today is really to avoid an escalation of the situation caused by unintended accidents, incidents. for a solid,s a call stable, military cooperation. europes a joint defending principal that we have all agreed. it makes more implication of the united states. the united states has to be at the table. this crisis over the ukraine goes beyond ukraine, beyond europe, and into the geopolitical sect to many countries. that is the immediate focus we have to take. and the long run, we have to find a strategy how to define the security status of countries that do not belong to an

alliance. calls them the countries and between. .- in between there is a strategy needed that goes country by country. at issue is a particular situation. this is not enough. asks forhy our report a comprehensive diplomatic initiative to rest these issues in the interest of the principles we have all agreed in the final act and in the paris charter. we should stick to it. this framework is solid. it does not have to be rewritten. it just has to be followed. >> let's take the conversation to both parts of what you just talked about. are?, do you know where we we concluded and the one thing we agreed, 15 panel members

including our russian colleagues , that the situation is dangerous. we need to focus on that situation in order to avoid it becoming more dangerous and more occurring. there is already one in ukraine. but more. reflect on that. what we can do, and perhaps what the situation really demands at this point. >> this report is a call to diplomatic action. there is a great complacency today. when we look at the situation today, and the situation in the cold war, no one should regret the cold war. it kept half of europe with limited sovereignty with a tax on human rights. at the same time, one should recognize that today's situation might be more dangerous than the cold war. it is more dangerous because

there is no agreed status quo. everything is up for grabs. in some ways, we should be happy if it means that the people take charge. if it means that incidents can escalate because there is no clarity on the situation of each country, then that becomes very dangerous. that is why we believe in the panel that it is important to take action in the immediate short-term, the tactical situations, where armed forces from russia and nato countries can become embroiled. we saw it when a russian fighter over a sliver of turkish territory. , lucky been, so to speak so far that none of those incidents have really escalated.

you cannot have a sound security based on luck. we do call for much more engagement, military to military , to look up how to manage those incidents. in case ofge escalation. if we are not lucky, what happens? there needs to be procedures in place so that events do not take control. that is how wars start. we believe that maybe there is not enough thought given to that today. there is the broader picture. the fact that during the cold war, as barbara was saying, you have neutral countries like and a different status for finland. but, a clear status. you had nato members. -- and that was the end of the cold war. you had an arms control that extended to europe with the conference in europe.

the vienna document. and on the nuclear front the intermediate -- intermittent nuclear force agreement. predictability and transparency that limited the risks of unexpected escalation. we see those frameworks, frankly, address today. -- at risk today. there has to be hard work to engage with russia on those issues. and know, we hear unfortunately the reality is in many cases you engage and you do not get the response. in our view, that is not a reason not to engage syria lets make it clear to our public opinion that -- not a reason not to engage. let's make it clear to our public opinion the structures that have kept the stability and peace in europe.

there, i think, one has to be aware. i am a frenchman. i can see the fragility of public opinion in europe. you have a combination of some extreme left and extreme right that are quite happy if the united states in a way to send gauges. engages.ay this the majority of europeans do not want that. there is a minority that is quite comfortable with that. the whole architecture is at risk. disengagesates that faster than europe integrates, or distant -- or disengages as europe integrates, and the european integration has been made possible highest relationship with the united states. if that relationship begins to it is begins to fray

connected to the crisis in europe. we have our work cut out for us. we won't find the solution if we don't work jointly, europeans and americans, on this issue. the meta-problem we have. the frameworks we live with for some many years are falling apart, in part because there is a challenge to the status quo. isfound that real challenge focused in particular in that part of europe where the security status of countries like your own and georgia are being contested and are in some ways uncertain. there is a desire on the part of georgia to be a member of nato. there is a commitment of nato to have georgia as a member. we are not there. how does it look from george's perspective?

this continued uncertainty about the security status of a country like georgia, the same for with a and ukraine, direct military presence on your territory of russia? how does it look? particularly how does it look in the short term as well as developments down the road? i can say that it doesn't look good is the short answer. i can talk about the four things that you can identify in georgia's position when it comes to security. getfour things that you can from these reports that are relevant i may have to repeat them, but i will be brief. tore's certainly no need change.

it is not the principles. it is about one country that violates those principles. most of the violations, the case of georgia, the occupation, threat of annexation, use of force, threat of use of force, economic sanctions, domestic affairs, we can never list every single item in relation to georgia. principles,out the it is about one particular country, russia, who does not want to play by the rules. we uphold these principles not only in terms of words, but in terms of deeds. principle as part of the european i keel principle for anyone who has the right. that is a fundamental principle in the onc. declaration of

european security. we have to implement it. implemented,ng what is happening is that russia is getting the message that european countries are backtracking on these important principles. while we might be saying that yes georgia has a right to join nato and choose their own alliance, this is not happening in reality. russia happening is that is preventing the integration. is that thereant is no doubt in the positions of nato nations and positions of the capitals that georgia and ukraine in nato, if they wish, is only a matter of time. it is actually something that needs to be followed up.

openve been told the doors , but not where the door is. we have to give them the instruments for integration into nato. the second point is that we need u.s. stewardship. you cannot overestimate the importance. you need the u.s. for the security of europe, particularly when it comes to georgia. to only when it comes sovereignty, but in terms of also upholding georgia's quest to join nato. when the united states does not do countries and asween, or caught in between one of our friends said between nato and russia, suffer. the u.s. position is extremely important. one of the recommendations in

the report of the panel is that we want to see the role of the united states be bigger in the ukrainian crisis. the u.s. is not part of normandy. that is a strong recommendation. i want to draw your attention to the case of georgia and the united states, the discussions. the problem with the intonation discussions is the low-level form. we have part of the founders of those discussions, a representative of the when. un p or do you have no high-level engagement from the united states or russia, or from the countries. the effectiveness of that country. the final point, for georgia it is important georgia is kept on the radar of the intonation of

diplomacy. they have slipped off the radar in past years. it is also part of domestic policies in georgia, but we need to remain on the radar. not only georgia, but the conflicts must remain on the radar. crisis, and it , showingin ukraine that it possesses the estimates and tools to intervene. they created a peace mission for ukraine. the problem is that once there is no crisis -- the problem with georgia is that we do not have the crisis. because we have no crisis the conflict has slipped off of the onc agenda. there is no presents, there is no activity to resume presents.

feeling that the conflict has been forgotten. you have syria around the corner , the car bomb that almost exploded two weeks ago, the ongoing crisis in ukraine. these are just as important. should we wait for something explodes for us to pay attention, or should we use this time and proactively try to move things forward? >> i think the problem that we always face in diplomacy is that attention is only paid when things are going badly. not when they are going not badly. i would not say things are going well in georgia. the fundamental challenge is there and remains there. 2 things come out of this discussion that i want to spend more time on. is the danger of the

situation we face and the steps we need to take in order to reduce the danger. the second is the role of the united states. let me start with the first one and open it up to press a little bit. perhaps, secretary-general, you want to start reflecting on this? >> we have airplanes flying wing tip to wing tip. we have airplanes flying over the front and back of ships. a millimeter difference would have clipped a ship and fallen into the baltic sea. we have airplanes being shot down because they crossed territories in nato country. that is how wars start. , we called for procedures in the report, but what procedures in the onc question mark is there something in the onc that focuses on the

