safety, look at gun violence, i think that is a population -- how do you you release 66,000 known criminals here back into the community and at the same time say what we need is another law on the book to make it more difficult for a law-abiding person to purchase. the criminals don't give a darn about having a new regulation out there. when you have known criminals, this is a criminal element, i still don't think the public understands, i don't understand how the secretary of homeland security says it is in the best interest of the united states of america to put these people back out on the street. >> andy pervy, i am a private company. i want to ask a follow-up question to the work we did at sentenci sentencing committee. we look at ethics and compliance

programs to root out wrongdoing and ethic violations to create independent, anonymous reporting, and auditing so that folks can know whether the situations have been taken seriously. almost no agencies, almost no programs, have goals, objectives and milestones on what they need to accomplish. there are no mechanisms in place to evaluate whether folks are achieving them. there is a groundhog day aspect of goa reports. i am use the example of cybersecurity. when you look at the opm breach and the ten years that proceeded tat and the great work that is happening by the white house and omb coming out of it it reflects there have been long-standing problems and that the approach that multiple administrations said would be done to show we take cybersecurity seriously never happened. there is no accountable and consequences. >> how is it more than half of

the employees get bonused up? >> this is what we find, right? we have people that engage in the sexual misconduct and yet were they punished? was there a consequence? no, they got bonuses. they got promotions and bonuses. there needs to be consequences so they feel the heat and the bad apples are pushed out the door. one of the largest data breaches we have had, the inspect for general, came up and highlighted this. the story that hasn't been

written is about what is happening at the department of education. and i asked do you need more money? and he said no, i need better people. it is management problem. because they have all of these contractors out there, and it is not safe and secure. i think that is going to be the

largest data breach you have ever seen in the history of the nation. it is vital information. critical information. the ig is on top of it. we are on top of it. but the administration is asleep. it scares me. >> hi, i am with the women voters. i have spoken with quite a few government employees who worked in i.t. they are very frustrated. they are also, well they feel they can't get the work done because they feel they don't have the authorization from congress with homeland security. so they feel they are kind of stuck. and so they hear you are not

doing a good job, you cannot do this or that, but yet they feel they are prevented from doing it. and have you mentioned going to the secret service and speaking with them and working with them. have you done that? going to dhs? going to the education department and talking to the people there? having a congressional hearing about it and just speaking to the ig is not going to work in this case. you really need to go to the people in the trenches, find out what is going on, and ask them. figure out what can be done to be more efficient and what works and what doesn't. >> if any federal employee has a question, concern or comment we would love to hear it. we get about 60-70 a day that come in and say we think we have a problem here and we have professional staff that weed

through that. in those specific cases, homeland security and the department of education, we have worked with their cio's and not everything is a congressional hearing. sometimes it is a request for documentation. sometimes it is an interview. sometimes the staff goes with it. you have 2.2 million federal employees and we have just over 60 employ ees. we cannot go in the great depth i would like to go. but we do rely on the inspector general. we have 1300 inspector generals. remember the department of justice has 500 people, most of which are attorneys, that are diving into theiose issues.

we did a penetration test, made recommendations, what becomes the flashing redlight is when they did that work, sometimes for a year or two at a time, and then make a recommendation and the administration says no, we are not going to do that. then you have a conflict we are trying to mediate and get resolution. but we see the state department saying we don't care. we are not doing it. in the case of the office of personal management, seven years running, they highlighted this is a major problem. the management issue here, the hard part is making the transition. when you spend 70% of your time on the legacy system, that is slowing you down. it is really hard to make that transition. nobbody wants to shutdown the

machines and fire up the new ones. i have no solution for that. they will have to figure that out department by department. but how demoralizing it is to look at a green screen and work on a dos operating system? that has to be hard. especially when you know you can go get an apple computer or windows surface or something like that and be much more efficient. but if they have specific suggestions fire away. call us or contact us somehow. >> stay over here for one more. got about five minutes to go. thank you for all of the questions and answers. we are getting through a lot. >> thank you. nick farmer. many of the things you have talked about quite frankly have been going on for decades with no impacts. do you see any way you can generate a non-partisan outrage on part of the voters to force

the government to really begin to take action? has to be non-partisan if it is going to work. >> i think you are right. we have on the floor and debated yesterday on it and the final vote today on the scrub act. it is intended to look at -- jason smith from missouri introduced this -- it says let's create a bipartisan group and allow them to look into the regulations and take out the underbrush of the old regulations that have no meaning anymore that maybe make thinks cumbersome. there are things in several agencies that require you fax in certain materials. that is forcing them to spend money, time and resources on technology that is really not used anymore. and so that is the regulations. so it has to be faxed. and those types of things. there is a regulation i

highlighted about the width of green beans the fda put out in the early 20th century. it is on the books. you get people concerned if i make my green bean bigger is that going to cause a problem? so you spend time in the economy and private sector. democrats are fighting us on this. they think it is terrible and don't want to get rid of any regulati regulations. i think it is fair, in a bipartisan way, to look at this and cut out the underbrush and do so with a commission that gets away from the political nature of what happens in congress. we don't have the bandwidth to measure this. >> question along the aisle.

>> hi, i am meredith and i am with william and emery, a law firm. you made a comment talking about how dogs don't have lobbies when you were talking about the security systems. >> are you the lobbyist or the dogs? did i make a mistake. >> how the security systems don't work. and some scholars have suggested that it is not the corporations' fault but it is more the politicians fault in terms of bribing and why a certain system gets implemented and why it doesn't work. what are your thoughts on some of, i guess, these ideas that there is extortion that is going on behind the scenes we don't see. >> i don't know if there is outright extortion but if you know tell me because i love to expose it. i say that with a smile on my face but we are serious about this. i don't see it it. i have been fighting the tsa on

this since day one when i got into congress. i continue to try to beat the drum and educate people and highlight this. you have to really ask yourself why is it just the tsa at airports use these machines? if it was great technology and worked so well why isn't it used everywhere else? because it doesn't work. yet, somebody went in there and sold them. i am very critical of mr. share toff who after he left, which is one of the salesmen there, and ms. dashal who joined them in a bipartisan way, and sold the american people a bunch of crap. they made hundreds of millions of dollars. and i don't think enough stories were written about it. i think it more sunlight, stories and embarrassment was out there you would not have people trying to sell such terrible technology. but they claim it is better, but

the ig came in, they did a bunch of test and every time they tried to get something through they got it through. >> we will take both questions together. >> fire away. >> what are you going to do to hold them responsible and what else in a broader scope will your committee be doing over the next year? >> real quick. i am one of those contractors in software engineering you are talking about. i had an opportunity to attend a second congressional hack-a-thon

and asked a question to congressman mccarthy saying when we find issues of fraud and abuse on the servers where do we go to congress with the issues? he said take them to him directly. i followed up and they are hosting a disclosure lesson. and i understand that is something from your office might like to attend. how exactly, or is the person, i would reach out or have the policy director for mccarthy to attend? >> thank you. thank you for doing that. gop oversight is our twitter handle. you can find us on a variety of things. go find our website from there. once you get there, please send us the information. it is involved in every department and agency. there is nobody without an

i.t.department. for the first time we created a subcommittee on it. will heard, congressman from texas spear heads that and troy stock is the director for that. we will get that information to troy stock. but we would love to have that information. as it relates to homeland security, some things need to be fluc plucked up. i have been encouraging the appropriators with putting more money into the organization. they have the authorization for what needs to be happen. congress appropriated more money to the secret service than what the president asked for. but they are bleeding more people than they are able to hire up. but when we highlighted, mark meadows did a good job of finding out you had some people who had not completed their

security clearance process and they were put on the front lines. you cannot put a secret service agent or officer to work without completing their security clear lawrence. but that is what they

