. particular there is a victim involved, that is exactly what you would want to do. but this is an old drug case. and they were going to dismiss it, why do they not dismiss it while he was in the federal prisons? why did it require his presence in san francisco to decide to cisco to decide to dismiss a case? he was not going to be a witness anyway. you get the frustration and -- and it think it is being directed to you because we perceive that you are in a position to change that. and i knew say -- you say cooperation, but i think, maybe this week, last week when you're talking to some folks on judiciary -- and if i am wrong, correct me -- there are five municipalities that have flat out told you they are not going to cooperate with you. so what do we do it them? if they really are refusing to cooperate, surely we have to have something more than just going back to them and talking to them again. you work for the united states

of america. how in the hell can a city tell you know? -- no? sectretary johnson: first of all, i intend to read attack the five prior to san francisco, i'm not giving up on the five. the majority have said, yes, they are interested. so we are going to continue to push at this. and, sir, i agree totally with the spirit of your question. and i want to evaluate whether some discretion can be built into the process so that we are faced with a choice like that, we are able to make the best choice for reasons of public safety. i don't argue with you there sir. senator gowdy: and i'm not going to become 70 we used to be a prosecutor because i know you spend a lot of your career standing up for victims but i swear, when i hear the terms x-ray city, the only sanctuary ought to be as for law-abiding citizens. if we are going to have a

sanctuary, and ought to be for them. when a young woman is shot walking with her father, with somebody with this resume, i -- either you have to do something we have to do something, or maybe we can do it together. with that, i would recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, i share the chairman's restoration -- frustration because at a certain point in time, you say, again, that they just a want to cooperate. i was looking on your web slight -- website. i want to get ahead of the game. let's decide because i am from a state -- i know cities and states are struggling financially right now. they have come as you have used the term, which i do not agree with, that this issue, resources issue. one of the things the cyber

security. you enforce cyber security laws, you work to do that. what if now they just don't have the resources to do that and they say, you know, we are not going to cooperate with you, mr. secretary. would you have an opinion on that? sectretary johnson: absolutely. we would engage and encourage them to do otherwise. senator collins: an interesting thing because you said to mr. smith earlier, and their other things from -- you had no opinion. but to the chairman just now, you said you agree with the spirit of his question. so what is it? do you have an opinion? what do you feel about this issue? why can we not have the nine states government pass a law and then have an opinion. you agree with the spirit come you don't agree. to the american people, it is hard to understand. sectretary johnson: let me make this clear. i believe that the most

effective way to address and enhance public safety is to work cooperatively with state and local law enforcement. as a result of our -- >> so the supremacy clause is optional. visit optional? -- is it optional? sectretary johnson: may i finish my sentence? i believe as a result of the prior policy, we were inhibited in our ability to promote public safety. with the new policy, i believe we will be in a much better position to work effectively and cooperatively with law enforcement. i do not believe that federal legislation mandating the behavior of a lot of sheriffs and police chiefs is the way to go. i believe it will lead to one litigation and it will be -- lead to more litigation and it will be counterproductive. senator collins: so you don't believe what -- mandating what law enforcement does in this

country from a legislature perspective -- so they can pick and choose what they want to just overwhelmingly? sectretary johnson: i do not believe that the federal government and the u.s. congress should mandate the behavior of state and local law enforcement. the most effective way to do this is cooperatively with the new program and i believe it is going to yield very positive results. senator collins: so civil rights are optional for states? sectretary johnson: i don't think that mandating an approach by this congress is the way to go. i think it will be hugely counterproductive. senator collins: so the civil rights act was counterproductive? sectretary johnson: -- in this regard. senator collins: i want to go back to what you are saying. i think the bill of rights act was overreach? you are saying that they should not be enforcing this deco at a

certain -- this? at a certain point in time, when did it become wholesale abandonment of prosecutor will. -- prosecutorial discussion -- prosecutorial discretion. it leads to other issues like earned income tax credits. the decision to have affect other issues. and simply saying we are not going to -- it has more to do with what do we pick and choose to enforce? . i am not sure, still what your opinion is because you, again, have not answered it. i just don't -- my question is before you come back, next to her, whenever it is, is what if some of these agencies decided they did not want to enforce something you thought they should? where is the screaming, where is the outrage, went to congress pass anything? if there is no supremacy clause,

if there is no worth to what we do, to protect civil rights, protect other things. when does each department get to decide that they are not going to enforce their federal jurisdiction on states and localities who simply say, you know, we are not going to do it right now. sectretary johnson: may advance or deco -- may i answer? senator collins: i stopped after my question, that is your response time. sectretary johnson: i have two seconds. senator collins: you may have all the time you need. sectretary johnson: may i, mr. chairman? chairman goodlatte: yes, you may. sectretary johnson: a big problem with doing that other number of jurisdictions -- i don't know what label you want to put on them, sank choice it is or otherwise -- that have erected laws, policies that inhibit cooperating with immigration enforcement. in my judgment, and in the judgment of a lot of other border security, immigration enforcement expert, the way to

most effectively work with these jurisdictions, again, is a cooperative one. not by hitting them over the head with federal legislation that will cause a lot more hot litigation. i believe we are on the path to do that. >> i respect that opinion, but what i think you have opened up is a pandora's box of things they don't want to enforce. and just because this is a political -- that is not what the average american understand. with that, i yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chair will now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, are being here. once again, thank you for coming to houston. i appreciate your personal involvement and fema during a job during the floods -- doing a

job -- doing an excellent job during the floods. we know that isis uses social media, twitter, others to recruit, to raise money, and to spread their propaganda. what is dhs doing to counteract that? sectretary johnson: a number of things, sir. thank you for that question. first of all, to deal with the foreign fighters, one of the things we did last year was to add information -- [no audio] -- to the electronic system for travel authorization so that we know more about people who want to travel to the united states from countries from which we do not require a visa. we have also developed and are

developing an additional set of security assurances we can get from pacer waiver countries -- these a waiver countries because a large number of foreign fighters, as you know, are coming from and returning to countries for which we do not require a visa. and so i want to see us enhance the security assurances we get from these countries with respect to people who travel from those countries to this country. additionally on the international level, we have done a lot -- i represented the u.s. and the u.s. security council sessions in may on the issue of foreign fighters -- and in terms of our efforts here at home, one of the things that we are spending a lot of time on, that i'm spending a lot of time on, are what we refer to as cva engagements. -- cv engagements.