an after or the moment after accident has occurred? how do you make sure that accident does not escalate to a war that no one wants? what procedures might we put into place specifically within vienna, or outside of vienna, that you think might be able to work? >> we have in vienna all of the players around the table all the time. we have meetings every week on various issues on the agenda. one thing we can do is call everyone and start discussing what happens. we can do that without the special mechanism. we have a framework which we just call in the people and push them to discuss, exchange views, and this can result into a decision. then we can think of more

targets. recently, in spite of all of the divisions we have made a decision that was negotiating a working group chaired by the u.s. ambassador with the russians -- they all agreed in the end. it was cyber security. measures if an attack also includes working groups, specialized working groups, to analyze incidents and dispel concerns that one country might be behind a cyber attack or something similar. first of all, some kind of preventive code of conduct should be something one would try to invest in. avoiduations we should

behaviors that might lead to incidents. secondly, we could think of and mechanism somewhere. there are ways to address situations of this kind. you could materialize it in the osc,an council, in the where you could build a little bit of context for discussion. some perimeters on how to do it. then you could think of an investigation of something like an accident to avoid the problems we started seeing at the beginning of the korean crisis where the stories were very different. trying to have a team going there, investigating, bringing it back, lowering the temperature after the incident. of tools thatples we believe could be useful, but there is a need for the political will to make them happen.

in this divided environment, sometimes finding that is a problem. one of the tasks is to raise awareness as to the potential dangers of situations of this kind and try to garner the support that we need for us to be able to develop these mechanisms. to begin a discussion and develop these mechanisms. >> anyone else want to comment on the mechanism piece and other ideas that we have? >> i very much agree that in crisis management, slowing down the pace of the crisis is of the essence. those mechanism committees, anything that grinds the process looks bureaucratic, but it is good because it is bureaucratic. before opening it to the floor, let me focus on the united states. we argued in the report that the absence of the united states and

britain at the negotiating table .n ukraine was unfortunate we don't say it in the report, but it was the intent of those pushing it, because of the 1994 memorandum with the united states, britain, and russia signed when nuclear weapons were removed from ukraine. that although there was not a level security guarantee, the absence of 2 of the 4 signatories sent the wrong signal. also because the united states has generally been a part of any discussion on the future of european security. you heard why the u.s., an argument for the u.s., to take a stronger leadership role. , that pose the question these are problems that europe needs to lead on because they are european security problems. the united states is not and

inuld not be uninterested european security, but there is a dilemma. if the united states takes the lead, the capacity of europe to do so is affected. should we worry about that? is it something we should be concerned about, and should we have, in some way, europe and being proactively in the lead and the u.s. in support of that when it comes to the issue of european security? at least that is an argument one could make. either to see how the panel reacts to that, positively or negatively. the fact that the crisis goes beyond ukraine and europe, that is why the u.s. has to be implied as well. actually, i prefer having the u.s. at the table openly then just have 2 tracks of trying to

negotiate. i think it is better for the process and better for all of the parties concerned. looking back at an important element that was mentioned, our report mentions 3 narratives. although we agreed to disagree, we came to the consensus that the situation is urgent. that action is needed. consensusr less regarding the measures of the next steps to be taken. having said that, i believe both sides are not interested in an open conflict. that is the basis for a diplomatic action. that is a basis for we have to dialogueuilding the wherever we can. i think our panel is one of the

attempts to do so. we have to continue. >> it is striking that during the cold war there was a complete confrontation, ideological, on all levels between the soviet union and the west. , we were able to achieve major agreements. arms control for the soviet union. it was a great achievement. it would be a pity if with russia whatever misgivings one may have with this or that action of russia, if we are not able to develop a real, genuine, diplomatic process with russia. russia remains a great power and needs to be treated with respect. it needs to be engaged. in a number of circumstances, it has been a power.

sometimes less than one would want, but it has been. on the iran side, there is no question russia has played a constructive role. we need to build on that with a very clear vision of what is wrong. what doesn't work. at the same time, if we shut down the diplomatic side of engagement. if we just focus on one element, which is important, too, military strength and deterrence, but the diplomatic side is the other half. at the moment, i believe it is underdeveloped. >> let me stress a point if i can that barbara made. how the united states engages is as important as if it engages. the tendency at times to do so bilaterally with russia, which we are seeing in the ukraine track at the moment, may be sending the wrong signal in two

ways. there is nothing that russia would like more to have, if there is a negotiation, to have negotiation with the united states about europe. my view would be that that is states'the united interest. if we are going to have a discussion about europe, europe needs to be a participant. we can find out what the diplomatic niceties is, but at least something that looks like a condominium on the part of the great powers is exactly what we should not want russia to have. we should not participate in that. when we talk about u.s. role, it has to be a u.s. role within the institutional structures that exist. whether it is nato, the oce, or ad hoc where we call for the creation of a contact group to address the issue. the contact group by definition has the participation of russia, the united states, and of key

european partners in the process. i think he wanted to come in on this point. then i want to open it up. >> we have to keep in mind that every time the u.s. disengages or shows neutrality to an important issue in europe, russia gets the message it has on. they become bolder, stronger, and more assertive. the people on the ground suffer. that should be taken into account. also, the domestic political propaganda in moscow is that it is the u.s. to blame whether the u.s. engages or disengages. that is the major line in russian propaganda. even if the united states does not do anything in ukraine, what russia is selling to the people is that it is the americans fault that things in ukraine are

the way they are. it is better to have a strong u.s. diplomatic engagement, but not only diplomatic. also more assertively and militarily. whether it is a field presence or any other kind of appearance, including in countries like georgia. without the feeling that america is present in eastern europe and cares about the security, i do not think that that region will be safe. >> at this point, i want to open it up to the audience. andse identify yourself make sure that you actually ask a question. we are interested in comments, but particularly interested in questions. i want to go to the ambassador from belgium. up front. if you wait for the microphone, thank you. >> thank you, very much.

thank you for a stimulating introduction. i'm a question for all of you, on diplomatic issues coming back to the pharmacy. the question is how come we lost iplomacy? why it went away? see a shift in what is being discussed. what did the russians essentially do to set up a kind of understanding, the first cold war understanding. you called it in order, but we should be somewhat more sober. and someday, where domestic reasons, russia has chosen to upset that understanding and throw diplomacy out the window. seeing now that

diplomacy has to come back in the window seems somewhat short. it seems to miss the point that it is exactly that kind of understanding was based on amy chew audi of cooperation. perhaps not agreeing on everything, but having a basic framework within which you could work things out. it seems like that is not being present. plead for a kind of engagement, i'm wondering, where is your propriety? if it is a forceful engagement probably, that would be an engagement where we to certain of the difficult demands of the other side. that is my conundrum.

