14 pastors in the state of north carolina from the same denomination supported by americans united are suing the state of north carolina. in the state of north carolina same-sex marriage is not legal. what the pastors wanted is their day in court. that is what the freedom of religious act it does. they give a day in court when there is a disagreement. meryl: let's try to get off of rifra. i am going to turn it over to mike. are these cases becoming more difficult? as we can -- as we become increasingly pluralistic, is that becoming -- is that creating anxiety? are we getting to the situation where religious accommodation cases may be difficult for the courts to deal with? mike: i think there is more at

stake here than just details. there's a conflict of vision behind many of these cases. there is a form of modern liberalism that says only the individual in the state israel. -- israel. protect individuals against oppression by other social institutions. then there is the approach i would call principled pluralism. that says a community of communities that allows people to seek a vision of the good consistent with the common good is a positive thing. it has a positive value. i do think it really matters what perspective what political philosophical perspective you bring to these issues. i come from a more conservative side that says the most

important institutions are not the state and more than the individual. they are the institutions in which the individual is shaped or morality is passed. where culture the standards of a -- culture are created. the government has a positive role to nurture that pluralism. i do think that there are deep political, philosophical disagreements behind us that are not going to be solved by appealing to these cases. meryl: how do we deal with pluralism in a increasingly diverse society? greg: very carefully. i think at the end of the day there needs to be humility and empathy. the word empathy is derided in some circles when lawyers say it.

i think it is important. we are a diverse society. we have people with diverse views. we cannot always get everything we want. sometimes we should get what we want, and sometimes we should not. i think what has disturbed me and many of my colleagues about the weaponization of the religious freedom act. the idea that my rights are different when my ability to act 100% in accordance with my religious beliefs is different when i am at church than when i am at a business. when i am at church, if i went to pray with only people of the same race and religion and sex orientation, i can do that.

but if i open a lunch counter or am a caterer, even if i devoutly believe that interracial marriage is wrong, i cannot turn away that couple. i think we need to recognize that there are other people out there. religious beliefs are important and extremely, deeply held and about, but in a country -- i agree that a democracy is mike: i agree that a democracy is designed for disagreement but it is undermined by individual content. -- mutual contempt. there is an emphasis on civility empathy.

i was in salt lake city, utah talking with church officials. they really did attempt a process by which church officials met with gay rights activists and legislatures in a difficult negotiation to come up with an approach. it is an exchange of sorts. it specifically protects gay people in public accommodations, which i think was regarded that side is real progress, and specifically protects the ability of religious institutions to maintain their identity in positive ways are in. jonathan roche who i know was involved in that effort in hopes it may be a model for some other states. it could be. it shows the possibility of

civil disagreement and at least minimal agreement on some very basic ground rules of pluralism. meryl: we talk about civility, let's also talk about what was at one time considered to be a repository of civility. that is the college campus. there's a lot going on right now in terms of religious liberty and free exercise. is the approach being taken on the campuses providing access to everybody? is there a right approach? is there enough respect for civil discourse on campuses now? could campuses do better? kristina: greg is the expert on this issue. i think it is closely associated to the point you have made having to do with civility and

empathy and accommodation. when my parents first came to the united states, we lived in a tiny house. in puerto rico, my mother had been in a concentration camp in germany, my father had been in cuba they had some bad , experiences. whenever we sat down to dinner my father would close one window in the kitchen. it was very hot in the house. he would say, just in case. he was afraid our discussions would be overheard by neighbors. as he understood, this is not the way we live in the united states. when we open the window, we drank from the freedom of expression. we could not disagree and often and yell it loudly enough. the reality is this -- for as much civility as we want and

empathy, sexual minorities particularly and religious minorities, have mutually reinforce the claims against larger societies. it is so important and vital no government should touch it. no regulation should touch it. so much for civility because to matters of human identity. the government should protect them and not invade them. religious liberty is the ability to live according to your deeply held convictions. whether that takes you to organize religion or no religion at all, there is no room for government intrusion into that life. the same thing should apply at colleges and universities. now it is the trend if your group does not agree with larger society for whatever reason, you should not be allowed on campus. that is wrong. it tears at the fabric of american society and freedom when groups are not allowed on campus because someone's view is held so repulsive it is not allowed in society.

greg let me take a step back. :i think i heard -- there is a lot of what christina said. i want to start with a college campus and tie it up to a broader point. the specific issue she was alluding to was that many colleges will recognize certain -- student groups which gives you access to certain resources and whatnot. in order to take advantage of that you basically have to have a nondiscrimination policy. there has been objection by certain religious groups involving exclusion of people of other religions or gays and lesbians, the case went up to the supreme court. the supreme court upheld that even a public university could enforce non-determination policies on student groups. even in those cases student , groups could use university facilities. they could get certain benefits. if it is a religious group, they

should be able to exclude people. i guess where she and i disagree on this issue and the broader point is that we don't live in a 100% libertarian society. we balance liberty with other interests. things like equality and nondiscrimination. especially in the unique environment of an educational institution it is reasonable for a university to say if you want a university recognizing a group, we are going to require you not to discriminate. it doesn't mean you cannot worship however you want in your dorm room or anywhere else, it -- if you want to take advantage of facilities, it is reasonable to say you have a nondiscrimination policy. i think this touches on a broader point. we've never had this religious

beliefs you can do whatever you want. the civil rights act produces individual liberty. you cannot turn away african-americans from your barbecue place. there is a case that went up to the supreme court called piggy park. in addition to being delightful to say, it involved a restaurant owner who said he had a religious belief that prevented him from serving african-amer read he wanted exemption. the supreme court left him out of court. -- the supreme court lughlaughed and out of court. we are balancing interest. what is appropriate for settings at a church or home is not appropriate for other settings like a commercial spear. we have to do our best to reconcile a lot of interests and not allow any one of them to be a total trump card. my point --

mike: there can be a human cost to this controversy. a few years ago the human trafficking programs were denied funding by the obama administration because of other policies. they held religious policies. that was a real cost. look at gordon college in massachusetts. it worked for years with a local lower income school district devoted 14,000 man hours of volunteer work every year. the school district made the decision because gordon's religious views on other topics, they are discontinuing that topic. children suffer. i think there can be when it comes to provisions of social services, many come through private and religious

institutions in america. a too rigorous application of some of these points can have a serious human cost. kristina: i think vegetarian group should be able to say that the leader should be vegetarian. i think women's group should be manned by women leaders. i think christian groups are muslim groups should say the leaders -- anyone could come. none of our client has said they discriminate against anyone. anyone can join the club, they want the leadership to abide by the mission of their club. are we supposed to make everything vanilla? as a latina, i love when race comes into the decision. -- this issue. the racial card does not need to be played on any other things. are there despicable people have claimed religious freedom to have certain use? -- certain views yes, but they

