>> our signature feature of c-span twos book to be as our coverage of book fairs and festivals from across the country. with nonfiction author talks, interviews and viewer call-in segments. coming up book to be will be live from the 32nd annual miami book fair. our coverage starts on saturday november 21 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. others include john lewis discussing his book, march. alive : with wall street peggy noonan who talks about her book, the time of our life. journalist judith miller talks about her book, the story and news man ted koppel's on lights out, a cyber attack, a nation unprepared, surviving the aftermath. on sun on sunday speak with the others live. would take calls on the book thrown under the bus and then we host joey and read. join us live from miami up on c-span twos book tv starting november 21. be sure to follow andspan eet us your questions at book tv and at c-span, on twitter.

>> coming i unext, today's white house reaping briefing. [inaudible] good afternoon everybody. it is good to see well. i do not have announcements at the top so we can take your questions. >> can you say what the president would like to see about the. rt of appeals ruling on immigration and. [inaudible] >> we continue to believe strongly in the legal power of the arguments we have been making for nearly one year now. about the importance of giving

our law enforcement officiaurt the discretion to implement our immigration laws in a way that focuses on those that pose a genuine threat to our national security or tour community. the impact to public opsesition both to these executiv thoction and to broader comprehensive immigration reform legislation is to onstroperpetuat tho system in which our law enforcement resources are diffused. it results in more families opeing tornthe.art. thady.s clearlyidy.n the besaw interest of our national security, or public safety, it it consistent wi witthe val-ys of th. itcountry. that is why the president chose to act using executive authority consistent with the way that every president dating back to

the 50s has use that authority. we are. fiuthody.n the power of lgll awer uments and that . itway you have seen the department of justice make such a quick decision. at to

our national security or have been. victed of dangerous of armed robbery or rape, where priorities are targeted. by republicans oppose reform and because they felt so strongly authority and giving our law on the top priority cases.

>> will thn theill include >> we have long expressed our disappointment at thehit. ted closing of the prison at guantánamo bay. security priority. he is not really one tecu shvids senators mccain and graham who indicate their% ofppo incfor security interests. democratic and republican to close the prison at was serving as the central

cohensand inpriorppo d thatecur states to close the prison. theranttodiseday reaon fipartisn the most time thinking about and our view of those specific

there is a surgeon request in terms of the care they are looking for. it also reflects an increase capacity of the virginia to try to meet those needs so that is a good statistic. there also is progress being made in terms of working through the disability claims back law that have long plagued that agency. that backlog has been reduced 85% from its peak. there is a backlog there that we need to work through. a lot of important progress has been made in reducing that backlog. those are a few examples that show how seriously the president and this administration take our commitment of providing the benefits to our veterans that they so richly deserve.

>> with the immigration executive order makes way through the court, the timeline of what the administration would implement would there be enough time to implement the 5 million applications before the end of the president's term question mike. >> the question has always been about take off. i don't think the expectation would be, even in light of a favorable outcome for the administration and for the country, i don't think the expectation would be that we get 5 million applications on the first day. we certainly will have to see where things stand, i think the president's commitment to this issue and to implementing these reforms is well known.

that is why you have seen us fight this aggressively in the court and make our case. that is why you see us work so hard to implement those aspects of the president's executive orders and executive actions that have not been successfully challenged in the courts. this is something we take seriously, for how and under what terms the department of homeland security would move forward to implement this. the expectation we have is that we would move forward on this aggressive timeframe as we could. >> you just said the president would not. [inaudible] >> no i wouldn't expect that at all. the fact that the inclusion of these provisions is an

unfortunate perpetuation of the status quo. for years congress has thought to put this troublesome language in the and eaa. that is something we have been outspoken about. i don't think this has material impact on our ability to and sent to congress a thoughtful plan for closing guantánamo bay and a plan that we believe merits the strong support of both democrats and republicans in the congress. that will require democrats and republicans to put the national interest ahead of their much more narrow, and trivial interest. >> it relies on the ability to transfer prisoners from guantánamo, because of this is the president not going to veto.