like in houston, for example. i had a good session on the same visit where you and i were together. so in my view, enhancing and refining our efforts in this country, which dhs participate in, the fbi participates in, and other law enforcement agencies, along with state and local law enforcement, is a priority. given how the global terrorist threat is evolving. senator poe: another thing i want to discuss with you is repatriation. and what the law is currently in the united states and how it is being implemented, if it is. we have this problem that a person comes to this country, commit the crime, goes to federal prison, while in prison the system works, he is ordered deported. the country doesn't take him back. six months later, he is released

back across america. what are we doing to those countries to encourage them, you take your convicted criminals back? sectretary johnson: the state department and i have been in dialogue about this. and we have been in dialogue with countries that are slow to repatriate people. i have personally had this discussion with my chinese counterpart when i was in beijing in april. and i believe we made some progress there, with a agreed to additional repatriation flights. and so china is one of the big ones. we made good progress there, but i think and i agree, there is more work to do in that regard. senator poe: if i understand, china is number one, the other top five, vietnam, cuba, india, jamaica, cuba refuse to take

back their lawfully deported citizens. doesn't the law already do -- allow the state department to revoke visas from that country? sectretary johnson: i believe it does. senator poe: do you encourage the state department to do that when appropriate? sectretary johnson: i would not at this time encourage that, sir. senator poe: thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chairman now recognize my friend from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, thanks for being with us today. i want to applaud your recent decision to change detention practices. and that is because many of those awaiting their day in court are mothers with young children. why they fled their home countries is a mystery. central america has been gripped by this transnational gang violence and these families are not, as republican presidential

candidate donald trump has described, to be violent criminals, and rapists. these families are fleeing violent criminals, gangs, and rapists. how we treat them, mr. secretary, colors the reputation of the united states. and our practice of welcoming these most vulnerable families by in cars rating them was wrong and called for change. after all, the purpose of civil detention is to ensure that individual show up in immigration court. these families have every reason to do so. they pose no risk and indeed, for many of them, returning home would mean risking death. likewise, we have no national interest of subjecting children to the detrimental psychological impact of detention, which has been documented in several recent studies. your recent testimony include plans to rapidly includes the use of atd's.

expanding the use from 20,000 in 2014 253,000 in 2060 is the morally -- to 53000 and 2016 is the morally and right thing to do. our overreliance on immigration detention has disturbing implications. a recent report revealed that ice often degrees to contracts with for-profit organizations that include guaranteed minimum numbers of detainees for specific facilities each day. these local lockup quotas and detention contracts obligate ice to pay for a minimum number of that at specific facilities. and for the government, to contracts like nt specific detention center prepaid numbers of detainees, each day, is a waste of taxpayer dollars, it is a violation and it is in the front to our basic concept of justice in america.

the financial applications for taxpayers are also raised in a november 2014 report. and that is because such court is often hide the process of prison companies at taxpayers' expense. even when that's gone unfilled. it is invaluable in dealing with immigrants who officers determine our flight risks, or whose families could that in public safety. but the tension is intended to be one of many tools to ensure individuals show up for immigration court, not the only one. but evidence of local lockup quotas may be the latest system of the real disease, which is the mandate imposed by congress in the annual home and security appropriations that requires ice to remain the detention of 34,000 individuals each day. this costs taxpayers over $5 billion a year to enforce because placing someone in detention for nearly $160 a day

is why more expensive than proven alternative's like ankle bracelets and supervised release, which are just as effective and far more humane at a fraction of the cost. we could save taxpayers nearly $15 billion over the next decade to the greater use of alternatives to detention, but as sensible and fiscally sound as this policy may be, i'm concerned that the incorporation of local quotas is only further entrenching the national mandate into our communities. and i have just a series of questions i would ask now. you can provide responses after mr. secretary. i would like to know if you are aware of ice's practice of signing his contracts that contain lockup quotas? we are interested in knowing whether during contract negotiations, they insist the contracts for certain facilities contain these provisions? is at the lockup quota for a specific facility, is that quarter negotiable?

and finally, the november 2013 -- 2014 report was critical of those and i would like to know whether dhs made any policy changes in response to that report addressing lockup quotas and contracts with private companies. you are moving in the right direction and hope you can respond to these questions so that we can save the taxpayers money so we can have policies that are more humane. please. sectretary johnson: i would do you -- refer you to the directive that i issued. you alluded to in your statement. i would like to take those questions for the record, sir. chairman goodlatte: the chair will now recognize the gentleman from michigan. senator fisher: thank you, mr. chair. and think you, mr. secretary for being here today. i have a number of questions i intended to ask, but as i sit here and we have now been

through most of the members on the panel, i need to ask you a question and i feel like i need to ask your it as not a member of cameras -- congress, but just as an american. i respect your insight on this and i hope that you can share your thoughts in a candid way. this is actually, you know, a follow-up question to in particular mr. gaudi -- g mr.owdy's -- mr. gowdy's questions. we are a nation of laws. it is what distinguishes us as a civilized society. and in this country, we do not discriminate when it comes to the application of the law. in fact, the fifth amendment of our constitution, the equal protection doctrine, which extends to the states specifically says that it

