let's start the second panel. i'd like to introduce the witnesses of our second panel for today's hearing. let's start with mr. bruce sewell who will lead off the second panel. mr. sewell is apple's general counsel and senior vice president of legal and global security. he serves on the executive board and oversees all matters including corporate governance and privacy. we thank you for being with us today and look forward to

your comments. i would also like to welcome the president of american security company. as president, responsible for developing rha strategic vision and operation across the business. thank you for appearing before us today and we appreciate the testimony. next, we welcome dr. matthew blaze, the associate professor of computer and information science at the university of pennsylvania. dr. blaze is a researcher in the area of secure systems, cryptology, he's been at the forefront over a decade and we appreciate his being here and offering testimony on this very important issue. finally, i'd like to introduce dr. daniel wisener, who is director and principle research scientist at computer science and artificial intelligence laboratory, decentralized information group at the massachusetts institute of technology. mr. wisener previously served as united states technological officer for internet policy in the white house. we thank him for being with us

today and look forward to learning from his expertise. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and look forward to the discussion. as we begin, you're aware this committee is holding an investigative hearing. when doing so, has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. do any of you have objection to testifying under oath? seeing none, the chair advises you that under the ruse of the -- rules of the house and rules of the committee you're entitled to be advised by counsel. do any of you desire to be represented or advised by counsel during your testimony today? seeing none, in that case full you will rise and raise your

right hand. i will swear you in. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. you're now under oath and subject to penalties in title 18-1001 of the code. each of you may give a five-minute summary of your written statement, starting with mr. sewell. ell: thank you chairman murphy and members of the subcommittee. it's my pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of apple. we appreciate your invitation and opportunity to be part of this discussion on encryption. hundreds of millions of people trust apple products with the most intimate details of their daily lives. some of you may have a smartphone in your pocket right now. if you think about it, there's probably more information stored on the phone than a thief could

get breaking into your home. it's not just a home. it's a photo album, a wallet, it's how you communicate with your doctor, your partner and your kids. it's also the command central for your car and your home. many people also use their smartphone to authenticate and gain access to other networks, businesses, financial systems and critical infrastructure. we feel a great sense of responsibility to protect that information and that access. for all of these reasons, our digital devices, indeed, our entire digital lives are increasingly and persistently under siege by attackers. their attacks grow more every every day.ed we're all aware of some of the recent large scale attacks. hundreds of thousands of social security numbers were stolen from irs.

the u.s. office of personnel management has said as many as 21 million records were compromised and as many as 78 million people were affected by an attack on anthem's health insurance records. the best way we and technology industry know how to protect your information is through the use of strong encryption. strong encryption is a good thing. it is a necessary thing. the government agrees, encryption is the backbone of cyber security infrastructure and provides the very best defense we have against increasingly hostile attacks. the united states has spent tens of millions of dollars through the open technology fund and other programs to fund strong encryption. the administration's review group on intelligence and communications technology urged the u.s. government to fully support and not in any way to subvert, undermine or weaken generally available encryption software. at apple with every release of hardware and software, we advance safety and security features in our products. we work hard also to assist law enforcement because we share their goal of creating a better world. i manage a team of dedicated professionals on call 24 hours a

day, 365 days a year. not a day goes by where someone on my team is not working with law enforcement. we know from our interaction with law enforcement officials that the information we're providing is extremely useful helping to solve crimes. keep in mind that the people subject to law enforcement inquiries represent far less than one-tenth of 1% of our hundreds of millions of users. but all of those users, 100% of them, would be made more vulnerable if we were forced to build a back door. as you've heard from our colleagues in livermore, they -- our colleagues in law enforcement, they have the perception that encryption walls off information from them. but technologists and national security experts don't see the world that way. we see a data rich world that seems to be full of information, information that law enforcement can use to solve and prevent crimes.

this difference in perspective, this is where we should be focused. to suggest american people is to have to choose between privacy and security is a false choice. the issue is not about privacy at the extent of security it's about safety and security. we feel strongly americans will be better off if we can offer protections for their digital lives. mr. chairman, that's where i was going to conclude my comments, but i think i owe it to this committee to add one additional thought. and i want to be very clear on this. we have not provided source code to the chinese government. we did not have a key 19 months ago that we threw away. we have not announced we're going to apply pass code encryption to the next generation icloud. i just want to be very clear on that because we heard three allegations. those allegations have no merit. thank you. mr. chairman: thank you. we turn to the second panelist.

>> chairman murphy, ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. this is a very complex and nuanced issue and i applaud the committee's effort to better understand all aspects of this debate. my name is amit yoran. i'd like to thank my mom for coming to hear my testimony today. in case things go sideways, i assure you she's much tougher than she looks. i've spent over 20 years in the cyber security field. in my current role, i strive to ensure we provide industry leading cyber security solutions. we have been a security leader more than 30 years. more than 30,000 global customers we serve represent every sector of our economy. fundamental to rsa's understanding of the issues at hand is a basis for cyber security technology. our cyber security products are found in government agencies,

banks, utilities, retailers as well as hospitals and schools. at our core, we at rsa believe in power of technology to fundamentally transform business and society for the better. and the pervasiveness of our technology helps to protect everyone. let me take a moment to say we deeply appreciate the work of law enforcement and national security community to protect our nation. i commend law enforcement who lives tocated their serving justice. partnered with law enforcement agencies to advance and protect our nation and the rule of law. where lawful court orders a mandate or moral alignment encourages it, many tech companies have a regular, ongoing and cooperative relationship with law enforcement in the u.s. and

abroad. simply put, it is in all of our best interest for the laws to be enforced. i have four points i'd like to present today, all of which i've extrapolated on in my written testimony. first, this is no place for extreme positions or rush decisions. the line connecting privacy and security is as delicate to national security as it is to our prosperity as a nation. i encourage you to continue to evaluate the issue and not rush to a solution. second, law enforcement has access to a lot of valuable information they need to do their job. i would encourage you to ensure that the fbi and law enforcement agencies have the resources and are prioritizing the tools and technical expertise required to keep up with the evolution of technology and meet their important mission. third, strong encryption is foundational to good cyber security. if we lower the bar there, we expose ourselves further to those that would do us harm. as you know, recent terrorist attacks have reinvigorated calls for exceptional access mechanisms. this is a call to create back door to allow law enforcement access to all encrypted information. exceptional access increases complexity and introduces new vulnerabilities.

it undermines integrity of internet infrastructure and introduces more risk, not less, to our national interest. creating a back door to encryption means creating opportunity for more people with nefarious intentions to harm us. sophisticated adversaries and criminals would not knowingly use methods they know law enforcement could access, particularly when foreign encryption is readily available. therefore, any perceived gains to our security from exceptional access are greatly overestimated. fourth, this is a basic principle of economics with very serious consequences. our standard of living depends on the goods and services we can produce. if we can require exceptional access from companies that would make us less secure, the market will go elsewhere. worse than that, it would weaken our power, utilities, infrastructure, manufacturing, health care, defense, and if

financial systems. weakening encryption would significantly weaken our nation. simply put, exceptional access does more harm than good. this is the seemingly unanimous opinion of the entire tech industry, academia, national security industry as well as all industries that rely on encryption and secure products. in closing, i'd like to thank all the members of the community for their dedication understanding this complex issue. >> thank you. dr. blaze?

a question of whether we can build systems that keep the good guys in, but keep the bad guys out. much of the debate has focused on questions of whether we can trust the government with keys for data. but before we can ask that legitimate political question the process is well equipped to answer, there's an underlying technical question of whether we can trust the technology to actually give us a system that does that. unfortunately, we simply don't know how to do that safely and at any scale and in general across the wide range of systems that exist today and that we depend on. it would be wonderful if we could. if we could build systems with it would of assurance,

solve so many of the problems in computer security and in general, computer systems, that have been with us since really the very beginning of software-based systems. but unfortunately, many of the problems are deeply fundamental. the state of computer and network security today can really only be characterized as a national crisis. we hear about large-scale data breaches, compromises of personal information, financial information, and national security information literally on a daily basis today. as systems become more interconnected and more relied upon for the function of the fabric of our society and for our critical infrastructure, the

frequency of these breaches and their consequences have been increasing. if computer science had a good solution for making large scale robust software, we would be deploying it with enormous enthusiasm today. it is really at the core of fundamental problems we have. we are fighting a battle against complexity and scale that we are barely able to keep up with. i wish my field had simpler and better solutions to offer, but it simply does not. we have only two good tools, tried and true tools, that work for building reliable robust systems. one of those is to build the systems to be as simple as possible, to have them include as few functions as possible, to decrease what we call the attack surface of these systems.

unfortunately we want systems more complex and more integrated with other things and that becomes harder and harder to do. the second tool we have is photography, which allows us to trust fewer components of the system, rely on fewer component of the system, and manage the inevitable insecurity that we have. unfortunately proposals for exceptional access methods that have been advocated by law enforcement, and we heard advocated for by members of the previous panel, work against really the only two tools that we have for building more robust systems. we need all the help we can get to secure our national infrastructure across the board. there's overwhelming consensus in the technical community that these requirements are incompatible with good security engineering practice.

i can refer you to a paper i collaborated on called keys under door mats that i referenced in my written testimony that i think describes the consensus of the technical community pretty well here. it's unfortunate that this debate has been so focused on this narrow and very potentially dangerous solution of mandates for back doors and exceptional access because it leaves unexplored potentially viable alternatives that may be quite fruitful for law enforcement going forward. one of -- there's no single magic bullet that will solve all of law enforcement problems here, or really anywhere in law enforcement, but a sustained and committed understanding of things like exploitation of data in the cloud, data available in the hands of third parties,

targeted exploitation of devices such as miss hess described in her testimony will require significant resources but have the potential to address many of the problems law enforcement described. we owe it to them, and to all of us, to explore them as fully as we can. thank you very much. >> thank you vice chairman mckinley, chairman murphy and ranking member, thank you for having me. i think this hearing comes at a very important time in the debate about how to best accommodate the very real needs of law enforcement in the digital age. i want to say i don't think there's any sense in which law enforcement is exaggerating or overstating the challenges they face and i don't think they should be surprised they have big challenges. we think about introduction of computers in our society, workplace and homes. to be colloquial, it throws everyone for a loop for a while. our institutions take a while to adjust.

we shouldn't expect this problem to be solved overnight. i do think that's happening at this point in the debate, as some of the previous witnesses said, we are, i think, seeing a growing consensus that introducing mandatory infrastructure-wide back doors is not the right approach. i'm going to talk about some ways we can move forward. i'm going to why i think it is. it comes back to safe-deposit box analogy we heard. we all do think it's reasonable banks should have a second key to our safe-deposit boxes and maybe you should have drills to drill through the locks in case you can't find one of the keys. the problem here is we're all using the same safe, every single one of us. so if we make those safe-deposit boxes too easy to drill into or someone gets ahold of the key, then everyone at risk, not just couple thousand customers who happen to be at one bank. that's why we see political leaders around the world

rejecting the idea of mandatory back doors. recently secretary of defense ash carter said, i'm not a believer in back doors or single technical approach. i don't think it's realistic he said. robert hanigan, director of uk said in a talk he delivered at mit that mandatory back doors are not the solution. epps encryption should not be weakened, let alone banned. neither is it true nothing can be done without weakening encryption. he said i'm not in favor of weakening encryption or mandatory back doors. vice president of european commission, who was the former prime minister of estonia and famous for digitizing almost the entire country and the government, said if people know there are back doors, how could people, for example, who vote online trust the results of the election if they know their government has a key to break into the system. two very quick steps that i think we should avoid going

forward, and then a few suggestion about how to approach this challenge that you face. number one, i think you've heard us all say we have to avoid introducing new vulnerabilities into an already quite vulnerable information infrastructure. it would nice if we could choose only the bad guys got weaken kripgs and the rest of us got strong encryption but i think we understand that's not possible. you've also heard remps to calference to callia, a piece of legislation in this commission, extending calea to apply to internet companies. if you look closely at calea, it shows just how hard it will be to solve the problem in one size all solution. calea, a few telecommunication companies that had the same product, regulated in then stable way by federal communications industry. internet, platform, mobile apps,

device industry is incredibly diverse, global industry. there's no single regulatory agency that governs those services and products. that's very much by design, and so i think trying to impose a top down regulatory solution on this whole complex of industries in order to solve this problem simply won't work. what can we do going forward? number one, i think that in the effort of the encryption working group this committee and judiciary committee set up, i think it's very important to look closely at the specific situations law enforcement faces, at the specific court orders they have been issued which have been successfully satisfied, which haven't, which introduce system wide vulnerabilities if followed through and which could be pursued without systemwide risk. i think there's a lot to be learned about best practices both of law enforcement and technology companies. there are probably some law enforcement agencies and technology companies that could up their game a little bit if

they had a better sense of how to approach this issue. i also think it's awfully important that we make sure to preserve public trust in this environment, in this internet environment. i think we understand in the last five years that there's been significant concern from the public about the powers both of government and private sector organizations. i think it's a great step that the house judiciary committee moving forward and amendments electronic communications privacy act that will protect data in the cloud. i think we can do more of that and ensure public data is protected both in the context of government surveillance and private sector use that will be able to move forward with this issue more constructively. thanks very much and i'm looking forward to the discussion. >> thank you very much for your testimony and for the whole panel, if i might recognize myself for the first five minutes with some questions. mr. sewell, you made quite a point that you have not provided the

source codes to china. that was interesting. it had come up in the earlier panel on that. were you ever asked to provide by anyone? >> by the chinese government or anyone? >> yes. >> we have been asked by the chinese government, we refused. >> how recent were you asked? >> within the past two years. >> ok. >> mr. yoran, i've got a couple questions for you. first i was a little taken back, you said don't rush on this solution, whatever that might be. as i said earlier, this has been 5 1/2 years i've been hearing everyone talk about it and they are not getting anything done. i think we're waiting. i don't know what we're waiting for. there's got to be a solution. i'm one of three licensed engineers in congress. by now we would have the solution if there were more engineers and less attorneys here, perhaps.

i might, your question, i understand your company was founded by original creators of critical algorithm and public cryptography. needless to say encryption is your company's dna. if anyone understands the importance of protecting encryption keys, it's your company. yet apparently several years ago someone stole your seed keys. as i understand, these are the keys that generate keys, that are used for remote access, much like those used by members and their staff. if a company like yours, as sophisticated as it is and all the security you have can lose control of encryption keys, how can we have confidence in others, especially smaller companies, the ability to do the same. >> mr. chairman, i think you bring up two great points. the first statement i would make is that i'd like to highlight the fact a tremendous amount of cooperation happens currently

between law enforcement and the tech community. so the characterization we've made no progress over the last five years understates the level of effort put forth by the tech community to reapply to and support the efforts of law enforcement. i think what's occurring is -- and i won't call it a line in the sand, but i think the current requests of law enforcement have now gotten to the point where they are requesting a mandate that our product be less secure and will have a tremendous and profound negative impact on our society and public safety as has already been made the point earlier. the second point regarding -- that highlights the very critical role encryption plays in the entire cyber security puzzle. the fact that sophisticated threat actors, nation, state or cyber criminals are going to target the supply chain and

where strong encryption and strong cyber security capabilities come from. we're dealing with incredibly sophisticated adversary and one that would put forth a tremendous effort to find back doors if they were embedded in our security systems. it highlights the value of encryption to society in general. i think it also highlights importance of transparency around cyber breaches and cyber security issues. >> thank you. in the first testimony, first panel, stay with you, mr. yoran, talked about security of our infrastructure. and i think the response was along the line that that's not -- it's not an encryption problem, it's a firewall problem. i'm not sure that the american public understands the difference between that. so i'm going to go back.

how comfortable should we be, can we be, we have proper protection on security from firms like yours that our energy, our transportation system, particularly our grid, as i said, we've been -- we're subject to it. we know we've already been attacked once. so what more should we be doing? >> mr. chairman, i think the point made by the response provided by earlier panelist was wrong. i think encryption plays an incredibly important role protecting critical infrastructure. it is not -- this is a firewall solution or encryption solution, most organizations that truly understand cyber security have a diverse set of products, applications, and many layers of defenses, knowing that adversaries are going to get in through fire walls. not only adversaries but

important openings are created in fire walls so that the appropriate parties can communicate through them as well. those path are frequently leveraged by adversaries to do nefarious things. >> are you acknowledging we still are very vulnerable to someone with the electric grid? >> i believe we're vulnerable in any infrastructure that leverage technology. how much of it is the entire grid, how much is localized, i certainly believe utilities are exposed. >> let me in closing to all four of you, if you've got suggestion how we might address this, i'm hearing time and time in the district with our grid system, i'd sure like to hear back from you what we might do. with that yield the next question from the ranking member from colorado. >> thank you so much. following up on the last question, i'd like to stipulate that i believe, as most members

of the panel believe, strong encryption is critical to national security and everything else. as i said in my opening statement, i also recognize we need to try to give law enforcement the ability to apprehend criminals when criminals are utilizing this technology to be able to commit their crimes and cover up after the crimes. first of all, mr. sewell, i believe you testified that your company works with law enforcement now. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thanks. and i think you would also acknowledge that while encryption really does provide benefit both for consumers and for society for security and privacy, we also need to address this thorny issue about how we deal with criminals and terrorists who are using encrypted devices and technologies.

is that correct? >> i think this is a very real problem. let me start by saying the conversation we're engaged in now has become something of a conflict, apple versus the fbi. >> right. >> just the wrong -- >> you don't agree with that, i would hope. >> absolutely not. >> mr. yoran you don't agree with that, that it's technology versus law enforcement, do you? yes or no will work. >> no, i don't agree. >> i'm assuming you dr. blaze. >> no. >> and you? that's good. here is another question, then. i asked the last panel that. do you think it's a good idea for the fbi and other law enforcement agencies to have to go to third party hackers to get access to data for which they have court orders to get. >> i don't think that's a good

idea. >> do you think so, mr. yoran? >> no, ma'am. >> dr. blaze? >> no. if i could just clarify the fact that the fbi had to go to a third party indicates that the fbi either had or devoted insufficient resources to finding a solution. >> right. i'm going to get to that in a second. so it's just really not a good model. so here is my question. mr. yoran, do you think the government should enhance its own capabilities to penetrate encrypted systems and pursue work arons when legally entitled to information that cannot obtain either from the users directly or service providers. do you think they should develop that? >> yes, ma'am. >> do you think they have the ability to develop that? >> yes, ma'am. >> professor, do you think they have the ability to develop that? >> it requires enormous resource. they probably with the resource they currently have, i think it's likely they don't have the ability?

>> what congress has, we may not be internet experts but we have resources. >> i think this is a soluble problem. >> mr. weitzner? >> i think they certainly should have the resources. i think really the key question is whether they have the personnel and i think it will take some time to build up a set of -- >> i understand it will take time but do you think they can develop resources. >> thank you. ok. so mr. yoran i want to ask you another question. do you think that all of us supporting the development of increased capability within the government can be reasonable path forward as opposed to relying on technologies or companies with new systems. do you think that's a better source? >> yes, ma'am. >> i guess mr. sewell you agree with that, too. >> more time, money, resources on the fbi training --

>> would apple be willing to help them with those capabilities? >> we actively do help them. >> so your answer would be yes. >> participate in training. >> helping them develop those new capabilities. >> what we can do is help them understand our ecosystem. that's what we do on a daily basis. >> i'm not trying to trick you. >> i'm responding. your answer would be yes, you're willing to help us with law enforcement and congress to solve this problem. is that correct, mr. sewell? >> i want to solve the problem like everyone else. >> are you willing to work with law enforcement and congress to do it, yes or no? >> congresswoman, we work with them every day. of course we are. >> yes or no will work. thank you. >> mr. yoran? >> yes. >> mr. blaze? >> yes. >> thank you so much. mr. chairman. >> thank you. now recognize mr.

griffith from virginia. >> i appreciate that. just a small college history major who then went into law. as a part of that, mr. sewell, i would have to ask, would you agree with me that it took in the history of mankind took us thousands of years to come up with civil liberties and perhaps 5 1/2 years isn't such a long time to try to find a solution to this current issue? and likewise, it was -- the answer was in the affirmative for those who may not have heard that. >> yes. >> and it was lawyers who actually created the concept of individual liberty and one that our country has been proud to be the leader in the world in promoting. would that also be true. >> that's very true, yes. >> that being said, i was pleased to hear answers to miss dagett to solve this. there is no easy answer. i like the safe-deposit box

analogy. thanks for ruining that for me, in your analysis. i would ask mr. sewell if there isn't some way -- and again, i can't do what you all do. so i have to simplify it to my terms. is there some way we can create the vault that the banks have with the safety deposit box in it. once you're inside of there, if you want that security, because not everybody has a safety deposit box, but if you want that security, then there's a system of dual but separate keys with companies like yours or others holding one of the two keys and the individual holding the other key and having the ability to, with a proper search warrant, have law enforcement be able to get in? i'm trying to break it down into a concept i can understand, where i can then apply what we

have determined over the course of the last several hundred years is the appropriate way to get information. it's difficult in this electronic age. >> it is very difficult, congressman, i agree. we haven't figured out a way that we can create an access point and then create a set of locks that are reliable to protect access through that access point. that's what we struggle with. we can create an access point and we can create locks, but the problem is the keys to that lock will ultimately be available somewhere. if they are available anywhere, they can be accessed by both good guys and bad guys. >> you would agree with mr. weitzner's position or his analysis, which i thought was accurate, the problem is we're not giving a key and a drill to one safety deposit box, it's everybody in the bank who suddenly would have their information open. i saw that you wanted to make a comment, mr.

weitzner. >> i just want to -- since this analogy seems to be working, you know, we don't put much stuff in our safe-deposit boxes, right? i don't have one, to be honest. i think that there's this core concern back to your civil lebts liberties framework somehow we have a warrant-free zone that's going to take over the world. i think that if you follow the safety deposit box analogy, what we know is that the information that's important to law enforcement exists in many places. i don't question that there will be some times when law enforcement can't get some piece of information it wants. i think what you're hearing from a number of us and from the technical community is that this information is very widely distributed. much of it is accessible in one way or the other or inferable from information by third parties.

the path to try to understand how to exploit that to the best extent possible in investigations so that we're not all focused on the hardest part of the problem. the hardest part is what do you do if you have very strongly encrypted data, can you ever get it. it may not be the best place to look all the time because it may not always be available. >> historically you're never able to get ahold of everything. dr. blaze, you wanted to weigh in. >> i want to caution the split key design, as attractive as it sounds was also at the core of the nsa designed clipper chip, which was where we started over two decades ago. >> i appreciate that. mr. yoran, i've got to tell you, i did think your testimony and written testimony in particular was enlightening in regard to the fact if we do shut down the u.s. companies, then there may even be safe havens created by those countries not our friends and specifically our enemies.

unfortunately i wanted to ask a series of questions on that and i see my time is expired and i'm required to yield back, mr. chairman. >> welcome looking at other panel members, we have miss brook from indiana. your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to start out with a comment that was made in the first panel. i guess this is to mr. sewell, whether or not you can share with to use encryption in the cloud? >> we have made no such announcement. i'm not sure where that statement came from, but we made so such announcement. >> i understand you made no such announcement, but is that being explored? >> i think it would be irresponsible for me to tell you we're not even looking at that, but we have made no announcement, no decision has been made. >> and are these discussions helping inform apple's decisions?

and is apple communicating with any law enforcement about that possibility? >> these discussions are enormously helpful. i would be glad to go further into that. i have learned some things today i didn't know before. so they're extremely important. we have considering, talking to people, we are being very mindful of the environment in which we're operating. >> and i have certainly seen and i know that apple and many companies have a whole set of policies and procedures on compliance with legal processes and so forth. and so i assume that you have regular conversations with policymakers of law enforcement, whether it's fbi or other agencies on these policy issues. is that correct? >> that's very correct. i interact with law enforcement at two very different levels. one is a very operational level. my team supports daily activities in response to lawful process. we work very closely on actual investigations. i can mention at least two where we have recently found children

who have been abducted. we have been able to save lives working directly with our colleagues in law enforcement. at that level, we have a very good relationship. i think that gets lost in the debate sometimes. at the other side, i work at perhaps a different level. i work directly with my counterpart at the fbi. i work directly with the most senior people in the department i work directly with my counterpart at the fbi. i work directly with the most senior people in the department of justice. and i work with senior people in local law enforcement on exactly these policy issues. >> i thank you and all the others for cooperating with law enforcement and working on these issues. but it seems as if most recently, there have not been enough of the discussions, hence that's why we're having these hearings and why we need to continue to have these hearings. but i think that we have to continue to have the dialogue on the policy while continuing to work on the actual cases and recognize that obviously technology companies have been tremendously helpful, and we need them to be tremendously helpful in solving crimes and

preventing future crimes. it's not just about solving crimes already perpetrated, but it is always, particularly with respect to terrorism, how do we we're keeping the country safe. i'm curious with respect to a couple questions with respect to legal hacking. and the types of costs that are associated with legal hacking, as well as the personnel needed. and since the newer designs of iphones prevent the bypassing of the built-in encryption, does apple actually believe that lawful hacking is an appropriate method for investigators to use to assess the evidence in investigations? >> so, i don't think we have a firm position on that. i think there are questions that would have to be answered with respect to what the outcome of that lawful hacking is, what happens to the product of that lawful hacking. so i don't have a formal corporate position on that.

>> but, so then because that has been promoted, so to speak, as far as a way around this difficult issue, are you having those policy discussions about apple's view and the technology sector's view on lawful hacking? are those discussions happening with law enforcement? >> i think this is a very nascent area for us. but particularly, the question is what happens to the result? does it get disclosed, does it not get disclosed? that is an issue that has not been well explored. >> do you have an opinion on lawful hacking? >> not an opinion on lawful hacking in specific, but i would just point out that doing encryption properly is very, very hard. trying to keep information secret in the incredibly interconnected world we live in, is very, very hard. and i would suggest that it's getting harder, not easier. so the information, the data that law enforcement has access to is certainly much more than the metadata that they have had

over the past several years. but now as applications go to the cloud, the cloud application providers need to access the data. so the sensitive information is not just on your iphone or other device. it's sitting in the cloud, and law enforcement has access there because it cannot be encrypted. it needs to be accessed by the cloud provider in order to do the sophisticated processing and provide the insight to the consumer that they're looking for. >> my time has expired. i have to yield back. mr. chairman: thank you. seeing no other members of the subcommittee that are with us, we can then -- >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman: i'm sorry. you're on the subcommittee? no. none of the subcommittee so now we're going to members who have been given privileges to speak. i was advised to go to the other

side. your five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, to mr. yoran, i love your suit and tie. [laughter] >> it brings a little of the flavor of my district into this big old hearing room. and warm welcome to your mother. i don't know where she is, but it's great to have your mother here. great, wonderful. [laughter] >> i know that associate professor blaze talked about the crisis of the vulnerability in our country relative to, you know, how our systems, how vulnerable our systems are. i would just like to add for the record that up to 90% of the breaches in our system in our country are due to two major factors. one is systems that are less than hygiene. unhygienic systems. number two, very poor security management.

so, i think the congress should come up with at least a floor relative to standards. so that we can move that word "crisis" away from this. but we really can do something about that. i know it costs money to keep systems up. and there are some that don't invest in it. but that can be addressed. the word "conversation" has been used, and i think very appropriately. and this is a very healthy hearing. unfortunately, the first thing the american people heard was a very powerful federal agency on the -- you know, within moments of the tragedy in san bernardino, demand of a private company that they must do this,

otherwise, we will be forever pitted against one another, and there is no other resolution except what i call a swinging door that people can go in and out of. when i say people, in this case, it's the government. the american people have a healthy suspicion of big brother. but they also have a healthy suspicion of big corporations. they just do. it's in our dna. i don'think that's an unhealthy thing. but, that first snapshot, i think, we need to move to the next set of pictures on this. and i'm heartened that the panel seems to be unanimous that this weakening of our overall system by having a back door, by having a swinging door, is not the way to go. so, in going past that, i would like to ask mr. sewell the following. whether introducing the

third-party access, and that's been talked about, i think that would fundamentally weaken our security. how does third-party access impact security? how likely do you think it is that law enforcement could design a system to address encrypted data that would not carry with it the unanticipated weaknesses of its own? i'm worried about law enforcement in this. i want to put this on the record as well. i think that it says something that the fbi didn't know what it was doing when it got ahold of that phone. and that's not good for us. it's not going to attract smart young people to come into a federal agency because what it

says to them is they don't know -- it doesn't seem to us they know what they're doing. can you address this third-party access and what kind of effect it would have on overall security? >> thank you very much for the question. if you allow third-party access, you have to give the third party a portal in which to exercise that access. this is fundamentally the definition of a back door, or a swinging door, as you have, i think, very aptly described it. there is no way that we know of to create that vulnerability, to create that access point. and more particularly, to maintain it. this was the issue in san bernardino, was not just give us bernardino, was not just give us

an access point, but maintain that access point in perpetuity so we can get in over and over and over again. that, for us, we have no way of doing that without undermining and endangering the entire encryption infrastructure. we believe that strong ubiquitous encryption is the best way we can maintain the safety, security, and privacy of all of our users. that would be fundamentally a problem. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman, and again, thank you to the witnesses. you have been, i think, most helpful. >> i apologize. i ran out for a while, but i get to ask a few questions here. mr. sewell, we can all understand the benefits of strong encryption, whether it's keeping someone's own bank statement, financial records encrypted, so we don't have to worry about hackers there. we also heard compelling testimony about law enforcement, criminal actuvty, child predators, homicide, et cetera. based on your experience, what we heard today, can you acknowledge that this default encryption does provide a challenge for law enforcement? >> i think it absolutely does. and i would not suggest for a moment that law enforcement is overstating this same claim that has been made by other

panelists. i think the problem is that there's a fundamental disconnect between the way we see the world and the way law enforcement sees the world. and that's where i think we ought to be focusing. >> what is that disconnect? >> the disconnect has to do with the evolution of technology in society. and the impact of that technology in society. what you have heard from our colleagues in law enforcement is that the context in which encryption occurs reduces the scope of useful data that they have access to. this going dark problem. if you talk to technologiests, we see the world in a very different way. we see the impact of technology is actually a burgeoning of information. we see there's an abundance of information, and this will only increase exponentially as we move into a world where the internet of things becomes part of our reality. so you hear on one side, we're going dark. you hear on the other side, there's an abundance of information. that circle needs to be squared.

the only way i think we can do that is by cooperating and talking and engaging in the kind of activity that the madam was suggesting. >> i appreciate that. that's a very compelling argument you gave, but i have no idea what you just said. let me put this into terms we can all talk about. we heard from the first panel, child predators were able to hide behind this invisible cloak. a murder scene in where they could have perhaps caught who did this. we know when it comes to crimes, there are those who won't commit crimes because they have a good moral compass. we have those who will commit them anyway because they have none. we have those who can be deterred because they think they might get caught. and we have terrorist acts where you can get into a cell phone from someone who has comrited a

committeditted -- has a terrorist act, you can find out if they're planning more and save other lives. what do you tell a family member who has had their child abused and assaulted in unspeakable forms? what do you tell them about burgeoning technology? i mean, tell me what comfort we can give someone about the future. >> i think in situations like that, of course, they're tragic. i'm not sure there's anything any one of us could say to ease that pain. on the other hand, we deal with this every day. we deal with cases where children have been abducted. we work directly with law enforcement to try to solve those crimes. we had a 14-year-old girl from pennsylvania who was abducted from her captor. we worked immediately with the fbi to identify the location where she had been stashed. we were audibleble to get feet -- we were on hand to get feet on the ground in a matter of hours, find that woman, rescue her, and apprehend -- >> that's good. i appreciate that.

but what about -- i look at this case, it was presented, whenman someone may have a lot of information hidden, and if they could get in there, whether it is child predators or it is a terrorist, where we could prevent more harm. >> and we're missing the point of technology here. the problems that we're trying to solve don't have an easy fix. >> i know that. i need to know you're working in a direction that helps. >> absolutely. >> that's what i'm trying to help -- >> when the images move across the internet, we can identify them. we can track them. the work that we do with operation railroad is exactly that. it's an example of taking technology, taking feet on the ground, law enforcement techniques, and marrying them together in a way that fundamentally changes. >> for people using encrypted sources, whether it's by default or intention to hide their data and their intention and their harmful activity that they're planning on hurting more, what do we tell the public about that?

>> we tell the public that fundamentally we're working on the problem and we believe strong ubiquitous encryption provides -- >> does that mean apple is working with the fbi and law enforcement? the response of apple is we ought to have a commission. you're looking at the commission. we want to find solutions. we want to work with you. i'm pleased you're here today. you heard many of us say we don't think there's right or wrong absolutes. this is not black and white. we're all in this together. and we want to work on that. i need to know about your commitment, too, in working with law enforcement. could you make a statement? >> could i tell you a story? i sat opposite my counterpart at the fbi, a person that i know very well. we don't talk frequently, but we talk regularly. we are on a first-name basis. i saltt opposite him and said sat opposite him and said amidst all this clamor and rancor, why don't we set aside a day? we'll send some smart people to washington or you send smart people to kuper teeno and what

-- cupertino and what we'll do is talk to you about what the world looks like from our perspective. what is this explosion of data that we see, why do we think it's so important, and you talk to us about the world. how do they think ability technology? how do they think about the problems that they're trying to solve? and we are going to sit down together for a day. we were planning that at the time that the san bernardino case was filed. that got put on hold. but that offer still exists. that's the way we're going to solve these problems. >> chairman. >> yes? >> will you yield for one second? you know, mr. sewell, if we can facilitate that meeting in any way, i'm sure the chairman and i would be more than happy to do that. and we have some very lovely conference rooms that are painted this very same color, courtesy of chairman upton, and we'll have you there. >> madam, if we can get out of the lawsuit world --

>> you know what -- that would be great. thank you. >> we want that to be facilitated. we have too many lives at stake and the concernoffs many -- concern of so many families and americans. this is center, this is core. >> i agree. >> i know i'm out of time. >> thank you. i appreciate it so very much. i want to thank everyone on the panel for your technology leadership that helps us keep us safe, because that's where our top priority is here in the united states congress. at least it's mine and i know many others on the panel. we're here to try to find a balance between security and privacy and not continue to pit them against each other. i think you'll agree with that. mr. yoran, how quickly does one life cycle of encryption last in the secure system until vulnerabilities are found and exploited? will this continually be a game of cat and mouse? or are we at a level now where software and the processes are strong enough to make end-to-end encryption a stable system? >> systems are attacked and vulnerabilities are exploited almost instantaneously once computer systems, mobile devices

are put on the internet. once crypto methods are publish ed, there's an entire community that goes to work depending on the strength of the encryption, vulnerabilities made to be discovered immediately or decades down the road, in which case all of the information may have been at risk while the crypto system was in use. and frequently, the exposure and the exploitation of crypto systems isn't necessarily based on the strength of the algorithms themselves but on how they're implemented and how the systems are interconnected. i might not have the key to get information off of a particular device, but because i can break into the operating system because i have physical access to it, because i can read the chips, because i can do all sorts of different things, i can still get information or i can get the key. it's a very complex system. it all has to work perfectly in order for the information to be protected.

>> thank you. next question is for the entire panel. we've known for the past few years that any significant threat to our homeland will likely include a cyberattack. will you agree on that? can you elaborate on the role that encryption plays in this process of continuing national security, certainly the military has used forms of encryption for decades. but can we -- can you give us a contemporary snapshot of how encryption used by government or non-government users protect us against cyberattacks today? we can start over here, please. >> i will answer the question, but i'm not at all the expert in this space. i think the other panelists are much more expert than i am in the notion of encryption and protecting our infrastructure. the one point i will say that i tried to emphasis in my opening statement is that we shouldn't forget about some of the changes that are happening in terms of the way that infrastructure can be accessed. i think we sometimes lose sight

of the fact that phones themselves now are used as authentication devices. if you can break the encryption and get into the phone, that may be a very easy way to get into the power grid, to get into our transport systems, into our water systems. so it's not just a question of the firewalls or the access. it's what is the instrumentality that you use to get into those things that we have to be concerned about. >> i believe fundamentally that security is on the same side as privacy and our economic interest. it's fundamental in the national security community. it's also mandated by law to protect all sorts of other data in other infrastructures and systems such as financial services, health care records,

so on and so forth, such that even folks who might not gain an advantage by having strong encryption available like admiral rogers, the director of the nsa, and james clapper, the director of national intelligence, are on the record saying that they believe it's not in the u.s.'s best interests to weaken encryption. >> anyone else wish to comment? >> i mean, encryption is used in protecting critical intrastructure the same way it's used in protecting other aspects of our society. it protects sensitive data when it's being transmitted and stored. including on mobile devices and over the internet and so on. i just want to add that critical infrastructure systems are largely based and built upon the same components that we're using in consumer and business devices as well. there aren't, you know, critical infrastructure systems essentially depend on mobile phones and operating systems that you and i are using in our day-to-day life. so, when we weaken them, we also weaken the critical infra infrastructure systems. >> could i just add briefly that

i actually thought mr. sewell's answer was pretty good. and what's critical about those systems that we rely on to protect our critical infrastructure is when we find flaws in them, we have to patch them quickly, we have to fix them quickly. as mr. yoran said, the systems are kaunls kntly being looked -- are constantly being looked at. i'm concerned if we end up imposing requirements on our security infrastructure on our encryption tools, if we impose requirements, the process of identifying flaws, fixing them, putting out new versions rapidly, is going to be slowed down. to figure out whether those comply with whatever the surveillance requirements are. i think that's the wrong direction for us to go in. we want to make these tools as adaptive as possible. we want them to be fixed as quickly as possible. not be caught in a whole set of rules about what they have to do and not do to accommodate surveillance needs. >> thank you very much.

thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to participate. appreciate it, and i'll yield back. mr. chairman: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the letter from cta be admitted to the record. >> i would ask unanimous consent, ms. eshoo has a letter we would like to have put on the record. mr. chairman: i also ask unanimous consent the contents of the document binder be introduced to the record. without objection, they will be entered to the record with any redactions stamped. i want to thank all the witnesses and members that participated in today's hearing. i remind members, they have ten business days to submit questions to the record. i asked that the witnesses agreed to respond promptly to the questions. thank you so much. we look forward to hearing from you more and we'll get you together. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [no audio]

>> c-span's road the white house coverage continues today with holding aders campaign rally with supporters in wilmington, delaware. with that states had to hold its presidential primary on tuesday. event live at four clock p.m. eastern on c-span. >> we take a look at the speeches by president obama during his two terms at the white house correspondents dinner, one of washington's most mirror events. this year will mark his final

attendance at the dinner. >> jeb bush identified himself as hispanic in 2009. i understand. it was a mistake. it reminds me of when i identified myself as american 961. in 19 t [laughter] [applause] >> tune in for our live coverage of this year's white house correspondents dinner on saturday, april 30 beginning at six clark p.m. -- six clock p.m. eastern on c-span. "> c-span's "washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. joan joins usng, by phone to talk about an a.b. asian bill pushed through the senate this week designed to overhaul the federal aviation administration. aviation billan

. from'll castle joins us memphis to discuss his candidacy, the platform of the constitution party. -- derek castle. they cohen takes a look at modern political primary system and its implications for the 2016 contest. be sure to watch "washington journal" sunday morning. join the discussion. newsmakers, robert mcdonald discusses veterans issues, including long waits at hospitals, understaffing and prioritizing health care. leggede are three stools. late one is research.

in ptsd, research that for-profit medical systems are not going to do. a lot of the research has been positive for the american public. nicotine patch, we did the first liver transplant, we won three nobel prizes, we did the first electronic medical record, we were the ones who came up with a barcode to put on prescriptions with medical records to keep those straight. a lot of the innovations that have affected american medicine have come out of the v.a. ,n a for-profit medical world where are those innovations going to come from? we transcended percent of the doctors in the country. we are the number one employer in medicine. we train 70% of the doctors

in the country. in durham, north carolina, we share 300 doctors with the duke medical school. they do their work in both places. leg is the clinical work. our doctors do clinical work with veteran patients. if you're a veteran, isn't it nice having someone work with you who has to teach what they are doing? that way, you are sure they know it. it is a great system. theatization is not answer. he was interviewed by david wood of the huffington post and leo shane of military times. 10:00kers airs sunday at a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. night, ron tur

chernow talks about "hamilton." >> i was reading your book on vacation in mexico. started rising off the page. he said hamilton's life had a classic hip-hop narrative. what is this guy talking about? ignoramusorld-class of hip-hop on his hands. can hip-hop be the vehicle for telling this kind of large and complex story? he said i'm going to educate you on hip-hop. he started pointing out that moreop, you can pack information into the lyrics than any other form because it is very dense and rapid.

he started talking about the fact that hip-hop not only has rhymed endings, it has internal he started educating the in all these different devices that are very important to the success of the show. q&a.nday night on c-span's >> earlier this week, the supreme court heard oral apartments in the u.s. versus texas, a challenge to president obama's executive actions on immigration. in november 2014, the president ordered a policy of deferring deportation of undocumented immigrants with children who are u.s. citizens or legal residents. texas and 25 other states are challenging this action as unconstitutional. this oral argument is an hour and a half. chief justice roberts: we'll

hear argument today in case number 15674, united states v. texas, et al. general verrilli? general verrilli: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the secretary of homeland security has decided to defer removal of the class of aliens who are parents of u.s. citizens and lpr's, have lived in the country continuously since 2010, and not committed crimes. that policy is lawful and respondents concede it is lawful. it is fully justified by the fundamental reality that dhs has resources only to remove a fraction of the unlawful aliens, the aliens presently present unlawfully in the country now. this class of aliens is the lowest priority. and there is a pressing humanitarian concern in avoiding the breakup of families that contain u.s. citizen children. the principal -- justice ginsburg: couldn't the government simply, as was suggested in one of the briefs, have given these children

, parents of citizens or lpr's, given them identity cards that say "low priority," and would there be any difference between that and what this dapa guidance does? general verrilli: that is that's a very important point, justice ginsburg. that is precisely what deferred action is. deferred action is a decision that you are a low priority for removal, and it's an official notification to you of that decision. and respondents have conceded that we have the lawful authority to do both things: to make that judgment and to give an identification card. justice roberts: general, maybe it would make logical progression if you began with your standing argument first. general verrilli: yes. and i think this does lead right into the standing argument. i think the principal bone of contention between the respondents and the united states is over whether the secretary can also authorize these people to work and accrue ancillary benefits, and respondents lack standing to challenge that for three fundamental reasons.

first, there's the injury is not redressable, because even if -- even if they achieve the injunction that they want, barring us from providing work authorization ancillary benefits, we can, for the reason justice ginsburg identified, still provide them with deferred action. and under texas law, they still qualify for a license under deferred action, so there's no redressability. second, they have not alleged a concrete particularized injury because the costs that they claim now to be an injury are actually the expected and desired result of the policy that exists in current texas law -- justice roberts: well, but if they change that policy to avoid the injury that they allege, in other words, if they did not offer driver's licenses to those who are lawfully present because of your policy, avoided that injury, you would sue them, wouldn't you?

general verrilli: i'm not sure at all that we would sue them. it would depend on what they did. but the fundamental -- justice roberts: no, no. what they did i'm hypothesizing is that they offered driver's license to everyone, but not those who were here under your, under dapa, under your proposal. general verrilli: chief justice, the key word in your question is "hypothesize." and that's the point, it seems to me. they have not made that change in their law. what they -- justice roberts: no, because they have what seems to me a perfectly legitimate policy, is they want driver's license to be available to people who are lawfully present here. and if you, the federal government, say, well, these people are lawfully present, that means they have to give a driver's license to however many of them, more than half a million people, who would be potentially eligible for them. and as i understand from your

brief, your answer is, well, just don't give them driver's licenses. general verrilli: the current policy is not as your honor describes it. the current policy reflected in the existing law and regulation is quite different, and that's the point. they will give a driver's license now to any category of person who has a document from the federal government, not only saying you're lawfully present, but that you're officially -- we're officially tolerating your presence. there are vast numbers of people under existing texas law that are eligible for a license even though they are not lawfully present. for example, the people who receive deferred action for based on childhood arrival. but beyond that, for example, people who are applicants for adjustment of status of whom there are hundreds of thousands -- justice kennedy: but suppose the state of texas said this policy that the government has announced is invalid, it violates separation of powers, therefore, we will not issue licenses to this class of persons? general verrilli: well, i think the point -- justice kennedy: it seems to me that the federal government could say this is not for you to say. general verrilli: that's correct. we could and we probably would. but the point is, they haven't done it. and so in order to establish -- justice alito: but that's the whole point of this suit, isn't it? they don't want to give driver's licenses to the beneficiaries of

dapa. general verrilli: well, i think -- justice alito: and unless you can tell us that there is some way that they could achieve that, then i don't see how there is not injury in fact. general verrilli: i disagree with that, justice alito, but -- justice alito: you disagree with which part of it? general verrilli: i think all of it. [laughter] general verrilli: texas law and policy now does not express that judgment. you look to their law to tell you what their policy is now, and what the policy is now -- justice sotomayor: general, when you say that, i'm looking at their law. and their law says that they will give licenses to persons granted deferred action on the basis of immigration documentation received with an alien number and from the government. so that's what you're saying, they've already made the determination that they'll give licenses to people with deferred action. general verrilli: yes, justice sotomayor. that's one thing i'm saying that's quite important, but it even goes beyond that. justice roberts: oh, but they want to do that. is there anything wrong with their policy saying if you're lawfully present, you ought to have a driver's license? general verrilli: no, but i guess, mr. chief justice, what i'm trying to get across is that the policy, as it's written down and which, it seems to me, has to be taken as the authoritative

statement of the texas policy, is not just that they want to give licenses to people who are lawfully present. they give licenses to all -- to numerous categories of people who, under the substantive theory of law that they are advancing now, would not be eligible-- justice roberts: ok. so what your argument is then, they should take these people out of eligibility, too. general verrilli: no. justice roberts: their argument is, we're going to give driver's license to people subject to deferred action. and you're saying, ok, that's your injury? you can take that away. and i just think that's a real catch 22. if you're injured, you have standing. but you're not injured because you can change your policy and not give driver's license to these people. and i suggest that i think you would sue them instantly if they said, people here lawfully present under the federal authority are being discriminated against. it's a preemption argument the government makes on a regular basis. and if you don't, the interveners will sue them. they've already said that they think that's illegal. general verrilli: the fundamental problem, mr. chief justice, is with that theory is that it requires this court essentially to issue an advisory

opinion about whether this new law of theirs would, in fact, be preempted. after all, we might think it's preempted, but it's up to the judiciary ultimately to decide whether it's preempted. so in order for that injury to occur, the judiciary would have to decide it's preempted. justice roberts: so you're saying they would not have injury because they can do this, and you might lose the suit. general verrilli: that's correct. it's hypothetical at this point. justice kagan: i mean, general, i don't understand why you wouldn't lose the suit. i mean, section 1621 says, "states aren't required to give state benefits to nonqualified aliens, including deferred action recipients." i guess i don't really understand what the basis of a preemption suit would be given that section. general verrilli: justice kagan, i'd like to be able to agree with you about that. we don't think 1621 actually applies to driver's licenses. depending on what they did, we might or might not think the law is preempted. but until they actually take that step, which would be a significant change from texas law as it now exists, they really are asking you for an

advisory opinion about whether the thing they want to do would be preempted. i mean, if you think about it -- justice alito: you're saying they have inflicted this injury on themselves because they have options. and one of the options, and i assume the one that they would like to pursue, is to deny driver's licenses to the beneficiaries of dapa. and if you're going to make the argument that they lack standing because they have a viable legal option, i think you have to tell us whether, in the view of the united states, it would be lawful for them to do that. general verrilli: so, it would -- justice alito: i think the chief justice asked you that question before, and you didn't get a chance to answer it. maybe you could answer it now. general verrilli: it would depend on what they did and why they did it. but it does seem to me, it's fundamental that they have to do it. i mean, think about it this way -- justice alito: i mean, if you're saying to us they lack standing because they have an option, but we're not going to tell you now whether it's a lawful option. you'll have to wait down the wait to some point in the future. general verrilli: we might

depending on what they, we might well think it's unlawful. for example, if they did try to enact this new law that said, we're going to give licenses to everybody we're giving them to now -- justice kennedy: but there's article iii standing for declaratory relief all the time. you say this course of action is being compelled on me. i want a declaratory suit that says that it's void. general verrilli: and i think that gets to the point, justice kennedy. if right now, tomorrow, today instead of suing us they had come into court and said we want a declaratory judgment, we are thinking about in light of this change in federal law, we're thinking about changing our state law to a different law, and we want a declaratory judgment that if we do so, it won't be preempted, i think you would throw that case out in a nanosecond as hypothetical, and that is this case. that is precisely the situation we are in right now. you have to render a judgment on that issue to decide whether they have injury in fact with respect to -- justice roberts: do we really, or is it enough is it enough that they would have to be put through litigation in order to escape the policy? you say, well, they can just not do this. and i think it's you won't dispute, i think, that they will be put through litigation if

they do take that out. general verrilli: i don't think that could be enough, mr. chief justice, because you could have said that in pennsylvania v. new jersey or in any number of cases, that they may have to incur some cost with respect to -- justice roberts: well, how is that different? if i own, say, a parcel of land and it's subject to some government regulatory program that i think is a taking under existing law, why isn't the answer, well, you should go buy some other land that's not subject to it? you can avoid the injury by your own action. and it seems to me that's what you're saying here. texas says, our injury is we have to give driver's license here, and that costs us money. and your answer is, well, maybe you don't have to give driver's license. go change the policy. general verrilli: it's a difference between, in your in your proposed hypothetical, mr. chief justice, that's a direct action against the land owner by the government. in this case, we're not acting directly against texas. we're regulating individual aliens, and there's an indirect and incidental effect on texas. and that gets to, it seems to me, the deeper and broader point of importance here, which is that if you're going to recognize and it would be the first time, i think, in our

history you're going to recognize that kind of incidental and indirect effect as a basis for allowing one government to sue another, then there's really no limit on the kinds of -- justice sotomayor: mr. general, in the normal course of things, let's assume that texas decides tomorrow to change its law, and it says, now, contrary to what the its law says right at this moment, that it's not going to give licenses to immigrants with deferred action. presumably, the immigrant who wants that license would sue the state, correct? general verrilli: precisely. justice sotomayor: and make either an equal protection or any number of preemption argument, whatever. the state could then defend that action, correct? general verrilli: of course.

justice sotomayor: and it could raise legitimately full standing to raise any defense in law, correct? general verrilli: yes. justice sotomayor: it could then say that dapa is illegal -- general verrilli: yes. justice sotomayor: correct? so there is a cause. it is there is a way for it to defend its actions and a way that it will defends its actions. general verrilli: and i think that it really goes to what the court said in raines v. byrd. you know, it may seem like this is an important issue that is teed up in front of you, and it is an important issue. but, you know, the point is that the legitimacy of deciding issues of this importance come from deciding the context of a concrete case or controversy, and you don't have that here yet -- justice breyer: your argument is, do i have this right? imagine a federal statute. every state must give a driver's license to a member of the federal armed forces. that's a statute. second statute -- we are transferring one quarter of a million soldiers to rhode island. now, rhode island thinks the first statute is unconstitutional, and it also thinks that the second statute, for some technical reason, is unlawful.

we're only talking about standing. in that circumstance, does rhode island have standing? see, it is totally analogous. i'm trying to say there is a law, which you say is vague. i'm imagining it's there. it says, texas, you have to give a driver's license to certain people. and then there's a second law which says, we are sending you a million of those people. now, all i want to know is, can texas, under those circumstances, your argument is we don't know if that's true here or not but under the ones i hypothesize, is there standing, in your opinion? texas would say the first law is wrong, unconstitutional for some reason. the second is wrong because it technically failed for some reason. do they have standing to say that? general verrilli: i have to i

caveat my answer, because i think if the second law is an immigration law that says we're going to make an immigration policy judgment that's going to result in additional people being in the state, then i don't think they would have standing. but the fundamental point, i think, of importance here is that the premise that the first law that they are required to give driver's licenses is not present here. justice breyer: i have no doubt it isn't present here. i asked the question to clarify what it is i'm supposed to say if i agree with you. general verrilli: and i tried to answer that and tell you why i think the premise is different. i did try to answer you and then tell you why i think the premise is different. i think this is you know, there's a sort of a shoe-on-the-other-foot issue here. if you really think that a state can sue the federal government based on these kinds of indirect and incidental effects, then it seems to me you'd have to also say that if a state decided, for example, that it wasn't going to enforce its minimum wage law anymore, and as a result, the federal government had to increase its enforcement costs

for federal minimum wage laws in that state, that the federal government would then have standing to go into state court and say that the state is violating state law? i don't think anybody would think that's a valid claim. but that's just the flip side of this kind of a claim. justice roberts: is the injury here any more indirect and speculative than the injury in massachusetts against epa? general verrilli: yes. i think definitely, mr. chief justice. i mean, that was obviously a closely divided court in that case, but with respect to the majority opinion, it seems to me there were there are two -- where there are two fundamental differences, at least two fundamental differences. one is what the court said is that under the clean air act, that congress had charged the epa with protecting states and others from the effects of air pollution and then given a specific cause of action to the people whose protection epa was charged with to sue if epa wasn't doing its job. i think this is at page 520 of

the opinion the court said was indispensable, was critical to the finding that states got special solicitude and were allowed to sue in a manner where, under article iii, they normally wouldn't be able to sue. in addition, i do think that you do have a quite different situation in that there was no way for massachusetts to avoid the effects about which it was complaining, and there is a way here. so, there is a difference. justice roberts: maybe i could ask you to switch. general verrilli: i was just going to ask whether i could. thank you. so, i think it's important, again, to frame where we are on the merits here. texas agrees that dhs has the authority to defer removal of this class of alien parents of u.s. citizens and lpr's. they agree that that judgment is unreviewable. what we disagree about is whether we also have the authority to authorize them to work and to accrue some ancillary benefits based on that work. justice roberts: before you get to that, could i ask you a question about the scope of your argument? general verrilli: sure. justice roberts: under your argument, could the president

grant deferred removal to every unlawfully present alien in the united states right now? general verrilli: definitely not. justice roberts: why not? general verrilli: here are the limits. because the deferred action has -- over time, there have been administrative limits, which i'll talk about, some administrative policy limits, and then there's substantive statutory limits. the administrative policy limits are these -- deferred action has always been for the lowest priorities for removal. and everybody agrees -- justice roberts: i'm sorry. by "administrative," you mean by the executive branch? general verrilli: correct, yes, but -- justice roberts: so that somehow binds the executive branch now, the fact that i mean, this hasn't been approved by the executive branch prior to this point, either, and yet it's a fairly significant departure. general verrilli: i don't i wouldn't agree with that premise, mr. chief justice, but let me walk through it. you've got to be the lowest priority. there are the regulations going

back decades that talk about work authorization related to people at deferred action say, that there's got to be a tie to a statutory policy that the secretary has the authority to implement, such things as foreign relations, humanitarian concerns, or keeping or family unity when one family member or more is a u.s. citizen. so you've got to ground it 6 it's got to be grounded in those policy concerns -- justice sotomayor: but the chief is going more fundamentally, general. those are the parameters that the executive has set for itself now. he's asking what keeps you from changing those parameters in the future and simply saying, i have under your theory of the case, i have discretion to defer action on everybody? i think that's his question. general verrilli: a couple a things about that. one is there are statutory constraints that exist now. for example, congress has told dhs that it has to prioritize the removal of criminal aliens and aliens detained at the border. there's no way we could give deferred action to those populations consistent with -- justice roberts: ok, so not criminals.

who else? general verrilli: not aliens detained at the border. justice roberts: ok. so that's another criminals -- general verrilli: seems to me it would follow from that, that people who are recently arrived, recently made it into the country, if they aren't detained at the border, we couldn't give deferred action to them either, because seems to me that would undermine the policy judgment of trying to maximize -- justice roberts: ok. everyone has been here for two years -- general verrilli: and then and there are specific statutory provisions that cover some categories of aliens like people with asylum. so then a whole host of things that impose manageable limits. if the court were to conclude that there is standing, obviously -- we don't think there is, but if the court were to conclude -- justice roberts: i'm sorry. just so the categories you say would have to be excluded are criminals, people detained at the border, and people who've been granted asylum. and other than that, the president could grant deferred removal to everyone here. general verrilli: no. i'm not saying that. you've got to ground it in affirmative policies like the one here.

if you look it the olc opinion, -- at the olc opinion, olc reached the conclusion that dhs couldn't grant deferred action to the parents of the, parents who of people who got deferred action for childhood arrival -- justice alito: but if the president did what the chief justice hypothesized, suppose the president said, you know, there was a time when we had open borders in the united states, and i think that's the right policy, so we're just not going to remove anybody. who could challenge that? general verrilli: well, obviously, we're doing more or less the opposite now in terms of what we're doing -- justice alito: i understand. it's a hypothetical question. could anybody, in your view, challenge that? general verrilli: yes. i think that would be challengeable under the footnote in heckler against chaney. it says if you just decide that you're not going to enforce the law at all, then there may well be a cause of action to challenge it there, and but that's a million miles from where we are now. and i think the key point is

that the policy -- justice kennedy: well, it's four million people from where we are now. general verrilli: well, you know, that's a big number. you're right, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: and that's and the whole point, is that you've talked about discretion here. what we're doing is defining the limits of discretion. and it seems to me that that is a legislative, not an executive act. all of the briefs go on for pages to the effect that the president has admitted a certain number of people and then congress approves it. that seems to me to have it backwards. it's as if that the president is setting the policy and the congress is executing it. that's just upside down. general verrilli: i don't i think it's upside down. i think it's different, and it's different in recognition of the of the unique nature of immigration policy. justice ginsburg: general verrilli, how much -- please, how much of a factor is the reality that we have 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country, and congress, the legislature, has provided funds for removing about four million? so inevitably, priorities have to be set. general verrilli: right,

exactly. justice roberts: you started out telling us that the enforcement priorities were not at issue, that the problem was the benefits that flow from that, the work authorization, the earned income tax credit, the social security benefits, the medicare benefits. so, as i understand it, and i think this is the point you made, the other side is not disputing the fact that you have authority to exercise discretion. general verrilli: correct. and that, i think, is the answer to that i was going to give to your question, justice kennedy. and it seems to me, with respect to this -- justice sotomayor: mr. general, before you go on, i just to make sure we have we're on the same page. you only deport 400,000, not four million. general verrilli: it's not four million. forgive me. justice sotomayor: so we have -- general verrilli: yes, we have resources for about 400,000, right. justice sotomayor: so we have we basically 10,900,000 people that cannot be deported because there's not enough resources, correct? general verrilli: that's correct. justice sotomayor: so they are here whether we want them or not. general verrilli: and the key

point is that we have always had a policy that says when you have -- when your presence is going to be officially tolerated, you're not here, you're violating the immigration laws by being here. you don't have any rights, but your presence is going to be officially tolerated. when you're in that circumstance, we allow you to work because it makes sense to allow you to work. otherwise, if you can't work lawfully, you're going to either not be able to support yourself and be forced into the underground economy. we've had -- justice roberts: i have to ask you about two pages in your reply brief. on page 16, you quote the guidance that says, "the individuals covered are lawfully present in the united states." and less than a page later, you say, "aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law." now, that must have been a hard sentence to write. i mean, they're lawfully present, and yet, they're present in violation of the law. general verrilli: i actually had no trouble writing it, mr. chief justice. [laughter] general verrilli: the reason i had no problem writing it is because that phrase, "lawful presence," has caused a terrible amount of confusion in this

case. it, but the reality is it means something different to people in the immigration world. what it means in the immigration world is not that you have a legal right to be in the united states, that your status has changed in any way. that you have any defense to removal. it doesn't mean any of those things, and it never has. so, at that fundamental level, we are not trying to change anybody's legal status on the immigration -- justice roberts: lawfully present does not mean you're legally present in the united states. general verrilli: right, tolerated -- justice roberts: i'm sorry, that -- just so i get that right. general verrilli: yes. justice roberts: lawfully present does not mean you're legally present. general verrilli: correct. justice alito: but they are the -- dapa beneficiaries may lawfully work in the united states. isn't that correct? general verrilli: that's right. justice alito: and how is it possible to lawfully work in the united states without lawfully being in the united states? general verrilli: there are millions of people, millions of people other than the dapa recipients about whom this is true right now. and this gets to the point of why their reading of section 1324 is completely wrong.

justice alito: i'm just talking about the english language. i just don't understand it. how can you be -- general verrilli: well, let me -- justice alito: how can you how -- how can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here? general verrilli: let me just go through the reality here, and i'll give you some sense of just how disruptive a ruling would be to accept their theory on who can lawfully work in the united states. right now, since 2008, one category of people who can get work authorization are people applying for adjustment of status. we've given out 3.5 million of those to that category of people since 2008, and in the decades before, it was hundreds of thousands of people a year. they are not lawfully present in the united states on theory of having lawful status. people who have applied for cancellation of removal, those are people in removal proceedings now since 2008, we've given out 325,000 of those. justice alito: but those are statutory categories, are they not? general verrilli: no, no. there's no statutory authority to do either one of two things. either to say that they're lawfully present in the united

states. there's no authority for that. and this is the key thing for their work authorization argument. there is no statutory authority to grant work authorization to those categories of people -- justice roberts: in those other categories, did you say that those people were lawfully present in the united states? general verrilli: no, but -- justice roberts: but you said that here. verrilli: the key point is that their argument about why we can't give work authorization is a statutory argument. they say that it's under that 1324 passed in 1986 extinguished our right to give our authority to give work authorization to people whose presence we are officially tolerating. what i'm saying is that that is not a plausible reading of the text. there's a 1987 regulation that ins promulgated which considered that very question of whether passage of that statute restricted ins to giving out work authorization only to people who are in the category specifically identified in the statute. ins rejected that as implausible and inconsistent with theory. that's been on the books for 30 years. it's a part of the chevron deference. and then the third point -- justice kagan: general, please.

i'm sorry. go ahead. general verrilli: the third point is the consequences point. this argument they are making says if you go through the reg that's in the petition, the appendix that lists all the different categories of people who get work authorization, their reading of 1324 knocks out like 15 or 16 of those categories. it doesn't just apply here. justice sotomayor: do they have a way of attacking that 1986 -- general verrilli: yes, they could -- justice sotomayor: regulation? general verrilli: absolutely. they could petition for rulemaking. justice sotomayor: and that would be under section 553(c)? general verrilli: right. they could petition the -- justice sotomayor: did they do that here? general verrilli: no, they did not do that here. justice kagan: could you have done the exact same thing without using that phrase in the dapa documents? general verrilli: yeah, absolutely. and, in fact, if the court thinks it's a problem and wants to put a red pencil through it, it's totally fine. really. i understand the issues that it's caused. but its legal significance is a technical legal significance with respect to eligibility for social security benefits and for this tolling provision, and that is the tail on the dog and the flea on the tail of the dog. justice kennedy: you were asked

about an apa action. if they brought an apa action, would they be entitled at least to ask for a preliminary injunction while the notice-and-comment procedure was -- general verrilli: i don't -- forgive me, justice kennedy. i have not thought about that. i have my doubts if they would be entitled to get a preliminary injunction under those circumstances. justice kennedy: they would have standing to object if the rulemaking hearing came out the wrong way. general verrilli: oh, i think if we're talking about whether there is a common issue here, if they have standing, they would have standing to comment on the proceedings, i'm sure. >> loads of people have standing. decides them at gets to the notice and comment issue here -- >> when the president announced daca, he said if he broadened it

, i >> or lawfully present. is he other thing couldn't extended at that time but what happened here is that the president and secretary went to the office of legal counsel and asked for an opinion about the scope of their authority, the scope of this discretionary authority and consistently with that up until the limits and no further.

i do think whatever the president may have meant, we went through that process and acted on that conclusion and respective the limits. >> no challenge. >> as a legal matter, it is no different. >> thank you, general. >> mid please the court, the jane does seek the opportunity ,o apply for discretionary temporary and a revocable believe that they will be separated from their families and detained or removed from their homes under the current nonuniform and frequently arbitrary federal immigration enforcement is them fails to provide any reliable opportunity identified as low priority.

rome state of texas has locked the guidance that would secure the jane does an opportunity to step toward, register and apply and obtain a timely decision with respect to deferred action. texas does so based on asserted indirect and speculative budgetary injury that contradicts the state's own legislative decision, after balancing all policy considerations to subsidize and and encourage the acquisition of driver's licenses with no annual or cumulative limit on subsidies in that form. justice roberts: do you think it would be illegal if texas adopted a policy saying everyone lawfully present in texas except people subject to dapa get a driver's license? mr. saenz: i think it would be, in candor, subject to a challenge that would revolve around the circumstances and the reasoning behind that new legislation. it's important, of course, to

note that texas has not done that. and there's no indication that its legislative process would result in determining that its previous decision that subsidized licenses make sense without limit has some endpoint. the circumstance that you've described where it specifically targets one set of deferred action recipients would certainly raise questions. it would be resolved if -- justice sotomayor: how about if they just said, let's take it out of dapa if they just said, you know something? there's too many deferred action people. it doesn't matter why you're deferred. political refugee, the people waiting for a different status we're just going to do it for everybody. mr. saenz: in that circumstance, i think it, too, would be subject to challenge. it would be a different challenge because of circumstances, and the reasoning would be different. there would be equal protection claims. there might be preemption claims. and those would be resolved in the kind of concrete clash of real interest that this court

has indicated article iii supports. you would have the state of texas defending a decision it has made to change its law and to keep that law in place. then you would have aggrieved individuals who would have been denied a driver's license because of that change. justice sotomayor: not every state grants licenses to deferred action individuals, do they? mr. saenz: that's correct, your honor. in this case, it would arise in the context of a change which could raise equal protection concerns to be resolved in the kind of concrete clash of interest that this court has indicated are behind article iii. i think it's important to note that not only has texas not changed its policy -- justice kagan: do i take it from the way you are phrasing this that you actually think that the equal protection concerns would be more serious than the preemption concerns? mr. saenz: i think it depends on the circumstances of how texas is to make its decision. all the more reason to wait until it's actually made a decision through a legislative process where there would be a record of why the legislators chose to change from a policy that currently provides licenses to anyone who can demonstrate that they are authorized to be in the united states, to something that would leave some

folks in that category out. if they would decide that tolerated presence is not authorization, for example, we would have a record of why they made that decision. of course, we are not there yet because texas has not made a decision to change what its current policy is, and there is no indication that -- justice breyer: in the record, that you're more familiar with than i, and i would ask the other side the same question, i've read in the briefs quite a lot that the reason that they don't want to give driver's licenses to these 500,000 extra people is it's expensive. is there any other reason that's in this record, such as we could imagine other reasons. is there any serious effort to rest their claim? we don't want to give them licenses on anything other than money? mr. saenz: yes, your honor. justice breyer: what? mr. saenz: governor abbot has indicated that, in the record -- justice breyer: in the record here. mr. saenz: yes, it's in the record here, i believe, your

honor, that, in fact, this is a political dispute. they do not agree with the policy adopted by the administration, though they have conceded in this case that it is within the executive's discretionary authority. justice breyer: you're talking about in general. i'm focusing on the narrow question of how texas is hurt, specifically, not a political disagreement. how are they specifically hurt by giving these people driver's licenses? mr. saenz: your honor, they -- justice breyer: one way is it costs them money. mr. saenz: yes. justice breyer: are there other ways? mr. saenz: no, your honor. that's the only thing they put forward in one -- justice breyer: that's the answer. mr. saenz: and, in fact, it shows that they believe they would face additional expenses, though there's not really enough to conclude that it would change the state's previous determination, taking into account those costs from every subsidized license -- justice roberts: isn't losing money the classic case for standing? mr. saenz: it's a classic case for a private individual, your

honor, but here, we're talking about a state that has made a decision, as states often do, to spend money by subsidizing licenses because it's balanced other considerations, including -- justice roberts: we said in massachusetts against epa that we have a special solicitude for the claims of the states. mr. saenz: yes. in that case, it was not a financial claim. as you know, your honor, it was a claim related to the state's quasi-sovereign interest over land. in addition, as general verrilli has indicated, there was a procedural right within the clean air act that does not exist here. indeed, if a procedural right were to be established under the apa itself, there is no limit to the number of states that could come forward to challenge any domestic policy of any kind by this or any future administration. justice alito: if an employer took the position that the employer was not going to hire a dapa beneficiary because the employer believes that they are not that they are not lawfully authorized to work, would prefer someone else over them, could that person sue on any theory of discrimination, for example, under section 1981?

mr. saenz: they could, your honor. and the outcome of that case, i think, has not been clearly established by precedent so far. but it would be a clash between folks with concrete interest, an employer who wants to hire someone, not the individual who -- justice alito: if that's true then, dapa gives them a legal right. it's more than just putting them in a low-priority prosecution status. mr. saenz: i think it's important to note, your honor, that work authorization is a separate determination from deferred action itself. not everyone who receives deferred action will receive work authorization. i also think -- justice alito: but work authorization, in your view, gives them a legal right they did not have before. mr. saenz: it gives them the right to work with authorization, certainly. however, i also need to go back to standing and point out that work authorization has nothing whatsoever to do with driver's licenses in texas, where the test is authorized to be in the

u.s. -- justice ginsburg: when you when you answered the question about you said there might be a 1981 suit. you are not saying who would win that suit. mr. saenz: that's correct. justice ginsburg: you're saying it's a question. not that they have a legal right, but anyone can sue. you can always sue. mr. saenz: it's far from clear, i think. the precedent is not clear enough to determine the outcome of that case. justice alito: what is but what is your position on that? mr. saenz: our position would be that it is something to be litigated. in fact, to be in all candor, we have litigated it to a settlement. so, no, no established precedent to make it clear one way or the other. justice alito: but you believe they do have the right? mr. saenz: they do have work authorization, and that certainly means that they ought not be subject to unreasonable discriminatory bases for denying their work. it's different from when they don't have work authorization. but going back to the work authorization, it has no relationship to the driver's licenses. in fact, they could receive licenses without ever applying or receiving work authorization. there's no connection between the two. therefore, any concerns about work authorization would not redress the injury behind standing of the state of texas.

justice alito: in the whiting case a few terms ago, the court upheld an arizona statute that imposed pretty severe civil penalties on an employer who employed individuals who were not authorized to work. so if an employer in arizona hires dapa beneficiaries and the state attempts to impose those civil penalties on that employer, i assume that you believe that dapa would provide a legal defense to that? mr. saenz: i believe there would be a defense, but before that, because the whiting case involved a requirement to use either by system under the verified system, those who were work authorized, whether through deferred action or otherwise, should come back as authorized workers. so i think the state of arizona, which premised its statute in part to receive this court's blessing of that statute on relying on federal decision makers, would not be in a

position to engage in what you've described. justice alito: well, prior to dapa, if the employer had employed these individuals, the employer would be subject to those penalties, would it not? mr. saenz: that is correct. justice alito: and after dapa, it would not be. mr. saenz: work authorization is an authorization to work that is separate from the deferred-action determination. basically, the state of texas has conceded the deferred-action determination and seems to be focusing on work authorization. but that work authorization has absolutely no relationship to the alleged injury of driver's licenses. i see my time is up, your honor. justice roberts: thank you, mr. saenz. general keller. general keller: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, dapa is an unprecedented unlawful assertion of executive power. dapa would be one of the largest changes in immigration policy in our nation's history -- justice sotomayor: how can you say that? i mean, we have the fairness act that happened in 1990. it granted basically the same thing, deferred action and work

authorization, to 1.5 million people out of 4 million. that was a 40% of the immigrant population of the time was affected. here, the best estimate is that only 35% are affected. so at least once before, the president has taken action that has a greater percentage effect than now. so why is it the largest? is it the number of people? general keller: well, the family fairness program, first of all, was done pursuant to statutory authority. it was a voluntary departure program. it was not an extra statutory deferred action program. also, i believe only 47,000 people actually got relief there. and what congress did in 1996 after the family fairness program -- justice sotomayor: well, that's

because congress decided to step in. here, we have a congress that's decided some members of the congress have decided they don't like it, and so congress has remained silent. it doesn't mean that at some later point after the election or whenever, congress can't step in and do what it wants to do. general keller: but, justice sotomayor, i think that's backwards. congress has to grant the statutory authority first for the executive to be able to act. and to do so, on a question that's of this deep economic significance, it would have to do so expressly. justice sotomayor: you know, you keep saying that, "deep economic significance." those nearly 11 million unauthorized aliens are here in the shadows. they are affecting the economy whether we want to or not. the answer is, if congress really wanted not to have an economic impact, it would it would allot the amount of money necessary to deport them, but it hasn't. general keller: but what congress did in 1986 with work authorization, and 1996 with benefits, is it restricted work and benefits as an alternative mechanism to enforce immigration law. those judgments acknowledge

there are going to be people in the country that are unlawfully present, and yet, congress put forward those barriers to work and to benefits precisely to deter unlawful immigration. what the executive is trying to do here is flout that determination. justice sotomayor: except that the work authorization ability of the attorney general to do has been clearly stated since 1986, and congress hasn't taken that away. it may at some later point, but it still has not undone the 1986 regulation. general keller: but in 1986, congress passed a comprehensive framework for combating the employment of unauthorized aliens. that was a decision to repudiate the past practice and enact a general federal ban on the employment of unauthorized aliens. justice sotomayor: and the regulation permitting the attorney general to give work authorization to deferred-action individuals has stood since that

time. general keller: but when that regulation was passed in 1987, the executive said that the number covered by that regulation was so small as "to be not worth recording statistically," and, "the impact on the labor market is minimal." so regardless of what congress may have acquiesced to afterwards, that regulation has always been known as being for a small class of individuals for deferred action. justice sotomayor: but it's been applied to a large class. it was applied to a large class in 1990. 1.5 million out of 4 million. 40% of the illegal population. that was a fairly significant number, and congress didn't act thereafter. in fact, it expanded the program the president had started. general keller: no. the 1990 family fairness program was voluntary departure with statutory authority. congress responded in 1996 by capping it at 120 days. and the executive acknowledged

that when congress did that, it could no longer authorize employment under that voluntary departure program. justice sotomayor: exactly. general keller: but here, with deferred action, when they've only the executive has only been granting 500 to 1000 deferred action permits a year, there's no way congress would have acquiesced to granting four million permits than in a program like this - justice sotomayor: well, it has it has acquiesced to larger numbers of salvadorians, guatemalans, hondurans, haitians, chinese, the tnu visa applications, those numbers have been much larger than the limited numbers you're quoting right now. general keller: and those programs would have been under temporary protective status; humanitarian parole, deferred enforced departure, which is justified and has been, at least, under the president's article ii power, and there's no suggestion that here dapa is unprecedented because this is a extra statutory deferred action program that is not bridging lawful status. the aliens do not have a preexisting status, and they don't have an eminent status. justice kagan: general, could i take you back a few steps?

general verrilli said a couple of times that you've essentially conceded the legality of dapa taking out the work authorization and the social serity benefits. is that correct? general keller: no. i'll be very clear. when the executive is forbearing from removal on a case by case basis, that is what this court in reno noted was deferred action enforcement discretion. but when the executive is transforming unlawful presence into lawful presence, and granting eligibility for work authorization and medicare -- justice kagan: let me make sure i understand that. you're saying that the government could do this case by case, one by one with respect to all the people in the class, but that the government cannot identify the entire class and say we're forbearing from enforcement. is that correct? general keller: while that would

be a harder, tougher case, i do believe that they could do it class based if they were simply forbearing from removal. justice kagan: so that's what i asked originally. if they were simply forbearing from removal, and there was not work authorization attached to it, and there was not social security or any other benefits attached to it, are you conceding that? general keller: in this case, given that they are removing 400,000 people a year, we admit that they could do forbearance from removal. but what they can't do is grant authorization to be in the country. there's a -- justice ginsburg: can i can i ask you specifically? you have a statement in your brief, and that's it says that the executive could give cards, identification cards to all these people saying "low priority." are you adhering to that? is that what you mean? these people you're objecting to work authorizations, social security, but the government, not one by one, but to give

everyone who fits into this category a card that says low priority? general keller: the government, as part of its enforcement discretion, could do that. but that's very different than what they're doing here where they're granting lawful presence. and that matters because that's why we have to grant driver's license. that's why they get -- justice kagan: general, are you are you just referring to that single phrase in the dapa memorandum? is that what you're referring to? because, general verrilli, of course, says you could strike that phrase today if you wanted to, that that phrase really has no legal consequence whatsoever, that all this document does is do exactly what you said, which is to grant forbearance, to tell people we are you are not our enforcement priority, we are not going to deport you until we say otherwise, which we can tomorrow too. general keller: that lawful presence phrase is key because that's the first time in a deferred-action program the executive has taken that position. but even if that phrase were struck, that would still not

cure the defect. and the reason is because what the executive is doing when they're granting deferred action is they are affirmatively granting a status. and we know that from their own benefits regulations, which say this is h.c.f.r. 1.3. sub a says lawfully present qualifies if you're in deferred action status. and then sub b says, well, just because we're forbearing from removal, that doesn't necessarily mean that you're lawfully present. and so what is going on here is a transformation of deferred action from what this court recognized in reno to something far more than forbearance from removal. it is granting a status, and that status then entails certain things beyond even medicare and social security. for instance -- justice kagan: i guess i really did want to know, just take out the work authorization, take out the social security, and take out that phrase. can the can the government say to all of these people, and say it all at once, not one by one, yes, you're a low -- all of you are low priority, and we will not be coming after you, and we

will not deport you unless we change our minds. general keller: and, justice kagan, they can do that, and they can do that under the unchallenged prioritization memo. but what they can't do is say it's deferred action that grants a status under the benefits regulation -- justice kagan: i think that's just a label. can they do that? general keller: it is a label, but it's a label that congress created -- justice kagan: well, my hypothetical is -- i mean, you're suggesting that the label has some legal consequence. and my hypothetical is we just say to these however many million people it is, you will not be deported unless we change our minds. can they do that? general keller: if that's all they were doing yes. but as soon as they link it -- justice kagan: even though it's many millions of people they could do that? and they can do it all at once. general keller: yes, as long as they're not abdicating. and here, we are not challenging the prioritization -- justice kagan: ok. so if that's right, then it seems to me your real gripe here and you -- maybe it's a real gripe your real gripe here is to

the work authorization piece and to the benefits pieces. is that right? general keller: and the granting of lawful presence, because that is what's going to -- justice kagan: well, and that's just a label that general verrilli says they could strike out in a moment. general keller: well, that's their position, but that's wrong. and the reason it's wrong -- justice kagan: well, it's their memorandum. general keller: it is their memorandum. [laughter] general keller: and it's -- justice alito: but isn't it a statutory term? general keller: it is -- justice alito: does the term "lawful presence" appear in statutes enacted by congress? general keller: it does. it appears in iirira, the reentry bar, it appears in the social security and medicare -- it appears in the gun possession statute. "lawful presence" allows an alien to possess guns. that's the oriana case that we cite from the fifth circuit. and their treating it is also allowing advanced parole, which we now know apparently some daca recipients have gotten green cards and a path to citizenship. justice kagan: but then it seems to me, general keller, that your that what you should be attacking is not dapa. what you should be attacking is the work authorization regulations that the dhs, or before that the ina, has had for 30 years. or you should be attacking other

connections that dhs is making with respect to these people, but not dapa itself. general keller: but justice kagan, i think it is dapa itself that we're challenging. and the reason why is because that is what is transforming unlawful conduct into authorized lawful conduct -- justice ginsburg: where does it say that in dapa? we have the dapa directive. i didn't see anything in it about work authorization or about social security. general keller: the dapa directive does not mention social security. it does mention work authorization. this is pet. app. 413a. and i'll quote from it -- "deferred action means that for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the united states." now, the executive wants to take the position that that has no legal consequence. of course, the olc memo at j.a. 76, and this has been misquoted in their reply brief -- said that what's going on with tolerated presence is it is the

forward action will be toleration of an alien's continued unlawful presence. now, if it's continued unlawful presence, they're not authorized to be in the country, we don't have to issue driver's license. they can't get deferred action and gun sorry they can't get medicare, social security, gun possession. justice ginsburg: you tie the driver's license to work authorization? let's say somebody is in this deferred status but isn't working. do they -- under texas law, do they get driver's licenses? general keller: under texas law and this is our texas statute if someone is authorized to be in the united states, they're eligible for a driver's license. justice ginsburg: and it sounds like they don't have to have any work authorization. general keller: that's correct. they need to be authorized to be in the country. but to give some context to how this works, we have to rely on the federal government's immigration classifications. i mean, we determine whether someone is eligible for a driver's license. we run that through the federal save background system. so we ask the federal government, is this individual authorized to be in the country? they say yes or no.

justice roberts: well, the government also says you don't have to do that, or maybe you don't have to do that and maybe or not they won't sue you. but why don't you go ahead and not give them driver's license? general keller: well, i think, as your honor had suggested before, that we are in a catch 22 here. either we have to not incur millions of dollars of financial harm, which is a quintessential article iii injury, or we have to change our law and somehow we have to come up with a different background check system. we wouldn't have a uniform policy. justice sotomayor: i'm sorry. how does somebody get a license in texas? i know how to do it in new york and washington, because i lived in both places. but i don't know how to do it in texas. do you go up, and you do what? general keller: you would go to a department of motor vehicles. you would show the documentation showing who you are and that you're eligible for a license. now, in the context of aliens and this is at j.a. 377 to 382 outlining the process, then the state verifies that the

individual has authorization to be in the country. and that's sort of the federal -- justice sotomayor: all right. now, i do know, because i've experienced it, that lines are very long at dmv's. [laughter] sometimes people wait the entire day. and i know that they leave the next day when they haven't gotten to them. and they keep coming back. it's not an ideal situation. most states, to avoid the frustration, do ramp up, but many states don't. people just keep coming back until their license can be processed. so why is it that you have to spend all this money? why can't you just have your regular process and let people wait online? general keller: well, first of all, under the federal real i.d. act, if our state's driver's

license recipients want to be able to use that license to get through airport securities, tsa security, there has to be integrity in the license for the federal government. and so we have to check whether an alien is actually -- justice sotomayor: fine. i was just saying, why do you have to ramp up? this i mean, one of the allegations i haven't really gone through it carefully enough or assume it's true, claims that your affidavit estimating losses in your process is made up, basically, because a, there's already a built-in profit from profiting licenses of $25, that you really don't know if you have to add all this personnel, because every five million people are not going to walk into dmv in one day. and that the numbers are going to be much less no matter what, because not everybody not all 5 million are going to want licenses to start with. so the question i have is, why do you have to ramp up? why can't you just let people line? general keller: yeah.

so this is at j.a. 377 to 382. and the reason is, is because there's going to be a spike in the applicants for driver's licenses, and there are much more to do than simply granting a license. there would have to be processing the paperwork, making other determinations. but in any event, that -- justice sotomayor: but you do that in the speed you do it in. meaning, i got a temporary piece of paper when i was there, and it took weeks for me to get the regular license while the motor vehicle bureau did what it was going to do as fast or as slow as it wanted to do it. general keller: well, and here, we have a fact-finding that we would incur these costs. neither parties or my friends on the other side of said that this clear error. the budget document -- justice sotomayor: this is a jurisdictional standing question. general keller: it is a jurisdictional standing question.

justice sotomayor: do we just accept at face value something that might not be true? general keller: but we have -- justice sotomayor: can we give you standing just on the basis of you saying, i'm going to do this when it makes no sense? general keller: we have a fact-finding here. they have not alleged it's clear error. we also have declarations in from wisconsin and indiana that have not been challenged. the bottom line is, if we're going to have to issue more driver's licenses, it's going to cost more money. justice roberts: justice breyer. justice breyer: i would like to ask a question. the only thing i found here is about money, really. if there's something else that's worrying you, it's sort of hidden. but money is money; i understand that. and my question is about standing. and this is technical, but it's important to me. looking at the briefs, awful lot of briefs, senators, both sides. awful lot of briefs from states, both sides. members of congress. why? because this has tremendous political valence. keep that in mind. now, keeping that in mind, let's

let's go back to two old cases which are scarcely mentioned. but old supreme court cases never die -- [laughter] justice breyer: unless, luckily, they're overruled. and a few have been. they're submerged like icebergs. the one i'm thinking of is frothingham v. mellon, massachusetts v. mellon. and there, in those cases, the federal government had given something to some people. there were beneficiaries.

and the court said, you other people from massachusetts, i'm sorry massachusetts lost, but lo and behold, it did. that's just because i'm from massachusetts. [laughter] justice breyer: but the point is they lost, because, says the court, we can't let you just sue on the basis that you, as a taxpayer, will have to spend more money. because if we do, taxpayers all over the country will be suing in all kinds of cases, many of which will involve nothing more than political disagreements of all kinds. and before you know it, power will be transferred from the president and the congress, where power belongs, to a group of unelected judges. and for that reason, we say you

individuals who will have to pay more money will, cannot just sue on that basis. and as for the state, it cannot represent you parens patriae because this is between the federal government and the citizens. they're the ones who have to pay. and as far as massachusetts is concerned, again, bringing up to a case that they won, that was their own coastline. and that's not money. that's the physical territory belonging to massachusetts. and, of course, they have standing to protect that. now, i want your think for a second. i'm finished. you see you see my point. and i want to know how you get around that, frothingham, massachusetts, v. mellon, that when you give a benefit here, hurt the taxpayer via money over there, he doesn't have the kind of interest that gives him standing. general keller: first, we're raising financial harms from our own state's fisc. that's not a parens patriae. and we're also raising sovereign harms, and that's massachusetts v. epa. we have ceded to the federal government the authority to determine who's lawfully present within the borders of the 26 states. now -- justice breyer: well, sovereign harms, you realize, would follow a fortiori, because if a state cannot sue and its citizens cannot sue to stop the feds from giving somebody a benefit on the ground that it will cost the state or the individuals more

money, surely they cannot sue just by announcing it requires a change in law in general, or because it requires -- hurts our sovereign interest, for then every case of political disagreement where states disagree would come before the court. general keller: well, but i think a lot of those cases would be taken care of through causation requirements, injury-in-fact requirements, and the zone of interest test, for instance, the adjusted gross income example and the veterans benefits example that the other side has brought up. i think that all those cases would be screened out through the zone-of-interest test. here, we put forward over a thousand pages of evidence into the preliminary injunction record with over a dozen

declarations and have fact-findings establishing exactly what arizona v. united states said, which is that the states bear the consequences of illegal immigration. and when we can come to court and show a concrete injury and a policy that is causing that injury, and by enjoying that policy, we wouldn't have to incur either the financial harm or the sovereign harm, that's precisely when -- justice sotomayor: well, but that -- general keller: you have article iii cases -- justice sotomayor: that really pits the states against every federal agency. and any harm, financial harm that indirectly flows from a change in policy would be subject to attack. let me give you a prime example. ok? imagine texas passed a law forbidding its state pension plan from investing in any financial company whatsoever that the federal stability oversight council declares systematically important. too big to fail. texas reasonably doesn't want to invest money in companies that if they fail are going to tank the economy.

now, let's say the federal government sets out a policy memorandum that says, in our discretion, we are not going to declare some insurance firms under a certain size as too big to fail. we just don't think we should. ok? why can't the states sue that federal agency and say the law mandates that you tell us who's too big to fail? general keller: i don't think states would be protected by laws governing which banks are too big to fail, but states absolutely are protected by immigration laws saying who is lawfully present within our borders. and i think so that would be weeded out under the zone of interest test. so even if -- justice sotomayor: we already said in arizona v. whiting that you can't tell the federal government who to say is legally or not legally present here. you don't have a right to set immigration policy. general keller: and that's precisely -- justice sotomayor: you're not in

the zone of interest of this of this of the immigration law. general keller: oh, we absolutely are, and that's precisely why i am standing here. because as the court recognized in arizona, just because the federal government pervasively regulates immigration, that doesn't mean that the states don't have a significant interest in who's within their borders. we have an easily identifiable sovereign interest on who's within our borders. however -- justice ginsburg: but the state can't remove anyone, and we still go back to the basic problem -- 11.3 million people. congress is not appropriating money to remove more than what is it? four million of them. so there are these people that are who are here to stay no matter what. and you have conceded that the federal government can say, low priority, here's your card. not going to deport you unless we change our mind. so the only thing that's involved is the work, and you haven't challenged that separately. you're challenging dapa. general keller: and dapa itself purports to grant not only work authorization, but also

transform unlawful conduct into lawful conduct. justice ginsburg: we've already gone through that. we've we have agreed that that means tolerated presence. the government has said, take out that word. it was unfortunate that we used it. what we mean is tolerated presence. general keller: but it's not just an unfortunate slip. when they're granting deferred-action status, under their regulations, that is lawful presence. so they want you to take out "lawful presence" from the dapa memo and pretend "lawful presence" isn't in there. but then when you go into the regulations -- justice kagan: but then why aren't you challenging the regulations? i mean, i understand what you're saying that dapa in some sense triggers the regulations, but only because the regulations say what they say, that your real challenge is not to dapa, which is the nonenforcement part of this. your real challenge is to the regulations, the fact that nonenforcement leads to a certain set of results and yet you're not here challenging those regulations. general keller: well, insofar as you'd conceive of our case of

challenging those regulations, it would be challenging them as applied to dapa, but when congress -- justice sotomayor: the problem is that you haven't exhausted administratively, and we always require you to do that. there isn't an exception, as i understand it, under the apa, for your failure to exhaust your avenues in the agency first. general keller: well but this is we are challenging dapa. we are challenging that memo. justice kagan: can i please. go ahead. general keller: and when we bring forth that suit, which only occurred as of november 20, 2014, just because we're challenging dapa's granting of deferred action doesn't mean in the four narrow categories that congress has passed statutes allowing deferred action 9 for vawa self-petitioners, t- and u- visa applicants, and widows and widowers that somehow we'd have to also be challenging -- justice kagan: do you think this? suppose that instead of doing dapa, dhs had decided to go one by one by one and it just you know, it sent a notice to each person. do you think at that point that that dhs could also say, and this will include work authorization because of our preexisting regulations? general keller: insofar as they

were granting lawful presence, no. work authorization, i think at most, you'd look at, well, has there been congressional acquiescence to this minimal program -- justice kagan: i guess i'm not sure i understood the first part of that because let's just, like, take out the labels. just it notifies a single person, you're low priority. we're not going to deport you unless we change our minds. and by virtue of preexisting regulations, you now can work on the books. is that legal? could dhs do that? general keller: i don't think there's statutory authorization. there may have been congressional acquiescence to a practice in a very small cases that's bridging lawful -- justice kagan: see, that's interesting because i thought and as you said, there's not statutory authorization with respect to that, and i thought your entire argument is that they can't do this, except for statutory authorization. and now you're saying, well, in

some cases they can do it. general keller: well, justice kagan, we have multiple arguments. the first is a statutory argument. and our backup argument, which is a response to the executive's congressional acquiescence argument, is that at most, congress would have acquiesced to a practice of very small uses that were bridged -- justice kagan: and how about this? how about dhs doesn't do it one by one. how about dhs says, it's senseless to do it one by one. we should use some categories. here's the category. you've been here for 25 years. you're entitled to not entitled. you can stay unless we change our minds. so that's the category. so it's a smaller category, but, you know, there's some there's a lot of people in that. general keller: if there was no

previous lawful status or an eminent lawful status, there's no way congress has acquiesced to that. and if i can back up -- justice kagan: so wait a minute. so that's important. so dhs could not say to all the people who have been here for 25 years and perfectly law abiding, congress could not say to those, you know, tens of thousands of people, let's say, not millions, tens of thousands, all right, you we won't deport you unless we change our minds, and you can work, you can feed your families, you can do that. congress dhs could not do that? general keller: congress could. dhs does not have statutory authority right now, of carte blanche authority to grant lawful -- justice kagan: so this has nothing to do with the scope of this policy. this has nothing to do with, oh, how many millions of people are in this policy. you're saying even with respect to a much smaller policy of the kind that dhs or its predecessor agencies have done literally every year for the last three decades, that all of that was ultra vires. general keller: mr. chief justice, my time is up. justice roberts: please, you may answer the question. general keller: when we're talking about the scope of the program as opposed to bridging lawful status, the scope goes to, is this a question of deep economic significance? it also goes to when the 1987 work authorization was justified, the executive was telling everyone through the

administrative process that this was for a minuscule number of people, and it wouldn't affect the labor market. and this also brings to light that here, the executive didn't even use notice-and-comment in promulgating this sweeping their theory is that they can grant deferred action where there's not going to be lawful status, that no court can review it, and they didn't even use notice-and-comment procedure. that is unprecedented, is a sweeping assertion as justice jackson said in youngstown. "it is the duty of the court to be last, not first to give up the separation of powers." justice roberts: thank you, general. general keller: thank you, mr. chief justice. justice roberts: ms. murphy. ms. murphy: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, three years ago the executive asked congress to enact legislation that would have given it the power to authorize most of the people that are living in this country unlawfully to stay, work, and receive benefits, and congress

declined. now the executive comes before this court with the extraordinary claim that it has had the power to achieve the same -- justice sotomayor: excuse me. was that really all was that part of a package for a pathway to citizenship? ms. murphy: it was not a pathway to citizenship. it was a pathway to lawful presence in the country that would have allowed individuals to have a legal status, to remain this country, and congress has not created a legal status for the category of individuals covered by dapa. justice sotomayor: that's correct. why do you think this is a legal status in the way that that bill imagines? ms. murphy: it is a legal status because under the agency's own regulations, it is a status that has consequences. and i would point you in particular to c.f.r.1.3. this is the statute that defines the term "lawfully present."

under that statute, if you are in deferred-action status, you are lawfully present and eligible for benefits. now that statute goes on to say if you are just an individual as to whom dhs has declined to pursue removal proceedings, you are not lawfully present. so whether you are in deferred-action status makes a difference under the agency's own regulations. it's that affirmative act of not just forbearing and making the decision not to remove somebody, but putting them into deferred-action status that triggers the availability of work authorization and eligibility to receive benefits. justice roberts: so why don't we just cross why don't we just cross out "lawfully present," as the sg has suggested? ms. murphy: you can't cross it out and achieve what dapa is supposed to achieve, because what really matters in dapa is that it is allowing the grant of deferred-action status. whatever the executive wants to label that, under its own regulations, deferred-action status is equated with lawful presence. so if you cross it out of the dapa memo, it's still part of the regulatory scheme that says once we've taken this extra

step, not just of deferring the removal of you, but of putting you into this status, that changes your eligibility for work authorization and benefits in this country. and once the executive is doing that, we are far outside the notion of mere enforcement discretion. justice ginsburg: but you would agree with the clause that says low priority, that that nothing about work authorization, nothing about social security, if you are low priority, which means we'll probably never get to you because congress hasn't given us the money to remove you. ms. murphy: well, we would not necessarily concede that you could actually grant people cards that say we're not going to enforce the law as to you. but that's all not at issue in this case, because what the executive wants to do is something much more than that. if all they wanted to do was say we're not going to enforce as to you, the only memo they would have issued is the enforcement priorities memo, because in order to qualify for dapa, you have to already not be an enforcement priority under the enforcement priorities memorandum.

what the executive wanted to accomplish was something more: to say not only are you not an enforcement priority, but we want you to be eligible to work and to receive benefits. and the way that we do that is by taking this affirmative act of converting you into a status that, under our own regulation, changes your eligibility -- justice roberts: well, we'll hear in a second -- justice kennedy: why wouldn't the appropriate way for texas to proceed have been to challenge the regulation under the apa -- i think it's section 553 and then if there were concern about notice-and-comment taking too long, asking for a preliminary injunction? ms. murphy: i don't think that's the way that it actually makes sense for this to proceed, because there's nothing inherently problematic about a regulation that ties deferred-action status to work authorization. congress has passed multiple statutes -- justice kennedy: well, but the point the point of the suit, i guess i'm not going to tell

people how to design their suit the point of the suit would be the areas of discretion have been so vastly changed that the regulation now has been has been superseded. ms. murphy: and i don't mean to suggest that that's not a way you could challenge. but i don't think it's the way you have to challenge this, because to me, the real problem is not the linking of deferred-action status and work authorization, it's the abuse of deferred-action status. that's not a power that includes the power to grant deferred action status to individuals who are on a class-based program -- justice ginsburg: then you disagree with general keller, because i think he did say came up a few times, it's in his brief you could give an i.d. card to these people saying low priority, the whole category of people, give them that. but you can't give them work authorization or social security.

ms. murphy: what i would say is we would have concerns if this case were challenging just the enforcement priorities memorandum, and we would have the same concerns if you had that and invited people in and gave them an enforcement priority card. that's not what this case is challenging. so ultimately, whether the house has concerns about the enforcement priorities memorandum is really beside the point here, because what this case is challenging is the dapa memorandum that goes beyond the mere enforcement discretion -- justice sotomayor: so can we can we take it break it down? ms. murphy: sure. justice sotomayor: are you arguing that the executive does not have the power to defer to defer action of removal against this class of aliens? ms. murphy: it all depends by what you mean by "defer action." justice sotomayor: i just said deferred action, but they're not --

ms. murphy: well, i can't answer the question unless i understand whether you're talking about mere forbearance or putting them into deferred-action status. we don't believe the executive has the power to put this class of individuals into deferred-action status. first of all, there's plainly no statutory authority to do so. but even if you get into the world of their congressional acquiescence theory, the types of deferred-action status programs that existed in the past are fundamentally different, both in kind and in scope, from this one. before 1997, you didn't even have class-based deferred-action programs. all of the programs they're talking about pre-1997 are exercises of different powers, powers pursuant to statutes that existed at the time, such as the voluntary departure statute that no longer is a path for executive -- justice breyer: can i can i ask you this, then?

because you're an amicus; you're not a party. it's texas who's the party, and they've made their objections. but suppose we played suppose i picked up your thought and also coupled it with what the sg said, cross out the words that say "special status." and suppose that would it work to say, look, the question is whether texas has standing to complain about simply the change in priorities for action. we don't know yet if that affects driver's licenses, or could, or could affect benefits, or will. but should the administration do so, then they might have a case that they could bring challenging that aspect of the situation. all we're saying is that they do not have that case now, given the s.g.'s concession or agreement or desire to strike those words out.

does that work or not, in your opinion? ms. murphy: i'm not sure i completely -- i'm sorry. justice breyer: if i am not clear, i will not repeat it, but you can forget it. ms. murphy: no, no. i want to be responsive. [laughter] i just want to be sure i understand the question. i mean, i think -- i guess my point is that i don't think anything, either in texas' view of the case, or in our view of the case, that turns on these words "lawful presence" being in the dapa memorandum, because what matters is the dapa memorandum, as it says, is designed to make it a path for individuals to be eligible for work authorization, and without dapa they're not. and it's also a path to make them i mean, once they are in deferred-action status, that is why they are considered lawfully present. you're not considered lawfully present just because the executive is not actively pursuing removal proceedings against you.

again, c.f.r.8, c.f.r.1.3, it specifically says the decision not to pursue a removal proceeding does not render you lawfully present. so it matters. you know, the words that were used here, and the program being created, matters. it's not enough to have mere forbearance. you need this additional step to achieve what the executive wants to accomplish. justice sotomayor: so your position is that in 1989, when george h.w. bush granted deferred enforced departure for chinese residents after the tiananmen square situation, that he acted illegally? ms. murphy: no, because that program was justified on a different power than the power here. it was deferred that the deferred enforced departure in article ii -- justice sotomayor: but there was no statutory authority for him to do that.

ms. murphy: it is a power that the executive has always grounded in article ii foreign affairs power. a nationality, country-based concern power. now, there's currently a statute on the books, the temporary protected status statute, that says it is the exclusive authority through which the executive can grant nationality based, but -- justice sotomayor: that came after this. ms. murphy: right. and at the time, that statute didn't exist -- justice sotomayor: at the time, there was no statutory authority. ms. murphy: whatever was happening before 1990 doesn't tell you very much about what congress has acquiesced in when congress passed a statute in 1990 that said these are the circumstances under which you can grant -- justice sotomayor: i appreciate that. and that may be what congress does here. it may come back and say deferred action is limited in this way. but it hasn't yet. so assuming that we have a history of deferred action for categories of people, then what you're really arguing about it and you and i stopped, or you got interrupted when you were answering me earlier-- why are you are you arguing that the 1986 regulation, which gives the attorney general the right to grant work authorizations to individuals who have been provided deferred action, are

you arguing that's unconstitutional? ms. murphy: no. because there are statutes on the books that say deferred action status also comes with work authorization. so, of course -- justice sotomayor: except that the statute says that the those people, deferred action, can be granted under the statute -- ms. murphy: yes. justice sotomayor: or by the attorney general. ms. murphy: i'm not -- justice sotomayor: the ones if you're striking out by the attorney general? ms. murphy: i was talking about different statutes, not 1324a(h)(3). i was talking about the statutes that actually refer to deferred action. and they say that the executive can grant deferred action and work authorization. so there's nothing inherently problematic about a regulation that implements congress's

precise understanding that in the circumstances where the executive is authorized to grant deferred action -- justice kagan: ms. murphy, suppose something is not statutorily authorized. suppose this is a version of the hypothetical that i gave to general keller. suppose dhs decided to do this one by one by one. and in doing it one by one by one, also said and you're entitled to work on the books. could dhs do that? ms. murphy: i think it would it would ultimately in that instance start to become a question of scope and a point at which you have a policy that is inconsistent with the use of deferred action status. because in the past, i mean, there have been this kind of ad hoc de minimis, case by case use of deferred action status. justice kagan: ok. so suppose, then again, same kind of question that i gave to general keller. suppose that there was a policy, but it was of much less significant scope. let's say a policy that said if you've been in the united states for 30 years and you have children here, we're not going to deport you unless we decide otherwise, and you're entitled to work on the books. could dhs do that? ms. murphy: no.

there is not any congressional authority that allows it, and there is no past practice like it. justice kagan: but this is very significant, right? no past practice like it? i mean -- ms. murphy: there's not any past practice. justice kagan: what was that family -- ms. murphy: that was not a -- justice kagan: policy fairness? ms. murphy: voluntary departure. there was a statute on the books at the time that permitted extended voluntary departure. you no longer can do that. there is no past deferred action program that was for a category of individuals that had no path to loss of status. justice kagan: so, but this is important. because you're basically saying that dhs, going forward, any administration cannot have any kind of policy, even if it's limited, much more limited than this kind of policy is, that allows undocumented aliens to work. ms. murphy: congress has passed a statute that says if you are living in this country without legal authority, you cannot work. that's congress's policy judgment in 1324a. justice kagan: that's -- ms. murphy: you may disagree

with -- justice kagan: yeah, yeah, yeah, i understand the point. all, i guess, i'm just saying is this would be an enormous change in practice. ms. murphy: not at all, your honor, because the past practices, there are none. they have not pointed to a single deferred action program that granted it to a class of individuals who had no lawful path to status in this country. justice ginsburg: is that true of all other deferred actions mentioned in the appendix, the one that the congressional research service did? ms. murphy: yes. most of those are not deferred action programs. they're extended voluntary -- justice ginsburg: i mean, they are different. ms. murphy: there's really there's only about four deferred action programs that were class-based. those all were path to lawful status. u visas, t visas, people who held f1 visas during hurricane katrina. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. five minutes, general verrilli. general verrilli: thank you, mr. chief justice. first, on standing, i would note that they have no answer to our redressability point. you didn't hear one today.

they don't have one. second, even if you think they got over the article iii hurdle, there's just no way that this license cost injury constitutes something within the zone of interest in any provision within the apa, and they haven't tried to establish that. and then third with respect to standing, i think justice breyer's point about the analogy between the kind of theory that they are advocating here and taxpayer standing and parens patriae is dead on correct. this would invite exactly the same kind of flood of litigation that you have always said article iii is designed to prevent, and if you want proof of that, it already exists. texas is already using this theory to sue the united states based on the resettlement of syrian refugees in texas, and that will just be the beginning. now, justice alito, you raised a couple of points i want to get to with some specifics. you asked about whether an employee with a deferred action work authorization could sue if an employer refused to hire. i would direct your honor to

u.s.c.1324b. actually, congress has determined the situations in which an employee well, with an alien with work authorization has a discrimination claim and when the employee doesn't. that statute says if you're a lawful public resident, you do. deferred action is on the side where you don't. justice alito: well, i was asking about section 1981. general verrilli: well, but i think that if you have a you'd have a hard time making that claim given that congress has made that kind of a judgment. now, with respect to another point your honor made justice alito: so your position is that that there could not be a suit under 1981. general verrilli: what i'm saying is that congress made a judgment there that that bears very directly on it. but now, with respect to another point that your honor raised about specific statutory references to lawful presence, my friends on the other side made a huge deal about this, in particular c.f.r.1.3, which i think they cite seven or eight times. i urge you to go to look at it. i urge you to, in fact, read the rulemaking order that went along with it from 1996. what you'll see what it says, that it applies to one thing and one thing only. that's the accrual of social security benefits under section 1611(b). and the rulemaking order and we quoted this in our reply brief specifically says that although

we're counting deferred action as lawful presence for the purpose of accruing social security benefits for the reason that if you can work lawfully, you ought to be able to accrue benefits. this does not confer any lawful status under the immigration laws. it specifically says that. and so we can argue about whether the executive has the authority to consider people with deferred action as lawfully present in that narrow sense. we think we're right. maybe they're right, but that is the tail on the dog here. that's not -- justice alito: well, if you if the phrase "lawful presence" were stricken from the guidance, would you take the position that dapa beneficiaries are not lawfully present for purposes of under certain statutes that use that phrase for the reentry bar, for eligibility for federal benefits? general verrilli: it's the only federal benefit is social security. justice alito: well, would you say they were lawfully present for those two statutory

purposes? general verrilli: no. there are regulations that say that they are, but we and we can fight about that. but that doesn't but that as i said, that is the tail on the dog. now, if i could go to the merits. repeatedly, you've heard that the family fairness policy was pursuant to statutory authorization. that's just flat wrong. there's a d.c. circuit case, and you can read judge silverman's opinion in that case that we cite at page 49 in our brief which specifically describes it as extrastatutory, which is what it was. now, the other key point, and i think this is really important. their theory about the scope of who can get work authorization is that either congress has to specifically say you get work authorization, or congress has to specifically authorize the attorney general, now dhs, to get to grant to decide whether people in this particular category can get work authorization. forget about deferred action. there are millions of people who get work authorization under existing law now who couldn't get it if that were the proper interpretation of the law.

these millions of people are in proceedings for adjustments of status. the hundreds of thousands of people who are in proceedings for cancellation of removal. the hundreds of those of people that have parole. none of those people qualify under reading of the statute. that is why in 1987, when ins had a rulemaking proceeding about this, they rejected it. it would completely and totally upend the administration of the immigration laws, and, frankly, it's a reckless suggestion. and it just and they just never -- justice sotomayor: people who have asylum don't have a pathway to citizenship. general verrilli: exactly. and there are all kinds of statuses that don't qualify as lawful status that people have always been allowed to get work authorization during the period in which time where their presence is tolerated. justice roberts: how many people are we talking about with those? general verrilli: millions. millions. there are -- justice roberts: the asylum applications? general verrilli: no, but the adjustment of status, 4.5 million since 2008, and cancellation removal, 325,000 since 2008. huge numbers.

>> we take the lead to senatorn, delaware with bernie sanders. introductory remarks under way. we should hear from senator sanders in a few minutes. road to the white house coverage on c-span. >> my black brothers and sisters board even regarded as people in bernie sanders knows we don't need the politics of 1890's when as a woman, i wouldn't be welcome on this stage. [cheers] politics of the 1990's that catered to wall street and sent minorities to jail in droves. [cheers]

we need progressive politics, we need a forward-thinking agenda that takes a clear-eyed view of where we are and where we have been in says we have not done enough. bernie sanders knows we have not done enough when 22% of our children are living in poverty, when 4% of the world's 12% of the ruled prisoners and we have not done enough one in this election cycle, the koch brothers budget is $889 million. [booing] at one around, look another. no, really do it, look around. [laughter] you've been looking at each other for many hours. the accountable to one another and not just to your friends and family who stood in the long lines today to come see senator bernie sanders but be accountable to the stranger

standing next to you. like bernie sanders has been his entire life because the stranger beside you is also deserving of a living wage, a safe neighborhood, a healthy planet. [cheers] bernieout this campaign, has often said this campaign is not about bernie sanders and he's right. it's about all of us and there is work for each and everyone of us to do if there is no one better, no one more dedicated to lead all of us to a more sustainable future than bernie sanders. [cheers] in this together. share with your friends, your family, your neighbor. bernie sanders the

next president of the united states. [applause] [chanting] ♪ [cheers]

[cheers] ms. dawson: i am so excited to see all of you here. i'm so grateful to be here myself. with my mom. this will be a very personal address because it's the first ime i'm speaking out since

lost someone very close to me this week, someone very beloved to all of you, i'm sure. a wonderful artist, prince. [laughter] [applause] that loved, person unconditional love. everything het to did come all of his work, all of his life come all of his relationships. when i was 19 years old, he called me and said i was the voice of a generation and that i needed to work with him on his 1999 remix album. he wanted me to do a monologue he in that monologue, talks about religion and black and brown bodies overly incarcerated. it was timely then and prescient today.

i bring that up because i wonder actually if it wasn't for his encouragement if i would be standing before you today. because encouragement is really, really important and reaching out to people just because of love and care is tremendous. i cannot tell you how many people i have met along this journey supporting bernie myders that have touched heart and motivated my spirit and inspired me. i am blown away at the majesty of what this country can do. [cheers] i have never endorsed a candidate before and like

prince, i'm pretty purple. i like to stay neutral. why i have been putting so much of my time and energy and love behind this man is because of you. one president barack obama became president, he did so with $1 billion and grassroots organizing. it was tremendous effort. you, he has his entire base. you are not only his financial supporters but his visible, present supporters. he has the largest amount of authentic followers online, which is tremendous. out of all the candidates. the other candidates have around 40% fake followers online. [cheers]

that's not funny to me. i actually find that kind of scary. --s week was to closed disclosed how a super pac is working in conjunction with the other candidates campaign, which should be illegal but somehow is not. whodavid brock, the person targeted and discredited anita hill is running that campaign and they have targeted 5000 people online and we are just in the primaries. this should be something we should really be talking about. if you are being targeted, real authentic supporters of bernie sanders are being corrected, targeted, followed online by to manipulate,

favor. and we are only in the primary. imagine what that will look like in the general election. that is some 1984 big brother scary stuff. seriously. the internet has really been bernie's domain. corporateknow, the media is very bias in the been huge. him has i think he would be sleeping otherwise. his message,atch when people watch the debates rather than the summary on the moved,te media, they are they are inspired, and it's exactly why i haven't been doing

press in the corporate media. [applause] i got to say when i got arrested for democracy spring -- [applause] the follow-up week, i had to democracy awakening and it was crazy to me to think tmz was the one who broke the story. to give your self a little experience of what media literacy is, look at how my arrest was posted by all the different media sections. some of them really went into ,hat democracy spring was about taking the money out of politics. bringing that, restoring the voting rights act. some of that was talked about

but it didn't really get into the fact that i talked about that is what we were therefore but also that the police were really great with us but aren't always so great with black lives matter activists and dreamers. and occupy movements. [applause] and maybe we can learn from this and start bridging that cap but it's interesting to see the different media outlets, what they have chose to say about it. that will be a good lesson for you to look at because we are really fending for ourselves right now. we are literally under attack for not just supporting the other candidate. and with monica lewinsky. bullying is bad. she has dedicated her life now to talking about that. somehow, that is ok and not

being talked about. i'm with the candidates who voted against the patriot act twice. [applause] i'm with the candidate who recognizes edward snowden did us a solid. [cheers] candidate who i don't fear net neutrality for. i'm with the candidate who understands that we save money by all of us having health care, we save money by all of us getting an education. fracking is bad in the environment should be our number one thing we are pushing for. [applause] beause our choices seem to hate and war and i choose peace and love. eers]

because i get to and i'm so thankful you are here to help us show the world that we care about this and that we are fighting for it because it truly is a future to believe in. [cheers] let's keep injecting love into this process and authenticity and integrity. don't just take my word for it. please welcome senator bernie sanders. he will tell you a little bit more about that. [cheers and applause] ♪

mr. sanders: thank you, wilmington. [cheers] thank you. [chanting] think you all. what a wonderful turnout and thank you so much for being here this afternoon. [cheers and applause] wilson, conradam representative tim williams and rebecca powers. and let me thank rosemary dawson. sario dawson. [cheers]

she is more than a great actress. she has devoted a significant part of her life to making sure allnd racism, that we end forms of discrimination and does -- forms of discrimination in this country. she stood up and fought for people who often don't have a voice. rosario for all she has done on this campaign. let me begin by quoting the words of a guy that many of you know of and some of you know personally and that is the vice president of the united states. [cheers] joe biden was just quoted the other day in the new york times. it says he remains neutral in the battle between bernie sanders and hillary clinton but

not between their campaign styles. he will take mr. sanders aspirational approach over mrs. clinton's caution any day. [cheers] and this is what the vice president continues. he says i like the idea of saying we can do much more because we can. then he says i don't think any democrat has ever one saying "we can't think that big, we should really downsize here because it's not realistic," he said in a mocking tone. i'm not part of the party who says "well, we can't do it." [cheers]

what joe biden is a saying is what this campaign is about. it is asking the hard questions of why not. why not? country and poor there are many all over the , and someone said we should have a great educational system for all of our kids, we should have health care for all of our people, a great infrastructure. if people ways those questions in a poor nation, people would say that's a great idea but we are poor, we can't do that. but let me be clear, you are living today not in a poor country. you are living in the wealthiest country of the history of the world. right to ask and a

right to demand that this country and our government work for all of us in not just the 1%. we have already won 15 states in this nominating process. and with your help on it, we're going to win in delaware. we started this campaign as 3% in the polls, 60 points behind secretary clinton. and last week or two, there are national polls with us in the lead. [applause]

matchup,u look at the matchup polls between donald trump and myself, we are beating him in every instance. [cheers] always by larger margins than secretary clinton. in other words, we have confounded the x words. we are in this campaign to win and with your help, we will do that. [chanting] on joe biden's point, what this campaign is asking people is to think outside of the box, outside of the status quo. don't accept what the media

tells you in terms of the options we have. we can think much bigger, we can create the kind of nation we know the united states can become. [applause] about half a loaf, we will get crumbs. about small ideas, we will get small results. [applause] this campaign is creating the energy and excitement it is because we are doing something very unusual in contemporary american politics, we are telling the truth. [applause]

the truth is not always pleasant and it's not always something we want to hear but whether it is in our own personal lives or our life, we have to confront the reality, not sweep it under the rug, if we want to go forward effectively. truths that many would prefer to sweep under the road? issue number 1 -- the former chairman of the u.s. senate committee on veterans affairs -- i have spoken to veterans from way back when, people who put their lives on the line to defend our way of life and let me be very clear in telling you i worry very much today about the future of american democracy. i worry about a citizens united

supreme court decision that allows billionaires to buy elections. democracy is not a complicated concept. it was one person, one vote, not people with extraordinary wealth [applause] buying elections. we will never effectively address the crises we face when we have a congress that is home to wealthy campaigns. and we will never address that issue unless we overturn this disaster is citizens united supreme court decision. when a handful of billionaires like the koch brothers and a few of their friends are prepared to $900 million in this

campaign cycle, that is not democracy, that is oligarchy and we will not allow that to proceed. i want this country to have a us tot democracy, i want have one of the highest voter turnout rates in the world, not one of the lowest. i want the people in this room in this state in this country who want to be involved in the political process, i want you to be able to run for office without begging wealthy people bernie sanders: and i want voting rules to be very simple

in america, if you are 18 years of age and you are a citizen of this country, you are registered to vote, and of discussion. [applause] so, goal number one, we need a vibrant mocker see where the voices of all -- democracy or the voices of all people shape the future of the country, not and -- andmist force amalgamate society. number two, and again when we talk about the need to deal with the reality of american society, we have got to talk about what is going on in the economy and the truth is, we have a rigged economy, a rigged economy. [booing] robert mcdonald: bernie sanders: think about it

for a second. the truth that is today, the top 1%, 1/10 of 1% own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. [booing] bernie sanders: the top 20 wealthiest people in this country today own well more than america's, million half the nation's population. withis an economy unsustainable principles. that is an economy which is not moral, where so few have so much and so many and so little. that is not the american economy that we need that this great nation should be. [applause]

and let me tell you, let me tell you how the rigged economy works. it is not just a grotesque level of income inequality. here is how it works. we have the wealthiest family in america, the walton family who owns walmart. [booing] own more than the bottom people. what is even worse, you got it exactly right. [applause] exactly what i said. the gentleman here, gentlemen upfront said, they don't pay their workers wages that their workers and live on. there you have it. wealthiest family in america, more wealth than the bottom 40%. yes, they pay wages for employees are so low that many

workers are forced to go on food stamps and medicaid. ho is paying? this is a rigged economy. who is paying taxes to provide food stamps and medicaid. you all. so on behalf of the walton family, i want to thank you very much. you are really nice guys, they appreciated. they are only worth tens of billions of dollars, and the do appreciate your subsidizing their business. needless to say, that is a bad joke. [laughter] because it is not funny. you know, and i have heard all over this country, republican governors talk about welfare, people ripping off the welfare system. the biggest welfare beneficiary in this country is the walton family. this will not get on television either. you got to listen carefully, they will not say it on tv. i say it is the walton family,

get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage. [applause] but the rigged economy is not just the grotesque level of wealth inequality, which, by the way is worse today than anytime since 1928, before the great depression. here is what else is going on. this is why we are not seeing outside of the box. jill biden says act inspirational, think big. i want you all to think about this. there has been an explosion of technology in the last 20 or 30 years. that means worker productivity has significantly increased. how does it happen that with all of this new technology, all of

this increase in worker productivity, all of the global thatmy, how does it happen people by the millions in this country are working longer hours for lower wages? how does it happen that in america today, you got people working not one job but to jobs and three jobs to bring in enough income and bring in the health care that they need? young people will not believe this, and google after you leave here, not now areas here is the truth. , one breadwinner in a family could earn enough money to take care of all of the family. one worker. today, you don't know any families where mom is not working, dad is not working, the kids are not working. we work the longest hours of any

people in the industrialized world, you know that? we work. the japanese are very hard-working people. we work longer hours per year then do the japanese. and in the end, listen to this, mom is working, dad is working, kids are working, people working crazy hours, 58% of all new income generated today goes to the top 1%. booing] in fact, the wealthy are doing phenomenally well. 1/10ast 30 years, the top of 1% has seen a doubling in income while the middle class continues to shrink. that is a rigged economy. our job is to create an economy that works for the children, that works for the elderly, that works for the working families, not economy that just works for the run percent.

-- 1%. [applause] but it is not just a corrupt campaign finance system in which billionaires and wall street and the super pac's by elections. elections.ust -- buy it is also a broken criminal justice system. [applause] fact.s the again, think outside of the box. ask yourself this question, why should it be that in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, we have today more people in jail than any other country on earth? [booing] we are locking up 2.2 million people and spend $80 billion a year to lock them up.

millions of lives being destroyed. i have been all over this country, and i had been in communities where the unemployment rate for young kids , 30, 40%. young kids who graduated high school, want to get their feet on the ground, want to become adults, make money and have independence. but you can't do that if you can't find a job. so what i will propose if elected president is to invest in jobs and education for our kids, not jails. [applause] we do not want to have the dubious distinction of more people in jail than any other country. we want the best educated workforce in the world. [applause]

when we talk about criminal justice, we have got to make certain that our local police demilitarized, do not look like occupied armies. [applause] thatve got to make sure local police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. [applause] i was a mayor in burlington, vermont. i worked closely with my police department, worked with police departments all over the country. those police officers, the overwhelming majority, hard-working, honest people doing a very difficult job. [applause] but like any of the public officials, when a police officer breaks the law, that officer was

be held accountable. [applause] nation, we must understand that lethal force by a police officer should be the last response, not the first response. [applause] have got to end private corporate ownership of jails and detention centers. [applause] we have got to rethink the so-called war on drugs. [applause] many people don't know this, many people don't know this, but over the last 30 years, millions of americans have received the records, criminal records, because of possession of

marijuana. [booing] if you have a police record and you go in and look for a job, it may be harder to get that job. under a federal controlled substance act, marijuana is listed at the highest level as a schedule one drug. [booing] i have introduced legislation to take marijuana out of the federal controlled substance list. [applause] it is the responsibility of states to determine whether or not marijuana should be legal. four states have, more will in the future. this possession should not be a federal crime. [applause] but here is another issue that we have got to deal with. all over this country including

my own state of vermont, we have a serious, serious problem regarding opioid abuse, heroin addiction, and people dying every single day from overdose. now, the best way to my mind to deal with this serious crisis is to understand that substance abuse and addiction should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a health issue. [applause] all over this country, and i can tell you as a senator because i get these calls from my office and other senators get the same calls, families are in trouble. people are worried about whether or not a member of their family can get off of heroine, get off of opium. they are worried about suicide, what a family member is going out and doing something really crazy. we need a revolution in mental

health treatment in this country. [applause] again, again, thinking outside of the box, just think about it. we've got thousands and thousands of people walking the streets of america today. they are suicidal, homicidal, addicted to drugs, getting into criminal activity. we need to provide those people with the help that they need today, not six months now. [applause] let me say a few words about the differences that exist between secretary clinton and myself on some of the important issues facing our country. we have chosen different paths in terms of how we raise the funds we need to run our

campaigns. campaigngan this almost a year ago, we had to make a very simple but important choice. campaign, whatr every other campaign is doing and establishing super pac's? we agreed with you. [applause] and here is why. because super pac's are simply a mechanism, to vacuum in huge sumsof money from -- huuge of money, right? --from the fossil fuel industry, corporate america. we don't want their money, we don't need their money, we don't represent their interests. [applause] choose to go another way.

unprecedented, and that is the state of the middle class, if you want a campaign that will stand with you, that will take on the powerful and greedy special interest in this country, we need your help. what has happened over the last year's we have received over $7 million individual campaign contributions. 7 million. anybody knows the average contribution is? $27. i was at the gettysburg battlefield just the other day. , near spot where lincoln the spot where lincoln gave his famous gettysburg address in 1863. at the end of his speech, he talks about the need to have in our country the government of the people, by the people, and

for the people. [applause] and that is the exact thing we are trying to do in this campaign. and when you raise money for millions of people at $27 a clip , that is a campaign of the people. [applause] clinton has chosen to raise money the old-fashioned way, or what is now part of the contemporary political process. that is, have a number of super pac's. period, supporting hersey reported $15 million from wall street alone -- her super pac reported $15 million from wall street alone. $225,000 a speech.

now, every candidate who receives a lot of money from special interests always has the same response, and that is, oh, it won't impact me. but the question you have got to ask is, why do some of the most powerful vessel interests in this country -- special interests make campaign contributions? they understand exactly what they are doing. i would differences are not just in how we raise money, our our differences are not just in how we raise money. our differences are in foreign relations. there was a debate with the most

difficult issue in american foreign-policy, and that was iraq. i listened to what george bush heney had to say, and i did not believe a word they were saying. [applause] i not only voted against that war, i helped lead the opposition to that war, and only, i do wish so much that our site was successful and we never went into that disastrous war. [applause] secretary clinton, she was then in the senate. she voted for the war. but it is not just -- [booing] it is not just the war in iraq. in my view, look, in the real world sometimes we have to go to war. but war and military force should always be the last possible response, not the first

response. [applause] you, i am notell impressed by politicians or republicans because they are really tough guys, they want to go to war all over the world, overthrow that, go there, go that. they understand it is not their kids who will go off to war, it is your kids. [applause] one of the differences that secretary clinton and i have is my belief that yes, it is easy to overthrow some of these terrible dictators. people like saddam hussein, qaddafi, aside. - assad. god knows how many people they have killed. it is not just overthrowing tyrants, understanding what house the day after you

overthrow that tyrant. [applause] and what we have seen throughout istory over the many decades you overthrow somebody and you have unintended consequences. instability, more people died. so yes, our goal should be helping raise democracy all over the world, but before we go about overthrowing people, we should understand fully the .onsequences of what we do regime change, all of it has unintended consequences. [applause] ate is another area secretary clinton and i disagree on. it is not a sexy., the media does not talk about it at all. therefore, it is important. and that is the disastrous trade policies.

