ng to what chair yellen said, i think she's jaw-boning -- in other words, talking rates up without actually having to move it up and she's preparing us. i think that is why lower for longer still plays and i think that that reit still plays. >> guys, thank you so much. thanks to all of you as with pel. much more throughout the day from delivering alpha. "power" starts now. welcome to "power lunch." i'm brian sullivan here at cnbc headquarters. you are looking at a live picture inside the white house. we'll cover the president live at any moment. sara eisen is at the nyse mandy and tyler are both on assignment. the dow not doing much up just a couple of points but oil under increasing pressure, down now nearly 3% to $51.50 per barrel. but we begin in washington a day after striking that historic nuclear agreement with iran, any moment now the president is set to hold a news conference. it is part of an effort to sell the deal to a skeptical american

people. we will also be listening to closely to what the president might say about the american economy. it all comes off fed chair janet yellen's testimony earlier today where she continues to prepare investors for a likely interest rate increase this year. if we get that it would be the first interest rate hike in america in nine years. let's go down straight to eamon javers back at the white house where we are awaiting the president. >> reporter: that's right. the president's going to take some questions here from reporters. we can expect that what's on his mind is that deal with the iranian signed earlier this week. we can expect hearings beginning on capitol hill as early as next week. this is going to be a sales pitch series of comments here from the president. but as you point out, we don't necessarily know what all the questions from the reporters will be. he possibly will get some questions on the u.s. economy, how it is faring also the global situation. when it comes to iran though expect to hear from the president putting this in historical context broadly comparing himself, as he has in the past to ronald reagan and richard nixon in their overtures

to the soviet union and to the communist chinese regime back in the 1970s and 1980s. the president and the white house very much view this iran deal as part and parcel of that historical u.s. diplomatic tradition. whether or not that flies up on capitol hill though is going to be the question. the congress will have 60 days to review the deal and they will get an up or down vote on it. whether or not they can override a presidential veto though is another question. the expectation is now that the president could veto any congressional disapproval and make that stand up on capitol hill, brian. >> eamon, thank you. your other big news today also coming from washington, d.c. fed chair janet yellen grilled on capitol hill about the health of the u.s. economy and when the federal reserve is likely to begin raising interest rates. our senior economics reporter steve leisman back from europe and he is here with the highlights. steve, i guess the only thing janet yellen hasn't done is spray paint on a wall that interest rates are likely to go up this year. >> that's a pretty good way to put it brian.

she was a little bit more explicit as we got into the hearing here. saying things she hadn't really said before, saying that the economy can tolerate higher rates and thinks the economy needs higher rates. i want to play this sound here that we haven't gotten on air yet. at 12:36 this is what she said in response to a question really about community banking but listen to the response when it comes to interest rates. >> a decision on our part to raise rates will say, no the economy doesn't stink, we're close to where we want to be and we now think the economy cannot only tolerate but needs higher rates. so there have been headwinds and we've tried to use monetary policy to overcome them. >> not only needs but can tolerate higher rates. that's pretty new language for the chair. suggesting to one analyst that the fed really is leaning earlier rather than later. other news at the hearing, she was pressed on dod frankd-frank and

the economic impact. she said she's worried about u.s. debt levels and the gop very concerned about there being no monetary policy rule. democrats more concerned about minorities being left behind in this expansion. in terms of fisticuffs probably the harshest back-and-forth came can congressman duffy about this issue of why the federal reserve has not provided documents that congress has suggested when it comes to the investigation in to the leak. here's the back-and-forth. >> the ig was already involved. >> if anyone's trying to sweep this under the rug, it is the feds. we have the right to these documents. you have cited no legal authority to deny that request. you are required to do oversight. you are required to give us the documents. i hope you will reconsider your denial. >> she says the reason she hasn't given the documents is because there is a criminal

investigation by the justice department and a review by the inspector general. i think the big deal here is the fed kind of leaning towards raising rates. that's the message i got from that last comment from janet yellen. >> possibly even meaning higher rates. steve leisman, thanks on the yellen testimony. we're still rallying just barely with the dow up six points. bob pisani joins me now on the new york stock exchange floor. not doing a whole lot to upset the rally. >> let's look at the s&p 500. miss yellen not really moving the stock market but a couple of other things are impacting the markets. we're being influenced by bank earnings, for example. and a decline in commodities today that's moving things around. if you look at the s&p 500, we started in the plus territory and have slowly moved down here throughout the middle of the afternoon, almost at the breek-even point. banks earnings importantly are keeping up financials and that's helping the market overall.

pyc beat u.s. bancorp was in line bank of america beat. those are bill helps in the market. 12-year yields are coming down. that could put pressure on the rally we saw in the second quarter. commodities stocks metals to the downside rather notably. oil and gas exploration as we had the weekly oil inventory levels that were not bullish for the overall market. overall though sara, not too much concern out there. the vix has collapsed this week. remember we were at 20 last week. now down to 13. that's one of the biggest declines we've seen in a long long time. finally, jeff gundlach bullish on india. that's moved sideways as reform

efforts have largely stalled out there. i share his bullishness on india. the problem is getting them going. >> thank you very much. well it is the who's who of the investing world and it is the delivering alpha conference in new york presented by cnbc and institutional investor. scott wapner and tyler mathisen are there along with our own kate kelly. there are a lot of stocks moving on this news. tyler, i'll start with you because this is your show. what has stuck out to you? >> well the main headline from here is that there is not just power in the house, there's also lunch here for a change. unlike back in inglewood cliffs where there's lots of power and no lunch. scott and kate have been watching the proceedings all day. i think there are a couple of very interesting standpoints. for my money one of the standout performers was jeff gundlach talking about how he does not see an interest rate hike any time this year. >> he is always a headline grabber.

