people in the media, they were very rough on me that first week and then many of them have now apologized to me because it turned out i was right. beautiful kate in san francisco was shot by an illegal who was here five times and they could not do anything about it. believe me, mexico cap pushing them back as they do not want them. everyone is saying trump was right. i took a lot of abuse. i had disloyal people like macy's and all your controversial, we are going to have to drop you. [applause] i never liked them that much because they were made in china. it didn't matter that much. it is a great applause line. obviously, they appreciated. referring to people -- >>

referring to people as rapists referring to john mccain as a -- donald trump: you need to let me speak because you interrupt me all the time. i know him too well is the problem. let's take john mccain. i am in phoenix. we have a meeting that will have 500 people at the biltmore hotel. we get a call from the hotel, it is turmoil. thousands and thousands of people are showing up three or four days before, they are pitching tents on the hotel grass. the hotels as we cannot handle this. we move into the convention center. we have 15,000 people. the biggest one ever. bigger than bernie sanders. 13,000 people showed up to hear me speak. they are than anybody. everybody knows it. a beautiful day with incredible people that were wonderful great americans. john mccain goes, something makes my life difficult.

he had 15,000 crazies show up he called them all crazies. i said, they are crazies, they are great americans. i know crazy is, i know all about crazy. they weren't crazy. he insulted me and he insulted everybody in a room. i said that somebody should run against john mccain. i supported him for president. i raised a million dollars for him. i supported him. he lost. i never liked him as much after that. i don't like losers. [laughter] gracie is a war hero. donald trump: he is not a war hero. he is a war hero because he was captured. i like people who were captured. he was a war hero because he was captured, ok? and i believe perhaps he is a war hero, but right now, he said some very bad things about a lot of people. so what i said is john mccain, i

disagree with you that these people are crazy. and very importantly, i speak the truth, he graduated last in his class in indianapolis. i said that nobody knows that. he graduated last. he was upset for telling the truth? you are not supposed to say that somebody graduated last or second to last. you are supposed to be very nice. i want to make america great again. we want to get down to brass tacks. we don't want to listen to his stuff when being politically correct. we have a lot of work to do. the other day, hillary clinton got up and said i did not like mr. trump's tone. we have people -- christians -- having their heads cut off in the middle east. we have people dying all over the border. that is where i was 100% right. we have all of this medieval

times. she said, i didn't like his tone. you know who else said that? jeb bush. what does it have to do with tone? we want results. we don't want tone. [applause] we have people lined up for questions. >> i have one more. you used the word christian. have you ever asked god for forgiveness? donald trump: that is a tough question. i am a religious person. shockingly. people are shocked when i find this out -- when they find this out. i am protestant presbyterian, and i go to church and i love god and i love my church. the great norman vincent you was my pastor. the power of positive thinking. everyone has heard of them. he was so great. he would give a sermon and you never wanted to leave. every once in a wild we think about leaving early even know we

are christian. [laughter] dr. norman vincent peele would give a sermon. i am telling you iced over number his sermons. what he would do is bring real life situations, modern-day situations into the sermon. you can listen to him all day long. when you left the church, you listed -- you were disappointed it was over. he was the greatest guy. he passed away, but he was great. courts have you ever asked god for forgiveness? [laughter] donald trump: i am not sure i have. i just go on and try to do a better job from there. i don't think so. if i do something wrong, i just try to make it right. i don't bring god into that picture. i don't. you know, when we go in church and when i drink my little wine which is the only one that i drink and i have my little cracker, i guess that is a form

of asking forgiveness. i do that as often as possible because i feel cleansed. to me, that is important. in terms of officially -- i could say absolutely. i don't think in terms of that. i think it in terms of let's go on, and let's make it right. [applause] >> microphone one, please. >> mr. trump, respectfully, we remember the 1992 election. would you go on record as saying that if you can't get the republican nomination, you will not run as a third-party candidate? donald trump: no. i won't go on record as saying that. this country has great potential. but soon it will not have that potential because we are being drained by incompetent leaders by horrible people. as an example, with the iran deal, which is a total disaster, we didn't get a hostages back.

that is just one aspect of it. and just this morning -- and yesterday, secretary kerry -- he is the worst negotiator. he didn't read the deal, folks. he said very strongly, we do not want to bring up the hostages. we do not want to complicate our deal. we want our hostages back, how is accommodating the deal? we give them money. he wanted to talk about the money, not the hostages. it was just announced that iran got one of their leading nuclear scientists back as part of the deal. it just came out this morning. iran, an additional -- an addition to making an unbelievable deal that will make them perhaps more powerful than united states because today, it is about the weapons and not the number of soldiers you have. we are giving them billions of dollars that we should not be giving them. we do not get our hostages back which is terrible because they do not want to complicate -- we do not want to come looking the negotiation.

when obama was asked about the question the other day by major he was asked a simple question. the anger in his face and being asked that question. he said we do not want to, get it. how is it collocated? except for one problem. iran just got their big scientists back and we just found out about it this morning. i think we are run by a group of incompetent people and they are destroying the country. [applause] can i say one other thing? nobody deals with politicians more than i do. i have contributed to everybody and they did whatever i said. everybody. i contributed to hillary clinton , i conjure you to everybody. as a businessman, why wouldn't i? i don't have to agree with them. i know this. with my wedding, i said hillary, bill, the my wedding. they were there. it was very nice.

because i contribute it. [laughter] >> i want to know, which wedding? [laughter] donald trump: my last wedding. the last one. but as a businessman, you have other things, you have other things to do. i am very proud of the record. no politician, in my opinion -- i know them all. i watch them, they talk about the moon and the sun, the sun will rise, the mood will set. i watch them. people want jobs. no politician is going to get this country back. i am sort of a politician because i've been dealing with politicians all of my life. if you can't win and make a lot of money with politicians, you are not very good. believe me. i have been dealing with them all my life. i don't think anybody has dealt with some better. i know it from the other side. when you see bush has $100 million and you see hillary has $50 million that they got, they just announced. those people are controlled by people who gave the money.

they are lobbyists special interest, and donors. [applause] i will tell you that they are totally control. when bush has to make a decision -- can you imagine this guy go shooting against china? we have no chance. who would you rather have negotiating against china? trump or bush? you tell me. again, this is a summit. >> as opposed to a specific bundle ever. you can avoid the lawyers and the irs, i cannot. donald trump: i know, i know. >> western for microphone to. >> you are talking about your faith earlier. and i was wondering how your faith and your family growing up has influenced how you raise your children? donald trump: it has really had a big influence. i have wonderful children and i knock on wood, and hope that's wood, but maybe more than any question, i get questions similar to that because my

children have done well. you know ivanka. she is a great person. my kids my three oldest children have done well. they have gone into business and they are solid. they haven't been in trouble. more than any other question i get from people is how did you raise your kids? you read so many horror stories about children. one of them was through the church. very important. we have a church where i grew up, first presbyterian church in jamaica, queens. that is where i grew up and that is where i want to search -- charge, sunday school, bible class. i did the things that you guys did. church was a very important element. the other important element is from the time they were two years old i said no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. no drugs, no call, no cigarettes. i remember her looking at me

once saying daddy, your driving me crazy. she was four years old. she didn't know what drugs were. i had seen so many children grow up and be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. their parents are brilliant people, they are successful, the kid is brilliant. they have no chance. once they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol life is to talk. they will not make it. i was very strong with my children. no drugs, no alcohol. i threw in cigarettes. >> did you used to have dinner with your kids most 19? donald trump: yes. almost always. i am always available to my children. i can be in the middle of the biggest, most important deal. if ivanka called me right now, i would say, goodbye, frank, you are a wonderful guy. maybe not, maybe i would say wait 10 minutes. but i was always available to my children. frankly, i said it, i was

actually a great father. i was a better father than i was a husband. the reason is i was a worker. you mentioned the relationships. they were very good women, but i was always working. i was creating jobs, i was building jobs. it was very hard for a woman -- and i blame myself, not anybody else. it was a work thing. not a bad thing. it was hard for anyone to compete against the work. that was not good. have learned that. >> what advice do you have? no one in this room will be able to live in your shoes. when you try to prioritize your career or your family, what is the best way to get that done? donald trump: a great question. the -- the things i have learned -- i know all the of a successful people in the world. i mean, most of them. they buy apartments from me. i sold an apartment recently to

