pricing oil in 2020 is under $50 a barrel, i do not think that is realistic. --futures market do not include long-term prices. in my view, it is almost a given prices would be above $50 by 2020. the timing is difficult to assess. the capacity from many countries , russia would not be able to continue producing at the rate we have seen. they have dramatically increased production, but it will be hurt by its incapacity to have companies. increase since the price collapse and takeover of isis will not continue. we have seen production drop in the u.s..

will declines i think continue. eventually there will be a rebound. it will be able to come back quickly when the price turns. who is that? shale oil. when it comes back to the market come back at the pace we have seen of the last few years, or at a diminished pace? one key factor would be the cost deflation that companies have deployed since the collapse. how much re-inflation we are likely to see as the demand for oil services rebounds with the price increase. >> your thoughts? >> with the chairman's permission. senator, i grew up in the greatia, not in

state of north dakota. there is a phrase that might myly here -- this ain't first radio. i am seen several big price the clients, big price increases. i think antoine and i agree prices are coming back. at the heart of your question, ,eparating it into two parts there are number of countries. iraq, venezuela -- they had numbers calculated a while ago. they needed $100 to make their budget. in russia's case, the collapse of theruble and strength dollar improved their position. the export and get dollars for it. .heir costs are in rubles in the saudi case they may not either.0 a barrel,

they have price reform. looking at how to charge people more or gasoline and electricity. coming back to the heart of your $30 aon, can we have barrel oil continuing indefinitely into the future? the answer is no. prices could go lower. we could see $20. why? because of the cash cost. there is cash cost, what you need to cover your immediate bills. that is near $20 a barrel. costs, what-cycle you need to hang on. you might not be doing really well, but you are paying some of your debts. you're not being shut down.

that is probably in the range of $40 to $60 per barrel. then the full cycle cost, what does it cost to find more oil and meet rising demand for oil? every forecast i am seen assumes that. $50, numbers are at least and possibly as high as $75 or $80 a barrel. at some point, we have to get back to the full cycle cost range. if we don't, this big buildup we have seen in inventories over the last year and a half will be drained down. something will happen, and we will come back to the senator's first question -- what about venezuela? billion axporting $2 day. that could go off the market given the social and political

turmoil in that country. talking would not be about layers of cost, would be talking about what does it take to replace 2 billion barrels on a global market weather is not a lot of capacity? couple more questions, but i would certainly defer. the alaska legislature is convening this morning for their inaugural kickoff of their session. the questions that are being the discussion is as important as anything for a state like mine, that relies so heavily on oil, and estate like yours cover that has relied so heavily.

we have seen what happens when the price tanks come and what that does to your economy. .> the testimony is important if you look over the last several years, the testimony you and others provided some of the information, wasn't wharton. -- was important. we just looked at the oil export been in place for 40 years. that was only possible because the information show the benefits of doing so. creating as of this testimony matters dramatically so we create an environment of american entrepreneurs and andanies really saying competing. your price curve and ability to respond to markets is an important key.

like understanding long-term the prices that will be driven. onhas a dramatic impact prices, and a realistic approach to a nobles and other energy. i want to shift to coal for a minute. going to beimpact from the administration's three-year moratorium on l on federal land? what are the ramifications for the coal industry, in addition to the co2 regulations, the manyme buffer rules, and other things. what is the impact of the three-year moratorium going to be? lucier: thank you for that question. it will be quite significant, because it points to assets that

are being tied up through extended studies and may be developed in the future only charges.t to increased carbon charges. my and charges. increased royalties, etc.. is coal industry oversupplied, driving prices down. i think you need to watch with the administration is doing to see what this means for all fossil resources. if we have to have environmental statements looking at leasing on federal lands for coal, this is the first step for doing such programmatic environmental impact statements for releasing oil and gas on public lands, too. it is an economic significance, coal's depressed state,

isn't a major issue now. but for fossil fuels and public land generally, it is quite significant. on less.acts 42% ofhe latest data, in the u.s. was from federal lands. that is a high number. the main states where montana, wyoming, possibly might even alaska from federal leases. there are issues there. , it could be term impacted in the short term there's probably enough property leased to maintain output in the short term.

if i could come back to your question, i will risk talking about policy. i want a do over on your question, senator. if you are looking to say, what can you do to enhance energy production in the oil what area, may be even and a few other areas, the issues of infrastructure are important. was reminded, senator, because you are asking about the ability to move natural gas. the ability to move oil is important. even crude oil products, the colonial pipeline which runs into this area, is running pretty full. even issues like the electric grid, which is being looked at by many people, including the department of energy.

the petroleum reserves, the ability to get oil water-born to move to other places in the u.s. the doe is looking at that. i was part of the law that just tosed, instructing the doe do so. there are many policy issues associated with improving the mid-stream. the metal, before we get the -- the middle, before we get the ripects to consumers are for a good look at the policy issues surrounding that. mr. sieminski. i think you bring up a very important point when you describe how the moratorium that the administration has put forward is on coal.

what is the ramification or other energies like oil and gas? i think your point is well made. it is deeply concerning. i will wrap up with this question. as part of the legislation that our chairman and ranking member are advancing, one is the certainty in transparency act. sense, and isome would begin with mr. sieminski if we are able to advance that legislation and more readily allow for lng export, what are the ramifications for making a difference with some of our allies not only in creating markets at home, but making a difference for some of our allies in europe and so forth in

terms of reducing russia's tremendous control as the energy supplier of europe? will that help, or are there other things that could help? right now the lng exportsent to is not permitting. there are a number of agencies involved in permitting. for environmental aspects and the department of energy, the office of fossil energy -- >> you are just saying that because you are the department of energy? mr. sieminski: i think at one point there was a view that there was a bottleneck there. that does not seem to be the case. there has been an alignment between the department of energy and the commission on permitting . i think coming back to, what are

the issues? i think it is the economics. prices, the spread has narrowed. it has made it more difficult to look at ther economics of lng exports. if we see a recovery in oil prices, that is probably do mo more tois probably due improve the prospects of lng exports. we had lng exports going up. it still makes sense into the asian markets, and possibly into europe. i think things will look very different at the point we get

back more toward those full-cycle costs associated with oil prices that you were asking about earlier. >> rising u.s. energy exports is a game changer. i would point out a couple of ways in which it could be different. one is the growth of gas as an international and global market. probably different pricing mechanisms going forward for international competition. that will be very important for european national security because it would provide an additional gas supply in

addition to the sources europe replies on -- relies on now. it would be important for asia. one key factor in which energy would have an impact, u.s. energy, australian energy, which is increasing, who the allowing for more competition between oil and gas. an increased number of oil and gas for the transition. senator, you are correct. if we want to help our friends, especially our gas consuming friends in japan, asia, and elsewhere, we want to increase global supply. this will help europeans looking for broader supply. we also have competitors. we are in a tight global lng market. there could he competition to