riveting really presentation on the stage. just that he does not think that the fed will raise interest rates this year. what i think is most interesting about that is it's not like he's saying they should. he's not pounding the table saying they should raise interest rates like some others. he's saying i don't think they should and i don't think they will, that the economy is not as strong as the fed would lead you to believe or perhaps that it test thinks it is. >> he goes back and cites history of how the fed has repeatedly over time overestimated the health of the economy likening it to the triumph of hope over history which he said was like a second marriage frankly. got a big laugh out of there. having been there, i know what he's talking about. >> he is always very funny. >> he pointed to the fact that the fed's own gdp growth prediction five years waeg ass 5.3% and we're short of that. i got a call from someone saying why aren't you citing the

unemployment rate? >> i thought bill miller on the panel with him was equally interesting in the way that he talked about not only amazon -- amazon's having its big prime day today. i believe it is the largest position for bill miller. but also talking about the airlines. delta air lines he likes. company came out with earnings today. then some of the home builders as well. you're getting a lot of great ideas from some of the investors who have been on the stage today. >> kate has picked some of the highlights of sound during today. the thing with bill miller was very interesting. he pointed out among other things his purchase price of amazon was something like at $10 originally nen atthen at $20, now it's at what? $400? >> just to look at a straight-up stock pick that's doing incredibly well in the aftermath of its mention for the very first time here at delivering alpha. jeff smith of starboard value. you know him from what he's done with darden restaurants. huge turnaround situation there where he won a proxy fight, or

came close to. and also he's been rattling cages at yahoo! among other places, his pick today -- macy's. he sees a split-off story. but here's the crux in his own words. >> we believe there is an opportunity to create two leading companies, the macy's operating business as well as the real estate company. we believe you can accomplish this goal while maintaining the dividend and actually making it safer. and by maintaining the credit rating. >> okay. so then interesting thoughts there. that stock was up over 6%. obviously a huge move based on the conviction that smith showed. bill ackman was asked by jim cramer what's your new investment we don't know of. he punted on that one. the crux of this has to do with good-old-fashioned logic which

he thinks will prevail despite all the legal wrangles. fannie and freddie. >> i think it offers the most upside probably has the most downside of anything we own. the downside outcome is very unlikely. this cannot be a precedent where the u.s. government is can step in and take unilaterally 100% of a company's profits. the conclusion that fannie and freddie are the only way to have a housing finance system in the u.s. with low-cost mortgages for middle-class borrowerers. >> and a little more flavor from gundlach and his own words, he talked with the fed and how reality isn't matching up with expectation, he can see why they'd like to move away from the 0% rate policy that's been in place so many years now but that a faster move that's warranted could really end up with a snap-back situation. >> the economy is lower in terms of growth than three years, i've

got to believe raising interest rates would end up with the same dynamics we've seen in other developed countries for the past several years which is they raise rates because they think the coast is clear, then they stick out as a high yield in currency, and the next thing you know, they have to cut rates again. >> so again, interesting things there from gundlach. he talked about indian stocks. he talked about airlines. he had a lot of interesting thoughts but the fed commentary especially just as janet yellen with a was speaking fascinating. >> if you guys can throw up again the intraday move in the 10-year note yield. you have on one hand the man that some people call the bond king saying the fed is not going to raise interest rates this year. you have the fed chair herself on capitol hill within the last 15 minutes saying the conditions are getting closer. we're almost there, that the economy wants and needs higher interest rates. the stock market came off there, but you can see the move intraday in the 10-year. i think most certainly on what jeffrey gundlach had to say. the bond came moving.

i think the freshry market more so than the fed chair as we sheiks. >> another interesting wrinkle, brian sullivan was that gundlach said that while interest rates around the world do tend to take off very gradually, then as the cycle moves, then enthey move up less gradually. we can argue all we want about why bobbed market moved. maybe jeff will be right, maybe he'll be wrong. ultimately rates are going to go up. we all know that whether september, october, november december, or 2016. i moderated a panel with a couple hundred advisors in the room. i asked them to raise their hands, how many of you got into the financial advisor business after 2006. about 1 in 3 or whatever raised his or her hand. i said you have never advised your clients in a rising

interest rate environment. i think no matter when rates go up next month, couple months from now we're going to have a lot of people literally learning on the job. because it's been nine years. >> a fair point. it's really been 30 years if you look back to 1984 which is when interest rates began their sort of secular decline. and while there have been times in that period when interest rates have went up -- greenspan and elsewhere -- it really has been a downward movement in the cycle. gundlach pointed out that the low was four years ago on the 10-year at 1.38% or 1.3% -- whatever. and in the 30-year earlier this year. so he believes that rates are going to go up. eventually. >> although he said today, i think he said it on the stage, and he told me on our show a few moments ago, he wouldn't be surprised at all if the 10-year went back down to around the $2.17 or so range, which was the low of the year that they get back that low. again that conviction that he

has on the no rate hike is pretty firm. >> one other thing that stood out to me in the best ideas panel, all of the stock pickers basically picked stocks where the value was residing in the real estate of the company. macy's. ethan allen. and the one -- >> jeff smith said -- >> you wonder guys if these so-called activists -- i will not call them activists. so-called activists. if they're all just copying each other now, to your point be tyler, going back years to sears, that's sort of the first target where people said maybe they have a lot of money in real estate even though their core business is struggling. almost looks like the activists are just going from target to target saying this is a real estate play. because there is a lot of tax issues here that would benefit on the real estate side. >> i mean brian, there's no question that a lots of these activists look to financial engineering of one sort or another, whether it's splitting off low growth assets from high growth, whether it is thinking about dividends, buy-backs, et

cetera, but it is remarkable that real estate assets that some of these companies are sitting on that you don't think of as such. and macy's for example, with a $29 billion enterprise value, smith was arguing $20 million of that is in real estate. >> it's probably more than that. what's macy's herald square building worth? one block long two-block wide eight-story building in the heart of manhattan. >> $4 billion, $1 billion at union scare in san francisco, another billion in chicago. but the real estate does add up. the point is you're basically getting the retailer for free. >> no offense to jeff smith. you don't have to be a big hedge fund manager to know that a big build big city would have some value. >> he's done well on the activist positions he has taken. he has gotten victories.

board seats. remember he got rid of the entire board over at darden. >> that was like a playbook for activism success, basically. >> add more salt to the water when you boil the pasta, guys. and don't bring out more bread sticks unless they ask. bertha coombs. >> these days it is health care m and b&a and particular biotech m&a. celgene seeing an all-time high boosting its outlook even it acquires acquires another company. the nasdaq as well as 1% away now from its historic high. we're continuing to see these moves in biotech's arena which does a similar type of drug that it's researching. also today is a big mover, we've come off the highs.