? yes, but they have never won. there has not been one single exemption based on a religious claim. that case was settled with the bob jones decision. will people say crazy things in the name of religion? yes. that is why they go to court. that doesn't justify government intrusion into all of these groups. it doesn't make sense. greg going -- greg the argument does make to : justify racial segregation and racial exclusion in the 1960's and 1970's is now being made when it comes to gays and lesbians. i think that is the parallel. i'm not saying she is a racist. i'm saying, why can i run my business according to my religious beliefs? that is precisely the argument made with respect to race and interracial marriage in the 1960's and 1970's.

they were rejected then and should have been rejected now when it comes to gay and lesbian couples who are now facing the same obstacles that racial minorities were in the 60's and 70's. kristina: name one case in the last 22 years where a gay person was refused service based on a religious claim. greg: your organization is in court arguing they should win. if you look at indiana, there was a case in new mexico in which a talker for refused to photograph a same-sex wedding ceremony. she brought a claim under the states religious freedom restoration act. the court rejected the claim. the court said -- organization filed a friend of the court brief saying the photographer should be able to deny service to the gay lesbian couple. the new mexico supreme court

said no, this statute cannot be invoked by a private wedding vendor. in indiana, the language was changed to allow for protection. if your organization was to -- wants to support those people, great. but to then turn around and say no, it is not about discrimination, you want to be able to withhold your cake and eat it too. which is it? kristina: let's talk about those people. meryl: we are running out of time. kristina: want to say she loved this think a client of hers and provided flowers for many months. all she couldn't do was participate in a wedding ceremony. in a state where same-sex marriage was not even legal at the time, the court ruled it was the price of citizenship for her. who lost more? elaine who lost her business and livelihood or the gay couple who could've gone to any florist in the state. greg: all i would say is you are

entitled to that view, but you cannot turn around and say these laws will not allow termination because you are in court saying -- meryl: i am going to give eugene the last word. he wrote about whether there are mutual duties of accommodation. we have heard very strong articulations and two different positions. just because you have a right should you exercise that? or are there mutual duties? to guarantee the clock -- cloth of societies as we go forward. eugene: i think it is possible that religious belief and conscience would dictate making the cake. in a society where he would allow very small exceptions for

people not to bake the cake, that is the nature of pluralism. it is not implicate the broad accommodation for housing and businesses and other things. be that as it may, i guess what we are talking about is where those decisions are made and whether there is a decision to be made at all. the traditional view has been that there is a balancing test there. there are two rights involved in -- involved. the courts have been a place for those decisions are made. all that said, it is important that people win graciously in a democracy and lose graciously in a democracy.

people are going to lose in these cases. how people lose will make a large difference. meryl: with that, i want to thank our speakers and think the national constitution center for hosting this today. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: presidential candidate bernie sanders held an announcement tuesday. then, josh earnest urges congress to pass certain provisions of the patriot act before they expire. later, a report examines the high incarceration rate in the u.s..

announcer: the labor department recently called for a new consumer detections for workers favor retirement plans. just science will talk about retirement savings protections tomorrow. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later, vice president joe biden on the ukraine russia conflict and its impact on european security. our live coverage begins at 12: 15 eastern. announcer: david mccullough on the right others -- right brothers. >> it hit wilbur in the teeth with a hockey stick. it sent him into a spell of depression and self imposed

seclusion in his house for three years. he was not able to go to college which you plan to do. he wanted to go to yell --yale. instead he went home and read. he provided himself with a liberal arts education. all on his own. it steered the path of his wife in a way that no one had any way of anticipating. announcer: sunday night on c-span "q and a." announcer: next, bernie sanders kicks off his presidential campaign in burlington, vermont. he talked about finance reform, poverty, and income inequality.

towards the end of the event, we had technical problems with the transmission signal. ♪ senator sanders: this is an emotional day for me, not just what i am going to be announcing, but to see so many people here and to hear what has been said, thank you very much. let me think all of you -- thank

all of you, not only be for being here today, but for the support you given me over the years as mayor of this beautiful city. as a congressman, and now as a united states senator. [applause] i also want to thank my long time friends and supporters for all that they do, and for their very generous remarks made . thanks also to jenny nelson for moderating this event and for incredible leadership. [applause] i also want to thank my family my wife jane, my brother larry, my children for their love and support and my beautiful seven grandchildren. [applause]

they provide so much joy in my life. [applause] today, here in our small state a state that has lead this nation in so many ways, i am proud to announce my candidacy for president of the united states of america. [applause] senator sanders: today, with your support, and the support of millions of people throughout our country, we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially, and environmentally. [applause]

senator sanders: today we stand here and say loudly and clearly enough is enough. this great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires. [applause] brothers and sisters, now is not the time for thinking small. now is not the time for the same old same old establishment politics. and stale inside the beltway ideas. now is the time for millions of working families to come together to revitalize american democracy, to add the collapse -- and the collapse of our

middle class and to make certain , that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security, and joy. and that once again makes the united states the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environment sanity, and for a world of peace. [applause] senator sanders: my fellow americans, this country faces more serious levels today than at any time since the great depression, and if you include the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that the challenges we face now are more dire than at any time in the modern history of our country.

and here is my promise to you for this campaign. not only will i fight to protect the working families of this country, but we are going to build a movement of millions of americans who are prepared to stand up and fight back. [applause] senator sanders: we are going to take this campaign directly to the people in town meetings, door to door conversations, on street corners, and in social mediums. [applause] this week we are going to be in new hampshire, we are going to be in iowa, and we're going to be in minnesota, and that is

just the start of this campaign. [applause] senator sanders: let me be clear. this campaign is not about bernie sanders, it is not about hillary clinton clinton, it is not about jeb bush or anyone else. this campaign is about the needs of the american people, and the ideas and proposals that effectively address those needs. as someone who has never run a negative political ads in my life -- [applause] my campaign will not be driven by political gossip, or reckless personal attacks. [applause] senator sanders: this is what the american people want and deserve. these are serious times, we need serious debate.