see who builds the export facilities and gets the x or export business. anything we can do on the side does help u.s. producers and improves our competitive position. it helps our friends, but we need to think of ourselves in comparison to competitors as well. point.ry quick i agree with everything said on lng. into mexico,ports which is simple cross-border stuff here and we think that will continue rising. that is an interesting area for the gas market. that could drive even further gas demand. thank you madam chairman. that was the longest question

session. i understand. i think it has been a good discussion. i think the witnesses. alff, i do not want to argue about the past as much as planning for the future. i think your answers about the eared part to point of the discussion is political. consumers are demanding a different world. china is responding. i don't think that india will galore whenlans they have issues. nor do i think china will pursue that. since we already have 20 years lease we need to assess for the taxpayer what beyond that looks like. on the corporate

installation of her nobles -- of renewables, consumers are somewhat driving behavior, but corporations are driving efficiency. corporations are looking at it as a win-win. it is a win with consumers and a win for power. i think that is where google and other people are. what do you think of renewables purchased for scale will look like into the future? >> last year, i think it was roughly one third or so of all purchase agreements for large energy was signed by corporations to buy the electricity itself. the motivation is primarily economic. it gives you the opportunity to know what your pricing power

will be over a long text -- fixed period of time. someey can lock in chunk of it they can lock in prices going forward. that is been one of the main motivators we have seen take place. you're right and noting google, techsoft -- but not only companies, others as well. kaiser permanente, ikea, they have been involved in renewables. they view it as if you eliminate of risk -- the unknown electricity prices which are tied to a friday of factors, including gas prices, and you in. it i will say that it is predicated on the notion that you have fears of power prices rising. if power prices go down,

corporate's may be less interested, because they are not as worried about the fluctuation could go, because they down in the future. the attempt has been to lock in a price that you know what it will be over a long time. that consumers are finding out more about pollution, particularly in china. i see it even in marketing. by m-3 is a great vehicle w. .hey -- by bmw they say it is not only a next generation car, they are trying to say it is the all-renewable car from its origins, and in the fact that it is recyclable material. people are trying to win in the marketplace. consumers are demanding it. it is probably both, at least

for now, anyway. i definitely think it is something for us to look at. how grid scale renewables solve some of the questions we want answers as it relates to distributive generation and moving forward. i don't know if you have anything else on that point about information on the electricity grid. intoare putting lots battery technology as it relates to giving us more flexibility on renewables, and building that capacity into the grid. mr. sieminski: -- mr. lucier: that is a big open invitation. as bars putting the power storage on the grid and combining with the student generation on the edge of the

grid is something that could revolutionize the industry. it provides a lot of solutions for many issues. i would point out the grid is a totality. while it has an edge, it also has a core. it is the core assets keeping the grid alight. back to discussions on things like artistic bent funding or stranded assets in the 1980's and 1990's, that led to distributed generation in the 1990's. these are not new issues. the key point is that power has a price. the grid has a price. regulators who do cost allocation are good at figuring that out. in market evolution we figure at ways to fairly priced resources, whether it is the energy or infrastructure sides.

i'm confidence we will see a robust partnership develop. there is the opportunity for many thousands of flowers to bloom. that analogy, and i think that is what we get out of the grid -- a layer of efficiency. when i look at the ability to not only have that technology states, in the united but around the globe, that is -- thank you, madam chairman. >> we appreciate the time you have given us. when you think about what has been discussed, we are at the point of substantial change. ndler in your testimony use a a fundamental rethink is underway about how energy is produced, delivered, consumed, and managed in many parts of the

world, including the u.s. based on the testimony from all of you, you would all concur with that. when you think about where we , thethe discussion on coal impact we will have with a three-year moratorium on leasing -- whenal land, the act you think about where we are with natural gas, the low for somehe potential disruption because of infrastructure issues. when we talk about the necessity for critical minerals, and how that will allow us to build out a renewable energy source through enhanced technologies. we recognize we are going the same direction with critical minerals we were historically with oil. the oil picture we could take a

week of hearing to understand what is going on. we did not talk about libya, russia -- layered into the discussion about our ability to oilrt onto the global market, and what that means. the impact on all of this on nuclear. we are seeing policy decisions made through clean power plants. with the price is a nuclear to natural gas. distributive generation in the mix of her nobles. thepaller civilization -- policy we made last month to allow for the continuation of tax credits. politicalposed to the and geopolitical aspects of energy. the pricing situation,

infrastructure, begs for a modernization of our energy policies. that is what senator cantwell and the members of this committee have produced. not solve all of the problems in the world. we can guarantee it won't. what it does do is update our energy policies from 8 years ago, which desperately need updating and all of these different areas. , how weit is permitting look at the grid, how we move forward in the energy space. my hope, and i think senator through's, is to move this quickly. i think it is imperative for our economy. when we talk about energy translateso me that

into national and economic security. we have a lot to offer in this space. we will be working on it. we appreciate your guidance. i do not know if he made the crystalball to your -- ball more clear, but we appreciated your wisdom. with that, we stand adjourned. announcer: some news to pass on as the hearing comes to a close. the supreme court announced if it will consider president obama has the authority to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in the u.s.

and work without fear of deportation. the white house says it is confident the supreme court will uphold the president's executive actions on immigration. it will be decided in late june, a month before the parties .ather for their nominations speaker ryan tweeted that president obama's executive amnesty is unconstitutional. pelosi says she is potus will recognize the executive actions for immigrant families. coming up, the white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. when it gets underway, we will have it live for you on c-span. deliver thewill state of the state address in lansing. he will dedicate most of his

speech to the water crisis in flint. he is seeking financial assistance for testing the lead contaminated water system, and medical treatment for residents with high levels of lead in their blood. the state of the state address is live on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, loretta lynch is on the hill answering questions about the president's executive actions on guns. she will be testifying about the in's role in implementing the new rules. -- she will be testifying about the justice department's role in an lamenting the new rules. >> that may have something to do more interest is in these candidates and their books. announcer: sunday on q&a, a nonfiction book critic for the

discusses books written by the 2016 presidential candidates. >> i think everyone has interesting stories in their lives. politicians are single-minded in their pursuit of power and ideology -- they could have particularly interesting ones. when they put out the memoirs, they are sanitized. they are vetted. they are therefore minimum controversy. announcer: sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. today's white house briefing will be underway briefly. while we wait for that, a conversation from this morning's washington journal. with thewill continue

washington examiner. a campaign reporter. yesterday donald trump, at liberty university, which was he trying to achieve? trying to make inroads with a group that he has not interacted with. he has not interacted with people outside of his basis of support. this is an attempt by him before the iowa caucuses to make inroads with the group that could the critical to swing the caucus between ted cruz and donald trump. host: to give you a sense of what donald trump said yesterday, here is a bit. [video clip] mr. trump: we are going to protect christianity. i can say that. i don't have to be politically correct. jerry and some of the folks, because i hear this is a 2:17 here, 2 corinthians

is the whole ballgame. with this beard of the lord is, there is liberty. here there is liberty university . it is so true. that, is that the one you like? i loved it. it is so representative of what is taking place. we will protect christianity. if you look at what is going on syria ife world -- in you are christian, they are chopping off parents. christianity is under siege. presbyterian.ant i am very proud of it. we have to protect, because very bad things are happening. itdon't -- i don't know what is -- we don't ban together. other religions are banding together.