$55 million from a chinese person and then they say i don't like china. i love china. i just liked the fact that the chinese leaders are smarter than our leaders and rip us off all of the time. by the way, same with mexico. i love mexico, i love mexico, i respect them. thousands of them work for me, they are incredible. i just like the fact that mexican leaders are are ripping off our country because they are smarter and more cunning than our leaders and our negotiators. between the trade and the borders, they are killing us. >> your press conferences would take forever. donald trump: i and trying to get out that point. >> career and family, how do you balance? donald trump: i was going to say that i found the happiest people but get down to the happiest people. the happiest people are the ones we have good families. i know the richest people in the world, i know the toughest people in the will, i know these people that you wouldn't like you probably wouldn't like them,

brutal people. great negotiators, great business people, but not nice or happy people. they are very rich. they are very smart. i would use them to negotiate against japan. i would use them like chess. i will tell you they are not the happiest people. the happiest people i see are the people with great families. whatever it is, i don't know. [applause] just to take that a step further , and i tell this to people all the time, how do i get rich, mr. trump? i tell them all the time because i have seen it. those people that have that great family, wife, husband, children, whatever it takes those are the people that, in my life, i have seen are the happiest people. a lot of the really successful people always want more. they could have 2 billion, they

want 6 billion and then they want to get up into the 10 billion range. they always want more. they are always stressed. in the end, they are not happy people. religion is a big factor. i have seen people who have a great family and they have god and church and they love their church. i have friends that love to go to the church and help their church. they are happy people. >> you have gone into it -- if i don't ask this question the audience what the -- will be disappointed. what is your relationship with god? donald trump: i pray. i go to church. do i do things that are wrong? i guess so. i am a businessperson. i do well at business. i have done great. i have made some great deals. i own some of the greatest properties in the world. i think god helped me.

god helped me by giving me a certain brain. whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. i went to a phenomenal school the greatest business school and the world. i did well there. i was a great student. i was born with a certain intellect that is good for this. essentially, look. when you boil it down. we need a president that will be able to make great deals because we are getting killed. our gross national product went down. our gdp went down in the first quarter 50 k negative. when china went up 7% they are going crazy. we had a negative. think of it. we had a negative number. it is unheard of. gdp goes down fairly substantially.

i think it will continue to go down. that means we are getting smaller and you we have more people. many of them are poor across the board. we need people who will take jobs back from china. we need people who would take jobs back from mexico. we need people who will take jobs back because we are going to hell. our country is going to hell. frank doesn't like the word hell. we need somebody who will bring back jobs. [applause] >> part of this responsibility is to be able to understand who these people are, not just about policy. i want to give you a chance to close with the issues that you want to do. leaders are required to set priorities. is our economic health or our moral health more important for the next president to prioritize? donald trump: you

can do both. it does not have to be one without the other. [applause] look, if i am elected president -- i know they can't create jobs like me. nobody can be close. nobody can negotiate with china like i can negotiate. by the way, every single other country in the world, we don't make good deals anymore. if i can make the country's run financially, it is a lot easier for the country morley. look at what is going on. we are in serious trouble. we send weapons over to our so-called allies. one shot is fired and we lose 2300 humvees. we do not know what we are doing. if i can make our country really strong, i would focus on the military. i would tell you what i focus on. vets. vets are treated like third

class citizens. these people went out and fought for us. they are treated so badly. i have been with vets where they say they go to a doctor's office and one of the places and they wait for five days in the reception area. that is morality, too. that is really bad morality. your question is very good, but i think they have to go hand-in-hand. our country is a better nation. we are in serious trouble. i know it sounds rough, but we have to make our country rich again. we have to make our country great again. we can't let other parts of the world steel our country, steal our jobs, steal our manufacturing. with that being said, the morality of this country with the right president -- president obama, i never that he would be a good president. i didn't think he was qualified. i thought the one thing he would

do is be a great cheerleader for the country. he has been horrible. >> does he love america? donald trump: i don't know. i don't want to get into that, i hope so. >> is he a moral president? donald trump: i don't know. you are asking me questions, ask his wife. [laughter] i was hoping, and i thought, the one thing i thought about him. i saw him speaking in germany -- i thought he would be a good cheerleader. he has been horrible. he has been divisive. he hasn't even called kate steinle's family who got killed. he hasn't called. he has told other people, that he hasn't called the family of kate steinle. this was the man who came over from mexico. five different times he shouldn't have been here. nobody even called her family.

i think morality and success go hand in hand. you don't have to have one without the other. >> ladies and gentlemen, donald trump. donald trump: thank you, thank you everybody. i get a standing ovation, other people don't. [applause] ♪ >> we are about 10 minutes away from the scheduled start of today's white house briefing with josh earnest. it may not be surprising to see questions about trumps remarks get thrown at josh earnest. we certainly expect questions to come up about the u.s.-cuba relationship. earlier today and overnight at

4:00 a.m. at the state department in the hall of flags a cuban flight was placed. what we are seeing now -- that is 4:00 a.m. this morning. a cuban flight being placed amongst the other flights that the u.s. has the nomadic relations with. -- diplomatic relations with. a little later in the morning the 16th street cuban embassy here in washington dc or the first time since the 1960's, the cuban flag was raised in front of the embassy. let's take a look at that now. ♪

[applause] ♪ [chanting]

[chanting] [applause] [cuban national anthem]

♪

>> that was the scene a couple of hours ago at the cuban and the sea and washington dc. we will be hearing from the secretary of state later this afternoon at about 1:45 with his cuban counterpart. we are told the secretary is traveling to havana and august were the american flag will be raised over the american embassy there. waiting on the white house briefing with josh earnest, the white house spokesman. among the things we are expecting they will be asked about is the iranian nuclear deal. as we wait for this to get underway, let's show you a portion of this morning's washington journal. that was the subject. host: i guess from politico for the next 45 minutes joins us to discuss the lobbying efforts for and against the nuclear deal. let's talk about the lobbying efforts.

what is congress? role that they reached, and what is the timing of when they need to make a decision? guest: 60 days. the clock starts today. what you will really see is a lot of back-and-forth where you will have john kerry up on the hill briefing members. there will be some voting as well. the house will vote on this deal. it is likely that they will oppose the deal, and then you will have the senate. obama has said he will veto anything they decide not to go forward with. it will ping-pong back to congress. what you are really looking at is can the obama administration find a vetoproof majority? host: the lobbying began with secretary kerry yesterday on cnn policy state of the union. he went on to talk about the iranian deal. here a bit of his statements on cnn. secretary kerry: the fact is the real fair -- fear of the region

is that you don't have a deal. it conjures were to kill this, then we have no inspections, no sections -- sanctions, no ability to negotiate a. i assure you the ayatollah and the united states arbitrarily and unilaterally kill this, you will not have a nether negotiation. they will feel free to go do the very thing this prevents. host: the lobbying efforts the white house launching a series of phone calls on this topic. who are these circuits that we will see besides john kerry? you have the ambassador one of the senator saw him three times through the day, making the case. -- carter -- you have ashton carter. and the staff as well. it's going to be a major push as well, in terms of -- obama

