you on some but certainly not all depressing intelligence and national security issues facing our nation. in the interest of time to get your questions, i will cover as you indicated, mine indicated, mine will be the only opening statement. we will be back next week. on the third of march to address the budget and management issues that you raised, chairman nunes. i said last year in stability has become the new normal in this trend will continue for the foreseeable future. violent extremists are operationally active and about 40 countries. seven countries are experiencing the collapse of central government authority and 14 others face regime threat or violence in stability or both. ..

in 2014 has reached the united states as projected to cause up to 4 million cases in the hemisphere. for that purpose i want to comment about technology and cyber. there will be a more significant impact on the way of life and it's central to the economic prosperity but it will bring new security vulnerabilities.

the internet of well connected devices that could be exploited. artificial intelligence will enable computers to make decisions about data and physical systems and disrupt labor markets. russia and china continue to have the most sophisticated programs. china continued cyber espionage against the united states and whether the commitment operates its economic espionage remains to be seen. they continue to conduct as they enhance their attacking capabilities. nonstate actors also pose a cyber threats. they've used sabertooth great advantage not only for the recruitment propaganda that the release of sensitive information about u.s. military personnel's. they display unprecedented online proficiency. cyber criminals remain the most pervasive cyber threats to the

financial sector and uses fiber to conduct other criminal activities. there are now more sunni violent extremist groups in the into safe havens than any time in history. the rate of the fighters in the conflict zones in iraq in the past few years is without precedent at least 38,204 including 6900 from western countries travel from at least the beginning of the conflict to 2012 and as we saw in the november paris attacks with first-hand battlefield experiences posed a dangerous operational threat. isis demonstrated its attack and tradecraft as we saw. isil including the established and more in merging branches have become the preeminent global terrorist threat and attempted or conducted scores of attacks outside of iraq in the

past 15 months. it exceeds that globally of al qaeda. isil leaders seek to strike the homeland in the homegrown extremist attacks. it remains a critical factor in the threat assessment in 2016. al qaeda affiliates also have proven resilient despite counterterrorism pressures that decimated the leadership in afghanistan and pakistan and affiliates are positioned to make games in 2016. they're a band peninsula and the chapter are the most capable al qaeda branches. the use of encrypted internet and mobile-based technologies enables the terrorist actors to serve to undercut intelligence and law enforcement efforts. iran continues to be the state

sponsor of terrorism and exert its influence in the middle east through the islamic revolutionary course in the cuts force, the terrorist partners and proxy groups. iran and hezbollah remain a threat to the interest of partners worldwide. we saw firsthand the threat posed in the united states by homegrown violent extremists in the attack in chattanooga and san bernardino. the fbi arrested nine supporters in 2015 the number more than increased more than fivefold. moving to weapons of mass distraction north korea continues in the united states earlier this month pyongyang conducted a satellite launch and claimed the satellite was successfully placed in orbit. additionally in january, north korea carried out its nuclear test claiming it was the hydrogen bomb but it was too low to have been a successful test

in the staged thermonuclear device. pyongyang continues to produce fissile material and develop the ballistic missile created posing a direct threat to the united states although the system hasn't been flight tested. despite its challenges russia continues its modernization program and has the largest most capable ballistic missile force and has developed a cruise missile that violates the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. they continue to modernize the nuclear missile force and striving for secure a second strike capability and continues to progress a doctor in. the joint comprehensive plan of action provides us greater transparency to the fiscal material production and increases the time they would need to produce enough weapons grade uranium for a nuclear weapon from a few months to about a year.

they probably view it as a means to remove sanctions while preserving the nuclear capabilities. the perception of how it helps achieve its overall strategic goals will dictate the level to be agreement over time. thus far they appear to be in compliance. chemical weapons continue to pose the threat. damascus has used chemicals against the opposition or on multiple occasions joining the chemical weapons convention. isil also used chemicals in iraq and syria including the first time an extremist group in extremist group produced the chemical warfare agent in the attack in japan in 1995. in the counter space realm about eight countries now are engaged in the space domain. russia and china understand how the military fights and how we rely on space.

they are conducting the systems into china continues to make progress on its satellite missile program to be admitting to counterintelligence the threat from the entities both state and nonstate is persistent, complex and evolving. targeting the collection of the military economic and technical information by foreign intelligence services continue unabated. they pose the greatest threat followed by iran and cuba on the scale. as well as the threat from insiders taking advantage of the access to collect and remove the national security information that will remain a persistent challenge. with respect to the crime i do want to touch on one crime issue specifically drug trafficking. heroine in the united states doubled since 2010 over 10,000 people died of heroin overdoses in 2014 and much of it was laced with more than heroine.

in the same year more than 28,000 died from opiate overdoses. cocaine production in colombia for which most supplies originate increased significantly. china's leaders are pursuing an active policy dealing with much slower economic growth. reachable tension will continue china pursues the south china seas. russia has demonstrated its capabilities to project itself as a global power for the west, maintaining domestic support for the regime and advanced russian interests globally. moscow's objectives will remain unchanged in the long-term influence in its attempts to integrate into western institutions.

putin is the first leader to expand the territory. moscow in syria marks its first use into afghanistan and significant expeditionary combat power outside of the soviet space. it demonstrates the improvements in the military capabilities and the confidence of using them. moscow faces the reality of economic recession driven in large part by following the prices of the sanctions. the nearly 4% contraction lasted last year will extend into 2016. in the middle east and south asia there are more cross order operations underway than the mideast region since the israeli war. in iraq to force the forces will probably make gains some of them made in romani in the past few months. it's now somewhat on the defensive and its territory manpower is shaking but it

remains a threat. the pro- regime forces have the initiative making strategic aims in the north as well as in southern. manpower shortages continue to undermine the ability to accomplish strategic battlefield objectives in the groups like the unities sometimes they have competing battlefield interests and fight among themselves. some 250,000 have been killed as the war has dragged on which is probably a low side estimates. meanwhile the situation continues to deteriorate as approximately 4.4 million refugees and another 6.5 million internally displaced persons were present about half of the pre- conflict population. despite the december agreement to form the government of the accord in the security across the country will be difficult with hundreds of groups

operating throughout the country. isil has established its most developed branch outside of iraq and libya and maintains a presence of benghazi and tripoli. the conflict will remain stalemate or at least mid-2016 and meanwhile a q. ip collapsed to the government authority to recruit and extent of the territorial control. the country's economic and humanitarian situation also continues to worsen. iran deep end its involvement in the conflicts of 2015 and increased highlighted by its battlefield alliance in support of the regime. the supreme leader continues to view the united states as a major threat and we assess the views will not change despite the implementation of the exchange for the detainees and

the sailors. in south asia afghanistan is at serious risk of a breakdown during the 2016 occasioned by the mounting security challenges weighing out the political cohesion increasingly assertive of the power breakers and financial shortfalls and sustained countrywide attacks are diverging stability. many more threats to the interest worldwide that we could address that are covered in the statement for the record that i will stop with that and we will address your questions. >> thank you director clapper. first i'm going to go to director comey. there's been a lot involving the iphone that was owned by the san bernardino shooter. what exactly are you asking apple to do? how does this differ from the other times you've asked them to maintain communications?