if you look at this country, it 75%, or more,to somehow we have to unify. we have to ban together. we have to do in a large version what they have done at liberty. your band together and created one of the best universities or colleges in the world. a country has to do that around christianity. host: a couple of things came out of this speech. the 2 corinthians reference. why was that a matter of news? guest: donald trump's familiarity with the bible. it is commonly understood as second corinthians. i gave listeners and insight with how familiar he is with the text. a big thing that came out of that speech, that clip especially, is how he attempted

to connect with evangelical christian voters. he's not going on about his own personal religious experience. he said he was a presbyterian, but didn't talk about it. when he has come he got into trouble. in iowa early on he was talking about how he had his widdle wine when heiddle was talking about communion. the one that stood out to them was the comments about christianity. that he didn't feel as though he thought he had asked god for forgiveness. he is now talking about it differently and trying to connect differently, rather than talking about his own experiences, because it has not worked for him like it has for someone like ted cruz. we have not seen him talk about that as much as other

candidates. .thers talk about it more so he talks about combating is on the extremism and terrorism, but it was interesting to hear him try to expound on that in a way he has not so much. alludedis is, as you to, getting these voters going into iowa. where does he stand among these types of voters? he is uptionally, huge. 25%.d 42% to ted cruz's evangelical voters are not saying that he is a respected theologian, but they are proving of his conviction. he is coming to the table with a set of principles that he says he will win, he will make deals, you don't have to worry him you can be assured i will make the best deals of all time. host: what does the term evangelical mean? guest: in this case, christian

voters that are especially social conservatives. while they do not make as much noise, they are crucial voting block in iowa. they felt to deliver states for other republican primary candidates. rick santorum, other groups that have come through iowa. when it comes on caucus day, these are the people that show up and vote. host: our guest is with us until 10:00. the larger issue with evangelicals and where they stand. you can give us a call on democrats at (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 if you're an evangelical voter, the number that you can call is (202) 748-8003. we're joined by ryan loveless with the washington examiner -- a campaign reporter.

the first call comes from maryland. the democratic line. host: you are on. caller: i'm looking at donald trump. he has no clue. no answers to anything. ofappears to be a victim circumstances, like the average american. we are going to elect him as a leader? he is divisive. he does not bring people together. his platform is separation and confusion. americans are confused. rings are not the way they hoped it would be. the economy is not doing very well. a lot of americans cannot understand their place in the world and the world economy today.

host: aside from the talk about religion, what is donald trump saying that could be attractive to those who identify as evangelical? guest: donald trump is a very polarizing figure. what donald trump is doing that appeals to avenge a local voters, especially in iowa where -and-neck with ted cruz is he is saying that you will make the best deals. he does not have detailed policy programs. jeb bush unrolled an education plan. donald trump is doing it more flamboyantly. he is loud. he makes a point of identifying for the listeners when he is saying something that could be perceived as politically incorrect. that is how he attempts to connect with them. host: from florida. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning?

i was going to ask your guest -- i wanted to know why mr. trump does not know why the muslims are mad. we confiscated i don't know how many billions of dollars. people think, we have to give the money back to iran. we went it to them, don't we? that's all i have. can i get an answer to that? of note thatthy donald trump probably espouses a different view. his audience of gop primary voters are opposed to the obama administration's nuclear deal with iran. this is something donald trump will be very loud about. this is something we saw him d.c. andashington, talk about his opposition to the iranian deal. his opposition has been quite vocal. host: a person who identifies as

an evangelical voter from ohio. you are up next. caller: hi. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment about donald trump. i will be voting for donald trump, not because he is a christian. isevangelical christian someone who has accepted the lord as their savior and look to him for things they need. donald trump doesn't understand that. i know that. donald trump understands business. businesstry is a big and it needs to be run like a big business. it needs to have guidelines in it. i watched jerry falwell, jr . last night. he talked about how donald trump's heart is a giver.

he talked about how his other voted republican rather than voting for carter, a christian do notnt, because you need a sunday school teacher to be running their country and you need someone who can actually run your country. i believe donald trump to do that. guest: that color makes an interesting point. it is interesting to note that one of the things about donald trump is that he has preached a prosperity gospel. if you support him, investor time or money, though he says he does not solicit donations, he has solicited to the point that he would match them if someone and in to his campaign, return he says he will make america great again. he also says he wants to make richer.ican people

the idea that donald trump as a businessman can deliver things to americans that others cannot, plays into the prosperity gospel of what he is bringing to the table to bolster support with the base crowd he is trying to grow. he getting the embrace that mitt romney who spoke at liberty university -- did mitt romney get that embrace from the evangelicals? times there are different in which donald trump would say things such as his book "the art of the deal" was second only to the bible. you can hear laughter. it?aid has anyone read people are laughing at him rather than with him. when ted cruz was making his announcement several months ago. host: brenda is next for ryan loveless of the washington examiner. caller: thank you for taking my call. stated that it sounded

like the evangelicals are willing to compromise. -- i rememberis the last presidential election, the evangelicals supported romney. the situation was a crisis happening in america. supporting donald trump, who is an outright racist, what god will be prey to? of abraham, isaac, and jacob will not hear his prayers because he is not a man of god. 2 corinthians? people, wake up. please. guest: that is something we expect a lot of christian voters

are thinking when they hear donald trump talk about 2 corinthians as opposed to second corinthians. in terms of describing it in god, thatompromising is something that will have to be borne out is all voters think that, if it will shake things up . it is something donald trump will have to be aware of and watching. if it is something that becomes a problem, it could spell the difference in a state like iowa. host: at the same time this is happening, the russell more religious liberty commission is tweeting along the lines of this . one says, evangelicals can love a golden calf as long as he promises to make mexico pay for it. he goes on saying that this would be hilarious if it was not

so counter to the gospel of jesus christ. what does this say to you as far as push back among the evangelical voters? is a very polarizing and divisive figure. the other political leaders, trying to make their voices heard one americans we going to not as muchthere's support within the leaders of the communities as there is with the members of the communities themselves. it is interesting to watch that dynamic. often organizations to support someone like ted cruz. when it comes to the individuals making up the organizations, they often go for donald trump. i'm not sure if that will stay the same, or if it will become more fluid as the first states started voting. whether or not the leaders are in step with their followers as they have been in the past.