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] tran 11. >> on c-span 2 particular to the white house, the brady press office briefing room where we will hear shortly from spokesman josh earnest. the president has vetoed the legislation passed this week by congress, which would have repealed major parts of the affordable care act and also defunded planned parenthood and the white house issuing that veto statement an hour or so ago and part of that says that presidents message saying this legislation would not only

repeal parts of the formal care act, but would reverse significant progress we have made in improving healthcare in america. he says the congressional budget office estimates that the legislation will increase the number of uninsured americans by 22 million after 2017, also, from the presence of message saying the reconciliation act would effectively defund planned parenthood. planned parenthood uses both federal and nonfederal funds to provide a range of healthcare services including health screenings, vaccinations and checkups to millions of men and women who visit their health centers annually and part of the message from the white house, the veto message is they send it up back to the house and that congress has until january 25, to attempt an override. speaker paul or i has issued a statement following the president's veto this afternoon saying in part, but here's the thing, the idea obamacare is the law of the land for good is a

myth and this law will collapse under its own weight. of obamacare will be gone and then fall of the people who have seen their premiums go up, for people who have lost their plan or their doctor, poor people who have to deal with the mandates, restrictions and red tape, we can replace this law with a patient centered health care system and it is just a matter of time. part of the statement released is a video by house speaker paul ryan and the veto from the white house today and also today we are likely to hear news about or reaction to the job at news today. the numbers for december came out and american employers adding 292,000 jobs in december, the unemployment rate remaining after 5% for the third straight month. 292 thousand jobs were december, 2.65 million for the year of 2015, the second-highest next 22014, which was 3.1 million and understand there is been a

two-minute warning for the briefing to get underway and reporters are gathering and we are live here on c-span 2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> life at the white house waiting for the briefing to beget and we will certainly hear about the veto of the healthcare repeal bill that house the house earlier this week and would have repealed major parts of the affordable care act. also, defendant planned parenthood for the fiscal year. craig caplan, our producer tweeted that the president has treated-- veto the healthcare law and the house-senate until generally 25, two vetoed that override vote on the boat lat--

yesterday. live coverage, here. josh earnest. connected afternoon, everyone. happy friday. before we get started, we have spent a lot of time over the course of the week talking about the global economy and the impact on the us economy, if any. and we got another important datapoint today that there's mentioning. we did learn from the department of labor that the economy in december of 2015, created 292,000 jobs. now, that's obviously a good report. you have heard me say on many occasions that we don't get too disappointed if there is one jobs report that is not meet

expectations and we don't get too excited when there is one jobs report that exceeds expectations. what we are looking at are the broader trends and that is what, i think, the american people can be justifiably excited about. over the last two years haven't been the strongest two-year period of a job creation. since the last two years of the clinton administration. that was 15 years ago, 16 years ago now. the decline in the unemployment rate over the last two years is the fastest two-year decline in the unemployment rates in 30 years. and included in this data was additional information about wage growth, something that has been drawn intense focus of the president, of course. we have seen over the last 12 months wages have grown by 2.5%,

which is not quite as fast as we would like, but is the fastest rate of wage growth that we have seen since the end of the great recession. that represents an important improvement in a key metric that we will continue to watch closely. so, with all of that, kevin i would be happy to talk about that or other topics you would be interested in today, so why don't you fire away. >> i wanted to ask to iraq he born men came to the us as refugees and have been arrested on terrorist related charge-- charges by federal authorities, in texas and california, and some are arguing that perhaps this is an indication that the screening process for refugees is not stringent enough and something maybe a mess with the screening process. could you address that? >> well, kevin, i have seen the announcements from the

department of justice and because they have ongoing investigations into these two individuals, i will not be able to discuss specific cases from here. but, there are a few things i can say john neurally that are relevant to that news. the first is that you have heard me on a number of occasions described how our law enforcement international security professionals work 24 hours a day, 70s and we, 365 days a year to keep us safe and they are currently skilled, patriotic americans and they have access to a credible resources. they use all of that to keep us safe. in this case or these cases, in particular, are good examples of how the department of homeland security, the intel community,

our law enforcement and other national security agencies work effectively together to keep us safe. when it comes to refugees, specifically, something we talked about quite a bit at the end of last year, but there are relevant facts that do bear mentioning. the first is that no one is allowed to short-circuit the system. of the fact is that individuals admitted to the united states through the refugee process undergo the most rigorous screening of any individual that enters the united states. that includes careful review of biographic and biometric information that is both reviewed and collected. there are in person interviews conducted and in the context of that screen process, the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is credible, that he or she qualifies for refugee status and is otherwise eligible to enter the united states.

there are a number of reforms that have been added to this screening system over the years. they have made this system tighter and a better, that includes adding additional databases that are used in the screening process. that means there are databases that are maintained by the department of defense, national counterterrorism center and a variety of other intelligence agencies and there are international law enforcement databases that are maintained where this information is run through. you know, all of this is a indication of just how thorough that process is. i think the other thing that is relevant here is that means there are substantial amount of information about these individuals that is collected. that is information that if warranted based on information that has been obtained by law enforcement, that can be then

used to investigate it-- individuals. again, that is not something you do willy-nilly or based on a person's identity or religion, but something that can be-- it is information that can be used to investigate individuals if their behavior is warranted. as we see in this-- in these two cases, we have got wind purser officials working closer with national security officials to take steps to keep us safe. one last thing, i know that these kinds of situations are likely to prompt calls from the other side that are now familiar. that suggest that the united states should somehow impose some sort of religious test for a test based on an individual's ethnicity to limit their ability to enter the united states.

doesn't represent who we are as a country and most importantly it's not going to keep us safe. that is our top priority, that is the top priority of our law enforcement officials. that is the top priority of our security officials and the top priority of the officials who manage the refugee system. and that is-- so all of this is consistent with our national security interests and consistent with the kinds of values that the united states is known for. >> why health officials are meeting with the tech industry of the how to disrupt islamic state group and other organizations, what exactly should the tech industry be doing better? can you provide specifics about what you are seeking from that? >> kevin, it is true there are senior white house officials including the white house chief of staff, the president's top counterterrorism advisor, the us

chief technology officer, megan smith, our pets is spinning in meeting with a number of other senior national security officials and the government including the attorney general and secretary of homeland security. this is a meeting that the president alluded to in his address to the nation last month , that talked about the need for the government and counterterrorism officials and law-enforcement officials in particular to work more closely with the technology community to fight terrorism. this kind of meeting and this little-- level of engagement is consistent with what the president called for and the goal here is to find additional ways to work together to make it even harder for terrorists or criminals to find refugee in cyberspace and we have talked before that there is a precedence for this about one person officials and us

government having to work effectively with technology companies to combat child nonfree-- child pornography and there obviously is-- technology leaders are patriotic americans. they don't have any desire for child cannot first i would be terrorists to using their tools in the technology to harm innocent people. [inaudible] >> the meeting hasn't started yet, so i certainly don't want to get ahead of the meeting. but my do think there is an opportunity for there to be a robust discussion about ways we can make it harder for terrorists to leverage the internet to recruit, radicalize and mobilize supporters to carry out acts of violence. it surely, we can have a discussion about ways to create a wish and amplify content from

credible sources that counteracts the radicalizing message from isil and other extremists. given the way the technology works these days, there surely are ways that we can disrupt path to radicalization, to identify recruitment patterns and to provide metrics that allow us to measure the success of our counter radicalization efforts, so certainly, the us government and our national security and law-enforcement officials have ideas of things they would like to discuss with the technology community. i'm also confident that people in the technology community will come with their own ideas about topics that should be on the agenda and ideas for cobblers in the kind of goals that i just enumerated. clearly there should be some common ground that we can find here.

