program, but i was able to get my student loan reduced by a good portion. after 10 years, it seems like i will not pay anything based on my family size. they're going to reduce my loan from 75,000 to almost, i am not sure if it is zero.

it sounds like the program is working for people like me. guest: that is what it is designed for. they are not likely reducing the balance, but reducing the payments. there are a lot of people for whom the payments will be reduced to zero. e-mail to milley not pay anything back on that loan. -- you may not pay anything back on that loan. defaults are increasing. they are not at an all-time high . who is defaulting is a bit of an open question. students not finishing degrees are the most vulnerable. they have the obligation of

paying the debt but not behind income from finishing the degree. students who have the most debt tend not to be the ones defaulting. host: how much profit does the government reap on student loans? guest: there are a couple of different methods the government can do budget accounting. one suggests they are making these loans at a bit of a loss. host: brenda, greenville, north carolina. caller: i was wondering about i graduated in the 1970's. i have federal loans that i did pay back.

figuring that up, i probably got the same amount of money if we compare that. i paid that back. why are we paying back federal loans on people who are borrowing money at high rate colleges and cannot find the job when they get out because they are paying and an enormous amount for the graduate degree that they get? guest: one of the data points that came out of my research is a disparate or shouldn't amount of benefits are going to students attending high cost institutions. this is one of my concerns with the forgiveness provision to the extent we increase the generosity of the student loan programs where we are providing institutions the ability to raise fees. we are just subsidizing the

industry further by increasing generosity. host: william, hello. caller: i am a student loan holder. i am like the other caller. the job maker -- the job market sucks for the last 15 or 20 years. host: what kind of business are you trying to get into? caller: my degree is in corrections. you have to take a menial job to gain experience to get a job in the profession that i got my degree in. that is a hindrance to me when i have a small family and kids to raise. i have to support a family. i cannot work for seven dollars or eight dollars an hour.

i don't understand why we can bail out wall street, car dealerships student loans are to point something trillion dollars -- two point something trillion dollars. these programs you have to jump through hoops to qualify for, the majority of people do not know about them and the people that do know about them do not meet the requirements. if you want to do something for this country and the students, bailout the student loans. there is no way the students are going to pay these loans back. guest: why don't we just have a big bailout and white the debt out. i am sympathetic to that. what we are trying to think about is how to create a sustainable program. the more we wipe away the debts

the more we create incentives for institutions and borrowers. it is important to get a sustainable program to allow students to continue to make investments in higher education. host: it is a bad investment that will be paid for by tax payers. guest: i do not think income payment is a bad investment. in insurers students can feel safe in making investments to education and not be left high and dry. can we manage these effectively? absolutely. host: surely. caller: why haven't you gone into the fact that european kids graduate with little money owed

because their government added tax pays for their education and they pay for other things that we never get to hear about through our media or through the brookings institution. why aren't you talking about that and those same kids have health care furnished by the government supposedly through their value added tax. guest: the government is paying for the education with a value-added tax. the taxpayers are paying for their education. it is really more of a system of socialized education. in this country, and so -- it functions more like a market. there is an argument where the burden falls on the government, but it is not what we are playing with today. host: lena, hello.

caller: how do you come bad a student loan when you are a minor when you accepted the loan and that was 20 years ago and they are still taking my taxes and i have been trying to come bad it forever because i was underage and i did not finish high school. i was talked into it when i did not know any better. what do you do when you try to find out how to get the loan in the company that made the loan when they no longer exist? guest: the caller raises a concern a lot of people have about our system of financing higher education. people are young and inexperienced financially when they make these investments. that is a real concern and the caller was talking about a private student loan, but it is another reason why we have safety nets.

host: hello, stella. caller: i am a senior citizen. in order to pay for college and graduate school, i work three jobs. the larger issue, so i would not accrue debt, the larger issue is that every aspect of our nation has become a credit card nation. we have young people who oh homeowners who have been given homes that they cannot afford our government is on a credit card. we have every conceivable political representative who has to function like an indentured servant because they require a debt to the people who fund

their campaign. we have corporations who are using zero percent interest rate loans from the federal reserve while they are stacking their actual profits overseas. there is an absolute chaos. your previous guest was talking about the economy. we have no way of knowing what the economic conditions of this country are, what we really oh, but what we do know is no matter where you turn, there is debt instead of savings. host: let's move on to chris. caller: my daughter went to