line,democrats identifying as orthodox. i want to support donald trump. part, my the religion mother converted to christian when she married my father. i'm an orthodox christian. i want to point out that ,nderstand why he said that even of you ignored political correctness. uncles, my aunts and they do not support the christian. they do not really like to be a christian. the bottom line is that they do not want to be christian to be going into the future.

it.ve seen have a family member. i've seen it. i do not believe in say publicly , even though he is with political correctness. we came to become as a christian family to the outside , how do we as americans protect that people in the muslim area? host: thank you. gets to ancaller important part. the difference between what the republican and to my credit presidential candidates are saying. donald trump is one and others are with him, saying we have to combat terrorism. others have been too weak. donald trump has suggested a ban on muslims coming into the

united states. the sets them apart from the republican field as well. it is not only something that islam and voters and people, but it has angered people of all faiths. it will be interesting to see people will remember these different things that have set , or if there have been so many they cannot keep up. it is hardmuch of it to know which one of these things will stick with them, or if any at all will. line,the republican identifying himself as an evangelical christian. from the christian perspective, as a believer, one of the things we have felt over the past four years or eight years is that christian values, beliefs, and legislating -- it is a very politically correct environment.

ministers have been feeling as though they are on a slippery slope. i think when you hear donald trump speaking at liberty university, it is not so much you are thinking this is the greatest christian man on the we are lookingt at, myself, personally, is i need someone that will not meddle in my faith. which is something i feel has been happening in this administration. people have been taking the way things that the levers, believers, -- that christians, have been used to having. i'm not looking at donald trump as a super-christian, i just want someone that will take care of the government business and protect my rights, and not metal inmy christian -- not meddal

my christianity, if you know what i'm saying. of thein the context discussion of christianity in the 2016 presidential race, they're trying to raise christian voters and drive them to the polls. millions that they believe have not been there before. social conservatism is not have seen the republicans put forward in their platform. this summer at the gop has a new director of faith engagement. he has been to 38 states and talked to tens of thousands of pastors to reach have beenisters who slighted by the obama administration. it will be interesting to see if all the effort they have used to get christian voters to the polls pays off, or if it has been for not. host: aside from liberty university, has any other religious leader endorsed donald trump? guest: we talking about how

jerry falwell, jr. was support foris donald trump -- that was not necessarily an endorsement, but it was expressing support. donald trump said he will be having a surprise guest making an endorsement. that could the and evangelical leader. many have lined up behind ted cruz, the family leaders. that is a big play in iowa that could be very influential for voters who look at him as a conservative that has challenged the status quo. host: baltimore, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is wonderful to speak on to someone from "the examiner" who is the only other source of information in

washington. isquestion to the reporter -- i know someone who has dealt with donald trump. he says he is abrasive and has a lot of faults. how does he feel about this follows statement that trump is probably the best people-picker that has ever lived? and that is what we need in a president? all of the different presidential candidates are saying their judgment is better than their respective opponent'' . and for that reason they will have people surrounding them that they will be able to make deals with them. because ofp is same his business experience, he has worked with democrats the way that republicans have not. you can see ted cruz talking about donald trump having given

money to senators like chuck schumer. this is where we believe his relationships as a businessman his come to favor with relations with democrats in a way it has not for other republicans. host: on twitter, is says that ted cruz beat trump in iowa with he evangelicals, but did burned his bridges with the rest of the country? guest: donald trump has tried to hammer that since the debate. ted cruz has try to turn that around. he does apologize, but his apology is only an apology of sorts. he is apologizing to those who have to live under the vase el or mayor cuomo. for that, he says he is sorry, but help is on the way. we saw donald trump make the saying 2 corinthians

rather than second corinthians. it may not be the below that donald trump has landed on other candidates because of his own mistakes. host: the new york value situation, here it is. [video clip] i live in new york city. tore's a tremendous movement allow gay marriage. it is something to premature for me to comment on. >> what about gays in the military? >> it would not disturb me. i've lived in manhattan. my views are little different. perhaps. it is not something that would disturb me. >> the elimination of abortion in the third trimester. with president trump ban partial-birth abortion? >> i am pro-choice. a new be a little bit of

york background. there is different attitudes in different parts of the country. i was raised in new york. --you would not abandon it not ban it? >> no. i'm pro-choice. i just hate it. host: that is from the campaign in 1999. what is important is that it allows donald trump to explain what ted cruz meant by new york values. ted cruz can say this is what is explaining what it means. this is not me attacking him. this is him explaining what happened in the past. this is something where ted cruz can say, i am not the aggressor. this is still donald trump's words, not mine. host: the republican line, and evangelical voter. caller: thank you for allowing

us who do not use the internet to call. i want to say that i definitely agree with many things mr. trump has said, though i may not agree with the way he says it. evangelicals have been kicked to the curb. veryaws are becoming biased against all christians. i think the fact that he has become a billionaire as a businessman shows he knows a lot about what goes on in the country. segment that you had about him saying about pro-choice him he has recently said he is pro-life and hates abortion. , thenk that in my opinion things he says, even if they are not said correctly, support the christian values. he is a humanitarian.

i want to add that most soul -- that most soul -- about mosul was originally a christian city. .ow, it is all isis i believe what he wants to do by helping christians, because they are the first ones that isis has been killing, muslims have been killing -- it is historical. he goes back to the ottoman empire year years and only speaking about things now, he knows about things that have happened in the past. the point that donald trump's statements represent christian values is representative of the connection donald trump has built in a short time with his voters and christians that will be voting in the republican primary. it is a connection that other candidates have not had.

especially when they on the issues that talk about in a afferent -- talked about in different way and supported an opposite position of in the past. it is something donald trump has used to his advantage. democrat's carolina, line. go ahead. caller: good morning. commentstening to a that was recently made on how divisive donald trump is. . am christian i would like to warn the american people that there was an individual at one time in the world who became very divisive. we ended up in a world war. if i check the history, that name is hitler. listen to donald trump and his rhetoric. he is very divisive.

there except what he thinks people will listen to. very little does he say. he never completed a complete thought. that is what i would like to say. wake up, america. guest: that is an inflammatory statement, but not that far we have seen supporters of john kasich put forth that donald trump is like another leader people have animosity for and that is vladimir putin of russia. other world figures that have been very, very hostile in the past, very, very problematic and -- in the past. it's inflammatory, but because of donald trump and the different things that he has proposed, this is the thing that will continue to be raised. i do not expect these comparisons to go away for the other candidates. host: is there growing support for evangelical voters in southern states?