, graham between law enforcement and the united states government in these technology companies and i will be the kind of conversation we are hoping to have later today out in california. >> shortly before we came in here there were reports that a suspect in a shooting of a police officer in philadelphia, is saying that he did in the name of islam. has the president been briefed on this matter and are there concerns that this is another terrorist attack mac i will say this, it's my first time hearing of it and i don't know if the present has been briefed on it, but we can surly check. >> on another topic, from democratic leaders in congress are denouncing homeland security raids on recent undocumented people from central america. they have asked of the president to stop these raids. is the president, you know, hearing these concerns? are there plans to change strategies regarding this? >> we are of course aware of

these concerns, but the enforcement strategy and priorities that the administration has articulated unacquainted change. and here's why, we have focused those enforcement efforts on high-priority areas that we have identified, that is specifically criminals, as you would expect. it's important to keep your community safe and that means individuals who have criminal convictions or criminal history will surly be prioritized for removal and that's consistent with the way we described our priorities that we are seeking to the port felons, not break up our families. the other area of priority that is important is to ensure that we are maintaining security at the border and that means individuals who have only recently crossed the border are

also priorities for removal. now, the other thing to keep in mind is that these enforcement strategies and actions are consistent with the need to follow due process. in-- and each of these individuals is considered on a case-by-case basis for any sort of humanitarian or asylum claims they may make and there legal revenues are exhausted before they are deported and again, that is an indication that we are committed to working through due process on a case-by-case basis. that's irrelevant because you actually have a president of the united states who has worked hard to use his own executive authority to try to make that process more fair. after all, there are 700,000 people that have benefited from the-- these are dreamers, the president has also sought to use his executive authority and this is an issue that is being litigated in the courts,

potentially in front of the supreme court later this year to further expand the group of people who could be given the opportunity to remain in the united states. so, certainly, the president is aware of this issue, is focused on making sure that we can have a more fair and just immigration system that i think just about everybody who looks at it agrees is broken and the one way that we can solve this is for congress to finally take overdue action to reform our immigration system and we know exactly how to get that done. we have a bipartisan agreement about how to get that done through the united states senate, but unfortunately, house republicans blocked that proposal despite the fact that it was supported by democrats and republicans all across the country including leaders in the

business community, business-- in the community and law-enforcement community. >> a quick question going back to that arrest of the refugees. where are we in the review of the eon's a? >> i don't have an update, but i can tell you it's ongoing and both the department of state and department of homeland security are working on together, but i do not have an update. marked. >> where is the meeting taking place? >> is taking place in san jose, california, so these are senior white house officials and top law-enforcement officials based in washington dc traveling to california to-- i believe there are-- we can get you some greater detail about who is participating in the meeting, but i believe that-- >> by way of video? >> there may be some. >> how big of a problem is it

that terrorists using the internet radicalizing and recruiting? >> we have seen this is a tactic that more extremist organizations are tempted to use and whether it is someone who-- we have seen the isil, in particular, is using sophisticated strategies to try to radicalize individuals around the globe and there are particularly effective at it, but by no means the only extremist who have resorted to using these tools. we know there are organizations and more closely linked to al qaeda affiliates that also use technology to try to recruit supporters and to inspire them to carry out acts of violence, so this is something that we are mindful of and they're obviously a lot of copper gate of first amendment issues and other things, but our sense years that

there is some common ground we should be able to find with technology companies and they have led the mission before and maybe these technology countries participating in the meeting today are run by patriotic americans in a surly don't have the interest or desire in seeing their tools and their technologies being used to aid terrorists or make it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit folly errors-- followers. so, we are committed to try to find the common ground. >> can we expect a readout after the meeting? >> we will try to get you more information about what is discussed. wouldn't expect any sort of breakthrough announcements or agreements to emerge from this discussion, but it certainly is only the latest in a series of discussions that the obama administration has convened with technology leaders when the president traveled out to the cyber security summit on the campus of stanford university, last february some of these issues were on the agenda.

you will recall these were some the issues discussed at the united nations security council meeting that was convened at to the most un general assembly back in september. efforts to counter violent extremism were discussed and some of the countering-- some of the strategies that are used by extremist online part of that discussion. >> urgent problem in order to dispatch officials at that level to meeting out on the west coast? >> it is an indication that it's a priority of the president and of our national security team. to canada strategy that isil is so clearly pursuing online. >> are you referring to website by isil and others? >> there are a variety of tools that we know these extremist organizations use to try to disseminate their message and recruit followers and inspire

them to carry out acts of violence, so surly some of it is social media, but some is also the broad cresting-- broadcasting of information. as i said, there is a president for us to try to confront this kind of problem. we know there are some people who try to make money based on the selling and trafficking of child sonography and they are using websites to do that and women able to work effectively with the tech community to counter the efforts and we of course, have not illuminated that practice, but we have enjoyed some success in countering it by working effectively with the technology community and hope what we can do the same thing when it comes to countering the actions of extremism. >> is encryption a part of that agenda? >> it's hard to imagine that it would not come up and this is a particularly thorny element of that discussion, but it's an important one, nonetheless. the president has said on many occasions he believes in robust encryption and believes that it

is important to the success of technology, but also he believes it's important to protecting civil liberties and privacy's of law-abiding americans, but at the same time we can't allow terrorist organizations or extremists to be able to use munication online as some sort of safety haven beyond the reach of law enforcement and national security organizations, so that's really means that there are some comp located issues to work through in the solutions aren't necessarily obvious, but what is obvious is that there should be common ground between technology companies who do not want to see their tools used to carry out acts of terrorism. cheryl. >> on the state of the union i did hear what you said yesterday the opportunities and challenges, but for those of us who love laundry list, i am wondering if you could give us clues on policy direction or

priorities that the president will bring up? >> not at this point, but let's talk again monday and maybe there is more i can do to help you. justin stinnett back to the tech meeting, is there any hope that -- you said you're not expecting an announcement, but of an eventual program that will help you guys more aggressively monitor intake down social media posts terrace-- terrorist? >> i think the goal-- i don't know that there is a specific program we would envision is a goal, but i think the hope is we would find ways to work effectively with the technology community that would make it harder for terrorists to use the internet to recruit followers and incite them to carry out acts of violence, so i don't know what form that will take and i'm confident that will be part of the discussion. >> are you interested in pursuing legislation for encryption specifically and i'm wondering--

[inaudible] >> our policy is not changed. >> why not if this is such a big issue? why kind of leave it up to tech companies? >> again, let me address that to ways, the first is as you point out this is a complicated and big issue and commerce has not demonstrated a lot of success in handling big issues recently, so i wouldn't hold up sort of congress as the ideal way to handle these kinds of things. that said, is a pointed out the reason we went to work with the technology industry to try to address some of these problems is precisely because it's in their interest. it is not part of their business model and does not make them look good and does not help them win more customers. [inaudible] >> that's not why they push back

on encryption, the indication that they can provide a private platform. >> being able to demonstrate their ability to protect someone's privacy is certainly good for their business model. having the technology be used by terrorists, i'm not sure is. they would know better than i. i'm not involved in running their business. but, i do, however, speak with a lot of confidence in saying the vast majority of these technology companies are run by patriotic americans and i do believe and you can go ask them and they're more likely to have this conversation with you than me i'm a but i have a lot of confidence that those companies run by patriotic americans are not interested in seeing their tools are technology used by terrorists to harm innocent americans. that certainly is not what they were designed for and we are hopeful that there would be a willingness on their part to

work with us to find solutions. .. so these are things like, closing the gun-show loophole or closing the no-fly, no-buy loophole, the loophole, there's no lat that prevents somebody who is on the no-fly list from

being automobile to walk into a gun store and purchase a firearm. if the government determined it is too dangerous for you to board an airplane, it should be too dangerous for you to buy a gun. in the op-ed you cited. the president talked about the responsibility gun manufacturers have in gun safety, and there are some common-sense thing wes believe gun manufacturers could do and common-sense things that -- well, there's certainly some things that congress has done that don't make common sense, that have absolved gun manufacturers from assuming some of the responsibility. so those are some of the things the president has in mind. >> -- voted against legislation that would have given light to gun manufacturers. so if bernie sanders was the

democratic presidential nominee, the president would campaign for him? >> well, i noticed that senator sanders told one of your colleagues/competitors when asked this very question, he was eager to point out that senator sanders had made clear he was willing to revisit that position. that's exactly the goal here. right? we want people to change their minds. we want members of congress to take different positions imi'm not familiar with senator sanders' record so maybe this is something he said on previous occasions. i if not i'm ready to take credit for change something minds of capitol hill. this is ultimately the goal here, is to get a different outcome that better reflects the views of the american people. >> how about michigan like hidy cam, and the president made the point of saying i'm going to 'campaign and raise money. >> there's no denying the fact