himself playing golf this weekend with members of the house, trying to have the soft sell that he hasn't necessarily been very good at. host: outside of the white house come up with a lobbying groups the white house is going to look to for outside support on this? guest: you have a lot of liberal groups, a multimillion dollar lobbying effort in terms of advertisements and polling there are a lot of liberal groups in general that have blended together to try and put up positions and put up pressure there. on the opposite side, you certainly have one of the most powerful lobbies in washington who is going out with -- they said they were going to raise even $20 million just on this effort. host: for folks unfamiliar with aipac, can you talk about who those groups are? guest: they have been sort of

soft selling it for quite a while. you have aipac, much more in line with the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu they are very opposed to this deal, they came up pretty aggressively against it. just the fact that they are signaling they are going to be doing this, $20 million campaign and 60 days, think about that, the vastness of how much money is going to be spent over the next 60 days just on this issue it's key for them, it will be probably the biggest. host: viewers are joining in on this question, if you have questions for anna palmer of politico, she's a senior correspondent there. democrats, call (202) 748-8000 republicans, call (202) 748-8001 independent independents, call (202) 748-8002. walk us through the strategy,

where we seeing ads run? guest: one of the big things liberal groups are inside and outside polling, is a very washington focused campaign. they're also looking to go to the states, they're telling me they really want have some of the think tank sought leaders on these issues going talk to the key individuals where there's members that are important on this vote and have third-party people be able to make those kinds of selling points. they are also try to do polling to show where americans, jewish americans are on this issue. and then you have aipac, doing a lot of the same things, that this is hand-to-hand combat, the old traditional shoe leather lobbying. they're going to do tons of meetings on the hill, they're working those issues as well. they also have the national

iranian american council to put out a full-page ad in the new york times of the weekend, stating their support. it's not just in the next 60 days, there's some groups like peace action that are saying we might withhold our endorsement of you, if you don't support this bill. there are going to be ramifications beyond whether or not they vote for this. where you can see certain groups play in the presidential or congressional politics. host: four jewish groups like aipac, is unusual for them to be on opposite sides? guest: you saw these battlelines being drawn months in advance of the steel coming forward. there are some people on a conference call you referenced earlier with the white house they had early frustration because they said pump the brakes a little on this, you guys are coming out with these anti-agreement statements, even before you have the chance to read it. i think there's been a kind of signaling, and the fact they rebel ramp-up in such short

notice, the david deal was done, they were saying were going to have a multimillion dollar effort, the already had a third-party website that they launched on the soft launch weeks before. host: for j street, here's one of the ads they want to run. it's up now. [video clip] >> the bottom line -- this is a good deal. this does more for international security than any other outcome. it means no nuclear weapon for ron, it means inspections of iran, it means a safer israel. a safer america, and a safer world. host: as we said come on the other side of this issue, groups running ads as well pushing for a nuclear free iran -- they are also starting at campaign. [video clip] >> the bottom line this is a good deal. it does more for global security

than any of the realistic outcome. it means no nuclear weapon for ron. it means inspections of iran. it means a safer israel. a safer america. and a safer world. host: we will get our viewers the citizens for the nuclear free iran added just a second. anna palmer, talk about the message here they are trying to get across to members. guest: they are basically trying to say no deal is not going to be acceptable. their point is this is the best thing that was possible, iran cannot have nuclear weapons and this is the deal that is able to cut it make sure that in the next 10 to 15 years, that isn't going to happen in projecting forward but this is the way where you're going to be able to normalize some things. host: let's bring in our viewers on this first topic. bernie and howard beach, new york. line for republicans. it morning. caller: good morning. two points. first, hitler and his mein kampf

expressed exactly what he was going to do to the jews. enter russia. it was ignored. so when they were shouting kill the jews, it was ignored. and of course the jews, 6 million people and 27 million russians and on and on. the other point is that with this deal -- acknowledges the right for ron to have a weapon. -- for he ran -- itran to have a weapon. no one has mentioned what they are going to do to stop them from creating a weapon. if someone could clue me in and explained to me that i'm wrong i would be very happy. host: anna palmer, talk a little bit about this. what is the white house saying is going to happen after the time when on this deal expires? guest: there's things is going

to go forward, it is in a 15 year horizon of the deal, goes beyond that. it's a framework where if there isn't a deal, iran is going to be able to have nuclear weapons much more quickly, this is going to allow for the u.s. in the world to inspect some of the places where there are the beginnings of the ability to create nuclear weapons, and it provides a framework for the world and iran to move forward on this in a way that's more sustainable than saying we're not going to have any deal and then iran will get much more quickly to nuclear weapons. host: ron is next on the line for democrats. caller: thank you. iran doesn't need to have weapons of mass destruction. they don't believe in it, never had. it's not about iran, it's about

has below hamas, this is about all the roads to jerusalem which bin laden, hassan, from the fort hood, the bombers from the boston -- they all said because of the palestinian conflict, if you want to stop the war on terrorism solve the is rainy and palestinian conflict. host: ron in florida. trust is the big issue, those who oppose the deal saying iran can't be trusted and those for it saying it's not about trust but there is verifying going on here. in which case members of congress seem more susceptible to in your reporting so far? guest: i think you see a lot of skepticism of this deal. i think it's probably easier in

some cases for them to be opposed for it than for it, particularly in the political sense of it. and really start to see this playing out really in the 2016 politics with a lot on the republican side those members, senator marco rubio say if he was president he'd work to disban this deal as it goes forward. you have a lot of skepticism. obviously lindsey graham, a very big hawk, has been aggressively opposed to this. you see the battle lines already starting to really kind of be apparent but then you see senator chuck schumer, someone everybody is watching and has gotten a lot of money from the israel lobby and gotten $260,000 from pro-israel groups the last six years. but where he stands, he's going to be the next leader likely for the senate and for democrats. that is someone we'll keep a close eye on it.

host: one of d-d frederick's question is how much in congress will be spent on lobbying? it's not like they'll target every member equally right? who are the top targets and the ones to watch? guest: i was mentioning senator chuck schumer who is by far somebody who will be a lot of attention and money spent not only because new york is a extensive media market but also is a huge population where they're very invested in and interested in what happens here. i think you'll see that happen across the state. you're right in the sense that it's not going to be the -- the same amount of money won't be spent in north dakota as it is in florida or washington state. there is going to be a huge focus on jewish members of congress because they obviously not only themselves have followed this issue is a long time but a lot of those people have constituents. and it will be people who represent large jewish populations as well. host: we showed the ad from j street, those supportive of the deal. here's the ad from citizens

against the deal, nuclear free iran. >> the iran nuclear deal good deal or bad deal? iran keeps their nuclear facilities. the military sites can go uninspected, restrictions end after 10 years. then iran could build a nuclear weapon in two months. iran has violated 20 international agreements and is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. congress should reject a bad deal. we need a better deal. host: that's an ad for citizens for nuclear free iran. do we know who the group is? guest: apac has been behind that so have a lot of big name donors, you'll recognize ashel , the casino magnate from las vegas and is a staunch opponent to this deal, has been putting money behind that as well as some of the other big donors who are really opposed to this

pact moving forward. host: back to the phones. christina is waiting from augusta, georgia, line for independents. caller: thank for you taking my call. ms. palmer, can you tell me, i'm listening and i understand i have iranian friends who tell me both ways not to trust in everything and be very cautious. my question is, i keep hearing, even from senator kerry, now he's got his own position, but even he says that they have enough nuclear stuff to make 10 weapons right now. i don't know what they're talking about doing with that. but what happens if iran does the same thing that new york -- north korea does and makes one after they have a deal. then what are the american people's recourse if they just sneakily violate this deal? i mean, then we're stuck with them having a nuclear weapon. so how -- what is our recourse