that is my question. >> do want to start? >> i would start by saying certainly this panel and myself, none of us would recommend appeasement. one of the key points in agreement between all of us is -- starting with the helsinki final act, there's no need to rewrite them. they are fine. at the same time, the question is the implementation of the role. not about rewriting the rules. we all agree on that. that is the basis of any discussion. how do you get there is the question. tothe report, we decided explain and have several narratives. eachretending that

narrative is equally valid, but part of resolving the present crisis is recognizing that the way the various actors in the european crisis read the crisis is very different. it is deep. the way russia reads the crisis, one may have fundamental disagreements with it, but there is a certain coherence in the russian reading of the crisis that it would be wrong to ignore. theou don't understand point be other side comes from, you are unlikely -- it doesn't mean that you have to come to share that view point, but you have to understand that viewpoint to really engage. we are, in a way, what saying by putting the various narratives side-by-side. not caving into one

narrative, but recognizing there is a real problem. that there was some agreement, but these agreements were reached with a perspective that was in the horizon of russia was very different from the horizon of the european union members, or the horizon of the united states. when you move on that road, and suddenly you discover -- not suddenly. gradually discover that the roads don't go in the same direction you have a problem. it is important to walk back in that road and understand at some point we can change course to .egin to repair the relations that is why i believe, personally, that engagement matters and it is not at all appeasement. >> i would add on on the

importance of diplomacy and why we stress that important is because the alternative to diplomacy is military confrontation. is the world and europe today is more dangerous than it was during major parts of the cold war against we don't have the structures of coordination, cooperation, and dialogue. i would add that a willingness by the united states and europe to engage in diplomacy does, of course, presume a partner on the other side. a willingness in and of itself is important for political reasons. openness tos and dialogue does not mean agreement with the other side. if the other side doesn't want to be a part of the dialogue, we know where the problem is. we know what the problem is, we don't need to be convinced. our publics don't know where

the problem lies. having an openness to dialogue, even if it is rejected, serves a reminder to who we are dealing with and where we have the problem. the gentleman on the corner, then i will come to you. >> thank you. a longtime fan of the osc. who have beens involved in the dialogue since 2008, there is a sense of deja vu in this room. conclusions that you have reached are similar to the inclusions that we reached the astana summit that there seems to be a cycle where we have a serious analysis of the problems of european, your atlantic security -- euro atlantic security, and we come to the conclusion that everything is fine and everyone

needs to engage more. we talk about the helsinki decalogue as if these are the 10 commandments handed down from the mountaintop. in fact, there is a certain flexibility built into those principles. there is a yen and yang -- a yin and yang. you have the self-determination of people. you can choose alliances, but you have the commitment not to enhance your own security at the expense of others. force designed not as an meant mechanism, but as a structure for dialogue about how the principles apply in each case. that seems to be the element that has been missing for number of years. the process is where both of the minsk processes, but not at a sufficiently high level where the various parties involved are working toward common understandings of how the principle should apply in

georgia, ukraine, and elsewhere. i would be curious as to whether the panel believes that there is a prospect for changing that for returning the osce to its core mission of taking these 10 principles and reaching common understanding of how they should be applied in individual cases. not be thes might right institutional framework for addressing these challenges. that?want to take the case of the crisis in and over the ukraine, you have to state that the osce is the only institution that could become active. it has just become active because of the flexibility around the whining, but only in combination with the secretary-general am of the secretariat general, the arerman in office that

really committed and engaged, making it possible to deploy people from the secretariat within 24-hours after the decision has been taken. that was the right mixture of the flexibility of approach and commitment. there needs to be a series of improvement regarding the osc. strengthen the secretariat, the secretary-generals, to be able to act when needed. strengthening the troika to be able to act on short notice. and the issue of the legal question now the of the institution. it was for a good thing, a good cause. institutionieve the , with all of its weaknesses,

there are situations where only this kind of institution can become active. in eastern europe, there is flexibility. where it could be more or less relevant is in the corner. istainly in ukraine, this not the debate. for the debate is between the election principles that show on one hand the principle of the rights to choose one's own hands, and the principle of, as you mentioned, you cannot enhance your own security at the expense of others. the problem is the interpretation of this latter principle, particularly the

russian interpretation. the russian principle is you cannot do anything if i don't like it. it does not work anywhere. what is important, and what the panel has stressed, and certainly within the internal discussion of the panel, is we need to work with russia to make countriesstand that with their alliances do is not mean they are infringing on rush's security interest. i do not think that baltic states are a threat to russia. georgette will not be a threat to russia. it is a perception, a matter of intelligence in moscow, and not a problem with the principles. i do not think it is correct to say that what we need to do is to think which of the principles apply in which regions, and how

to adjust those principles. that is what russia has been saying, particularly within the discussions of the panel. >> on the side. >> thank you for the panel, and thank you for taking my question. when i look at the panel and observe, i do not believe -- >> more into the microphone. >> i do not think the european union or your generally can accomplish any goals of security anywhere in the world. the diplomacy works and sometimes doesn't work. my question for you all will be when canada pharmacy help and institute programs? one thing that is important is economic security.

look at what happened to the middle east. 50% or 60% unemployment. what do you think the young generation will do? in europe, one nation dictates to the other nation what will be done. done,ty will be education, the creative security of jobs, where they can go to work as an average family. what happened in ukraine, where they had no security and no jobs, only corruption that was sponsored by the west. what is your opinion to the role of diplomacy on this key issue? >> i can try to answer that question. i would agree with you that in the end, in europe, the big part of the security is the inner strength of each country. a lot of the threats come from internal weaknesses that are

then exploited and become an international issue. had been stronger, not militarily, but internally -- if it had sorted out its many issues, certainly the crisis that we have seen develop in eastern ukraine might not have developed the way that it has developed. it is true that in the debate on european security, there is a bit of a theoretical dimension. i would have a friendly thatreement with sergei in there's not much enthusiasm at the moment for enlarging alliances. that it will come anytime soon, to be very candid. is that there is a fight about perceptions.

a fight about sending political signals, whether one country has a right or not to be able to choose its alliance, a fundamental sovereign right. that is a concession no one will make. at the same time, in practice, it is unlikely that that right will be tested shortly. the reality is that we do need, and that is where diplomacy matters, we need to protect the principles while at the same crises that dong not need to be generated. >> we are getting to the end of our allotted time. . wanted to give the final word to come back to some of the issues that were raised and to help us wrap this up in 2 minutes. i will try to be as fast as i

can. dialogue does not mean necessarily appeasement. looking at the situation now, and we see many tools in play from sanctions to investments in defense, but we need to keep open a channel to address issues as they come up, to to try to find avenues solve the problems we have. there is no contradiction in my view. dialoguearties and the thethe leaders in discussion. the europeans have a stronger responsibility in this matter. .hese are the principles it is a very complicated debate. the principles are there. they have been developed in the context where russia, the soviet andn, were interested

preserving the status quo. they were coming from that perspective. we are now in a different environment. and they does, reflect the general principles of international law, they have to be looked at in the light of a different dynamic in europe. for that reason, that doesn't mean they are less valid. mentioned, it is not only a question of territorial integrity, it is a broader question of how that relates to international commitments. one needs to take a look at the broader picture. see policies on the we haveomplicating and to deal with situations with strong polarization. we have a broader agenda of

conflict partly generated by geopolitics not necessarily only in the regions we are discussing that do other areas, create other problems. a debate about migration, conflict and refugees, etc.. and other challenges that we have. terrorism, whatever else, trafficking, organized crime, and the challenges with the development. we need a unified strategy from the international community. the strong polarization is making this harder to achieve. new diplomacy,a in a way. myself, i'm reaching out to a different set of actors. not only the intergovernmental dynamic, which remains essential, but other constituencies. from the financial sector, to the academic circles, and

debates like today's are important. it is not only a way for me to communicate with you, but to receive input from others and to mobilize society. out toreach constituencies. we need to learn to work in different ways. at the same time, we need to also be aware of the fact that we need strong leadership and a of thederstanding daunting challenges that are in front of us. >> secretary general, thank you for your closing comments. i want to thank the panelists for this interesting discussion. i want to thank the atlantic council for hosting us. and all of you for being with us today. with that, we are concluded. thank you. [applause]