that i think when it comes to most issues, the president agrees with senator heitkamp on them, particularly when it comes to a whole range of economic issues and national security issues. but there are lot of reasons for them to be on the same page. but what the president made clear in that op-ed is that when it comes to this issue, he is prepared to be a single-issue voter and hopes that other people will be, too, and he is hopeful that will have an impact on the kinds of decisions the democrats and republicans make on this issue in the future when they're serving in the united states congress and when they're called to vote on them. >> [inaudible] -- for a second. "el chapo" was just captured, and wondering if you have any update on that. >> i did not see that report but

we'll check on it for you. kevin, seems only fair -- seems only fair. >> keep it short. >> i will. >> short and pithy. i'm sure you saw the report in the journal about the hell fire that was sent to europe and then inadvertently sent to cuba. can you tell us what the president is aware of and the circumstance and how on earth something like that could happen? >> kevin, unfortunately i cannot comment on specific defense trade licensing cases, and compliance matters. under the arms export control act, the department of state licenses both permanent and terror exports by u.s. companies of regulated defense articles. and u.s. companies are responsible for documenting their proposed shipping low jess sticks in their export license application, as well also reporting any shipping deviations to the department as appropriate.

so obviously this is something that both the department of defense and state department are quite keenly aware of, as you expect, and so far additional questions about this i'd recovery you to those two agencies, and just because of the ongoing casework here, under the very limited and -- i'm limited what i can say. >> if i can use a josh-ism, as a general matter, how concerned is the white house about this report and. >> well, listen. i think you can tell based on what i have read that this is an issue that the administration takes very, very seriously. i think for quite obvious reasons. and because both the department of defense and the state department are, i again issue think, for obvious reasons, quite interested in getting to the bottom of what exactly happened, i'm pretty constrained what i can say there may be more

information at the department of state or the department of defense. >> let me ask you about the tech meeting -- i just want to kind of maybe take a slightly different look at it. if on the one hand the suggestion is maybe the white house and tech companies can partner to eliminate, if not curtail the ability for some of these terrorism groups to recruit online, would the white house then be interested in doing the same thing as it relates to domestic terrorist groups or groups that might also, like supremacists or other groups that might domestically be recruiting others to potentially do harm to other americans. in other words, are you going to take the same tack in both cases or this specific to overseased aenses? just trying to understand. >> the -- well, let me try to describe it this way. our goal here is to prevent any sort of extremist, any sort of

terrorist, whether foreign or domestic, from using technology to carry out an act of violence against innocent americans, and we're very interested in countering that, from whatever source it emanates. i think the reason we spend so much time talking about isil and their activities online is they have shown a particular ability to use these tools to maximum effect. so that's a threat we're mindful of, but as you point out, taking the right steps and pursuing the right approach would allow us to make it harder for anybody to use these kinds of tools to encourage someone to carry out an act of violence. >> doesn't that get to the fundamental american ideal of free speech? >> yes. there's certainly first amendment issues here, but there are a variety of ways in which-under first amendment rights are curtailed. you can't yell fire in a cried

theater because that could harm the people in the crowded theater. i'm not a firsted attorney and not denying there are complicated issues here. but surely we can find some common ground when it comes to finding ways to prevent terrorists from using technology to harm innocent patriotic americans. >> last one on guns. it's a full-court press. we saw the president making his announcement and then the town hall, now the op-ed today in the "times." i'm curious, what is next? why disapproach? this sort of all insure approach, and how does the white house respond to criticism that even if everything that the president has proposed had been in place previously, it would not have impacted the circumstances that affected the country so dramatically last year. >> well, kevin, couple other things coming. the president is convening a call this afternoon with activist who share the president's passion for this

issue, and having the opportunity to speak to them is an important moment. i think you will have the opportunity to hear about the call. i also wouldn't rule out this is the kind of issue that comes up in the president's state of the union address. so, we talked earlier this week about how the state of the union is a large platform where the president is commanding the attention of both houses of congress and any number of supreme court justices and members of the cabinet, and i would expect that this is an issue he'll bring to their attention because he is surely focused on it. jim? >> on the issue of guns. i wanted to ask you about the president's town-hall meeting last night. during which the nra did not participate and the president seemed frustrated about that. and said that the nra had been invited on multiple occasions to talk about the issue, discuss the issue,; would the president debate a-level official from the nra, engage in a public

discussion with an official from the nra if the opportunity were to present itself? or too you think that was the opportunity last night and the nra missed its chance? >> i think they did mitt their chance yesterday, and based on the response they have offered up after the meeting, doesn't seem like they're feeling very good about the way they looked by dodging the opportunity yesterday. demonstrate their unwillingness to participate in a rational, measured, fact-based discussion of these issues that was taking place a couple miles from their national headquarters. i think might be an indication they don't have a lot of confidence in their case. so, they have had multiple opportunities to participate in events at the white house and then to accept an invitation from cnn to attend yesterday's event, and they turned it down.

>> has the president spoken with somebody from the nra before personally, by phone? just never happened? >> off to the top of my head i'm not aware of any specific conversations. i know there was one instance where a representative of the nra attending a meeting convenient by the vice president. that was a number of years ago. i'll note the nra walked out of the meeting, trashing the vice president and the efforts the administration was pursuing at that time to take common sense steps that would make our community safer. so, certainly is ample reason to question the good faith of the people at the nra to engage in these discussions, but yet that has not prevent us from inviting them to participate, and even then, those invitations have been rebuffed. >> and on the -- i want to find out what the administration is doing about these syrian children. there have been images of starving syrian children in news reports over the last several

days. i assume the president is aware of this are the security team is aware of this or the state department? anything the administration can do about these kids in the pictures are horrible to look at. >> it's gut-wrenching. there's -- the situation inside of syria and the impact it is having on million's innocent people is terrible, and that is the kind of violence and chaos that we're seeing millions of syrians flee when they seek to enter any of the neighboring countries or travel all the way to europe. there's a reason that they're running away from their homes, and it is terrible, and it's certainly something that the president is mindful of and that's why the united states, you have seen, once again, step

forward to play a leading role here. the united states is the largest bilateral donor of human tear -- humanitarian assistance -- >> seems like that is not getting to -- >> it's difficult, obviously, to get humanitarian assistant into a war-torn country like syria. >> you can be the top donor but if you don't have the wherewithal, the ability to get the assistance to the people, seems -- >> there is some assistance getting into syria, but in a war-torn chaotic country like this, where you have seen that the central government has utterly failed, and extremists like isil have stepped in, there are consequences, and they are grave. but, look, the assistance from the united states is reach something syrians in syria.

we know there are millions of syrian migrants that have fled to countries like jordan, even turkey, are bearing a significant burden when it comes to meeting the basic humanitarian needs of those fleeing violence in syria, and the united states has provided substantial support. >> getting back to the question before the state of the inunion, asking about the laundry list. it was my understanding fromliening to you folks it's going to be a nontraditional,en unconventional, state of the union speech. is the white house telling various agencies and departments, hold off on these laundry lists, the president is going to go being picture? >> no. there's a lot we have been able to accomplish over the last seven years, and typically states of the unions -- a state

of the union address will cover the important progress that has been made, and there's a lot to talk about in that regard, the president also has a year remaining in office, and he is quite focused on making sure that we maximize the opportunity that exists during this final year in office to get a lot of important business done. some of that is business we would like to get done with congress, some is business that will get done using the president's executive authority, and some is business that will get done by deepening our engagement with countries around the world and continue to play a leading role to make the country safer and advance our interests around the globe. so there's a lot to talk about. but what the president will focus on in the context of the state of the union speech are the kinds of challenges that are facing america over the long term. we're at a critical juncture in our hoyt. we have made tremendous progress digging out of the worst economic downturn since the great recession. the jobs numbers released today are the latest piece of evidence

