some people say, well, maybe this is a time to be a little bit less engaged. and i think the answer is it's not. it's actually a time to be more engaged, but the question is how should we be engaged. and how can we be engaged in a sustainable way that can actually help lift up some of the countries that are under challenge. i think, for example, that the large scale indefinite deployment of american forces is something that obviously would be a challenge to sustain. developing the capacity of our partners to work on these problems is a more sustainable way to do it. similarly, as we look at the development agenda, we have the development goals that now need to be brought forward beyond 2015 and to work on those. the bush administration created an extraordinarily powerful mechanism, the millennium challenge corporation that has done remarkable work, and this

is something that we've continued. so, it's a long way of saying that as we think about our engagement, we have to address this question of failed states, but we have to figure out ways to do it that are sustainable, that we can keep going that we can resource and that we can bring all of government to bear on. and, of course, i should add, the private sector and other actors are absolutely critical. this summer something that you played a leadership role in, the africa leaders summit, we brought to washington, as you know, an extraordinary gathering of african leaders and we worked with them to help unleash more growth in africa, also to deal with security challenges, institutional challenges. a key component of that was bringing the private sector to the table and helping to strengthen those relationships. power africa is a wonderful example of the government and the private sector working together to help people in a meaningful way and to help economies develop a foundation

that can carry them forward and actually prevent government failure, failed states, and so forth. so, there's a broad agenda there. this committee has done an extraordinary job there. if i move to the state department, that's something i would welcome working with the chairman on and you on and other members. >> i couldn't agree more. last night was the millennium challenge corporation's tenth anniversary event. i've had the opportunity to visit a half dozen states and i think bringing the energy and resources of the private sector whether through agoa, through mcc to bear in making progress is critical. i also want to make sure that you are keeping in mind that we have democracy on the continent after africa where they're seeking to change the constitution to avoid the accountability of free, fair and open elections and that's

something we have to balance as well. you've been here a long time. although i have many questions and i am confident you would answer them, let me ask a last question if i could given your unique role of serving here and in the executive office of the president and going to the state didn't, how can we improve communication, collaboration and relationships between this committee, this body, the senate and the white house. >> it goes to something that chairman menendez talked to me about last week. something i feel strongly about. that gives real meaning to the word consultation, i heard the chairman loud and clear. i also heard from ranking member corker on this. we can always do a better job and i am determined to do a better job with what that word

means. which is not inform but actually consult, work together, have a dialogue, try and develop these policies together. there will be places obviously where we disagree as any executive in the legislature does, but it's my sense having spent 13 years in the executive that it sure works better when we work together. it doesn't work if we're not communicating and communicating in a better way. i'm determined to do that if i'm confirmed. >> the potential agreement with iran and concerns about our vital ally israel and our safety and security, the rebalance to asia, the things we talked about in africa, we will work together. it will make it possible for me to come and question and i may not be the last. thank you so much for your

testimony. >> senator rubio. >> thank you. i apologize. thank you. good to see you. >> senator. >> i appreciate your time. i'll be brief. i know we have votes going on. i have two follow-up questions. i understand you've spoken about the issue of venezuela. my understanding is just to clarify. sanctions against government officials that are responsible for human rights violations or corruption, the administration's position is now willing to cooperate or work with sanction administration? >> that's correct. >> would the administration consider doing some of those things directly? they do have authority to take some of those actions. now they already have with regards to the advivisas, is th something that's contemplated. >> the actions we took this summer, indeed, consulting with you on that in terms of the visa restrictions that we did, we have every opportunity to discuss we've been focused on

our partners in latin america in terms of the opposition. advancing progress on the electoral commission, et cetera. the effort has not born true which is why we think working with you on what you've been proposing is something that we should do. it confirms and in my current capacity i'll have that conversation and work with you on that. >> on the issue of colombia, the government has been negotiating over a potential peace agreement. that has been suspended because of the kidnapping of a colombian general. one of the issues that arose during my visit, there may come a point where they're asking that people currently in custody in the united states be released early, that their sentences be commuted. can we rule that out now to make sure that it's clearly understood that that is not something the administration would ever support doing? >> senator, i can tell you this.