[applause] senator sanders: politics in a democratic society should not be treated as if it were a baseball game, a game show, or a soap opera. and i hope the media understands that as well. [applause] senator sanders: let me take a minute to touch on some of the issues that i will be focusing on in the coming months. and then give you a brief outline of an agenda for america, an agenda which in fact will deal with these serious problems and lead us to a better future. today we live in a nation which

is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. but that reality means very little for most of us because almost all of that wealth is owned and controlled by a tiny handful of individuals.in america, we now have more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth. the issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time. it is the great political issue of our time, and we will address it. [applause]

[applause] senator sanders: let me be very clear. let the top 1% understand this. dly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% of owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and when 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%. there is something profoundly wrong when in recent years we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have shamefully, the highest rates of childhood poverty of any country. there is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more

wealth in this country is the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of inequality is immoral, it is economics, it is unsustainable. this type of rigged economy is not what america is supposed to be about. this has got to change, and as your president, together we are going to change it. [applause] senator sanders: but it is not just income inequality. it is a tragic reality that in the last four years and great middle class of our country,

is disappearing. despite its exploding technology and increased worker productivity, the median family income is almost $5,000 less today than it was in 1999. in our great state and all over this country, people are working one job and two jobs, three jobs, trying to cobble together some health care. that is not acceptable, we can and must do better. the truth is, real unemployment is not 5.4% which you read in the papers, it is close to 11%. youth unemployment is 17% african-american youth unemployment is off the charts.

today, shamefully, we are 45 billion people living in poverty, many of whom are working low-wage jobs. in america today despite the gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans still lack any health insurance. my friends, that is the reality. of the middle class in america today. and that is the reality not just for us, but for our kids and our grandchildren -- that we are going to change. [applause] my fellow americans, let me be as blunt as i can and tell you what you already know. as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision of citizens united, the american political system has been

totally corrupted and the foundations of american democracy are now being undermined. what the supreme court said, essentially, was that it was not good enough for the billionaires to own much of the economy, they can now own the united states government, as well. and that is precisely what they are trying to do. what i learned in school, and i think what the men and women put their lives on our line to defend, american democracy is not about buying candidates or elections. it is not about the koch brothers and sheldon adelson to elect candidates to make the rich richer and everyone else

pooerer. according to media reports, if you can believe it, the koch brothers and this election cycle are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic or republican parties. that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. [applause] in vermont, and our town meetings, we know what democracy is about. that is one person, one vote. and that is the kind of political system we are going to fight for and are going to achieve. now when we talk about our responsibilities as human beings, there is nothing more important than leaving this country and the entire planet in a way that is habitable for our kids and our grandchildren.

the debate is over. the scientific community has spoken, and a virtually unanimous voice. climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. [applause] and let us be clear, if we do not get our act together and have the united states lead the world in combating climate change, there will be more drought, more famine, more rising sea levels, more floods, more ocean acidification more extreme weather disturbances. as human beings, we look out over this environment to appreciate the beauty we have on this planet. we are not going to allow the

fossil fuel industry to destroy this planet. [applause] brothers and sisters, it is no secret. that there is massive discontent with politics in america today. in the last mid-term election, some 63% of americans did not vote including 80% of young people. poll adter poll tells us that our citizens no longer have confidence in our political institution. and given the power of money in general, they understand that their pain is not being heard in washington. people in washington and elected officials are much more concerned about the lobbyists and the billionaires than the

suffering of ordinary people. combating this political alienation, this cynicism and this legitimate anger will not be easy. that is for sure. that is exactly what, together, we must do if we are going to turn this country around. that is what this campaign is all about. [applause] and if we are going to bring people together, we need a simple straight-forward progressive agenda which speaks to the need of the american people and provides us with a vision of a very different america. and what is that agenda ? let me tell you what i think.

the agenda begins with jobs, jobs, and more jobs. [applause] if we are serious about reversing the decline of the middle class, we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of people back to work at good-paying jobs. [applause] at a time when our roads, our bridges, our water systems and rails and airports are decarying, we must rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. and that is why i have introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our country's physical infrastructure. legislation that would create and maintain 13 million

good-paying jobs. [applause] and as your president, i will lead the efforts to make sure that that legislatio is passed. i will also continue to oppose our current trade policies. for decades, presidents from both parties have supported trade agreements which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs, have costed america, and shutdown plants and moved jobs to low-paying countries. my policies will break that cycle of agreement which enrich the few at the expense of many. [applause] let us also be honest and

acknowledge today that millions of american workers are now working for totally inadequate wages. the current federal minimum wage of seven dollars and $.25 is a starvation wage and must be raised. [applause] the minimum wage in this country must become a living wage. which means, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. [applause] our goal, this is not a radical idea, but our goal must be that any worker in this country who works 40 hours a week is not living in poverty. [applause]

further, we must establish pay equity for women workers. [applause] it is unconscionable that women earn $.78 on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. we must also revise hour overtime standards so that people making $25 and working 60 hours a week, get time and a half. and we need paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation holidays for every worker in this country. [applause] this campaign, starting today

is going to send a message to the billionaire club. and that is, you cannot have it all. [applause] you can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. you can't continue sending our jobs abroad while millions are looking for work. you can't hide your profits in the cayman islands and other tax havens while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. [applause] to the billionaire class, i say your greed has got to end/ . you cannot take advantage of all the benefits of america if you refuse to accept the responsibility. [applause]

and that is why we need a tax system which is fair and progressive, which tells the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations that they are going to begin to start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] when we talk about power, we talk about wall street. in my view, it is time to break up the largest financial institution in this country. [applause] wall street cannot continue to be an island unto itself. gambling trillions in risky financial instruments, while expecting the public to bail it out.