>> in the case of san bernardino, the federal judge ordered the maker of the code to do two things. that is disable the function on the phone so that if the fbi is trying to guess the pass code it doesn't automatically delete the content and second, to try to disable the delay between the tribes functions to try to guess the code it doesn't take years and years but we are able to do it in minutes or hours in the remote pulsing of code to the code. that's what the order is about. and i don't know whether this particular relief has been sought in another court proceeding. if in the nature of the particular phone into its operating system it's possible, but i'm not aware of it. >> i'm sure that you will be getting more questions from the

kennedy and i know that you are testifying next week before the committee because this will be an ongoing debate. i want to switch over to the director on february 15, 2016, the daily beast ran a report whistleblower's skewed isys. shortly after the committee was contacted and briefed by odni on the survey result which indicated over 40% of the analysts feel that there are problems with analytic integrity and processes. with troops fighting allover, is it appropriate that we wait 18 months or longer for the general report before we even begin to rectify the problem? >> mr. chairman, i have no

control over the pace they do their investigation and so it would be good for all involved to look closer at the extent of the allegation we have no control over the process and i won't comment any further on the investigation but the survey itself represents the sampling of the members we have in the enterprise and when we put very strict matching to comply with analytic standards to ensure we have a process for those that believe the views are not being heard through the devil's advocate devils advocate programs or the sampling of the products we think we have them place a good standard and approach to look at the quality of our analysts us and the integrity of the analysis and i will leave it at that. >> it appears there was a process in place.

the analysts that is something that can't be ignored regardless of the investigation that will take place but if you have 40% of the analysts, are you going to go back and pull them a gang or is this an annual process they go through and what changes can be made in the short term or lack of a better term the unhappiness of the analyst. >> we will look at ways we can continue to improve the training and we've done that already and had requests whether there's been a dispute where we send the undead spend to look at the different views so we continue to do the process as the investigation builds on.

>> would you consider this to be unusual or is this a normal -- >> mr. schiff we want to ask you about the apple case as well. the facts are pretty compelling in terms of wanting to know what is on the phone and whether there are other parties involved in the plans or targets. while the application as you pointed out is focused solely on the code for the motion and review of the application that the act i don't see the limiting principle and by that i need if the argument is accepted by the court won't it lead the district at tourneys to back the same

argument and for a pregnant woman who was murdered i think in arkansas the phone may be the only key to her killer is but nonetheless involving the nonviolent offenses. i guess what i would like to ask is there a limiting principle is very limiting negotiation where it is perfect to seek his release and cases where it is not and do you acknowledge the broader policy implications of a uniform application under the act i realize this may be deleted by the next generation system that may not allow this kind of relief but nonetheless,

if it is technologically feasible even in the operating system to help the opening in the phone it seems to me the argument you are making would apply to those as well so is there a limiting principle and is there any way to resolve this negotiation because the initial party we need access when we have legal warrant and the other side says we can never provide access because we have to do it everywhere. >> there is a broader policy question that is far larger than any individual case we have to grapple with both to the case first the answer would come from a technical expert and a good lawyer and i'm neither of those but i will take a shot. whatever the judges decision is i'm sure that it will be appealed no matter how it ends

up as the same kind of phone and operating system and with the experts told me is the combination, come and i will get out of my depth in this particular operating system it is unusual and it is unlikely to be a trailblazer because of technology being the limiting principle to read but assured the decision is in brooklyn right now and all of those decisions will guide how others handle similar requests. as you mentioned it as a tool i have used for hundreds of years to have the orders given in in affecting how the judges interpret that in any particular jurisdiction not binding and others would be important. the larger question is is and grady answered in the courts and shouldn't be because we want to be as the country and how do we want to govern ourselves?

are there certain cases there are violent crimes would allow it in the act and to specify to which purposes the act with a change would apply. is this that something the law enforcement community you think could negotiate with privacy, stakeholders and the technology sector. >> it is the key to resolving this. this is the hardest question that i've seen and it's going to require the negotiation by very keen to keep the bureau out of the policymaking business. we have to roles in the context. one we must do an investigation following the murder of 14

people in san bernardino and we both use whatever tools are available to us. >> what are the costs associated in the strong encryption because there is tons of benefits, i love encryption and privacy inability to do a world no one can look at the stuff. law enforcement that i am part of does save people's lives and we do that a whole lot for the court orders that are search warrants and we do it a whole lot through search warrants with mobile devices so we will move to a world that is not possible anymore. it will be different than where we are today and where we were in 2014 so we have to make sure the bureau explains to coax what the costs are so people don't look at us and say where were you when this happened this is

too important to let us direct so my bureau gave a factual inputs so we have a really robust conversation. >> i know my colleagues will have more questions so i will deter to them. that is the subject in libya and people are concerned that the size of the tumor in iraq decreases that we are seeing a growth in malignancy in libya. there seems to be a concern taking the action against isis and olivia that it would interfere in the ongoing negotiations to try to get the two political parties together to form a common government. from the intel perspective do you think we could take more aggressive action against isis in parallel in the negotiations

or do you think we have to choose between them because i am concerned that at the pace of after pace of the negotiations it would seem and less we may get to the point it is so entrenched that we have to embark on the same project that we are undertaking. >> i will start out and others may contribute. i think that you have characterized the dilemma in terms of the more robust military intervention and the potential jeopardy that poses to a very fragile evolving political process. there is hope for the new accord and we would like nothing better than to have the government in place with two week weekend work and gain consent.

that is a subject of active discussion as i speak. >> there was a relationship between the government building trying to get the court off the ground and counterterrorism operations and the discussions i think that others have been in and recognize that sometimes what you do in one affects the others but i think that the purpose is to try to person both simultaneously recognizing that it continues to take place. >> to drill down on that, do either of the political factions that are trying to form the government, do they take issue in the necessity of the action against isis in the efforts that i hope would be more fully integrated in the leadership and

more of an approach? >> it is more monolithic with respect to the political views with each one of those so to the extent there can be a fair amount that isil poses a risk as a nationstate and there is a sentiment among those parties but not all that this represents a threat to the country but there's not and that's the difficulty is that there is a wide range of views in the political spectrum. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> as the chairman and even alluded to, there is a lot of

education that will be taking place. the director clapper and director comey come if you would elaborate briefly with section 702 is to your prospective agencies. >> i will start that i will also but i will also invite the deputy director of the nsa all of us have an equity that represents the vital intelligence capability for all of us. just to be clear, this is a provision that governs the tradition that governs the collection on non-us persons overseas and the current law expires in december of 2017 and so we are already embarked on the education campaign to ensure that people understand what the vital tool this is.