after that? can you please tell me that? and i'll listen ton the tv. thank you very much. bye, bye. guest: i think what we're talking about here and obama as well as secretary kerry said yes, we have to trust but verify the situation that if iran does violate the agreement or, you know if they don't let in inspectors and they do try to go for it even after this agreement goes forward that then there will be recourse and that everything becomes null and void. what the reaction would be i imagine would have to be -- i'm certainly not -- it would be a reaction that would be representative of what infraction was. so i think the bigger issue and what i think a lot of people think is not just them going forward with nuclear weapons certainly, but removing these sanctions and you start to see this in terms of, you know, some of the european and other countries really are looking forward to it, they want these sanctions to be removed and want to do business with iran

because it's a big country, that it's hard to put those back into place. host: a question from peg on twitter, is this a accurate description of the republican positions right now. the republicans suggest keeping sanctions on iran forever and eventually this arm twisting will force iran to give us everything we want. guest: i don't think that's true. i feel they wanted more out of this deal than the administration was able to get done. i think they also are -- i was just saying they are very leary of removing sanctions with a country they feel like is a bad actor and who repeatedly has lied and hasn't seemed to hold up their end of the bargain. host: to leonard dayton, ohio, line for democrats. leonard, you're on with "politico's" anna palmer. caller: good morning c-span and your guests and everyone. our military itself has been cut dramatically and will be keep cutting so who is going to fight the war? my question here is does israel

have a nuclear weapon, a weapon of mass destruction and do israel have a draft for people to fight in a war? guest: i'm definitely not an expert on israel and their army. i do believe that they do have all of their young people fight, they're automatically put through some service. i think they have a strong kind of military situation. i think they are very concerned that you know, if iran was going to be able to get a nuclear weapon that it would be a huge problem for them and that's something they are vehemently opposed to. host: that concern being expressed by prime minister netanyahu on the sunday shows as well and on "face the nation." here's a bit of his interview. netanyahu: this is a dream deal and maybe got a deal that may block or delay iran's pass to one or two bombs for the next few years, assuming they don't

cheat, but pave their way to many, many bombs after a decade or so because they become a threshold state with full international legitimacy and to boot also get a cash bonanza to fund their terrorist and aggression against us and against the region and america and the world. i think this is a very bad deal with a very bad regime. host: anna palmer of "politico." can you talk about the role the prime minister plays from here over the course of the next 60 days. guest: he's been up on capitol hill doing personal meetings and if you take a step back it's an interesting position for him because it was controversial when earlier this year speaker john boehner invited him to speak to a joint session of congress and a lot of democrats were very upset with the remarks that he made and how aggressively he made them. so now he's having to come a little bit hat in hand with some of those members and try to make the case why this is such a bad deal.

you had some democrats like speaker nancy pelosi giving a full-throated endorsement or she throw her support behind it or you had others like the minority whip, denny hoyer, who has been a little bit more hesitant to go out on a limb on that. host: a tweet last night from john boehner, president obama abandoned his own standards for a good agreement, speaker using all of his social media platforms and other platforms to talk about this deal. perry is up next, washington, d.c., line for independents. good morning. caller: at first i was going to ask about the year all of this is due to take place but i do want to respond to what netanyahu just said. he's saying that they're getting a money bonanza but what i'm understanding is that these were iran's already frozen assets of their own money that had been frozen. so it's not like our government is giving those people -- and i'm not on their side.

but it's not like they're giving those people some of our money, so that's a distortion. but i wanted to know, i mean, what kind of time frame are we talking about, and i just don't even recall in my own history the time when -- what year was the vote made for israel to have their nuclear weapons? i'm just trying to put it all together. host: when you're talking about the time frame we're talking about, are you talking about the time frame of congress' vote on the deal that was reached with senator john kerry? caller: yes, exactly. what kind of time frame because it seems to me this thing can go on and on and on. host: got you perry. anna palmer? guest: if i understand correctly, the time frame they have now is 60 days for them to -- for the congress to debate this and they will have to take a vote before the u.s. can move forward with this agreement.

host: what happens, we're kg up over a august recess where members are away from capitol hill so what's going to happen during that time frame, are we expecting members of congress to be back up here to talk about it? guest: what is really interesting is members of congress do town halls and go back home into their districts and the real question to me is going to be what is going to happen at these town halls? is this going to be the big dominant issue at some of these for specific members because it's one thing for apac or a lobbyist on k street to make the case why they should vote a certain way. it's another thing when you hear over and over again from your constituents, the people who will be voting for you, particularly if you're a house member or if you're up in the 2016 election cycle that there's an overwhelming majority that want you to vote one way or another. host: is this then the focus of these commercial ad campaigns, not just to target members to change their opinions but to get constituents to show up at these town hall events and

question their members and push them on one side or the other? guest: that or also to get constituents to call, right? almost all these ads direct to you a website and that website will say call your member of congress and this is what you should be telling them because that's something all members of congress track so they're going to track the poor, and again that will be something that will weigh in their decisionmaking. host: austin, texas, line for democrats. laura, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have a couple comments and a question and i'll do the question first is who stands to make the most money off this deal? this seems to be more of a business deal than a matter of states craft. and the comments i want to make is why should we trust anybody in this administration when they failed so misserableably with isis and they've not contained those people and they dropped some bombs on them but they're not effective at all. and that i consider a real threat to the americans to us, to this nation.

those people have vocalized their plans for this nation and we're doing a deal with iran and ultimately with isis? host: can i ask you, you're calling in for our line for democrats. is there a candidate right now in the democratic primary field who you trust on foreign policy? it seems you're not happy with the obama administration. >> and as we promised, we are going to take you live to that white house briefing, josh earnest just now at the podium. mr. earnest: i will take your questions. the opening of the cuban embassy in washington, and d.c. today marks a respective dialogue -- a respectful dialogue between the united states and cuba, reestablishing diplomatic relations between our two nations.

we do not have to be imprisoned by the past. we look forward to working with the cuban government and the cuban people after half a century of discord. the people of the united states will have more opportunity to engage with cuban civil society and even ordinary cubans. we look forward to collaborating on issues of common interest including counterterrorism and disaster response, and we believe that the best way to foster freedom of assembly is through greater engagement with the cuban government and people. we have been gratified by the support the iran deal has garnered from many corners at home and abroad. the united nations security council unanimously adopted the resolution. you heard my minister david cameron speak and ambiguously in

support of the deal. as well as the outpouring of support from some of the country's newspapers, large and small, all across the country. today, some of you may have seen a letter in support of the deal signed by some 60 former u.s. government officials from democratic and republican administrations. among those, those who knew iran best. included in this list are former national security advisers let's crop and -- former secretary of defense william perry, former secretary the treasury paul o'neill, former ambassador to iraqi, syria, and pakistan ryan crocker, christopher hill, lee hamilton, the former chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. we continue to urge congress and the american public to judge the

deal on its merits. we are confident if they do they will reach the same conclusion that those who know these issues best already have. if you have not seen that letter, we can get you a full copy. with that, do you want to get us started today? >> on cuba, is the president going to be meeting with the cuban foreign minister? mr. earnest: i am not aware of any plans for the president to meet with cuban officials. i know that secretary kerry be meeting with his counterpart today. chef but does the president in 10 -- >> does the president intend to nominate an ambassador to cuba? mr. earnest: i do not have any announcements for personnel -- >> but this is about intention. mr. earnest: i do not have anything to share with you in terms of a specific commitment.