>> again, we have had the obstacles, legislative obstacles to close the prison at one time obey. we've had it in place for some time. what we have thought is that congressional cooperation to remove those obstacles so we could move forward in a reasonable way consistent with the national security interests. we have not gotten it for years. >> and you're not going to throw back in congress. >> it is of practical reality of what the vote looks like. i think we're been quite clear about what our priority is and it has been suggested to the administration that one possible way forward in the congress is for us to put together a plan for their review. that is what we are doing now, we are hoping it will be carefully considered as it was

by the administration when we're putting it together. if so, we are hopeful we'll be able to build bipartisan support to get this done. i'm usually this is a top priority. >> one issue that came up yesterday in regards to doping allegations they called it a political hit job. >> this is an independent organization, i have not, i haven't been under any independent review that is been done of their work. based on these reports we have seen so far and previous efforts of the anti- doping agency to enforce rules and regulations in a variety of sports, i don't think there's any reason to call into question their intent to fairly parse the rules.

[inaudible] to talk about those who are no longer protected by the president's orders, what do you think will happen to those people? [inaudible] do you think the time going after criminals would be will be voided and now they'll go after who are living free lives? >> the president's commitment to this policy is unchanged. our expectation that the

enforcement priority will remain in place. primarily because it is common sense. we have limited law-enforcement resources, that will be bigger if republicans in congress would have acted. that was part of the comprehensive reform was better resources, so given those limits that congress, republicans in congress have put in place on our law enforcement officials, they are going to focus their activities on those who pose a genuine threat to the community order to our national security. these are individuals convicted of serious crimes, or individuals who have recently crossed the border, those are the areas that should be our focus what the court has presented is the implementation of executive actions that would bring another group of immigrants out of the shadows.

the most significant of these is the parents of american citizens these are parents who communicate in the united states for more than a decade. the failed result of a failed policy has been perpetuated by republicans in congress has resulted in families being torn apart. that is not consistent with our values or with the economic interest of this country. by bringing these individuals out of the shadows and giving them the opportunity to register, pay taxes, has economic benefits associated with it. in 2024, it's hard to see what the take-up rate would be they

said if it was implemented now ten years from now you would see an economy that was $100 billion larger and you would see workers that were getting paid, all workers, getting paid half a% more. what we know is when employers hire undocumented workers under the table it puts pressure on wages. by bringing them out of the shadows, making them register, giving them the opportunity to get a job and pay taxes that will put upward pressure on wages. this is nothing of the impact it would do that would it would actually reduce the deficit by 30 million dollars. there is a host of good economic reasons to allow the executive actions to move forward. i will say something that the president has said in the last year, if congress is ready to

get to work and do the right thing for the country, pass comprehensive immigration reform along the lines of what passed the senate and bipartisan fashion a few years ago, the president would happily resent his executive order so that they congressionally pass passed legislation would be the law of the land. again, i think that highlights how unwise republicans in congress have been trying to set a policy front a common sense standpoint would be good for our country, our economy, and our country. >> you made all these arguments and the ministration of the arguments for the court but used are saying what is going to change in the immediate future? the administration said it will not move to the court these people who are not breaking the law and put citizens, you're not

going to move to do it, so what is the difference if that hasn't changed, if that process hasn't changed. but in reality, nothing has changed. >> i think this highlights the argument that you have heard us make before that it is consistent with the argument that senator rubio has made before. the broken immigration system we have in place right now is the closest we have two amnesty. the fact is, by putting in place some reforms that include at least a path to legalization, as contemplated in the executive actions, and a path of citizenship in the context of legislation that you have a situation where people will be brought out of the shadows. you would have accountability in the system because the individuals would be registering with the government, they would have to have background checks, they would have to pay taxes.

there's a host of benefits with public safety in a stronger economy. that is what we are missing out on right now because the ruling from these judges and the continued opposition to immigration reform. >> to be clear, what the administration said is that they'll continue to lead. >> ..+++ioe