to testify to that progress. now the question is what kind of decisions are we going to make right now that are going to ensure that we're going to pass on our to kids and their kids the most prosperous, the most secure, the most fair united states that has ever existed, and that's -- those are the kind of challenge the president is looking forward to focusing on in the state of the union. >> lauren. >> first of all, is it significant that congress was able to get the repeal of the obamacare bill to the president's disk as the critics are saying? they're saying this is the first time that has happened and, therefore, -- >> no it's not significant. it got them nothing and with a stroke of the pen the president dispensed with it. >> the little sisters of the poor filed a supreme court brief against the federal contraceptive mandate, saying the administration wants the

petitioner to do precisely the what sincere religious beliefs forbid and claims that's government is violating federal law by speaking for the sisters and saying the accommodation is not compatible with their religious beliefs. does the white house have thoughts. >> obviously we have our open strong case to present to the supreme court about the steps we have taken to ensure we are balancing the religious liberties of americans, with the rights 0 of americans to make their own decisions before their -- about their hillary clinton, and fortune there are a wide very rite of federal judges that have agreed that this policy has been implemented appropriately, and that gives us a lot of confidence in the argument that we'll make before the supreme court. isaac. >> i want to come back to the sanders issue. pleased with the movement he seems to have made about change -- >> i will acknowledge that i am not intimately familiar with the

ins and outs of his record so it may be this is a position he has previously, a willingness to revisit his previous support for liability legislation that benefits gun manufacturers. so i i was being a little flip in talking to justin but if that represents a genuine change in his position as a result of the president's announcement, that's great. but as he has -- >> for the president to be comfortable to campaign for him if that -- >> again, as i just acknowledged, i'm not familiar with the ins and outs of his record, but if he -- if democratic voters confirm he is the democratic nominee, then i'm confident we'll spend time here learning about this record and learning about what is on his agenda to make that decision. >> it was unintentional, the mention of the gun manufacturer

liability issue in the op-ed since that been an issue in the primary race, wasn't something that was an intention from the white house to put in there? >> well. >> -- and factor in the primary race? >> correct. the president was quite intentionallet raising the issue as it relates to gun manufactured and how they have essentially an rick indicated their responsibility to make sure that their business practices and products are safe, but that was not any zoned of secret or subtle signal to demonstrate a preference in the presidential primary but the president takes this seriously, and any candidate running for any office is going to have to demonstrate their commitment to these common-sense measures before they can expect to get the support of the president of the united states? >> [inaudible] -- whether he would campaign for republicans who are progun control. you said then you hadn't talked to the president about it.

seems like he has made up his mind about single-issue voting and the negatives, he won't vote for people who are not with him on gun control. have you discussed with him the prospect of supporting republicans who are where he wants to be on gun control? >> i wouldn't rule it out but these kinds of elects -- elections are a test, and at the president will be considering the kinds of policies put forward by the democratic candidate in those races. and, look, if both candidates support the kind of common-sense gun safety measures that the president does, then that's great. that means the president's decision about who to support will then involve a consideration of a range of other issues. consideration of those other issues doesn't stack up very well for a lot of congressional republicans, including senators kirk and senators -- and senator

toomey, but, look, the president is serious about this, and certainly applies to presidential candidates and it applies to candidates for both houses of congress, but also to candidates on the ballot as well. >> earlier this week, she had an interview and said she wasn't as progressive on criminal justice reform issues as some people in the democratic party might want her to be. she is the dnc chair, criminal justice reform is a priority. have you had discussions with her about making sure she is where you want people to be on this issue? >> i'm not aware of any detailed conversations that have taken place between the white house and the congresswoman wasserman schultz on this issue, and i'm not quite familiar with the particulars of her position.

but i think the thing that we are gratified by is there is an emerging bipartisan consensus around a lot of the issues being discussed in congress, and we certainly have tried to nurture that bipartisan agreement, and we'll be doing that in weeks and months ahead. >> as you push forward, you want the chair of the dnc to be with the president. right? >> we certainly will be making a strong case to everybody, including democrats who are close to the president, that criminal justice reform, like the type that is being discussed by many members of the house and senate, is consistent with the priority the president makes on making the country more fair and making communities more safe. >> josh, back on guns and with an eye towards writing this curtain -- [inaudible] -- the president maxed out on what he can do with executive actions on

gun control? >> based on the -- i think what i would say is based on the most recent analysis that has been done, the answer to that question is, yes, the president has done as much as he can. that said, i wouldn't rule out that at some point over the next 12 months the president's team goes back to take another look to see if there's more that can be done, but i'll tell you there's nothing we're keeping in reserve in terms of additional actions the president could take. >> one of the things that is outstanding on the president's alleged and has been since the day after he took office is guantanamo bay. what is the status of consideration there when it comes to the constitutionality of the president taking unilateral action or executive orders? are those under consideration? >> first, let me note there's -- that the department of defense has announced the transfer of an additional guantanamo detainee

to kuwait. this individual was approved for transfer by the periodic review board just last fall, and that actually brings now the number of guantanamo detainees to 104. and it's a good illustration of our effort to chip away at the population there, and to try to resolve these individual cases in a way that is consistent with our national security interests. that ultimately is what the president is focused on, which is keeping the country safe, and closing the prison at guantanamo bay would make us safer, and that's why it's a priority. as it relates to the president's executive authority, in accomplishing that goal, the president talked about this at his news conference that he convened three weeks or so ago today in fact, to say that his focus right now is getting congress to remove the obstacles they have put in place of

closing the prison, and certainly wouldn't take any executive options that may or may not be available off the table. okay? gardner. >> in kuwait, the coalition has apparently used cluster bombs which you and secretary general ban ki-moon suggested may amount to a war crime. the yemeni government has ejected the u.n. human rights representative. do you have any reaction to either one of those things going on there? >> i am not aware of the u.n. announcement you just referred. to i will just say that the -- as we have said for some time, the saudis are just u justifiably concerned about the security situation in yemen. they obviously share a border with yemen, and they have legitimate concerns about that chaos, having an impact on the

security situation anywhere own country. at the same time, the united states believes that diplomacy is what will lead to a satisfactory resolution of that situation. the u.n. has been leading that effort. there will conversations in switzerland back in december to try to advance diplomatic initiatives, and the parties still plan to reconvene next week, and we'll continue to encourage all sides to participate constructively in the process, and try to bring the coalition and bloodshed in the country to an end. >> just want toga back to your the incident -- you said the president has been briefed on this -- [inaudible] -- scary incident caught on tape with a police officer ambushed, 13 shots, point blank, and right before he came houston the chief

said this guy did this in the name of islam. can you clarify, have the circumstances of the incident in any way reached the white house? >> well, i'll just say i had not seep this before i walked out here, so as usually is the case there oar people at the white house who are aware of this. just given the tight turn-around here, did not make it way to me. based solely on what you described sounds like it's a good remind of the debt of gratitude we owe our men and women who serve in police departments across the country. these are men and women who put on the blue uniform, and put their lives on the line to keep our community safe, and the vast majority of them take that job very seriously and do so with professionalism and courage, and we certainly owe them a debt of gratitude. >> thankfully he survived. to follow up on that, yesterday you referred to a similar indent

at the paris police station as an attempted terror attack. you just don't know the circumstance here's but how do you make that determination in an incident of this nate tour and what goes into that to say this is an attempted terror act. >> my understanding about the situation in france yesterday is that no one was harmed in that indent other than the assailant, and it was french law enforcement authorities that had said that based on what they knew about the situation, that it was a terrorist attack. and that's what led know say what i said yesterday. but obviously once we have an opportunity to take a close look at the details, we'll let you know. >> on hillary hillary clinton's, overnight, the state department released 3,000 pages about 1:00 a.m. one getting attention today, an e-mail between mrs. clinton and jake sullivan, and she is trying

to receive some sensitive talking points via secure fax, and she writes, if they can't fax them, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure. getting a lot of chatter from mrs. clinton's critics on this, but did the white house think it's appropriate to remove markings and send information in a knopp secure format. >> i'm not aware of the circumstances of what exactly transpired. my guess is the clinton campaign did some digging on this. so i'd refer you to them to get a better understanding exactly what it says about the way that secretary clinton handled sensitive information. >> surely removing markings that would -- any document from anybody in the administration that would be transmilted to remove the marking of the classification would not be -- >> it is not uncommon for the