guest: we have seen the recent polls come out yesterday in georgia and florida and he is up in double digits and or publican field, not just among evangelicals but everyone. after these early nominating states, it could be crucial to taking who the gop nominee is this time around, especially there is a prolonged fight. host: from covington, georgia, bob is up next for our guests ryan lovelace. he is the current campaign reporter for "the washington examiner." go ahead. caller: i would just like to say i was an independent yesterday. since i saw that thing in england, i am a trooper for trump right now. they seem to be confused, germany is taking them without firing a shot.

they're doing everything that chancellor merkel says. [no audio] host: to the u.k. debating donald trump. guest: they were considering banning him in the country. it is something that of donald trump were elected president of the united states, it would certainly become more problematic for them than it is now. the fact that they are having this debate fuels donald trump 's narrative and allows him to dominate the conversation related to donald trump remain the main focal point on cable news. people are coming in and i have to settle in and consider who really voting for in iowa or new hampshire. it plays into donald trump's hands. even if it's not positive news, all news and all attention for donald trump can be good news

because he knows how to spin it. host: free advertising. from north connecticut, you're on the democrat line. caller: i would just have to say that i was incredibly offended by mr. falwell, junior equating donald trump to the character of jesus. this event was about martin luther king. donald trump referred to martin luther king jr. as a great man. he is doing nothing but pandering instead of honoring truthfully the late dr. king. it's rather offensive because what he has been espousing as a gop front-runner for the last several months is nothing more in line with someone like david duke. i don't understand how donald trump can call martin luther king a great man with the kind

of policies and the entertainment shtick and non-evangelical views he has been putting forward. it's mind blowing and i am highly offended. i really am. guest: the view is not one limited to democrats but one that republicans have shared. we have seen other candidates and super pac's come forward and make the same points. we have seen people like jeb bush and his supporters come forward to try to combat donald trump on similar points. they say they have the best policies to lift people out of poverty in a way that donald trump is not approaching in the same way at all. i think it is interesting that this time around that those points being made about donald trump are not limited to democratic voters. there are a wide swath of republican voters making the same points and not just establishment or moderate republicans, but also conservatives. host: from salisbury, north carolina, republican line, this is carol. hi there. caller: you might possibly want to think about the fact that

somebody who is running for president or being qualified for president needs to be able to take care of america's business. he is not up there to whisper whisper sweet little nothings in your ear and tell you i'm going to give you this and i'm going to give you that if you vote for me. we don't need somebody who is going to give, give, give. we need somebody to take care of the united states to where we have plenty and we don't need somebody to hand out. when other countries start trying to tell you who americans should vote for, people should remember why we left the great place of england and what they stand for. the fact is people need to realize that is why we have a constitution. we need people in the white

house that will not -- people don't get it to why people are turning to trump. it is not all the stuff that you are bringing up this morning. it is rebellion. we are saying that we would -- >> i probably will be over the course of today. [indiscernible] may be so. what i had planned, by using the royals mug, it would confer some good luck on the chief, it did not quite work out that way.

she has had a great year and they won 11 games in a row. i even had the opportunity to talk about how he would recover from a difficult lost early in the year. we discussed how it would be revealing in terms of the character of the team. lossesm that injured the at the beginning and came up to 111 in a row is a test to the character. >> i am very excited about that. >> it should be a fun weekend. that we have the -- now have the football pleasantries out of the way, we can get down to business. josh, wanted to get started with some questions. anything other than a traditional, quiet three-day weekend in washington d.c. obviously, it was a great weekend for the country and those deprived from the company's other loved ones for

far too long. there is a lot of work that went into the efforts that culminated this weekend, but also a lot of celebrating. i want to touch on immigration. if the supreme court ruled in your favor later this year on immigration plans, how long would it take for the white plan to execute that shield these people from deportation? is there a plan in place to frontload that in the few remaining months that you have? >> i want to be careful about being respectful to the supreme court. obviously, they are going to hear the arguments from the both sides. we have a lot of arguments in the arguments we will be making before the court, the kinds of executive actions that the president took over a year ago to try to bring much-needed reform to our immigration

system. we are clearly persistent -- confines ofin the his authority as president of the united states. that is the nature of the argument that we presented to the court. it should be noted that there is one state, texas, leading the charge against these executive actions before the supreme court. i will note that there are 15 other states and the district of columbia that have filed paperwork, indicating they strongly support the implementation of these executive actions. there are law enforcement officials inside the state of texas that are hoping, i communicated this to the court, they are hoping that these executive -- it will make their communities inside the state of today is -- texas favor. we have a strong argument in terms of the legal ground and in terms of the practical impact

that these executive actions will have on the security in communities across the country. a positive impact in our economy , and obviously a positive impact on thousands of families inside the united states. given that all of the republican candidates are saying that they would tear this up, are you comfortable with this goes your way and you have a chance to execute it, asking are hereigrants who illegally to come out of the shadows and identify themselves. are they really going to put themselves out on a limb? >> this is an argument that was the by some in advance of administration's decision that would allow dreamers, those individuals who enter the united -- hasas young children

given the ability to try to live out the kind of life in the best interest of the country. the president announced these executive actions in 2012. there were some who suggested that there may not be a significant number of people who signed up for this program because we could be reversed by a person who -- rateve seen a long take up through these protections that are extended to individuals who enter the united states as children. it is hard to apply one case of the other, but the recent

evidence that we can point to would indicate that there are a lot of people who would benefit and take decision advantage of the benefits as soon as they possibly could. the good news is, the benefits are not just going to be enjoyed qualify, buts who also be enjoyed by the broader country. there are law enforcement officials across the country who believe that the successful implementation of these executive actions would make their communities safer because it would focus law enforcement resources on felon and those who pose a threat to the community, and not on separating families. there has been some academic work that has been done by the president's economic advisers that indicate the broader economic benefit for the country, it is certificate when you take a look at the effect it would have on the economic growth over the course of 10 years.

the president was a hot topic on the democratic debate in north carolina. hillary clinton using sanders campaign against the president and not being supportive of his agenda. as the president at this point have any opinion or thoughts about which of the democratic that is expected to carry on his agenda? >> i will be surprised if the president does have an opinion about that, it is not something he has communicated publicly because it would impact his decision on who he plans to support any primary. at this point, the president has not prepared to offer an endorsement. reading the coverage of the debate, i think it is apparent that there are -- the democratic candidates are enthusiastic

about the progress the country has made under the leadership of president obama. i think he has made it pretty given the opportunity to serve as president of the united states, they will look to build on the important progress we have made. it certainly beats the alternative. certainly a testament to the amount of progress we have made and we are pleased to hear it. republican interest the white house, how would you ensure that the immigration -- januaryrned off on 21st? is there some way for the longevity of that? >> i think the most effective way to secure the longevity of these reforms is left congress passed legislation that would enact them. there is strong support across the country, but strong opposition, that is unfortunate.

-- thisthe difference is one of the important reasons why we have often make the case that the president taking of theve action is not congress of their responsibility to pass legislation. this is one reason rhyme -- why executive action can be reversed by subsequent presidents. legislation that has passed is morning during an requires another act of congress to change it. that is what we will continue to press congress to take these important steps. what the president said in november 2014 when he announced these actions, he was only taking these actions because congress had failed to act. he would continue to push congress to act, even if he is taking these steps. he also noted that if congress were to pass legislation, he was happy to have congressional legislation supersede the

executive actions he had taken. the president is determined to do everything we possibly can to broke -- fix our broken immigration system. ultimately, we need to see congress take some steps. [indiscernible] >> the deficit will grow this year. i am wondering if the white the uptickes that will make it harder to expand? >> we will be releasing our own budget in the next couple of weeks.

what --imately is the president's record because we have seen strong economic growth with cap creation since the economic recovery to cold in the 70 consecutive months of drought growth. since the president took office, we have also succeeded in reducing the deficit by about 75%. progress inrtant the president wants to build on that momentum. he will lay out in his budget proposal exactly how we can do that. let's go to the birthday boy asked, happy birthday. >> i appreciate that, john. a payment to made the government of iran with $1.7 billion. was it tied to the deal that led

to the freedom of the americans were being held in iran? earnest: this is a result of a long-running claims process in 1979, there- was obviously the iranian revolution that abruptly severed relations between our two countries. prior to that revolution, the u.s. government had entered into an agreement with the then iranian government and transferring about $400 million in military equipment to the iranian government. once the revolution took place, obviously that equipment was not transferred but we also did not return iran's money either. that money was essentially held in an account and for more than 30 years now, the iranians have been using this claims process to try to recover that $400

million. this resolution we agreed to was the return of forge a million dollars and paid $1 billion in interest. the reason that this end up being a big deal for taxpayers, is that our exposure when it came to paying interest could have been much higher. have the iranians actually a billion dollars, that is an indication that the taxpayers were very well served by reaching the summit. the department of state announced that a payment of $1.7 billion to the government of iran just before the plane carried the three americans. you are really tearing me -- telling me that they payment happened to coincide with the

exact moment the american prisoners were flying to freedom? mr. ernest: we have made it clear. >> paul ryan has suggested it was a ransom payment. you are saying this is connected. rnest: the said that's successful resolution with iran nuclear program created a series of diplomatic opportunities for the united states that we had capitalized on. we use that opening and that engagement to secure the release of five american citizens who are being unjustly held inside of iran and we use that diplomatic opening to resolve a long-standing financial claim that the iranians have against the united states in a way that ultimately saves u.s. taxpayers billions of dollars. a in thexhibit administration pursuing tough,

principled diplomacy in a way that actually ends up making the american people safer by advancing the interests of the united states more effectively than military actions. >> now that this is the current time -- third time we have seen americans being held in check for something else. -- didthree conflicted realeas of alan gross and now you are saying we have five americans properly detained in freed in exchange for 7-eleven duly charged and convicted under american law. doesn't this give an incentive for america's enemies to take americans, either kidnap or imprison americans, knowing full well that this administration has proved a willingness to give them something in return? grossrnest: on cuba, alan -- [indiscernible]

earnest: that was essentially a spy -- >> allen gross was a spy? >> let me finish. there was an additional u.s. intelligence asset that was held by the cuban government. that individual was released in exchange for the three other individuals that you referred to. there's also an exchange between the united states and russia ,hat was engineered in 2010 related to a case of individuals that had it for treated the united states and were uprooted by our counterintelligence officials. particularly to your question, the president believes strongly that pursuing diplomacy with the iranians in a tough, principled

way to secure the five americans who were unjustly detained inside of iran is a national security interests and clearly in the interest of those individuals who have not had the opportunity -- separated from their families for years. was a humanitarian gesture offered by the iranians. women it reciprocal humanitarian gesture by releasing seven individuals, six of them were u.s. nationals who had been tried and convicted of nonviolent crimes, essentially sanctions violations or the trade embargo not as safe as against iran, three of those people have been convicted. the other four are still awaiting trial. ultimately, the president believes this is a reflection of what can be accomplished with united states pursues tough, principled diplomacy, even with countries like iran, with whom we have significant and

long-standing disagreements. the center of armed services committee -- [indiscernible] mr. earnest: we are confident he will make a positive presentations united states senate. he is someone that is qualified and has served this country with distinction. he is somebody who has a range of experience at the pentagon who is certainly in a good position to provide the kind of leadership at united states army that our men and women in uniform deserve. [indiscernible] >> has the u.s. senate given an assurance that sexual orientation will not be in the national --

earnest: the president believes he is the person -- this person to provide leadership to men and women in the united states army, given his experience, his character, his skills as a leader. the president believes he was the best person for the job and like anybody here united states senate group is willing to take an impartial look and judge them solely on the merits will reach the same conclusion. [indiscernible] mr. earnest: the supreme court

has a role to play and i want to be respective of that role. the administration believes strongly that the prompt implementation of these executive actions would have possible benefits for our economy -- positive benefits for our economy, security across the country. we are interested in moving forward with implementing these executive actions as expeditiously as possible. this "has a role to play and we are going to make a presentation to the supreme court about why we should be allowed to do that. at this point, i'm not in the position to provide you with a lot of guidance about what would happen in the event of a positive outcome with the supreme court. we have a lot of confidence in our argument, but ultimately we will have to see how those arguments play out before i can give you a lot of details about the ability to move forward.

to ask you about flint and the president going to detroit. [indiscernible] mr. earnest: the president signed an emergency declaration that would allow the federal government to provide assistance to state and local officials who are trying to manage that response. this comes on top of the assistance that the federal government has already provided in the form of both expertise and logistical support. andously, the city of flint the citizens are going through a difficult time. the u.s. government is determined to do what we can to support the state and local officials who are responsible for responding to this incident. i can sell you that later today, the department of health and human services will designate an , dr. nicole,

assistant secretary to preparedness and response, and she will be the lead federal coordinate the federal response to this situation. given the significant public health equities that are involved, it would make sense that the committee would play this role. she will be principally responsible for dealing with state and local officials and coordinating the assistance that can be provided by the federal butrnment, not just by ihs, also federal agencies like the department housing and urban epa, department of agriculture. i can also tell you that the mayor of flint is visiting the white house today on a prescheduled trip.

fore is a special session newly elected mayors. i know that in advance of that group meeting, she had the opportunity to sit down today with the president senior advisor to discuss some of the challenges that the city is facing. obviously, a newly elected mayor , she has a lot of responsibilities. we thought it was important for staff at the white house to have an opportunity to hear some links the challenges they are facing the city. before the end of the day that the president will have an opportunity to visit with mayor weaver while she is here and it is an opportunity for the president to hear from the mirror of flights on the significant challenges. i would not expect that the president.

in flight on his trip tomorrow. he obviously has a full schedule where he will spend some time talking about the tremendous economic recovery that the city of detroit has made. a lot of that economic strength and recovery was possible only because of some of the difficult decision that this toinistration made early on make the auto recovery possible. hillary clinton brought up in relation to the flint watercourses cannot essentially because it is a majority black town, the issue is being ignored. this the president share that view, that race played a role? earnest: based on what i just told you about the fema and meeting that will

take place today, i think the situation is anything but being ignored by the white house. i know that questions have been raised about the conduct of the state and local officials in leading this situation, but i limited to what i can say about the department of justice has indicated that there is an ongoing investigation of this matter. , thisms of the response is obviously a response that is and should be led by state and local officials, but the federal government is mobilizing significant resources to support that ongoing effort. , iran's foreign ministry said that they plan to continue their ballistic missiles program. i'm wondering if you have a reaction to that or if there are any other tools that you have it your disposal to try to deter iran?

youearnest: i think what are asking is a good way for us aspect about one other that was made over the course of the weekend. was able to confirm that iran had taken the steps to curtail their nuclear program consistent with the international agreement to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. they had to take a number of steps that included dismantling centrifuge capacity that they had, they reduced their rich uranium stockpile by dismantledssentially and rendered harmless the core of their heavy water reactor at doubt -- shipuld

ped out water to comply with standards of the agreement. we also saw iran do something they never done before, which is to agree to and begin to cooperate with a set of unprecedented transparency vest -- verification measures into their program. we will now continue monitoring all of iran. this will include a range of measures including technology fields to ensure that they continue to abide by the commitments that they made in the agreement. this inspection and verification regime will also allow the international community to have insight and access to iran's entire nuclear supply chain. this means that there will be ongoing inspections and miitoring of iran's uranium nes and other facilities

critical to their nuclear program. we will be able to confirm that their nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. these are all things that could not been accomplished if we had pursued a strategy that was advocated by some to carry out a military strike. we would not have been successful in setting back iran's nuclear program so far if we carried out a nuclear strike. we would not have preserved the international union about the best way to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons and we certainly would not be in a position to monitor their ongoing nuclear activities. if anything, it would be much harder to preserve international -- it would've been much harder for us to gain insight into what exactly iran's nuclear program is doing. i think this is another example of the success of principled

diplomacy. this is why we believe that we can continue to advance the interest of the united states, whether that is preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, securing the release of innocent americans being held against their will overseas, or long financial claims, all through tough principled diplomacy, even with a country with whom we have significant concerns. the fact that we have the united states imposed sanctions on iran for their ballistic missile program is an indication that we are serious about continuing to hold iran accountable for their nefarious activities. made bytand the claims the iranians and what they are doing is not in violation of international law, but the fact that u.s. united nations security council come out and

express concern about these kinds of activities. it is clear that the international community continues to have concerns with iran's ballistic missile program. i think the one thing we can agree on, it is good that they do not have access to a nuclear weapon. >> did you have the opportunity to talk to the president about great family's disappointment that he was not a part of the number of americans who had recently been freed. regard his position with to notification and maybe making -- bring that manhunt? home? earnest: the ordeal that they have been through over the last nine years is virtually unthinkable. themagine how difficult situation must be for them is

hard to do. this administration has repeatedly over the years prep the iranians to be more forthcoming and to provide information about his whereabouts. one of the things that was actually secured in this agreement was a specific commitment from the iranians to help us locate mr. leviston. as we mentioned several years ago, we have reason to believe and he is no longer in iran that is why we continue to press for information about his whereabouts and we will continue to do that and a commitment from the iranians to use the channel that has not been open and secure the release of those individuals that we now are being held from iran unjustly.

we will continue to make that a priority moving forward and i'd knowledge that that does not address the significant pain that is being sustained by the levinson family. there is no denying that they have been separated by their and it is something that we all feel. we certainly do not feel it as deeply as those who know and love bob levinson. >> you are confident that he is alive because he said he is no longer in iran. do you believe or do you know that he is still alive? earnest: there has been publicity over the last couple of years that whoever was holding them saying there was --

proof of life evidence. to press theined iranians to provide as much information as they have about mr. levinson's whereabouts and we will continue to do that through the channel that has been opened. a contact person that could reach out to the lev insons? listening to the comments from the family, they do not know he was going to be a part of this group. i was under the impression that someone from the administration would be able to reach out to them from advance to -- it does not look like that happened in this case. mr. earnest: there has been communication and been in touch with the family. as i think all of you knew who were following the news on

saturday morning, there was an announcement that was made by the news official agency in iran that was not coordinated with the united states. we obviously were treating this information sensitively into we knew we could secure a safe return of our citizens who were still in iran at the time. it is important that people understand that the administration has been in touch with the levinson family. the last received an update before christmas. the president himself has had the opportunity to be in touch with the family. they are a part of the hostage recovery task force that the president formed over the summer. isimprove information that provided to the families of those who are being held hostage overseas. we are obviously very sensitive

to the concerns and raw feelings of the levinson family. the feelings that are on display but i think are feeling sunderland can relate to him as you have gone through something like that. i think we can all imagine that what it must be like and how painful it must be. we are very sensitive to that. deal, more on the iranian people made a great deal about the money. is there great concern from the president that now flushed with cash, the regime were not only do with a meat habit of doing, which is using their we -- resources to cause problems. is there a greater concern that they now have money and feel bloated and to make an even larger -- after all, that is

what we know that iran came to the negotiating table because of their desire to get out from under these tough international sanctions. there is a lot of rebuilding in their economy that they need to do. infrastructure problems and large bills that have remained unpaid. the kinds of financial benefits that iran will reap from this deal has been exaggerated by but we of the deal, would acknowledge that they would have access to more resources and we would expect that they are likely to use at least some of those resources for some of the activities they been involved with for quite some time. that is why over the last couple of years, you have seen the president leave the effort to try to deepen our security cooperation with i were friends and allies in the region. there is an ongoing process with

lengtheno deepen and lincoln the relationship between nonstate and israel. assistancemilitary they could be provided in a with ourt camp david partners. to discuss how the united states and our golf partners could ordinate the security efforts. some of that includes encountering some of iran be stabilizing in the region. the president committed to that effort as well. objectives hasp been to shut down every pathway that iran has at building a nuclear weapon because of their sport for terrorism and destabilizing activities in the

region, precisely because of their missile program, because of their willingness to threaten israel. that objective has been accomplished in a way that has been from more effective than some of the alternative strategies. >> a federal judge rejected the president's assertion that privilege to deny congress access to records pertaining to -- did you hear about that before coming out? mr. earnest: i did not hear about that. is it true that there were and claims made by the u.s. all of the claims have been built? mr. earnest: it is true that there are 4200 claims that have orn made by u.s. citizens u.s. businesses. beenof those claims have