requires us, people in similar circumstances are to be treated in the same way, in similar ways. and as i think about sanctuary cities and how they have been applied and how we have discussed them in this context how has this continued on? how do we continue to accept sexually cities -- sanctuary cities? and i would say historically americans would you the enforcement of laws as a sign of tyrannical government. it is inherently unjust. it is a blatant misuse of power to allow for such an environment to exist. and i'm wondering how we expect

americans to respect the rule of law if the administration's policy is to enforce them, based solely on edicts from rulers rather than actual rule of law. sectretary johnson: is your question with regard to sanctuary cities? senator bishop: it is, and to me as a person who represent a good 700,000 people in one of -- and one of the very issues i hear about everyday is the fact that we have lost the ability to -- to enforce the laws as they are written, that we do it in such a way that applies in one way to one group in such way and another way to another group. and when that happens, we lose the rule of law. and folks just simply do not want to comply with the law. sectretary johnson: well, if i could answer it this way -- i --

last year, when i took a look at the number, the growing number of jurisdictions, states cities counties that were refusing to work with my our department in the enforcement of our immigration laws, i said this is something we have to fix. because the number is growing and it is affecting public safety in my judgment. and so, we took a hard look at the secure communities program. we saw how it was becoming not about litigation and court and the defendant was losing in court in these cases. and we looked at the political controversy that have been built up around secure communities. i concluded that we needed to make a clean break with the past and develop a fresh program that i believe is going to fix the situation and promote public safety. so that is what we have been doing since the announcement of

the new program in november. unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this because a lot of these jurisdictions have erected different types of limitations on their ability to cooperate with us. senator bishop: may i -- i gather that from the testimony. i know my question was a duplication of many other questions. i apologize for the fact that i'm antsy -- asking a question that has already been answered. but i am asking how is it possible that we live in a country, a nation of laws, that allows jurisdictions to set up buffer zones where the law does not apply to them? i respect the fourth amendment but we can't hide behind the fourth amendment when the rest of because to douche and implies -- applies. -- the rest of the constitution applies. and i just sit here in

frustration as i listen to this discussion. i am wondering, why isn't the federal government insisting on these local governments follow the rule of law and not allowing this selective application to happen? sectretary johnson: well, again i believe that the best approach is a constructive one. and i believe that it will lead to much better results, it will lead to -- it will raise the level of trust and cooperation because we have not been in a good place when it comes to a lot of jurisdictions that are just very distrustful of our immigration enforcement efforts. and i want to put us in a better place as long as i'm secretary. chairman goodlatte: the gentleman yield back. the chair will now recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, earlier

today, you gave your testimony and responded, i think, to the first question, you said, and i'm quoting here, it is a fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law and quote when it comes to deporting aliens. did i hear you correctly? sectretary johnson: yes, sir. senator ratcliffe: and in fairness, the department is certainly deporting some folks but what is not a fiction is that this administration has been attempting to change the law when it comes to deporting criminal aliens, a fact reflected by the presidents executive -- president's executive order back in november. sectretary johnson: i disagree. senator ratcliffe: why would you disagree with that? sectretary johnson: are executive actions were within and are within our executive authority. senator ratcliffe: i am asking about changing the law here. sectretary johnson: if it is in

your legal authority to act, you are not, by definition, changing the law. senator ratcliffe: you do agree with me that the president's executive order in november attempted to allow executive amnesty to illegal aliens. sectretary johnson: not the way you have characterized it. senator ratcliffe: then how would you characterize it to echo -- it? sectretary johnson: one of the executive actions i signed was a program and we do it could offer different actions on a case-by-case basis for those who come forward and meet certain criteria and should begin been deferred action. senator ratcliffe: which could result in amnesty to up to 4 million to 5 million folks. sectretary johnson: no, i don't agree with that. that is not my definition of amnesty. senator ratcliffe: you have gone on regard -- on the record regardless that he has acted constitutionally. sectretary johnson: yes, sir. senator ratcliffe: and i have

gone on the record saying i don't think he has acted constitutionally. and the circuit of appeals has agreed with me. but you have been asked today and talked a lot today, about the israel prosecutorial discretion. we are both former prosecutors so i would like to ask you about something that you said previously in a hearing. last year, you said, and i'm quoting, there comes a point when something amounts to a wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly elected constitutional law that is beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. and -- end quote. sectretary johnson: that sounds like me. senator ratcliffe: and you believe that? sectretary johnson: i still do. senator ratcliffe: i know the answer to this question -- do you think that dhs has already crossed that line by spending the law for almost 5 million

folks who are here illegally? sectretary johnson: again, i would not characterize our executive actions that way. and i would refer you to the opinion of the doj office of legal constitution in november in terms of where that line exists. senator ratcliffe: ok, but -- -- again, you don't think where ever you think that line is, you don't think dhs has crested at this point. sectretary johnson: no, sir. although there are people who disagree with it. senator ratcliffe: that begs the question for me, what would it take, and your opinion, for dhs to cross that line? because i think there is every possibility that this president will attempt to remove this line again. and so, if this president were to seek, to grant deferred action to, say, all 11 or 12 million unlawful aliens in this country, i would like to hear you on the record and whether or not you think that would cross this line? sectretary johnson: again, i am