if a bank is too big to fail, that bank is too big to exist. [applause] if we are serious about a progressive agenda that speaks to the need of working families, that talks about climate change and the needs of our kids and the elderly, we must be focused on campaign-finance reform and the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn this disastrous citizens united decision. [applause] i have said it before, i will say it again. i will not nominate any justice to the supreme court who has not made it clear that he or she will move to overturn that disastrous decision which is

undermining american democracy. [applause] we need to go further and establish public funding of elections. [applause] as i look to our future, it is clear to me that the united states of america must lead the world in reversing climate change. we can do that by transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels to an energy efficiency and such sustainable energies as wind, solar thermal, and biomass. brothers and sisters, the united states of america today remains the only major country on earth

that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. despite the modest gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans continue to have no health insurance, and even more are underinsured. yet, despite that pathetic record, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. in my strong opinion, the united states must join the rest of the industrialized world and guaranteed health care to all as a right. [applause] and we must find medicare for all, a single-payer system. [applause]

at a struggling to keep their heads above water economically, and a time when seen your proverty is increasing, atin this country don't get enough to eat my republican colleagues as part of their recently passed budget are trying to make a terrible situation even worse. if you can believe it, this is the truth. the republican budget throws 27 million americans off of health insurance, makes drastic cuts in medicare throws millions of low income americans including pregnant women, off of nutrition programs, and makes it harder for working-class families to afford college or put their kids in the head-start program. and then to add insult to

injury, the republican budget provides huge tax breaks for the very richest people in this country while they raise taxes on working families. [booing] well, let me tell my republican colleagues that i respectfully disagree with their approach. [applause] instead of cutting social security, we are going to expand social security benefits. [applause] instead of cutting head start and childcare, we are going to move to a universal pre-k system for all of the children in this country. [applause] as franklin delano roosevelt reminded us, a nation's great

ness is not judged by what it provides to the most well-off, but how it treats the people most in need. that is the kind of country we must become. [applause] and when we talk about education, let me make it very clear. in a highly competitive global economy, we need the best educated workforce we can create. it is insane, it is counter-productive in the best interests of our country that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. [applause]

this is not what a great country is about. that must end. that is why i, as president will fight to make tuition in public colleges and universities free. [applause] as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans. [applause] the young people of our country are the future, they have to get the education they need. [applause] as everybody knows, we live in a difficult and dangerous world. and there are people out there who would do us harm. as president, i will defend this nation.

but i will do it responsibly. as a member of congress, i voted against the war in iraq. and that was the right vote. [applause] i am vigorously oppose to an endless, perpetual war in the middle east. [applause] yes, we must be vigorous in combating terrorism and feeding isis. but we as a nation should not have to bear the burden alone. we must be part of an international coalition led by the muslim nations that cannot only defeat isis but begin the process of creating conditions for lasting peace. [applause]

>> we love you, bernie. senator bernie sanders: as some of you know, i was born in a faraway land called brooklyn new york. my father came to this country from poland without a penny in his pocket and having dropped out of school at a young age. my mother graduated high school in new york city. my father worked his entire life as a paint salesman, never made much money. my parents, my brother and i live in a small, rent-controlled apartment. my mother's dream was to move out of that small apartment and get a home of her own. she died young, and her dream was never fulfilled. as a kid, i learned in many many ways every day in my house what lack of money means to a family, and that is a lesson i

have never forgotten and never will forget. [applause] i have seen, i have seen as many of you have, the promise of america in our own life. my parents never, never, never would have dreamed that their son will become a united states senator, let alone, run for president. [applause] but for too many of our fellow americans, the dream of progress and opportunity is being denied by the grind of an economy that funnels virtually all of the wealth and the income to the top. and to those who say, we cannot restore the dream, i say, just look where we are standing

today. as some of you will remember, this beautiful place was once an unsightly railyard that serve no public purpose. it was an eyesore. i worked with the people of burlington to help turn this waterfront into the beautiful people-orientedit is today. we took that fight to the courts, to the legislature, and to the people, and we won. the lesson to be learned, and it is a profound, political lesson is that when people stand together, when people are prepared to fight back, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. [applause]

we can live in a country where every person has health care, a right not a privilege. we can live in a country where every parent can have quality and affordable health care. and where all children can get an education regardless of their income. we can live in a country where every senior can live in dignity and security, and not be forced to choose between food and medicine. we can live in a country where every veteran who has put his or her life on the line to defend this nation gets the quality health care and benefits they have earned and deserve. [applause]

we can live in a country where every person no matter their race religion, their disability , or their sexual orientation realizes the full promise of equality that is our >> hillary clinton talks to democratic women's groups in south carolina. live coverage gets underway at 1:45 eastern. later, rick santorum will announce his presidential intentions in his hometown. he ran for the gop nomination in 2012. that is live at 5 p.m. eastern. white house spokesman josh earnest urged congress to pass legislation that would extend

certain provisions of the patriot act before they expire on june 1. that was one of the topics of tuesday's white house reefing. -- briefing. >> good afternoon everybody. i hope you enjoyed your memorial day weekend. you heard from the president already on two critical issues. they are facing an important deadline.

to let him know all those individuals are in his thoughts and prayers. the senator has a well deserved red tape. the president is committed to make sure we live up to this. let's get started with questions.

the setback was experienced was at least in part attributable0 to a breakdown in command and planning00. the president has observed many of the forces who had been fighting isil were not forces that had benefited from the training the united states and their coalition parties had been involved in. we would expect forces augmented by u.s. and coalition trained troops, forces augmented by local fighters from local tribes and from the popular mobilization force will be able to improve the performance on the battlefield.

we were pleased to see the iraqi government announce the beginning of the mission to drive isil out of and bar province. i think that is a clear indication of the will of iraqi security forces to fight, and the united states and our coalition partners will stand with them. >> was he authorized by the white house to say that over the weekend? >> what secretary carter said is consistent with the analysis he received from those on the ground who look at the situation. he has also indicated there is an important role for the united states and coalition partners to play in supporting iraqi security forces. we have seen a number of situations in which iraqi security forces have performed well in the battlefield.

the security forces were backed by power. back in february there was significant concern about iraqi forces. there was concern. we know they were able to reorganize and retake baghdad he against isil forces.

it does serve as a template for the kind of strategy that can be deployed against isil forces. it is improving the capacity of iraqi security forces by incorporating local sunni tribal fighters. it is important for them to be under the command and control of the iraqi government. they were receiving equipment to take the fight to isil. we know they can perform very well on the battlefield. >> i want to ask about the president's comments in the oval office. he said we have to think about whether we are arranging efforts to meet the challenge on the southern front. what did he mean by that?