we do believe that u.s. interests in cuba would be best interested by somebody serving as the ambassador there. that said, the current chief of mission is a gentleman named jeffrey delorenzo's -- dela urentis. he has done two previous dents in havana at -- stints in a vana and has served in a wide variety of diplomatic roles. so, this is somebody representing the united states as the chief of mission at the u.s. embassy in cuba. this is someone with a wide range of experience and we have confidence in the ability of him to represent u.s. interesting cuba. i certainly would not rule out

that the president would nominate somebody to serve at the rank of ambassador at the u.s. embassy in cuba. >> you are not ruling it out but you are not making an actual commitment? mr. earnest: only because i do not have the time frame or an individual to share with you at the minute. >> [indiscernible] i know that you said that would not trump any action of congress, but what would you say to the lawmakers who say it appears as though the president has at least violated the spirit of what congress passed? to have a say on this? mr. earnest: i would strenuously disagree. there is an extraordinary provision included in the security council resolution adopted by the security council today, which is to ensure that the resolution adopted today does not go into effect for another 90 days, and that is specifically to allow congress

ample time to conduct their review of the agreement. and that does show on the part of the international community significant deference to the privileges of individual members of congress. as i mentioned last week, i would just note that there is a u.n. security council resolution passed today does not have an impact on the kind of sanctions that are implemented bilaterally by the united states -- that is the purview of the president of the united states and the united states congress. again, i think that reflects the important role congress must play in this debate. >> do you have any sense of what the president himself is doing behind the scenes to support lawmakers? with his golf outings with three congressional democrats yesterday. mr. earnest: i know that the

president did enjoy the opportunity to play golf yesterday. i assure you, had the engagement been focused solely on the iran agreement, the president would have chosen a location that benefited from air conditioning. i know most of their activities yesterday were focused on golf. >> anything that the president is doing with lawmakers -- mr. earnest: i do not have additional specific conversations to tell you about, but there are conversations that have already occurred with leading members of congress, democrats and republicans, and i would expect those conversations to continue. to get this out of the way there are some details about the administration engagement with congress coming up this week. on wednesday there will be separate classified briefings for all house members and members of the senate on capitol hill. this will take place on wednesday. this is a briefing that will be

conducted by secretary kerry, secretary moneys, secretary l ew, as well as a senior intelligence official. then there will be an open hearing on thursday in front of the senate foreign relations committee with them, and then tuesday before the house foreign affairs committee, there will be an open hearing. so, that is an indication the administration continues to be serious about the responsibility we have to make sure the members of congress are >> does the white house have reactions to donald trump's comments about the president's former rival in 2008 senator john mccain? mr. earnest: i want to tell you that even in the midst of their campaign for the white house that senator obama expressed his admiration and deep respect for senator mccain's heroism.

there are political differences between president obama and senator mccain that have continued even while president obama has been in office but it has not reduced his appreciation for senator mccain's remarkable contribution. the most notable comment in this episode came from senator mccain himself, who i think selflessly made clear that he didn't care about and apology but he did believe our military veterans are heroes. >> has he had a reaction to these comments? onto a more policy related question. there is some discussion in congress about how to pay for highway funds. one option being looked at is selling oil. the white house -- mr. earnest: at the risk of

unintentionally suggesting to some people that are watching the energy markets that this may be telegraphing a decision about a sale i don't have a comment. i will say as a general matter that we have indicated in a written statement our support for the five-month extension that the house considered last week and approved. primarily, as a mechanism for buying time to reach an agreement on a longer-term for a highway funding bill. we have expressed our frustration at the repeated short-term extensions. we believe they are entirely inconsistent with the best interest of our economy and maintaining a modern infrastructure grade we believe in serious long-term investment for our infrastructure. the president took his own specific proposal that would not just ensure we are funding our infrastructure over the long term, it would make sure we are

funding our infrastructure over the long-term over and above because there is so much build up maintenance that is required for our infrastructure. we are hopeful congress will make a similar commitment to the one we have proposed and i would hasten to point out the proposal the admin assertion put forward is entirely paid for. >> in regard to the embargo being lifted and will human rights continue to be an example ? congress is pressing back saying cuba has oppressive thousands of people for medical reasons just this year. what kind of conversation is this going to be? mr. earnest: i think what we will see is a change in policy

that is consistent with the national security interest of the united states. it is consistent with the kinds of values this president and previous presidents have advocated around the world. those values are in respect to basic human rights, freedom of speech, assembly, religion press. it is clear cuba has significant progress to make in all of those areas. what is also clear is that the previous policy in place that had aim to a cop was the same thing over the course of 55 years did not make progress eerie the president believes a change was necessary and we are hopeful that in the coming years we will start to see the kind of respect for basic human rights on the island of cuba that the united states has advocated. i would just point out that it is not just the president's, or

bipartisan leaders in congress that share his view and share optimism about the strategy, it is the cuban people, and overwhelming percentage of the cuban people are supportive and optimistic about this change of policy because of the chance it has to improve their prospects on the island nation of cuba. the president is looking forward to these kinds of changes taking affect -- effect and so the people in the cuban government can start to enjoy the benefits and see the results of greater engagement with the united states. >> is there an indication the cuban government and tends to allow more freedoms on the island and stop arresting people for purely political reasons? mr. earnest: you will recall even in the days after this agreement was announced in december, a substantial number of individuals who have been previously held for political views were released. that is an indication that the cuban government is trying to at

least change their reputation when it comes to these issues. we have a long list of concerns. the other thing that happens to be true is that for a long time the u.s. policy of trying to isolate cuba became a source of irritation in the relationship between the united states and other countries in the western hemisphere. by removing that source of irritation, the united states can focus attention not just the united states but other western countries, on the cuban government's sorted human rights record. it is a good strategy for trying to engage the cuban people more effectively and bring about the kind of change we would like to see in cuba. >> with the meeting today did the kidnapping comment at all or any progress made their and does if you like the new administration in nigeria would

have a greater effect in preventing those kinds of kidnappings and bringing that group back safely? mr. earnest: i don't have any details to share a few but i can't say as a general matter that president obama did have an opportunity to discuss this. the importance of the security cooperation between our two countries. we know there are exterior miss -- extremists operating inside of nigeria. that is having a negative effect on the population. the united states is committed to working with the nigerian government to help them counter disruptive terrorist activities. we are also committed to working with the nigerian government and helping both communities that have been plagued by violence and recover. that would require a sustained investment and commitment on the part of the nigerian government and would require the nigerian government to improve their own human rights record. to make sure even as they are carrying out counterterrorism

raids, another security operation, that they are mindful of basic human rights of their people. that was an important part of the conversation. >> coming back to donald trump's comments you said approvingly of john mccain's calling to have trump apologized to veterans. does donald trump oh veterans and apology? mr. earnest: i have resisted temptation to weigh in even though i have had ample opportunity to do so. >> but you were approving of what mccain said. mr. earnest: i think it highlights the selfless example that senator mccain has held up today suggesting he doesn't care about an apology for himself, he says somebody in the political arena can handle it. but he is right when he says veterans are the ones entitled to an apology. >> so you agree with that trump

should apologize? mr. earnest: i agree with what the senator said. >> particularly with trump, you may recall there was a whole birth certificate question. what does the president make of the fact that donald trump in several polls is leading in the battle for the nomination? mr. earnest: i have not had a detailed conversation with him on this but there is a process underway on the republican side and this will be a significant challenge for republican candidates but they will have to navigate this way through. >> what are the details of the conversation? mr. earnest: i don't have any more details to share with you. >> just a clarification on the ambassador. you said you would not rule out the president appointing an ambassador. we are opening an embassy. i'm asking about embassies

opening up have been a, will there be an ambassador appointed by this president? mr. earnest: we know there have been significant objections by republicans in congress, i don't know if they will fulfill their responsibilities to confirm an ambassador to cuba. i don't have a time frame. >> i'm asking who the president is nominating. will he even in the face of those objections nominate somebody, yes or no? mr. earnest: i don't know who that is or what the timeframe would be. i would expect he would. >> given the corruption within nigeria's military and how it has been infiltrated by boko haram, what is the extent to which you feel that you can assist nigeria? mr. earnest: the united states military personnel have been in nigeria for some time now to

assist them in trying to counter this extremist threat. i would anticipate that, i will say that we can continue to play a role in helping nigerian security authorities deal with this threat in their own country and that involves not just carrying out security operations against the boko haram which is what nigerian security officials have done. but the united states can provide some intelligence support for them. we can also support and encourage the nigerian government to assist those communities that have been the site of so much violence. one of the concerns we have expressed is about how those communities are recovering after they have gone through having a significant all boko haram presidents after being -- presence after being driven out.

