I think that is unthinkable. It is just an example of a commitment to making sure law becomes unenforceable.

I think, as Senator Cruz says, we have got a double standard here.

I have always admired his skill and ability and I am confident we will go forward effectively.

I think, in general, what we are going to find is--would you submit for the record how many independent investigations are being done to determine DACA qualification?

No President should demand amnesty, legal status, for millions of people unlawfully in this country when there is no sufficient staff to do the kind of background we have been doing for people who apply lawfully.

It was the Democratic Senators that blocked the Senate bill from even coming to the floor and even having a chance to be amended.

They are not going to come to Crystal City, right?

What else would you look to have? What would you normally expect would be strong documentation?

My perspective is that the House of Representative fully funded homeland security with their bill.

Congress and the American people need to know the truth and to understand what our laws say, how they are being carried out, why it is failing, and how it can be fixed.

Congress has no duty and no responsibility to fund it and, indeed, we should block funding and stop it.

I am going to offer for the record, relevant to what you just said, a February 27 letter by Senator Grassley.

I think we need to reestablish where we are, or confirm where we are, not--Director Clapper, is it still our policy that no options are off the table and that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon?

Well, I think that's true. We had a very important hearing yesterday on nuclear forces and strategic forces.

I don't think there's any doubt they were--they would never--they never relinquished the intention to build a weapon.

I do remember that the CIA reported, in, what, early 2000s, that Iran wasn't intent on building a nuclear weapon. That was wrong, was it not?

Well, it is definitely a complex thing. It seems to me that if you have got now Iran, Saudi Arabia, other nations with nuclear weapons, you have got four Nations perhaps who would use nuclear weapons if their existence is at threat.

I had not thought of either one of those examples before, but I think it is something for us to think about.

I do not believe it is fair to say we are acting on--is the possibility of configuring our nuclear arsenal with more specialized weapons.

I am a little bit of the view that things are getting dicey around the world.

So they are planning and exercising in their war games the utilization of nuclear weapons?

So my view is we should aid them, but if we aid them, we should do it with full malice aforethought.

I think that any significant reduction in our nuclear capabilities could be misread at this point in history.

You do think providing a nuclear umbrella to our allies in the region is something that would have to be considered?

I am not sure I agree with that, but that is where we are.