we're not a party to the negotiations so we would have no requirement whatever they negotiate to send anyone back. we're obviously a strong ally of colombia. we strongly support the process and as we go forward, if they call on us to play a role and again because we're not part of the negotiations there's nothing we would be required to do. obviously i would commit and i do here to consult with you very closely about anything that the colombians may ask for in the future if something materializes as a final deal. right now as you know as well as i do, they're not there. we had the very unfortunate kidnapping of the general this week and we are strongly supporting their efforts to try to carry this forward, but this is something if we were -- if the colombians asked things of us we would work with you to see what should be done or not. >> my last question, as you know, the current sanctions that are against cuba have been

codified and have been enacted in the past. absent cuba meeting the requirements of that legislation, do you anticipate during the rest of the president's term that there will be any unilateral change or any change in u.s. sanctions or conditions against cuba absent them meeting those conditions of democracy, human rights, so forth, the things outlined in that legislation? >> so, senator, i think on cuba let me say a couple of things if i could. first, i think we share strongly an understanding and one that you have firsthand of the nature of the regime. it's been an imprisoned island all my life. i literally remember my parents talking to me about cuba, they had been able to visit in the 1950s before it became an imprisoned island, and of course we know exactly what's going on today, the detentions, the harassment, the police state. i think the question is -- and i know we had a brief opportunity to discuss this. i think we all believe that

change almost by definition will come, has to come, and the question is how do we best help the cuban people prepare for that change? and i know there are differences of views of the best and most effective way to do that in terms of getting them information, getting them resources, et cetera, but to cut to the chase, obviously anything that might be done on cuba will have to be consistent with the law and, second, anything that in the future might be done on cuba would be done in full consultation with the real meaning of the word consultation that i just eluded to, with this committee. >> i guess my point is there's been some chatter, and i understand some of it is just chatter, it happens in this town, that somehow over the next couple of years at the end of his term the president may seek to make some changes perhaps unilaterally towards u.s. policy towards cuba that some have advocated for. is that being contemplated absent real democratic opening? >> i think you know that the president has views on how -- to

try to move -- help move cuba in a democratic direction to help support people moving in that direction and, you know, if he has an opportunity, i'm sure that's something he would want to pursue, but it depends on cuba and the actions that they take and what we've seen as i just eluded to are actions in exactly the wrong direction, the detentions, the harassment. they talk about wanting to improve relations. they have, as you and the chairman know so well, alan gross, an american citizen, who is now at his fifth year of detention. you know, that is -- when you say you want to improve relations and you're unjustly imprisoning an american, never mind what you're doing to your own people, that's problematic. >> the only thing that concerns me, i understand perhaps you need to consult with them further, the only thing that concerns me i have not heard you say point blank that absent democratic openings, we're not going to see the absence of

weakening the current embargo and sanctioning against cuba. >> unless -- at least in my judgment, unless cuba is able to demonstrate it is taking meaningful steps to move forward, i don't see how you move forward in the relationship. >> when you say move forward, move forward on democratic reforges, not simply -- >> not simply economic. >> thank you. >> well, let me thank you. let me just say on this last topic, which i obviously have a fair amount of interest, you know, going ahead, cuba's the only country in the western hemisphere that violated u.n. security council resolutions and sanctions in sending military equipment to north korea, yet, we were relatively silent about that. any other country would have done it we would have been totally driving at the u.n. a different set of circumstances. they received no consequences.

cuba doesn't meet the standards that the summit of the americas leaders set forth when it said that the maintenance and strengthening of the rule of law and strict respect for the democratic system are an essential condition, an essential condition of our presence at this and future summits. clearly cuba doesn't meet that standard. cuba has an american citizen held hostage who did nothing but try to help the jewish community in cuba communicate with each other and yet it wants to hold him hostage in return for cuban spies who weren't benign spies, they were spies who were spying against our defense department, one of which integrated the defense department. so i could go down a long list, in addition to the human rights which sometimes i think we cavalierly say, yes, there's