$2.5 billion that was paid by the iranians to these american companies. extentt know to what there are ongoing claims, but i think it is indicative of how the claims process has been able businessese american hold. it also reflects on how this , a separatechannel channel that led to the release of our american citizens, but one that yielded economic benefits to american taxpayers. usedth any of that money with federal claims on behalf of the americans that were taken hostage in the first place back in the 1970's?

mr. earnest: these claims are different, they relate to contractual obligations and other agreements that were ruptured in the context of the iranian revolution. this is the process that has established around that time, the, that was negotiated by carter administration and eventually the reagan administration. >> did the obama administration ever bring this up with compensation to the families of the hostages? mr. earnest: that was separate. my understanding is that the way these claims could be resolved is that according to the statute , as long as these claims are resolved in a way that is favorable to u.s. taxpayers, clearly it is we saved billions this would fulfill

all of the obligations under the statute. >> this issue of compensation for the 50 hostages -- mr. earnest: i cannot speak to any of the claims made by those who have been the victim of terrorism sponsored by the iranian government or held hostage. my understanding is that these claims were different from those. >> you said that the federal , butnment has done a lot the mayor and the governor are asking for a significant amount of more money than the $5 million through the emergency be abouton, which will $100 million. it is not even close to what they say they need. mr. earnest: just to be clear about what the law will allow, a disaster declaration is

something that fema offers routinely to state and local s who have sustained international catastrophe or a fire, flood, or explosion. none of those events have occurred in flint. by statute, it is going to be difficult to grant that request for a major disaster declaration. there is an opportunity for the governor to appeal that ruling and that will be up to him to decide whether or not they would do that. it is a regular process for considering those kinds of appeals. however done is granted their request for an emergency declaration that will allow us to provide some resources as they were to recover from that situation. there are resources that can be mobilized by the department housing of urban development,

epa, to assist the state and the city. gap, it's nots like what the insurance company says to someone claiming there is a flood in their basement, is the administration proactively trying to marshal more resources because you are well aware there are $90 million gaps between what they are saying? is there a proactive process going on to fill that gap? mr. earnest: this is a situation we take seriously. u.s. government has an obligation to our taxpayers to ensure that funds are being spent consistently with the statute and with the law. as it relates to what we can mobilize to support them, there

is a lot of expertise and resources that we can make available through existing programs. let me give you a couple of examples. requirementswaived on political tap water availability at school meal services, instead of allowing schools to provide bottled water. program is allowing withcipants with vouchers ready to feed its informal which will not be mixed with water and allowing participants to swap the powdered formula that does require water for their ready to feed formula. it is one example of how a federal program can be leveraged to try to meet the needs of the people in flint. >> the critical issue seems to be with the system that was switched to the river system. is that something that epa would have had to sign off on? -- is thely

administration satisfied with everything the epa has been doing? mr. earnest: i do not want to get into dissecting the entire relationship between the state .f michigan and the epa primarily because this is a subject of ongoing investigation by the department of justice. there is surely a role for the epa to play to assist in the response effort. there is expertise the epa can bring in terms of testing the water in the system, conducting an audit of the system to determine which parts of it is safe and what can be done to make the system more safe. obviously, this scientific expertise can be valuable as it response to the situation in michigan. >> what about the process?

signhere and epa final off? mr. earnest: you can check with epa and maybe they will tell you about their system for working with state officials and the kinds of matters. >> hillary clinton frame this as a civil rights issue and the doj is involved, is that is something they are looking at? whether this is a civil rights violation? mr. earnest: my understanding is that this is a specific inquiry into the circumstances that led into the situation. you would have to ask the department of justice whether that would include a consideration of the civil rights of the citizens of what being violated. askingsupreme court is for both sides to argue a point

of whether the president is violating the constitutional duty -- worried thathouse the court might refute the administration? are you worried about anything else? mr. earnest: i think the case we is that these kinds of decisions about enforcement are well within the authority of the executive branch. these kinds of enforcement decisions were also made by president reagan and president george h w bush in the context of the family fairness program. this is a program that provided a temporarily relief in work authorization to offer 1.5 million people.

this is the way the authority was exercised by president reagan and the first president bush. it is entirely consistent with the way president obama has exercised his administration's authority in this matter. that is the case where been making since the day we announced his executive action. there is probably a more technical argument that will be presented before the court and i will give the attorneys to make that argument. senset a matter of common and by consulting reach the presidential history, we felt confident in this executive action. [indiscernible] --on the other hand, uses what is the overall coherence or approach to the mistresses

philosophy on who has to say in who has to go? mr. earnest: there are a couple of different ways to answer that question. i know it gets repetitive. if we want to solve the challenges with what is so obviously a broken immigration system, we need congressional -- that is why the president has pushed so hard for congress to take that action. separate from the question about legislation, our approach is to use as much of the president's authority, consistent with the law, to try to fix many of the problems in that system as we can. one fact about the system is that because our system is broken, there are potentially

millions of people inside the who have been in the country for years and are otherwise making a positive contribution to their community. they send their kids to school alongside american children, they attend religious services alongside other americans and they work in factories and other facilities alongside other americans. these are upstanding numbers of communities across the country. we believe these cases need to be resolved in our interest as a nation. the president does not believe it is in our interest to go and

tear those families apart. what he does believe is that we need to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system and allow them to come out of the shadows and allow them to be in a situation where they are paying taxes, where they are undergoing a background check, learning english. that is the nature of the president's action. that is what we are trying to achieve. there is significant public safety, national security and economic benefits associated with this action. that we needs said to do more to secure the border, that is why the legislation that was blocked by house republicans , included a historic investment and border security. said that why we have people who have only recently crossed the border would not be

prioritized or eligible for this kind of relief. we certainly do not want to set up a system that provides in incentive for individuals to flee violence from other countries and take a dangerous journey in their own right to come to united states. that is why we have worked with the united nations to establish a separate process that would allow individuals in guatemala and honduras to petition the u.s. government consistent with a process to get humanitarian relief. they can do that without putting themselves in the hands of the human trafficker or taking a journey that has victimized too many innocent people. [indiscernible] >> these are different interpretations for actions by

this administration. where do you think the president's legacy on this issue would be? historians would have the opportunity to do that. mr. earnest: i think historians will know that republicans block a commonsense proposal that this administration hopes to craft in the united states senate. i think a lot of historians will say that despite making of a top priority, the president was not able to do as much as he would have liked to done to six our broken immigration system. one of the things we want to do, in the face of congressional inaction, tried to lay out a path to solve some of these problems. our proposed solution is one we will -- [indiscernible]

to earnest: a like