the minority will be allowed to offer germane amendments to any bill that is on the floor, germane amendments, to that legislation with reasonable time limits for debate. >> i won't even qualify to say probably the most eloquent order of the congress. i think i remember this correctly. i i am not wild about this impeachment, but having committed perjury how do you justify that and then turned a blind eye to the president?

and i will always remember henry saying that. >> and also on thursday, thanksgiving thursday, thanksgiving day, in american history tour of various native american tribes at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then attend the ground breaking ceremony diplomacy cenn washemony of the knew diplomacy center in washington with former secretaries of state and several supreme court justices at 8:30 p.m. eastern this thanksgiving week. for our complete schedule go to c-span.org. >> now, a discussion with the state state department special envoy for climate change, todd stern. this is hosted by the center for american progress. it runs an hour. >> i am i am president of the center for american progress, pleased to welcome you all here today for discussions of this.

how to mount an effective response to climate change. very delighted to introduce a special guest today, todd stern. uniquely qualified to speak to us about the prospects for building the international cooperation needed to solve the climate progress. todd worked on climate well here at the center prior to taking on his new role at the obama administration. we are honored to welcome him back. the us special envoy for climate change for six years, and a lot has happened. domestically the domestically the administration has pushed ahead with an ambitious climate agenda that we will take economic security and environmental benefits for years to come. climate climate change is truly a global challenge.

no single country can solve it alone or make it immune from its impacts. fortunately, under this administration and thanks to the work of people like todd the united states has become a clear leader in the international climate arena. adult -- built a vital new relationship which culminated two weeks ago. we have launched a new global partnerships focused on eliminating short-lived but potent climate pollutants and have ramped up our assistance to developed countries looking to attain sustainable growth, including a major new pledge of $3 billion for a new global climate fund. all of this is tremendously important as country's race

to conclude a new agreement one year from now and aims to set the world on a sustainable path of long-term economic growth. the work the work that has recently happened has helped demonstrate that arguments for in action, arguments that the world will never act have really just become excuses. we are excited to have this timely conversation, and i will welcome now peter ogden and todd stern up to the stage. [applauding] >> thanks very much, much, neera tanden, and thanks, todd, for joining us today. easy questions. you had also come prepared. the last few weeks have given you a a lot to talk

about here. >> the benefits. >> i figured as much. thank you. i would love to start there, particularly with what happened with china, the kind of talking.that climate action by the united states is futile as long as china does not act. i think that president obama has caused people to take a hard look as whether that is a viable.going forward if it ever was. would love to here how that came about and what you think is the most important feature. >> thank you for hosting me here. as you said, said, i was part way back almost at the beginning. go back with john podesta, way before that.

a a big week for us last week, no question. if you look back to the arc of what we were doing with china, 2,013 was already quite positive. we established a new working group in april of 2,013 on climate change and got a number of initiatives, significant ones launched. the president negotiated an agreement. so there was good momentum. we got together in january of 2014 wanting to think about what we could do next, how we could take this relationship forward in a significantly stepped up way sec. kerry secretary kerry

was getting ready to go visit china. we kind of hit on the idea of trying to do a joint announcement of targets that would go all the way up to the presidential level, assuming that both sides looked at each other's proposals and felt comfortable. so i accompanied secretary kerry to china in february. i started talking to my counterpart at that time about this idea. sec. kerry talked to the president and the premier and others in china about this notion, and that started the conversation. the chinese were open to it, but there was obviously a lot of work that needed to be done over the course of the year to share a lot of information.

initially we talked about collaborating on undeveloped targets. we said that publicly. privately with the understanding we would shoot for this joint announcement, if we could both get there. it was always, in our view, something that would have potentially a very significant, positive impact with respect to both the climate relationship between the us and china,, the broader bilateral relationship between us and china and, of course, the multilateral climate negotiations. negotiations. hopefully that we will prove to be true. the targets that china put forward, forward, targets that we put forward and china put forward are both strong. on our side 20 6 percent

reduction below 2,005 levels by 2025 is very ambitious. designed to be as ambitious as we possibly could on the basis of authorities that we knew that we had. we did not want a pie a pie in the sky target that is based on legislation that we might not be able to get. so the grounding in our target is that it is based upon authorities that we have. the 28% upper end, upper end, which we are committed in the agreement to try to get , would put us on a straight-line path to a reduction by 2050. so it is very strong. for the chinese, it is the first time ever obviously

that they have committed to a peak a peak of their co2 emissions. this is a big step. the estimations tended to generally be a good deal higher than that. the announcement includes their commitment to try to go earlier. our senses, they we will have a good chance to do that,, assuming that the broad economic restructuring program that is being pursued hard, assuming that that goes well there is a real chance that they we will peak earlier. the other part of the target that they announced is 20 percent of there nonfossil energy -- 20% 20 percent of there energy from nonfossil sources by 2030 which is a huge