administration in pursuit of transparency to release redacted information that if unredacted were to otherwise be subject to some classification. so, again, without knowing the details of what exactly was being discussed there, it's hard for know comment on that. >> quickly, the last thing, the organizers of the next democratic debate released their qualifying credit tear'a -- criteria today and there's some speculation that martin o'malley is on the bubble. and secretary clinton and senator sanders said everybody should be included. >> i haven't talked to the president about this particular issue. obviously the president believes that a robust discussion among the democratic candidates for president is good for the press, good for the party, and good for the country. obviously the organizers of the debate, the dnc and the media organization that is

sponsoring -- ultimately somebody -- those of will be the parties involved in determining who should participate in the debate. ron. >> oh, okay. >> tune in, everybody. >> lastly, i know it's late. to follow up to jim's question about syria and the terrible issues, the point of the reporting there, as i understand it, was that it's become identifiable how starvation is being used as a weapon by both sides arranges conscious military strategy. given that, and given that the united states is a huge donor of humanitarian aid, yet this still happens, there is any -- does the president feel comfortable with this in the sense there's no cop tell police of a human -- contemplation of a humanitarian mission to do more if on a humanitarian if not military front to effect what happens on the ground?

you have said resources so on and so forth, but clearly things are getting worse, not better. >> that is true. things have been -- the conditions inside of syria for innocent civilians have been terrible for a long time. and they're not getting better, and this is all the -- the roost of this fail ugoes back to the failed leadership of bashar al-assad. his willingness to carry out terrible acts of violence against his own people, by dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians has led this country to be torn apart at the seams and we have seen extremist organizations like isil capitalize on the chaos to further the violence. and as is usually the case, innocent civilians are feeling the impact the most, and that is why you have seen such a robust response from the united states too be the largest donor of

humanitarian assistance to put our credibility on the line to bring the international community together to try to find a -- to effectuate a critical transition inside of syria, ultimately assad leaving power and a new, credible government, that reflect owes will of the syrian people, taking power. that's an important way for us to start to end the chaos. the president has also built an international coalition of 65 countries to degrade and destroy isil, and that kind of robust response is commensurate with the terrible humanitarian situation inside of syria. >> scott. >> josh, you spend time this week talking about -- [inaudible] -- yesterday the university of michigan told us the average fuel economy of the cars was down from 2014 and december fell below 25-miles to

the gallon. is the white house concerned that your goal of doubling fuel economy by 2025 is moving in the wrong direction? >> we still are confident that is a goal that the u.s. can achieve. i think that economists have observed the prices at the pump, that more americans are considering purchasing less fuel efficient vehicles like trucks and suvs. i think what is worth mentioning is those trucks and suvs are more -- much more fuel efficient today than they were six or seven or eight years ago. that is a response to the kind of high standards the president put in place. so, we do continue to see improvement, and there's more work to be done to meet the goal that the president set out. i think when the president is talking about this issue, he regularly encourages people to

be mindful of the fact that the low gas prices that we're all enjoying and benefiting from now, are not going to be there forever, and that purchasing a fuel-efficient vehicle, when that's a legitimate option, is a good bet over the long term, but ultimately we're making important progress when it comes to fuel efficiency, and a lot of that is due to the capacity for the american auto industry to innovate and put in place cutting-edge ideas that are bringing new technology that benefits the american people, and none of that would have been possible had the president not placed a really big bet on american auto workers and the auto industry and that big bet is paying off for those workers, for those companies, most importantly, it's paying off for the country. leslie. >> wanted to get back to the hellfire in cuba, marco rubio

sent a letter to the state department calling it, quote, astounding and inexcusable, members of congress are finding out about it now in the newspaper. asking a number of questions and i'm wondering whether or not it came -- >> my guess is he gets most of hit information about what happens in congress from the newspaper based on his attendance record. >> nevertheless -- >> nevertheless -- >> he races a number of questions and among them are weren't -- i'm phrasing it differently than he asked -- whether or not the existence of the miss until cuban hands was talked about during the negotiations and re-establishing diplomatic ties, and why it wasn't, if it was, it's not. >> i actually don't have a lot of insight into that. we can take a look at that for you. right now, this is subject to an ongoing investigation by the

state department and the department of defense. so, i'm very limited what i can say about it. >> something we wanted back, so would we have not brought it up as -- when we were talking to them, when we re-established embassies? >> all of that is unclear to me at this point. i'm sorry, can't help you on that. pam. >> josh, i'm sorry if you have already said this before but on closing gitmo, you have said that a certain number of prisoners could not be released. what is the administration envisioning for them? would they go to super max to a domestic military base? what would happen to them? >> this is a question that is being considered by the department of defense. what we know right now is that continuing to house those individuals at the prison in guantanamo bay is prohibitively expensive, and does significant damage to our national security. that's why the president is not the only national security expert to conclude that the prison at guantanamo bay should

be closed. that's why people like president george w. bush, and other senior officials in the bush administration, who often don't agree with leaders in this administration, about foreign policy issues, but in this case they do agree that closing pre prison at guantanamo bay is a good move because it makes us safer and saves taxpayer money. we should transfer those individuals who have been approved for transfer. right now the detainee population is 104. put some figures on this. 45 of those individuals have gone through the process of having their case files carefully considered by the perfecteddic review board, and that review board has essentially ruled that under the right circumstances, these individuals can be safely transferred to another country. those circumstances often

involve limitations on their travel, limitations on their communications, and other limitations on -- that, frankly, are part of a range of security requirements, and so essentially you can almost cut the prison population in half by transferring those individuals. obviously those kind of transfers are the subject of protracted diplomatic engagements. beyond that, there are 22 other individuals who have been referred for prosecution. these are individuals in whom the -- either the department of justice or the united states military concluded they could build a strong legal case in one venue or another. whether that's military commission or an article 3 court. there are 27 individuals who are essentially in the category of

continued detention, which means that they have not yet been cleared for transfer, but their cases periodically reviewed bit the periodic review board. there are ten other individuals who are facing criminal charges. so, at some point, these individuals most likely in the category of continued detention, are likely to make up what some have described as an irreducible minimum at the prison there and we have to do something with them, and it is the view of national -- of the president's national security team that bringing them to the united states to a prison where they can be properly secured, should not a be an option that is automatically taken off the table. because if not, it's not obvious where else they would go. in a way that would satisfy the concerns we have about our

national security interests. so, this is part of what the department of defense has been working on for years, and this certainly is part of the plan that the department of defense is preparing at the request of the president and prepared to present to members of congress. >> practically speaking they would have to remain in the custody of the u.s. military at some place? >> well, again, there are a number of proposals that have been considered. i guess the other way i can talk about this, there have been public reports about visits that have been conducted. site survey conducted by department of defense personnel to detention facilities across the country. they visited the charleston brig in south carolina. they visited fort leavenworth in kansas, and they visited one facility in colorado as well. so, there are number of potential facilities that could be used for this purpose, but

ultimately, right now, congress prevents that even being a realistic option. >> now that we're in 2016 and a few days airplane from the state of the union, how would you assess your ability to work with congress on the issues you think you might be able to get done, given the fact you started off with an issue that angered some republicans, in the gun measures and they started off with the gutting of the affordable care act and planned parenthood, resulting in a veto. >> that's a good question. last year, around this time, there were a lot of republicans who -- republican leaders in congress who suggested that the president had poisoned the well in being able to work with congress by taking executive action to try to reform some elements of our broken immigration system.