>> there have been some concerns they didn't get the equipment they need to fight isil. the president and the rest of the administration vowed to work closely with iraqis to make sure the military equipment is getting where it is most needed. there is one specific example the iraqis have been asking for. there is a military weapon that we believe can be valuable in trying to counter the vehicular borne explosive devices isil has used to great effect in some of these sites. the sense is the use of these

could disable the car bombs. many of them are actually armored vehicles. they can make it much harder for eiffel fighters to use this military tactic. that's an example of how improving the flow of equipment and making sure it gets in the hands efficiently can make a difference in the battlefield, and that is something we are working on as well. >> was that an attempt by the white house to try to patch things up after secretary carter's remarks? >> you that the readout of the telephone call place. what the vice president

reiterated which is to indicate the united states and our coalition partners stand ready to work with the central government of iraq to face down the threat posed by isil, and the vice president reiterated it is critically important for the iraqi security forces to operate in a multi-sectarian faction that uniting the country will be critical to their success. the vice president indicated our commitment to making sure we partner with them as they take on this threat and reiterated the united states and our coalition partners cannot solve this problem for the iraqi people that we are going to stand with our partners as they provide for the security of our country. the prime minister indicated he does not want the united states military essentially trying to solve this problem for the iraqi

people. he wants support as they confront a serious threat inside the country. that's what he is getting. >> did the prime minister expressed disappointment in the remarks secretary carter made? price we typically will readout the conversation carried by our side of the conversation. if prime minister a body -- aba di wants to say something, they will let him do that. >> the paramilitary said they have taken the campaign in an bar -- anbar. i'm wondering what concerns the white house and whether the white house is concerned.

>> i haven't seen that particular report. what we have indicated is it will require a multi-sectarian force to succeed against isil. iraq is a very diverse country. they are going to need every element of diversity to counter this specific threat. that's going to start with the central government i of iraq governing. it is going to take a security force to not just drive isil out of the country but to hold ground. that is a message the united states sent directly to the prime minister. it is consistent with the way prime minister abadi has left the country. we have the in pretty upfront

about this. -- been pretty upfront about this. it was true at the beginning in terms of air support. it has been true in some of the successful military operations. in to create -- tekrite you will recall there were concerns about the motivations of those militia forces. there was evidence they did not have much success against isil. when they left the fight and we saw a force under control of the iraqi controlled government take the lead in the fight, they were backed by coalition air power.

the combination of the multi-sectarian force backed by military coalition air power was remarkably successful in driving isil out of ticker it -- tekrit and taking that city. that was a good template for what can and must redeployed in other areas of the country to enjoy success against isil. i haven't seen the report you are citing, but it is clear what our strategy is. it's clear the strategy is one that has succeeded in the past. >> the french minister has been pretty critical of the government and not living up to its end of the bargain. he called for the coalition to be stepped up before isis could make big gains. would the white house agree on both of those points? >> i did not see those specific comments.

let me say as a general matter we do believe prime minister aba di has lived up to his promises to govern in a multi-sectarian inclusive fashion that has been beneficial to his efforts to try to restore the security situation inside of iraq. that has also been true even as we consider his response to the setback in ramadi the prime minister abadi did indicate members of the force should be deployed, but he did that with the full support of his multi-sectarian cabinet and with strong support of the tribal leadership in an bar profits. that is an indication prime minister of body -- abadi is

being responsive to sunni leaders and that they are willing to work with the central government of iraq to try to confront this situation. that is all evidence of some of the strategies trying to take root in a positive way. there is a lot of work that needs to be done. this question about the central government's commitment to governing inclusively is the kind you don't just him and straight overnight but we will need to see demonstrated over a sustained time. -- you don't just demonstrate overnight but we will see demonstrated over a sustained time. early indications are positive, but it's that commitment to governing in an inclusive fashion that will need to be demonstrated. >> according to the prime

minister, the comments carter made were correct. to look at the readout the vice president was listing there was a lack of leadership. we also heard other things that led up to this. it almost seems like the problems were known. couldn't some of these problems have been addressed at least by the iraqi government well before the fall of ramadi? it has been going on for 18 months. >> the president identified in his interview indicated one of the challenges in ramadi is the iraqi security forces who had been fighting i soul in a different environment for 18 months to do have the benefit of

training provided by the u.s. military and other members of our coalition. building up the capacity of a willing and capable local fighting force is going to take time and that is part of what the strategy is. the strategy is predicated on having a capable local force that is going to take the fight to isolate in their own country having iraqis that reflect the diversity of the country is critical to our success. we a few seen what happens when the united states tries to insert a large military contingent to try to solve this problem for the iraqi people. because of the bravery and courage and service and skills of the american military, that can work for a short time.

for enduring, sustainable results, we are going to need to see the iraqi people and security forces step up and take control in their own country. that is going to mean training iraqi security forces. that is a training process that can be done in a week. this is going to require more sustained commitment. >> some of the things listed by this administration, lack of pay, low morale, not being able to see their families, being hit i truck bombs, but not having equipment to deal with it. doesn't this indicate a massive failure on the part of the iraqis to address the problems not only by this administration but on the ground? >> that's not how i would describe it. these are the kinds of problems that contribute to i soul making so many -- isil making so many

gains in the first place. it is an indication of at least some commitment on the part of iraqi security forces to fighting this threat. we have been clear that addressing this problem is nothing we are going to be able to do overnight. as we train more iraqi security forces, they will become more capable and perform better that if there are certain military tools that can be deployed to counter some of the tactics used by isil, we are going to speed up provision of necessary equipment. these are weapons that can be used to counter some of the car bombs used by isil. that's why wasn't that expedited before? >> isil has been fighting in

ramadi for 18 months. there have been significant shipments in that fight. if there is additional equipment that can be used, we are going to work with the iraqi central government. >> they put the onus is the -- on the senate to reform. rand paul said the president is being disingenuous because the president started the program with executive order and can end it anytime. he started on his own. last week you said there was no plan b, that the usa freedom act is bust. i am wondering would the president be able to consider an executive order or is there

still no other plan? >> i didn't see senator paul comments, so i cannot respond to them directly. the authorities used are given by the congress. there is obviously judicial oversight, so there is a role for the judicial branch as well. we know the house of representatives with the strong support of republicans passed the usa freedom book. it does two things. it makes sure our professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe, while at the same time

building in greater protections to protect the civil liberties of the american people. that is the kind of solution the president called for a year and a half ago. because of the very good work of the president's team and democrats in country this was hammered out. it is a credit to the leader in the house that he was able to build bipartisan support and get it passed in a timely fashion. the president has been very clear if the president doesn't act by sunday there are critically important national security tools that will no longer be available.