undertaking that would require them to build something like 800 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of renewable and nuclear energy. by way of comparison the total us generating capacity in our country is little over 1100. you're talking about 800 to 1000 for renewable and nuclear by china also by way of comparison around what they do now, maybe even more. so a very big deal. we will see what transpires, but a really big step. i think that the sense is that the way that this will resonate in the broader climate community will be

very -- it we will rattle a lot of things up but overall the positive and give momentum to the negotiations. it will spur countries to come forward with their own targets. i think generally the way i put it in one conversation recently is, if you were holding stock in the paris negotiation your stock would have gone up after this announcement because you have the two historic antagonists,, the two biggest players on climate change. we are going to work together. here is what we are each doing. the announcements being ambitious, and the commitments to work together is that try to clear obstacles. all in all, very good. >> a very helpful overview.

the evolution of the relationship although it back to 2,009. do do you have views on how that has matured or important moments in that relationship? >> at one level copenhagen was a very important moment in that relationship in terms of spurring a greater desire to get more,, to get the relationship on a more cooperative footing. copenhagen, my own view is copenhagen is important, and important things got done and positive things that have happened. having said that, the interaction between the us and china was pretty rough.

i think that both sides came out. i certainly think think that it is true for the chinese side as well as ours with a desire to work in as collaborative and cooperative away as possible you know, i have developed, developed, i think, a very good relationship with the vice-chairman, the in drc, a good friend at this. we have taken each other to our hometowns and have long since lost track of how many times we have met together. i think we have worked quite well together. and so i think that that has been true in the years 2010, 11, 12, and as i said, last

year, 2013 stepped up to another level of engagement with the new climate change working group and a lot of discussions and meetings with respect to those various initiatives that we have worked on their end and this year a a whole other level. it has been gradually improving and building toward the work we have now. this is not the end of the story. >> a lot of attention gets paid to that, the willingness to fully confront the challenges. do you find that that interest is present i i think back to 2010. it certainly was not directly front and center.

>> i think more of our latter actually. i think that it is a matter of first order priority for the chinese at home. interestingly, i think that the process of the us embassy, this was an issue that occurred in the embassy, but the fact that the embassy started to publish statistics about the air pollution statistics and make those available actually had a big transformative effect on how they started to look at their pollution problem. they have completely got the bit between their teeth right now. it is real.

at the highest levels. i think i think that has an impact, but it is not the case so much that we have our climate discussion, a bunch of discussions about air pollution. it is around and influencing , from our.of view, the thing that is most important. the the thing that has made these views known to us, chinese counterparts quite clearly. they deal with the air pollution problem in a way which is also positive regarding climate change in the way regarding synergies because it is not self-evident. if you decide that you we will take all of the coal

plants and move them west and west and build big transmission lines and pump the power back but not actually reduce coal, that does not help you from a climate pollution.of view but it would for air pollution. the critical thing is that they do it in a way that is positive for both air pollution and climate. >> one last thing before we move on from china for a little bit. can you talk about how china's attention and interest in the us target itself is being developed? clearly you and the administration cared a lot, but how important was it that the united states was developing a pledge that was ambitious and credible. >> i think so. i think that each side had

the same understanding that there was going to have to be pledges, mutual pledges that the other guy saw as good enough to warrant having our president, their president stand up and make this announcement. lowball. but if they see something that was inadequate, that would concern them. just as concerned about the notion of the capacity of the us to implement the target. they always watched politics closely and are looking at what is going on on the hill i think that our capacities to save both quite ambitious but also something we can

execute based upon the authority that we have. >> because of all of the progress with china it has caused a lot of people to ask about india. just a very important player in the dynamics. cochairs. we happen to just be in delhi doing or our meeting about to begin the international session when this news broke. >> perfectly timed. >> perfectly timed to bring a whole a whole bunch of people who usually have a lot to say to silence. followed quickly, but there was a moment, a window when people really trying to internalize what this

tectonic shift would mean. and since then i think a lot of people have began to be more interested in what the dynamics are around the us india relationship. you have had some experience recently. climate was certainly on the agenda. president obama will be out there. so i would love to get your thoughts on the state of that relationship and how you see a developing. >> india is an enormous country in connection with climate changes. i think that they have a relatively new team given

the election of the prime minister. i have gotten to no a little bit about my counterpart. i like him quite well. it is a little too early to say exactly where they will position themselves with respect to negotiations. on the one hand it is an enormously important country. on the other hand i i think that they bristle a little bit. us and china are the two biggest. india comes, china depending upon what specific whether you are looking at co2 from energy. a very good agency.

they do very good numbers every year. china is at around 20% and india is around six. it is a big difference. having said that, india is huge. it. it will be hopefully growing at a rapid pace. the way they grow and the targeted intensity is going to be important going forward. i think that the most important thing is for india to see that there is a path both to growth, to eradicating poverty, and to energy access. they both have to see that there is a path a path to get to those fundamental

development needs that they have that is as low carbon as possible, relatively low carbon and is not based on a a big, big bet on long-term dirty coal, and it is going to be challenging. i think that that our inclination is certainly to want to work with them as closely as possible. exactly how they we will play in the negotiations, paris and so forth, i don't i don't know. we have had a very good relationship overall, both during time when we have agreed about more things and time where we have been on different sides. we still managed to be quite collaborative and cordial.