no longer practicing law. i am just the secretary. and so i think what you are asking me for is a legal judgment. and again, i believe that the opinion of the doj office of legal counsel has a pretty good discussion of this exact topic. and i recall when i read it agreeing with the analysis. i recall then agreeing with the analysis. senator ratcliffe: so since you had a good discussion with them would it extend to possibly 11 or 12 million folks? sectretary johnson: doubtful. senator ratcliffe: and if it did, would you have an opinion on whether it should? sectretary johnson: it would depend on the circumstances, but i say i would doubt it. senator ratcliffe: so when you say you got it, you doubt that amnesty should begrudge it to 11 or 12 million people? sectretary johnson: well, if you are referring to the estimated population of undocumented in this country, a lot of those people are and should be

priorities for removal. in my judgment, a person who is priority should not receive deferred action. senator ratcliffe: my time has expired. chairman goodlatte: mr. secretary, at that we're kind of getting towards the end and the two members came up. would you want or desire a short break or do you want to my john in hopes that we -- sectretary johnson: i am happy to keep going for a little while longer. thank you for asking chairman goodlatte: yes, sir. the gentleman from new york. senator jeffreys: i want to thank the secretary for your presence here today, your patience, as well as the tremendous job i believe you have done as secretary of homeland security and your priority service. >> [indiscernible]

senator jeffreys: [laughter] there are 11 million undocumented in this country, is that correct? sectretary johnson: 11.3, yes. >> has this congress ever given the department of o-matic or do the resources that would be required to deport all sectretary johnson: undocumented immigrants? no. -- deport all undocumented immigrants? sectretary johnson: no. senator jeffries: -- who would potentially pose the most danger to the american citizen? sectretary johnson: yes. senator jeffries: is that what the h s. -- dhs has done? sectretary johnson: yes. senator jeffries: we have an economy that has begun to develop in some significant ways for our city and our state as has been the case across the nation. and i have been very supportive of that.

any within the technology sector have indicated that there is approximately a 20% vacancy rate, if not more, of jobs that they cannot fill here in america. and that has been part of the impetus in an increase in the h1-b recess, which i have supported. i was disturbed, however, by the revelations as to what appears to have taken place down in florida at the disney company. i just wanted to ask a few questions about that. i just ask unanimous consent that an article from the "new york times" dated june 3, 2015 -- be entered into the record? chairman goodlatte: without objection. senator jeffries: and so as i understand it, approximately 250 disney workers were made off at some point in 2014. and then many were replaced by immigrants hired by an outsourcing company based in india, is that correct? sectretary johnson: that --

that is basically my understanding, yes. my understanding of the public reporting of it. senator jeffries: ok. so as i understand it, those individuals for allegedly laid-off, and then asked prior to their departure to train individuals from this -- connected to this company to replace them who were given h1-b b says, is that the current allegation as you understand it? sectretary johnson: yes i believe so, but the matter is under investigation. senator jeffries: as far as i understand what the law is in the area, and my correct that the visa program was -- which provides a limited number of temporary visas, some are in the neighborhood of 85,000 a year for foreigners with computer science, engineering, or other advanced skills, to fill jobs at american companies with american

workers are not otherwise available, is that a correct description? sectretary johnson: that sounds basic correct, sir. senator jeffries: and if your investigation determines that this company or any other company violated the law related to the issuance of h1-b visas and the employment constraints what are the potential consequences related to a violation of the policy? sectretary johnson: that is exley something where i think congress may be able to help us. it is my understanding that we don't have enough tools legally to deal with that kind of situation, assuming it occurs. and so, what people have told me is that we could use some help from congress to bolster our enforcement capabilities in a situation such as that one. and i can get you for informed opinion on that -- on that answer, but that is what i'm advised of. senator jeffries: thank you, mr.

secretary. i will be interested in your further thoughts in that area. chairman goodlatte: the chair now recognizes the deck of -- the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary johnson, thank you for being here. we appreciate your service to the country. first of all, can you give me a quick response with the percentage -- how secure do you think our southern border is echo -- is? sectretary johnson: it is tough to quantify by percentage. as i mentioned earlier, i think that over the last 15 years, we have come a long way and i put a security. >> 50, 75 -- you can't put a number on it? how can you measure results -- sectretary johnson: the percentage of the border that is secure? >> what percentage of folks are getting away that are crossing? sectretary johnson: apprehensions, which are in

indicator of total attempts, have gone down considerably. >> you cannot give me a number. that is fine. i have spent some time on our southern border talking to the men and women in the field. i represent south texas, used to represent the border down in brownsville. and i have to tell you, i'm hearing a lot of frustration from the rank-and-file of the border patrol. ivy and restrictions on overtime are causing smaller teams of border patrol agents to be sent in pursuit of crossers and prosecutorial discretion means that aliens and drug smugglers that our agents risk their lives to every head are just getting released. i also heard the administration is spending to cut and replace the vehicles that are border patrol agent desperately need. these men and women are brave in a very rough environment. i did a ride along and i understand that it is tough to protect this country, especially in some of the terrain in south texas.

and the administration's policies seem to completely ignore that we need the agreement and the manpower to do what they need to do. and it seems like they are almost intentionally reducing the morale. tell me, if you had to be on the border working shifts with the men and women in uniform, and you know that in all likelihood you are putting your life in danger to catch illegal aliens, that most likely end up getting released from custody and walking away in the end, how would you feel about it? sectretary johnson: well, again -- well, let me answer it this way, if i may. under our new policy, those apprehended at the border are priorities for removal. and those apprehended who arrived in this country after january 1, 2014 our priorities for removal. -- are priorities for removal. senator farenthold: they are catching somebody, and the just a few days later, they are catching the same person again.