>> you can watch of this forum on european diplomacy later today. it will be posted on c-span.org

and available on the c-span networks to view tonight. the hill posting this story. u.s. health officials monitoring 300 pregnant women with the zika virus according to federal data. women in puerto rico, which has been hit hard by the outbreak. the tally of pregnant women with zika is higher than the government's last count, 110 on may 11. the cdc is tracking pregnant women with laboratory evidence of zika infection with and without symptoms. president obama convened a meeting with a number of government health officials to get the latest on efforts to combat the zika virus in the oval office. president obama: i am delighted to have the opportunity to get a full briefing from secretary burwell about the zika

situation. i want to give the american people an update on where we are. as has been explained repeatedly, but i want to reemphasize, zika is not like ebola. it is not a human to human transmission, with one exception . it is primarily transmitted through mosquitoes, a particular type of mosquito. what we do know is that if you if you doika, even not appear to have significant symptoms, it is possible for zika to cause significant birth defects, including microcephaly where the skull casing -- the head of the infant -- is significantly smaller. we think there may be other neurological disorders caused as a consequence of zika.

we do not know all of the potential effects. we do know that they are serious. what we have seen is a little in the0 cases of zika continental united states. they all appear to be travel-related. .ot mosquito transmitted meaning someone from the u.s. went to an area that has zika, got a bite, and came back. we have seen 10 cases in which an individual went to one of the various areas, got infected, and sexually transmitted the good to their partner. a more significant and immediate concern is puerto rico, where we know there are over 800 cases that have been diagnosed. however, we suspect that it could be significantly higher. the reason is that for most

people you might not have a lot of symptoms when you get zika. if you are not pregnant, or the partner of someone who is pregnant or trying to get pregnant, you may not even know that you end up having zika. that means people are not affirmatively going to the doctor and getting tested on these issues. here is the good news, that because of the good work that has been done by the department of health and human services by the cdc and in -- and nih, we have a plan over the next several months to begin developing a vaccine and continually improve our diagnostic tests. we are also working with all of the states so they are properly prepared if we start seeing an outbreak in the continental united states during the summer

when obviously mosquitoes are more active. what we are also trying to do is develop new tools for vector control. meaning, how do we kill mosquitoes and reduce their populations, particularly this kind of mosquito. that is a tricky business. we have been using insecticides for a long time that have become less and less effective. this strain of mosquitoes has become resistant to the insecticide that we have. the methods we use are not as effective as they used to be. we are investing time, research, and logistical support to local communities to start improving our ability to control mosquitoes. puerto rico and to some of the territories, and spending time working with the states that they can be better prepared. all of this work costs money. a package oforward

that costs $1.9 billion in emergency funding for us to make sure we are doing effective mosquito control. to make sure we are developing effective diagnostic tools, distributing them, and developing vaccines that will prevent some of the tragedies that we have seen for those who upe contracted zika and end having children with significant birth defects. we did not just choose $1.9 billion from the top of our heads. this was based on public health assessment of all of the work that needs to be done. to the extent that we want to be able to feel safe, secure, and families who are of childbearing years want to feel as though

they can have confidence that when they travel, when they want to start a family, that this is not an issue. to the extent that we think that is important, this is a modest investment for us to get those insurances. unfortunately, we have the senate approving a package that would fund a little over half of what has been requested. the house, so far, has approved about one third of the money requested, except that money is taken from the fund we are currently using to continue to monitor and fight against ebola. effectively, there's no new money. all the house has done is say you can rob peter to pay paul. given that i have vivid memories

of how concerned people were about ebola, the notion that we would stop monitoring as effectively in dealing with the bolo to deal with zika does not make a lot of sense. i do not think it will make a lot of sense to the american people. this is something that is solvable. it is not something we have to panic about. it is something we have to take seriously. if we make a modest investment nd, this wille be a problem we don't have to deal with on the back end. every child that has something with microcephaly, that may cost $10 million over the lifetime of thatchild in terms of family providing that child with support they need. the pain and sorrow and challenges that they will go through. add that up.

it doesn't take a lot of cases for you to get to $1.9 billion. why wouldn't we want to make that investment now? my hope is that we would have a bill i could sign now. part of what we are trying to do is to accelerate and get the process going for vaccines. you do not get a vaccine overnight. you have to test it to make sure any potential vaccine is safe. you have to test to make sure it is effective. you have to conduct trials where you are testing it on a large that younch of people can make scientific determinations that it is effective. we have to get moving. what essentially the cdc and nih have been doing is taking money from other things just to get the thing rolling. we have to reimburse the money that has already been depleted,

and we have to sustain the work that is going to be done to finish the job. congress needs to get me a bill. it is to get me a bill with significant funds to do the job. they should not be going off on recess before this is done. certainly, this has to get done over the course of the next several weeks in order for us to be able to provide confidence to the american people that we are handling the zika business. i am a young family or someone they came up starting a family, this is a piece of insurance i want to purchase. i think that is true for most americans. understand that this is not something where we can build a wall to prevent mosquitoes to not go through customs. to the extent where we are not handling this on the front end,

we will have bigger problems on the back end. for those of you that are listening, tell your members of congress to get on the job on this. couldhis is something we handle. many do confidence on our ability to handle it. we have outstanding scientists and researchers who are in the process of getting this done. they have to have the support from the public in order for us to accomplish our goal. thank you very much. you very much, everyone. thend a live picture of capitol, where shortly we will go into the white house briefing secretarydeputy press eric schultz will be holding today's press briefing for reporters. we expect that there will be questions about the crush of the egyptian airliner, the presidential race, and

appropriations bills. this most recent item, a number of republican congressmen in oklahoma are calling for president obama's in peach men's in reference to his recent order havetransgender students access to school bathrooms. we will have this briefing live when it starts. here is a portion of today "washington journal" on fundraising. joining us is john wonderlich, the policy director of the sunlight foundation, here to talk about fundraising in campaign 2016, especially with the general election looming on the presidential side. the news this past week of the joint deal between the r.n.c. and trump campaign. they finalize a joint fundraising deal. what do we know of the deal? how unusual is it for a campaign and party committee to do a joint deal together? guest: it is not unusual in the

current state of our presidential politics for the leading candidate to have a deal with the party to share and how they manage the fundraising responsibilies. trumps unusual is donald ran against the party, in a sense manning is the party. theyhat he has won, have to figure out a caution deal or how he would support the recovered and party. the other thing that is different is the nature of the joint fundraising. the amount of the checks in place much bigger after the supreme court's mccutchen decision, the limit on the amount of money someone can give to campaigns and parties is much higher. host: what is the amount an individual can give to a presidential campaign? guest: to a presidential campaign, it is a much smaller number. it is something like a few thousand dollars. what we have is a new legal

entity being created that says we are not just going to solicit checks to support the campaign. donald trump can call someone and say you should give our joint fundraising committee a check to support the republican party, state parties, and other candidates. each of those limits as up to something like $300,000 or $400,000. the conversation about $2000 is very different from when you are approaching a wealthy donor and asking for half $1 million. host: these are different entities from political action groups? guest: right. that is part of why camping finance can be confusing. we have these different entities with different responsibilities. the news that just occurred is we see donald trump suddenly having to share responsibilities with the republican party and the kinds of dollar figures we are talking about are very large. host: your organization is the sunlight foundation. what do you shine light on? guest: it is dedicated to

openness and accountability in government. one of our main focus areas is around campaign finance and money in politics, exactly this kind of issue, so the public can understand whose money is helping our politics to run or keeping it from running properly. host: how do you folks get funded? guest: all of our funders are public on the website. you can see all of our donations. we are largely supported through american foundations. it is all public. with a name like sunlight foundation, is a good idea to have all your donors on the internet. host: we invite our callers to talk about campaign financing. the number to call for democrats , republicans, independents, and others. and a reminder you can send us a tweet. back to the trump deal announced this week, your colleague posted

a piece that says donald trump does a 180 on self funding his campaign writing we fact checked his self funding claim and highlighted his history for hosting fundraisers for others. funding like everyone else and taking money from big donors. trump has only six months to form an organized coalition. of support. the resources current --trump needs now are "huge." what was he doing differently in the primary campaign? guest: in the primary, he distinguish himself rhetorically by claiming he would be byependent and unsullied funding his own campaign through his personal largess. that claim was largely not true although he did lend himself large amounts. he lent money to the campaign from his personal finances.