let me first turn. >> for the efforts against the valid foreign intelligence non-us persons that are overseas and the targeting of u.s. persons that would require a separate court order to do that. in the course of of conducting the collection under 702, if a u.s. person is in contact with the intelligence target there are minimization procedures we would use to minimize the retention and the disclosure of the identity of the person and the value and those are reviewed annually by the court. >> 702 is a critical tool for the collection as well as our

operational activities whether they be on the counterterrorism front and others and there are numerous instances over the years with the ability to uncover and also help to disrupt activities that are a threat to the interest and as you can imagine the open session is difficult to go into some of those that let me mention just one in late 2014 and a longtime extremist opportunities was arrested by the authorities following several trips in libya while she met with extremist operatives. they provided this information from section 702 to assist the government in their investigation that led to the arrest of that individual.

that is the way that the intelligence is used working with partners around the world to disrupt these activities in the proliferation dimension to them. >> the only thing to add is people could argue about how important the telephone collection was. this wasn't even a close call. if we lost this tool it would be bad for us so it's important to have the conversation early so thank you for the question. >> i yield back. >> thank you for being here. i want to pick up the line of questioning on the apple fbi. the facts are compelling in the case. some of the issues that you have acknowledged our novel and challenging. it is this body that should be

determining the answers to the questions that will be result in the judiciary and we will share the constitutional duty as we have on the authorization for the use of force as we were preparing to do on a supreme court nominee. so the thinking of the fbi the first question is about a follow-on to mr. schiff. the position is very narrow that the request pertains to this divisiveness in this instance there is a legitimate worry that a decision in favor could be the narrow end and mr. schiff asked about the legal domain this might apply. i want to ask about the authority if the fbi prevails come fbi will be required to write the code for the government. where does this authority and

for example is it the position of the fbi that he has the authority to compel the inclusion of code into a new device, can you paint a bright line with respect to where you think the authority ends? >> i don't think you can or should. i think the department of justice and the lawyers that are representing are situated to do that i think that these are reasonable questions because the judges on both coasts have to interpret what is the meaning of the act and i'm not somebody call the fight to answer that one. >> at this point in time it is into the leave of the fbi that the authority could go beyond what it has requested in this particular case? >> i haven't thought of it. here's the way that i think

about it the focus on the case and i said this to folks and i said it because it is true the san bernardino litigation is not about us trying to send a message or establish a precedent is really isn't it's about trying to be confident in addressing something that is an active investigation so i don't know how the lawyers and judges will think about the legal side. >> my second question is a different way to think about this right now we are having the conversation primarily in terms of the tension between privacy and security but there is a different tension which is the security and if you prevail and the code is written presumably as pointed out it would be the subject of other requests into in double exist presumably on a server at apple and that creates a substantial threat if it exists on the server it will presumably become the target of

the adversaries of criminal enterprises and you don't need to think too hard to spend some ugly scenarios if it gets out into the wild now the terrorist entity is my precise location and get the voters of my children so i wonder if you could give us a sense taking the position hell did you think about the trade-off between the compal and desire to get the information on this particular standard eight and a pace -- san bernardino case with this code should exist and ultimately get out into the wild? >> that's something the courts will sort out and i'm trying to be cautious. the code that the judge directed works only on this one phone so the idea of it getting out into the wild and working on the phone the experts tell me isn't a real saying and second, it

will be asked apple which has done a good job protecting the code. again i'm not an expert and i think that is something the judge will have to sort out. >> in my limited time i wanted to thank you for raising the issue of cyber security in the testimony. i wonder if agreements were made when the chinese president visited our president and correct drives the agreements that have been reducing the amount of cyber espionage and activity we have seen out of china. >> we could probably go more into that in the details of the session as i indicated in my remarks through the result we have seen some reductions but we are not in a position to say at this point whether they are in

strict compliance and we can go into that in more detail in a closed session. >> thank you mr. chair. >> on apple, one is are there any negotiations leading up to the court proceeding? >> plenty. i want to be sure people are saying no demons in this dispute or the larger apple has been buried robert and we got to the place they were not willing to offer. hispanic and second, to knock down the story i've heard several people in the media say that the fbi couldn't do this could do this but they tried to establish a case. >> it's a product of people watching too many tv shows. sometimes they are not as attractive or talented as we appear on tv.

>> mr. quigley. >> going a little deeper to ukraine and russia, who wants to comment on this first. obviously the impact of sanctions is pretty dramatic to their economy. is this a frozen conflict, and what else can we anticipate? spinnaker has had the greater impact on the economy is to the drop of the price in oil. it's running at 37 to $38 if that and the planning factors that they would use in the budgeting is $50 so the sanctions that have contributed to that the major impact has been oil.

i think it is deeply steeped in their history and culture particularly in the two separatist republic and obviously what they most fear and are most concerned about is gravitating more than it already has been in becoming a part of the unit or worse, nato so they will continue to proxy the separatists and sustain the influence in ukraine in the matter. >> do you see the status continuing the way that it is, there's a there is a renewed conflict at different times but

no dramatic change recently. >> that's right they will for now maintain the status quo that's creating issues among the separatists that are occurring around the line that has been drawn in the agreement in the occasion by the separatists whom they don't completely control. do you want to add to that? spec there are still shortcomings in the limitation of that but the characterization i think there is still uncertainty about how they are going to a scape from this which is taking a toll in addition to the sanctions. >> given the economy for whatever reason and the conflict but they are most involved with

the have their hands full or do you have concerns about how to destabilize the region? >> there are concerns about that although right now it is in the soft arena and the cyber round rather than by military assault that doesn't seem to be there right now. i do think that they are preoccupied with syria and they are confronting the possibility whether possibility whether they voted for ground forces in because i think the constraining factor for them is a memory of afghanistan getting into the kind of bottomless pit and that does affect the thinking and as the reason there's an interest

in the cessation of hostilities. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you all for being here. excuse my voice. director, this warrant that went to the court was no different a process then you do for an advisor or any other that you would want to get checked on some evidence. you were just trying to get into the following and not do anything else is that correct? spinnaker there were thousands of other investigations through the country if you want to search and go to a federal judge and make the showing of probable cause that there is evidence in

the investigation on the device to get a search warrant and then what happened here is because the device was not able to be opened, the judge issued a separate order under this to try to give the effect to the court search warrant but told a manufacturer you must assist in disabling this function so they can try to get it and executed a search warrant. >> i would think that it's different if you've got people you got people that total 14 other folks in the attack and you're trying to get through the security code to get into the device versus a divorce lawyer trying to figure out what the husband may have been talking to so there is a difference to that and i think that the american people can send to that these people have committed a crime.

the next thing i want to ask, we've been going through a lot of the nuclear deal and we've given a large amount of money. i know that a lot of your agencies take part in monitoring the financing of isis. how are we monitoring what they are able to do or they are giving as doing as an open question and you can jump in there because it gives an opportunity going to france and other places making these large purchases just another great opportunity.