>> in danger by not being protected or is the administration going to protect them? >> despite the disappointment with a couple recent court rulings the legal underpinnings of the law have not been called into question. okay? justice? >> first i want to ask if there was at all a silver lining to this timing of the immigration appeal. obviously you would have preferred to side with you but if the supreme court takes it up it will be in the middle of the election season and so i am

wondering you said republicans have been trying to stop this and any advantage for you and democrats in general in the timing of this? >> justin, i think it is fair to say republicans have maximized the political problem they have leer when they blocked the passage of common sense bipartisan legislation here two or three yours ago. and their continued assistance in refusing to bring it up does create a problem for them. you know, as it relates to what the political dynamics will be in the midst of a presidential election and supreme court hearings i will be reluctant to speculate on that primarily because we trying to do the right thing by the country,

these families, the economy, and public and national security. and implementing these executive actions by each of these measures is in the best interest of the country and that is why we are working so aggressively to press our case in the courts. >> it is said marijuana should be rescheduled as a class two drugs. you said that is a deal for congress. but schedule two allows additional medical research into marijuana. prescription drugs and so we spent the entire night talking about the administration where congress does not. i am wondering why this doesn't fall into that and hillary clinton is wrong to say that is not their priority. >> i haven't looked at the

position she has taken. but all i can say is our policy when it comes to marijuana hasn't changed. i am not aware of any policy underway to change that one. >> you talked about what was going on at the university of missouri yesterday. there is a high profile argument between a photographer and protester. i am wondering what your reaction to that was. >> i read a little bit but i didn't see the video. there was a dispute about it photographer being able to shoot photographs of the protest. i am not aware of the logistics so it is hard to weigh in. but as a general principle, the reason you have public protest and public demonstrations is so the public can be aware of your concerns.

se seems to me you will have a hard time getting that out if you don't allow people to get it out. >> the court was going to rule on the fifth circuit and the merits. was this decision a surprise? there was a lot of confidence expressed and now moving it up, hoping the supreme court will take it up, do you feel the same confidence there? >> well, michele, i think you can tell we are disappointed by the decision by the fifth ki circuit but it doesn't diminish what we believe is right. >> on to guantanamo bay, the bill that includes the blocking of the closing of guantanamo

bay, you want to present the plan but don't you feel it is unlikely there is know support that? >> i don't understand the line of argument. congress has included this language for six years now. i readly acknowledge this is difficult to do. primarily because congress is obstinence here. but i don't think this reflects the intensifying of their position. i think it merely reflects they are keeping their position in place and our goal all along has been to try to get them to change that position. and what some in congress have suggested is that my presenting a carefully considered plan for their review they may be able to persuade a sufficient number of members to change their position. i don't think anyone about the

latest version of the ndaa will change anything. >> knowing this plan or executive action is coming up, isn't it disappointing more democrats were not causing more stir to either keep the language out or do something more about it? >> i acknowledged for years, and even my predecessors have, that our problem when it comes to closing the prison at guantanamo bay is with democrats, too. democrats and republicans in the united states congress that support this stance.

the position of the administration is strongly backed by the national security establishment in washington and these are people who have spent a lot of time thinking about what is the best way to protect this country. i think it is up to the democrats and republicans who are blocking our efforts to explain why they think what they are doing is someone in the best interest of foreign policy when the most senior leaders don't agree. >> moving forward with a closure or anything close to closure it is going to have to be executive action. don't you think? >> our focus is on trying to get congress to consider the proposal we put forward. we put forward something carefully considered and

thoughtful and it will require congress to set aside their own political interest and focus on the national security of the country. we will continue to make that case. >> you are still not ruling out that the president, if legally feasible, take executive action? >> on a range of issues i will protect the ability of the president to use his authority to move the country in the direction he believes it should be headed in particularly when it comes to an issue like closing the prison in guantanamo bay. the president feels strongly about that but the focus of the effort is on trying to get congressional cooperation for a change. >> quickly, on the benjamin netanyahu readout, why was there no part of that? the prime minister said it was one of the best meetings he has

had with the president. why no readout and what is your take on the meeting? would you agree it was one of the best between the two? >> i have not spoken to the president about the meeting with the prime minister but i talked to other members of staff who participated and there was a constructive conversation between president obama and the prime minister. it was an opportunity for the two leaders to focus on our shared interests and there are many of them. and you know, i don't think anybody was brushing aside the differences of opinion we have had on a couple issues in the past. most notablely the international agreement from getting iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. that has never prevented this president from wanting to engage with his israeli counterparts to

deepen our security and intelligence cooperation and intensify our support for israel's national security. i think that was the substance of most of the conversation yesterday. >> was it one of the best-ever? >> it is hard for me to judge. i think there is talk with the our israeli allies to work together. we have many shared interest. our ability to work with the israelis and advance them only makes the american people safer. it happens to make the citizens of israel safer, too. as our closest ally in the middle east we care a lot about that. i would anticipate there would