we would like them to see to the basic human rights and to protect them and make the investments necessary and the community to help them recover from the traumatic presence of boko haram. >> i want to come back to what they said, i believe in six and a half years, this is a rare moment with only members of congress, i think all three have his partners have been members of congress so. are we wrong in assuming this is part of the full-court press on iran? mr. earnest: with all due respect, yes. this is a golf outing that has been in the works for quite some time. he and rumors of congress are not often in washington, d.c. over the weekend so it took extensive advance planning in

order to coordinate this weekend's round of golf. >> are we wrong in assuming that in the next 60 days there will be more rounds of golf? mr. earnest: i don't have any additional information. i'm confident that many other members of congress will be playing golf. which is why they need the extra 30 days to consider the agreement. >> we all know the deal. they're going to extend the. of time, if not a criticism it is just a fact. mr. earnest: i'm sure that he will play golf on vacation as well. >> in the wake of the chattanooga shooting, recruiting centers have business changes. does the president believe there should be armed guards stationed at recruiting sites or should the service members be armed? mr. earnest: there are a number of things. the dhs has announced security

measures they are taking to improve security at these facilities that they have jurisdiction over. the dod is considering changes i would refer to them for any changes. i know there are some suggestions, the policy as it relates to whether or not members of the armed forces should carry weapons when they are on duty. that is a policy decision made by the department of defense. i don't know if it's something they are considering. it is the president's view that that decision should be made with the safety and security of our men and women in uniform in mind and not as a subject of a political argument. >> following new town and the boston bombing and the massacre at fort hood, the president ordered flags to be lowered to half staff. are there questions as to why the president has not done for the chattanooga shooting? mr. earnest: once last week

where he offered his condolences to the families of those who were killed in the attack, i would suspect you would expect the president to discuss this more. i do not have more information about the status. >> does the president believe that everybody who served should be a hero? mr. earnest: i think the point that many people have made in discussing senator mccain's service to this country is that the courage that he showed as a pow is extraordinary. this is an individual who was confined for many years. for many of those years, he had the opportunity to walk out. his captors recognized that there was a propaganda victory in the outing and he declined the opportunity to be released

from the terrible conditions in that prison because of the code and respect that he had for hezbollah prisoners. -- his fellow prisoners. certainly, we owed them a lot of respect and for their service to the country but there is no denying that senator mccain's service to the country is extraordinary and qualifies him as a hero. >> so by serving you are necessarily a hero? mr. earnest: i will not render judgment on the millions of americans that are brave enough to put on the uniform. but we are indebted to them for their service. there is no denying that senator mccain's service is extraordinary. >> is bowe bergdahl a hero? mr. earnest: i'm not going to get into those kinds of classifications. >> i just want to clarify something you talked about a little bit. back in april you said in an

interview about the deal that provides anytime anywhere access to iran's nuclear sites and i am just trying to make sure that is still the case. because based on what i have read and what secretary kerry is now saying, it is more of, if you will pardon me, anywhere, and a reasonable time and fashion. mr. earnest: let me give you credit for quoting him correctly in that interview. he did say anywhere anytime access to iran's nuclear facilities. that is true, we will have 24/7 continuous monitoring. that is what was envisioned in the agreement and that's what was completed in the final one. >> you talk about electronic surveillance. you can make a phone call and we can put people in the room at any point? mr. earnest: i would not rule that out.

when it comes to iran's declared nuclear facilities international investigators will have 24/7 continuous access to those facilities to verify iran's compliance. >> is that the same as saying 24 days later, they can allow you in or at any point you don't have that sort of delay? mr. earnest: i'm saying that delay does not come in. we have 24/7 continued monitoring of iran's declared nuclear facilities. that's what was promised and what will be delivered. >> guns, there is a report in the los angeles times that suggests that those who are under some sort of managed care and social security would have more restrictions by the administration to access the ability to use guns. mr. earnest: i have not seen that report but i know that the central tenet when it comes to policymaking here in the administration as it relates to gun safety is that there are a

number of steps we have been able to take that prevent guns from falling into the hands of those that should not have them. these are people like criminals people with documented mental problems and we can influence those policies without it undermining the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans and what we can do is make a bit safer. it will not prevent every active silent -- violence but it is a common sense way for us to try to improve public safety. there is more that congress could do in this regard. we will continue to advocate they do so. >> puerto rico is going through the massive economic issues. some have suggested is our greece. if it were a state with that ameliorate the problems? mr. earnest: obviously that

would be a decision for the people of puerto rico. >> did the president see the video of the shark attack on the surfer and that he say? mr. earnest: i don't know if he has seen it, i have not seen it myself. it seems like quite an interesting confrontation. >> does the white house have a reaction to the isis bombing in turkey? mr. earnest: i do. i can tell you the united states strongly condemns the terrorist attack that occurred in southern turkey. our condolences go out to the families of the victims, many who came to that community to assist in reconstruction. we extend our solidarity to the turkish government and people and reaffirm our undeterred resolve against the threat of terrorism. >> you say the united states

seems to be expanding into new countries. mr. earnest: i think in this case we have talked quite a bit about the important progress being made in this region of syria. obviously, we condemn this act of violence against individuals who are seeking to go and engage in humanitarian efforts on the other side of the syrian border. we continue to be mindful of the impact that extremist groups like i still have -- isil have in the region. that's why you're seen the president work so hard to build an international coalition to destroy them. because of the impact they are having on the region. that the stabilizing activity takes a variety of forms. there are millions of refugees who have fled syria, thereby countries, and that has had a destabilizing impact on other countries.

we have started to see some extremist activity in other countries that does seem to be related to isil. we continue to be concerned about that and that is why it has been so critically important for us to mobilize other countries in the region. that is why the president is pleased to have the support of so many other middle eastern countries inside this coalition. many were flying alongside american military pilots as they conduct airstrikes in syria against extremist targets. >> you mentioned earlier the sorted human rights record. would you say he the historic announcement in december, sitting outside the arrangements both governments made with alan gross that were agreed to in that movement.

since then has the record in cuba been better or worse than it was? mr. earnest: i guess i would assess that in -- over the course of the last seven months we have not seen as much progress as we would have liked to see. considering the previous policies in place, i think additional time is warranted before rendering judgment. >> but you need to see more progress. mr. earnest: there is no doubt that more progress can be made we will continue to press on it. >> whether he is eventually nominated, what is his mandate from the president, what is the top agenda item? to travel to the country, meet with residents? release political prisoners? what will he transit --

what is his number one agenda from the president? mr. earnest: his top agenda item will be to represent the interests of the united states on the island and that may involve making sure u.s. businesses and individuals that are engaged in commercial activity on the island, that their views and interests are represented and protected. that is certainly one reason we are seeing bipartisan support in congress. obviously, diplomats who are working at the new u.s. embassy in cuba will also have the ability to more freely travel throughout cuba and to interact and engage the cuban people. yes, even some numbers of the political opposition. we believe that will be better representing the interests of the united states. >> representing u.s. businesses and expansion and interaction, or other issues dealing with?