there is some risk associated with taking those tools away from professionals. the senator observed the u.s. is in a high threat. that is why we are hopeful senator mcconnell will take necessary steps to help the senate passed the usa freedom act. the kinds of authorities provided by our national security authorities can be delegated by congress. if congress acts there will be no lapse in the program. if they act on the usa freedom act we will see they will be

built in. if the senate doesn't act there is no way to prevent the authorities. he as well as anyone understands the kind of risk associated with the senate failing to do their jobs. >> you said on friday the president might make some calls over the weekend. >> margaret. >> a narrow question and then a broader question. is the white house supporting this certification process push on television -- telephone company provisions? >> i am not familiar with the certification.

>> the issue of whether the phone companies develop the technology to store the data they are supposed to store, the addition of another hurdle. >> there are a couple things i can speak to. we do know the telecom companies already collect this data. that is information currently held by the u.s. government. when the security professionals are given a warrant, they can search this data to try to root out those who may be wishing harm against the united states. the reforms would be the telecom companies would continue to hold that data themselves and our national security forces when

given a warrant from the judicial branch could search that in response to threats they detected. this is a system we know already operates. second thing that's also true is there are going to be changes to the standard operating procedure involved when the government is no longer holding the data and is searching data from the telecom companies. written into the act is a 180 day implementation to allow for the transition to take place. that would hundred 80 days was essentially decided on by the national security agencies, who said it would require x months to execute the transition, and we are confident that is how long it will be required to make these changes. if we later determined six

months is not enough time for the transition to take place the administration is committed to going back to congress and asking for additional time. >> you don't want to see that as part of the process of keeping this alive. that's something you want to revisit later? >> you mean in terms of the implementation? i think what is clear is national security agencies indicated they need six months to get this done. if it turns out they need additional time, the administration will come back to them. >> i think it's hard to get our head around the idea that this government would cease to exist.

i think what we are trying to get to is are we in the process of creating framework for legal justification to keep doing what you are already doing if you need to keep doing that without this legislative structure that enables it? i'm sure you don't want it that way, but it's unfathomable this is as critical as the president just said it was. what are you doing in the unlikely event this does not get extended? >> these are authorities that can only be given to the executive branch by the united states congress. >> they could not advocate if you thought they needed to. what are you doing? >> i refer you to that nsa and department of justice on this. i'm not aware of a plan b that exists, that there are

significant consequences for the senate's failure to act. it would certainly put at grave risk these programs and could risk a lapse in some of these imported national security capabilities the president said is critical to our national security. it would also put at risk bipartisan compromise around the kinds of civil liberty protections the president also believes are important. that is why we would like to see the senate act before sunday. in terms of additional authorities, i would refer you to the department of justice on that. >> you are saying significant risk here. if these aspects expire on sunday admit night, are we agreeing on the risk of a terrorist attack?

>> for the consequences on national security i would refer you to our intelligence agencies. they can speak to what role they play in terms of protecting the country. i can tell you they do play a role in protecting the country and if congress doesn't act by the end of the day on sunday then those programs will lapse. >> what is the president going to do between now and then? he is only three votes short in the senate. what is he doing to get those votes? >> the thing that is important for everybody to remember is how we got to this point. the president did step forward and give a speech to indicate these kinds of reforms were badly needed. this is a hotly debated notion. there is a way we can better

balance and protect our civil liberties. for the last year and a half the united states congress has been operating under this looming deadline understanding if they did not act in that time those authorities would lapse and these programs would go away. what the president and his national security team did is they went to capitol hill and work to try to fashion a bipartisan compromise. untangling all of this and making core authorities are protected while we are building an protections for civil liberties, working through challenges presented by technology and by the large quantity of data we are talking about, that's hard work. that's a policy problem. we have talked about how congress is struggling to do even simple things. this is an example where working with our national security

agency this difficult policy problem was essentially solved. now we are on a more we have worked through all of the policy details. now it is the responsibility of the united states to protect civil liberties. >> you just said it was vital to protecting national security, you are three votes shy of the senate. what is the present doing now? is he calling senators to come in and meet with him on the recess? what is he doing to get those three votes? he needs three votes, what is he doing to get them? josh earnest: i am not going to read out any private conversations the president has had.

he is ready and willing to have conversations. the point is, all of the hard work has been done on this. you are working for you -- working through the partisan politics. the stakes are very high when it comes to national security and civil liberties of the american people. all of that has been worked out because of the president and his team working effectively with democratics and republicans. every single democrat in the senate voted for this compromise in right now we are seeing a difference in opinion on the republican side of the aisle. at some point, the political ambitions of the senate will have to come second to the national security the united states. >> a lot of ambition. in the words of secretary carter , i did not hear a direct

answer. does the president agree with carter that the iraqis did not show the will to fight and that is what happened in ramadi. josh earnest: what happened in ramadi, there are a variety of contributors. the first is the iraqi security forces fighting in ramadi did not have the benefit of the training of the unites states and the coalition partners. there were clearly, as the iraqis have indicated, some military problems. we saw an effective tactic used by isis. all of that led to an of's -- not of substantial setback in ramadi. >> the defense secretary said the forces showed no will to fight. does the white house agree with

that assessment? the iraqi forces showed no will to fight. josh earnest: that has been a problem in the past. that is what allowed isis to make gains last summer. the nine states coalition has been focused on aching sure we can enhance the capacity of iraqi security forces in supporting the government as they try to have a force against iphone. >> -- against isil. >> the iranians said over the weekend in response to carter's statement it is the americans that has shown no will to fight. the americans that did nothing fill a money said as isis took over ramadi.

what do you say to the iranians? josh earnest: we have been very clear about what the united states and our partners have done and are willing to do to support the iraqis central government, people, and security forces as they face down the isil threat in their country. that is everything from training and equipping soldiers to providing military air power to backup -- back them up on the battlefield. there's also a whole range of other support we have offered in terms of trying to shut down the foreign fighters to the frontlines fighting alongside isil. we are trying to shut down is il source of funding. this is not something the united states is willing to do for the iraqi people.