useful discussions. so i have every expectation that that we will continue. sort sort of long way around, we don't no yet. >> energy access, a major concern for them. i wonder if there is potential for that to shape and motivate climate policy. healthy and constructive climate policy. >> right. they have there own air pollution concerns which at a a china level of intensity, i do not think that it is -- it is not clear that it is as big an internal issue, but it is a big, important problem. they and i think the prime

minister have a lot of interest in renewables, solar. there is tremendous potential both for good connected but off grid solar and indeed a tremendous potential for using that to reach a lot of the people because most of those people are rural. so i think that done right, the access issue can be addressed in a positive and low carbon way, but it is a huge, big problem. >> you will be spending some time in delhi. no plane reservations. well, i am glad that we talk a little bit about air quality. before we can move to paris,

i want to talk a little bit about the non- formal climate tracks. one of the areas were a lot of diplomatic work has been done has been done in the protocol. both back in 2,009 or ten, 11 there was a push to try to see if we could not address. >> twelve. >> was a 12? sorry. i think that there was the kind of opportunity and recognition, the area where climate policy had not sufficiently been built and. a lot of interest in doing it. it grew very rapidly.

but when the president came for his first summit there was a major kind of breakthrough in terms of finding a way of interacting i see it as the forerunner to what you achieved a couple of weeks ago. we did not look at all of the issues,, but there was a clear signal. that has had a really palpable impact on that negotiation itself. you had the latest round of protocol negotiations. any thoughts in particular about the role that can or should play? something that you think may be the pressures of paris

will cause countries to adapt a little bit more of a wait and see attitude. >> both of those things are possible. quite good progress made in the protocol after the last week. i just finished on friday. a lot of progress made their this is something we have been working on, the state department, on this beat now for years. it it has to be four or five years ago where there was over 100 countries expressing support for an amendment that phased down, not completely out but down the use. and to do that under the protocol. there has been some resistance historically

about doing that because a bunch of countries we have said we use our greenhouse gas which is actually not true. without dragging you into too much. they were developed as a substitute for ozone depleting substances. they do a good job of not depleting the layer but a bad job on global warming. for that reason they were jurisdictional he completely find, and not just find, but the protocols were actually probably the most successful ever. it was set up to deal with the ozone whole. they have one fundamental

reason for being able to phase out industrial chemicals. so they have expertise. they have a multilateral fund that is set up and actually funded and helps countries pay for the transition. it is a very good venue to do this that could be effective,, and all of the kind of bookkeeping and accounting and all of that we will still happen under the un after triple c. c. it will not be deprived of its jurisdiction, but the actual work would happen in montréal. the discussions last year

between president obama and what led up to that was important in getting the chinese adequately comfortable with the proposition of doing that. second bilateral agreement between the two presidents in september and march which went a step further to say that we are going to agree that to the specific procedural step of setting up a so-called contact group, a formal formal way in which these kinds of discussions take place in which a discussion for a new amendment would take place, this is what we were trying to do, to get that contract group set up. there were a few countries that were too reluctant to let it go forward,, and

these are montréal, consensus bodies. but i think that they really had a very intensive conversations about which countries were expressing the kind of concerns, not just the political concern that the action should be in the climate treaty but a are much more specific concern about safety alternatives, high ambient temperatures, climates like the middle east and so forth. forth. they will pick it up again in april. hopefully we we will be able to take steps. i steps. i have no doubt that their may be some made a little nervous, but the two things are separate and i hope we will work hard. there there is a way in which all of this does interact importantly with

respect to the climate discussions. the upside potential of taking this action is large. what people talk about is the potential to avoid something on the order of 90 gigatons of co2 equivalent. that is a big, big number. if you look at what the so-called emissions and so forth is, that is big. a big, big payoff. relatively low hanging fruit we made good progress. >> you referenced multilateral.

you know, my colleagues have looked into whether or not the council might pull out opportunities. are there -- what do you see as the right balance. your personal time versus these other channels. >> we have always focused on channels outside of the main negotiations. the kind of center ring involves. i'm not going to say that. the center of attention is always the multilateral negotiation. we worked with five other

countries to get going, an idea that we dreamed up your that launched in february of 2012. not yet three years later 40 40 countries and 40 non- member countries. probably ten or so initiatives of various kinds the us on launching in partnership to reduce methane in the oil and gas industry. we did announce that on the margins of the un climate this september. we have also done a lot of work on reducing methane from landfills. there are a whole host of

efforts, some of which we are involved in, some of which other countries are involved in. i think there is some good potential. the arctic council is another example. we are working hard on that already. secretary kerry is working on having climate change be an important part. we will be working to do that both, i think, in concrete ways in terms of policy and also to use it as a platform for public education and sending an important message for the urgency of taking action. you know, we started the major economies forum when we first came in in 2,009.