>> we can go into detail in the closed session i don't think i would say that is of the money that is released or freed up by virtue of the jcp over a much of it is encumbered for debt or demanding domestic needs of the economy and some of the money has flowed in particularly to the force some of the money has flowed to them but not as nearly nearly as much as they wanted and i think as far as tracking the finances and the financial data that details would be best left to the closed session. >> i yield back.

>> thank you mr. chairman and gentlemen for the testimony today. director, i want to turn back to cybersecurity. if you can talk about your assessment of the intelligence community's ability to counter cyber threats and talk a little bit about what you see as the future threat he would face and whether we are able to win those challenges. >> the intelligence community role is classically the intelligence that is to collect and analyze information on threats in the cyber domain and then in support of others for either planning attacks or for defense. in the forthcoming budget

submission i will speak to next week that we are asking for in 2017, i think the general threat environment is quite daunting both from the standpoint capability of the nationstates prime among them russia and china and then the non- state actors there is a relationship between the capabilities the countries have, china and russia being the most formidable perhaps less threatening in the terms of their intent where you have second-tier countries and iran and north korea. >> how would you assess the ability to counter those

threats? >> by countering them or collecting against them. >> does. >> countering in one dimension is the ability to defend, which is not just a government thing that the private sector as well so when you say defend, that is a big domain. our ability is to convey to those that are responsible for defending and in the case of the cyber, attacking that they have the adequate intelligence to bring to bear for that. >> with respect to the space sector can you tell us a little bit about that i know you have in the report more detailed our ability to defend against or

counter some of the russian and chinese anti-satellite missile. >> this is a subject that is left for the closed session but i will say that both have embarked on a very aggressive and diverse set of capabilities in the domain and this has prompted a lot of attention on both the department of defense and the community to provide an array of defenses and resilience and the constitution if necessary shall we lose our space assets this is a commentary goes on russia and chinese insight and understanding about how heavily the united states depends on space or a whole variety of needs. >> thank you and i will yield back the rest of my time.

>> thank you all for appearing here today and for your long service to the country and thanks to the many men and women your agency represents. not to beat the issue to death but one question, has apple articulated what the reasons are to not cooperate to the extent that you have requested? is it a slippery slope or more of an economic issue where the cooperation of showing the world we might be about to accomplish makes the device less desirable and lose market share? >> i don't want to talk about private conversations in the course of this discussion in and apples. there's been a lot of stuff in the press and they will have an opportunity to file in the court today or tomorrow to explain why they don't be that it delete that it is appropriate so i have to leave it there. >> we will wait for a court

filing to see what their names may be. >> mr. carson. >> determine which communities warrant proactive outreach. they are turning towards violence and sometimes it is was the ethnic community and sometimes it is the community any particular flavor of antigovernment sentiments.

it's bringing a novel in not only the community leaders. it has to be an entire community thing. it can't be a religious institution, it has to be parents and educators and physicians and law enforcement and social workers. one of the things that they are trying to do in the violent extremism effort is bring together those talented people from all different perspectives. so if we encounter a young person that hasn't yet moved to a place we have to lock them up there is a prospect of a group coming together and redirecting the person so there have to be a lot of folks like us as a citizens academy that's been an effective tool in creating some kind of a body and with those communities. does the citizens academy, which you know well is an effort to

the fbi runs in all 56 of the field offices we invite people from all of life to spend time doing how to get to the work and ask the hard questions and stay involved to give us feedback. for all of those that represent in the work that you do i have a question more for later in the closed session but one thing i think we can ignore as we sit here on the site of congress and the admiral spoke here years ago about the debt to the national security so i want to ask you, director as we face all of these threats to the nation can have is this basically an internal threat of the death to affect

the capabilities in the work that you do? >> it affects us to the extent we have an addition on -- connect you to watch the rest of the hearing at c-span.org. we are leaving to go to the white house for a briefing with the press secretary josh earnest. >> we can go straight to the questions. do you want to start? spinnaker there was a time time, i would ask about the economy, there was a time when they came out and speak to you stop doing that a little while and i wonder if you could explain. what continues to be true is that we were mindful of the need to not be too disappointed when one set of job numbers fall

short of expectations and not get too excited when they exceed the expectations but what we are focused on are the longer-term trends and they were further cemented in this month's job numbers. 72 consecutive months of the jobs created that is over the last two years with job growth since the late 1990s the longer-term trends when it comes to wage growth continues to be pretty good. i know the wage growth is increasing, the wages are growing about 2.5% a year. that's good. it could be better and they have ideas how to make that better and i think that the reason is that seems particularly important to discuss it now it is precisely the reasons the

president explained and that's simply this. there is a vigorous political debate going on in the country and in terms that the guys would only increase as we get closer to the general election and there will be focused on whether or not we build on the progress we've made over the last seven years that has led to the longest consecutive streak of private-sector job growth in american history or are we going to go back on that progress and turned back to the policies that actually led to the great recession and the reason the president feels that it is important to comment on this with increasing frequency is that it is important for people to understand that we have made important progress and there are a lot of ways to measure it. this is the measurement that seems to get the most attention and that is the reason the president chose to discuss it so

well we get another set of job numbers next month? hopefully. does that mean that the president won't talk about it? not necessarily about this will be an important part of the discussion because look, if people don't recognize we have made progress that will be hard to make the case we need that case we need to build on that progress. so it won't just be in the reaction to the release of information from the department of labor it's certainly something that all of you that have covered the fundraisers talked about and is the president becomes engaged over the course of the year i'm confident that this will be an important part of the speech. >> in the campaign basically. >> well, no i don't think i would say it quite that way the president is pleased about the important progress the country has made that is borne out in the numbers and i don't just

mean the numbers that relates to the state of the economy in february, 2016. i mean the longer-term trends that point to the economy and there is a question on whether or not we want to build on that progress or if we want to turn back to the set of policies that weakened our economy. that's the legitimate subject of the debate the president just happens to think they are the wrong ones. >> i would ask about cuba. the secretary decided not [inaudible] there are still some disagreements over the secretary's decision not to go. >> secretary terry testified a couple weeks ago and was considering the trip and made no

plan to follow through on it. since then, he decided to travel with him in just a couple of weeks and on that trip he does intend to meet with some political dissidents inside of cuba and that is the guest list that will be determined by the white house. there will not be any input from the government about the list of people that attend that meeting. so there is no real dispute about this. i suspect because the president will meet with whomever he chooses to meet with and there is no disputing in that chooses to meet with. when he heads that meeting secretary john kerry will be sitting next to me. >> on north korea, i am sure you