so you deport them, they are taken basically back across the bridge, and my understanding of the contracts is you get three tries to get across. sectretary johnson: that person should be a priority for removal. and i believe that in our current budget request to congress, we are asking for more surveillance technology, more border security, to do a better job. we have come a long way in the last 15 years. i am very pleased about that but i know there's a lot more to do. senator farenthold: i'm 90 mr. gowdy's bill helps some of that. if you are an alien or a drug smuggler with the knowledge that as long as you don't bring more than a handful of people across or a cinematic drugs, under the prosecutor wrote discretion limit, that everybody knows, he would get away scott free. would that -- wouldn't that just be in incentive to keep going?

i mean, it doesn't seem that would be a deterrent. sectretary johnson: i disagree. those apprehended at the border, irrespective of whether they have narcotics or smuggling, our priority is removal. senator farenthold: but what about the drug smugglers with small amount of drugs? my understanding for the border patrol agents is that if you have less than four, you basically walked. sectretary johnson: we have also, beginning last year, cracked down on the smuggling organizations. that is something the department of justice and i instituted last summer. senator farenthold: are you telling me it is not a fact that if you have a small number of aliens or a small amount of drugs with you, you are certainly not going to face in a job time. at worst, you're going to be taken back across the border. sectretary johnson: well, that is a matter of lot for smith and prosecutorial discretion by the department of justice. i do know that since lester, since about a year ago, we have prioritized going after the

coyote organizations. senator farenthold: thank you very much. i only have five seconds left so i will yield back. chairman goodlatte: mr. secretary, you have been here a good long while. i know you have other commitments. i wanted to recognize the closing reflections and then i want to let -- >> thank you, mr. gowdy for your excellent presiding over these hearings. one of the reasons mr. secretary -- is to protect the interest of the minority, in this case, yours. it was totally unnecessary, as you can see. the chairman israel well balanced. -- is very well-balanced. just for the record, i want to say to you, i share with you the same anguish and pain as i know the secretary does. and every american. at the death of that woman.

and that nobody has come here to look for excuses or anything else. that woman should be alive. that woman should be enjoying life in the united states of america. mr. lopez should never have been allowed on the streets of our nation again. but i think it is important that we have the facts straight. that our system does work, and sometimes it feels us. he was sentenced to 63 months 51 months, 24 months. four consecutive times, he was sentenced that he served them. over 10 years in jail because he illegally entered the united states of america time and time again. this is a career criminal that we have on our hands. so, i think we should just try to figure out a way and i really believe this and i want to put that on the record even though it may cause you great damage back in south carolina, i

really believe that if you and i and the secretary and men and women who want to solve the problem, we could solve this problem, we could save people from harm. this man is not an immigrant. immigrants come here to work hard, sweat, and toil. we should be warm and receiving. this man is a foreigner who came here to cause damage. and let's fix our broken immigration system so we can get rid of the foreigners who come here to cause harm. thank you so much mr. secretary, for a long day here with us. chairman gowdy: i think the gentleman from illinois and for what he said and for being always very consistent. in the entire time i have been on this committee, you have zero tolerance for those who come here to do harm to anyone. and that has been your position. as long as i have known you. esther secretary, the chairman wanted me to mention really quickly to you that he had written and much about a legend

fraud in the visa program and pledged again his willingness to work with you to whopper to identify sources of the fraud -- work with you to identify sources of the fraud. you may not specifically recall that letter, but i know the folks behind you will bring it up. i think it was in march of this year, but if not, need to get you another copy of that. secondarily, it sounds like you are well aware of the senate's and commission's change. i am not going to ask you about the fifth circuit. the only thing i would add, with what my friend from illinois said there are parts of immigration that you and i are probably not ever going to agree on and that is fine, that is the beauty of a democracy. i think we can all agree on is to return someone with his criminal history to a

jurisdiction that had no intention whatsoever of ever prosecuting him, and in the process, he is released -- should be an affront to everyone. san francisco had no intention of prosecuting him. they dismissed the case. you can dismiss it when he is halfway to his federal prison sentence just as easy as you can when he is in your custody. so, i will tell you, i'm happy to work with it. and i get the comment in cause i get the due process considerations, i know that those are legitimate. you have court cases out there. if there is a way to get around that, you know, when i find instructive -- i don't doubt your power of persuasion and i know you are going to go back and talk to those five municipalities that told you know -- no. but even after this young woman was murdered, san francisco was already on the record saying they are not quick to change the policy. so when you have a city like

that i don't know that cooperation and persuasion is going to work. so, we may be to consider something else. when i look at you, i see the secretary of homeland security for the united states of america. he should not have to ask san francisco. he shouldn't have to get their cooperation. you, to me, i drank the city supervisors of san francisco. -- how drank -- out rank the city supervisors of san francisco. we appreciate your great service and your previous service. with that, we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> [indistinct chatter]

>> today on "newsmakers," thomas perez discusses minimum wage, overtime pay, and the current jobless numbers. "newsmakers" airs today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. after that, the road to the white house coverage continues withtwo profile interviews. we start with south carolina senator lindsey graham, who announced in early june that he is a -- running for the white house. then an interview with ohio republican governor john kasich. he is expected to announce his

intentions to join the field this tuesday after serving as governor for the last four years. that interview starts at seven: 20 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. -- 7:20 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. >> tonight, on her use of drugs to tell investigative stories from around the world. >> gang affiliation might mean reading a book by a black hat -- panther or even having a cat too. the pelican bay is not alone in this. around the country, you command in solitary for your art, you're reading, your beliefs, your sexual orientation, or your friends. >> i draw, and a lot of times, that is not necessarily the finished jawing did -- finished wrong. when you have a big camera, it puts distance in between you and the person. you are taking these images, you can see what they are taking.