the iraqi central government has made crystal-clear on a number of occasions he does not want anyone stepping in to do this for them. he is prepared to unite the country and bring it together. and faced down a security threat in his country. that is what the united states stands ready to do. >> i think there was not necessarily a direct answer to the question of whether or not the vice presidents call was to patch things up. i went to asking about the motivation. was it a diplomatic call? was what ashton carter said directly reflecting the frustration of the white house and the pentagon and maybe ashton carter carter and the vice president were playing good cop backup. josh earnest: i don't have a lot

more to say about the telephone call. the vice president has a working relationship with iraq both when he was in the senate and as vice president. he has traveled to the country many times. he speaks frequently be with the prime minister of iraq. whether it it is continuing to train and equip security forces, whether is working closely with them to provide advice, or even

carrying out military airstrikes in support of his security forces operating on the ground. the united states stands ready to be a partner to the iraqi. >> committed is different than being pleased with the way things are being carried out. josh earnest: as we have talked about in the last week, there are going to be days of progress in. the setback. we are pleased with the progress that has been made. i read on that list earlier, whether that is the risk made in to create months ago -- tikrit months ago. the iraqi forces were able to reconstitute and take over that town in the end bar province. last year we saw these tests of the iraqi security forces as they took isil.

we have seen setbacks as well. the president and vice president and the telephone call he placed to the prime minister is dedicated to making sure the commitment of the state in the face of some of these setbacks have not wavered. >> you talked about how these fighters were not trained by the u.s. and coalition forces. if the president concerned about what appears to be sophistication and the islamic state, including report of the lead up to them taking ramadi that they had good discipline and cutting off social media. they moved fighters in using certain types of vehicles to evade u.s. intelligence. how much concern that part of this is not concern over the

iraqi side but increasing sophistication and a >> learning curve on part of the islamic state. josh earnest: we take very seriously the threat posed by isil. many were affiliated with iraq previously. many served in high-ranking positions in the iraqi army. the sophistication and capability of some of these i sold -- isil forces is not surprising. we have long it dollars how dangerous they are. we also know there are tools and techniques that can be used to counter and defeat them. whether that is the success we had into treat -- had in tikrit. >> there seems to be a >>

learning curve for the setbacks they have had. josh earnest: isil has experienced. the progress and setbacks as well. what is true is the strategy that the president has deployed, alongside our coalition partners has more often than not yielded success. that strategy is predicated on having a capable, willing fighting force on the ground. it is made of iraqis, under the control of the iraqi central government. the united states is training and equipping those fighters. united states is making clear they need to operate under the command and control of the iraqi government. the united states and our coalition partners are backing the efforts on the ground with military airstrikes. his is a strategy that has

yielded success in a variety of areas. there is a lot more important work that needs to be done. it is retaking muscle --mosul. we continue to have confidence in the strategy. the other thing we have been clear about from the beginning the first is, this is not a fight the united states will fight for the iraqi people. the iraqi people will be in the lead. we have also been clear that the strategy is not a quickfix strategy. this is a strategy that will take time. training security forces in these techniques, making sure they know how to use the equipment they are given, that takes time. the president has given indication that it will require a long-term commitment. that is -- we are mindful of that even as we face some of the setbacks we have seen.

pam? pam: josh, you said with u.s. training that the iraqi forces can be more efficient. is that not an indication that maybe john mccain has a point when he says thousands more u.s. trainers are needed? josh earnest: there is a well-documented history, they differing views between mccain and obama when it comes to iraq. i will not revisit all of those here because i will be here all day. pam: even some military experts say more divisors and trainers might help. josh earnest: as the president makes the decisions, he listens very carefully to members of his national security team and the military who were on the ground evaluating the strategy, evaluating the progress made so far, and evaluating what steps can be taken to address some of the setbacks that have been

experienced. that is to the president will be carefully listening to as he makes these decisions in the weeks and months ahead. pam: on the nsa issue, didn't they say they would start winding down the programs friday? have they started winding them down? is that increasing the risk of a terrorist plot? josh earnest: they did indicate if the senate did not asked by the end of dave write a, they would need to begin winding down this program. they did. i understand they have started winding down the program. what impact that has on their capabilities is something you should asked them. what impact that has on national security you should asked them. i know they indicated based on the complexity of the

infrastructure, they would begin taking steps to unwind the program by the end of the day friday to make sure it was not renewed by the sunday deadline that they would need to make sure they were in compliance with the law. they will of course be and what best compliance with the law. they began preparations last week. pam: will it fully be wound down by sunday midnight? josh earnest: if the senate has not acted, and if congress has not given the national security professionals the authority they need to carry out the programs then yes. april? april: i would to follow up, during the bush years they were trying to help iraqi forces stand up against al qaeda. the obama years they are trying to help the iraqi forces stand up against isis.

what is going to change to create a win? we're hearing the same words for the last couple of years. josh earnest: is critical to the iraqi people in facing the isil threat is pulling the people together. that will start with the political leadership in iraq. the private -- previous prime minister left kurdish elements and the population convinced that he was not particularly invested in their security. there are differences when it comes to economic policy. there are concerns about government funds and the central government in the kurdish and sunni areas of the country.

iraq will require a central government governing them in a inclusive fashion. we have seen prime minister of body follow through on his commitment in the first nine months he has been in office. the united states has been pleased by that, not just because we are dedicated to the notion of seeing people follow through with commitments. also because we know that will be critical to the national security of iraq. if they are going to succeed they need the diverse population to come together and facedown external threats. that is what will be critical to their success. we have made that a priority from beginning of this campaign. you'll recall best recall while the scope of the bombing campaign in nature.