mr. earnest: i believe the president believes those are important to the mission and they should do both. >> tomorrow they might be some expectation the president will address the year past and fix what he identified the cost the secretary of affairs his job. is he planning to give an assessment of what he has not accomplished in the last year? mr. earnest: we will have more details of the president's speech he is preparing for tomorrow but the commitment of this administration ensures we are doing right by our veterans. it is true that there have -- there is more work to be done when it comes to ensuring we are living up to our promises. >> whether be more work done to reducing the backlog and there is more work to be done to

reduce wait times and potential progress on those accounts hasn't made in the last year but there's more work to be done and the president is insisting we follow through and make sure we do bright by our veterans. >> the step back sanctions provision. some in the community who are in support of it, not opposed to it, like to point out that there is a kind of a dueling character. if it goes through the security council and the united states be those it putting sanctions back, the agreement in iran can say we are no longer bound either sanctions -- agreement. and sanctions come back. that means the united states will be under tremendous pressure not to put the sanctions back in place and

continue with this massive violation of the agreement and on smaller things, the temptation will be to ignore those smaller violations and keep whatever part of the deal is going. this particular component. mr. earnest: the way we see it is that iran will be under intense pressure to live up to the terms of the agreement. you will recall the only reason we reached this is because the iranian government was facing intense domestic pressure to get sanctions relief for their people. their economy was crumbling. we saw the value of their currency significantly diminish, unemployment rates and other measures of economic activity were significantly worse in the years that this sanctions regime was in place. the iranian government will be under intense pressure to make sure they don't and back up under those sanctions.

that is the way that we see this working out. the other thing that is important is there is no sanctions relief that is given until it iran has taken important steps to demonstrate compliance to the agreement which means a significantly rolling back the nuclear program. we talked a lot about how the results of this agreement, iran is committed to reducing their uranium stockpile by 98% and removing centrifuges, rendering harmless their heavywater reactor. it would take all of those steps before any sanctions are relieved. if we discover that iran is starting to cheat on the deal they will be trying to make up significant ground they have already lost. that means the international community will be in a much better position to respond to any cheating if it occurs. >> the president saw hamilton

saturday, did he enjoy the play and did it alter his belief of whether alexander hamilton should be on the $10 bill? mr. earnest: i didn't speak to the president firsthand about this but i spoke to somebody who did and he said the president genuinely enjoyed the play and that the president believed the show lived up to the hype. he is confident, he enjoyed the opportunity to enjoy the show with his daughters. there is a process underway at the treasury department that would make a change to the $10 bill but would not run contrary to some rumors, it would not remove alexander hamilton. his face would remain on the $10 bill. >> so no change? mr. earnest: no changes in policy i am aware of. >> golf partners. you mentioned this has been in the work for some time. why these three members in

particular. mr. earnest: when you started to ask your question i thought you said golf partners notit's going to take me a minute here. >> its colorado. [laughter] mr. earnest: i wasn't aware that colorado was on the gulf. it is my understanding -- i don't know of the specific topic of conversation throughout the round of golf. i suspect most of it centered on the game of golf. this is a golf appointments that the president had been trying to schedule for a number of months. members of congress typically orange in washington dc over the weekend, so it required advance planning. the president enjoyed the round of golf, even if it was a little

steamy. >> it would be unfair to say that iran did not come up. mr. earnest: correct. >> he asked about corrupt nigerian officials, is that something that they discuss in their meeting, and something the u.s. is willing to lend a hand in? mr. earnest: in the context of his discussion with president obama, they did had the opportunity to talk about important economic and governmental reforms inside the country. i don't know if this specific issue of trying to acquire some assets that may have left the country through some corruption -- i don't know if that came up in the conversation. andrew. >> [indiscernible] mr. earnest: at this point that

we have seen those reports but we have not reached that conclusion. we certainly are seeking additional information though to get to the bottom of those reports. we continue to take all allegations of chemical weapons use in syria very seriously. as well as any indication of interest and intent in using such capability. we contingent monitor these reports closely, we will further stressed that any use of chemicals or biological material is weapons is completely inconsistent with international standards and norms regarding such capabilities. >> on the question on the attack in turkey, is the u.s. helping with that investigation in concert with the turkish government? mr. earnest: and other u.s. officials have been in touch with turkey, but i don't know nature of the conversation. >> i want to go back to cuba in

the presidential trip there. you mentioned on friday conditions for the radical -- for the president making a trip. things like free press and not suppressing political opponents. that seems unlikely. sammy travel to cuba -- does that mean he will not travel to cuba? mr. earnest: these are the kinds of things we would like to see cuba make progress on, but at this point i wouldn't necessarily suggest that the successful protection of those rights is required before any sort of presidential visit is discussed. as a general matter what we talk about advocating for the protection and respect of basic human rights in cuba, it is trying to convince the cuban government to fulfill what we see is their responsibility to protect basic human rights like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.

>> you are not saying without those being addressed by the time he leaves office, he will not go to cuba. mr. earnest: i'm not laying down any markers in terms what would be necessary definitively before the presidential visit. >> was there something definitive before he would make a trip there? mr. earnest: nothing that i would discuss publicly. i think that the -- certainly the amount of progress that the cuban government is making as a relates generally to the protection of basic human rights will factor into the decision by the president to travel to cuba if he makes the decision to travel to cuba. >> can you clarify -- you said you would hope there had been more progress since december? mr. earnest: we believe that there is substantial progress that needs to be made when it comes to respect and basic human rights and that of cuba. and there are some, i think

some of our critics who've suggested that because we haven't seen as much progress as we believe is necessary over the next -- over the last seven months, that somehow that a deficiency in the president's policy. i response to that is that it is too soon to tell since the policy has only been in place for seven months. we had 55 years to evaluate the success of the previous policy and it didn't bring about the kind of results that we would like to see. the case i would make to you is that it's going to take longer than seven months to demonstrate the clear success of the specific policy change. jc. >> you mentioned the word engagement a number of times today. with the average to iran and cuba, are we looking at a burgeoning obama engagement doctrine or doctrine of engagement with other leaders and other regimes? for the last year and a half of his presidency?

mr. earnest: the president has drawn a clear line between the relationship between the u.s. and cuba and the relationship between the united states and iran. the united states continues to have significant concerns with iranian behavior, and including iranians support for terrorism iran's continued menacing of israel, iran's support for proxies that engage in destabilizing activity throughout the middle east. the approach that the president has taken to iran is very different than the president's approach to our relations with cuba. i do think that -- this is something the president mentioned in his address to the nation on tuesday -- that the one common principle i think might be here is that the united states -- he quoted president

kennedy in saying that the united states should not be afraid to negotiate, but should not negotiate from fear. i think that principle was of limited in our approach to both countries. when it comes to our relationship, the u.s. relationship with these two countries, they are very different. >> when there be other countries and regimes and individual leaders of the president may be reaching out to as he continues his last phase of his administration? mr. earnest: the other country with whom the united states has sought to ramp up engagement is actually burma. that is a place where the president has not visited twice and that again is another country that i would put more closely in the category of cuba then iran for obvious reasons. it's another place where we hope that deeper u.s. and global engagement in burma can bring about the kind of change when it comes to the protection of basic human rights that we would like to see.