be work in the months ahead. in one notable outcome of the meeting is there was an agreement to give back to work on the extension of the memorandum of understanding that would extend the military support that the united states offers to israel. there is a working-level team from the united states that will travel to israel next month to begin to conduct the analysis that i referred to yesterday of the threats that israel faces in the region and to do an assessment of the capacity israel has to meet or mitigate the threats and consider what sort of assistance the united states could provide to insure those needs are met. so that analysis will make

progress when this working level u.s. team heads to israel next month. okay? chris. >> at the ballot of last week, the l g bt discrimination hearing in houston you told them about preventing the discrimination. but the president had a bill known as the equality act. >> this is something the administration has been reviewing for several weeks i can tell you that, chris. upon that review it is now clear that the administration strongly supports the equality act. that bill is historic legislation that will advance the cause of equality for millions of americans. and we certainly are pleased with the many legislatures in congress that stepped forward to try to advance a bill that would deliver comprehensive equal rights for lgbt americans.

we look forward to working with congress to make sure we balance the bedrock principles of equality with religious liberty we hold dear in the country. >> what legislation has been resolved making you to announce support after this time? >> as i noted, chris, i think the last time we discussed this, the equality act would have an impact on a substantial number of government policies. there was a review conducted to evaluate what impact the law would have on wide range of government policies and programs. and after concluding that review, and determining that e the -- that this kind of legislation would achieve the desired effect we believe we can

support it. we can do so knowing that at the same time we can protect the religious liberty that is entrenched in our constitution. >> what about the legislature priority in the final year and do you think obama will speak out? >> if asked about it, i think the president would certainly be willing to have a conversation with you all about it. the administration does look forward to working with congress to try to advance this legislation consistent with the values we have articulated about the importance of equal rights.

>> what did the president say to the prime minister to reassure him about the nuclear deal? do you think he left assured about this? >> the important thing for people to understand is iran will not receive any sanction relief until they have fulfilled the commitments they have made under the agreement. they are quite eager to benefit

from the sanctions relief. the only real impact of this

news is the possibility it could delay the sanctions relief we know the iranians are after. >> do you think the prime minister left reassured the united states has this under control? do you think he left feeling better about the agreement? or >> you would have to ask him. >> on the immigration issue, you said there was limited resources for enforcement, and economic benefits and all of that. >> that is correct. >> the court said one objection was because of the burden it would put on the state to provide drivers license and other benefits. why is that -- do you accept that argument that it would create some financial burden on t the states? >> i have not considered what the impact on the state or the argument the attorney general is making about the impact that would have on the states.

so for those claims, you would have to talk to the department of justice who i am confidant has look at the claims. there are 15 states and the district of columbia that go before the court and urged the court to a allow these executive actions to be implemented including large states. they disagreed with the assessment this executive action imposed burden on their state or a burden that is not outweighed by the benefits. i think that is the second point i want to make. a state like texas that would have a number of individuals who would qualify for a program to bring them out of the shadows, pay taxes and go through a background check, that the benefits associated with this kind of action is concentrated in an area where a large number of these individuals exist. so fighting this the state of

texas is giving up a host of economic benefits that will accrue for the federal government and state and local governments in texas as well. i think that is precisely the argument that is being made by the 15 states that are urging the courts to allow this executive action to move forward. >> just one more issue. the president is travelling to turkey later in the week. i know that syria is not the issue necessarily but we will he hundreds of miles from the border. what does the president hope to accomplish on that issue while he is there? and certainly how high would you say that is on his agenda given the proximity there in vienna

and the approach he is making there? >> we will have more to say about the actual trip on thursday. i can say as general matter, though, the focus of the g 20 is typically on the international economy and that is why the leaders of 20 of the world's largest economies will gather in turkey. and there is going to be a robust conversation on the economic priorities you have heard the president advocate for. given the serious pressure our turkish allies are under from the large number of syrian refuges they are caring for, and from the terrible violence that is going on just on the other side of the border, it would be impossible to travel all the way over there and not spend some time thinking and talking about our ongoing effort to degrade and ultimately destroy isil.