also consumer discretionary stocks today. amazon on its anniversary, having prime day seeing a lot of activity there. it at a fresh all-time high today. facebook as with el. you can also see the big moves when you take a look at micron. talk that it might be taken over by a chinese chip company had that stock surge yesterday. now with people throwing water on that hold water on that you're seeing it give back. brian, back to you. >> bertha thank you. a reminder to our viewers and listeners with be we are awaiting the president to begin his big news conference any moment now. it is about that historic nuclear agreement with iran. he now has to sell the deal both to congress and the american people. we will carry the president's speech when it begins. the dow up just a couple of points. a lot more to do stick around we're back right after this. . it took serena williams years to master the two handed backhand.

but only one shot to master the chase mobile app. technology designed for you. so you can easily master the way you bank.

all right. just a reminder again we are awaiting the president to begin his news conference any moment now about that historic iran deal. you can see now press crew is awaiting that. as soon as we get notice that the president steps out on to that podium you, my friends, will be the first to know and we will take you to the white house live. mean toyota recalling 625,000 hybrid cars to fix a

software problem that could shut down the hybrid system while driving. watch out hollywood. amazon studios launching its first-ever amazon original movie. the movie directed by spike lee is expected to hit theaters next year. biopharmaceutical company celgene reaching a deal to by rere receptos. a little bit of weakness on housing. diana olick has the details from washington. >> home buyers are getting very little hope from still-low mortgage rates. total application volume fell last week 1.9% even as applications to refinance rose. re-fis up 4% but that purchase apps to buy a home down 8%. there was some messiness due to the july fourth holiday falling on a friday. some lenders were open some

weren't. but apps are down for the month in total. the 30-year fixed was unchanged. the adjustable rain loan share continues to crime. they are riskier in a rising rate environment. overall though, it is not the rate it is the credit availability. you heard fed chair janet yellen, she said it herself this morning in testimony to congress demand for housing is still being restrained by limited availability of mortgage loans to many potential home buyers. now rates did jump last friday and could move higher again this week. the 10-year was up again this morning but then pulled back and that 10-year yield is the one that lenders follow in making mortgage rates. let's go now to aim beeamon javers in washington, d.c. sara eisen from the new york stock exchange. the dow just up a couple of points. eamon, this could be a very wide-ranging conversation an speech for the president. what are we expecting to be the

highlights? >> brian, iran obviously is the focus here. one of the things you can expect to hear from the president is sort of narrowing the definition of success of this iran deal. he's really focused on just the projects of limiting iran from getting a nuclear bomb in the next ten years. he's going to reject claims that this deal ought to do a whole lot to transform iranian society, but at the same time what the white house has argued in the past is that this deal because it is going to lower the sanctions on iran spur huge amounts of economic activity inside iran will empower a group of business people and capitalists inside that country who will have a stake in the global rule of law and order, global financial markets, and that might shift the balance of power over the long term inside the country of iran although the president's going to say here that he expects this deal to be determined just on its own. >> how hard is that going to be for him to sell this to congress? how much pushback at this point are you expecting to this deal? >> he's getting a lot of pushback from congressional republicans already. we're going to see hearings starting as early as next week

up on capitol hill. the question is will democrats support this deal and there's some wavering democrats up there on capitol hill. but i think ultimately the expectation is the president will be able to sustain this on capitol hill because congress has 60 days now to review the deal. they can pass an approval or disapproval of that deal but if they disapprove the deal the president could vee videoto it and that would require a two-thirds majority on capitol hill to overrule. the white house thinks they'll have the votes when to sustain a veto override by the president. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> you just heard the announcement inside of the white house. so let us go down to washington, d.c. and listen in on the president of the united states of america. >> please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. yesterday was an historic day. the comprehensive long-term deal that we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent iran

from obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful display of american leadership and diplomacy. it shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle, when we unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday, it is important for the american people and congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. that process is now under way. i've already reached out to leaders in congress on both sides of the aisle. my national security team has begun offering extensive briefings. i expect the debate to be robust, and that's how it should be. this is an important issue. our national security policies are stronger and this more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands. and as i said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. that's why our team worked so

hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time, as this debate unfolds, i hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture, the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward, it's important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal those pathways remain open. there would be no limits to iran's nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal we gain unprecedented around-the-clock monitoring of iran's key nuclear

facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated. without a deal those inspections go away and we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal if iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions that have helped to cripple the iranian economy will snap back into place. without a deal the international sanctions regime will unravel with little ability to reimpose them. with this deal we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal we risk even more war in the middle east and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs threatening a nuclear arms race

in the if most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday, even with this deal, we will continue to have profound differences with iran. its support of terrorism. ipts use of prok its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the middle east. therefore, the multi-lateral arms embargo on iran will remain in place for an additional five years and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years. in addition the united states will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its human rights violations, and we'll continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the gulf states. but the bottom line is this. this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat iran obtaining a nuclear

weapon, which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative -- no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections, an iran that's closer to a nuclear weapon the risk rf regional nuclear arms race and the greater risk of war -- all that would endanger our security. that's the choice that we face. if we don't choose wisely i believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away. and no one suggests that this deal resolves all the threats that iran poses to its neighbors or the world. moreover realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and execution. but this deal is our best means

of assuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. and from the start, that has been my number one priority our number one priority. we've got an historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world. an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and as commander in chief, i am determined to seize that opportunity. so with that i'm going to take some questions and let me see who i'm starting off with. here you go. i got it. andrew b. afp. >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday you said the deal offered a chance at renewed direction in relations with iran. what steps will you take to enable a more moderate iran and

does this deal allow you to more forcefully counter iran's destabilizing actions in the region quite aside from the nuclear question. thank you. >> if you don't mind this -- because i suspect that there's going to be a common set of questions that are touched on i promise i will get to your question. but i want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. and i already did in my opening statement i just want to reiterate it because i've already heard some objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. and so everything that we've done over the last 6 1/2 years

has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community, including some folks that we are not particularly close to to abide by these sanctions. that's how these crippling sanctions came about, was because we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the reason that iran's accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for the oil sales that they've made. that's the reason that they had problems operating with respect to international commerce because we built that international consensus around this very specific narrow but profound issue. the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and, by the way, that was not