even that is tricky to understand because his campaign spent money on his own businesses that were part of the campaign. it is a tight financial circle. he claims to be about money in politics issues because he was running on his own money. that was not completely true at the time. 180now it is a total because he is establishing these legal structures so he can raise money. he cannot make a claim at all in it is based on his wealth and he is independent. candidates whoad have self-funded largely through the general election? guest: it has primarily been third-party candidates. ross perot is someone who comes to mind it was able to mount a challenge. that would be the most significant in recent times. of a primary, main level candidate. host: the question from trigger -- a question from twitter.

think part of the reason he is raising money is so he can pay himself back the money. host: how does that work? back donaldity pays trump? guest: there are at least three donald trumps. there is the donald trump campaign he controls. there are the businesses his campaign is spending money. and then his personal bank account is being filled by both because his personal money lent money to the campaign. it is a tight circle of different financial entities, all donald trump controlled at this point. host: what about the hillary clinton campaign? what is she doing in terms of fundraising? what number is she at them? --now? guest: hillary clinton has a similar arrangement that has been in place for a year where she established a joint fundraising committee and negotiated with the d.n.c. to raise money for her campaign and

for the state committees. that is a similarly complex situation where our campaign finance laws are being undermined by the way hillary clinton is raising enormous checks, distribute them to state parties who are transferring money to the d.n.c. the whole thing is an end run around how our campaign-finance limits are supposed to work and is in serious tension with hillary clinton's rhetoric about campaign finance reform. host: does the sunlight foundation have an estimate of what you think the overall presidential campaign tally will be? what will it cost when all is said and done? guest: easily $1 billion. the political cycle is going to be $4 billion or $5 billion in terms of campaign spending if you include congress. host: let's get to calls. from wisconsin, michelle, go ahead on the democrats line. caller: good morning. wasgentleman from sunlight

talking about an individual can give up to $3000. have come that is not true for big corporations and other amountwho can give any and yet they don't have to expose who they are and how much they contributed if it is over the $3000 mark? i don't understand how that personnd how a regular can only give $3000 in a multimillionaire business or billionaire business can give as much as they want to sway the vote. personend, the small really does not have a say when it comes to voting. it is the big people who have the money and big corporations who have the final say, just

like with the superdelegates certain congress men or women or senators hold. could you explain that to me please? ure.t: s i agree with you that the way the law works gives a lot of advantage to wealthy people or corporate interests. it is also important to is ontand the limits contributions to the campaign. corporations, it is legal for them to give directly to the campaign. what is different and why we are so concerned about these unlimited contributions is campaigns are not the only game in town anymore. citizens united changed that other entities, super pac's, are able to act like campaigns. super pacs can take in as much money as they want. they can get a $10 million contribution if they want. it is not a donation to the campaign. group,ns to an outside

often stuff that used to work for the candidate, is acting very much like a campaign. legally, they are not supposed to ordinate with campaigns to require them to be independent. but no one really believes that coordination does not take place. they clearly coordinate in various ways. effectively, it is an end run around that limit on contributions. this is happening on both sides of the presidential race and in congress. host: our guest is john wonderlich, policy director of the sunlight foundation, talking about campaign fund-raising. the number for democrats, republicans, all of this. -- and all others. on our republican line, florida, brian, hello. caller: that is the independent line. maybe i missed the number -- misdialed the number. gather, these

businesses get the opportunity to hand this money to politicians. once these politicians get this money, they pass these bills that benefit these businesses. here is the funny part. the seems corrupt to me on its face. haveis exactly why we these two guys, trump and sanders, who are holding on for dear life to win this election because this has to stop. you look at what happened yesterday where these votes changed about contacting lgbt rights. you look at those same 200 senators -- i'm sorry, 200 house numbers that voted not to protect the citizens, but to protect the businesses. these are the same 200 people reignoted to give free

over just one entity i can account for that i am sure is the tribal nations, so they can hand them free money as they waltz in and out of the reservation to get this free money. host: following up on brian's comments, he talked about bernie sanders. we have not talked about how bernie sanders is approaching fundraising. guest: i think the distinction in terms of how bernie sanders is approaching it, bernie sanders is also running in a sense against the party and establishment. the difference is cents he is very unlikely to win, bernie sanders has not needed to negotiate a way he is going to manage the party's fundraising apparatus and support the state parties. i think that is a big distinction. the other distinction is bernie sanders is running against how the money in politics system currently works. and hillary clinton is more or less defending the status quo. host: or is kyle in exeter, new

hampshire, independent line. caller: good morning. i have a comment and then a question. my comment is the american people on the airwaves. we leased to the broadcasters. we don't charge them. they are supposed be providing public good. why couldn't they just set aside so many hours per week and andidates that getting signatures to get on the ballot can come on for an hour and give their presentation? and that is how elections run and they should be limited to six months. but is my,. my question -- that is my comment. my question is, rather than a third party, what couldn't democrats and republicans if they did not like the candidates put forward, what could they not ritet in a candidate -- w in a candidate and wouldn't that

boat be counted? guest: i think both your suggestions can work. those happen occasionally in elections. around the world, we see laws that limit how -- when campaigning can function and subsidize political campaigns. one of the political reform proposals that gets discussed very much in our politics is the idea of public funding for elections. what you are describing, having a set aside time for political discussion, is one approach that exists in many countries. you can also have a tax break or direct subsidy to campaigns that meet some kind of threshold. the barrier to all these proposals is political support. what we have now is not a clear consensus among the federal lawmakers that they want to change the law. that is a difficult place to get out of because the are people that got here because of the way the current laws exist. that is the tricky situation about political reform in the

united states right now. host: a couple of comments on twitter and a question for you. an trump talk about olden tobolden -- beh wall street now that he is campaigning the same way? guest: i will defer on who is especiallyhigh road, because sunlight is a nonpartisan, nonprofit. is not our job to weigh in on the election. this issue is a central want to how the president election will carry out because everyone is sort of trying to run against washington and decide how much they want to stand up as an outsider at a time when the federal government is unpopular and people are clamoring for change. what does it mean to claim you are against campaign finance and then quietly be innovating in the way you undermine the law? in terms of trump, claim your

independent and end up in charge of the party. these are questions they will have to contend with. host: mike in north carolina, democratic caller. i want to compliment the caller. he is correct. campaigning and working and lobbying for environmental groups, so i have a good understanding of how this works. even though we have democracy, we have a corporate run aristocracy that makes the rules. we need to limit campaign spending, limit individual businessions, take interests completely out of it. they should not be allowed to dominate. managed on the

