impact that that has had on some segments of the economy. that's precisely why the president has sought to learn the lessons from those previous agreements. and maybe democrats point to nafta as evidence that trade policies do not benefit american workers and the president i think made the agreement that he's negotiating in terms, with these other asia-pacific countries, including mexico and canada, would write in enforceable labor standards, would write in enforceable environmental standards, would include important human rights protections, would include greater protections for intellectual property. these kind of agreements that are structured in that way would start to put upward pressure on other countries to

come into -- come closer at least to the standards that are enforced in this country, in a way that will emphasize, underscore the kinds of opportunities that are unique here in the united states. here in the united states we have the most dedicated and educated work force in the world. we have the most aggressive and ambitious entrepreneurs and innovators. we've got tremendous infrastructure in this country. infrastructure that would benefit from some modernization. but still, infrastructure that does support a thriving economy. we've also got a business climate that makes the united states the envy of the world. the president often cites the statistic about when global investors are asked which country they're most interested in investing in, the united states is now at the top of that list. the case that the president makes is that if we leave the rules where they are today, we're going to continue to leave in place a system that democrats complained have

disadvantaged american workers. that's why the president wants to go back and change those rules in a way that will start to make the united states even more competitive when it comes to competing for business in the international community. particularly in the asia-pacific, which is the most economically dynamic region of the world. questioner: leader pelosi said that the t.a.a. component, trade assistance component of the legislation is a nonstarter because it's paid for with medicare savings. that's an issue that a lot of republicans don't want to vote for either. does that complicate the equation for you guys? mr. earnest: there are -- obviously what we have been focused on is making sure that the size of the trade adjustment assistance legislation is sufficient and the president believes that a lot of the assistance that's included in that bill goes toward things like job training

and investments in our work force, that are going to be critical not just to the success of middle class families and workers all across the country, but will benefit our broader economy. there are always debates in congress among democrats and republicans about the best way to pay for things. doing -- approaching these challenges in a fiscally responsible way is something that the president has made a priority. but that's always the subject of extensive debate and discussion and occasionally brinksmanship in the united states congress. hopefully that brinksmanship won't occur in this situation, but that we can resolve those differences and pass trade adjustment assistance that certainly the president and the vast majority of democrats believe would be good for our economy. questioner: how confident is the president that speaker boehner's going to be able to deliver those 200 or so votes?

was speaker boehner able to give the president any assurance during that call and can you give us any color on that call at all? mr. earnest: i don't have any more details from their conversation to share at this point. but i think what should be clear by now is that this is an opportunity for democrats and republicans in the house of representatives to do something that the president has frequently challenged them to do. which is to not allow the difference of opinion over one issue to become a deal breaker for all the others. and the fact is there are many areas where we disagree, but the president and some democrats in the house of representatives agree with the vast majority of republicans that the trade promotion authority, that legislation that's passed the senate, is in the best interest of the u.s. economy. and hopefully democrats and republicans will be able to work together to pass it. questioner: how worried is the president, though, that speaker boehner is not going to be able to corral his caucus to deliver

that? mr. earnest: we've been candid about what -- that it will be politically challenging to advance this legislation through the house. but we're confident that because this is -- because speaker boehner himself has indicated that this is a top priority of his, i think it should be obvious to all of you that this is a top priority of the president's and that we've got -- but we've got our work cut out for us and both the speaker and the president believe that it's worthy of the time and investment to try to get this legislation across the finish line. the president's already devoted significant time to getting that done and he'll, as i mentioned to jim, he'll do that right up until the deadline of the vote. questioner: senator shelby today, the chairman of the senate banking committee said that he won't take up the re-authorization bill for ex-im and he said he'll decide in a week or so whether to go ahead with a reform plan. but i'm wondering whether the white house has expected now that the authorization is going to elapse and what contingency

plans are in place? mr. earnest: we have not accepted that. we've frequently made the vigorous case that the ex-im bank has important benefits for the u.s. economy and for workers all across the country and there seems to be widespread bipartisan agreement about that, even if chairman shelby's comments notwithstanding. so we'll continue to make that case and we're hopeful that the economic benefits associated with the ex-im bank will continue. questioner: are contingency plans being processed? mr. earnest: i'm not aware of any. there may be people who are talking about that but our focus continues to be on securing legislation to re-authorize the bank in advance of the deadline. questioner: any mention if the president's going to aggressively advocate for this? you stated his position on how this would be different than past agreements, many times, but when you look at the tactics on the other side of the argument, the extreme pressure on democrats

petitions with millions of signatures and things like that, these campaigns, do you feel like that there's really any going up against moves like that and how do you try to counter that kind of pressure? mr. earnest: we've successfully countered that pressure in the united states senate. as i mention we had got about 1/3 of democrats in the united states senate to consider this legislation, absent any sort of political motivation and to evaluate whether or not this bill would be good for the economy. again, that means overcoming the reflexive opposition of a lot of democrats but it also means focusing on the challenge that the united states congress has before them. the president's talked about this quite a bit. more broadly about the economy. when it comes to the congress actually taking steps that will lay a foundation, that will allow the private sector to grow and thrive and benefit middle class families all

across the country. again, right now the rules, if you listen to democrats, what they say is, if you look at the way the rules are written now, they put some american workers at a disadvantage. and it has laid a path for some companies to ship their operations overseas. and the president basically has adopted an approach that says, let's go change those rules then. let's give businesses a reason and an incentive to come back to investing in america. we already know that we've got the most dedicated workers, we've got the most ambitious innovators, we've got a great business climate here that's the envy of the world. we've got the best colleges and universities. we've got terrific job training programs, we've got, as i mentioned, an infrastructure that could benefit from some updating. but that already does support a very dynamic economy. those are the kinds of advantages that we want to capitalize on and the president

believes that advancing trade legislation is one important way for us to do that. that's certainly the case that we've made to not just democrats but to republicans as well, and we continue to believe in the power of that argument. questioner: will his actions be any different? now that it's coming right down to it and you're saying he's going to aggressively advocate, is that going to be something different than he's doing or do you feel like he's been aggressively advocating this whole time especially going up against that kind of pressure? mr. earnest: we went up against that kind of pressure in the united states senate and we succeeded in getting about 1/3 of democrats to support this legislation. and we succeeded in getting 62 members of the senate to vote for final passage, as i recall. is that right? questioner: i think so. mr. earnest: more than 60 at least. it's an indication that we have a persuasive argument and the president obviously has traveled across the country talking about this issue, the president has talked to reporters from across the country just yesterday, he hosted five local television reporters here at the white

house, in which he conducted a rather detailed policy-centered interview with them to talk about the impact trade legislation would have in their communities. the president did a conversation with "marketplace" that aired last night. making this similar case. the president is also convening telephone calls and meetings with members of congress. i do think that you could make a case that the president's been aggressive about this, both in public and in private. making the case to the american public, to members of congress, and that's something that will continue right up to the day of the house vote. questioner: we heard on the white house call going into the g-7 that the president is at some point going to advocate for more sanctions against russia. and i feel like some form of this question comes up all the time but now that we've heard that, i mean, the sanctions we

know and we keep hearing about the affect that it's had on the russian economy but it still hasn't changed putin's behavior so clearly he's not feeling enough pressure by his tanking economy to do anything different in regards to ukraine. so more sanctions, i mean, what makes you think that that possibility is going to change anything now? mr. earnest: i'll say i was getting ready for the briefing so i didn't listen to the entire call. i got a readout of the call. my understanding is that the plan is for the president, when he goes to europe, to have a discussion with fellow european leaders about the need to extend the sanctions regime that's currently in place that i believe expires sometime at the end of this month. there are a number of steps involved in that process and this will be part of the conversation, frankly a wide ranging discussion that the president will have with his g-7 counterparts. as it relates to ukraine, i think we've acknowledged something that you just observed which is that the economic pressure that's been applied to russia has not yet