there was a group of countries president bush had pulled together in what they call the major economies meeting that had a different focus and purpose but was a good group of countries. i actually had written an article about the need for something quite like that for a smaller group of countries who could meet at a high level on a regular basis. candor and focus. the environment at the top. we took we took that group of countries, changed the name a little bit, but most

importantly we gave it a different mission which was to try to facilitate progress but also whether to see that their were things that could be done, that this group of countries could do in terms of low carbon development. and back in 2,009 when there was a meeting, that led to enough leaders taking the initial work we had done on technology roadmaps and charging their energy ministers to run with it, and that led to the creation of the clean energy ministerial. we work very closely. you know, we have some ideas about how to carry the process farther forward.

there are a number of activities important that take place outside. we have already talked about montréal. the biggest game we will be paris. >> i am afraid of talking about this countdown. you know, on the other hand one year before copenhagen we were in a transition. >> i was working for john podesta. >> quite leisurely. the question is, and you alluded to this earlier. given that you have a unique perspective having been involved from day one

through copenhagen and now to a conference that we will be the successor to copenhagen and the last big contribution here, if you could just offer your thoughts about what the lessons of copenhagen are that you are trying to apply into this negotiation. you talk a little bit about how the us china relations has been deepened. were there other things that you think are important to maintain and others where you think we need something a little bit different? >> first of all, the process is quite different. as you said, we came at the end of january. ten months. very quickly moving train and to try to deal with it.

here we negotiated the underlying mandate in durban and have been working it through from its early phases, conceptual phases in the first year or two even to the.now where we are much more in the kind of proto- negotiation toward what we will turn into a text. you know, i think that their , in fact, will the elements of what happened in copenhagen that we will be visible in what i hope happens in paris. obviously i don't know what will happen. we have ideas. and this is a negotiation

that is intended to produce a new agreement that is in some fashion a legal agreement. the exact fashion was not spelled out in the mandate. the language in the mandate made it clear that it was not fully fleshed out. i think that the language negotiated a knew protocol. you can see that there is lot of play. it is posted be applicable to all. to us, to a great many countries that was an absolutely critical few words because that says to us, we were not in kyoto. kyoto is in some technical way applicable to all

because those countries are in some sense under kyoto. put it well, well, the new obligations of the requirements coming out of kyoto where applicable. it was applicable to some. because of the need to have everyone in the game, there has developed and in this respect i think maybe more than any other a fair amount of consensus that it is a fundamentally focusing first of all on mitigation which is 25 other issues like adaptation are obviously important. there is a bottom-up structure which is nationally determined.

commitments that turned and the contributions as part of the negotiating process. there is no other way to do it. early on their were countries who expressed unhappiness about that is a structure. what i always said is i understand it is not beautiful. you give me an alternative you can imagine all countries being a part of. the maximum level of their ambition. it is instilled this structure. the main one the intention

is for countries to come forward with their intended. we have essentially done that now, but to come forward early and to subject what other countries subject they are proposing to do, the views of civil society and in the press and analytic bodies and everyone else can look to see what we are proposing to do. you take whatever criticism you get. the hope is that that structure pushes countries to come forward with their best shot right away because they do not want to be embarrassed. i think that that is an important feature of the structure. there are a lot of proposals

about elements of what we have started to call an accountability system, transparency reporting review, various rules for accounting and how you manage your emission commitments and so forth. as well as important stuff on finance and adaptation and other elements. i think that you will see if we can succeed in what we're trying to do,, what we would have is nothing will be perfect. i can absolutely guarantee, but if we can get it done what we we will have is for the first time an agreement that is legal in some important respects that has everyone involved that has a

lasting structure so that you do not have to keep renegotiating all the time and instead have a structure that is set up and then understanding that each x amount of years -- we would like it to be five -- countries have to re-up their mitigation commitments to higher and higher and higher levels of ambition and have that expectation written into the agreement. an agreement that elevates adaptation with the understanding that there needs to be more planning and resources to implement the plans that we will provide for significant financial and technological support for developing countries and no all of those things in a structure that can last and

that is not perfect but it is good, strong start. that is what we are trying to do. one of the things that would be most challenging, and we will see it in spades is the age-old problem of the firewall between developing countries. more times than i can count, we have no problem with the basic function of differentiation. we cannot take the form of saying that we have a bifurcated agreement with two different categories created in 1992 and never changing and determining the nature of an agreement that is supposed to go for decades forward. that will be a challenge. i think that there is a big

payoff to proving them right >> the major announcement, a commitment to establish a fund in copenhagen, i think that there has been methodically met. the green climate fund. still working up toward a hundred billion dollars of public and private funds. but this is kind of what seems to me a demonstration and a big.in the negotiation where you are trying to build consensus and crossed some historic negotiating divide. say a few words about what that means, why that is so

significant. >> sure. it is a big, big deal. a commitment first made in copenhagen, reaffirmed in cancun, an instrument that it was a foundational document before it was negotiated over the course of 2,011. and now there is a location. there is an executive director, a staff, and as of last week an initial capitalization which is getting close to $10 billion , which is what we were hoping you would see. not everyone has been heard from yet. we hope to get all the way to ten. the us came forward in a very strong way with a pledge of $3 billion.