simply my priority. if you've looked back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five six years, this has been a democratic priority, this has been a republican priority this has been prime minister netanyahu's priority. it's been our gulf allies' priority, is making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry, wendy sherman, ernie moniz, our allies our partners the p5+1, achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority make pentagon sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. but we have always recognized that even if iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon iran still poses

challenges to our interests and our values, both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we will have brought their stockpiles down to 98%. we will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges that they operate. we will have installed and unprecedented inspections regime, and that will remain in place not just for ten years, but, for example, on the stockpiles, will continue to 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon, and now will be subject to an additional protocol a

more vigorous are ininspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity. we will have disabled a facility like iraq the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that's enriched, and we will have put in place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence but more importantly, nuclear experts can say with confidence that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we will have met our number one

priority. now, we'll still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. its funding of proxies like hezbollah that threaten israel and threaten the region. the destabilizing activities that they're engaging in including in places like yemen. and my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behaven.be behave behave. but we're not counting on it. so this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior.

it is not contingent on iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. it solves one particular problem which is making sure they don't have a bomb. and the point i've repeatedly made -- and is i believe hard to dispute -- is that it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies interests. if they don't have a bomb. and so will they change their behavior? will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like syria, or what's happening in iraq to stop encouraging houthis in yemen. we'll continue to engage with them. although, keep in mind that unlike the cuba situation, we're

not normalizing diplomatic relations here. so the context will continue to be limited. but will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? of course. but we're not betting on it. and in fact having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with israel work with the gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the europeans, to bring additional pressure to bear on iran around those issues that remain of concern. but the argument that i've been already hearing, and this was foreshadowed even before the deal was announced, that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that that's an argument for rejecting this deal. defies logic. it makes no sense. and it loses sight of what was

our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. jon karl. >> mr. president, does it give you any pause to see this deal praised by syrian dictator assad was a great victory for iran or praised by those in tehran who still shout "death to america," and yet our closest ally in the middle east calls it a mistake of historic proportions? and here in congress it looks like a large majority will vote to reject this deal. i know you can veto that rejection, but do you have any concerns about seeing a majority of the people's representatives in congress saying that this is a bad deal? and if i can just ask you a quick political question -- a very quick one. >> jon, i think -- >> donald -- >> let me answer the question that you asked. it does not give me pause that

mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do. and that's been the case throughout. i mean you will recall that during the course ever these negotiations over the last couple of months every time the supreme leader or somebody tweeted something out, for some reason we all bought in to the notion well, the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating to that. well, now we have a document so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate, we don't have to engage in spin you can just read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is

cut off from plutonium the fordow facilities that's underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime we have snap-back provisions if they cheat. the facts are the facts. and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now with respect to congress my hope -- i won't prejudge this. my hope is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts. not on politics. not on posturing. not on the fact that this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed to a republican president. not based on lobbying. but based on what's in the national interests of the united states of america.

and i think that if congress does that then in fafact based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington, and politics do intrude and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation. and that i welcome. in part because, look. there are legitimate real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with

iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. i mean you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence their missiled thats are pointed toward tel aviv. so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. i've said this to prime minister netanyahu, i've said it direct toy to the israeli people. but what i've said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of

prime minister netanyahu, or for that matter some of the republican leadership that's already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world and threaten the united states. i mean there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say, this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb and

you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does it's temporary, or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problems then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. and the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation, or it's resolved through force. through war. those are the options. now, you'll hear some critics say, well we could have negotiated a better deal. okay. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that

a better deal an acceptable deal, would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful fulful nuclear program in iran. what we do is make sure they

don't have a nuclear weapon. that's what we've done. so to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and why they're right and people like ernie moniz who is an m.i.t. nuclear physicist and an expert on these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heal through military force, then those critics should say so and that would be an honest debate. >> mr. president, prime minister netanyahu said you have a situation where iran can delay

24 days before giving access -- >> that's a good example. so let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been i think swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. now keep in mind first of all, that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities. fordow iraq their uranium mines, facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts, that entire infrastructure that we know about we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. all right? so then the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now one of the advantages of having inspections across the

entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. there are only so many uranium mines in iran and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mind and suddenly some's missing on the back end, they got some 'splaining to do. so we're going to track what's happening along the existing fra inging facilities to make sure there is no diversion into a covert program. but let's say iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly the iaea the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to

say that undeclared site we're concerned about with be we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran we want to go inspect that. if iran objects, we can override it. in the agreement, we've set it up so we can override iran's objection. and we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override. and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such this is not something you hide in the closet.

this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and, by the way, if we identify an under declared site that we're suspicious today, we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there. that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring that entire that. and, by the way, if there is nuclear materiel on that site your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that in fact there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification

regime by far that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran doe sides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection verification mechanism? it's possible. but, if it does first of all, we built in a one-year break-out time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully. and, we built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations with the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they'd find some way to get around it

because they're untrustworthy. and if that's your view then we go back to the choice that you had to make earlier. that means presumably that you can't negotiate. and what you're really saying is you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it. but it is not persuasive. carol lee. >> mr. president, i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those even with the five and eight-year durations? it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill. and are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or hamas, and is there anything that you or future president can

do to stop that? and if you don't mind, i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the middle east what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year-and-a-half? >> so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us has been a real concern to us. and it is in the national security interests of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example. or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that

gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially, iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now under the terms of the original u.n. resolution the fact is that once an agreement -- once an agreement was arrived at that gave the

international community insurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibitions should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was, given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited. and we got eight years with respect to ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only

for five as opposed to let's say, a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multi-lateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and truthfully these prohibitions are not self-enforcing. it is not like the u.n. has the

capacity to police what iran is doing. what it does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening. in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem if you look at how, for example, hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region it's not because they were legal. it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law. it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is carol, i share the concerns of israel saudis gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing

conflict and chaos in the region. and that's why i've said to them, let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net. but the legal authorities we'll still possess. and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah, and those remain in place. in terms of the larger issues of the middle east, obviously that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president -- the next president is that we are on track to

defeat isil that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there. that we have jump-started a process to resolve the civil war in syria which is like an open sore in the region and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who are taking advantage of that chaos. to make sure that in iraq not only have we pushed back isil, but we've also created an environment in which sunnis shia and kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together. and, to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so that they feel they can address any potential

threats that may come including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place and support that we've already put in place. it includes the work that we've done with the gcc up at camp david making sure that we execute that. if we'd done those things then the problems of the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately it is not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the middle east. the people of the middle east are going to have to solve some of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that next president at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas. the last thing i would say -- and this is a longer term

issue -- is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future. so that they are not tempted by the annihilistic violent dead end that organizations like isil offer. again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right. michael crowder. >> thank you.

you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria, just to focus on that for a moment. many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran and giving iran an important role. do you agree and is that a dialogue you'll be actively seeking. and what about the fight against isis? what would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? >> i do agree that we're not going to solve the problems of syria unless there is buy-in from the russians, the ryaniranians the turks, or gulf partners. it is too chaotic, there are too many factions, there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying. and in order for us to resolve

it, there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran is one of those players, and i think that it is important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not, and i don't anticipate any time in the near future restored normal diplomatic relations with iran. and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counterisil campaign. but clearly iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shia population, they have

relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate where you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move in to sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground, to assess where can we appropriately at least de deconflictdecon deconflict and where can we work with prime minister abadi around an overall strategy for iraq to regain its sovereignty, and

where do we tell abadi, you know what? what iran's doing there is a problem. and we can't cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there because we're not going to have our troops even in an advisory or training role looking over their shoulders because they're not sure what might happen to them. and those conversations have been ongoing. i think they will continue. the one thing you can count on is that any work that the u.s. government does or the u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abadi is directing those soldiers then it's tough for us to have any kind of

direct relationship. >> thank you, mr. president. as you well know there are four americans in iran three held on trumped-up charges, and according to your administration whereaboutseon known. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content with all the fanfare around this deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? and last week the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. making the pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff hung out to dry. could you comment? >> i got to give you credit major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content? as i celebrate?

with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense. and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content. and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. suddenly iran realizes, you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is

dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and, by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single day to try to get them out. and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to some degree i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. as i just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles, under this particular u.n. resolution but we have a host of other multi-lateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we

see iran rap engaged in those activities whether it's six years from now, or ten years from now.engaged in those activities whether it's six years from now, or ten years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact part of my pitch to the gcc countries, as well as to prime minister netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. and as i just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity, and our interdiction capacity with our partners. okay. april ryan. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year on the flight to selma you said on matters of race as president your job is to close remaining gaps that are left in state and federal government. now how does criminal justice

reform fit in to that equation and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency. also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland, in the next couple of weeks as president of the united states? and lastly would you revoke the medal of freedom from bill cosby. >> you stuffed a lot in there, april. you know what? >> i learned from jonathan. >> who did you say you learned from? jonathan karl? on criminal justice reform obviously i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something i've been thinking about a lot been working first with eric holder now with loretta lynch about -- we've been working on along with other prosecutors of the u.s. attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task

force that we put together post-ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal justice system is obviously the sole source of racial tension in this country. or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests, as well as federal, state and local interests in solving the problem. i think people recognize that there are violent criminals out there and they've got to be

locked up. we've got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough. job and they are helping to keep us safe and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by non-violent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money. . it is debilitating communities who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record rendering them oftentimes unemployable. so it compounds problems that these communities already have.

and so i am very appreciative of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul and other folks in the house who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around non-violent drug offenses -- again, i tend not to have a lot off sympathy when it comes to violent crime. but when it comes top non-violent drug offenses is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums create more diversion programs like drug courts then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to re-enter the work force. on the back end are we doing more to link them up with

re-entry programs that are effective. and this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all of the other challenges that we've got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting into the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education, good jobs and making sure that we're not segregating folks in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. but this could make a difference. i met these four ex-offenders as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. one of them had served ten years. another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time. and in each instance somebody

intervened at some point in their lives once they had already been in the criminal justice system once they've already gotten in trouble, and said you know what? i think you can live a different way, and i'm willing to help you. and that one person an art teacher, or a ged teacher or some somebody who's willing to offer a guy a job. i want to give a shout out to five guys. because one of the guys there was an ex-felon and five guys gave him a job. and he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point was somebody reached out to that person and gave him a chance. and so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're 10 or 11 or 12 or 8, as opposed to waiting until they've already gone through a criminal justice program.

that's part of why we're doing my brother's keeper. but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime we've got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down. because part of the reason i think there is a conversation taking place is because violent crime has significantly dropped. last year we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem. including my hometown of chicago. and in baltimore. and part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we reno cuss refocus attention. if we're doing a package of greater criminal justice reforms, have a greater present and more law enforcement in the communities that are really hit hard and having seen some of the

drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to visiting kenya, it's been something i'm looking forward to. i'll tell you something, visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president because i can actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place is always tough as president. but it is obviously symbolically important. and my hope is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner not just for kenya but for sub-saharan africa generally built on the progress that's been made around issues and education. focus on counterterrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al shabaab and some of the tragedies that have

happened inside of kenya. and continue to encourage democracy democracy. but sometimes the corruption in that country has held back this incredibly incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom. there's no precedent for revoking a medal. we don't have that mechanism. and as you know i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved. i'll say this -- if you give a woman or a man, for that matter

without his or her knowledge, a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape. and i think this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted iran questions here? i think there is a helicopter that's coming but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer. i just -- go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here but -- i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned here. >> thanks, mr. president. i'll be brief. the argument has been today that

iran now has a cash windfall billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashar al assad, et cetera? >> i think that's a great question and i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and roads and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that because rowhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the qods force i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that

we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional recourses for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies. i think that is a likelihood that they've got some additional resources. do i think it is a game changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah. and there is a ceiling, a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more particularly in the chaos that's taken place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources

into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send other proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. all right? so again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. the other problem with the argument that folks have been making about, oh this is a windfall and suddenly iran's flush with cash and they're going to take over the world -- and i say that not tongue in cheek, because if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that iran is in fact going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal -- which i think would be news to the iranians -- that argument is

also premised on the notion that if there is no deal if congress votes down this deal that we're able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. and that i can promise you is not true. that is absolutely not true. i want to repeat we're not writing iran a check. this is iran's money that we are able to block from them having access to. that required the cooperation of countries all around the world, many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran. the imposition of sanctions, their cooperation with us has cost them billions of dollars, made it harder for them they've been willing to do that because

they believed we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and they consider that a priority a high enough priority that they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions. if they saw us walking away or more specifically they saw the u.s. congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99% of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian weapons program, nuclear weapons program in an equitable way, the sanction system unravels. so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions by but it would be far less effective as it was before we were able to put together these multi-lateral sanctions. so maybe they don't get 1$00

billion, maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. the price for that that we've paid, is that now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. we have no inspectors on the ground. we don't know what's going on. they're still getting some cash windfall. we've lost credibility in the eyes of the world. we will have effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. a terrible position to be in. okay. i'm just going to look -- i made some notes in the arguments that i've heard here. >> how about the deal -- >> that's a good one. so the notion -- so let's address this issue of -- because that's the other big argument that's been made. all right. let's assume that the deal holds

for ten years. iran doesn't cheat. now at the end of ten years, some of the restrictions that haven't lifted although, remember, others stay in place for 15 years. for example, they've still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away. those are still in place. 15 20 years from now. their commitment under the nonproliferation treaty does not go away. these still in place. the additional protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism, that stays in place. so there's no scenario in which

a u.s. president is not in a stronger position 12 13 15 years from now if in fact iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. keep in mind, we will have maintained a one-year break-out time we will have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities kept them under severe restrictions had observers, they will have made i understand commitments, supported by countries around the world. and -- hold on a second. and if at that point they finally decided, you know what? we're going to cheat. or not even cheat. at that point they decide openly we're now pursuing a nuclear weapon. they're still in violation of this deal and the commitments they've made internationally. and so we are still in a position to mobilize the world

community to say no you can't have a nuclear weapon. and they're not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point. they're in a weaker position than they are today. and, by the way, we haven't given away any of our military capabilities. we're not in a weaker position to respond. so even if everything that critics were saying was true that at the end of 10 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon that they're at a break-out point. they won't be at a break-out point that is more dangerous than the break-out point they're in right now. they won't be at a break-out

point that is shorter than the one that exists today. and so why wouldn't we at least make sure that for the next 10 15 years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it. and afterwards if they decide -- if they change their mind we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today. >> this is holding out hope this will change their behavior in -- >> no. no. look. i'm always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the iranian people as well as people in the region. there are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict because of

sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression because of terrorism. and i remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that and it should be part of u.s. foreign policy to do something about that. but i'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do. again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an american president is in a worse position 12 13 14 15 years from now, if in fact at that point iran says we're going to pull out of the mpt, kick out inspectors, and go for a nuclear bomb. if that happens, that president will be in a better position than what happened if iran as a consequence of congress rejecting this deal decides that's it, we're done negotiating, we're going after a bomb right now.

the choices would be tougher today than they would be for that president 15 years from no you. i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. all right? i really have to go now. i think we've hit the big themes. but i promise you, i will address this again. all right? i suspect this is not the last that we've heard. we want to take you right away toen athens greece where protests over austerity measures have turned violent. michelle caruso-cabrera live in athens with the latest. >> reporter: for about the last 20 minutes we've seen molotov cocktails or large explosions then teargas was used by the riot police. so things -- i wouldn't say they've calmed down but certainly they're not like they were before. we've seen now people coming back into the square little bit calmer. i don't know if we're carrying the live picture of the video -- the video is going to see very dramatic when you see it. a lot of fire for 10 15

minutes. and loud explosions. it really sent people running, sent the riot police into high gear. that's when the -- in the past they've shown a little more patience but i think over the years they brought out -- they decided this time around they were going to bring out the teargas very quickly to disperse the crowds. we weren't completely surprised because earlier a lot of the crowd was dressed in black. some had gas masks.ypically a anarchists. i see our cameraman is probably showing the distance the riot police moving beyond the square. there's like a small forest there. small park over there where people tend to run to and where oftentimes once they move out of the square you'll see more explosions coming from that direction. there's a series of hotels. we can hear chanting coming from

that direction as well. but not surprising this is going to be a pivotal, critical vote that's happening in the parliament tonight. we can hear actually small explosions off to the side here. so we thought we might see something like this. it certainly isn't the scale that we have seen in the past when the first rounds of austerity votes were taken in 2010 and 2011. but certainly with what's happening tonight, there is the sense that greece is moving to yet another difficult situation. so once again, earlier i'd say 15 minutes ago, a round of very loud explosions that appeared to come from molotov cocktails that were thrown. the police moving in with teargas to disperse the crowds. things that calmed down since then. we now see, if we come back to a live picture, protesters are moving back into the square just in front of parliament. they are carrying a large sign that says "oxi," that means no.

these are people who voted no in the referendum more than a week ago and very much wanted it to mean a "no." and they actually many of them when we've interviewed them said they wouldn't mind leaving the euro if that's what it would take. a lot of them were anti-european to begin with and very much wanted to see a change in the country and to not be dictated by brussels as there are the complaints that are going on right now. >> we can update the situation with a few things. one, the dow industrials just about to turn negative up four points right now. they were up about 30 when we came live to you. michelle caruso-cabrera that vote tonight at midnight athens time, which would be about 5:00 p.m. our time here. the ministers of parliament in athens right now are actually debating the austerity measure as these protests are taking place. michelle, your point about the protest five years ago is well noted. it was interesting, because alex, the cameraman, did show us how the police actually walked past the protesters.

to your point, set the scene for syntagma square with are this all takes place. is it possible the police are actually moving past the protesters in order to block them in so no new protesters can enter? to keep it to be a more manageable size? >> reporter: that is certainly a possibility, brian. i don't actually know much about the logistics of riot management, et cetera. but all these guys are now back in the center here in front of the parliament. it's dark so i can't tell if they're the classic anarchists who are more prone to violence. they were all wearing black and had on hoods, et cetera that would be an indication that maybe we would see more of what we had seen earlier. but right now, the police appear to be allowing them to stay there in front of parliament. i should point out, this vote in the parliament, they were going to try to get it done by 10:30 local time. it is 9:30 local time. doesn't even appear that they actually even started discussing it at this point.

i'm being told by the producer they have just started debating. they're hopefully going to get it done by midnight. it's been an incredibly arduous process parliamentary advise. i see you are showing the video from earlier. this is exactly what it is like. you can see how thick the teargas is. exactly -- that is exactly what it is named for. it will cause a really intense feeling in your nose and face. if you ever want to know the shape. of your esophagus, breathe some teargas. it goes right down your throat and it is very very painful. that's why people disperse so fast, hence that's why many of the protesters showed up with gas masks ready to go. >> the nasdaq has also turned lower, trading now in negative territory. the vote, the consensus view, is that the measures will pass this evening evening. with this unrest in the streets, is there he? extrapolation for that consensus

perhaps not happening? >> reporter: i think at this point, the question was just degree were the greek prime ministers, parliamentarians or mps going to be abandoning him. he's corralled them all day saying listen if you don't stick by me what if we end up having new elections? i'll still be the prime minister but i'll take you off my mp list and you won't have a job. there's been a lot of hardballing going on behind the scenes to try to get the left wing of the party to get onboard and to support this because he'd like to maintain a parliamentary authority. however, the actual measures getting passed that was never in doubt. the opposition had always said that they supported it. this he were very pro-euro they wanted to stay in the euro and they were going to vote for it regardless. just the question was to what degree was he going to get his party to go along with it. you can see they've set on fire yet another tv truck. they've done that in the past

before. and -- >> we can clearly see, michellemichelle live with your own eyes. we are seeing it through our camera. you can see molotov cocktails and firebombs being thrown apartment the riot police. fair to say that the greek people that are protesting here have a couple of things that they are angry about. one, they feel probably hoodwinked about the vote the previous sunday night regarding that austerity measure. number two, angry at europe for imposing these strong capital controls. but perhaps you can go into the anger at the own parliament of greece because they succumbed -- we'll find out if they do ultimately with the vote tonight, but look like they will succumb to has to austerity measures so there's anger not only at continental europe particularly germany, but also the greek parliament itself. >> yeah i would agree with all of those points for those people who are out here brian. at the same time a relatively small crowd compared to what we have seen in the past which

suggested to us that in the past, the folks who were in the square would have been supporters but now that their prime minister has says ged ont on board, you probably have a smaller crowd tonight. civil servants went on strike today. pharmacists went on strike today. in theory you would have had many, many more people out here but you didn't you had a few thousand, mostly looked like young people and people we've seen in the past who are consistently troublemakers. the anarchist group. so, yes, anger. but i think the people that are here tonight just don't actually want to be a part of the european union and they don't want the euro. >> is the real test tonight whether or not tsipras will hold on to his job? >> reporter: so, all roads lead to prime minister tsipras holding on to his job. the question is how many mps does he lose from his party tonight.

weaker, the more that abandon him, the weaker he gets. he could rule with a minority, but then he would be hostage with other parties. in theory he could call a snap election and the way it works is he could put whoever he wanedted on the list of who his mps would be if he won, therefore he would guarantee that he could control the parliament. the problem is you've got to go through an election to do that so he'd rather not do that right? because they've got to actually negotiate this bailout program. the banks are closed. do you really want a delay like that? >> but if they held another election melissa, he'd still have the job, is the point, and be even more powerful likely. so what he's been saying to his people tonight and today according to all the news reports is -- listen. you better stick with me. because if we do this again, i'm still going to be here and you won't. you want to keep your job, that's what you're going to have to do. so like we said we're going to see when the vote goes down just exactly who voted no. and who stuck with him when it

comes to his party. but right now all roads lead to tsipras staying in the position just the question being what degree of control and power would he have over the parliament. >> i want to give our viewers an update on the markets. dow industrial average has lost steam since we began showing these pictures. it was up about 30 just moments ago. the euro/dollar is something to watch. the dollar strengthen, the dxy up about .5%. euro weakening against the dollar, now done to $109.50. benchmark 10-year yield not that much changed, though we saw the benchmark yield move a couple of hours ago on likely some commends by jeff gundlach on cnbc from the delivering alpha conference around 1:30. the dow has lost steam.

it is now down about 16 points. because is it too much of a statement to suggest that despite all the votes and talk that we have had for literally six years now, michelle that we are finally getting to a point where greece's fate in the eurozone is going to be if not decided, at least the path may be clear? >> reporter: yeah. i think that's absolutely right, brian. we're there. i mean this is within the coming weeks and months this thing is going to be decided. the greek people are either going to own this program and deliver on it or they're not. if they don't, they'll be leaving. when you see clashes like this i think market participants get worried and say, maybe they're not willing to change. maybe they're not willing to do the reforms that need to be done. and if there isn't going to be ownership -- we hear this all the time. in ireland there was ownership of the program. portugal there was ownership of the program. here, there's never been a

constituency or a strong consensus by the parliament, by politicians, to ever own up to what was required in order to stay in the euro. then there is all this talk about have they given up their sovereignty, et cetera. if you're going to join a currency union, that's one of the choices that you end up making. right? if you don't want to make all the hard choices, then maybe you don't belong in the currency union. that i think we are at that moment very very soon. >> we're zbrg togoing to take a short break. reminder, it is not up to the women and men you see on the screen protesting about what happens. it is the men and women in the parliament building about 200 meters to 300 meters to the left of our camera shot who will vote tonight on that austerity bill. we'll take a very short break. the dow down 15 points. you're watching pictures moments ago, a very angry and fiery protests in athens greece. we'll be back right after this.

can it make a dentist appointment when my teeth are ready? ♪ ♪ can it tell the doctor how long you have to wear this thing? ♪ ♪ can it tell the flight attendant to please not wake me this time? ♪ ♪ the answer is yes, it can. so, the question your customers are really asking is can your business deliver? ♪ i built my business with passion. but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy for my studio. ♪ and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business...

that's huge for my bottom line. what's in your wallet?

welcome back to cnbc. i'm michelle caruso-cabrera. live in athens greece where for the last half-hour or so there's been violence here in the streets in front of the

parliament as mallolotov cocktails were thrown by protesters and riot police came out with teargas to disperse them. we saw a series of fires and explosions in the streets for roughly 10 or 15 minutes while president obama was speaking. we can still taste the smell of the teargas in the air. they dispersed the crowd pretty quickly. they've now allowed some of the protesters to come back in front of parliament tonight, tonight because parliamentians inside are debating this austerity bill that they need to pass before midnight tonight in order to begin bailout negotiations with the country's creditors to give more bailout money. you can see from the video, fires in the street. clashes between the police and a group of protesters that we've seen before called anarchists. they come dressed in black, often with hoods on often carrying gas masks. that's maybe a hint that something going to happen. as you can see, the clashes earlier on while the president was speaking were pretty

intense. i would say they were far shorter -- didn't last nearly as long in duration as we have seen in previous austerity votes back in 2010 2011. but still a round of the the newest video is also concerned about the safety of journalists. the hotel where you are is very popular. the the shot we're seeing is the shot hope and pray that certainly you are safe.

we do worry because we care. you have now been through a number of these p. your expectations just based on your expansive reporting history. is it still possible that we will see the violence continues even though matter may be solved in the greek parliament wb sgl yeah, i think it is possible. i will say that thus far none of the protests have been very large. this is the worst that we have seen. you have seen the fires. there's a small fire that resulted in the fire bombs. and a lot of them also felt that when they saw how intense the negotiations got and how far the

prime minister took it and the banks being closed and still they didn't get a better deal, even after they voted overwhelmingly no. i think a lot of them have come to the conclusions that they cannot get a better deal and the people out tonight very much who are throwing these fire bombs, the fire that you see there is right in front of the hotel next door to us. the the people doing this don't want to be in the euro. they would rather leave the the euro and control their own destiny, is what they have told us. >> we have gone. through the scenarios and your belief through your reporting is that the measures will, in fact, passed. i asked you this through the prism of what is going on in the financial market. s. we have seen the dow and nasdaq turn lower starting at 2:30. we saw oil take a decisive leg

lower and saw the euro weaken as well. the markets are acting as if there's a possibility, even if remote that something could go against consensus and they might not pass. >> i think that you could see more of the prime minister's party members abandon him. you could see more party members vote no. if that number gets big enough he gets weaker and weaker. the bigger concern and why gt marketings might be falling is that it the idea that implementation ultimately will be very very poor. even if they say, yes, they are going to do all these things. are they actually going to implement them in a way that's going to allow the economy to grow. if you have the population refusing to go along with the program, it's going to be meaningless. the lack of protests up until now had been quite surprising. i was shocked that we hadn't seen more of this. e we thought perhaps it's because finally everybody is getting on board and saying

okay, this is what we have to do to stay in the euro. if there's a e perception they are not going to do anything then a month later, we're going to be having the same conversations. to your point, we're going to be closer to the do or die moment about whether or not they are going to be in or out. >> yesterday when the imf surprised everybody and came out against many of the terms that were sort of already agreed to by the main line europe and the greek leadership. the imf is saying this is not a good deal, you need to change the terms. i understand that surveys show that the majority of the greek people when asked say yes. we would like to say in the eurozone. but literally how many people you have talked to in the weeks you have been there said maybe we should go back to our own currency because at least then they could have a devaluation, they could try to export their way out of this. instead they have been stuck with a common currency that's caused a spiral and deteriorating living standards

and higher living costs and a jobless rate by some measures that is 40% for the 25-year-olds. many people there that say it's not a good option but maybe the drok ma is a better option? >> we have been coming here five years and i would say we're at the height of people saying who say that. they would like to return to the drog ma. i would saydragma. i was surprised this time around at how many people were willing to tell me, you know what, i'm so poor i have no money in the bank. if i don't have euros in the bank, if i don't have and that% annual of the population had gotten larger. far more than a few years ago when you would ask people, the vast majority would say, of course we are going to stay in the euro. we should be part of the

eurozone. it was a real matter of pride. that is not nearly as pervasive as we've seen in the past. and it's a real divide between the middle class and the upper classes and lower income class where you see thide about who is willing to stay, who wants desperately to stay, and who is willing to go. >> all right, michelle. we've got breaking news. got to let you go for now. want to get to sue herrera. news on donald trump. >> indeed. and donald trump has put out a statement. he says he has filed with the federal election commission, and this is his statement. we have not seen the actual form that may not be released for a day or so. mr. trump estimates his net worth in excess of $10 billion. there are various ways they come up with that. they also are alluding to the fact that the trump campaign feels as though the form that the federal election commission gives you to fill out is inaccurate. it says this statement says this report was not designed for

a man of mr. trump's massive wealth. basically, there are a number of boxes that you can check, but the campaign feels as though the amounts listed on that form are nowhere near what they say donald trump is worth. it'll be interesting, melissa, and brian, to see exactly what those boxes look like and what the financial statement looks like. back to you. >> sue thank you very much. we'll see melissa tonight at 5:00 on "fast money." just a reminder, folks, the riots in greece sending the markets down. the dow jones industrial average on the lows of its session, down 42 points right now. you've got gold lower, but the dollar is strengthening against the euro. we'll take a short break. "closing bell" will pick it up. lots happening in greece. a lot of market action developing, as well. melissa, we'll see you tonight. thank you. at ally bank no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like shopping hungry equals overshopping.

hi. hi. hi. hello. hi. hi. hi. hi my name's josh. kelly. my name is raph. steve. my name is anne. tom. brian. krystal. and i am definitely not a robot. i'm one of the real live attorneys you can talk to through legalzoom. whether it's for your business or your personal life, don't let unanswered legal questions hold you up. because we're here. we're here we're here and we've got your back. legalzoom.

legal help is here. at ally bank no branches equals great rates. it's a fact. kind of like mute buttons equal danger. ...that sound good? not being on this phone call sounds good. it's not muted. was that you jason? it was geoffrey! it was jason. it could've been brenda. hi and welcome to the "closing bell," everybody. i'm kelly evans at the new york stock exchange. >> and i'm bill griffith. you have already seen the testimony by janet yellen before the house financial services committee. last hour, president obama's news conference talking about the deal with iran. now, we look ahead to greece. the protests if you've been watching have been heating up outside, the parliament building there as the debate on their