resulted in president putin changing his strategic calculus inside of ukraine. we continue to see the russian military violate sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. we continue to see the movement of material and personnel across the ukrainean border in support of russian-backed separatists in ukraine. so we have extensive concerns about russia's failure to live up to the commitments that they made and the context of the minks agreement and the fact is, this also happens to be tree, -- true that the longer the sanctions are in place, the more of an economic bite they take out of the russian economy. and the more pressure is applied to president putin and the more president putin, and the country that he leads becomes isolated. but, yes i would acknowledge that we have not yet seen the

kind of change in behavior that we have long fought for. questioner: when we talk about putin and the positions that the u.s. is taking vis-a-vis my colleague, ukraine, etc., might it be time to actually engage putin, to ask in some ways for his support, he's very close to assad in syria and he has his own issues with isil and the border with chechnya the individuals there who just relish in the fact that they could permeate his border and cause this much grief there as well? mr. earnest: i'll provide thought secretary of state was just in russia last month where he had an opportunity to meet both with foreign minister lab rove as well as with president putin. i do think that goes to the rather complicated relationship that we have with russia at this point. that we have been able to work effectively with russia in the

context of the p-5-plus-one negotiations with iran for example. we have been able to lesk rang their support for those negotiations in -- leverage their support for those negotiations in way that has compelled iran to come to the negotiating table and has created a diplomatic opening that we're trying to seize here, to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. russia has legitimately, to their credit, been a good partner in that regard. but when it comes to ukraine, we have significant concerns about their behavior and the way that they have pretty recklessly escalated the situation in that neighboring country. we've been blunt about conveying those concerns to president putin, both in public, as i think i am now, but also in the private conversations that the president and secretary kerry have had with him over the last year, year and a half. questioner: the isil threat, that's something else? there's an interest that he has in the coordinated effort, perhaps to help defeat that -- mr. earnest: sure. i know president putin has said

publicly that he's concerned about the threat of extremism in that region of the world. and we're mindful of that. it's an indication that there are some areas where we're able to work effectively with the russians, to advance the security interests of the united states and to advance the broader cause of stability around the globe, but at the same time there have been situations where russians have contributed to exactly the kind of instability that we're trying to snuff out. we're pretty blunt about those areas where we agree and where we don't. and that will not prevent us from continuing to deepen our cooperation where we can, but also continuing to raise significant objections and concerns where we need to. questioner: just a follow-up on the trade bill. if pelosi is right and the republicans need to deliver 200 votes, you got the 17 democrats, by my count that's about 9% of the democratic caucus has been convinced by what you have said is a very

persuasive argument from the president. i mean, less than 10% of democrats are willing to listen to something that the president's been talking about for a long time? mr. earnest: i think it's too early to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the argument. we can evaluate this after democrats and republicans in the house get an opportunity to vote on it. our goal here is to not alone build a lot of democratic support for this bill, our goal here is to build sufficient bipartisan support for this bill that will pass the house of representatives. that's the effort that we're engaged in right now. questioner: you're trying to persuade more republicans? think you'll have more luck there? mr. earnest: we believe there's a strong case to make to republicans. even people who don't agree with us on a pretty wide range of issues, i think there's a reason to think that there are some republicans, a lot of republicans, who could get onboard with this piece of legislation, in terms of the impact it would have on the economy in the united states and so we're not hesitating to make that case either. but our efforts principleably

have been focused on democrats. questioner: do you i think if the president were still in the senate, would he be supporting this? mr. earnest: i do feel confident that if the president were in congress that this is something he would support. again, the reason is that this is the most progressive piece of trade legislation that the congress has considered. because of the enforceable labor standards, the enforceable environmental standards, the human rights protections that are included, the intellectual property protections that are included, and because of the challenge that's facing our economy right now, that if you acknowledge the legitimate concerns that many democrats on capitol hill have raised about the impact that previous trade agreements have had on our economy and the middle class family, the logical conclusion is that the way that the rules are currently working are not oriented to maximize the benefits for our economy and for middle class families. so the president's making the case that we should change them in a way that will benefit our

economy and middle class families. questioner: do you see the situation differently from the oval office, when you do from -- than you do from congress? we saw, you know, bill clinton's position on trade became, you know, evolved as he became president. he pursued nafta. president obama's very strongly for this agreement now. do you see it when you're look at it as kind of a national priority versus from yush perch in congress? mr. earnest: there was some conversation in one point during -- coverage at one point about the president's promise to renegotiate nafta. and the fact is that both mexico and canada are part of this agreement and this agreement would actually raise the labor and environmental standards beyond what they currently are as codified in nafta to a higher standard. i think that's the president following through on a promise that he did make i guess seven

years ago. so i think that the president's view of this has been pretty consistent. i think i would concede that it's not particularly surprising that members of congress who have a smaller constituency might have a different view than the president of the united states who essentially has a national constituency. i think that might lead some people to draw some different conclusions. but what i think is also true is that there is ample reason for democrats and progressives and those who share the president's values when it comes to looking out for middle class families, for them to support this legislation for exactly the same reasons he does. questioner: one last thing. you probably saw we had another presidential announcement yesterday. one of his platforms is to go to the metric system. what's the white house's position on moving the united states to the metric system? mr. earnest: i have not heard any careful consideration of that policy. but maybe the debate that

former governor will inject into the american political system will prompt a more careful look at that kind of policy change. questioner: you're not ruling it out? [laughter] mr. earnest: i'm i'm not ruling out consideration of the debate that the governor apparently believes would be critical to the success of our country moving forward. questioner: do you think in your fight in the united states against corruption -- [inaudible] -- during the g-7. mr. earnest: i don't know if it will come with the g-7. i think there are a lot of soccer fans who will be attending the g-7. even at the highest levels. i don't know how much discussion there will be. obviously the president has confidence in the career prosecutors who have taken a careful look at this issue and are conducting the ongoing investigation. so i think even those private conversations, there's probably

not a whole lot that the president will have to say. given the high concentration of soccer fans that will be in attendance in the meetings, i wouldn't be surprised if it came up. questioner: according to "the washington post" yesterday, more than -- [inaudible] -- died in qatar building a stadium for 2022. do you follow that and does the white house have any reaction regarding -- [inaudible] -- part of the investigation? mr. earnest: i don't want to get into some of the details of the investigation because it's ongoing and i don't want to be perceived as inappropriately influencing the ongoing investigation. so i'd reserve comment on that. questioner: are you concerned by the qatar men coming back all the time in these investigations? mr. earnest: it's an ongoing investigation and i have confidence that our federal prosecutors will do their due diligence in terms of trying to

learn more as they carry out their investigation. questioner: a budget question. just this week the omni director sent more letters to capitol hill saying the spending bills are inadequate, don't fund enough, but if you ask appropriators they say, sequestration is still the law. it's all we can do. at what point do budget negotiations have to start to eliminate the sequester? mr. earnest: we're in favor of those conversations starting sooner rather than later. the president's made clear he's not going to sign a budget or sign legislation that adheres to those sequester levels. those kind of across-the-board cuts in government spending have been -- have had a negative impact on our economy and the president won't be a supporter of legislation that extends that policy. what the president will however be supportive of is a process that members of congress engaged in a couple of years ago where democrats and republicans sat down at the negotiating table and were able to work in bipartisan fashion