i would anticipate that is part of the president's visit as well. a number of the countries participating in the g-20 are also prominent participants in the counter isil-coalition the president formed and the united states is leading. there will be an opportunity for the president to meet with close allies who are making contributions to that effort and discuss the progress we ahave made. >> given this conflict is one of the most awful things on the planet and the president is there doesn't see he this as a moment he can make a difference? >> i will anticipate he will spent time talking about it. -- spend -- josh? >> how question does the president follow the position -- the special envoy came out saying something has to be done.

we feel the genocide. >> richard, i can have somebody follow-up with you with more details. i know this is something the president and his national security team are following closely. this is a situation that is att att attenous. there is concerns about security and the risk vulnerable populations could be facing. we are monitoring this at the state department and also at the white house. >> could there be a prepreemptive intervention considering what happened 11 years ago in rwanda? >> i will have to have someone follow-up with you but i can confirm this is getting the attention of the president's team at the highest level. >> okay. and the other question, a local one actually. the movement of $15 an hour for the fast food employees is having a big day today.

this $15 threat to the economy, which is strong but still not having this strong growth that we would expect. >> what the president has been advocating for is an increase in minimum wage. there is the 10.10 proposal we advocated and there is another one by senator durbin racing the minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020. we have approved of that in the past. the president talks about his domestic policy agenda and ways we can put upward pressure on wages and that is an important priority particularly whether it comes to middle class families. when we grow our economy from the middle out we know we are not giving just the citizens but the country the best opportunity

to succeed. so those policies that would increase wages for the middle class and those trying to get into the middle class our policies the president strongly supports. ok okay. >> let me ask you about ndaa. does the president's signature impact the detainees who have been approved for transfer? >> no, it doesn't. my understanding is the guantanamo bay legislation included in this version is similar to the language in previous versions. it would make certain parts of the process more cumbersome but it should not affect the ability to continue to transfer individuals who have been approved for transfer. those approvals are given once a diplomatic agreement has been reached with another country and

they have agreed to accept one of those transfers. it also requires the secretary of defense to certify sufficient steps have been taken to mitigate the risk that individual would pose to u.s. national security down the line. but my understanding is the language that is included in this ndaa would not have an impact on those policy proceedings. >> is it your understanding a number north of 50 and might those transfers take place in 2015? >> i would not rule out there could be additional transfers before the end of the year. right now the number approved for transfer is 53. there are 22 others that have been referred to prosecution. ten others that are facing prosecution and another 27 that continue to be detained because their continued detention is

viewed to be in the best interest of the country. >> immigration. the president said something back in 2011. we are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an enron around congress. there are critics that suggest using executive action to push immigration reform is in fact doing that. would you argue against that point and how so? >> i would argue against that point merely by sitting the decision made by bush 41 who expanded the immigration program to cover 1.5 million unauthorized children and spouses. it represented about 40% of the undocumented population in the united states at the time. he did that using his executive action. president obama is proposing to use his executive action to have an impact on a similar

percentage of the undocumented population. i think that is a pretty clear indication of the precedent that is in place here. the other example is actually president reagan. he signed the family fairness program that deferred the deportation of children whose parents were applying to be legalal. i think you could make a stronger case that president reagan was the run doing an end run around congress. but i didn't hear any republicans complaining about it then or now. >> wednesday a special veteran's day edition of washington journal. bill rash of the iraq/afghanistan veterans of america is our guest talking about veterans issues. and then a look at the mental health issues of veterans.

and kernel ritchie of the washington, d.c. va medical center. washington journal begins live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, laura bush and labor secretary thomas perez on hiring our heroes. a conference about veterans organized by the chamber of commerce is and the george w. bush institute. and on washington journal we will talk about the latest on veteran's issues and your input via calls, facebook postings and tweets. and conversations with freshman members of congress beginning with seth molten and then representative steve russell, a

former ranger whose unit helped hunt down saddam hussein. and then a ceremony at the tome tomb of the unknown. and representative ryan talks about his service in iraq as a normer navy seal followed by a harvard gradute who decided to fight in iraq and join the marines. >> the candidates for the louisiana governor's office face off before the 21st runoff election. and then phillip hammond talks about energy and climate change. tonight we will take you live to b

baton rouge for the louisiana governor's debate. john bel edwards faces off against republican senator david vitter ahead of the state's runoff election on november 21st. the debate is hosted by louisiana public broadcasting. our live coverage begins in just a moment here on c-span2.