whereas when you draw, it is a vulnerable thing. they can see exactly what you are doing. if you suck, they can tell you so. most people have a lot been drawn before. as are pretty delighted to be drawn. a lot of times i draw people because i like to and electrocuted them while i do it. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> on the next "washington journal," political correspondent anna palmer concerning the iran nuclear agreement. and andrewselle -- and andrew selle -- as always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal," live at

7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> earlier this week, after the iranian nuclear deal was announced, president obama held a news conference at the white house. this is one hour 10 minutes. president obama: please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. yesterday was a historic day. the comprehensive long-term deal that we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful sway -- display of american leadership and disposing -- diplomacy. when we unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolved to share -- solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday, it's important for the american people and congress to get a full opportunity to review this

deal. that process is now underway. i reached out to leaders on congress on both sides of the aisle. my national security team has begun offering extensive briefings. i expect the debate to be robust and that's how it should be. this is an important issue. our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands. and as i said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. that's why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. at the same time, as this debate unfolds, i hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture. the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward, it's important for everybody to remember the alternative, and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal, we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to

a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal, those pathways remain open. there would be no limits to iran's nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal, we gain unprecedented, around-the-clock monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated. without a deal, those inspections go away and we'd lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal, if iran violates its commitments, they will be real consequences. nuclear related sanctions that

would cripple the iranian economy. without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel with little ability to reimpose them. with this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal, we risk even more war in the middle east and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most molto realogy -- most volatile region in the world. as i said yesterday, even with this deal, we will continue to have profound differences with iran: its support of terrorism its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the middle east. therefore, the multilateral arms embargo on iran will remain in place for an additional five years. and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain

for eight years. in addition, the united states will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its human rights violations. and will continue our unprecedented security cooperation with israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the gulf states. but the bottom line is this. this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat, iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative, no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections, in iran that is closer to nuclear weapon, the risk of a nuclear arms race and the greater risk

of work, all that would endanger our security. that is the choice we face. if we don't choose wisely, i believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away. and no one suggests that this deal resolves all the threats that iran poses to its neighbors or the world. moreover, realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and execution. but this deal is our best means of ensuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. and from the start, that has been my number one priority, our number one priority. we've got a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world, an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. and as president and as commander-in-chief, i am determined to seize that opportunity. so with that, i am going to take

some questions. and let's see who i'm starting off with. here you go; i got it. >> [laughter] president obama: andrew beatty afp. andrew: thank you, mr. president. yesterday, you said the deal offered a chance, a new direction in relations with iran. what steps will you take to enable a more moderate iran and does this deal allow you to more forcefully counter iran's destabilizing actions in the region? thank you. president obama: andrew, if you don't mind, just because i suspect that there's going to be a common set of questions that are touched on -- i promise i will get to your question, but i want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here.

i already did in my opening statement, but i just want to reiterate it because i have heard already some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. and so everything we have done over the last six and a half years has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that is how we were able to mobilize the international community, including some folks that we are not particularly close to to abide by the sanctions. that is how these crippling sanctions came about is because

we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the reason that iran's accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for the oil sales that they've made. that's the reason that they... -- they had problems operating with respect to international commerce because we got the international consensus around this very specific, narrow, but profound issue. the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. and by the way, that was not simply my priority. if you look back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five, six years, this has been a democratic priority, a republican priority, prime minister netanyahu's priority making sure iran does not kidding nuclear weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry, wendy sherman, ernie

moniz, our allies, our partners, the p5+1, achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority making sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. but we have always recognized that even if iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon, iran still poses challenges to our interests and our values, both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program.

we will have brought their stockpiles down to 98%. we will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges they operate. we will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime . and that will remain in place not just for 10 years but, for example on the stockpiles, what will continue to 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon, and now will be subject to an -- subject to an additional protocol, a more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime, that lasts two for duty. -- two -- to for 280. we will have disabled a facility like arak, the arak facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the

stockpile of uranium that is enriched, and we will have put in place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence, but more important a nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb we will have met our number one nuclear priority. we will still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's funding of proxies like hezbollah that threaten israel and the region. my hope is that we can continue

to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region. to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative. to operate the way we expect nations to behave. we are not counting on it. this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior. it solves one problem, making sure they don't have a bomb. it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities, push back against the other areas where they

operate contrary to our interest. will they change their behavior. will we seek to gain more involvement with them? we will continue to engage with them. we are not normalizing diplomatic relations here. the context will be limited we will work with israel to bring additional pressure on iran. the argument that i have been hearing before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that is an argument for rejecting this deal.

it makes no sense it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. >> does it give pause to see this deal praised by the syrian dictator as a victory for iran or praised by those in toronto who shout death to america, and yet our closes ally in the middle east calls it a historic mistake. in washington, it seems a large majority will vote to reject the deal.

you have any concerns about seeing the majority of the people's representatives in congress say this is a bad deal? if i can just ask you a quick question -- >> let me answer the question you ask. it does not give me pause that mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do, and that's been the case throughout. i mean, you will recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months, every time the supreme leader or somebody

tweeted something out, for some reason, we all bought into the notion, "well, the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating that." well, now we have a document. so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we don't have to engage in spin. you can just read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is cut off from plutonium, the fordow facility that is underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime, that we have snap- back provisions if they cheat.

you know, the facts are the facts, and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress, my hope -- i won't prejudge this -- my hope is -- is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts, not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed a republican president, not based on lobbying but based on what's in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think that if congress does that, then in fact, based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington, and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation, and -- and -- and that, i

welcome, in part because, look there are -- there are legitimate, real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. i mean, you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence, there are missiles that are pointed towards tel aviv. and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i've said this to prime minister -- i've said it directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon.