that was, as you can imagine, there are always an enormous number of needs that are internal, even when you are just trying to work through your budget internally, an enormous number of needs, both domestic and foreign, that are competing for limited dollars. i think that it was -- i always i always saw the importance of having a strong pledge with respect both to just the substantive facts of what that kind of financing could help to do but also as a matter of negotiation,, that countries would be looking to develop a donor group to come forward, the biggest

player. we understood that it is important to come forward strong, and i think that it is a sign of actually only one of a great many signs but a sign of the level of importance of climate change for the obama administration that we are able to have such a big step up in that funding. as i say, start with the address and going forward to the climate action plan and all the things that have happened. the. the president is giving tremendous, tremendous emphasis on climate. it has been, from my.of view, terrific and has

pretty dramatically changed the impression of the united states internationally. >> pretty busy. [laughter] so i would like to see if we could ask a couple of questions from the audience. if people have anything that they would like to add. this gentleman here in the suit. >> i was just wondering. a keen observer of domestic political dynamics and how those change over time and constrain what is possible and what is not. when your chinese counterpart asked you what commitment mechanisms exist to carry forward these pledges that were recently made over the coming decades and the coming electoral

cycles, what do you tell them about what to expect as inevitably it we will change hands between parties. >> well, thank you for the question. i think that the chinese focus is this time between now and 2025. i think we walk them through the central elements of what we have already announced which includes transportation, power, the whole suite of efficiency standards that have been rolled out as well as action that we we will be taking under the methane strategy and other actions that are

still doable on the basis of existing authority. so, i mean, we walk them through what we saw in those areas and what reductions we thought were possible. i mean,, that was the nature of the discussion. i think that, again, the premise was not that we can get their if we get some new piece of legislation. that is just speculative. we will need to work hard. this is a stretch target for us. our sense is that we can get their using the authorities that we have.

as that carries forward obviously by the next administration. that is not news to anybody. but what we are talking about can be carried forward >> the woman in the tan suit in the front row. >> lisa friedman from climate wire. thank you. developing countries and ngos say one of there top priorities in lima will be closing the gap between what countries are doing and what science says is needed. pushing to improve their pre- 2020 targets and not just focus on paris. does that stand any chance?

if not, what is left? >> you know, know, i think that there is an ongoing focus, actually two tracks that came out of durban, the post- 2020 negotiation and the pre-. there is a lot of focus. i don't think there is that much focus on the notion that countries will change their targets. i i think it is more what are you doing to push forward in every possible way? and that that includes the national level, the subnational level, what is going on in california as well as any other number of subnational. doing what initiatives are happening, even at the

private sector level. i think that that is more what pre-2020 discussions are about as well as, you know, exactly what countries are doing to implement targets that they have. if we are lucky to even go beyond and have implementation, but more than countries will come up and say, well, we decided to change. i don't think people are focused on that. i don't think it is realistic. >> thank you. the system,, engaged for a long time now and climate politics. up until now our arguments

have been based on two assumptions. first,, the road will run out for fossil fuels. second, prices for fossil energies will go up continuously. .. >> >> which would be the

backdrop of climate change? >> i think, that is a good question. [laughter] there is a number of different aspects. one of the elements of focus for the u.s. the government and a number of others that is an undertaking of the veggies 20 but not carried forward very far yet, is to phase out the subsidies that back up fossil fuel energy. use the different numbers from different analysts that

undoubtedly have different assumptions the low end is $500 billion per year the higher into is in the range of 1 trillion of how much is spent on the fuel subsidies. i had a of a long conversation at one point with the chief economist at the iea. and they said a quite small portion of that is supporting four people. somewhere between 500 billion and $1 trillion going to fossil fuel subsidies item number it is 10% for 15 percent but it is a small percentage designed to take care of for people. you can do that in a different way if you get rid of these subsidies to reduce demand further.

so that would be enormously important. but i don't think anybody at this point thinks we can solve climate change that we will run out of fossil fuels because we will not run out that soon. but as they say. so it has to be a solution to leave the fossil fuel assets on the ground. my guess is the more positive things that happen with respect to climate action with u.s.-china agreement that was just announced is a part of that.

with a successful outcome in paris is another signal. and then to be pricing to factor out the future long-range for fossil fuels. but we cannot solve climate change off the ground. that is a hard question. >> with that i want to give you time and do get back to your task. we appreciate you coming and thanks for joining us today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> des did say that the republicans have a legitimate argument that they cannot offer amendments because they filibuster bills so it is a chicken and egg type of thing. the best way to get rid of it is get rid of the filibuster but guarantee to the minority that the minority will be allowed to offer jermaine amendments to any bill on the floor. germain amendments to that legislation with a reasonable time limits for debate. >> i will let even qualify with probably but the most eloquent orator in the court is - - conference is that he said i am not wild about it but there are 23 americans serving back to prison sentences for having

committed perjury. how do you justify that then turn a blind eye to the president? he said i cannot do it. i will always remember him saying that.