detentions. there's detentions. there's arrests in which people are detained for long periods of time, years, simply because that which we enjoy in america they seek to exercise, free speech, protests. there are individuals, like the ladies in white, who just every week march with a gladiola to church dressed in white to protest that their sons and husband are in jail for no reason and they are savagely beaten. so, you know, sometimes we sort of like gloss over all of this, and this administration in its -- in its speech when it started this administration, in its inaugural speech talked about opening up the hand to those who are willing to take it and the clenched fist. well, the administration has un laterally opened up the hand and done a series of things including more visits, more money flowing to cuba, not just

residents of families of u.s. citizens. anybody can send money. they're the ones that control the economy on the island. the other is it's becomere repressive. i can go on and on. i understand senator rubio's concerns because i've heard them as well. and talk about the whole question of consultation versus notification, this is the epitome of notification but not consultation. there will be a very significant response. what we have is notification and not consultation at the end of the day. i appreciate you and your answers before the committee. i have one or two that i'm not going to delay, i'm going to ask you to respond in writing. i'm concerned about turkey in its presence in the exclusive economic zone in cypress which i

think is a belligerent move, unnecessary and to the greek and turkish cyprians and is against what we want. this record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. i'd urge you if you get questions, which undoubtedly you will, to answer them as expeditiously as you will in the thanksgiving recess. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

this witness at today's hearing, tony blinken is the current deputy national security advisor, he's been nominated to be deputy secretary of state. if you missed any of the senate foreign relations committee confirmation hearing, it will be available shortly in its entirety at our website, cspan.org. now from earlier this afternoon, today's white house briefing with press secretary josh ernest.

all right. good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you all. i appreciate you accommodating the slight change of time today. as you saw just a little over an hour ago, the white house posted a video to the white house facebook page where the president announced that he is going to deliver an address to the nation tomorrow night where he will be laying out the details of his executive action to repair our broken immigration system i'm sorry. >> was that a thank you to zuckerberg? >> this was an opportunity for us to reach hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in under an hour. the video reached 1.2 million people on facebook, 227,000 people have viewed it, another 12,000 people have shared it. it's a pretty effective way of the president communicating with the american public about his intention to take the steps that he believes are necessary. the president also mentioned in that video that he plans to

travel to las vegas, nevada, on friday. many of you have been to belfo high school. you covered a speech the president gave back there in january 20613 where he laid out the principles that he believed should be incorporated into any sort of bipartisan compromise common sense immigration reform proposal. you'll also recall the united states passed a proposal in bipartisan fashion in the summer of 2013 and we've been waiting ever since for house republicans to balk their opposition and allow that piece of legislation to come up for a vote in the house. one last thing i'll mention before i get to your questions is prior to delivering the speech tomorrow night the president will be hosting a dinner tonight at the white house for some democrats from the house and senate to talk through this immigration executive action that he's preparing to take as well as a couple of other priorities that he sees on the horizon. so, with all of that, we have a lot to talk about. darlene, i'll let you begin the

conversation. >> thank you. i think wendell might have stolen a little bit of my thunder here. >> oh, well good. >> i was -- >> he has a tendency to do that. >> can you just explain a little bit about why the president is going to have a primetime address to announce what he's going to do on immigration? >> the president is interested in including as many people across the country in this broader debate about fixing our broken immigration system. as i mentioned before, there is a bipartisan proposal that has already passed the senate that we've been waiting for more than a year for house republicans to allow to come up for a vote. we're confident if that legislation were voted on in the house of representatives it would pass with bipartisan support. now that republicans in the house have indicated an unwillingness to drop their opposition and they've also indicated or refused to indicate any sort of willingness to bring up immigration reform legislation in the next congress, the president has decided it's time to move

forward. the president wants to talk to as many americans as possible about how he intends to move forward. 8:00 p.m. on a thursday evening is an opportunity for people who are sitting in front of their televisions or sitting in front of their tablets or in front of their smart phones to hear directly from the president about what he's decided and how he wants to move forward. that explains the reasoning for tomorrow's time frame. >> do you have any of the names of the lawmakers who have been invited to dinner tonight who are coming? >> about 18 members from the house and the senate. we'll get you that full list. democrats. it's who i said at the beginning. >> and then yesterday you said that legal opinion for justifying what the president is going to do, that that would be released. will that be released tomorrow? >> there will be some material related to the legal justification for the president's executive action that will be released tomorrow and we'll have an ample opportunity to discuss that. what i will point out, maybe