have seen the reports that the military is ready to make a pre-emptive strike with nuclear-weapons. this is coming after they were hit. is it a concern they are still engaging in this rhetoric, still making these threats? obviously sanctions are just starting but is it a concern they may not be changing their posture? >> as we have often discussed, the united states, important nation with the international community has imposed sanctions against another country expectation is that will not yield to change overnight. over time we have seen increasing isolation does prompt some countries to reevaluate

their strategy. iran is the best, there are some situations where we have seen international isolation has had a tangible and increasing impact on the economy. north korea pass on the leaders of the country's decisionmaking. as you pointed out in your question, the kind of comments and provocative actions we have seen in the last 36 hours or so are not new. we continue to urge the north korean regime to refrain from provocative action and statements that tends to aggravate tensions. they should focus on fulfilling their international obligation and commitment particularly when it comes to their nuclear

program. that is not just the united states but the international community. that will continue to be our posture moving forward even as we implement sanctions that are tougher than have ever been implemented. >> is there concern even though the rhetoric that they have been doing more testing, testing more things of that nature, is there a concern about eventually being able to follow through on some of these threats, are these threats they are doing now, how much of a concern or how seriously does the white house take them? >> the concern about the north korean ballistic missile program and nuclear program should be evident based on the significant sanctions passed by united nations security council. that is an indication the international community agrees this is a subject of concern.

is why we have imposed a level of sanctions and inspections against them that had never been imposed against them before. our concern stems primarily from our need to protect the american people. we talked about steps the administration has taken at the direction of president obama to boulder the defenses of the united states in the face of threats from north korea, ballistic missile defense systems that have been moved to the asia-pacific region to protect the united states, there is a ballistic missile defense system that was moved to alaska in 2014. there are ballistic missile, ballistic missile warning radar systems that have been moved to japan, a set of naval assets that are part of a ballistic missile defense constellation that have been moved to the

pacific, that ramped up presence enhances the security of the united states and our partners and allies in the region including countries like japan and south korea, that are most likely to be in harm's way. we take seriously the responsibility we have to protect the security of japan and south korea. we will monitor the situation closely and continue to call upon the north korean government to avoid destabilizing actions and other provocations that rattle an already jittery region of the world. >> the white house planning to hold in april to try to control the spread of the mosquitos the spread the disease. can you talk about why the white house is doing that at this

time? the main goal you hope to accomplish and the outlook for deeper response at this point? >> this is the result of a discussion at the national governor association at the white house a couple weeks ago. the cdc will be hosting this in atlanta on april 1st and it will include representatives from state and local governments across the country including many governors and is an opportunity to bring together these leaders from across the country with the foremost public health experts in the u.s. government to discuss what prudent steps should be taken to protect the american people. the administration treated this as a top priority and we recognize when confronted with risks like this, early action is important and that is why we have taken the steps we have taken to try to get ahead of the

situation. the most important of those steps frankly was putting forward a package to the united states congress that would ensure all these activities protecting the american people are adequately funded and we haven't seen congress do anything with that proposed package. our request is predicated on steps to protect the american people. it is necessary for congress to take action to protect the american people. we are mindful of what the risks are. for most people the zika virus does not pose a risk that it is an acute risk potentially to pregnant women. so an important part of this effort is public education campaign. there are resources necessary to insure our public health systems are adequately -- important work can be done with vector control to try to prevent the spread of

mosquitos that we know carry the virus. and we need congress to support that effort and is important for congress not to be asleep at the switch when we have a significant the emerging threat. >> supertuesday it, the campaign, instructing the presidential -- have you spoken to assets that republicans -- somebody saying typically, donald trump -- is he chomping at the bit to get back out there? how are you describing his interest level? >> he is mindful of the fact that there's a general election ahead. the president is certainly looking forward to having the opportunity to make the case in support of a successor who

understands the we need to build on the progress that we have made. that makes him an important voice when candidates on the republicans side are suggesting policies that would roll back that progress. as somebody who has devoted a lot of his sweat equity for the last seven years and somebody who loves this country, the president feels he has a vested interest and as somebody who can make a persuasive case in favor of a candidate who is committed to building on his progress. >> to go after the republican front runner, seems to want to get back in the mix, not to set his own record and support -- the other side. >> the president is quite focused on making a substantive case on issues that are most

important to the country and the american people and certainly the economy fits that description and have any substantive discussion about what economic policies will allow us to continue the progress we have made is a subject of legitimate discussion on the campaign trail and the president will be an eager participant. >> at the state department, issued a final memo on the e-mail practices of the past. they claim pretty definitively that how to handle classified material on unclassified assistance, moving towards in this case -- my question is the president with respect to secretary clinton considered this matter closed. should the matter be closed? >> i am reluctant to wade in directly on your question because there is an ongoing

independent investigation into this. i certainly want to avoid giving the appearance of trying to influence the outcome of that investigation by suggesting the president's view of how it should conclude. we have all along been respectful of that ongoing independent investigation. once that independent investigation is concluded then that will be announced by the independent investigators to are performing it. >> in october and 60 minute he said he didn't think secretary's e-mail endangered national security. it has come out -- >> his views have not changed but his views also include as noted in the interview that there is an ongoing independent investigation led by independent investigators. they will follow the facts and reach their own independent determination. >> the supreme court -- anyone

-- candidates. >> manage expectations here. i would not at any point -- i do not expect to be in a position to confirm any individual private meetings with potential candidates at the staff level or the presidential level. that is what i can't talk about. let's talk about what i can talk about. i would expect the president will have an opportunity before the end of the day-to-day, essentially get some additional materials to review over the weekend as he weighs this important decision. there has been extensive consultation involved in this process with democrats and republicans. i noted earlier this week, white house officials from the president on down have been in touch with every office in the united states senate to discuss the constitutional responsibility the senate has.

i don't know whether or not there will be additional calls over the weekend but we will try to get you an update on that early next week but certainly the work to review relevant material about potential nominees. >> the president expects to meet with financial regulators. i am wondering if the meeting is talked about, the fiduciary role of getting close to being finalized. >> the president is meeting with a number of federal independent financial regulators on monday at the white house. the president periodically over the course of his presidency, obviously we are quite respectful of the independent world these regulators have to play, but there seems value in keeping an open line of communication from the white

house to these regulators with periodic engagements like this one. i don't have exactly what is on the agenda as relates to the conflict of interest rule. it is still going through the regulatory process. i don't have an update in terms of how soon it will emerge from that process, but i know that process is ongoing. one of the key legacy achievements of this presidency will be the important reforms of wall street. those reforms have led to a financial system that is more stable and insurers taxpayers are not on the hook for bailing out financial institutions. i said it so many times over the last few years that it sounds like a relief easy thing but the truth is in implementing that

law, administration regulators have had to fight tooth and nail with wall street institutions and their highly paid lobbyists to ensure that that law is effectively implemented. the president takes some pride in knowing that we were able to make the products he made at the beginning which was we could impose greater regulations on wall street to make the system more stable. at the same time, not shutting down the dynamism of the u.s. economy. we have seen wall street -- we have been talking a lot about economic numbers, talking about independence movements of the stock market because it flat to wait while be based on sometimes unknown forces. but the truth is over the last seven years, there may be no metric on which the economy has performed better than the

significant growth of the financial index. but that is an indication, one piece of evidence that we have succeeded in making the financial system safer and more stable and less of a threat to middle-class families while at the same time allowing wall street to perform and important function which is to ensure that homeowners and business owners and small and large cap access to capital in a way that allows them to innovate and create jobs and grow our economy. all along we saw the aftermath of wall street reform being passed, something that would be bad for the economy, the numbers don't bury that out. >> to the next week, the canadian press was saying the u.s. and canada, an environmental package, talk about auto emissions, toxicology

and trade elements. i wonder if you could confirm that is going on in? have any detail. >> i have been briefed on those reports but haven't seen them first hand. i don't have a lot of information to share about what is on the agenda. i will try to get you more information about better in next week that we can discuss. i can tell you the first meeting the president had with prime minister trudeau during our trip to the philippines last fall, it was clear there are a number of issues where the united states and canada very effectively cooperate. and this change is an important one. the prime minister dedicated the significant amount of time in his campaign on the campaign trail talking about how the policies of the government in canada needed to be and could be

more effectively oriented to counter the threat from climate change. he made a case the president has made, not that the people of canada and the economy of canada can benefit from focusing on this in the short term. and i think what that means is there may be an opportunity for the united states and canada to work in a more effectively our policies when it comes to fighting climate change. how much of a discussion that will be when he visits next week is something i will try to track down for you. >> that meeting today with staff on the supreme court, is that something he has been doing everyday? >> periodically the president is meeting with members of his team working on this. sometimes it is more formal than others and sometimes an opportunity to hand them some paper so he can do his homework if you will.

i don't have a lot of details to share. it is an opportunity for the president to consult with his team prior to the weekend about the work that he has already done. >> when we heard from the president today on the economy, he was freeing the entire view in political terms, talking about how it contrasts with the doomsday rhetoric. at one point he even set america is doing great right now. couldn't the news stand on its own? why did he feel the need to frame it that way? >> it seems to have attracted all of your attention. and i welcome the opportunity to have a robust discussion of them and to your point i think these numbers do merits attention on their own. in their own right this is an important indication of the direction the economy is head to the that the progress we have made the last several years and it is certainly relevant to the ongoing political discussion in the country and will be more

relevant in the fall when we have one candidate on the ballot, a democrat, whether it is bernie sanders or hillary clinton making a case how and pour into it is to build on this progress and they will be matched against a republican candidate who is vowing to roll back that progress and the policies that led to that progress. that is an important debate for the country to have and the president is looking forward to engage in. >> you and the present diminished that rhetoric out there, basically said it is turning the country -- basically trashed a lot of what is said out there. why does the president feel the need to respond directly to individual points in that rhetoric? does that in a sense give as much attention to the rhetoric as it does to the economic news the president was announcing? he could have sat here is why this news is great for the economy. but no. he wanted to match individual

points to individual things donald trump has said, you know what i mean? >> there is no doubt given the colorful style of the republican candidates, they have done plenty of attention for their rhetoric, talking down the economy. there is little risk of inflating that attention even further. i think the benefits, particularly when you add of jobs numbers illustrating a much broader trend, that warrants attention too. oftentimes these kinds of positive economic reports include a whole set of inconvenient facts for those who are getting the most attention. the president felt it was worthwhile to point that out as well. >> a better way to frame the question, more simply, is to say couldn't the president get his

attention for these points with out having it be political? doesn't he have -- you are talking about getting attention for this. does the president have to bring in the republican rhetoric to get the amount of attention he wants for what he feels he has done? >> this has more to do with the fact that there is an active, wailing debate going on across the country and in newspapers and on the airwaves every day and most of the attention is focused on the political candidates who are talking down the economy and the president felt this was the the opportunity to weigh in on the other side with the facts and that is what he did. >> i did not expect to ask this many questions on it but while we are on it. >> i am pleasantly surprised. >> almost seems as if he was referring to the debate for when on last night.

did he watched it? >> the president did not watch the debate last night. >> also, i don't know, never mind. >> have the good weekend, michele. mark? >> following up. was the economic reading on the schedule before this morning? >> the president's economic team was meeting today to discuss a handful of economic issues and the president dropped by that meeting to discuss a couple of them and we decided to invite 0 of you to attend the president's drop by and give him an opportunity to speak with all of you about the good news. >> on another subject, does the president had any misgivings, we ever heard him talking about remaining in washington after

his term in office is over? >> that is not the way i expected you to ask the question. i did talk about some of these reports and the president's approach is you have heard him talk about this to one extent over another in the last couple years and the president as previously noted, significant sacrifices his members of this family have made for him while he has been engaged in public service and the truth is he is reluctant to disrupt the high school career of his younger daughter. after having disrupted her education before when they moved to washington in january of 2009. there is no -- nothing

definitive that has been decided here, but -- >> he is staying in washington? the washington area? >> there's nothing definitive that has been decided about where he or the family will live precisely, but that is what i am trying to convey. but you get a good sense based on his comments yesterday how he thinks about this. this is -- this is an opportunity for the president to again, after having asked his family to make some sacrifices for him and, as a result of his demanding schedule went public service, at this point he can be sure the education of his youngest daughter is not disrupted once again. >> is there now are a concern that the president will be inundated with real-estate

offers? >> i am confident -- i bet. i am guessing the president and the first lady will be able to handle it. >> you are remaining in washington after the term? >> time will tell. >> i have our realtor for you. i just want to ask about north korea and the complicated relationship with china. how much pressure can the administration put on beijing to rein in pyongyang? it is fair to suggest it has not gone so well at least based on the last 36 hours. they are doing what they have always done which is saber rattling. what is your assessment? >> my assessment is the north korean government understands how isolated they are. the sanctions imposed on north korea by the united nations were

significantly stronger than the sanctions imposed on them before. this includes inspections of all cargo moving in and out of north korea. it is an outright ban on small arms and other weapons and it imposes broader sectoral sanctions on those aspects of the north korean economy that do actually generate some revenue for the government. there are not many that do. that is why the imposition of the sectoral sanctions is so important. it is obvious based on the way we negotiated this, so intensively with the chinese that their support was going to be necessary for this to move forward this is an indication that our diplomacy with china was quite effective in healing a set of sanctions that will impose pressure on the north koreans. the north koreans recognize this and as a result we see the kind

of provocative rhetoric and behavior in response. but what is true is that it is not possible to judge overnight the impact of these sanctions. it will be over time that we will be able to determine what impacts they have on the strategy that is laid out by the north korean government. >> following on diplomacy do you think it will be more fruitful for a better way, how much more useful it might be to focus on japan and south korea applying more pressure on pyongyang versus working through beijing? >> we talked before that there is no government in the world that has more influence with the north koreans than the chinese. that is why we have sought to gain leverage or to work with china to try to encourage them to use their leverage and

influence with the north koreans and that is why having chinese support for this set of sanctions is so critically important. south korea and japan are close allies of the united states. so as being able to reach an agreement of what sanctions to impose on north korea requires some diplomacy but is not particularly complicated. when we are dealing with china is much more complicated. the united states and china don't see eye to eye on everything. when it comes to north korea we see eye to eye on the most important things including the fact that the korean peninsula should be denuclearized. that is why we have chosen a more difficult path to work closely with the chinese to impose the sanctions because frankly they will be more impact will if the chinese go along. fortunately they have, they haven't just gone along, they have stood shoulder to shoulder with the united states as we have led this international

effort to impose the sanctions. but ultimately time will tell whether it will have the desired effect. >> can you give me a broad assessment of the movement of the carrier group into the area? >> i can confirm john stennis aircraft carrier group is in the vicinity of the south china sea, the department of defense may an announcement about this late in the day yesterday. this is part of the regular movement of aircraft carrier group. it is not part of an ongoing freedom of navigation operation or anything like that but rather part of the routine movement of naval assets through the asia pacific region. the number of u.s. naval assets in the asia-pacific region has increased significantly under president obama's leadership. this is not an uncommon occurrence.

for more details about the mission, i refer you to the pacific commander. >> the president will be watching house of cards? >> i know the president has watched earlier seasons of house of cards. i don't know if that is part of his weekend plans this weekend or not. there are a lot of people in washington looking forward to spending time in front of the television watching house of cards this weekend. >> was the president watching cable news teach you what was the reference to a o.j. simpson? >> prior to seeing all of you the president had been in the situation room, he was actually -- stick with me here. he was in the situation room, he was actually doing a secure video teleconference with

president ganni of afghanistan. we will have more of that later this afternoon. as he came out of the conference room, conducting that video teleconference, there are banks of television monitors as you walk out the door of the situation room and a television monitors are regularly tuned to cable news as kevin and michele are pleased to hear. that is where the presidents of the networks were covering this news. he did seem bemused. i you suggesting that you weren't? >> i was shocked. >> you seem been used about the news being reported. >> i don't know where to begin on it. and discussing afghanistan. >> a more formal readout on paper of the video teleconference with afghan leaders. >> you have leadership, talking

to somebody, the president having written this and making it public, the white house's view at this point that all of this is falling on deaf ears or is there room to think the conversation could move forward? >> based on the reaction of some senators, it is clear it the message is being heard. is also clear that the public is hearing this message. there now is ample public data to indicate that a strong majority of the country doesn't support the apparent initial reaction of senate republicans to put politics ahead of their constitutional duty. we are going to continue to make a case publicly and privately directly to the senators and the public that their constitutional

duty should come first, the president is committed to putting his constitutional duty first, that will come the for any political considerations. we hope they will do the same. that is what vice president joe biden did in 1988. we hope senate republicans do the same in 2016. >> at a minimum, would you ask for expect to meet with nominees and give that hearing -- >> we believe they should do it that. those kinds of courtesy visits are a sign of functioning, professional united states senate. refusing to meet with presidential appointees is inconsistent with long standing tradition. so would be refusing to have the

hearing and a vote. since 1875 every single presidential nominee to the supreme court has gotten a hearing and/or a vote from the united states senate. this would be a star break from longstanding tradition and also inconsistent with the expectations of the u.s. constitution. we have a strong case to make here and we will keep making it. >> asking for an audience with a candidate. >> once the president has put forward a nominee that nominee will begin, as previous nominees have, making courtesy visits on capitol hill. i am confident that the courtesy visits will include a request to meet with republican senators and it will be up to republican senators to determine if they will accept that. i feel confident democrats will. i would just note in 1988, that

was the last time we faced this situation we had republican presidents with a democratic majority in the united states house and that was the last time any president was asking the senate to confirm his supreme court nominated presidential election and senators grassley and mcconnell voted to confirm justice kennedy in 1988 in a presidential election year. they understand the stakes, they understand the tradition and they understand requirements of the united states constitution is the question is whether they will follow it. >> the president has made progress in consideration of nominees. >> it is safe to say the president has been doing a lot of work on this. it is hard for me to quantify exactly -- hard for me to discuss publicly how we would quantify that progress. he has devoted significant time to this.

i know there have been sleepless nights on the part of the legal team that he has got materials he needs and continue through the weekend. >> what the president -- adjudged in iowa supported by chair grassley, now especially a relative of house speaker paul ryan, a directive given to find people with the closest possible ties to the top republicans to make it as difficult as possible for them to reject the nominee. >> i can't confirm those individuals that have been reported a number of times are part of the process. i am not going to confirm or deny any individual candidates.

what i can tell you is the instructions the president is giving his legal team and is pretty simple. the president has said i want to find the best person for the job and evaluate this person based on their legal credentials, but their judicial temperament, i want to evaluate this person based on their life experience. i don't care if this person is a democrat or republican, i want the best person for the job. that is what his legal team is trying to help him do. it is hard, once the president has selected that person it will be all the easier to be in position to help you explain how he arrived at that decision, but in the midst of that decision is hard to discuss. >> you said a minute ago there is ample data out there that

suggests the public -- were you referring to something specific or is it just anecdotal, news reports -- >> there are national polls in individual states that indicate a substantial majority of people surveyed in those polls believe that the united states congress should fulfill their constitutional duty. >> the administration is pulling its analysis to gauge public sentiment. >> this is not based on polls, they are not names included in polls or a blank biographies. >> how the process should or should not unfold. >> after justice scalia's death was announced, the president's fulfilled his constitutional duty.

that is the only place we need to look at what the president should do. >> the last nomination process, how many has he interviewed personally, did he ever revealed that? >> i don't know if we have revealed that. i have been asked that question before but let me see if we can get you an answer to that. >> whether it is one or two or 20. >> let me see if there is information about past searches. i don't think we will get into this. let me see if i can give you some information about that. >> in will be similar. >> it will. the president's evaluation of the same criteria, i guess the other reason to keep the searches similar is the last two searches yielded nominees that performed well during the hearing, yielded nominees that got bipartisan support in the united states senate and two nominees that even in their

short time on the bench demonstrated ability to serve in that position with honor and distinction and those are the goals we have in mind this time too. >> suggesting as a nominee, trying to move this process forward. is that a fair strategy? >> some have speculated that is a strategy, some warned about the risks associated with that strategy. it is too soon to tell, people are entitled to their opinion but that is something that will be easier for us to discuss once we have -- once the president has made a decision about who his nominee will be. >> what is the time frame? just like the other situation, what can you -- 24 hours, two weeks? >> at this point i don't have

additional timing guidance to share. the things we have acknowledged, the two previous vacancies, nominees for the two previous vacancies were announced four or five weeks after those vacancies occurred. co-president noted he would expect an announcement