>> a quick follow up, just to double check, since the iran deal was reached, has the president of the united states and president rouhani exchange any communication directly with one another? mr. earnest: not that i'm aware of. fred. corrects the chairman and ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee put out a joint statement saying they were disappointed by the un security council vote. do have a response? mr. earnest: i haven't seen the letter. as a general matter, a unanimous vote in the un security council is an indication of the strong international community's

approach to dealing with iran. this is a testament to the success of this effort. you recall what president obama took office in 2009, the nation of iran was united behind their efforts to try and obtain a nuclear weapon. the international community was fractured in trying to prevent that from happening. because of this president's leadership and because of an important role played by congress, the international community did banded together to impose some of the toughest sanctions that have ever been imposed on another country. and those international sanctions had a devastating impact on iran's economy, and it compelled iran to come to the negotiating table. they negotiated in good faith with the international community to try and reach an agreement. the unanimous approval of that agreement by the un security council i think is a testament to the success that the international committee had in staying unified to confront iran. this will further our efforts to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that has been our goal all along

, and it's an important contribution to the safety and security of the united states and our allies and partners, not just in the region, but around the world. >> secondly, the congressional committee had called the senior director that was in that video to give a congressional briefing on some of the facts. given that video that was out last week, is there any possible reconsideration about federal funding for planned parenthood in the future? mr. earnest: no. >> a couple of questions on iran , there's been reporting over the weekend that the parliament may not approve the ballistic missile embargo that was included in amendment format. i'm not sure from what the white house mentioned if that was necessary for that piece to go forward.

did they have the votes in the iranian parliament? mr. earnest: i haven't seen that specific report, you may be following to relevance in the iranian legislator -- legislation more closely than i am. i give you credit for that. i will say that the agreement that was reached in vienna and announced last week is one that has them -- has been approved unanimously before the un security council. that's an indication of the commitment to seeing the steel go into effect as written. >> because it was signed by the iranians that anything domestic with that happens legislative leave -- less lately will be realized. mr. earnest: i don't know enough about their domestic process to render judgment either way. i am following closely the developments at the united nations today which i think are a clear indication the expectations of the international community is this is an agreement that will go into effect.

as written. >> can be derailed by divisive politics in iran? mr. earnest: i'm not aware that prospect is likely this point. obviously, the thing that we have been clear about, i guess this would apply -- the same thing that was true in the final days of the negotiation i guess is true even in this interim period while the various bodies are considering the agreement. the fact is we continue to have all the options that were available to us as we did before. but we are hopeful that this to poetic approach will be successful because we do believe that it is the best way first prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> the remarks from the iranian foreign minister seem to be responding to some of what is coming out of israel and secretary carter's visit. he talks about the threat of military action not being taken off the table during the course of the nuclear deal and called it a dangerous temptation. i wondered if you had a response to that. mr. earnest: i didn't see the

full context of his remarks, but obviously the president's approach of this agreement has been to pursue diplomacy so that the military option is not necessary. but the benefits of this approach that we have advocated is that if for some reason it becomes clear that diplomacy not be successful, that we see iran's start to cheat on the agreements that the u.s. president, whether it is president obama while he remains in office or the next u.s. president will continue to have all the options that are currently available to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the president has been unequivocal about his commitment taking the necessary steps to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it's his use of the most effective way for us to do this is through diplomacy. i know that there are other critics of the deal you have at

least implicitly knowledge that there is no kind of military strike that is possible that would have as much of an impact as this diplomatic agreement would have in terms of setting back the development of iran's nuclear program over a long period of time it. that is why the president believes the diplomacy is the best strategy for preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. at the same time, the president has also been clear that if iran cheats on the deal, that all options will be available. the most obvious and direct one would be to snap sanctions back in place. we know that defective because the iranians responded to that kind of economic pressure previously. but there's also no changing the fact that the military option would continue to be available to this president or the next one as well. in fact, that option is likely to be enhanced based on the

knowledge about iran's nuclear program that has developed in the context of all of these inspections. that is why the president has made a very strong case that this agreement and its successful of limitation will only strengthen the hand of the next u.s. president as they continue the effort to prevent ron from -- iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. collects two very different subjects. -- >> two very different subjects. despite opposition's with russia, you've highlighted space as an operator -- as an example of cooperation. what is your thoughts on moving training to crimea? mr. earnest: the space program does reflect an area where the united states and russia have been able to coordinate effectively in pursuit of our countries and our citizens

mutual interests. >> you started with cuba today and i just want to finish with it. what leverage does the united states have at this point to work on all the issues that still remain on the table with cuba? the opponents to this movie embassies, the demonstration giving away the store. what leverage does the white house cap with cuba at this point, because what the president has most emphasized has been this cultural exchange that will happen over time. is there any leverage that the united states has more directly than that? mr. earnest: the first thing that comes to mind is that we will have the leverage of the other countries in the western have is your that now are no longer distracted by the u.s. embargo against cuba is the urgent in the u.s. relationship with countries throughout the west in hemisphere. what we have done is remove that irritant and allow the rest of the western hemisphere to focus more closely on the conduct and

policies of the cuban government. that certainly is a positive development. i think the other thing that should be crystal clear to anybody who has been following this policy over the last five or six decades is that any perceived leverage that was included in an embargo did not succeed in generating the kind of outcomes that its most ardent advocates believe is important. we didn't see the kind of progress on human rights reforms we would like to see walnut embargo was in place. that is why the president has called for the removal of the embargo and to start to take steps to restore it if the our two nations. but the policy of isolation is a policy that failed. it was time to try different approach to succeed in achieving the goal that we all share which is a cuba that thrives and a cuban government that respects and even protects the

basic human rights of their citizens. >> the criticism is that the leverage that was there before didn't work, but is there anything new other than this new template that you have for the western hemisphere -- is there any specific leverage that the united states can have the trying effect that change more quickly or more directly? mr. earnest: we have significantly more diplomatic leverage. this is leverage that can be used by other countries in the western hemisphere, is leverage that can be used by the united states. it certainly will be an important parts of the deeper ties between our two countries. part of this agreement included ensuring that cuban citizens had greater access to the internet and greater access to information. we believe that that -- that equipped with the knowledge that's a good thing for the cuban people. some of our critics may find my

case, because it's coming from me, to be unpersuasive. what is persuasive that most public polls indicate that upwards of 90% of the cuban population support this policy change. that i think is an indication that it's not just the u.s. interests that are best served by this policy, it's actually the interest of the cuban people that are best served by this policy as well. this is nothing we can evaluate in the years to come. i'm certainly not going to meet you wait 55 years to evaluate the success of this policy. it is clear that the previous policy could be evaluated over 55 years in a clearly is not bring about the kind of results would like to see. thanks, everybody. have a good monday. >> white house spokesman josh earnest ending up this hour-long

news conference about cuba. at the state department, moments away from a scheduled joint news conference with secretary of state john kerry in the cuban foreign minister to talk about that reestablishment of -- the formal reestablishment of diplomatic relations between the united states and cuba. earlier this morning we saw flag being raised over the cuban embassy here in washington. let's watch and see if this gets underway shortly.

[chatter]

>> we are waiting for secretary of state kerry and the cuban foreign minister to come out for this joint preference -- press conference. should be any minute, we're not quite sure where they are going to start. we are to try and show you remarks made inside the cuban embassy after that flag raising.

>> unfortunately, we didn't have the sound ready for that piece of videotape from this morning at the cuban of as a. we will work on that as we wait for secretary kerry in the cuban foreign minister.

>> we are waiting for secretary of state john kerry in the cuban foreign minister. the house is coming in for a pro forma session in about five minutes, at 2:00. here on c-span, we provide gavel to gavel coverage of the house. we will cover that a number he back here at this joint news conference. if the conference assertive, we will begin a. if not, we will go back to that.

>> we are waiting for secretary kerry, as we said commend the cuban foreign minister. we understand they have been having a meeting, so while they are talking and getting ready for this joint news conference wanted to let you know we are going to take you live in just a moment to the u.s. house coming in just a pro forma session, and

procedural session today, quite short. the letters that a business in the house will resume tomorrow afternoon at 2:00. looking forward -- more live programming coming up very a discussion at the cato institute about u.s. drug policy, that was actually earlier, got started on c-span3. the treasury secretary getting started later on at 2:30 on c-span two. will cover him talking about the regulation of wall street and the fifth anniversary of the dodd frank law that was signed by president obama in the wake of the 2008 financial scandal. we're going to take you to the floor of the house, we will see the pro forma session and as soon as it is done, it will take you right back to the state department and pick up the briefing with secretary kerry and the cuban foreign minister, which has not begun yet. now to the floor of u.s. house.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., july 20, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable pete sessions to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the -- speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain,