manifestation of opposition to the status quo and positive initiative as we go home something different in different groups. but stay tuned. >> democrats obviously reached a new level with the sit-in in terms of vocalizing your frustration with republicans and calling for a vote. but you guys have also been on the floor relating to the maloney amendment for lgbt rights system of standing up more vocally to speak over republicans. does this represent a shift in terms of the minority party in the house and how you guys are going to get your message across? ms. pelosi: i think you have to take it on a day-to-day basis. the effort yesterday, again inspired by john lewis, orchestrated by some of our

members, is a reflection of the frustration that we have had and the complete insistence that we cannot go through another moment of silence without taking action. moment of silence just left there is a moment of denial of the need to do something more. so i think that you'll see more spontaneity as to the form things will take. on the floor of the house we were responding in terms of the maloney amendment, and by the way the maloney amendment for those who don't know, president obama issued an executive order enabling lgbt, otherwise qualified lgbt companies to participate in government contracts. republicans put in their bill a reversal of that. codifying discrimination in fact. we won on the floor to remove that. until they reversed the vote. and that's when the activism started. we didn't go to the floor intending to do anything except hopefully win the vote.

but when they in a very -- contrary to regular order way did what they did, then that evoked a response. so again, it's the setting that we are in the but we have to recognize, times have changed. anything that anybody wants to talk about that happens now, it's all different. technology has made -- you know that better than i. generationally and in your profession, have made a tremendous difference in how, in realtime, information is conveyed to the largest number of people, evoking a response. that's what you saw yesterday. so we'll take it one issue at a time. >> does your agenda of pushing gun legislation supersede the need to finish or continue work on appropriation bills? and if so, where does it stand as the fiscal year draws o a close? ms. pelosi: the problem with the appropriations bill this bill they brought to the

floor was a terrible bill, with or without the gun issue. and they insist on putting poison pills in the appropriations bills, knowing that they are doomed, that the president will not sign them and we will sustain a veto. so it's really -- it behooves them, this is contrary to our tradition, as you may know, for many years i was an appropriator. i'm of that culture. we try to find compromise, try to find sustainability. i might like my way better but if we change it a bit, is it more sustainable and more community -- sense of community and getting the job done? that's always been the appropriations committee but it's always been the appropriations community. now it's become a policy vehicle for poison pills. and so that's not about guns. it's about what the bills are. and in the past, our appropriators have always been able, including last year, to come up with bipartisan

appropriations bills of the bills we have passed and then higher pay grades weighs in and sprinkles it with poison pills. that's the problem. appropriators have usually done a good job to be appropriate in what they do. i'm trying to talk to those who are around on all these. >> you condemned the leadership for their inability to govern buzz of tea party activists. are you worried you're opening the door for similar activism in your party? ms. pelosi: i think almost every member, maybe just a handful of our colleague, participated in this.

this is not a fringe element as the tea party, i say it's a fringe element, i think it probably has more element than fringe. but in our party, this was consensus on the part of our caucus to go forward. there were those who were prepared to go to jail. there were other suggestions along the way. but this worked better. this worked better. i'm proud of our caucus and the, as i said to you before, when people ask me all the time, how do you keep the democrats unified when they're so different from each other? i don't unify them. our values unify them. our values unify us on the floor of the house all night. >> this is something you can particularly answer, when you turned the cameras off on the republicans. do you think the rule is obsolete? ms. pelosi: we allowed them a lot of time. what we were doing yesterday was largely in recess because they just weren't ready. >> should the speaker have

control of the cameras? should the speaker have the control of the cameras? ms. pelosi: it's almost irrelevant now because technology enables periscope to take us out. the control of the house, yeah, that belongs to the speaker. but the speaker needs to recognize that the world has changed and there are other ways to get the message out in realtime to a broader audience of people that would probably never be watching c-span. broader audience than any who would be watching c-span. getting it to c-span enables it to have additional visibility. but the large numbers of people watching, were watching it on their own technology. >> would you treat the rule as obsolete? ms. pelosi: what rule? >> the rule about the speaker has control over the cameras that cover the floor or of the house? ms. pelosi: i think that's something, the speaker has awesome power, has control of

the lights, the heat. it was freezing in there last night. it was freezing. people were starting with sweaters and then blankets and i think we were practically having rugs because it was freezing in there. that was one way but we would not be deterred. >> the supreme court's deadlock this morning, you said obama's -- they said obama's executive actions will not go into effect. is there anything else to do, it was in 2012 in the summer that he first launched daca so it's not too late to do something. is there anything, maybe a smaller scale executive action? ms. pelosi: i'm certain the white house is probably investigating those possibilities. from what i know, i haven't read the documents yet because i haven't been to sleep. it was a disappointing setback for hardworking immigrant families, delays the implementation of measures to help those immigrant families.

i think it's important to know that we believe that the court was wrong. remind you that president reagan and president george herbert walker bush did more by executive order, percentage wise, affected more families, by their executive actions than president obama. it's hard to understand why this court would say it was ok for president reagan and president bush, it's not ok for president obama. but i believe that a court will ultimately prevail because the law is on the side of the president. it's legal authority. the president is there -- the precedent is there. but this law today this decision today does not set a precedent. it does not set a precedent. it applies only to dapa and expanded daca. dapa, tpwheg parents, and expanded daca, being since 2010. not to existing daca.

so that, the president's executive order on existing daca still can be enforced and generally other pieces of the president's agenda, immigration agenda, have not been affected. but anyway, we really need to pass comprehensive immigration reform. again, i think we have the votes to do so. we just need the speaker to give us the signal to take up the vote, just give us a vote. we believe we can prevail. the american people overwhelmingly support these positions. but i'm not happy about the decision but it was 4-4. that means it goes back to the lower court. i do want to point out that it wasn't as pervasive as all of daca, just the parents and since 2010. not to minimize it, but just to define what it is. and again, as i said before, the

president acted because congress did not act on immigration. but that's -- but back in the 1980's, congress did act. the immigration act was 1986. a very significant immigration bill. congress acted. and president reagan, to his credit, said he didn't do enough for instituting family fairness. he and president george herbert walker bush did just that. higher percentage of people affected by the executive action than president obama. i don't know what that tells you but nonetheless, i think the elections will help with that. because it has evoked such a high registration of people in immigrant community that would be asian, asian pacific americans, hispanic, african, all kinds of immigrants to our country affected by it.

>> so you don't think the programs not going anywhere will de-energize those communities? ms. pelosi: i think it's an energizer. i think it's an energizer. but i always see things a little differently. i think it's an energizer. it says the president did what the president by law and by precedent had the right to do. the court, to send it back, we need a full court and we need, we really do need comprehensive immigration reform. you're talking about it in this respect. we just had some meetings with the tech community. every group that you meet with, one way or another, keeps talking about the need for comprehensive immigration reform. the only people that don't seem

to get it, and again, widely popular in the public, the only people that don't seem to get it are republicans in the house. hopefully we can change that. i'd like to take both of those issues off the table, to have immigration reform done, have guns done, not have them be political. i don't think of them as a difference of opinion on the spectrum of government and federal and local, this is just about policy that has been, again, a republican president under president reagan was passed. it isn't just the democrats. in any event, thank you all. thank you for -- i never saw the gallery so full. they kept you up late during the night. i mean, except for the state of the union or visiting dignitary maybe. but thank you for your interest and we have six page, they gave me six pages today, six small print, full pages listing of newspapers around the country where the sit-ins were on the front page. i thank you for that. thank you all.

i congratulated cleveland, i know it's a boost of morale for them have a great season. i'm proud of our team. that's it. you >> were you there? ms. pelosi: i was there. but you can't help but be happy for a city, wish it could be our

city but it's a joy for cleveland though it's sad about not being our team. >> house speaker paul ryan alled the democratic sit in publicity stunt. he spoke to reporters at his press conference. this is 15 minutes. speaker ryan: good morning. you know, one of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. no matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a

functioning democracy. we can disagree in policy, but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system. otherwise, it all falls apart. to not going to dwell on the core of of the house today other than to say we will not allow stones like this to stop us from carrying out the people's business. why do i call this a stunt? well, because it is one. let's just be honest here. here are some facts. yesterday, the house appropriations committee considered its bill for homeland security spending. at the committee, democrats offered in committee an amendment offering the gun measure they say they want. that amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. so just yesterday, the democrats offered this gun measure they claim they want and failed on a bipartisan basis in committee. there was a vote, it was in the

committee through regular order and the vote failed. that's a fact they didn't want to talk about. here's another one. if democrats want to vote for a bill on the floor, there's a way to get one. it just takes 218 signatures on a petition and then they can have a vote. it is that simple. that's how the house works and well known process. but they're not doing that. they are not trying to get this done through regular order. instead, they are staging process and trying to get on tv. they are sending fundraising solicitations like this one, house democrats on the house floor, your contribution will go to the dccc, $15. this one says 25 bucks, if you want, you can send us, $100, $500, 1,000.

send us money. if this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this, off of a tragedy? what their called for failed in the committee of the house. the reason i call this a stunt because they know this isn't going anywhere. it already failed in the senate. may not like this fact, but this bill couldn't get 50 votes in the united states senate, let alone 60. why is that? why is it that this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in committee and this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the senate? because in this country, we do not take away people's constitutional rights without due process. this is not just republicans

saying this. it's groups like the aclu who are saying this. but more to the point. our focus needs to be on confronting radical extremism. terrorism is the issue. let me say it again, terrorism is the issue and defeating terrorism is our focus here in the house. let me be really clear. we are not going to take away the constitutional rights of law--abiding americans. that's why the house powered ahead last night to provide important resources in the fight against the zika virus. one of the must-do things we had to respond to the zika list. and in the face of this distraction, we passed a responsible bill that provides the level of funding that was in the senate bill, that received a

big bipartisan vote with the mix of offsets that in the house were very important. this is a good compromise and meets an urgent need and i urge the senate to take it up and pass it. democrats can talk all they want. i'm not sure what their plan or end game is here, but the bottom line is despite these distractions we did our job and we did the people's business and we will continue to do so. one more point i want to bring up. i want to say a word about the supreme court ruling that halts the president's executive amnesty. this is a win for the constitution. it's a win for congress and in our fight to restore the separation of powers. president doesn't write laws, the congress writes law. it is fundamental to our system of checks and balance. congress, not the president, writes our laws and the supreme court validated that very fundamental principle. reporter: speaker ryan, what were your personal feelings when

you were being screamed at and yelled shame, not even a year in your speakership. are you worried that this sets a precedent for the shoe be on the other foot that if you are a minority point? worryr ryan: it i do about the presence here. i have an obligation to protect this institution. we are the oldest democracy in the world. we are free people. when we see our democracy descend in this way, it is not a good sign. yes, i do worry. look, i have been around -- i have done the iowa state fair, the soap box. i have done wisconsin recalls. so that i am used to.

but on the house floor? no. on the house floor where we have rules, where we have order, where we have a system, where a democracy is supposed to work its way up in a deliberative way, no, i did not expect that because i think what we did, we watched a publicity stunt to descend an institution that we care deeply about. reporter: you pledged when you came in to run a more open house. last night, bills passed without sufficient time to review it, according to your own rules. the rules on amendments for appropriation bills are much more structured now and on this gun vote you are not going to bring it forward. the speaker: it failed in the committee. reporter: aren't you not giving an open process? the speaker: what we learned democrats weren't interested in advancing the process but

stopping the process. our members want congress to function. our members want us to do the people's business and do our jobs and when the democrats are trying to stop congress from doing anything, that is not an open process. that's a no process. that's a halting process. to the point of last night. you think we are going to have a civilized conversation about the zika virus? of course not of the so we were going to get our job done and our job is to make sure we were giving the authorities to the c.d.c. and vaccination and getting prepared for the zika virus. people are going be grilling out on the 4th of july and we want to make sure we have the proper response and did our job and passed this bill. reporter: why not hold the vote, it would have taken 15 minutes.

the speaker: we have a process. this a bill that isn't supported by a bipartisan majority. this amendment was brought up in the appropriations committee and failed there. that's point number one. point number two, if you want to bring a bill, do a discharge petition with 218 signatures and not bothering with these things. by the way, this isn't about making law because the senate already defeated, so they know it isn't going to law and this is a publicity stunt and fundraising scheme. what did i say yesterday or the day before? we want to see what the senate produces. what did i say over the weekend? we know there is an issue with respect to terrorist watch list and people attempting to buy gun. we are looking into it. we aren't doing publicity stunts but looking at this issue so we get it right.

remember what the f.b.i. told us, you get this wrong you will screw up investigations. you do this the wrong way, you are going to screw up our ability to go after terrorists. we want to get it right while protecting people's constitutional rights. reporter: if the protest is continuing, do you continue to punish those who broke the rules? the speaker: we are reviewing everything and bring order to this chaos. this is the people's house, this is congress, the house of representatives, oldest democray on the world and descending it into chaos. this isn't a proud moment for democracy. reporter: on appropriations, you won't be able to finish the process before the end of july. how long you want the c.r. to go for? the speaker: i don't want to get into how long a c.r. because i want to get our job done and i want to move as much appropriation product through

the house floor as much as possible and i don't want to talk about c.r.'s because that means we are short changing the process. we'll see. reporter: why not shut off the lights -- republicans have pointed out that is what nancy pelosi did in 2008 in order to end debate. the speaker: we are following the rules as always have been in place. when you recess subject to the call of the chair, that's one process. when you adjourn, that's another process. we are following the rules as they have always been written and the rules as they were in 2008 as well. reporter: your homeland security committee ordered an investigation as to what happened at the department of homeland security headquarters and investigating whether an employee was plotting to attack senior first there. has your office been briefed? the speaker: we want more

information and we are awaiting investigation. my staff was briefed. reporter: you have not had a trump question. [laughter] the speaker: i have been a little busy. reporter: you have been extremely clear on your thought process about supporting the nominee and you don't want a hillary clinton presidency and you have been very clear about that. i'm wondering if there is something larger at stake here. you mentioned this is about free people. you are the head of this institution. and everything this country has been through, civil rights, racial discrimation, fair play, voting rights, you have a nominee as you know and had to rebuke him, attacking a judge based on ethnicity, have you ever thought about whether somebody in your position, regardless of party, needs to reject this -- somebody in your

position needs to reject it for the health of the country? is there anything bigger here? the speaker: let's make it clear, yes i'm the head of the legislative branch as speaker of the house and i'm the high ranking republican official. if i lead a schism in our party i'm guaranteeing that a liberal democrat becomes president. i think losing the supreme court for a generation is detrimental and we want to see the campaign improve in tone and approach and every respect. he gave a good speech.

i haven't seen it or read it, but when i see and hear things that i don't agree with that i think are contrary to our principles as conservatives and americans, i'm going to be speak out and be clear. you know that. at the same time, the last thing i want to do is help hillary clinton become president of the united states. i think that would be bad for the country. reporter: citizens of great britain are voting on whether to stay or leave the european union. the speaker: they are great friends that we stand with them regardless of what decision they make. reporter: are you fearful of the consequences of what will happen in the united states? the speaker: i'm not going to weigh in and they are an ally and stand with them regardless of what decision they make in great britain. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, roll call senior editor discusses this week sit in on the house for by house democrats calling for a vote on newcomb legislation. also, the thomson reuters supreme court correspondent examines decisions by the supreme court. be sure to watch washington journal this morning. join the discussion. is insident obama california today to deliver remarks and participate in a panel discussion with mark zuckerberg. it is part of the global entrepreneurship summit. you can see it live starting at 1:45 eastern here on c-span.

today we hear from jake sullivan, foreign-policy advisor for hillary clinton. he's speaking at the truman center's annual conference looking at terrorism financing, conflict zones, refugee migration, and africa. our live coverage begins at 5:15 p.m. eastern here on c-span. on american history tv on c-span 3, this saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. >> by the end of the 1880's, you have as dramatic upsurge, a veteranss surge in organizations, in the membership in these organizations and in the statues they create. >> university of georgia professor scott nesbitt discusses the ongoing debate over confederate war monuments and how many were the result of

campaigns by southern women during the reconstruction era and into the late 19th century. sunday morning on road to the white house rewind. >> back in 1976, mr. carter said, trust me and a lot of people dead. now many of those people are out of work. >> the republican alternative is the biggest tax giveaway and history. eagan-kemp-roth. i call it a free lunch that americans cannot afford. >> the 1980 republican and democratic conventions with ronald reagan becoming the gop nominee and president jimmy carter accepting the democratic nomination. smithsonian's national air and space museum will commemorate its 40th anniversary. sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts. 1976, we were wrapping up

a golden age of human exploration with the apollo missions to the moon and we were launching into the first golden age of planetary exploration with the missions of the 197 0's to mars and to the outer planets. we're now in another golden age of planetary exploration on mars. resume with the head of the spaces or department and learn about the story of human space exploration from the moon to the mars. the presidency, the former deputy assistant to president reagan and author of the book "true reagan, what made ronald reagan great and why it matters." thisve come to see, and relates to president nixon, that a great leader of character is a person who has the ability to

discern the future and lead a people to it and through it. >> for the complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. spoke toent obama reporters following the supreme court's decision on immigration. the court ruled in a tie upholding the u.s. versus texas case, blocking the presidents to 14 executive action on immigration. his remarks are 20 minutes. president obama: i wanted to say the cases theo of supreme court spoke on today. first, in the affirmative action case, i am please the supreme court held the basic notion that diversity is an important value in our society. this country should

provide a high-quality education to all of our young people regardless of their backgrounds. we are not a country that equal outcomes, but we do strive to provide an equal shot to everybody and that is what was upheld today. second, one of the reasons why america is such a diverse and inclusive nation is because we are a nation of immigrants. our founders conceived this country as a refuge for the world. and for more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic. it has shaped our character and made us stronger. but for more than two decades, our immigration system, everybody acknowledges has been broken. and the fact the supreme court was not able to issue a decision talesdoes and just -- us further from the

country we aspire to bp or to lay out some facts -- office we have deployed more border agents and technology to our southern border. that has cut illegal border crossings to their lowest levels since the 1970's. it should have paved the way for governance of immigration reform. as many of you know, it almost did. nearly 70 democrats and republicans in the senate came together to pass a smart, and commonsense bill that would have doubled border patrol and offered undocumented immigrants a pathway to earn citizenship if they paid a fine, pay taxes and play by the rules. unfortunate, republicans in the house of representatives refused to allow a simple yes or no vote on that bill. so, i was left with little choice but to take steps within my existing authority to make our immigration system smarter,

fairer, and more just. years ago we announced that those who are our lowest priorities for enforcement, diligent, patriotic, young dreamers, who grew up pledging allegiance to our flag, should be able to apply to work here and study here and pay their taxes here. livesave 730,000 been changed as a result. these are students. they are teachers, doctors, lawyers. they're americans in every way but on paper. and fortunately, today's decision does not affect this policy. it does not affect the existing dreamers. ao years ago, we announced similar expanded approach for others who are also low priorities for enforcement. if you have been in america for more than five years, with children who are american citizens or legal residents,

forward, get come right with the law and work in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. both were the kinds of actions taken by republican and democratic presidents over the past half century. neither granted anybody a free pass. all they did was focus our enforcement resources which are necessarily limited on the highest priorities -- convicted criminals, recent border crossers and threats to our national security. now, as disappointing as it was to be challenged for taking the kind of action that other administrations had taken, the country was looking to the supreme court to resolve the important legal questions raised in this case. today, the supreme court was unable to reach a decision. this is part of the consequence of the republican failure so far to get a fair hearing to mr. merrick garland, my nominee to the supreme court. it means that the explained it

commonsense policies, the ones i announced two years ago, can't go forward until there is a ninth justice on the court to break the tie. people are going to be disappointed today but it is important to understand what today means. the deferred action policy that has been in place for the last four years is not affected by this rule. priorities developed by my administration are not affected by this ruling. this means that the people who might have benefited from the expanded deferred action term residents- raising children who are americans or legal residents, they will remain low priorities for enforcement as long as you have not committed a crime our limited reinforcement -- immigration forces are not focused on you. but today's decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a

rationality to our immigration system and to allow people to come out of the shadows and lief ft this cloud on them. i think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who make their lives here, raise families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military and fully interview to this country we all love in an open way. so, where do we go from here? americans, including business leaders, faith leaders are law enforcement, democrats and republicans and independents, still agree that the single best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass bipartisan immigration reform. that is obvious we not going to happen during the remainder of this congress. we don't have a congress that agrees with us on this. nor do we have a congress that is willing to do even its most basic of jobs under the

constitution, which is to consider nominations. in congress are willfully presenting the supreme court from being fully staffed and functioning as our founders intended. underscorestuation the degree to which the court is not able to function the way to supposed to. the court's inability to reach a decision in this case is very a clear reminder of why it is so important for the supreme court to have a full bench. for more than 40 years, there has been an average of just two between a nomination and a hearing. i nominated merrick garland to the supreme court more than three months ago. but most republicans so far refused to even meet with him. they are allowing partisan politics to jeopardize something as fundamental as the impartiality and integrity of our justice system.

and american should not let it stand. this is an election year. politicians tend to use the immigration issues to scare people. with words like amnesty in hopes that it will whip up votes. keep in mind that millions of us , myself included, go back generations in this country with ancestors put in the painstaking effort to become citizens. we do not like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to american citizenship, but here's the thing. millions of people who have come forward and work to get right with the law under this policy, they have been living here for years, too. in some cases even decades. so, leaving the broken system the way it is, that's not a solution. realct, that is the amnesty -- pretending we can deport 11 million people or build a wall without spending tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is abetting what is really just factually

incorrect. it is not going to work. that is not good for this country. it's a fantasy that offers nothing to help the middle class and demeans our tradition of being both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. my firmnd, it sis belief that immigration is not something to fear. not wall ourselves off from most look likeho may not us, right now or pray like we do or have a different last name, because being an american is about something more than that. what makes us americans is our shared commitment to the ideal that all of us are created equal. all of us have a chance to make of our lives what we will. in every study shows that, whether it was the irish or the poles or the germans or the italians or the chinese or the japanese are the mexicans or the

kenyans -- up over time, by the second generation, those kids are americans. they do look like us because we do not look one way. we don't all have the same last names, but we all share a creed. we all share a commitment to the values that founded this nation. that's who we are. is what i believe most americans recognize. so, here's the bottom line. we got a very real choice that america faces right now. we will continue to implement basis and programs in place. we're not going to be able to move forward with the expanded programs we wanted to move forward on because the supreme court was not able to issue a ruling at this stage. and now we've got a choice about

who we are going to be as a country, what we want to teach our kids and how we want to be represented in congress and in the white house. we're going to have to make a decision about whether we are a people who tolerate the hypocrisy of a system where the orkers who pick our fruit make our beds never had the chance to get right with the law, or whether we are going to give them a chance, just like our forebears had a chance to take responsibility and give their kids a better future. we're going to have to decide whether we are people who accept the cruelty of ripping children from their parents arms, or whether we value families and keep them together for the sake of all of our communities. we're going to have to decide whether we are people who continue to educate the world's brightest students in our high schools and universities, only to then send them away to compete against us , or whether

we encourage them to stay and create new businesses in the united states. these are all the questions that voters now are going to have to ask themselves and are going to have to answer in november. these are the issues that are going be to be debated by candidates across the country, both congressional candidates as well as the presidential candidates. and in november, americans are going to have to make a decision about what we care about and who we are. i promise you this, though. sooner or later, immigration reform will get done. congress is not going to be able to ignore america forever. it's just, it is not a matter of if. it is a matter of when. i can say that with confidence because we've seen our history. we get these spasms of politics around immigration. and fear mongering. and then our traditions and our history and our better impulses

kick in. that is how we all ended up here. because i guarantee you at some point every one of us has somebody in her background who people did not want coming here. yet, here we are. and that is what is going to happen this time. the question is -- do we do it in a smart, rational, sensible way, or we just keep on kicking the can down the road? i believe this country deserves an immigration policy that of thes the goodness american people, and i think we are going to get that. hopefully we are going to get that in november. all right? i'll take two questions. two questions. >> this is one of your highest concerns. >> realistically, what do you see is the risk of deportation of formula people? we can't deport 11 million people. 4 million and there is a chunk of time here.

president obama: let me just be very clear. what was unaffected by today's ruling or lack of a ruling is the enforcement of priorities we put in place. our enforcement priorities that have been laid out by secretary jeh johnson at the department of homeland security are pretty clear. we prioritize criminals. we prioritize gang bangers. we prioritize folks who have just come in. tot we don't do is prioritize people who have been here for a long time who are otherwise law-abiding, who have roots and connections in their communities. and so, those enforcement priorities will continue. the work that we have done with the dream act case, those policies remain in place. so, what this has prevented us from doing is expanding the scope of what we've we have done

with the dream act kids. keep in mind, though, that even that was just a temporary measure. all it was doing was saying to these kids, you can have confidence that you are not going to be deported, but it dose not resolve your ultimate -- does not resolve your status. that is going to require congressional action. so, although i am disappointed by the lack of a decision today by the supreme court, a this does not substantially change the status quo. negate what has always been the case, which is if we are really going to solve this problem effectively, we've got to have congress pass a law. limits ofhed to the my executive authority. we now have to have congress act. and hopefully we are going to

have a vigorous debate during this election. this is how democracy is supposed to work. and there will be a determination as to which direction we go in. as i said, over the long term, i'm very confident about the direction this country will go in, because we have seen this in the past. adn't seen in the past, america would look very different than it looks today. but, whether we are going to get oon, so thatw, s this does not continue to be this divisive force in our politics, and we can get down to the business of all pulling together to create jobs and educate our kids, protect ourselves from external threats, and do the things that we need to do to ensure a better future

for the next generation, that's going to be determined in part whoow voters turn out and they vote for in november. one more question. >> two practical going forward questions. number one, are you going to be able to do anything more at all for immigrants going forward in terms of executive actions before the election of the next president? and number two, do you in any slap at your as a use of executive authority? this tie vote. will this circumscribed how aggressively or forcibly you use executive authority in the remainder of your time in office? president obama: um, ok. on the specifics of immigration, n't anticipate that there are additional executive actions that we can take.