and this is something that republicans vehemently disagreed with. but what the president's case was, they said -- he essentially said we shouldn't allow a difference of opinion on one issue to become a deal breaker for all the others and that ultimately served as a useful way for us to work through a lot of these issues. there's no denying there's a lot more that we wish congress had done last year, and there's surely a lot of thing wes would like them to do this year they're not going to do. but the question is, are there things -- there are priorities we share? can we work together and build another bipartisan majority to ratify the transpacific partnership agreement. i hope so? there surely were bipartisan agreement in the congress last year months after poisoning the well. both democrats and republicans

in the house and senate came together and passed trade promotion authority. we are hopeful they'll do that again this year. mentioned earlier there has been a discussion about criminal justice reform, priority riff democrats and republicans in the congress, and the president is interested in nurturing the bipartisan agreement that could lead to legislation what to make our communities safer and our criminal justice system more fair. so, if last year is any model, then we're hopeful this will be a year where those areas where we agree will be able to make some progress. bob. >> josh, yesterday the secretary of state kerry indicated that iran may be several days away from complying with the nuclear deal from last summer. let me get the white house take by asking is this the first moment of certification that they are complying with -- i'm assuming they're long-range

checks in this whole agreement -- are the complying -- is this the time to start removing the sanctions? >> well, bob, what we have said is that iran has to comply with all of the sanctions, and the iaea has to verify they have complied by the sanctions before iran receives any sanctions relief. so the onus here, including on timing, is on the iranians. >> are they days away? >> well, again, i don't have a detailed assessment where things stan. be know there are additional steps they need to take. they dade couple weeks ago do something important, one key element of the agreement, was seeing the iranians reduce their stockpile of enriched our uranium by 98%, and the iranians announced a week oar two ago that they had completed the

loading of 25,000-pounds of enriched uranium aboard a ship that was then sent to russia. that was an important part of the progress that they need to make to comply with the agreement. but there's more work to be done. and the agreement can only be implemented when the iranians have finished their work, and given the iaea sufficient access to verify that work has been completed. then and only then will we begin implementing the agreement and giving the iranians the kind of sanctions relief from the tough international sanctions we know they deeply desire. >> -- delay or stalling on their part do you think? >> i think if anything, the iranians have been working quite aggressively to take these steps so that they can get the benefits of the agreement. but it means they've had to do

some serious things. they had to slash their stockpiles of enriched uranium by 98 passer. right now they do not have enough nuclear material to make even one nuclear weapon in addition to that there are range of steps they need too take to essentially gut the core of their heavy water reactor, blew tonum reactor, their -- plutonium reactor, there are number of establishes that remain to unplugging centrifuges and making sure the iaea can do the rigorous monitoring that is part and parcel of this agreement that gives us confidence that this agreement will succeed in preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> tar remarks the last one. >> i wanted to ask about the -- [inaudible] -- talked about with

guantanamo -- maybe transferred to the united states you. mentioned fort leavenworth. i'm sure you know the people of conditions have been complaining about this and writing letters. have you tried to reach out to any of the places where the detainees might be transferred to? >> i'm not aware of any sort of community level outreach that has been done. right now congress has in place significant obstacles to prevent the transfer from moving forward. what i can say is that at fort leavenworth, there are already a number of very dangerous people who are being detained in that prison there. people who have been convicted of a variety of violent crimes. so, the reason that is -- that the department of defense officials even visited that community is because of the expertise they have demonstrated

in housing individuals in conditions that protect the country and even protect the community. so, that is the reason i mentioned it. okay. let do a week ahead here. we should start first by the -- with the important event that will take place on saturday, the kansas city chiefs wins over ten in a row, will take the field against the houston texans down in houston. i will be rooting for the chiefs to enjoy the first playoff victory in the nfl playoffs in i believe it's 22 years, little known fact, actually attended that playoff game. i was a freshman in college at that time. that's how long ago it was. i don't know what the profit its doing on saturday. i will be rooting for the chiefs. on monday, the president will attend meet little at the white house. on tuesday, as you all know, the president will deliver his final state of the union address at

9:00 p.m. eastern standard time. the vice president and first lady and dr. biden will all taped. on wednesday and thursday the president will travel to ohama, nebraska, and in baton rouge, louisiana. while visiting those two fine communities, the president will highlight the progress made in each state since she took office and talk about how he can continue to take action in the next year to move the country forward. i know the president is looking forward to those visits. as a part of both visits the president will spend some time in smaller settings, visiting with members of the community in addition to addressing larger crowds in both of those communities. so, like i said, we'll have more to say about that next week. and then on friday, the president will be back here at the white house and attending meetings here. >> josh, any other stops on wednesday and thursday? >> just those two communities before the president returns to the white house on late thursday afternoon, i believe. all right? with that i wish you guys all a

good weekend, and go chiefs. >> a number of questions from reporters about the veto this afternoon handed down about two hours ago from president obama on the reconciliation bill, the bill repealing major portions of the affordable care act and defunding planned parenthood. paul ryan in reaction said the idea that obamacare is the law of the land for good is a myth. this law will collapse under its own weight. it was the first repeal bill to have reached the white house less than 24 hours after it did, it's been vetoed by the president, and that veto announced on the house floor within the last couple of hours. here's what that looked like. >> the house of representatives. i am returning here with my -- without my approval hr3762 which

provide ford reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. herein referred to as the reconciliation act. this legislation will not only repeal parts of the affordable care act but would reverse the significant progress we have made in improving health care in america. the affordable care act includes a set of fair rules and stronger consumer protections that have made healthcare coverage more affordable, more attainable, and more patient centered, and it is working. about 17.6 million americans have gained healthcare coverage as he law's coverage provisions have taken effect. the nation's uninsured rate now is at its lowest level ever and demand for marketplace coverage in december 2015 was at an all-time high. healthcare costs are lower than expected when the laugh was -- the law was passed and health care is -- saving 7,000 lives.

health care has changed for the better, sifting the country on a smarter, stronger course. the reconciliation would reverse that course. the congressional budget office estimates the legislation would increase the number of uninsured americans by 22 million. after 2017. the council on economic advisers estimates the reduction in health care coverage could see each year more than 900,000 fewer people getting assault their needed care. more than 1.2 million additional people having trouble paying other bills due to higher medical costs and potentially more than 10,000 additional deaths. this legislation would cost million's of hard working middle class families and security and affordable health care coverage. reliable health care coverage would return to being a privilege for a few. the legislation's implications extend far beyond those who will

become unin 115 million americans with employer-based insurance would be at risk of higher premiums and lower wages and would cost the cost of health coverage for people buying it on their own to skyrocket. the reconciliation act would defund planned parenthood. planned parenthood uses both federal and nonfederal funds to provide a react of important preventive care and health services, including halve screenings, vac nations and checkups to millions of member and women who visit their health centersally. long standing federal policy prohibites the universe of federal fund ford abortions, accept in cases of rape or insist or when the life of the woman would be endangered. by eliminating federal medicaid fund fog are a major provider of hillary clinton, hr3 62 would limit access to health care for men, women, and families across the nation. and would disproportionately inning low income individuals. republicans and the congress have attempted to repeal or

undermine the affordable care act over 50 times. rather than refighting old political battles by once again voting to repeal basic protections that provide security for the middle class, members of congress should be working together to grow the economy, strengthen middle class families and create new jobs because of the harm of this bill would cause to the health and financial security of millions of americans it has easterned my veto. signed, barack obama, the white house, january 8, 2016. block jahi. >> the reconciliation bill was vetoed bit the hill writes republicanned made good on to pass a bill to president obama but since obama became law in 2010 the g.o.p. has made almost no progress on the more elusive goal of drafting an alternative despite multiple working groups and more than 60 votes to repeal it. the hill writes the party has held no markups, hearings or budget analysis on reef

placement bills and leaders have refused to endorse any single provision beyond broader promise to offer, quote, patient centerrerred care. read more at the hill.com. >> c-span2 takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town-hall meetings, speeches, rallies, and meet and greets. we are taking your commends on twitter, facebook, and by phone, and every campaign event we cover is available on our web site, c-span.org. >> we're back in new hampshire this afternoon for republican candidatal candidate ohio governor john kashich. we'll have live coverage at 5:15 p.m. eastern. seven republican presidential candidates are scheduled to be in south carolina tomorrow to answer questions on their solutions to the country's problems. they'll be split into panels and questioned by house speaker paul ryan and south carolina senator tim scott.

it's part of the kemp forum on expanding opportunity. our live coverage begins tomorrow at 10:20 a.m. eastern. the democratic presidential candidates are on the campaign trail this week, not just in iowa and new hampshire. hillary clinton, bernie sanders and martin o'malley vested las vegas wednesday evening for the first time in the west caucus dinner for. the former secretary of state spoke first to the attendees and outlined her plan, to quote, keep america moving forward. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you.

whoa! what a great night. hello, nevada. [cheering] >> it is so exciting to be here with you, the battle-born, battleground dinner. this is the beginning of a great movement forward to make sure we have a huge turnout for the caucus and then we go on and win nevada for the democrats again. [cheers and applause] >> i want to thank roberta lang and everyone who has worked so hard to build our party from the bottom up. all over this state. and what an amazing dinner. roberta and i were standing up here after senator reid

introduced us and she just looked out at all of you with the excitement and the energy you're projecting and she said, you tell those folks in new hampshire and iowa, we got something going right here in nevada. [cheers and applause] >> now, personally, personally i will never forget how so many of you have opened your hearts to me and my family, not just this year but over so many years, and i promise you this. i promise you, you will always have a friend in the white house if i am am your president. [cheering] >> i am grateful to all the

volunteers, the precinct captains, labor organizers, the state legislators, all of you here tonight. you are the heart and soul of this campaign. now, i love you all, too. thank you. most of all i want to salute and thank my friend, our leader in the senate, the pride of search life, harry reid. ...

[cheers and applause] >> i am, i am so proud to have her support come and she just introduced me to a group that she referenced an elvis presley song. i think as i recall, it was something like born standing and ready to fight.

well, that's what she does every single day. and i, i want to really put my support behind your next senator, catherine cortez masco. [cheers and applause] catherine i is a well-prepared,o focused on what she can do for you in the senate. either soap everybody takes her as your high priority going forward. we need her in the united states senate. all the democrats running this year, they need your supportcome and i will offer my support as well. right now i am not only running for president but raising millions of dollars for our state parties to help you build the infrastructure new need to win. because i know we are all in

this together. [cheers and applause] and the next president is going to need strong partners to get the job done, so we have to elect democrats up and down the ticket. because we have seen, haven't we, what happens when republicans win. [booing] just look at what's going on here in nevada. they are undermining public education with a misguided voucher scheme that puts at risk teachers jobs in students futures. you even have a republican congressman, mr. hardy -- [booing] who says that mitt romney was right about the 47%, and that people with disabilities are, and i quote him, a drain on society. [booing]

you have an attorney general who seems to of made it his mission to tear apart hard-working immigrant families, and in washington, as harry know so well, republicans keep trying to get more tax breaks to the super wealthy, take away health care from 18 million americans. and today for the first time they succeeded in passing a bill to repeal the affordable care act and to defund planned parenthood. well, i'll tell you what. it's a good thing that we've got barack obama in the white house to veto that terrible idea. [cheers and applause] but i want you to stop and think for a minute. it's scary to think about them passing that through the congress, but in january of 2017 a new president is going to walk in to the oval office, and

america can't afford for it to be a republican who will rip away all the progress we've made. just imagine what they would do on the first day. they will repeal president obama's executive actions protecting immigrant families. [booing] they will repeal the tough new rules on gun dealers and polluters at the assigned. that's just what they would do the first day. then they would get back to their failed agenda. they would stack the tax code even more for those at the top. they would do everything they could to bust unions and sent back working families, round up and deport millions of immigrants, put consumers at the mercy of drug companies, insurers and predatory lenders. and boy, if given the chance he would appoint more right wing

justices to the supreme court. [booing] and it could very well be they would get us into another costly ground war in the middle east. [booing] that's their agenda, folks. that is what's at stake in this election. we cannot sit idly by and let them take our country back. we have come before. we have fought too hard. all across america families rolled up their sleeves. they worked their way back from the worst financial crisis in our lifetime. [cheers and applause] and here in nevada you were hit harder than most. people lost their homes. they lost their jobs. they took second jobs if they could get them, extra shifts. you had each other's backs. your hard work has helped bring america back. so we are standing but we are not yet running the way america

should and we have a lot of work to do to build on the progress of the past seven years. we face complex challenges of round the world as we just saw last night from north korea. we have too many families struggling here at home to get ahead and stay ahead. we need a president who has what it takes to get the job done and make a real difference for you, and that means doing all parts of the job, making the economy work for everyone, not just those at the top. keeping families safe and our country strong. tackling the problems that families talk to me about, the stresses that keep them up at night, caring for like one pashtun and love struggle with alzheimer's, our addiction. is what i believe anders what evidence tells us. when families are strong, america is strong. and america grows when your paycheck grows. [cheers and applause]

that's what i believe. that's what i propose plans to create more good paying jobs by investing in clean energy like you are doing right here in nevada solar and geothermal and wind. by investing in advanced manufacturing and putting americans to work modernizing our roads, bridges, our ports, our airports. you know, a nation that build the hoover dam can build a 21st century electric grid to power our 21st century economy and create so many new jobs doing it. [cheers and applause] and i am the only candidate here tonight who has pledged to raise middle-class incomes, not middle-class taxes. i want to lower your taxes. [cheers and applause] by helping you with the cost of

health care, college, caring for an aging parent. and republicans, what do they do? well, they just promised more to be giveaways to the wealthiest at a time when the super rich and big corporations all already gaming the system. they should pay their fair share. and under my administration they will. no corporation should get rewarded for sending jobs or profits overseas. no wall street manager should pay a lower rate in tax that a teacher or a nurse. and if we want paychecks to grow, let's start by raising the minimum wage. let's make it easier for workers to organize and bargain. let's make sure that women finally get equal pay for the work that we do. [cheers and applause]

and let's make it easier for parents to balance the demand of working family with affordable childcare and paid family leave. now -- [cheers and applause] i've got to tell you, whenever i talk about this, and i get pretty passionate about it, republicans say, well, there she goes again playing the gender card. well, if fighting for women and families is playing the gender card, deal me in. [cheers and applause] i've got to tell you, i am proud

to be running in a democratic primarin the democraticprimary . they have a lot of good ideas and we share a lot of the same values. and the differences between us hail compared to what we see on the other side -- pale. but your choice in the caucus really matters. on february 20 you will begin the process of choosing a president who has what it takes to stand up to the republicans, to make a real difference for american families. a president who can get the job done, and not just on a few issues, but of all the complex challenges we face. [cheers and applause] and i do not believe -- i do not

believe that we are going to raise income for middle-class families by raising taxes. i to believe we're going to ease their burdens by making them pay for donald trump's kids to go to college for free -- i don't believe you can stop the drug companies and big insurance companies by tearing up the affordable care act and forcing america to start all over again at square one. that plays into the hands of those special interests. so i've been laying out plans that will help families get ahead, stay ahead and make the wealthy pay for them. hold corporations accountable, keep our families safe from gun violence and terrorism, prevent the republicans from taking us backwards. i know how to find common ground, and i know how to stand my ground. i will go anywhere to meet with anyone at anytime to find a path

forward. that's what i've been doing for decades as first lady, senator, as secretary of state. that's how i helped create the children's health insurance program that covers 8 million kids. it's how i helped secure a treaty with russia to reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. and you can also count on me to stand my ground especially when it comes to those powerful interests that holding back american families. ask yourself this. if republicans were not worried, then why our hedge fund billionaires already running ads against me? [cheers and applause] why are the koch brothers throwing in everything they've got to stop me? do you know why? dana i will stand up to them and defeat the right wing talk down agenda that is bad for america

and we are not going to let it happen. [cheers and applause] and they know something else. dana i will stand my ground against drug companies that are gouging us with skyrocketing drug costs against polluters who are poisoning our air and water. we are going to combat climate change, not deny. against the gun lobby the blocks every commonsense reform, even keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists of the no-fly list. if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in american. [cheers and applause] and i will continue to stand my ground against those trafficking prejudice and paranoia who spread hate against immigrants, muslims,