all right? again, not a sexy issue, but here is what it is about. for the young people, i will tell you something, and you can google this as well. you could goime shopping in the united states of america, i know you do not believe me, but this is true. you could buy products manufactured in the united states of america, not in china. that is true. but what happened over the last 40 or so years, corporations have decided that they do not want to pay workers in delaware or vermont or anyplace else a living wage. why would you want to pay someone $25 an hour when you can shut down here, throw those workers out on the street, go to mexico, go to china, go to vietnam, a people. low wages, and did bring your product back into this country?

that is permanent. the whole goal is to shut down lowts in america, a people wage support, bring products back here and make billions in profits. i tell corporate america today, here is a heads up, if i am elected president, we are going to change his policies. [applause] if you want the american people everychase your product, night on tv have ads telling us to buy this and by that -- buy that, you have to start manufacturing products in america. [applause] now, i have opposed every one of these disastrous trade agreements secretary clinton has supported virtually all of them. that is a big difference of

opinion. i believe, and this is not a radical idea, that in america, if you work for 40 hours a week, you should not be living in poverty. [applause] you can do the arithmetic as well as i do, and that is if you an hour, $8 an hour, you are in poverty. hillary clinton wants to raise wage, that is good. but she wants to read it to $12 an hour. that is not good enough. we need $15 an hour. [applause] when we talk about the important issues facing not only our country but the world, i can tell you as a member of the u.s.

senate committee on the environment that climate change .srael -- is real [applause] that climate change is caused by human activity. [applause] and let me also tell you what many of you know. climate change is already doing devastating harm in our country and around the world today. and what the scientists tell us, and they are virtually unanimous in telling us this, is that if we do not get our act together in the next few years, by the end of this century, the planet earth will be five to 10 degrees warmer fahrenheit. that is unbelievable. more droughts, more flooding, more extreme weather, disturbances, acidification of the ocean, rising sea levels, and international consequences.

they will be international consequence because people will be fighting over water. they will be fighting over land to grow their crops. that is why we have aoral responsibility to do everything possible to leave this planet in a way that is healthy and habitable for our children and our grandchildren. [applause] and in the same way, we have got to tell corporate america they cannot continue to ship our jobs to low-wage countries. we have got to tell the fossil fuel industries that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. [applause] what that means, what that means

is the united states has got to lead the world, working with china, russia, india, other countries, entrance forming our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. [applause] save unbelievable amounts andnergy by weatherizing making more efficient our homes and our buildings. we can create a rail system, a mass transit system that gets cars off of the roads. [applause] and we can and must invest heavily in sustainable energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and other such technologies. [applause] something.tell you -- this kind of kenexa

the dots. when i talk about the corrupt finance system, yeah that is bad. but you have to understand that corrupt campaign finance system impacts every aspect of our lives. think about how it can be that we have a republican party which with very few exceptions rejects a concept of climate change let alone wants to do anything about it. [booing] now here is the point if you think that the republicans are just dummies, that is not the case. the real reason is the moment that some republican stands up and says, you know, climate change is real. it is really dangerous, we have got to do something about it. on that day, the koch brothers and the big money interests in the fossil fuels will cut their campaign funds. campaignhat a corrupt

finance system is doing. and that is why we have got to change that system, and that is why we have got to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and save this planet. [applause] now, i believe, i believe along with the scientists that this is a global crisis, and we have got to be bold. i am proud to introduce the most competence of climate change legislation in the history of the senate. [applause] is whatg other things it does do is in fact a tax on carbon. that is what we need. clinton'st secretary position. it should be her position, but

it is not. we need to be bold if we are our energyansform system. let's say one other area, one other area of differences. a great nation is morally judged not by how many millionaires it has and not by how many nuclear weapons it has. it is judged by how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable amongst us. [applause] now, we don't talk about it. often. but we have millions of senior citizens and disabled veterans and people with disabilities in this country who are trying to $10, $11,000, $12,000 a year social security. you can do the arithmetic as well as i can, nobody, if you

are a disabled veteran, if you are somebody with disabilities, you are not going to make it on $10,000 a year in social security's. ies. an indication of how far right the republican party has gone, they want to give more tax breaks to billionaires and cut social security. [booing] well, we have got some bad news for them. [applause] we are not going to cut social security. in fact, we are going to do exactly the opposite. is that a giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to ask them to pay more in taxes. [applause] instead of cutting social security, we are going to expand social security benefits. [applause]

that is youyou do list the cap right now, somebody making millions contributes the same amount into the social security trust fund to someone making $118,000. that is the maximum. at that cap, someone paying $5 million a year paid the same for thege of income trust fund as someone making $40,000 a year. we can extend social security for 58 years and significantly expand that. [applause] throughout this campaign, i have asked secretary clinton to join me, lift to the cap, expand social security benefits with the elderly and disabled veterans. i am still waiting for a clear answer. [booing] is doing as well as it is.

it is creating the energy and the excitement that is because it is listening to the american people, not just wealthy campaign contributors. [applause] it is listening to young people. [applause] now again, i would like you to think outside of the box for a second. young people throughout their entire lives relay on their parents, go out, study hard, get the best education that you can. that is really good jobs are, and that is what your life is about, to get as much education as you can. millions of young people did in fact do that. but then, they suddenly found $30,000, $40,000,

$75,000 in debt. frankly, that is not. -- nuts. think about it for a second. why we punishing millions of people for doing the right thing and getting the education they need? [applause] we should be rewarding people for getting an education, not punishing them. country, let me ask a question rate here are dealing with student debt? herew many people right are dealing with student debt? this woman wants to become a doctor. $300,000 in debt. young dentists in iowa, $400,000 in debt. a guy in nevada took out his loan hundred five years ago before he -- 25 years ago.

he is more in-depth and he was back then. i woman in new hampshire saying her own student debt and hurt daughters as well -- her daughter's as well. that is crazy. therefore, we have got to do a very few common sense things. understand that a college degree in many ways a vehicle its -- is the equivalent of what it high school degree was 50 years ago. the world has changed, the economy has changed, technology has changed, people need more education. therefore today, when we think about public education, not good enough doesn't talk about first grade through 12th grade, we need to be making public colleges and universities

tuition free. [applause] this a radical idea? it is not a radical idea. lady, a to a young visiting student here in the united states, stay with the family of baltimore. lives in germany. how much does it cost to go to college in germany? it is free, of course. how much does it cost to go to college in scandinavia? last year i had a meeting in washington dc, college in scandinavia is free. they said, no senator, you are wrong. finland, they pay us to go to college. all right? what does that mean? it means that if we are smart

about the future of this country, we want everybody has the ability and the desire to get as much education as they can. that is common sense. [applause] we want to encourage young people to get an education, not discourage them. when you make public colleges and universities tuition free, you do something that is pretty revolutionary. i grew up with a family that did not have a lot of money, my parents ever went to college. that is true for many families today. there are kids right here in wilmington in the fourth grade and in the sixth grade whose parents never went to college, didn't get the money. the idea of thinking they can go to college is as realistic as then thinking they are going to the moon. it is not within their peripheral vision. they are not thinking about it, not studying and not doing school work as they should.

if the word is out in this country that every kid, regardless of the income of his or her family, will be able to get an college education if they take schoolwork seriously, we can revolutionize education in this country. [applause] so is not only making public colleges and universities tuition free, not only dealing with dysfunctional child care system. every psychologist who studies the issue, the most important years of human development are zero through four, is that right? we develop intellectually and we develop emotionally. and yet, we are working class families, mom goes to work, dad goes to work, people are frantically searching for good

quality affordable childcare, and it is hard to find. think outside of the box. ,hink outside of the status quo and ask yourselves why we do not have the best quality pre-k system in the world. [applause] like.what america looks think what america looks like when mom goes to work, when dad goes to work, and they know that their kids are getting quality care from well-trained, well-paid instructors who are proud to be childcare workers. [applause] happens whenwhat we don't do that, when kids into the first grade, unprepared intellectually or emotionally. this is called changing our national priorities. this is called investing in our

people, rather than corporate america or wall street. [applause] so not only do we need a strong childcare system and a first-class public education system. we also have to deal with this crisis of a student debt. that is why i believe that people holding student debt now should be able to refinance that debt at the lowest interest rates they can find. [applause] now, there is nothing radical about what i am saying. the vast majority of the american people agree with what we are talking about right now, but our critics come back. we go back to joe biden, critics come back. they say bernie, you are a nice guy, you want free education, lower student debt, create a first-class childcare system in

america, great ideas, bernie. how are you going to pay for them? i will tell you how we are going to pay for them. over the last 30 years, there has been a massive wealth growth from the middle class to the top 1%. we are going to transfer that money back into the hands of the middle class. [applause] we can lower student debt, we can provide the tuition at public colleges and universities by imposing up tax on wall street speculation. [applause] this country bailed out wall street after their greed and illegal behavior nearly destroyed our economy. now it is their time to help the working families of this

country. [applause] this is not a radical idea. and like many other ideas, we don't go forward unless we are prepared to think big. [applause] to say that everybody in the united states of america who has qualifications and abilities should be able to get a higher .ducation is not a radical idea it is a common sense american idea that will make this country stronger. [applause] i have been in this campaign all over the country. i have been to flint, michigan and talked to parents who have seen cognitive damage done to their beautiful children as a result of their kids drinking poisoned water, led in the water.

in the water. i have been to detroit, michigan and have talked to people who have seen their public school system on the verge of collapse. i have been to baltimore, maryland where there are communities where 40% or 50% of the people are unemployed. people all over this country and in the african-american community are asking me a very simple question. they say bernie, how can we always seem to have money to spend trillions of dollars writing a war like the one in fighting a war like the one in iraq we never should have gone into, but we are not told we have the money to invest in rebuilding inner cities in america? [applause] what? know you know what? those people are right, it is always the way it is. there is always money for war. there is always money for

military expenditures. there is always money for tax breaks for billionaires, but somehow there is not enough money to rebuild inner cities were to pay attention to the people in this country who are hurting the most. well, you know what? we are going to change that now. [applause] this campaign is listening to the latino community. and they are reminding us that there are 11 million undocumented people in this country, many of whom are being exploited today because when you don't have any legal rights, your employer can do anything he wants. you, work youheat in ways that are illegal. and that is why we need to pass governance of immigration reform

and a path to citizenship. [applause] congress does not do its job in passing that legislation, i will pick up the president left off and use the executive powers of the presidency to do all i can. [applause] this campaign is listening to some people whose voices and pain are almost never heard. that is people in the native american communities of this country. [applause] i don't have to tell anybody here that from before when this country became a country, when the first settlers came over here, the american people were lied to, trees were ms. negotiated.

--own the american people native american people more than ever we could pay. [applause] they have contributed so much to the fabric of this nation and among many other things, but maybe most importantly, they have taught us the profound lesson that as human beings, we are part of nature. we have got to live with nature. we cannot destroy nature and survive. [applause] and yes, if you go to reservations around this country , if you go to many native you findcommunities, unbelievably high levels of poverty, unemployment, young people committing suicide at horrific rates. if elected president, we will change the relationship with the native american people. [applause]

if we think big and not small, we ask ourselves another very simple question, and that is, how does it happen that every other major country on earth -- united kingdom, france, germany, italy, holland, scandinavia, canada, whatever. everyone one of those countries guarantees health care to all of their people as a right. [applause] we are the only major country that does not guarantee health care to all of our people. let me be as clear as i can be. i believe from the deepest part of my being that health care is a right of all people, not a privilege. [applause]

that whether you are young or old, rich or poor, you have the right to a high quality health care. as a citizen of this country. act has donee care a number of good things, and i'm proud to be on the committee that helped write that bill. but we can do more. far more perending capita on health care than any other nation. 29 million people still have no health insurance. many of you are underinsured with high deductibles and copayments, and every one of us continues to be ripped off by the greed of the drug companies. [booing] crazy want to hear a thing? this is crazy. right now in america, one out of

five americans to go to the doctor and get prescriptions are unable to fill the prescription because the medicine is too expensive. delaware, in vermont, all over this country, seniors are cutting their prescription drugs . their medicine, their pills in half because they can't afford the medicine they need. and that is why in my view, they must pass a medicare for all, program for all of us. [applause] right now, you have got republicans running all over the country talking about family values. they just love families. all of you understand that when they talk about families, what they mean is that no woman in

this room, in this state, in this country, should have the right to control her own body. i disagree. [applause] and they mean, when they talk about family values, they mean that none of our gay others and sisters should have the right to be married. i disagree. [applause] jane and i have been married almost 28 years. we have four kids, seven beautiful grandchildren. when we talk about family values , very different values than republicans'. when we talk about amalie values, we talk about ending the familyssment of the --

values, we talk about ending the embarrassment of the united dave being the only country on earth does not provide paid medical leave. [applause] when a working-class woman in this country gives birth, she should not have to be separated from that newborn baby and rushed back to work in order to earn the income she needs. [applause] whythat is why, that is paidher, we will pass medical and family leave. [applause] donald trump will not become president of the united states. [applause] he will not become president because amongst many other

15 or 20 points ahead of him on every national poll that they take. [applause] importantly, he will not become president because the american people will not support mexicanate who is both -- whoinos, who insults insults at both mexicans and latinos. who insults muslims, women, african-americans. hope that everyone here has not forgotten that before trump became the candidate for president, he was leader of a so-called bertha movement, and it was a very dangerous and ugly movement thegned to delegitimize first african-american president

of our country. whereas not an instance he disagreed with the president. that is fine, we also agreed with everybody. this was an effort to say that barack obama really should not be president of the united states. that was an ugly and ambitious and tax, and we will not forgive that. [applause] -- ambitious attack, and we will not forgive that. donald trump will not become president because we all know that as a nation, we are ,tronger when we come together black and white and latino and asian, american and native american. gay and straight, male and female, that is our strength. and that strength of coming together will always trump dividing us up. [applause]

people who will not support donald trump for president, the understand we are strong when we support each other. when my family is there in your time of need, and you are time -- you are there in our time of need. that is what a nation is about. [applause] other willting each always trump selfishness. [applause] and perhaps most importantly with the american people understand, every great religion , whether it is christianity, judaism, muslim, buddhism, or whatever, at the end of the day, love always trumps hatred. [applause]

[chanting] robert mcdonald: what this camp -- bernie sanders: what this campaign is about is not just electing a president, it is creating a political revolution. and what the revolution means, this is what it means. that no president, not bernie sanders or anybody else can a address the crisis of the country. the only way we deal with issues that are out there, so important to so many people is when millions of people come together to stand up, fight back, and demand the government that represents all of us, not just wealthy campaign can to readers.

-- contributors. [applause] days, on tuesday here in delaware, there is going to be a very, very important democratic primary. what we have learned throughout this campaign is that we do well when the voter turnout is high, and do not do well when the voter turnout is low. let us have the highest voter turnout in delaware history on tuesday. [applause] i let delaware show the world that it is -- and let delaware show the world that is ready to go through political revolution. thank you all very much. [applause] bernie] bernie,

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [background chatter] thank you, bernie. >> bernie. >> thank you, bernie. thank you. thank you, bernie.

please save our planet, bernie. thank you.ers: >> thank you, bernie. [cheering] [indiscernible] >> thank you. [cheering]

♪ bernie. you, >> we love you. ♪ [david bowie song playing] ♪ bernie!

[cheering] [whistling] >> excuse me. bernie! [cheering] >> in the road to the white house coverage, republican presidential candidate john kasich at a town hall meeting in maryland. polls on go to the

tuesday, along with delaware, connecticut, rhode island and pennsylvania. john kasich will be live on c-span on monday at 2:00 p.m. >> tonight, we take a look at some of the speeches by president obama during his terms at the white house correspondents dinner. >> turns out jeb bush identified himself as hispanic in 2009. i understand, is an innocent mistake, kind of like when i identified myself as american back in 1961. >> join us tonight. and tune into the live coverage of the correspondence dinner on april 30. ♪ >> washington journal, live

every day with issues that impact you. sunday morning, we will be joined by phone to talk about in aviation bill pushed through the senate this week designed to overhaul the administration, bolstered airport security, and make travel easier for customers. and derek castle joins us to discuss his platform of the constitution party and obstacles facing third-party candidates in the two party system. us toffrey callan joins discuss his book that looks at the primary system that was created in the early 20th century. be sure to watch washington journal, beginning at 7:00 a.m., sunday morning. the discussion.

>> on sunday on newsmakers, discussing veteran issues. this includes prioritizing health care. here is a portion of the interview. these take out any one of legs and the still -- stool falls over. research is one of those. research into posttraumatic stress, and research the medical systems are not going to do, but the on that mother research has been positive for the american public. we invented the nicotine patch, we won three nobel prizes, we did the first electronic medical record. we were the ones who came up with the idea of putting a barcode with prescriptions my with medical records, to keep them saight. a lot of the innovations that

have affected american medicine have come out of the v.a. and in the profit world, where will those come from? doctors in% of the the country and we train a majority of the nurses. this is a system that was set up in 1946, aligning the va hospital's with the best medical schools in the country. in north carolina, we share over 300 doctors with the duke medical school. they do work in both places. and with clinical work, the fact that our doctors do clinical work with veterans, who they share the best patients, and if you are a veteran, is it not nice to have somebody work with you to have to teach what they are doing, so that what you are sure that they know it. it is a great system and a

privatization is not the answer. >> that was part of what robert mcdonald had to say on this week's newsmakers. at the time.iewed ♪ >> this month we showcase student winners, making documentaries. this year, the same was road -- --me to the road height theme was road to the white house. some of the winners are from silver spring, maryland. these were 10th-graders at the high school who wanted candidates to discuss reform in

their video come away for, a childhood behind bars. >> we are still the only country in the world that sentences kids to die and that should never happen. ♪ i do not think that juveniles should be sent to adult prison at all. >> there are a lot of kids that do not pose a public safety risk and what we know about the impact of jail on kids, it should only be used in situations where you have to be removed from a home and you are considered to be horrible. >> these are young people and they need guidance. they need to get back on track. , and you are doing good this is not meant for humans to be living. ♪

>> psychologically, physiologically, people until they are 24-25 are not able to make sound judgments. >> some research around brain development can identify the activities and things young kids get involved in our more develop mental in nature and are reflective of growth yet to occur. ♪ >> the research is clear about the high cost and low return of juvenile incarceration. some states spend around $200,000 to walk away an individual, but the cost of return is much lower. there are high needs, not high-risk. >> it does not mean that we

should plunge them deeply into the system. it means, we need to be more careful about what the plan would become of the case plan for how we would treat them in terms of their disposition. >> win and incarcerated, juveniles are less likely to complete their high school graduation and are more likely to live a life of crime. thisu do not come out of better, by any means. >> there is a certain amount of taking that occurs when a young person comes into a system they do not need to. they are labeled in the school environment, the community, as the kid that is involved in do the -- in jv . >> it is about returning and getting back into school and it is really difficult. >> to announce must be sent -- juveniles must be set to

correctional facilities where toy can have the opportunity improve their function -- thei r future. that is why privately run programs are needed as alternatives to typical incarceration facilities. , a director of our house community-based program that teaches young people and give them -- give them an education. >> students ages 16-21 come from all over the state and during the day, they learn trades. shop,, woodworking and they get it eight hours a day. and at nighttime, they have high school classes. >> i got kicked out of my house.

when i went to see my probation dss and they sent me to they brought me here. i have been here ever since. >> programs like these teach kids skills that are a essential for reentry. trade, stuffarn a like that, for real. money and when you leave, all the money you made at the -- adds up. >> silver oaks, a private facility for juvenile services, is the model for programs run by the state. , you can earngo high school credits because it is a school, you can graduate from high school, they will help you get set up with a community college, you can enroll in

community college. there are kids taking the sat and applying to college and they have a lot of children getting scholarships, athletic and academic scholarships, so they are doing it. >> however, most state and government programs do not provide the same opportunities for children to get an education in prison. themselves take upon to help them reenter society. back into society, it is a shock. i am learning how to express a way that is not negative. >> they encourage youths to use writing to transform their lives, helping them get back on

track and set goals for the future. >> i recently learned something new about myself, as far as, i could -- i didn't know i could write poetry. it made me smile. >> three months, it helps them incarcerated as youth, learn the skills they never acquired. >> the day we learn how to do keyboard things, use microsoft word, things i never had a chance to learn of my life. they are helping me get ready for society, because if i did it on my own, i would be lost. ♪ hope we can work together this year on bipartisan priorities, like criminal justice reform. [applause] kids than. has more anywhere else in the world.

and -- ♪ i lost my thoughts maybe people went through what i did it would be different mother with three jobs i thought people were tripping wanted was hood trying hard, misunderstood back ould go -- [applause] ♪ >> to watch all of the prize-winning entries in the competition, visit studen tcam.org.