we can implement what we have already put in place that is not affected by this decision. have to followwe now what has been ruled on in the fifth circuit because the spring court did not resolve the issue. -- the supreme court could not resolve the issue. we will have to abide by that ruling until an election. a ninthnfirmation of justice of the supreme court, so they can break this tie.because we've always said that we're going to do what we can do rough executive action, but we cannot go beyond that. about about asd far as we can on this particular topic. it does not have any impact, from our perspective, on the host of other issues we are working on, because each one of these issues has a different

analysis and is based on different statutes or different interpretations of our authority. for example, on climate change, based on the clean air act and the epa and previous supreme court rulings as opposed to a theory of prosecutorial ascretion that in the past, every other present has exercised. and the supreme court was not definitive one way or the other. we do not have a ninth justice. that will continue to be a problem. with respect to republicans, i think what it tells you is that if you keep on blocking judges from getting on the bench, then courts can't issue decisions. that means is then you are going to have the status quo frozen, and we are not going to be able to make progress on some very important issues.

now, that may have been their strategy from the start. but it's not a sustainable strategy. and it certainly is a strategy that will be broken by this election. ir basic there is that we will never confirm judges again. hopefully that is not their theory, because that is not how a democracy -- >> -- chastised. it was anobama: opinion that says we cannot come up with a decision. that would be a little bit of a stretch. maybe the next time they can, if we have a full court issuing a full opinion on anything, then w e take it seriously. this we have to abide by, but it wasn't any kind of value statement or a decision on the merits of these issues, all right? thank you, guys. [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] >> criminal justice and reentry support for ex-convex is center stage at the center for american progress today. attorney general loretta andh joinsh secretary thomas perez and john came in discussing the issue. see it live 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. coming up today, look at retirement savings plans. the aspen institute's financial secured a program host members of congress. research, business and investment experts for a form on the subject. see it live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3.

>> you realize this is something i would not only love to do but something i think can be really different from the kinds of books that have been written about macarthur in the past and a way to rethink and reevaluate who this person was, what his real significance was, what his virtues really were that made him one of the most adored and and related figures in american history but also what were his flaws, and what were the things that made him in many ways unpleasant and even hated by millions of people. hudsonay night on q&a, institutes arthur herman takes a look at douglas macarthur in his book " douglas macarthur, american war." youhat is one of the things have to say. he saw the future more clearly often then he saw the present. whether it was america's role in asia, the rise of china, the

split between china and the soviet union which he foresaw. but also, perhaps, too, the fate of american domestic politics. >> sundaynight at 8:00 eastern on c-span''s q&a. voted united kingdom has to leave the european union as as result came in the british pound fell to its lowest point in decades. addressesl farage supporters following the results of the referendum vote. dare tos and gentlemen, dream that the dawn is breaking on an independent, united

kingdom. [cheering] >> this, this, if the predictions are right, this will people, ary for real victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people. we have fought against the multinationals, fought against the merchant banks, fought against big politics, we've fought against lies, corruption, oday, honesty,d t decency, and believe in nation, i think now is going to win. [cheering]

mr. farage: and we will have done it, we will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet being fired. we'd have done it by damned hard work on the ground. my people here. by people and by people in the labour party and the conservative party and ukip and of no party who have taken part in this campaign. and we'd have done it not just for ourselves. we'll have done it for the whole of europe. i hope this victory brings down this failed project and leases to a europe of sovereign nationstates trading together, being friends together, cooperating together, and let's get rid of the flag, the anthem, brussels and all that has gone wrong. [cheering]

23t's, let june go down in our history as our independence day! >> live today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, house speaker paul ryan releases the gop tax plan. at one: 45, president obama is in california meeting with 1:45, president obama is meeting with mark zuckerberg. at 5:15, jake sullivan. in 90 minutes, david hawking of roll call on the sit-in by house democrats calling for a vote on gun legislation. at 9:15, lawrence hurley, the

supreme court correspondent. he is here to discuss the supreme court rulings and the university of texas admissions program. will continue to exist, -- demand action, whether it is on the floor around america. we are not giving up, we are not giving in. we will continue to work. john lewis outside the u.s. house of representatives after yesterday's wrapup of the 25 hour democratic sit-in on the floor of the u.s. house over gun legislation. good morning and welcome to "washington journal" for this friday, june 20 4, 2016. we begin the program asking you about them and the impact of the house democrat sit-in on gun legislation. here is how to join the nv