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

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

acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure that they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement

before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who is an mit nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right.

>> prime minister netanyahu said that you know, you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military facilities. obama: i'm happy to -- i'm happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been, i think, swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections.

now, keep in mind first of all that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities: fordow, natanz, arak, their uranium mines, facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. that entire infrastructure that we know about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. ok. so then the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. you know, there are only so many uranium mines in iran. and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined, and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some 'splainin' to do. so we're able to track what's

happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site, we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran, we want to go inspect that. now, if iran objects, we can override it. in the agreement, we've set it up so we can override iran's objection, and we don't need

russia or china in order for us to get that override. and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and is cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about, we're going to

be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there, that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring it that entire time. and by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site, you know, your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is, jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification

regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection and verification mechanism? that's possible. but if it does, first of all, we built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully, and we've built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really, the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they'd find some way to get around it because they are untrustworthy. and if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. that means, presumably, that you can't negotiate, and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the

republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it, but it's not persuasive. carol lee? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those, even with the five-and eight-year durations? are you concerned that arms will go to has the law or hamas and's or anything that you or a future president can do to stop that. i wanted to ask if you could step back with that -- this and look at the deal -- it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill. and are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or hamas? and is there anything that you or a future president can do to stop that? and if you don't mind, i mean, i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the middle east, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year-and-a-half? obama: so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles

is a real concern to us, has been of real concern to us, and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially, iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at

fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once a -- an agreement -- once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibition should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was, given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities

let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five, let's say, as opposed a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict

arms shipments from iran throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and -- and -- and truthfully these prohibitions are not self--- self enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the capacity to police what -- what iran is doing. what is does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms -- arms shipments from happening in

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

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

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

they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel, building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place, and the support that we've already put in place. it includes the work that we've done with the gcc up at camp david, making sure that we execute that. if we have done those things then the problems in the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately, it's not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the middle east. the people in the middle east are going to have to solve some

of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that next president at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas. the last thing i would say, and this is a longer-term issue, is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic, violent, dead-end that organizations like isil offer. again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right. michael crowley. >> thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria. just to focus on that for a moment, many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran in giving iran an important role. do you agree, and is that a dialogue you will be actively seeking?

and what about the fight against isis? what would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? obama: i do agree that we're not going to solve the problems of syria unless there's buy-in from the russians, the iranians, the turks, our gulf partners. it is too chaotic. there are too many factions. there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying, and in order for us to resolve it there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran is one of those players, and i think that it's important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not, and i don't anticipate anytime in the near future, restored normal diplomatic relations with iran and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting

our counter-isil campaign. but clearly, iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shi'a population. they have relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate, where were you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we

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

those soldiers, then it's tough for us to have any kind of direct relationship. ok? major garrett? >> thank you, mr. president. as you well know, there are four americans in iran, three held on trumped-up charges that, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? and last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should

there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. many in the pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff high out to dry. could you comment? obama: i've got to give you credit, major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content as i celebrate with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content.

and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. suddenly, iran realizes you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single

day to try to get them out, and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to some degree, i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. as i just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those

activities, whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact, part of my pitch to the gcc countries, as well as to prime minister netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. and as i just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners. ok. april ryan. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year, on the flight to selma, you said on matters of race, as president, your job is to close remaining gaps that are

left in state and federal government. now, how does criminal-justice reform fit into that equation, and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency? and also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland, in the next couple weeks as president of the united states? and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? obama: you stuffed a lot in there, april. [laughter] you know what -- >> i learned from my colleagues. obama: who'd you learn from? jonathan karl? is that what you said? the -- on criminal-justice reform, obviously, i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something that i've been thinking about a lot, been working first with eric holder and now loretta lynch about -- we've been working along with other prosecutors of the -- the u.s. attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task force that we put together post-ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal-justice system is obviously, the sole source of racial tension in this country or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that

we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is -- is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests as well as federal, state and local interest in solving the problem. i think people recognize that there are violent criminals out there, and they've got to be locked up. we have got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough job, and -- and they are helping to keep us safe, and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this

huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by nonviolent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money, it is debilitating communities, who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record rendering them often times unemployable. so it compounds problems that these communities already have. and so i am very appreciative of -- of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul and other folks in the house, who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around nonviolent drug offenses, because again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy

when it comes to violent crime. but when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce. on the back end, are we doing more to link them up with reentry programs that are effective? and you know, this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we have got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting in

the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education, and good jobs, and making sure that we're not segregating folks in -- in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. but this can make a difference. you know, i met these four ex-offenders, as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. i mean, one of them had served 10 years. another was a repeat offender

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

but -- but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime, we've got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down, because part of the reason i think there's a conversation taking place is, violent crime has significantly dropped. last year, we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. and you know, this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem, including my hometown of chicago, and in baltimore, and you know part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a package of criminal justice reforms? part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard, and haven't seen some of the drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to the visit to kenya, it's obviously something i am looking forward to. i will be honest with you, visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president, because i can

actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as president. but it's obviously symbolically important, and my hope is, is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner, not just for kenya, but for sub-saharan africa generally, build on the progress that's been made around issues of health and education, focus on counter-terrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al-shabaab and some of the tragedies that have happened inside of kenya, and continue to encourage democracy and the reduction of corruption inside that country that sometimes has held back this incredibly -- this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom, there is no precedent for revoking a metal -- medal.

we don't have that mechanism. and as you know, i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of -- of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved. i will say this. if you give a woman, or a man, for that matter, without his or her knowledge, a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape. and i think this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted iran questions here?