to raise those caps in a way that raised funding both for our national security priorities, but also for priorities that are critical to the success of our economy. the president would be very supportive of a process like that taking place this time around too. that necessarily would have to be a process that's led by members of congress. democrats and republicans would both have to be involved, obviously if anything's going to pass through the congress, it's going to require bipartisan support. as the administration was last time members of the president's economic team would be -- would play an active role in trying to facilitate that kind of agreement being reached and we're hopeful that congress would pursue a similar approach this time. i know that speaker boehner himself has indicated that at least in openness to that kind of process this year. we'll have to see if that's how members of congress decide that they're ready to handle their

business. questioner: did you see any sign of that starting or is it going to take a crisis? mr. earnest: hopefully it won't but i'm not aware those conversations have begun. but i'm probably a bad source for that. members of congress, even some of my chatty colleagues on capitol hill might be able to give you a better sentiment. questioner: you went to the interviews yesterday. one of the things that the president said and i think he's said it before, that some jobs will be lost in some sectors of the economy. so do you understand why members of congress who represent areas that feel like they were hurt or even decimated by nafta are not open to the arguments? what can he say to them to convince them that this time it will be different? mr. earnest: i think what he would say to them is that, first of all, those who were affected negatively by nafta can support an effort to try to rewrite the nafta agreement in a way that raises standards. that would put upward pressure on the labor and environmental

standards that are being adopted by mexico and canada, but also 10 other countries in the asia-pacific region. that's precisely what the president believes is the best and most effective way for us to advocate for the future of our economy and middle class families. the president i think was also pretty clear about why he believed that trade adjustment assistance legislation was so important. so that if there are individuals or businesses or communities that are perceived to have a negative consequence from an agreement like this, that those workers can get the kind of skills and training that they need to benefit from the upside, from the enormous opportunity that's created by this. i think the other thing that the -- the other point that the president made that should not get lost in this debate is that globalization and technological innovation have had a much more

profound impact on the changing economy and the changing workplace than these kinds of trade agreements have. in fact, these kinds of trade agreements are a way for us to try to alleviate the negative impact of those broader trends that in some cases have had a negative impact on local economies or on individual businesses. so if we're actually thinking about what we want the future of our economy and the future of our work force to look like withdrawing from the global economy is not an option. at least it's not a constructive one. that we're going to be better off if we engage in the international economy and if we open up opportunities for american businesses to do business overseas. we have to recognize that 95% of the world's customers live outside our borders and if we can put american businesses in a more advantageous position to compete for those customers, then american workers are going

to win. and the president is committed to making sure that our workers have the skills and training that they need to get those good jobs, to support those businesses and to benefit from the economic opportunity that exists out there. questioner: take you back somewhat to a topic that we haven't talked about in a long time. the u.s. sister court in d.c. today released the sentencing memorandum for omar gonzalez, the white house fence jumper. i wonder if you could tell us if the president has been kept up to date on the prosecution or any other aspects of the case? mr. earnest: i don't know that he's got stand-alone briefings on this. this is an issue that has obtained or has received a lot of news conversation. i wouldn't be surprised -- coverage. i wouldn't be surprised if the president is aware of the details. questioner: the incident happened in september, it's now june. there's no permanent fix yet around the white house. is that ok? mr. earnest: the president is supportive of the reforms that director clancy has put florida

place over the last several months. and there are steps that have been taken, both some security measures have been taken, some of which are visible and some of which aren't, as you pointed out. but the president continues to have a full confidence not just in director clancy but in the professionalism of the men and women of the secret service, who take very seriously their responsibility to put in place reforms that will bolster the security at white house complex but also ensure that the men and women of that agency are living up to the very high standards that they've established for themselves. questioner: let me ask you about the fence. it's not obviously just a physical barrier but a psychological message as well. to people who are serious about it. how long is too long to get that fence fixed? mr. earnest: a couple of things. there is one security measure that is obvious to anybody who walks along pennsylvania avenue. that there has been essentially a buffer established around some parts of the fence line north of the white house.

and that has proved to be helpful in deterring individuals who might be unwisely contemplating scaling the fence in the north lawn of the white house. so there are some security measures that have been put in place that do seem to have had an impact. but the fact is -- questioner: you're saying it has been helpful? you know that? mr. earnest: i think that there have been public reports about individuals who have been detained, who have tried to go over that fence but weren't able to get over the other one. and i know those are breaches that receive a lot of attention from all of you and understandably so. but the fact is that there are a whole range of reforms, some of which involve advanced training for security officers some of which involve security measures that are not readily visible and the president

continues to have confidence in the professionalism and effort that our men and women in the secret service put in to keeping the president and the first family safe. questioner: the president said china has put out feelers about joining either the trans-pacific partnership or maybe the trans-pacific partnership evolving to include -- what did he mean by that and how should members of congress and the general public interpret that, as consideration draws near t.p.a. and its successor, which is t.p.p.? mr. earnest: this is something both the secretary and ambassador have talked about a little bit. china is not involved in the current t.p.p. negotiations. there are 12 other asia-pacific countries, but china's not one of them. what we have made clear -- questioner: might become one. mr. earnest: they are not a part of the current negotiations and they won't be. what we have made clear though

is that if we can reach a t.p.p. agreement, that other countries in the region who are interested in joining, that we'd be interested -- we'd be willing to have those discussions, but those discussions would be predicated on a commitment from those countries to meeting the high standards that everybody else who has entered into the agreement lives up to. and i think that is the critical part of this argument. which is that if china is willing to at some point down the line meet the very high labor standards, frankly compared to what are currently in place in china, if they're willing to abide by the enforceable environmental standards, if they're willing to abide by the human rights protections that are included in the agreement, if they are willing to adopt the pretty strict intellectual property rules that will be written into this agreement, and all of the other enforceable provisions of

the agreement, then members of the trans-pacific partnership will have conversations with china about this. but the fact is china is not currently part of the agreement . it is hard to imagine china being able to make all of those changes in the short-term. but if reaching this agreement does have the effect of china reorienting their policy in this direction that would of course be good for the u.s. economy and frankly is part of a broader reorientation that the president would like to see. which is starting to level the playing field to open up access to overseas markets for american businesses and allowing those american businesses to compete on a more level playingfield with businesses in asia. right now that level playing field doesn't exist. over the long-term, if we want to ensure the vibrancy of the u.s. economy, one of the things that we need to do is to make sure that american businesses have the opportunity to compete

overseas. questioner: just to make sure i understand, you're asserting that t.p.a. and t.p.p. would institute a full blown renegotiation -- constitute a full blown renegotiation of nafta as senator obama promised in the ohio primary? mr. earnest: it would constitute the addressing, successfully so many of the concerns that democrats have raised about the impact of nafta on the u.s. economy. and that's what the president was talking about in the context of the campaign, was acknowledging that there were some communities who did not benefit from nafta. in fact, they actually suffered some negative quebses -- consequences as a result of that trade agreement. and to try to address those concerns and to try to address those impacts, the president believes that we should raise labor standards, raise environmental standards and do some of the other things that are included in t.p.p. as well as offer additional trade adjustment assistance, to make sure that those workers who may not benefit right away from the