[applause] >> i am from of monitor our guest is dan pfeiffer senior advisor and assistant to the president he was here in july and we appreciate him coming back dash end busy time. a georgetown graduate at 24 already operating on the national stage for the spokesperson for the all gore campaign. and prior to joining the presidential campaign of barack obama before assuming his current role he was said -- communications director. want to exciting matters always on the record and no life blogging or tweeting or

filing while the breakfast is under way to give us time to listen to what dan pfeiffer has to say. during his last visit he remarked we were the last tweet free zone in washington and. there is no embargo when the session ends we will e-mail pitchers to all reporters when the breakfast and supper could you like to ask a question sent me a signal and i will call on as many as i can. he decided not to do opening remarks level do a question. and we have the order of starch. talk about the communications challenge for

president obama and the white house doing something he repeatedly said that would not be proper to how tough that communication and challenge is. >> with that premise of the of question mark the president has said is what he cannot do is end all deportations to implement the senate immigration bill but he did ask the attorney general to come back with the recommendation and under his power to redress the broken immigration system. on the left and right it is well established.

so that part can be handled in being in this country for a long time we are a partisan environment right now. everything is of live fire exercises. we expect to be a lot of criticism and the president will undertake a very aggressive sales job -- since he announced last night. he gave an address to the nation last night that had tremendous interest of mine. with a preview of video we had 5 million dues before the president spoke last night. he is headed to vegas to do

an event there. the is doing an interview for the abc sunday show. --. [laughter] and then he will head to chicago on tuesday to do another event with the actions he has taken and will push congress to finish the job. >> we will have more details about today. we will open details letter and -- later. >> you are here now spinning cable make remarks. i don't have the location at

this moment. >> while you are still alive? [laughter] >> with this unilateral passion but he had nothing to lose. is that a fair assessment? >> not exactly. the president has shown tremendous patience. he has promised several times to pass legislation to address the broken immigration system. they did not take one single step. even the smallest, is a blow up within the republican caucus.

now we have a more conservative congress around the corner, every day the president waits is another day these are under the threat of deportation. the only way are important steps are the first ups. so we will do that. he talk to congress of both parties about this that they use this as an excuse to not work with us on other issues. if you think the tax code should be reformed and to work on exports there is no reason not to do those.

the president said if you pass legislation to drill. then it is the ideological approach like the third grade equivalent of taking your ball to go home. >> this is a three year that will go over the next presidency in the election. >> and i suspect this is an intense debate with the republican congress and the primaries starting fairly soon i believe. to take more stability in the program the republican reaction was not a driving factor.

>> this morning eric holder seems to be more proactive. >> there is nothing planned at this point. >> but speaking to governor nixon the white house has been in contact with local officials to try and stay on top of the situation. >> for those that were not there.

>> i was in the mood after the election with the neutrality so i was wondering i'm genuinely curious if that is more of an issue. >> rabil take the ferguson peace first. i think the president has to walk a careful line that it is an open and criminal investigation that is true not matter what year of the

presidency. but on the broader question we feel very good over the last two 1/2 weeks have gone. typically if you have a change of power the new majority dominates the discussion. since right after the election they will look for opportunities where we have authority to act. i know if liberated is the right word but there is no question for the array of reasons for the geography of the various seven races the

senate was not in a position , the 2014 congressional action was around local issues. that was the right strategic decision but we were not in a place to make an aggressive argument by the president did last night. and we feel there are opportunities to do that with the climate agreement with china and the neutrality. >> [inaudible]

>> i think democrats were dealt an incredibly tough hand. if you think of the 24 states governor romney won 77 percent had senate races. but the president could not get more than 41% even with a historic victory. so it is a tough hand people play their hand as best they could and i am hesitant to say it would have tipped the balance. berendt there is a tendency to believe about the

tactical maneuvers and then the differences and to that sarah called the advantages away from us because we don't have the capacity to expand that electorate. >> now we will move to jonathan. >> looking back at what happened with congress with 68 votes in the senate senate, during that whole time moving through the house you had a pretty firm line would never came out of congress had to carry a pass to citizenship. was that now a tactical

mistake? it does not have a path to citizenship for even a permanent legal status was said a tactical mistake. >> it was the potential for a compromise. >> if they had in the entire period of time to come up with a single plan to deal with the question of people in this country and they did not do that. they said we will not accept that plan. and republican congressmen had the very narrow immigration bill around the family members of service members. that issue was so toxic in the republican caucus that

they could not bring it to the floor. this was a targeted population they're trying to help and they could not do that. so the idea that they met a bar the without -- without a single first up that it is all about them and not about us. >> john boehner said to undo the executive orders because senior administration officials will veto any legislation that does not do the exact same thing. >> i think he is confused on several fronts.