we'll have the opportunity to talk about this a little bit more in the briefing, i think that you will find that it's consistent with actions taken by presidents of both parties to deal with the immigration system, presidents from eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, reagan, both bushes took executive action to deal with what they characterized as problems with the broken immigration system. they took some steps unilaterally using their authority that's vested in the executive branch to try to solve some of those problems. what you'll see in terms of the president's announcement will be generally consistent with that exercise of executive authority. >> and so there's a speech tomorrow night and it goes to the high school on friday. will there be more stops by the president sort of to sell this, if you will, next week? is thursday and friday the extent of it or will there be

more stops by the president talking about this? >> i do anticipate we'll be having a number -- a rather lengthy discussion about this decision and the president i'd say in all sincerity is looking forward to this debate. the president feels very confident, both in the steps that he's taken. he also feels very confident in knowing that these steps are going to be good for the country, that despite some of the concerns that have been raised by republicans, we know that these steps are going to strengthen national security, they're going to strengthen security at the border, they are going to strengthen our economy and they will do something to address a lingering problem, which is millions of people who currently live in this country who can come out of the shadows, can get right with the law, they can pay their taxes, they can go back to the -- go to the back of the line but also become fully contributing members of communities large and small all across the country. and this is an important step.

we'll have a pretty profound impact on the lives of millions of people who live here. and, you know, we'll have an opportunity over the course of the next couple of days obviously to talk about this in more detail. but i would -- certainly would not rule out that in the coming weeks that the president would take additional trips or host other events to continue talking about these very important issues. roberta? >> if what the president wants is comprehensive reform which requires bipartisan action on the hill, why wouldn't he invite republicans or some republicans for dinner and talk to them about it too? >> well, roberta, sadly, if it were only dinner that was required to get republicans to act in bipartisan action, then we'd of passed bipartisan compromise immigration reform legislation quite some time ago. you'll recall the president convened a lunch two weeks ago where he invited democratic and republican leaders in the house and senate where he included talking about immigration reform. tonight's dinner will be another

opportunity to talk about immigration reform. certainly not the first opportunity and not the last. >> is he worried about some democrats being nervous about this move and siding with republicans on whatever republicans try to do to try to stop it? >> the short answer to your question is, no. the longer answer to your question is i do think there is -- again, once we have an opportunity to talk about some of the details related to the executive action that the president has chosen to take, it will become clear that there is a solid legal foundation for the president taking those actions and, again, we do anticipate that there will be republican opposition to what the president announces, but the president was pretty clear when he talked about this. as he mentioned at the news conference that he hosted in burma, he noted that we shouldn't allow disagreement over a single issue to become a deal breaker over every issue. i think this is a pretty good

example. we shouldn't allow issues over immigration to prevent us from finding common ground where it may exist on other issues. the fact that the president signed a bipartisan child care bill in the oval office, you know, a ceremony that was attended by democrats and republicans, indicates where there's common ground we should act on it. >> how is he about sparking a shutdown or some actions by republicans? >> i think we've seen definitive actions by the senate and house that they would not shut down the government and i take them at their word. michelle. >> the president will go as far as he can under the law. obviously we don't know exactly what's going to be in this, but would you stand by that? and has the president decided to go as far as he can under the law? >> we will have an opportunity to talk about that a little bit more. i think it's fair to say what the president asked the secretary general to do is

examine what was in the law and to compile or at least formulate a strategy for maximizing the authority that's vested in the executive branch to try to address as many of these problems as possible. there may be some people who based on their own reading of the law believe the president could have done more. that's why i'm hesitating to use the form you repeated there, but i do think by any measure upon reviewing the actions the president has chosen to take, an impartial observer would conclude that the president has sought to maximize the use of his authority to try to solve these problems. frankly, i think the american people expect the president of the united states to do, to use every element of the authority that's available to solve problems. >> you mentioned sort of the way i originally framed the question. something more specific, if the president had wanted or does want to expand this to the parents of dreamers, from the review that was done, and you know the results of that