trade agreement can get the skills and training that they need to seize the opportunity that's created by this very agreement. questioner: as you are probably aware, there was a rather lively exchange at the state department yesterday over iran's nuclear stockpile and its presumed eventual violation of the joint plan of action. and it was the state department spokesperson's point of view that this is essentially a nonissue. as you're probably aware that's not the way it's viewed by members of congress in the senate or the house. just to start this conversation , give us the explanation if you can, why iran's nuclear stockpile, and where it is now and where it's likely to be does not violate the joint plan of action and should be of no concern to those who want to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. mr. earnest: i think the first thing i would say is that the iaea in their report in nowhere does it say that this is a violation of the joint plan of action. the second thing is, we have seen this kind of fluctuation in iran's stockpile of low

enriched uranium even in previous agreements. and the reason we've seen that fluctuation is because iran does continue to produce low enriched uranium consistent with the joint plan of action. the requirements of the interim agreement, however are that they abide by the cap by the end of the agreement. and so what we're monitoring is to make sure that they abide by this cap that was established for june 30. previous iterations of the agreement, they have met. there's been a similar fluctuation and by the end of the agreement -- no, not on average. by the end date. that's how we'll evaluate their continued compliance with the joint plan of action. the third thing i would point out is that the only reason we're having this conversation is because we now have a lot of insight into iran's nuclear program and that is a direct

consequence of the joint plan of action, that iran has submitted to extensive monitoring of their nuclear activities and that's why we are able to assess with such great precision exactly what their stockpile looks like. the last thing i'll say is that if we're able to reach a final agreement by june 30, we've been clear that the final agreement would dramatically reduce even further iran's stockpile of low enriched uranium. so right now the cap is at 7,650 kilograms. the final agreement would envision iran reducing their stock people to just -- pile to just 300 kilograms. i think a lot of people were surprised, pleasantly so, when the political agreement was announced. that iran would reduce their low enriched uranium stockpile by 98%. and this is exactly what we're talking about. questioner: -- practical concerns. would it reach that level and

does past behavior suggest either unwillingness to or a technological inability to achieve that? in compliance with the agreement? mr. earnest: the first part is getting a political agreement. and that is actually what was reached. that is what iran committed to in the context of those political talks in early april. there are obviously a lot of details associated with meeting the standard and that's what's being -- questioner: they didn't agree to anything. it's up to the iaea and others to check whether they have and even if they haven't say, well, we're working on it and yet sanctions are lifted and they're about their merry way. mr. earnest: let's not get ahead of ourselves. a couple of things. one is we have the foremost nuclear security expert in the world taking active part in those negotiations. that's it's the secretary of energy. he has a -- that's the secretary of energy. he has a lot of technical knowledge about how exactly iran can meet the commitments that they make. we'll obviously have neutral international observers at the iaea who will also be part of

the most intrusive inspections measures that have ever been imposed on a country's nuclear program, to verify their compliance with the agreement. and to be clear, we would expect them to meet the 7650 kilogram level by june 30, for their low enriched uranium. and over a period of time they would have to meet the 300 kilogram cap. and the process by which they start to live up to those commitments if an agreement is reached and the way sanctions relief is offered is something that is still under negotiation. but the president has been very clear that the kind of sanctions relief that the iranians would like to see is not something that we're going to offer until we start seeing a firm and clear commitment from the iranians that they're going to live up to their commitments. questioner: you're talking about u.s. sanctions. other sanctions could be lifted as they try to move from this

7,650 kilogram to the lower number. mr. earnest: i do know that our partners have similarly strong feelings. about ensuring that iran lives up to the commitments that they make in the context of a final agreement. questioner: i'd like to ask you about comments made by david petrino in an interview. he said, when he was asked -- imagine that on cbs. when asked if we were winning in iraq, the general said, well these are fights where if you're not winning, you're probably losing because time is not on your side. does the white house agree with the general that we're probably losing? mr. earnest: the way that we have described the situation is there are areas where we've made important progress and areas where we've experienced significant setbacks. i think the general knows more about this than either you or i do. this is a typical characteristic of any sort of military conflict. there's no denying that taking

a leading isil figure off the battlefield in syria, as we did a couple of weeks ago represents important progress. there's no doubt that over the last several months, as iraqi security forces have prevented essentially reduced isil's footprint by 25%, that that represents important progress. but what's also true is that isil being able to take over the entire city of ramadi represents a setback and one that we are working with the iraqis to try to address. but again i think that is typical of the kind of military conflict in which the united states and our 62 coalition partners are currently engaged. questioner: i want to ask you about criticism from minority leader nancy pelosi, responding to some of the comments made by the general. she said, well, i've been there several times and i can remember him and others saying that if they trained 175,000 iraqis to be able to pick up the fight themselves, you should ask the general about

that, perhaps they didn't train as many as they suggested. is that a fair criticism? mr. earnest: i didn't see those specific comments. obviously part of the strategy that we're currently pursuing inside of iraq, again alongside of our coalition partners, is to bolster the capability and capacity of the iraqi security forces. so that they can take the fight on the ground against isil in iraq. that is a core component of our strategy and one that we're aggressively pursuing. it's a strategy that has borne some fruit, there are some areas inside of iraq where coalition trained iraqi security forces have succeeded in taking back important strategic objectives from isil. but there are obviously more fights that are we would like to train. some of whom are part of the iraqi security forces, some of them are local tribal fighters. we are optimistic about the

kind of success they can have against isil fighters. questioner: "the new york times" in an editorial suggested that transgender soldiers, service members, should be able to serve openly. does the white house have a position on that? mr. earnest: we don't. questioner: can i follow up on that? mr. earnest: not right now. questioner: just one more. as it relates to the medical marijuana, it's an issue particularly out west, that is a very hot button issue. does the white house believe that medicinal marijuana is a good idea, legalization, is that a good idea as well? mr. earnest: the president has spoken about that publicly. he doesn't support the legalization of marijuana. questioner: "the new york times", there's a new snowden document out that claims you expanded the warrantless surveillance program to cover possible hacking. did you guys do that? what's your reaction to this story? mr. earnest: i'm obviously not in a position to talk in a lot

of detail about any sort of covert government programs that may or may not exist. what i can tell you is that the director of the national intelligence has been clear that the united states is facing a cyberthreat that's increasing in frequency scale sophistication and severity of impact. and there are a variety of tools that our national security and law enforcement professionals rely on to keep us safe. one of those tools is section 702 of fisa and section 702 does provide authority to target non-u.s. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the united states in order to acquire foreign intelligence information under court oversight. and so that is a tool that our again, our national security professionals have found to be valuable in protecting the country from a variety of threats, particularly cyberthreats.

this administration remains committed to being vigilant about the ever-evolving threat that we face in cyberspace and the president spends a lot of time talking to his national security team about it. questioner: there is warrantless surveillance of foreign computer activity. is that covered? legal? mr. earnest: what i referred to specifically here is section 702 of the fisa law. and section 702 provides authority to target non-u.s. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the united states. and it does require court oversight. when we've talked about some of the most valuable tools that we have in protecting the country from a variety of threats, including cyberthreats, 702 is one of them and 702 is an authority that is targeted against non-u.s. persons reasonably believed to be outside the united states and done under the supervision of a

judge. questioner: i don't think we asked you about this yesterday but i don't think there was an on the record response from the white house. i wanted to ask you about a senate hearing yesterday regarding the inspector generals where there are a couple of facts at the end of june, seven inspector general positions and the administration have been vacant or will have been vacant for a year and it takes 613 days to fill a vacancy in this administration. and i know there have been stories prior about when secretary clinton was at the state department there was actually no top inspector general at that time the entire time she was there. i was wondering if you could respond to the hearing. mr. earnest: i didn't see any of the news account of the hearing. i'll see if we can get you more details on this. i know as it relates to the inspector general's office at the state department, even while there was not a person in the top job there, the office

was rather prolific in issuing reports holding accountable officials at the state department. questioner: one might have colleagues asked yesterday and didn't get anything. if could you respond. mr. earnest: we'll see if we can collect some more information for you. questioner: a couple of questions on iran. the supreme leader said today that it's impossible to trust the u.s. and other arrogant powers, in his swords -- words. he's also said they won't allow inspections of military sites and sanctions must be lifted all at once. how does the white house interpret his latest comments? do you think he's trying to halt negotiations and has the president had any communication correspondent with the supreme leader? mr. earnest: we have acknowledged previous correspondentance between the president and the supreme leader but we don't do that regularly. i don't have anything new to share on that front. on your second question i

think it is a fair assessment that the negotiations would not have proceded as far as they had without at least the willingness on the part of the supreme leader to keep an open mind about the possibility of resolving this dispute. diplomatically. so what we will continue to evaluate are the discussions at the negotiating table and the actions that iran takes when it comes to complying with the joint plan of action. and these are actions that we can very very -- verify through the iaea and, again, if the supreme leader were somehow of the mind that complying or cooperating with the p-5-plus-one in the context of these negotiations or -- [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> you can find the rest of the briefing online on c-span's video library as we take you live to texas southern university in houston for remarks on voting rights by former secretary of state and democratic presidential candidate, hillary clinton. >> please stand for the presentation of the colors and national anthem sung by nicholas coriors. ♪ o say can you see

by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming

and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o say does that star spangled banner yet wave o an'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪

[cheers and applause] >> please welcome to the podium, dr. john rudman. [cheers and applause] dr. rudman: please be seated. i think i need to find another scholarship around here for that young man. just give him another round of applause. [cheers and applause] for those of you who are visiting, i am dr. john lid -- rudly, president of texas southern university. and we welcome all of our visitors and of course many of our guests who are here to celebrate and to honor a former senator, secretary of state and the first lady of the united

states of america, ms. hillary rod ham clinton. [cheers and applause] we are grateful today for the vision of our own congresswoman sheila jackson lee representing the 18th congressional district. [cheers and applause] the same district represented by the honorable barbara jordan of texas southern university graduate. texas southern university is the fourth largest public historically black university in the country and the proud home of the thurgood marshall school of law and the barbara jordan school of public affairs, the sponsors of the inaugural award entitled the barbara jordan gold medallion for public and private leadership. [applause] the barbara jordan gold medallion builds upon our commitment to our students to expose them to a diverse academic setting while providing them with bachelor's, master's law, pharmacy for

education doctor al degrees which provides them with skills to be valued in the u.s. and global marketplace. dreams begin at texas southern university and we want our students to join the ranks of barbara jordan sheila jackson lee and our honoree, hillary rodham clinton, in improving the lives of people. all three of these courageous women are trail blazers that their paths intertwine. congresswoman barbara jordan and congresswoman sheila jackson lee both served the 18th congress district of texas. secretary hints was campaigning for texas -- hillary clinton was campaigning for texas governor in 1972 when he ran for president and she was still attending yale law school. while barbara jordan was becoming the first african-american woman to serve in congress from the deep south in the 20th century and congresswoman sheila jackson lee graduated in the first class of women to attend yale university. [applause]

texas southern is proud to be the home of this most prestigious award and we look forward to carrying it forward and recognizing all of those who meet the standards of having the courage and determination to make a difference like barbara jordan. i would also like to introduce our board of regionents and our first lady. regionent gary bledsoe please stand. regent marilyn rose, please stand. regent derek mitchell, please stand. regionent wesley torrell, please stand. let's give them a round of applause. i'd also like to make a couple other acknowledgments and i can't let this go by. first of all, the sister of barbara jordan, rose mary, is on stage with us. [applause] the greatest civil rights leader in the history of man

kind almost, rev rands bill dawson i can't go without recognizing reverend bill dawson. [cheers and applause] and the wife of mickey leland's here, allison leland. please stand and be recognized. my final recognition, i'll get in trouble since i don't have time to recognize everyone, but sylvia garcia, state senator is here as well. would you stand, please. thank you for being here today and bearing witness as we award the first barbara jordan public-private leadership award to the honorary, the honorable hillary rodham clinton. thank you. [applause] jackson scrks jackson dr.

rudly, -- ms. jackson lee: dr. rudly, thank you so much for the hospitality and graciousness of this great historic institution. might i first of all thank all of the students from all over the city but in particular the great students of texas southern university and the student government association. [cheers and applause] your work and easy and quick enthusiasm made this a very fine day even before we finished. allow me to as well thank those who every day go and stand in a gap as elected officials and public servants. could you please stand at this time. would you please stand. give them a rousing applause. [applause] you know i love children. i chair the congressional children's caucus and you know

as i begin to absolute this very fine american -- salute this very fine american, her work on children's issues. i'm so excited for the dynamic presentations that have been made by the wall trip senior high school band. they have been playing the music for you this entire time. [applause] let's hear it for the houston children's chorus. [applause] jeremy green, who played the viola. [applause] and of course nicholas. [applause] it is my honor to salute a very distinguished american whose life and achievements embody the passion and principles and values and commitment to the

service of our own and beloved barbara char lean jordan. as dr. rudly has said, with his great leadership he recognizes what a special place both barbara jordan and mickey leland have in our lives. i'm delighted to be here on the stage with rose mary mcgowan, an esteemed educater in her own right, and the privilege of course in meeting barbara's late sister. i know the whole family and i love them as family, as we all should do. the barbara jordan gold medicalian for public-private leadership will be presented annually to a woman of demonstrated excellence in the public or private sector whose achievements are an example and inspiration to people everywhere internationally nationally, no limits will be placed on those who receive this honor. but especially we hope it will inspire women and girls so many in developing nations, who are looking to break out of their world to move into the 21st century.

it is befitting therefore that an inaugural recipient of the barbara jordan gold medallion is the former first lady of arkansas and the united states, united states senator and secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. when asked to name a woman living anywhere in the world whom they most admired, americans have named hillary rodham clinton in each of the last 13 years and 17 of the last 18 years. [applause] it was not a simple task yet it was, to deliberate on who would receive the inaugural selection. i'm delighted to have had leaders, like dean bullock, dean snowdon, and others. as a leader on the national and international stage, hillary clinton has represented our nation with distinction and grace, always reflecting the highest ideals and aspirations.

it was as first lady who traveled to beijing to speak truth to power declaring in a very famous statement that's been repeated over and over again, human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. that's our honoree. [applause] it was hillary clinton who gave voice to what we have always understood, when she said to raise a happy healthy hopeful child it takes family, it takes clergy it takes business leaders, it takes community leaders, it takes those who protect our health and safety. as president obama has indicated we are in fact our brothers' -- and i say our sisters' -- keeper. as senator clinton said, it takes a village to raise a child. but before hillary clinton was a household name many of us knew her in texas as she came in 1927

to help poor people and african-americans and latinos register to vote. i would imagine that she was the back drop or the future of 1972 of what brilliantly dr. martin lewiser king my colleague john lewis and president johnson did in helping to pass the voting rights act in 1965. it was their genius that came together to realize all people should be in power. but in 1972, change was not coming fast enough so in texas it was very important to include section 5 of the 1965 voting rights act. registration however continued because we wanted to ensure that americans understood that voting rights are america's rights. i have seen the crumbling of these rights and i know we must continue to march on. apparently, those who do not understand, as did president johnson, did not understand the

value of this, are still trying to understand. some do not understand even today. his words say the most powerful instrument ever devised by man was breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprisoned men because they are different from other men. hillary clinton understands. hillary clinton understands that the right to vote is the most precious of right. she understands that her work tonights on -- continues on. she understands that. right now the right to vote. right now i'm here to champion someone who has and will champion american's right to votes. her record shows it. ladies and gentlemen i give you the 2015 recipient of the barbara jordan gold medallion for leadership, hillary rodham clinton. [applause]

we ask that dr. thomas friedman be escorted to the stage. he's the anchor of barbara's enhanced and well tuned oratorical skills. we're excited that he's 95 years old and has been affil texas southern university for more than half a century.

[applause] ms. jackson lee: ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great privilege to place and bestow this dynamic barbara jordan gold medallion for public and private leadership on its inaugural recipient, the honorable hillary rodham clinton.

ms. clinton: so beautiful. thank you. ms. clinton: wow. thank you so very much.

i cannot tell you how personally honored i am to be here with all of you, to be at this historic institution. let me start by thanking president rudley and everyone at texas southern university. it's a great treat to be here, to have heard just briefly from dr. rudley and others about the incredible programs and progress and the fact that you graduated more than 1,000 young people into the world not so many days ago. this institution is the living legacy, the absolute embodyment of the long struggle for civil rights. and for me, to be surrounded by so many here in houston, texas, and indeed from across our

country, who were part of that movement is especially touching. i am delighted to be here with my friend, sheila jackson lee, she has been -- [applause] ms. clinton: she's been a tireless champion for the people of the 18th district and the state and the country. i have to say, though, i expected her to tell you the most important news coming out of the congress, and that is, she is finally a member of the grandmothers' club. [applause] and a member of now a little over eight months, it is the best club you'll ever be a member of, sheila. i also have to confess, i was

excited about coming here and to talk about an issue that was important to barbara jordan and should be important to all of us, but to do so in front of dr. friedman is a little daunting. i mean, anyone who knows what this man has meant, not just to barbara jordan but to so many who have studied here, who have been in any way affected by his brilliant teaching of elocution and delivery would be a little daunted too. i notice that both dr. rudley and sheila got off before dr. freedman came up. i also want to say my thoughts and prayers are with the families in houston and across texas who have been affected by the recent terrible flooding. and i am confident that this community will embrace them. i remember very well coming here

after katrina with my husband and in fact we invited to come along a young senator from illinois by the name of barack obama. and with sheila and other leaders in the community, we toured the facilities that houston had provided to those who were fleing that horrific storm. i saw how people opened their hearts and their homes. this is a city that knows how to pull together and i'm confident you will do so again on behalf of those who are suffering from this latest terrible disaster. and it is also a special moment to be here, knowing that barbara jordan was succeeded by niki leland and the 18th district was so well represented for so long and i'm delighted to be here

with allison and to remember the pioneering work he did on behalf of children and the poor and hunger so many issues that he was champion of. i want to thank -- i want to thank rosemary mcgowan and all the friends and loved ones of barbara jordan here today. [applause] this is such a particular honor for me because the award is in memory of one of my true personal heroes. a woman who taught me and so many others the meaning of courage and determination in the pursuit of justice. i first met barbara jordan when i was a young attorney and had been given a position working for the house of representatives judiciary committee

investigating richard nixon. and it was such a profound moment in american history and there wasn't anyone who was a more effective eloquent, inquisitor than barbara jordan. as a 26-year-old fresh out of law school, as some of you are perhaps now, having graduated from the thurgood marshall school here at t.s.u. i was riveted and not a little intimidated, to tell you the truth, by this unstoppable congresswoman from texas. i got to talk with her, which was thrilling. i got to hand her papers, which was equally exciting.

but mostly i got to watch and listen to her. at a time of shaken confidence, she stirred the entire nation with her words. remember what she said. my faith in the constitution is whole, it is complete, it is the total. it was that passion and moral clarity that took barbara jordan from t.s.u. and the halls of the texas legislature all the way to congress. the first woman, the first african-american ever elected to represent texas in the house of representatives. and she defended and continued the civil rights legacy of dr. martin luther king jr. and her

friend and mentor, president lyndon johnson. and in particular, she was a staunch advocate for the voting rights act, which had helped make it possible for her to be elected. in 1975, in the face of fierce opposition, barbara jordan led the fight to extend the special protection of the voting rights act to many more americans, including hispanic americans, native americans, and asian americans as well. and like every woman who has run for national office in this country in the last four decades, i stand here on the shoulders of barbara jordan and so does our entire country.

and boy, do we miss her. we miss her courage, we also miss her humor. she was funny. i remember talking to her and ann richards one time and between the two of them, forget trying to get a word in at all. and they were telling me about how they loved to go to the university of texas women's basketball games. and barbara would be there, by that time, in her wheelchair on the sidelines, ann would be holding court right next to her and barbara would be yelling directions like she was, you know, the coach. why are you doing that? jump higher! that's not a pass! all of those kinds of sideline comments. and so ann was telling me this with barbara right there and ann said i finally turned to her and i said barbara, encourage

these young women. don't just criticize them. and bar rah -- barbara turned around and said, when they deserve it, i will. we sure could use her irresistible voice. i wish we could hear that voice one more time, hear her express the outrage we feel about the fact that 40 years after barbara jordan fought to extend the voting rights act its heart has been ripped out. and i wish we could hear her speak up for the student who has to wait hours for his or her right to vote. for the grandmother whose turn -- who is turned away from the polls because her driver's

license expired. for the father who has done his time and paid his debt to society but still hasn't gotten his right back. now we know, unfortunately, barbara isn't here to speak up for them and so many others. but we are. and we have a responsibility to say clearly and directly what's really going on in our country. because what is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people, and young people from one end of our country to the other. because since the supreme court

eviscerated a key provision of the voting rights act in 2013, many of the states that previously faced special scrutiny because of a history of racial discrimination have proposed and passed new laws that make it harder than ever to vote. north carolina passed a bill that went after pretty much anything that makes voting more convenient or more accessible. early voting. same-tai registration. -- same-day registration. the ability of county election officials to even extend voting hours to accommodate long lines. what possible reason could there be to end preregistration for 16 and 17-year-olds and eliminate voter outreach in high school? we should be doing everything we

can to get our young people more engaged in democracy not less. in fact, i say it is a cruel irony but no coincidence that millenials the most diverse tolerant, and inclusive generation in american history are now facing so much exclusion. and we need look no further than right here in texas. you all know this far better than i but if you want to vote in this state, you can use a concealed weapons permit as a valid form of identification but a valid student i.d. isn't good enough.

crystal watson found out the hard way. she grew up in louisiana but came to marshall, texas, attend wilie college. and -- wilie college. and crystal takes her responsibilities as a citizen to seriously that not only did she register to vote in texas where she was living and would be for a number of years, she even became a deputy registrar to help other people vote as well. but, this past year, when she showed up at her local polling place with a wylie college i.d., she was turned away. experts estimate that hundreds of thousands of registered voters in texas may well face similar situations. and while high profile state laws like those in texas and north carolina get most of the attention, many of the worst

offenses against the right to vote actually happen below the radar. like when authorities shift poll locations and election dates, or scrap language assistance for nonenglish speaking citizens. something barbara jordan fought so hard to provide. without the preclearance provision of the voting rights act, no one outside the local community is likely ever to hear about these abuses. let alone have a chance to challenge them and end them. now, it's not a surprise for you to hear that studies and everyday experiences confirm that minority voters are more likely than white voters to wait in long lines at polling places.

they are also far more likely to vote in polling places with insufficient numbers of voting machines. in south carolina, for example there's supposed to one -- to be one machine for ever 150 voters but in minority areas, that rule is just often overlooked. in richland county, nearly 90 noveget precincts failed to meet the standard required by law in 2012. instead of 250 voters per machine in win precinct, it was more than 430 voters per machine. not surprisingly people trying to cast a ballot there face massive delays. there are many fair-minded, well-intentioned election officials all over our country but this kind of disparity i

just mentioned does not happen by accident. now some of you may have heard me or my husband say one of our favorite sayings from arkansas. of course i learned it from him. if you find a turtle on a fence post, it did not get there on its own. [applause] well all of these problems with voting just didn't happen by accident. and it is just wrong. it's wrong to try to prevent undermine, inhibit americans' right to vote. it's counter to the values we share and in a time when so many americans have lost trust in our political system, it's the opposite of what we should be doing in our country. this is the greatest, longest lasting democracy in the history

of the world. we should be clearing the way for more people to vote, not putting up every roadblock anyone can imagine. yet, unfortunately, today there are people who offer themselves to be leaders whose actions have undercut this fundamental american principle. here in texas, former governor rick perry signed a law that a federal court said was actually written with the purpose of discriminating against minority voters. he applauded when the voting rights act was gutted. and said the loss -- the law's protections were outdated and unnecessary. but governor perry is hardly alone in his crusade against voting rights. in wisconsin governor scott walker cut back early voting and

signed legislation that would make it harder for college students to vote. in new jersey, governor chris isaak tee vetoed legislation -- chris christie vetoed legislation to extend voting. and in another state they purged rolls of voters before the presidential election in 2000. thankfully in 2004, a plan to purge even more voters was headed off. so today republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of american citizens from voting. what part of democracy are they afraid of? i believe every citizen has the right to vote and i believe we should do everything we can to make it easier for every citizen to vote.

[applause] i call on republicans at all levels of government, with all manner of ambition, to stop fear mongering about a phantom epidemic of election fraud and start explaining why they're so scared of letting citizens have their say. now, yes, this is about democracy, but it's also about dignity. about the ability to stand up and say, yes, i am a citizen. i am an american. my voice counts. and no matter where you come

from or what you look like or how much money you have, that means something. in fact, it means a lot. i learned those lessons right here in texas. registering voters in south texas, down in the valley, in 1972. some of the people i met were understandably a little wary of a girl from chicago who didn't speak a word of spanish. but they wanted to vote. they were citizens. they knew they had a right to be heard. they wanted to exercise all the rights and responsibilities that citizenship conveys. that's what should matter. because when those rights are denies to anyone we're all the worse for it. it doesn't just hold back the aspirations of individual citizen, it holds back our entire country. that's why as a senator i championed a bill called the

count every vote act. if it had become law, it would have made election day a federal holiday and mandated early voting opportunities. [applause] deceiving voters, including by sending flyers into minority neighborhoods with false voting times and places would have become a federal crime. and many americans with criminal convictions who had paid their debts to society would have finally gotten their voting rights back. well, today, with the damage the voting rights act so severe, the need for action is even more urgent. first, congress should move quickly to pass legislation to repair that damage and restore the full protections that american voters need and de serve. i was serving in the senate in

2006. we voted 98-0 to re-authorize the voting rights act. after an exhaustive review process. there had been more than 20 hearings in both the house and senate judiciary committees. there had been testimony from so many expert witnesses investigative reports documenting continuing discrimination in covered jurisdictions. there was more than 15,000 pages of legislative record. now that is how the system is supposed to work. you gather the evidence. you weigh it. and you decide and we did. 98-0. we put principle ahead of politics. that's what congress needs to do again.

second, we should implement the recommendations of the bipartisan presidential commission to improve voting. that commission was chaired by president obama's campaign lawyer and by governor mitt romney's campaign lawyer and they actually agreed. and they set forth commonsense reform including expanding early, absentee, and mail voting prorkviding online voter registration. establishing the principle that no one should ever have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast your vote. third, we should set a standard across our country of at least 20 days of early in-person voting, everywhere including opportunities for weekend and evening voting.

with families coming out of church on sunday are inspired to -- if families coming out of church on sunday are inspired to go vote, they should be free to do just that. and we know that early, in-person voting will reduce those long lines and give more citizens the chance to participate, especially those who have work or family obligations that make it difficult to get to the polls on election day. it's not just convenient it's also more secure, more reliable, and more affordable than absentee voting. so let's get this done. and i believe we should go even further to strengthen voting rights in america. today i'm calling for universal automatic voter registration, every citizen in every state in the union.

[applause] everyone. every young man or young woman should be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18. unless they actively hooze to opt out. i think this would have a profound impact on our elections and our democracy. between a quarter and a third of all eligible americans remain unregistered and therefore unable to vote. and we should modernize our entire approach to registration. the system we have is a relic from an earlier age that relies on a blizzard of paper records. it's full of errors. in fact, we can do better by

making sure registration rolls are secure, up to date, and complete, so when you move, your registration should move with you. if you're an eligible voter and want to be registered, you should be registered. oregon is leading the way modernizing its system and the rest of the country should follow. the technology is here. states have already a lot of the data that's needed. it's just a matter of syncing and streamlining. all these reforms from expanded early voting to modernized registration are commonsense ways to strengthen our democracy. but i'll be candid here. none of them will come easily. it's going to take leadership at many levels. now more than ever, we need our

citizens to actually get out and vote for people who want to hear what's on their minds. we need more activists working to expose abuses, educate americans about their rights, and hold authorities accountable for protecting them. some of the worst provisions in recent laws have been blocked or delayed by tireless advocates raising the alarm and filing legal challenges but they can't do it alone. we need more grassroots mobilization efforts like the moral monday movement in north carolina. to build momentum for reform. we need more justices on the supreme court who will protect every citizen's right to vote. [applause] i mean, the principle underlying our constitution which we had

to fight for a long time to make apply to everybody, one american, one vote. and we need a supreme court that cares more about protecting the right to vote of a person than the right to buy an election of a corporation. [applause] but of course, you know what we really need? we need more elected leaders from houston to austin to washington, who will follow in the footsteps of barbara jordan and who will fight every day for the rights and opportunities of everyday americans, not just those at the top of the ladder, and we need to remember that progress is built on common ground, not scorched earth. when i traveled around as your secretary of state, one of the most frequent questions i was asked was how could you and

president obama work together after you fought so hard in that campaign? people were genuinely amazed. which i suppose is understandable considering that in many places, when you lose an election or you oppose somebody who wins you could get imprisoned exiled or even killed, not asked to be secretary of state. and it's true, i was surprised when the president asked me to serve. but he made that offer and i accepted it for the same reason we both -- for the same reason, we both love our country! so, my friends, here at this historic institution, just let us remember, america was built by people who knew that our common interest was more important than our self-interest. they were fearless in pursuit of

a stronger freer fairer nation. as barbara jordan famously reminded us, when the constitution was first written, it left most of us here out. but generations of americans fought and marched and organized and prayed to expand the circumstancele of freedom and opportunity. they never gave up and they never backed down. and nearly a century ago on this very day, after years of struggle congress finally passed the 19th amendment to give women the right to vote in the united states. so that is the story of progress, courageous men and women, expanding rights, not restricting them, and today we

refuse we refuse to allow our country and this generation of leaders to slow or reverse america's long march toward a more perfect union. we owe it to our children and our grandchildren to fight just as hard as those who came before us, to march just as far, organize just as well, to speak out just as loudly, and to vote every chance we get for the kind of future we want. that's what barbara jordan would do. that's what we should do in honor of her. thank you and may god bless you. [applause]