>> in that speech. how that situation necessarily calls more moderate choices. and part of that speech is joe biden says the white house

should engage in aggressive consultation with the senate. that is when he would consider. supporting that nominee. hot he didn't support the nominee. he indicated that if there was a vacancy and there was a commitment to consultation and engagement from the white house, he could envision a scenario where he could support the nominee. that was a pretty starkly different approach republicans have taken, not only support them, we won't give them a chance, we won't hold hearings or even give them the courtesy of a visit. that is an unreasonable position and that would explain some of the public data i was referring to earlier that a lot of americans understand that is not at all consistent with how the

senate should function and vindication republicans, after six or eight years in the minority are having a hard time breaking the old habits of obstruction that are often wielded by the minority party. when you take a majority in the united states senate you have a responsibility to govern. thus far republicans refuse to embrace their responsibility. >> a free-speech question. the late aaron schwartz, outside government and private corporations, have a monopoly on places on line, is becoming very clear twitter and facebook in particular are punishing conservative and military points of view. the president made encouraging comments about free-speech that they shouldn't be coddled, suggesting the culture is not something he believes in.

something the president can do to encourage silicon valley to remind them of the importance of the open free speech in our society. >> obviously a part of what was built into our system was respect for private companies to put in place their own policies. the success of that social media is predicated on the idea of free expression. this committee tools are so groundbreaking gives an opportunity to express themselves in ways that they did not imagine. and the average person the opportunity to be heard by the world. that makes the technology and

tools and so remarkable and frankly i think that is what makes them so successful. as you point out that is predicated upon the important protection of first amendment rights to self expression. >> can't enforce the first amendment on private corporations, this seems to be a very clear trend, mind verification check, making jokes about all kinds of people, journalists being suspended by twitter, face book removing criticisms, any mechanisms the government can use to help that responsibility. and sponge and if they don't? >> i am not sure what sort of olustee decision could have any influence on that. obviously there is the third branch of government which is our courts are supposed to be

insulated from politics. doesn't resolve those kinds of private citizens. their constitutional rights are being violated in some way but they have an opportunity to address that before a judge in the courts of law. that should be the way the system works but even that is predicated on the idea that our court system is appropriately insulated from partisan politics. let's see here. i am trying to anticipate your question. >> go back to cuba. this raise some question whether the government would be cooperative in discussing human rights. you had a strong statement, whoever it wants to. i wanted to ask you, is the

present planning to meet a wide range of business and can you give any indication of what he wants to do, go anywhere and meets with dissidents or people who are not necessarily in the government? >> all the questions you are asking are important once. the truth is the president's schedule for cuba is not there. as we develop that schedule and declare focus we will be able to talk more clearly about where and when and how the president will interact with cubans who are seeking to express their political views without being subject to intimidation or even incarceration. the president is interested in lifting up the importance of universal human-rights end the importance of the government,

not just respecting the taking steps to protect the expression of human rights. so that will be a focal point of the president's visit to cuba. i don't have a sense at this point exactly how that interaction will take place but we will be interested in making sure you understand how that interaction takes place. hopefully able to make sure you get at least a little flavor of how that interaction occurs. one of the parts of your question, in answering a startling first question, i pushback strongly against the notion that the secretary john kerry canceled a planned trip. the trip was not planned. it was considered but ultimately once it became clear he would travel with the president to cuba, a secretary double track prior to the president's one was not viewed as necessary.

>> the government is going to play hardball? >> not really because it is not going to have certainly the government isn't title to their opinion but it won't have the impact on the decision we make about what it the president will meet, that is a decision we will make on our own without any sort of negotiation. >> can you confirm a meeting the president may have in the next week? >> i am not aware of a meeting on the books but let me take a look and see if i can give you some guidance. we haven't announced anything like that and i haven't heard a discussion about something like that coming up. let me check. >> have you detected in your conversations with republican senators any daylight between mitch mcconnell and chairman grassley and their approach to

any nominee? >> i did see chairman grassley did acknowledge one nominee that has been discussed publicly and one potential nominee that has been discussed publicly that he would meet with blue cheese said he would only meet with her in capacity as an island --iowan but that is not consistent with his previous declaration that he would not meet with anybody the president put forward. we have already found an exception. maybe there will be others. hopefully there will be others because-he has posted a dozen courtesy visits with supreme

court nominees. it would be a stark reversal to refuse that kind of meeting. my ultimate point is chairman grassley understands the stakes are significant, he has a constitutional responsibility and the recent precedent, modern history of the supreme court, is clear. hopefully he will be willing to abide by it. >> considering fidel castro lived through 11 presidents from eisenhower to barack obama, even for historical purposes might the president meet with the leader of cuba? >> it is not likely to end up on the schedule but we are working -- if it changes we will let you know. we will let you get started on your weekend. >> we start a weekend after that? >> i don't know what goes on back there. >> on behalf of my colleagues we

really don't. >> hopefully we will soon get started on your weekend. on monday the president will host a meeting at the white house just referenced, with financial regulators, received an update on implementing wall street reform, eight years after the worst financial crisis since the great depression participants will discuss severance to continue to implement the strongest consumer financial protections in history that afforded millions of hard-working americans new protections from the kind of abusive practices that predated the crisis. they will also update the president on their work to make our financial system safer and stronger and present the kinds of recklessness on wall street we saw lead to devastation on main street. on tuesday and wednesday the president will be here at the white house, don't have any updates on his schedule but we will keep you posted. on thursday the president and first lady will welcome the right hon. justin bietrudeau t

the white house for an official visit with a state dinner. the visit will be an opportunity for the united states and canada to deep in bilateral relationship which is one of the most extensive in the world. that relationship is based on shared history, common values and an intricate network of cultural, familial and commercial ties. the visit is intended to advance cooperation on important bilateral and multilateral issues such as energy and climate change, national security and the economy. on friday the president will travel to austin, texas, to participate in south by southwest interactive. the president will sit down with the editor in chief of the texas the president will sit down with the editor in chief of the "texas tribune" for a conversation about civic engagement in the 21st century. the audience for that discussion will be creators, early adopters, entrepreneurs for

defining the future for increasingly connected life. the president will call on the oddest of either ideas and talents to make technology work for us especially comes to tackling the challenges like increasing participation political process and citing climate change. in the lead up to the the the "texas tribune" will also source questions from its online audience. afterward of the president will attend events in austin. you will then travel to dallas, texas, where he will spend the night. on saturday he will attend a dnc event before returning to washington that evening. we will have additional details about the presence trip to texas early next week. so with that i know it's still a couple hours way but i hope you have a great weekend. see you, guys. [inaudible conversations] >> press secretary josh curran