we indicated the united states would need a partner that was committed to governing the country in a inclusive fashion. that's a we have gotten from prime minister of body and it is also important that we see that kind of commitment be applied when it comes to the iraqi security forces as well. we cannot just the shia iraqi forces fighting in shia parts of the country, rather we needs a force in every area of that country to protect it and counter the threat from isil. april: is the white house watching what is happening in chicago and other cities. we thought large numbers of shootings in baltimore. what is the thought of the white house about what happened this

weekend? and what will help turn the situation around? the spotlight again is on urban cities. josh earnest: april, we certainly continue to be concerned by violence in cities all across the country. it is an indication of just how widespread the violence has become that in some ways it is almost -- a dozen breakthrough news coverage anymore. this is something that the president has talked about quite a bit. it is a reflection of some entrenched problems. obviously there are common sense things we can do. gun safety laws in congress that could keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that would be one thing. there is more that we could do to try to address some of the dire economic circumstances and

some of these communities. there is more that we can do to support local governments and leaders need communities to try to meet the needs of local populations. this is going to require -- this is no one simple answer to try to address this. april: i am looking for an answer the short-term. summer has started you know that the numbers go up in the summer. the issue is what is the administration prepared to do for urban cities, not necessarily funding extra summer jobs programs, closing rec centers, what is there on the table in the short-term for the summer, not long-term that could help ease the problem? josh earnest: why don't we have

the department of urban development -- each has programs they are working with the local government to try to address those problems. april: and the president. josh earnest: we will see what we can do. >> there is still just over a dozen democrats on the record saying he would support legislation. is the white house going to intensify outreach to capitol hill how will they get that bill across the finish line? josh earnest: the white house has already been very mindful, including the president, of how difficult the challenge this will be in the house of representatives. many people believe it will be more difficult. i will say that we are gratified

that there were 14 democrats who ultimately voted to support trade promotion authority on final passage. about a third of the democrats in the senate. that is an indication that when we have an opportunity to make the case to the result congress about this being the most progressive trade promotion is advanced of the senate. when the top of the opportunity that exists for creating jobs and expanding economic opportunity for middle-class families by opening up more overseas markets to u.s. goods and services, that is the message that resonates with democrats. that is an opportunity will capitalize on in the house as well. it will not just be today that the of ministration and president begins to make the case to democrats in the house about how important it is to

support the specific proposal this is a case we have been making for quite some time. we have been preparing the ground in advance. we are going to be making a case that is consistent with the case we made at the senate. >> prime minister netanyahu said he would be open to [indiscernible] did the white house have a response to the offer? josh earnest: i do not have a direct response to him. the conflict between the israelis and palestinians will only be finally resolved when the israelis and palestinians sit down and resolve their differences face-to-face. the human states and the obama administration have indicated a willingness to facilitate those kinds of conversations.

we have gone to great links to try to do that. -- great lengths to try to do that. what you said it sounds consistent with what we had said in the past. that willingness to have those conversations and resolve those differences is a start to ultimately putting in the past this long-running conflict. >> is that something earlier i wanted to make sure you meant to say, you might have squeezed thoughts together. you said, if the senate acts, the authorities won't expire, and if the senate passes the u.s. freedom act, they won't expire and it will protect our civil or -- civil liberties. as if to suggest two different tracks. i caught on to that because that

is my way out in the short term. are you suggesting the president and white house are open to a short-term extension of existing authorities, separate of the u.s. freedom act. were you trying to suggest that was a potential resolution? josh earnest: i am not trying to leave you that impression. primarily because we have seen i think it was embarrassingly clear on friday night that is not an option. the only real option before the united state senate that will not put these critically important national security programs that risk is to pass the usa freedom act before the sunday night deadline. >> i would like you to go farther. assess what you saw friday night in the votes. three votes short on the usa freedom act.

a substantial votes short on the other? what is that tell you? where do you believe this puts the debate going forward? josh earnest: this makes clear that there is strong bipartisan support for the usa freedom act. we already saw that support in the house of representatives. 338 voted for that. in the senate we saw that 57 voted to begin debate on this legislation. that is an indication there is similar bipartisan forces in the senate. as i was conveying to john, the hard work is a ready been done. these are complicated policy issues. they deal with our national security and civil liberties. they deal with cutting edge technology. they deal with unimaginable amounts of data. to work through a bipartisan

compromise through what is often been a dysfunctional house of representatives is quite an accomplishment. i don't mean that in a backhanded compliment. republicans does -- deserve credit for working with democrats and national security professionals to reach that common ground red the hard work has been done. we also know, at least we can surmise from the vote that there is similar bipartisan support in the united states senate. we just need to allow the members of the senate need to allow these legislation to come up for debate. they need to allow that to happen before the deadline on sunday night. >> they describe inconvenient facts in regards the president. the president review panel could not find an instance in which a terrorist threat was ordered --

four dead --thwarted. josh earnest: our national security professionals who deal with this on a professional basis, in a nonpartisan way work 24 hours 73 to keep us safe. they say these are programs that benefit their efforts. for how important it is, i would refer you to them. they can speak to you on that more effectively than i can. i can say that the president listens carefully to his national security team for advice about what is necessary to protect the country. that team tells him these programs authorized by the usa freedom act are important to protect the country. that is why we are encouraging the senate to do with the house of representatives has already done which is to pass that compromise proposal which will

protect our country and civil liberties before the sunday deadline. >> you mentioned to one third of the senate, is that now your goal for the house? josh earnest: no. for a slim bipartisan majority. i use that as an illustration. when this is considered by the senate finance committee, i majority of the democrats supported this legislation. it was considered on the floor about a third supported this. that is an indication when democrats focus on the proposal and evaluate arguments, there is a reason for at least a substantial number to support it. we are confident -- we are hopeful at least, we're making the case in the house that member's of the house and democratic caucus will find the same thing. >> the legislative team at once people to work on several issues at one time.

what is a higher priority for the president? tpa or [inaudible] just the senate can focus on the usa freedom acts and the house can focus on tpa we can define and conquer. kevin? kevin: i've heard you say on many occasions that the administration cost position is to support the iraqi people, but this is a problem they have to sell on their own. i'm curious if you feel the same way or if the president feels the same about problems going on the ukraine. if this is a ukrainian problem we can assist them in a broadway, but ultimately it is ryan's problem and the problem right now in particular with the russian aggression. josh earnest: we are talking in ukraine about a sovereign country that is being menaced.

their sovereignty is being violated by their larger neighbor. iraq is dealing with a different kind of threat from a terrorist organization. what is true in iraq is also, i guess one thing minister in iraq also true the ukraine is that the united states is standing by our ukrainian partners as they confront this threat to their own security. the states is not prepared to go to war over ukraine, we have made that clear. at the same time there may be an opportunity for the united states and our nato partners to help them confront the threat they are facing from russia who so flagrantly violated their sovereignty and territorial integrity. this is something the president will talk about