night, historians talk about the hit musical, hamilton, based on the biography of alexander hamilton. >> he said to me, i was reading your book on vacation and as i was reading, hip-hop songs started coming up in my head. and i said, really? then he told me that hamilton's life is like a hip-hop negative. and i thought, what is this guy talking about? and he said to me on the spot, because my first course and was, can hip-hop be the vehicle for telling this kind of very large and complex story? and he said, i am going to educate you about hip-hop. and he did. he pointed out that with hip-hop you can pack more information into lyrics than any other form,

because it is very dense. he talked about the fact that it has rhyme indians, internal rhymes, wordplay and he educated me on all of these different devices that are important to the success of the show. >> sunday night, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> we are joined by carolyn lukensmeyer, the executive director of the university of arizona's national institute of civil discourse. she is the leader of an award-winning nonprofit that engages people through the use of public policy tools and strategies. thank you for being here. carolyn: thank you for having me. host: we have not heard a lot of civil discourse lately.

tell us what your organization does. carolyn: the institute was created in 2011, after the assassination attempt on abbey giffords. she was an elected official that work in a bipartisan way, the way that she introduced bills, so the university of arizona and the city of tucson came together and said, we need to make something good come out of this tragedy. order to founded in see if we can have an impact on the political dysfunction that dominates our country. host: how do you do that? carolyn: we work with elected officials in congress and state legislatures. we work with journalists and we work with the public. one thing that is unfortunate about where we are in the country is that our mass media

messages and political messages are negative. yet, if you go beneath that into communities and even nationally, there are a lot of positive things happening. it can give us hope that we can write the situation we are in. there is no question that americans are ashamed and disgusted and angry and frustrated. these are the words we hear. washington firm, does a civility poll. americans say that instability is a serious problem. 77% of americans recognize that we are losing stature in the world. 64% say that they have stopped watching politics altogether. the thing that worries me the

, almost aof americans 40%, say that they think that is the way it is right now. that that is how politics need to be. host: you can join in the conversation. we are going back to the traditional phone lines for this segment. you can also send us a message on twitter. you mentioned that many americans feel like the level of discourse we have now is just the way it is. are we in a unique. or is this different than what we have seen historically. analysts have been looking at this and their judgment is that the instability

in politics and communities is the worst it has been since reconstruction. there is no question, where we have been on a downward slope in terms of respect for each other, the absolutism about issues, when people disagree on an issue, they do not hear each other's reasoning, they do not hear it enough to understand why the person holds those views. if you do not think like i think, you are not a better person than i am. host: what is driving this polarization of the public and the rhetoric we hear on both sides of the aisle? carolyn: there has been a tremendous amount of research and there are many structural issues. the way that primaries work. extremes parties to the

to get through the election. some of our most extraordinary statesmen have essentially been driven out of their work in washington by an ideologically dominated primary process. so, another piece i know that you would speak about is the business model for the media has changed, in a way that which so much more that is covered on politics, is really celebrity and entertainment, rather than driven by news. one of the problems, it took us decades to get here and it will take us decades to reverse the direction. that means that today, to make a difference, we need to rely on people and it needs to be how americans, who are very frustrated and tend to disengage because of civil politics,

because -- what we actually need to do as citizens is step in and speak up. let our congressmen know that we should have hearings for supreme court justices, because that is constitutional. congressmen need to hear from constituents. it is not ok for me, as it can constituent,- as a for you to just jump on the bandwagon. is best thing for right now americans understanding that all of us, the vast majority of us want this to change. the only way it will change is if we speak up. host: is it the organization related to any part -- any political party? carolyn: no.

our democracy is a unique system and it is a system that was built to not allow any majority to do troll a discussion, completely control how resources are used. so compromise was the essence of the system, but now there are whole groups of people who say compromise by definition is against my ideological stance. we are nonpartisan. ost: our first color comes -- caller comes from montana. caller: i attended a sporting event at the university of arizona. i would like the person who is sitting there to attend the sporting event at her school and see how uncivil the people are, the players, the coaches and the crowd. tell me how you would react to that?

carolyn: i am sorry you had that experience. i am guessing that that is an experience replicated at sporting events all over the country at this particular point in time. that is not what should happen. but we have almost made sports like the roman theater in terms of it being a place where people get out emotions and where they are overtaken in their support for their team, being uncivil to those teams and spectators. i am very sorry that you had that experience and i know that it is not just at the university of arizona. host: robert is next. go ahead. i definitely understand, it seems like all avenues of closed out toy is

citizens. --m a disabled the anon disabled veteran and i read about veterans being abused at a hospital. and they did intervene. ever since then, i have been blackballed, lied about, things i cannot believe. friends commit suicide over this type of behavior. some things that have happened to me, falsified records, i mean, i cannot believe my america is like this. know that the issue is very profound for veterans, specifically for those from

vietnam. in order to give citizens more of a voice, we have created a software platform that works with texting on your phone. we have actually run the program specifically for veterans on the issue of suicide. robert, you might want to take your cell phone and text, 898 00, and in the message line, right -- write start. isis a lot -- it available. hope that you may have tried it to contact your congressman, that is another avenue which should get your voice heard on what is happening to veterans in your area. host: and you guys have also launched this for millennials as a way to get them involved in

the political conversation. tell us about that. carolyn: after the shooting of elementary children in newtown mother president called for a discussion on mental health. i was invited to lead that discussion. six organizations collaborated and we work for two years, more than 300 communities have participated, and frankly when we saw how young people are ready to stand up and say that the stigma that has impacted mental health in this country is wrong, we created this platform. april 19 was the last form -- forum we did. more than 5000 young people across the country participated four days ago and we will do it again on may 5. that is part of why i am here, not talking about just mental

health, but we need to do this about the election campaign we are in. we will be launching the same platform, to be text come and talk will vote, which will allow millennials to actually look at the issues, both sides, completely nonpartisan, to see where the candidate are on the issues. hopefully it will be motivation for them to vote. host: in new jersey, craig is on the line. good morning. caller: you are talking about civility, you do not need it to go any further than just listening to the radio. people like rush limbaugh, totally non-civil calling people names on the radio. they say things they can never get away with saying on tv and it goes on hour after hour.

i think he has a three-hour show at night. i would challenge you to turn it on and listen to all three hours. it literally makes you sick. host: ok, craig. carolyn: your point is well taken. you have focused on the rush limbaugh program, but unfortunately that is another like,that americans feel all outlets, millennials will say it is the online sphere that is most detrimental in their lives. more than 60% of americans believe that now the media is part of the problem, that they are creating instability, and not just reporting on incivility. that is one thing we are working on. we convened with the poynter center from st. petersburg, florida.

from allg journalists mediums, newspapers, radio, tv and the internet, and we engaged them in a conversation, what can journalists do? that work was so inspiring, we have now moved to the next stage, which is to go deeper, bringing together journalists, elected officials, and citizens. we did that in ohio. everybody knows that ohio is an important swing state come on but everybody may not know that more money is spent on ohio,sion advertising in compared to every other state in the union. and most of it is negative and the public is to give it -- sick of it. newscans should know, 30 outlets in ohio are

collaborating during the presidential campaign to engage candidates, not so much on their predefined platforms, but based on sophisticated polling on things like the economy, immigration, when the candidates come to these media outlets, they are asking candidates questions that the citizens of ohio most want to know about. we will have a chance to see at the end of the election cycle what impact it has had. host: what were some of the outcomes out of that workshop? carolyn: one of the most extraordinary things we witnessed, where young people of color in the state of ohio, very passionate about experiences they had, of what they call voter suppression. particularly, minority groups, polling places that were closed,

lines that were too long. in the same workshop, the president of the senate for two terms, a republican leader in ohio, was aghast at what he had heard, because he had been part of his -- spent part of his leadership working on that. so we had to realities sitting in the same room. in most environments, if that had happened, it would have erupted into a serious conflict, lack of respect, in the context of which we were working, committed people to listening, and happened was the former president of the senate and this person of color, they have worked together to say that this is real. some people dinot get to vote. structurally, we have done good work in ohio. let's present these pieces of

data comes to the current secretary of state can see what we can do about it for 2016. the point is, when you put americans in a context, whether they are elected officials, journalists, where they actually feel safe enough to speak what is true for them, but they also commit to listening respectfully to what is true for everyone what wasy do exactly said about us in 1837, they let go of the ideological party differences, and they come together to say, how can we solve this problem? host: charles is next. go ahead. caller: listening to what the lady is saying, the civility of -- what he has

done is he has purged the republican party. the republican party has been in bad shape. when you consider the civility, let's talk about what these politicians are saying. i will not call anybody's name. but politicians lie to people do,tell kids, what they can what they can have. it will turn off these young people. expect to get them to vote, you have to tell the truth. none of the politicians are talking about getting rid of the irs. you know -- host: ok, charles. thelyn: i think one of things that americans are concerned about is the rhetoric

in this primary campaign, and many are predicting it will be worse or as bad in the general, because these people running for president themselves are using language, themselves are making it sound like it is ok to be violent under certain circumstances. we have young people all over the country watching people who are role models behave this way and it begins to legitimate, make it ok for me to bully, if i am in high school. and we have examples in elementary school, where young white school -- young white kids of color,tell others that you will be leaving this school. this is not what america is about. candidatesof the

might say that they are reflecting the anger that already exists and concerns that exist among the mac and populous. carolyn: that is a question that comes up all the time. this is a place where there is , to say that the creation of this absolutism about value, it did start first with elected officials in congress and is now impacting and pulling more people with them. isdate, as we sit here, it true that our people are more likely to stay civil than our politicians. mike is our next caller. go ahead. caller: in my view, the ideological focus is misdirected. civility is very effective, in

my experience. civility is also patriotic. i think the national past -- press deserves a lot of the blame. coverage than all the other presidential candidates combined. it might be merited if it was not so's you. -- so stupid. in responding to criticism, this candidate is a one trick pony. he reacts with the argument. and the press failed to call him on this fallacy. may i have your comments? carolyn: i think there is no question that most americans, whether -- what ever their policy association, that at the beginning of this campaign, the amount of earned media that was given to particular candidates, did not at that point reflect a

following of the american public. it has turned into a following of the american public, but i do believe your point is well taken. it comes back to what i said, traditional journalism and the media has shifted in the last few decades. at this moment, six families own all of the primary broadcast and print elements that are available to the public. so the business model has shifted to an entertainment, celebrity type of coverage, as opposed to what has been traditionally true for several decades, which was the media as a source of balanced information across the ideological spectrum on issues. you may ask you what can the public do in terms of pushing back on this? one thing i think is very

important, when you in your hometown, when you watch what medium you watch, when you see something unacceptable to you, we feel like there is nothing we can do about it. but you can actually make a difference if a law of people pick up the phone and call the line to that broadcast station, or if you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, he can make a difference. we really have to come together as the american public and revive civility. it is a patriotic value. it is part of the court sense of -- core sense of how we can come together and fashion such an extraordinary economy and culture with so much difference, right from the beginning, and yet we have fallen back to a time when we treat differences as a problem, instead of

recognizing it as an asset to who we are as a nation. aller fromave a c oklahoma. work.: you do great law -- tellequoh, oklahoma. i think you are doing great work. good morning. this is very important. i could not agree with the previous caller more. he articulated what needs to be repeated over and over again. to articulate more on what you are saying. you were using words after the previous caller to describe the situation at hand like we do not

recognize certain things, while we do other things mindlessly. situationback to the some of the complexity of the media and we want people to be involved, but then we are on the air now. the man that just called in articulated quite well what the problem is. yet, how do we stay with that issue, rather than going back to romp withl general the public, which will draw in people that are uninformed. the media has a responsibility, how do we identify what is reason, what is truth, what is legitimate authority, instead of being complicit and continuing the charade of illegitimate power?

carolyn: again, i think that you and the previous caller have put your finger on an important element of how we have come into this situation of such degradation of our civility and the dysfunction in our politics. as i said, what has brought us here are some very significant structural things that have taken decades to come to be. there are good things going on to try to change that, in organization that is working on how the primaries work, working on open primaries so that independents can vote. one thing we try to do on our website is point citizens to the resources where you can work on these long-term problems, but in the meantime we are sitting today, in april, and one of the most contentious, uncivil

campaigns in history. at this moment, what is most important when you understand it at nearly as you do, think of a way in your community, that you can maybe work with tribal leadership in this situation, but some way come together with other people in your community who share this view. at the institute, we are getting tremendous support from the public, to essentially create a kind of campaign process to revive civility. and we hope you will join us. host: you mentioned the workshop you held at the museum for journalists. you also held a civil discourse workshop in idaho, according from a local resource. discourse create that

and what are some of the things that you focus on and teach during the workshops? carolyn: one of the most important things we are doing and one thing we see as most helpful, other than the coverage in idaho, the story does not really get out nationally. we have a project called next generation, in which we go into state legislatures and we start with a basic workshop, we call it building trust through civil discourse. we always make sure that leadership supports it, so that we will not get the knees cut off. and we make sure it is a balanced group, about the same number of democrats and republicans, and a couple of independents. 4-5 we come together for hours. we have the legislature

themselves to greet the ground rules on how we will behave for the next 4-5 hours. we do not impose those. most of them have had bad experiences on the floor. i will never forget, a republican woman, who in the workshop said, at the end, she said, we need another workshop and it has to become a how do we start the conversation with somebody who calls you evil on the floor? remember, state legislatures are more closely connected to their public and they get more pushback in the grocery store, more pushback at school, so they know that they have to produce legislation on the issues. they want to figure out a different way to treat each other and a way to come back to a place where there is bipartisan support for bills to pass. we have now worked in 12 states,

more than 450 state legislatures have participated, and we have created a network of those state legislatures who actually, every two weeks, participate in conference calls and come together regionally for face to face meetings. each year, we give the gabby giffords award to a republic -- to a republican or democrat, or group, in a state that has done solid work and has really reversed a negative trend in their state. we will do that again in august. host: ok, kevin from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. understand that civility in politics is a task for politicians, and with the world looking at us, our candidates that we have in the

forefront seem to be easily recycled. so my question is, is there any legislation in the political election system that requires stability -- civility in the elections today, from politicians? existingthere is no national legislation requiring civility. what i was talking about, the work we are doing in state legislatures, the state of colorado has introduced a proposition which actually set out what they see as civil behavior and how they treat each other and how they treat people who testified in that state, so we are beginning to see this. delmar, california, i believe is the first city where the city council and mayor have half a code of civility.

that they expect everybody in the community tuesday connected to. gary, indiana, on april 14, they initiated something called world civility day, in which they had 300 people from indiana and 13her states, i think thre people from other countries, also participated. and in idaho, they have produced a year-long agenda in which they talk about what is the long-term stability -- civility for every sector. one month they look at the legislature, another month they look at education. we have started a network of organizations around the country committed to doing exactly what you said i'm a in whatever way -- said, in whatever way appropriate.

it is not to force agreement, but frankly, with the field of conflict resolution, if you can create a safe space, if you can understand why i think like i do, and what is important to me, we almost 100% of the time discover that we have more common ground than we expected to discover. we also learn that in our political culture, certain words start to be flashpoints. i want to go back to the ohio workshop and the issue of voting. momentnever forget a when a young african-american woman in the process said, the most important thing i have learned here is that i know of many hundreds of people of color who do not get to vote.

but if i call that voter suppression, the very people i need to hear me, will not hear me. she said, i want to work with you to change it. so we got a whole bunch of language that is owned either by the d's or the r's, and when we use that language escalate. s. is starte need to do issue iy think, with an care about, and my using language that -- >> the washington journal, live every day with issues that impact you. joined byning, we are phone to talk about an aviation bill that went to the senate this week, designed to overhaul the administration, bolster

airport security, and offered consumer protection for travelers. us toarrell castle joins discuss his candidacy, the platform of the constitution party, and obstacles facing third party candidates in our two-party system. us toeffrey cowin joins discuss his book, looking at the modern primary system created in the early 20th century, and it implications for the 2016 congress -- contest. be sure to watch on sunday morning, join the discussion. >> in his weekly address, president obama talks about reforming the criminal justice system. and a representative from west virginia has the republican address. he talks about babies exposed to avoid -- drugs during pregnancy.

issident obama: today, there some 2.2 million people behind bars. all told, we spent $80 billion each year to keep people locked up. many are serving unnecessary long sentences for nonviolent crimes. almost 60% have mental health problems. as a whole, our prison population is disproportionally black and latino. plenty of people should be behind bars, but the reason we have so many more people in prison man any other developed country is not because we have more criminals, it is because we have policies that need to be reformed. we know that locking people up does not make communities safer, it does not deal with the conditions that led people to criminal activity in the first place, or to return to prison

later. there is evidence that it can percent increase -- 10% increase in graduation rates, leads to a 10% decrease in people behind bars. we will lower crime by as much as 20%. and research suggests that the longer people say india, the more likely they are to commit another crime once they get out. here is why it matters. every year, more than 600,000 people are released from prison. we need to ensure that they are prepared to reenter society and become contributing members of their families and communities, maybe even role models. that is why i have been working to make the criminal justice system more effective. this week, the department of justice will highlight reentry programs. my administration will announce new action that will build on progress already made. we will release more details on

how we are taking steps to ensure that those with a criminal history have a fair shot to compete for a job. we are showing the economic costs of incarceration, and we are calling on businesses to commit to hiring returning citizens who have earned a second chance. these are just a couple of the steps we are taking, but there is more to do. disrupting the pipelines, addressing the disparities in the application of criminal justice, investing in alternative to prison, helping those who have served time get the support they need to become productive members of society. good people from both sides of the aisle are coming together on the issue, from businesses that are changing hiring practices, to law enforcement, to improving policing, we are seeing change.

send as is prepared to bill to my desk. this is not just about what makes practical sense, this is idealsliving up to our as a nation. in america,minutes a baby is born who was exposed to drugs during pregnancy. ,ecause of exposure to opioids heroin and other drugs, they may spend their first weeks suffering from withdrawal. tremors.es with this is called neonatal abstinence syndrome and it is a terrible way to come into this world. unfortunately, it has become too common. this is especially true in my home state of west virginia. the good news is, doctors and community leaders are developing innovative treatment for these babies.

one example, a pediatric recovery center that will help -- in my home town of huntington. doctors and nurses use the best treatments and therapies available to help babies suffering from withdrawal. and parents can get counseling. y's place helpil's mothers turn their lives around. one mother said, there was something stronger than i could've ever imagined, creeping into my life. my thoughts were altered, my wishes were no longer mine. her infant son our healthy now, thanks to lily's place. we need more programs like it, but it took years just to get

this one program set up. there are real gaps in health care all across the country and far too many obstacles getting in the way of our doctors and nurses. that is why we are taking action. last november, congress enacted legislation that i helped champion, to develop treatments for expecting mothers with addictions. legislation that is now law. i recently introduced the nurturing and supporting healthy babies act, which will expand our understanding of this condition. through this bill, we will learn more about just how many newborns are suffering from a strong, and -- from withdrawal, and more about the obstacles in treating them. the nurturing and supporting healthy babies act was just one of a number of initiatives

republican and democrat are working on to combat oak wielded -- opioids abuse. we are focused on getting a bill to the president in the coming weeks. this is a national epidemic and it could happen to anyone. start his deserves to or her life in withdrawal. it is our responsibility to care for the most honorable in our society. forward is why i look to working with my colleagues to get this done. 10:00 p.m., we will look at some of the speeches by president obama during his two terms at the correspondents dinner. this year will mark his final attendance at the dinner. >> jeb bush identified himself as hispanic in 2009. i understand, it reminds me of

when i identified myself as american back in 1961. [laughter] >> join us tonight at 10:00. and tune in for live coverage of the correspondents dinner on april 30, beginning at 6:00 p.m. ♪ ,> to spans washington journal live every day with policy issues that impact you. sunday morning, transportation reporter joan lovett joins us by phone to talk about an aviation bill designed to overhaul the federal aviation administration, bolster airport security and offer consumer protections for frustrated travelers. castle joins us from memphis to discuss his candidacy, the platform of the constitution party, and obstacles facing third party

candidates in the two party system. us toffrey callan joins discuss his book that looks at the modern primary system created in the early 20th century and its implications for the 2016 contest. watch washington journal, sunday morning. join the discussion. ♪ >> sunday on newsmakers, roger mcdonald -- robert mcdonald discusses veteran issues, including long waits at hospitals and prioritizing health care. here is a portion of the interview, now. >> these are like it's related stool.- 3 legged you take out a leg and it falls. one of these is research. research that for profit medical

systems are not going to do. beyond that, a lot of our research has empowered the american public. we invented the nicotine patch, we won three nobel prizes, we did the first electronic medical record. we were the ones, ava nurse came up with the idea -- a v.a. nurse came up with the idea to the barcodes on medical records to keep them straight. a lot of the innovations that have affected american medicine have come out of the v.a. in a for-profit medical world where will those innovations come from? in then 70% of doctors country and we are the number one employer of nurses. this is a system that was set up the a6, aligning hospitals with the best medical schools in the country. for example, in north carolina, we share over 300 doctors with the duke medical school.

they do work in both places. and the clinical work, the fact that our doctors do clinical work and if your veteran, isn't it nice to have someone work with you who actually has to teach what they are doing because that you are sure they know it. it is a great system and privatization is not the answer. >> that was just part of what ronald mcdonald -- robert mcdonald have to say. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> ted koppel, when we talk a bout a u.s. electric