public airwaves and be allotted [indiscernible] stuff like this. we do not have a democracy. it is absolutely more like a political advertising campaign run by corporations. it is absolutely hideous to call it a democracy. host: i appreciate your comment. now,: i would say right campaign finance reform and tried to create political accountability for money in politics in the united states has been a losing battle for at least a decade. time,e that at the same the public consensus that something is wrong and we need to fix it in the federal government has a role in fixing it is grown clearer and clearer. as two forces are colliding. they are colliding throughout the obama administration and in president elections and in the presidential election right now. how that lays out, we are not

sure, but we are confident disclosure is going to play an essential part in how we sort out the mess. a fundamental, defining feature of our politics. host: where does most of the money raised go? does most of it go to television or advertising on the internet? guest: yes. i think that is the primary campaign expense, to buy advertising, so it ends up going to the station's that manage time between tv programs. host: here is in california, republican caller. caller: thanks for taking my call. i feel well intentioned people are focused on the wrong thing. the problem with the electoral process is not profits. it is process. our nominating season is too long. it is designed to extort money from the rich. we need a national primary day

and national standards for getting on the ballot. the minute you shortly primary process and make it uniform, you get the american people involved again in nominating. when you get them involved in nominating, you get them involved in the general election. our low voter turnout has to do with the process that favors the rich. it is absurd that people in iowa and new hampshire have an outsized say in who is nominated. tens of millions of voters in california have no say in who gets nominated. we need a national primary day and national standards for getting on the ballot. thank you. allt: i think there are sorts of electoral process reforms that can have a positive benefit. i suspect that would have an incidental effect compared to the amount of process -- pressure behind money flowing into politics. host: you talked about one of those reforms. you wrote congress should mandate tax return disclosure for president of candidates. and a picture of richard nixon from 73, publicly releasing his

1973 tax returns. you write presidential candidates and sitting presidents should be required by law to publicly disclose returns. for decades, candidates and sitting presidents have disclosed returns recognizing public expectations for transparency demand no less. according to research on presidential tax returns, every president since jimmy carter has disclosed at least one year of returns prior to taking office. what do we learn most from returns a potential presidents? guest: from tax returns, we get to understand the candidate, not just in terms of rhetoric or promises, but in terms of their financial history. sometimes there is a big gap between how someone was to present themselves and how many houses they own or what their effective tax rate is or whether they are trying to use offshore accounts too high funds. that is what there is such a strong expectation we will get

to see candidates tax returns. that is why mr. trump's resistance to releasing his tax returns is so alarming, because we have had a reliable voluntary process for decades. suddenly it may not work. it is time for congress to step up. host: he says in part because he's undergoing an audit? guest: yes, although the justification shifts week to week. he says it is in part because he has an audit. host: next is cambridge, massachusetts. good morning to mike, independent line. hello, go ahead. caller: yes, i am here. host: go ahead. we talkmy question is, about the immense amounts of money in the campaign. said it would be billion to $5 billion

for the total presidential campaign. in round terms, if we say it is $3 billion and there are 300 million people in the usa, we are talking about $10 per person in this country. is that an outrageous amount of money to spend on a presidential campaign? how does it compare to other countries? thank you. guest: that is a great question. i don't think it is an outrageous amount of money in terms of the sheer amount of discussion. we are talking about an american presidential election, so this should be the subject of an enormous amount of debate. the concern is that money is being raised by large donors are sleep -- largely. the discussion is not how much discussion or how many tv as there are, although in some markets the ads can be alarming. the concern is more about what that money means and what has

been given in exchange for it. how many conversations had to happen between members of congress that should have been representing constituents but some room away from the capital making phone calls to wealthy people? host: is the biggest concern on the possible quid pro quo for a big campaign contribution? how do you track the? guest: i think the question of quid pro quo is smaller than the question of how money in politics changes how our government functions. i think it goes well beyond the joint fundraising committee or campaign. if you look at either president of candidate, they are both responsible for a vast network of organizations, both corporate and nonprofit and political, that are colluding and cooperating in order to benefit a single person at the helm. our laws do a very weak job of holding that accountable in foundatione clinton

involvement for years and what hillary's historical role has been. a lot of us questions or unanswered. if you look at donald trump, our , nothing is ton stop him from continuing to be the board of every one of those companies. that gets discussed for a little. but the president is exempt from our conflict of interest laws. when you look at the kinds of power these people represent, in a deregulated campaign-finance world, these entities become much more robust. host: on hillary clinton's campaign earlier this month, clinton fund-raising leaves little for state parties. the democratic front runner says she is raising big checks to help state committees but they have gotten to keep only 1% of the $60 million raised. next, quakertown, pennsylvania,

independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question for the guest. i would like to know why the media has not done due diligence with bernie sanders as far as his fund-raising. i had gotten involved in an aganization called moveon.org few years back because of fracking in pennsylvania. from the beginning of this campaign, i have received anywhere from two to five e-mails per day from moveon.org, raising money for bernie sanders. i would save them or delete them. one day, i rolled to the bottom of the page, and he is a political pac for bernie sanders. oneuld like to know why no has ever challenged him as he $27 a he has raised person from individuals.

i think it is deceitful. i feel the media has not done its due diligence. i appreciate your answer. thank you very much. guest: as a fellow pennsylvanian, i share your concern about fracking and follow a lot of those issues closely. i am not familiar with moveon.org or its link to bernie sanders. i will say there is a lot of incentive for political reporters to find stories. if there is a sense of hypocrisy around how bernie sanders is engaging fundraising while making other promises, i think there are a lot of reporters who would love to be in charge of that scoop. i suspect many of the stories that can be told are being told. our political system is so complicated, there are probably a lot of other stories that have not been. host: you may want to check on some commentary by daniel gross on what bernie sanders is doing with the money he raised. $168 million spent.

bernie sanders decisively won the west virginia primary. his campaign continues to chug along. if the sanders campaign manager convention business or campaign, it would likely be liquidated now. for bernie sanders has constructed his own economy and business model. immune to the typical pressures. here is eddy in los angeles on the independents line. caller: good morning. talking about socialism in a negative term because even c-span is based on a socialist theory. host: what do you mean by that? what are you talking about? caller: it is done for the people. basically fors everybody to call in and give their opinion. it is a socialist environment. host: ok, go ahead with her,.

caller: and my wrong or right? we cannot do that with other television stations. they will feed you what they wa what they want you to hear. you have to be republican or ofocratic, and the majority americans are independent. snatched by two different oligarchs? thank you. guest: one thing, it is easy to be concerned about how the political parties are somewhat unaccountable and often the way they operate is not the most

thegrant or what one -- most them aquatic or what one would design. but if it were a government design political party, it would be something totally different and probably much less representative. not that our system is perfect, but we have a lot to be thankful for. -- host: judy in oklahoma. caller: mi on the air? host: you are. country ishink our out of control. we have all of this hate. our children are listening to all of this filth. i think we need to turn to god and turn our country around.

this political stuff is way out of order. there's a lot of people that ain't paying taxes besides hillary and trump that are here illegal, and nobody is doing nothing about it. i've worked all my life and had to pay taxes and i can't get help from the government. government does not do right. size what is the typical of a donation? the bernie side is lower, but probably $150. caller: my question has to do with funding -- i wonder if you will comment on that, especially the idea that there are entities through which donations can be made, even counted as tax

credits are tax-deductible because the entity has a certain classification. and many of these things sprang intentional -- from grassroots that was definitely tilted toward the extreme, conservative agenda. thank you. host: any reaction to donna's comments? dark moneyway that works, their organizations that can accept unlimited donations. disclose's have to their donors though. to get the dark money is one step deeper. there are organizations that can give money to super pac's, who in turn do not have to disclose their donors. sometimes you get the multimillion dollar donations to another c4, a different therofit, that donates to

super pac, this is we got $10 million from americans for a greater america. that is the way it works. it is essentially money laundering through the nonprofit structure. host: a headline from "the wall about donaldl" trump and the funding of his campaign so far -- mr. schultz: good afternoon. i apologize for the delay. we have one quick announcements and then i will get your questions. the president fulfilled his constitutional obligation and provided an excellent nomination for these supreme court justice, merrick garland. the average time for the confirmation of a nomination has been 67 days. in that time, chief judge garland has met with 58 senators, sent a detailed

questionnaire to members of the standsry committee, and ready to appear before the senate judiciary committee on camera, under oath, to answer any questions those senators might have about his nomination. senator mcconnell said on the floor of the senate that "we will give the senate every opportunity to do the basic work of government this year. " we believe strongly that the senate ought to do its job and advise and consent on this nominee. by nominating someone with more federal judicial experience than any other nominee in country, the president has done his job in chief merrick garland has done his. after this sunday, it will be passed time for republicans to do theirs. kathleen, i will start with your question. kathleen: on the egyptair, do

you have -- on the egyptair crash, do you have any updates? mr. schultz: as josh mentioned, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of those on boardwilliam: -- on egyptair flight ms804. it is unthinkable for us here. the president continues to receive updates on this. he was first informed yesterday morning by his homeland security and counterterrorism adviser lisa monaco. he was updated throughout the day on this. this morning, as you saw, the president received his presidential daily briefing. without violating the briefing, iof that think it is safe to say the topic came up. the president has directed his staff to ensure administration officials are reaching out to

counterparts in egypt and france and to stand up resources should they be requested. orionvy has sent a p3 aircraft. that aircraft is above the mediterranean right now assisting in the church. >> [indiscernible] for us, it is too early to definitively say what may have caused this. allontinue to pursue potential factors that have contributed. obviously the egyptian authorities are in the lead here, but we stand ready to assist any way we can. so wanted to i'll move on to the russian defense -- proposing am joint airstrike with russia. are those discussions going on about a joint airstrike? mr. schultz: kathleen, as you know, this is not the first time

pressure has proposed enhancing their military cooperation with the united dates. right now, that cooperation is confliction --e talks.liction we believe that if russia was to do something to take on al-nusra , the first thing is to ensure that aside is complying with terms in syria. the chaos is the breeding ground for isil to conduct its operations. our goal is for russia to urge its patron, assad, to abide by the cessation of hostilities. but we are not pointed comment on further steps at this point. kathleen: but you are not ruling out the possibility? again, we have two

priorities. one, to ensure the united states counter-isil coalition is doing everything it can to apply maximum pressure on isil. second, when i comes to russia's involvement, they have the opportunity to help provide a political solution in syria. that is going to be the only solution to the crisis in syria as we know it. in order to get to that solution, the needs to be more stability on the ground. that can only be achieved if the assad regime abide spy the cessation of hostilities. one of the main levers on the assad regime is russia. if they want to play a role in increasing pressure against al-nusra and isil, that is how to do it. --hleen: one last question you know if the president or white house lands to -- plans to assist additional [indiscernible]

landmines? mr. schultz: kathleen, as you know, the president is very excited for this trip. we leave tomorrow afternoon. web a whole lot on the agenda. he will be spending three days in vietnam. this is the first-ever trip of its kind. president clinton went to vietnam to announce normalization of relations, president bush announced a forum, but president obama will be spending three days on the ground. securitye expanding cooperation, focused on people to people in engagement. as you know, vietnam as a rapidly expanding middle class, and that's important for a couple of different reasons. at the top of the list, it provides a marketplace for u.s. goods and services. the president will use this to advance interests abroad, including our economic interests

. that is why the president has worked so hard to gain agreement for the transpacific partnership. so, i believe we will have a few more announcements along the road over the next week. those of you who are joining us, we will keep you updated. >> following up on the russia doestion, do you or the white house have any motivation behind -- any idea about the motivation behind russia's proposal? mr. schultz: i don't. you have seen russia show an eagerness to cooperate with us militarily. this is not something new. keep them in a very specific lane of de-conflicting activities in syria. we do not have any plans to change that.

our view is if they want to do something about isil and nusra, which is their stated goal, the best thing they can do is provide for a stable syria and ensure that aside abides by the cessation of hostilities. >> in iraqi, your reaction to the violence and to create -- in tikrit? mr. schultz: we have seen those reports, and clearly our first priority is the safety and security of our personnel on the ground. we are in close contact with the iraqis regarding the current situation and stand ready to support them. obviously be situation is dynamic and evolving. i was reefed minutes ago before -- i was briefed minutes ago before coming out. we will stay in touch with iraqi security and monitor closely. >> lastly, donald trump said yesterday that mr. cameron had applied for a visit.

number 10 downing street said maybe not so fast. [indiscernible] your reaction to that? mr. schultz: i don't. obviously the president was just in london with some of you. we had a great visit there. thepartnership between united kingdom and the united states is special and unique. we deeply value our relationship. the president had a great visit with prime minister cameron. a 2012 visit by a different republican candidate, but i won't do that now. >> [indiscernible] [laughter] say the united states government stands ready to assist it -- has egypt requested assistance? have they accepted it? mr. schultz: i don't have specific conversations to read

out to you. typically these happen with my colleagues at the department of state. and department of and to a certain extent within the purview of common security. the navy has already deployed in orion 3 aircraft. that plane is over the mediterranean now assisting in the investigation. if there are other assets deployed, we will let you know. >> but the government has not announced yet? to schultz: i don't want read out private conversations. we stand ready to assist and that is a directive directly from the president. they are sending a message that the crash is not their fault because the plane originated in paris. say they reluctant to had culpability last time. do you buy the egyptair argument that they are not responsible because the plane originated in paris? i understand the

inclination to speculate. our first priority is helping the authorities find the plane. until that happens, it will be difficult to reach any definitive conclusions, so i will reserve judgment. >> a couple other questions. john kerry has been quoted todicting a long mission libya as regards isis. can you give us some idea of what that mission might look like? mr. schultz: joe, as you know, this administration is focused on supporting the government of national cord in tripoli as it seeks to serve the living people. we commend the prime minister and the leadership of the new country in reestablishing service to that country. the request would be to strengthen the capability of the there.ntial guard

we will work with members of the international community on such a request and as general dunford indicated today, it is possible that nato could have a supportive role to provide security and combat isil. clearly, that is a goal shared by the prime minister there, by the government there, and that is something we stand ready to assist with. >> are we talking lead role here? mr. schultz: obviously combating -- theeat posed by isil president has asserted this is a priority for us. andre happy to entertain request from the libyan government, but i do not know if it has gotten to that level yet. question -- the president will be promoting to be be in asia. when you think about it, senators clinton, anders, even trump have opposed tpp.

what about the likelihood of it getting anywhere given the fact that all three presidential candidates appear to be opposed? well, only one of them has a vote in congress right now and we continue to work with our partners in congress and leadership in the house and senate and we believe that this is something that should past because it is good for american workers. vietnam has a rapidly growing medical -- middle class. we want to ensure that we can service the middle class with products made in the u.s. of a. know that it will reduce tariffs for american exports. it is important that american exports are able to get into those markets, and above all else, if we don't set the rules , china is going to. we believe that is an american

interest for tpp the past. we believe that the term it -- trade promotion authority passed the house and the senate with bipartisan support and we will continue to wish for that. in vietnam, u.s. auto exports face a 70% tariff. construction equipment faces tariffs as high as 59%. exports face. beef tariffs of 40% and leather 189%.ar faces tariffs of the future of the interconnected global economy, but the ability for u.s. goods to be sold and purchased around the world. thank you. chris? >> [indiscernible]

it looks as though the amendment would have passed, but seven house republicans change their vote. [indiscernible] mr. schultz: i saw that episode yesterday, chris, and i read the reports afterwards. as you know, earlier this week, statement a detailed of administration policy explaining our objections to this piece of legislation. i'm happy to walk you through a few of them now. the broadest way to put this is this bill inserts obstacles in the way of our defense department trying to modernize our military forces. we often hear republican rhetoric, especially on the campaign trail, talking about how our military has been eviscerated, and what is going to a visitor rate them is if the defense department doesn't have the resources and equipment and capabilities to modernize and make sure we have the military needed to face down 21st century threats. this also includes a funding

gimmick called the overseas contingency operations. is something secretary carter himself has called "gambling with war fighting war." at a time of we think it is an illegitimate way to fund government and does a disservice to our troops. secondly, this is a piece of legislation that affects our ability to close the prison at guantánamo bay. goal that democrats and republican share the goal of closing, and for a number of reasons, mainly that it is a recruiting tool. we know that it is exorbitantly expensive. year to $445 million a operate. we can keep our country secure -- fiscallyre

responsible way. and lastly, it's inconsistent with our values. this is something that this , anddent has spoken out on it is also something that, again, democrats and republicans have echoed as well. it would make it easier to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. that has nothing to do with our national defense. i cannot for the life of me figure out why republicans would want to put in an ideological mean-spiritedh a one. it was a bill that congressman maloney was on track to pass and it failed. we believe that overriding the

president's work to ensure that defense secretary is -- defense contractors do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is ill advised. it's also mean-spirited and inconsistent with american values of equality and tolerance. believe that house leadership instigated the spectacle that took place yesterday? mr. schultz: i cannot speak to the machinations on the house floor yesterday. cheryl? criticalesident was just now, or this morning, of both the house and the senate bill as not being enough. i guess -- [indiscernible] i came out here just with a ballpoint pen. we believe -- we have issued a veto threat on the house bill. we believe that is woefully inadequate. funds this under

urgent priority dramatically, peterso, as we say, robs to pay paul. it takes funding from our fight against ebola, a fight in an effort that you remember vividly. you all asked very legitimate questions about what we were doing to combat it. we believe that we should not take our eye off the ball just because a new public health threat is emerging. we can do both. there are u.s. personnel on the ground in africa still working on that threat very aggressively. there is a new threat we should be combating at the same time. asked know, the president three months ago now for $1.9 billion for the congress to allocate that. the house fell woefully short. the senate made a little more progress. it is not often we invoke the junior senator from florida who recently ran for president, but he put it better than i could.

he said, this is a request that comes from the president, but it's grounded in reality from our public health officials. though, we believe if numbers of congress want to make decisions on the merits, they should look at the facts and science. they have a week left before they take another weeklong recess. they should get to work and find this request. there is no reason for delay. >> i hear you, and the white house is said that. a $1.1he president veto billion senate bill as not being enough? short oftz: that is what the president's request is. the president did not pick a number out of the air. he sent a detailed average. a set ofter, not talking points. a package grounded in the latest requests from public health officials. this should not be subject to partisan bickering and it should

not be something where congress passes the bought. the president needs to have a bill for signature as soon as possible. >> you did not answer her question. they made more progress in the senate than in the house. i will remind you the senate is bipartisan -- >> [indiscernible] mr. schultz: the senate bill to pay paul,peter so we are encouraged by what the senate did. but clearly the house and the senate are in vastly different places. note that thealso junior senator from florida felt strongly that the $1.9 billion should be funded, so i'm curious why the house members who represent that great state, the syncine state, are not in

with their senate colleagues? it would seem like if i remember of congress from florida i would be doing everything i could to ensure my constituents are protected from this. james? -- on different things zika funding for the moment, i guess the way to ask this, why are there no veto threats against the senate measure? mr. schultz: we should be clear. the senate passed a bill that is $1.1 billion, short of the $1.9 billion public health officials tell us we need. we are encouraged by bipartisan support. it is rare in washington these days that we get a partisan support. we are encouraged by the steps they took, but we do encourage the president's request. i'm happy to walk you through some of the actions we could be

taking as soon as that money is allocated. for example, without the funding, vaccine development is getting delayed, diagnostic testing is getting delayed, funding for mosquito control that could slow or even halt, and states do not have the funding they need to fight zika. these are request from governors, james. i will say one more thing. we know at some point there is sayg to be a media -- let's a heightened level of interest in this and what is the federal government doing to respond? when that day comes, i want you to remember the preceding three months of congress in action on this. james: to that point, listening to the president this morning, there seemed to be a kind of capacity in the sense that he said, congress needs to get something to my desk, and he was urging members of the public to contact their lawmakers to exert that kind of escher for that

purpose -- that kind of pressure for that purpose. but i'm just wondering, where is on president's own outreach this? why is he not bringing people into the oval office? why isn't so urgent, he finding 1.9 billion dollars somewhere within his discretionary funds to meet this emergency? mr. schultz: sure, i will keep the last part of your question first. was able tot retrieve some funds. we scrape the bottom of that barrel. of thosetake anymore funds without endangering our effort to combat ebola. the first part of your question -- i would point to the february 22 proposal we sent to congress outlining our plan. this was not a haphazard package we put together in a few minutes or a few hours. this was a detailed proposal. it includes guidance from the

office of management and budget. it includes guidance from our public health officials at the cdc and nih, and he goes into detail about why we need these funds. james: why isn't he working congress in the manner of a lyndon johnson? why isn't he getting people in the oval office and saying you are not going anywhere until we have this money? alwaysultz: we do not read out every conversation the president has. i can assure you, there is not a member of congress that is not aware of the request we have before them. tell you, white house officials continue to remain in gauged with members of congress to get this done. quickly, the -- should the fact of the violence in that particular area lead people to conclude that the central government in iraq is in very serious trouble? mr. schultz: i'm not sure that's

the conclusion we would draw. our conclusion is iraq does need a stable, functioning government and we need that for a couple of different reasons. first and foremost, only with a wectional government can have active partners on the ground to pursue the fight against issa. our first priority is ensuring that prime minister abadi has a functioning government. sometimes that's going to include dissent and peaceful protest, but the situation is dynamic and ongoing, so we are going to continue to monitor it closely. but we stand ready to provide any support and assistance we can. -- in last question reference to the president's trip to vietnam, mr. obama was 14, if my math is correct, at the time of the united states' final withdrawal from saigon. i just wonder if you could speak

,o the extent possible for you how the vietnam war and the post-vietnam resident evil america in the war you'll hear i think the president talk about that over the next couple of days. i would say the president is focused on this trip. this is one that has been in the works for a while. it is a trip he wanted to make. he felt strongly about this. we are spending three days on the ground. that is a lot for one country. normally on these trips. the president is not only looking to speaking to the leadership, but he will be speaking with young people. he will have a townhall really takes questions from young people. he will be with business leaders and civic leaders. he will talk about how far we have come since those days in the decades since the time he mentioned to now.