if the republicans decide they want to shut down the government to put millions of folks with deportation and the president will not sign that bill. but then he will sign the bill when that happens it will supersede anything. >> as you know, as coming into office that americans were cowards on race. so with the prospect this weekend of a no bill coming out of the grand jury of 100 remorse cities and demonstrations planned in response, what does that say about the evolution of the race discussion in this

country? >> the president has talked about this a number of times most memorably from trayvon martin last year. we have made tremendous progress over the years. but even and eight or 10 years ago it is impossible to have led to the term african-american in the white house. you see that on a daily basis. in some of the tension from ferguson earlier this year speeto that -- speak to that. >> does of charge for

republicans to act, how much is to act on immigration announced -- now? hopper the way that i could imagine. >> for everyone else. [laughter] but even shed you will go to chicago. so to what degree in the months ahead we drive for word to put political

pressure on republicans like florida, colorado, or the political analyst for the nominee. >> what we want to do is what we did and why we did it. but consistent with past practices of both parties as say governmental sales job for how the process works. i think we will travel all over the country to do this.

but i don't think republicans need eschew tell them about the election year impact. that is evident. if they wanted to win future elections. but we will make the case in the need to finish the job. so not just the swing states >> the president travels there obeid cabinet and others as well. >> how big of a priority? >> incredibly important priority.

>>. >> [inaudible] but there is a difference with the senate bill and the second part talk about executive action how has that happened? >> on the first part it is hard to negotiate when you have no one to negotiate with. let see if they make a serious attempt. it is important that there are us in the republican caucus under very well-intentioned including speaker peter on that list that is genuinely would like to see immigration reform done. so we will see if they have the ability and willingness

to move forward or what compromises are available. certainly our hope for senator mcconnell said it is important to demonstrate to the country that you govern that there is no shutdowns or threats. living has changed with our stance on that i think. since we will see in the coming days of the reaction is particularly after the break from the holiday how they want to approach this. >> speeto [inaudible]

to help the congress how concerned are you that the republican president will do the same thing? >> it is important that how consistent this action is with legal authority to be used even a federalist society argued the president had this authority but also in the scope with george h. w. bush with the overall population the members we are talking about between four and 5 million.

the we live in the world there is a thing president does that comes without significant republican and opposition. so you can only do things that will not make then dash then we can do nothing. >> speeto. speeto

what should the agenda be going forward? >> i think the party as a whole from the president on down is thinking deeply about what went wrong in november. we had a tough match but nobody says just because it is a tough match that we had the results that we had. there is a coalition of voters who showed up in 2010 they did not show up in 2012 they showed up again but not 2014. in fairness it is not the perfect test case so to understand exactly why that happened.

but too often you hear folks with a simple equation. we build a better mousetrap. but it is only as hard as the enthusiasm. so we have to look at why that is. that is a question of message, policy, message delivery and to undertake a

broad base look at that. >> speenine. >> it was hard to break through in part because of the two issues that dominated the discussion over the last 90 days which was ebola and isil said he could not make that case and even when we were talking about it you were not covering it. i don't believe you because those were too serious issues. not to be known the facts but to those interested in makes it hard to get the minimum wage and that economic mobility messages out but some things happen.

sova to affiant the appropriate balance we need more unanimity. with that very important progress we have made. but the legislative efforts was done entirely almost buyer democrats. so we should make the case but well understanding people don't feel as good about it as they shed. - - should even around stagnation. even if you are not making much progress or saving for

retirement you have not gotten a raise been understand that with a set of policies that deal with that. >> also was at hospitals or universities? landau they're mostly on your side but. >> but does this not

indicate that? >> ed and though the steadies' you are sightseeing but just from your public opinion question the research is clear the. words that you talk about there is one put out randomly by the economic adviser for economic growth but also the wages which is a small part. >> politics and not easy on immigration and never have been. >> we did this because it is

the right thing to do. this is an important step in. >>. >> to be liberated your energized in the post-election period. to feel the icy hand. but what do you describe? with that immigration climate or neutrality. and what about protecting democrats?

spinning the idea that he would dispute a very important thing for him to be succeeded by a democrat. that is the best way to preserve. it is very important so in that context of politics that will be in our head. it is not as bad in 2016 but the purple stay and the blue state. but one of the challenges of the last several months because of the events that i talk about with the nature of the election was the president to make an argument.

in the sense he is more free to do that now as we sighted a couple of things over the past few weeks there is no reward. that is the of their pressure. little over two years left here. with the greatest opportunity of us will have to do good. he caveman the day after the election to gather the senior staff to make that exact point. if you see the urgency it is for that reason. and the staff feels that as well.