>> please welcome back to the stage jerry reeves. >> ♪

♪ ♪

♪

[applause] >> please welcome to the stage -- >> and so ladies and gentlemen, this is the honorable hillary rodham clinton, fearless tenacious, and transparent

example of strong womanhood and leadership, transcending optimism and exemplifying strong service for the common good of all people. much like that of the great honorable barbara jordan. secretary clinton, through your voice, through your message today, you have not only encouraged us as a people, but i can say with assurance, you have challenged everyone in this room to move beyond our customary boundies -- boundaries of service such that we can make even more impactful differences within our community. without a shadow of a doubt, the great bar rah -- barbara jordan is looking down upon you and all of us gathered here today with pride and great joy as we honor, celebrate, and applaud not just your presence but the woman, the leader and the compassion within you for mankind.

thank you. [cheers and applause] >> and now we will have the children's chorus performance. >> ♪ oh beautiful for spacious skies for purple mountain's majesties above the fruited plain

america america god shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea america america god shed his grace on thee and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea ♪

[cheers and applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> hillary clinton will be holding her official campaign kickoff in new york in a couple of weeks, june 13. a look at politico with a headline the campaign to put julian castro on hillary clinton's vice-presidential short list.

it's way too early, but the castro buzz is useful as democrats court hispanics. hillary clinton speaking about voting rights and violations including castro's home state. he's currently mayor of san antonio. you can read more at politico.com. another candidate getting into the race today former texas governor rick perry. he's announcing he will run again for president. this is his second bid. he becomes the 10th candidate seeking the republican nomination after a 2012 campaign that turned into a political disaster for him that humbled and weakened the most powerful republican in the state of texas. you can read more, nytimes.com. here's a look at his announcement from addison, near dallas texas, earlier today where he spoke for about 30 minutes. [applause]

>> oh, my goodness, if i could kiss every one of them standing behind me today i would. i think every woman here would. if you're a man you'd go with tea or melanie. welcome to a hot hangar on june 4678 it is heartwarming for me to see so many friends and family who traveled to be with us today. rick and i are excited to be here. we're excited to be joined by our children, griffin and his wife meredith and sydney and our granddaughters el la and piper. -- granddaughters ella and piper. we've been on quite a journey this man that i'm married to. it started about 55 years ago, yeah i know, he looks it, i don't. 55 years ago, i sat by him at a piano recital.

six years after that, he asked me on our first date. to his football game. he rode on the team bus. i rode in a car with his parents and his sister. i figured that's about what every girl dreams about for their first date. 16 years later with the blessing of my father, finally i decided to marry him and say yes and go on a journey where i had no idea where it would take me. back then he was trying to farm, fix some airplanes fly some airplanes, we were living in haskell, texas, halfway between abilene and the end of the earth. then one day he decided to run for state representative. he ran. and he won. about that same time we welcomed griffin and then sydney into the family. family has always come first for rick and me. but it's not just about

bloodlines with us. it's about the family you adopt over time. friends that come into your life, cause you to live differently because of the mere fact that you met them. one such friend is with us today, marcus lattrell. [applause] marcus has been very kind in describing how we were there for him, but in reality, we learned as much from marcus as he could have ever learned from us. he taught us the importance of perseverance of never giving up. [applause] never quit. we learned this when he came to us broken from having born the

brunt of battle. the other thing he always continuously reminds of us, it's not about us. it's not about us. there are causes greater than any one of us here today. causes for which we should all be willing to sacrifice our lives and our future. ones -- one such cause is the presidency of the united states. [applause] my friends that office is not about the individual who occupies it. but it's about the optimism and the dreams of the people who work to elect that person. we need a president now, perhaps more than ever who puts the american people first.

who puts you and you and you and you and my children and my grandchildren ahead of -- first. who puts every one of these veterans behind us first. we need that person who transcends the petty politics of washington, who brings people together for the common good. and i think i might know a man who has all the right qualifications to make america great again. please welcome my husband, rick perry! ♪

♪ [applause] mr. perry: thank you. thank you very much. i love you, honey. you know, i was born -- i was born five years after the end of

a global war that killed more than 60 million people. i'm the son of a veteran of that war. who flew 35 missions over war-torn europe as a tail gunner on a b-17. when dad returned home he married mom, they started a life together. they were tenant farmers. they were raised during a time of great hardship and had little expectation beyond living in peace, putting a roof over our heads, and putting food on our table. home was a place called paint creek. too small to be called a town. but it was the center of my universe. for years we had an outhouse. mom bathed us on the back porch in a number two wash tub.

she also hand sewed my clothes until i went off to college. i attended paint creek rural school, grades one through 12. played six-man football football. was a -- football. was a member of boy scout troop 48, became an eagle scout. i went off to texas a&m, where i was a member of the corps of cadets. i got my degree in animal science. i was proud to wear the uniform of our country as an air force officer, as an aircraft commander. after serving, i returned home. i returned home to those rolling plains and that big old sky of west texas and i returned to farming. you know there is no person on

earth more optimistic than a dryland cotton farmer. we always know that a good rain is just around the corner. no matter how long you've been waiting. the values learned on my family's cotton farm are timeless. the dignity of work. the integrity of your word. responsibility to community. the unbreakable bonds of family. and duty to country. these are enduring values. not the product of some idyllic past but a touchstone of american life in our small towns, in our largest cities, in our booming suburbs. i've seen american life. i've seen it from the red dirt of a west texas cotton field, from a campus in college

station, texas, from the elevated view of a c-130 cockpit. and from the governor's office of the texas capitol. [applause] i had the great privilege to serve a rural community in the texas legislature. and i led the world's 12th largest economy. [applause] i know that america has experienced great change but what it means to be an american has never changed. we are the only nation in the world founded on the power of an idea that all, that all are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right that

among these are life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] our rights come from god, not from government. our people are not the subject of government but instead government is subject to the people. it has always been the case that there's been this social compact between one generation of americans and the next. to pass along an inheritance of a stronger country, full of greater promise and possibility. and that social compact, it's been protected at great sacrifice. it was never more clear to me than when i took my father to

the american cemetery that overlooks the bluffs at omaha beach, on that peaceful, wind swept setting, there lies 9,000 graves. including 45 pairs of brothers. 33 of whom are buried side by side. a father and a son. two sons of a president. they all traded their future for ours in a final act of loving sacrifice. and that american cemetery, it is no accident that each headstone faces west. west over the atlantic toward the nation they defended, the nation they loved, the nation they would never come home to. it struck me as i stood in the

midst of those heroes that they look upon us in silent judgment and that we must ask ourselves, are we worthy of their sacrifice? the truth is, we're at the end of an era. we have been led by a divider who has sliced and diced the electorate, pitting american against american for political purposes. six years into this so-called recovery and i might add our economy is barely growing. this winter, it actually got smaller. our economic slowdown is not inevitable. it just happens to be the direct result of bad economic policy.

the president's tax and regulatory policies have mr. perry: the president's policy has slammed the door is shut for the average american who is trying to climb the economic ladder and climb the middle class, to deferred dreams. weakness at home has led to weakness abroad. the world has descended into a chaos of this president's own making. while his white house lawyers, they construct an alternative universe where isis is contained, that ramadi is merely a setback where the nature of the enemy can't be acknowledged for fear of