i -- i think there's a helicopter that's coming, but -- but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer, the -- i just -- go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here, but -- i just -- i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned here. go ahead. >> thanks. mr. president, i'll be brief. the argument has been made that iran now has a cash windfall billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashr al-assad, et cetera? obama: i -- i think that's a great question, and i'm -- i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to -- to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on

daycare centers and -- and -- and roads and -- and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that, because rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. resou

do we think they have resources for the activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies. i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon? no. so i think -- again, this is a

matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. the other problem with the argument that folks have been making about, oh, this is a windfall and suddenly iran is flushed with cash, and they're going to take over the world. and i say that not tongue-in-cheek, because if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that iran is, in fact, going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal -- which i think would be news to the iranians. that argument is also premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if congress votes down this deal, that we're able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. and that, i can promise you, is not true. that is absolutely not true. i want to repeat: we're not

writing iran a check. this is iran's money that we were able to block from them having access to. that required the cooperation of countries all around the world many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran. the imposition of sanctions -- their cooperation with us -- has cost them billions of dollars, made it harder for them. they've been willing to do that because they've believed we were sincere about trying to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully and they considered that a priority -- a high enough priority that they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions. if they saw us walking away, or more specifically, if they saw the u.s. congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99

percent of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian weapons program -- nuclear weapons program in an equitable way, the sanctions system unravels. and so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective -- as it was before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions. so maybe they don't get $100 billion; maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. the price for that that we've paid is that now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. we have no inspectors on the ground. we don't know what's going on. they're still getting some cash windfall. we've lost credibility in the eyes of the world.

we will have effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. a terrible position to be in. i'm just going to look -- i made some notes about any of the arguments -- the other arguments that i've heard here. what about -- (off-mic) -- the end of the deal? president obama: okay, yes that's a good one. the notion -- at the end of the deal they could go back -- president obama: right. well, so let's address this issue of -- because that's the other big argument that's been made. all right, let's assume that the deal holds for 10 years, iran doesn't cheat. now, at the end of 10 years, some of the restrictions have been lifted -- although, remember, others stay in place for 15 years. so for example, they've still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away; those are still in place 15, 20 years from now.

their commitment under the non-proliferation treaty does not go away; that's still in place. the additional protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal, which requires a more extensive inspection and verification mechanism -- that stays in place. so there's no scenario in which a u.s. president is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now if, in fact, iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon. keep in mind, we will have maintained a one-year breakout time, we will have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities, kept them under severe restrictions, had observers. they will have made international commitments supported by countries around the world.

and -- hold on a second -- and if at that point they finally decided, you know what, we're going to cheat, or not even cheat -- at that point, they decide openly we're now pursuing a nuclear weapon -- they're still in violation of this deal and the commitments they've made internationally. and so we are still in a position to mobilize the world community to say, no, you can't have a nuclear weapon. and they're not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point; they're in a weaker position than they are today. and, by the way, we haven't given away any of our military capabilities. we're not in a weaker position to respond. so even if everything the

critics were saying was true -- that at the end of 10 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, iran now is in a position to decide it wants a nuclear weapon, that they're at a breakout point -- they won't be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they're in right now. they won't be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. and so why wouldn't we at least make sure that for the next 10 15, years they are not getting a nuclear weapon and we can verify it; and afterwards, if they decide if they've changed their

mind, we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today? so none of this is holding out hope that they'll change their behavior? president obama: no. >> nothing different -- president obama: no. look, i'm always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the iranian people as well as people in the region. there are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of

sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. and i remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that, and it should be part of u.s. foreign policy to do something about that. but i'm not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do. again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an american president is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point iran says we're going to pull out of the npt, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. if that happens, that president will be in a better position than what happened if iran, as a consequence of congress rejecting this deal, decides that's it, we're done negotiating, we're going after a bomb right now. the choices would be tougher today than they would be for that president 15 years from now. and i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. all right. i really have to go now. i think we've hit the big themes. but i promise you, i will address this again. all right? i suspect this is not the last that we've heard of this debate. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> congress has 60 days to review the iranian nuclear deal of her which i could pass a resolution of disapproval following a presidential veto of such resolution, two thirds of congress would you hire to override the veto. they plan to schedule a vote on a resolution endorsing the radiant deal the arabian deal -- the iranian deal. we will cover to let you at meeting and reached on monday morning on c-span2. >> today on newsmakers, labor secretary thomas perez discusses several women issues, including memo wage, unemployment levels

and jobless numbers. newsmakers there's today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. right after that the road to the white house coverage continues with two profile interviews of 2016 candidates we start with south carolina senator lindsey graham who it ousted early june he is running for the white house and you can see his remarks at 6:30 p.m. eastern and interview with republican governor case. he is expected to announce his intention to join the large republican fields this tuesday after serving as governor for the last four years that interview starts at 7:20 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. >> tonight on qa molly crabapple overuse of -- on her use of art.

the pelican bay is not alone in this route around the country you can leave in solitary for your right your reading, your beliefs, your gender status, your friends. it is all to build a rapport with people and very often when you camera commitments a distance between you and the person. you take these images, they cannot see what you're taking, it is almost fan. a even though you are producing beautiful things later . but when you draw, it is a beautiful thing. it is more of an interchange. most people enough in drawn before columbus people are delighted to be drawn. i like talking to them when i do it righ.

>> on the next washington journal, political correspondent anna palmer on lobbying efforts across the country concerning the iran nuclear agreement. and andrew selee on mexico's fight against organized crime. and dave leventhal from the center for public integrity on the latest series of contribution reports filed by the presidential campaigns. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress, live coverage of the u.s. house congressional coverage and news conferences, events that shaped news policy. and every morning, "washington journal" is