you never want to have a bad election. even if you have a sense they will not be great to begin with it is tough but he has always spent at his best coming back. every are in for one of those. >> i know there is a strong foundation based on precedent but tuesday layout in a formal way or a legal brief how it is justified and is that? >>. >> but that people have seen more ads.

it is one paying with a president to make the argument so is there an attempt to humanize this? for someone whose life who has to be turned around? >> dell went to diminish the impact of the media stories. [laughter] i cannot speak of the paid advertising front but to put the personal face that is why the president took a few minutes from the young woman from las vegas where that individual will be aggressive about this but

you make a point that in 2012 and been 2014 if there was more than one ad we had a dynamic to put that hca and the whole. but in the election and democrats. we're not in the election-year c will not see the same traffic than the even numbered year but we have to watch that carefully >> about the campaign? >> i cannot offer an opinion either way. >> you talk about the white

house, the republicans take their ball to go home but is there a strategy to rebuild relationships? >> yes. looking for republican partners in the leadership and then the first death rattle on the coverage of that was back and forth with immigration. but the president laid out his savings that we could work on together that are not traditional political issues.

to begin working on the lame duck. to build the foundations of trust the first is ebola funding number two is ebola funding number three is a force for the isil campaign. we have had discussions with those. there will be huge disagreements on lots of things. i am positive the budgets supported that they will not like them believe for good reason are bad for the country but there are areas big and small but what i can promise is if things don't get done on a bipartisan basis it is not for lack of trying on the president's part.

>> if republicans do anything with immigration it is smaller like border security. in the past he said not one comprehensive -- bill but with border security? >> we have not changed our position. we want to look it that were the individual pieces. it is such as a blank slate because literally republicans have done nothing on this front. we hope to have productive conversations. if you seriously want this done but we want to talk about how we do that before we laid down these ultimatums.

>> the new numbers are not even here yet. they have to lay out the of press releases. let's see where they are after that. this is not a reason not to get it done. >> [inaudible]

>> i think it is hard to know if it ever existed in reality. >> but you have talent for the blind person and the principles a lot of rank-and-file republicans. >> there are two elements. i think they made a sincere effort. i am not sure of the political risk. i'm sure it impacted i am not sure if it was dead

before that. but i don't think it helped. i don't think eric cantor was one of the tremendous road blockers do immigration reform based on the reporting in publications like yours he contributed to the ever. to undermine the efforts to get this done. >> going forward with those nominees is a great idea. the attorney general may need more republican votes.

why not confirm her and a bunch of other people? with though lame-duck it seems with the republicans. >> in the nominated conversation they were pleased with the choice. so they will do this is a fair fashion. >> with the decision with

the legal theory to support the adm but i wonder how tough of a decision that was? can you give some discussion ? >> the direction for the president is he wanted to do as much as he could. what was legally available and administratively possible. it had they said that cohort could be included i am of the day he would have wanted to include them. that was not an option. but it is hard to estimate a pretty good fortune of the coors but they have to other

-- others. but we could do that. >>. >> i don't remember exactly but not the last few days. >> is the president contemplating other actions? >> we have the task force that looks at the governmental task force looking at other steps. the biggest are the ones that you heard last night with the processing of pieces but the big pieces were announced last night.

>> on this sales job and implementation to make the case are there things what it means to be aggressive? and with implementation is how much preparation has been done. to use the n need beyond the agency responsible? breaks the news. [laughter] but how you don't want to miss that. >> gone the first part with that the efforts of presidential travel, but a very hefty digital component

fed is equivalent to the younger immigrant population. it is a very sophisticated group that has smart phones but not television's. if you looked at our strategy last night even more so than the television audience, we will be aggressive and use all the tools at our disposal to carry the message for word. we want to push congress to do finish the job so they know how to apply. on the implementation and par we have been focused on this for a long time we have the advantage of doing the

daca program. so the people who'd set that up. but i do not see a need for the czar if that is your question. >> slightly off topic but i want to know if the president is feeling freer of policy? and also the lighthouse policy.

>> second come on the policy there is a review under way that does not include that subject. those to be in close touch with the families and we need to do a better job. van deere hart just breaks for people in this situation we're focusing on that. i don't have any new approach with cuban policy

today. >> i dunno of anything. but to think of the overall policy with a specific initiative. >> we have time for one quick question. >> what about the timing? the president uses the phrase every day we wait this is the right thing to do. why is it says a top priority? >> the much better solution is the legislative solution.

and we believe with good reason that was not in the wake of the 2012 election. then they passed the bill. and the house seem to like it will take it up we were prepared to work. we gave the speaker more time and he said give me more time and we did and they never acted. so when it became clear the only option in the short term was for the president to take action. . .

constitution journalist steve simpson to talk as harder part of the hungry mind speaker series in colorado. he is the director of legal studies at the sub to hesitate. this an hour 45 minutes.