large-scale review, does that fit under the law? so we're not talking about what the president is going to do, but does that one element fit within his bounds under the law? >> well, i do want to reserve comment on any of these -- any of these proposals that have been floated so far until the president has had an opportunity to make his announcement. then we can spend time delving into what the president chose to do and whether there was legal justification and whether or not legal justification may have existed for him to take other steps. we can talk about that ability more easily once the full compliment of the president's proposal has been laid out. >> got it. what the president will announce tomorrow night, will that be able to survive attempts from members of congress to defund certain elements? i mean, do you think it's defund proof in any way or will it still be susceptible to those kinds of actions in congress? >> i think we'll have to see what republicans choose to do.

there's strong support on capitol hill for addressing many of the problems that the president hopes to solve by using executive authority. and -- but we certainly anticipate that we'll have a robust debate about these issues and i don't anticipate, again, based on the public comments of senator mcconnell and others, that there's going to be a government shutdown that results from this. >> lastly, already, you know, again, we know that it hasn't been announced and you can't get into details, but some groups are coming out saying it doesn't go far enough. how do you respond to that ahead of it even being announced? >> i'm sure that you can also comb through your in box and figure out some people saying the president has gone too far. there are equal offenders on both sides of the aisle here who are commenting on a proposal that none of them have seen. we'll have plenty of opportunity to debate these issues once the president's made an announcement. okay? >> alexis. >> can you tell us what will be

the implementation date attached to the president's executive action? >> we'll have more details once it's been rolled out tomorrow. >> can you talk about the president's idea to implement this and -- daca took roughly two months to implement. how long is the implementation phase? >> once we can look at the proposals, we can talk about the implementation. >> what kind of briefings is the white house having for lawmakers and the business community that would be interested in their ability to hire or employ? >> well, as many of you know who have been covering this closely, the white house has been engaged in a wide range of considerations as the president has been considering what steps to take. the conversations have been rooted in primarily helping to understand -- helping the white house have a clear understanding of how specific decisions might have an impact on specific communities or in some cases even specific businesses.

so, there is a desire to have that kind of understanding and as a result there have been a number of conversations that have been convened by members of the president's staff to discuss some of these issues. there are a number of conversations that are ongoing today and will continue tomorrow related to communicating to lawmakers and other interested parties in washington, d.c., about what the president has decided. the one place where people can expect to get a detailed rundown on the president's proposal will be in the context of the speech the president will deliver tomorrow. >> when we get briefed or we get information, will there be budgetary numbers attached to it? will we be able to understand what the projected costs of the budgetary effect will be? >> i don't know if those numbers will be produced but you're certainly welcome to ask about them. jon? >> josh, will the president veto a government funding bill that included a pro figures to

prevent him from taking taxes? >> well, it certainly would not be a proposal that the president would support obviously, but i think we would evaluate, you know, these individual proposals on the merits before we made a final decision. so we'll see. i think it will also depend a little bit on what republicans would choose to do in that situation as well. >> i want to be sure i've got this straight because there's been a lot of talk of republicans saying that they would fund the government but not allow this to go forward. i mean, use that as the leverage. so you don't rule out the president signing into law something that would undo the very thing he's going to announce tomorrow night? >> well, i think that seems -- i think we'll have to sort of evaluate for ourselves what sort of proposals republicans put forward so i wouldn't want to hazard a guess at this point. it won't surprise me to hear that the proposals that are floated like that certainly would not be a among the kinds of proposals we'd support. >> senator ted cruz has already reacted to this.

>> let me guess. >> he said that the republican senate will be sworn in in january. if they go forward with this action should not confirm a single nominee, executive or judicial outside of vital national security positions so long as the illegal amnesty persists. what would be a reaction to senator cruz? >> well, i think what i would merely say is that the -- the president talked a lot about the lesson he drew from the last mid-term election. it was the president's view that the american people were interested in them making progress on behalf of the american people. that doesn't mean folding on principle but it does mean finding common ground and putting the interests of the nation ahead of partisan ambition or political interests. that certainly is a message that the president has taken to heart and we hope that democrats and

republicans will do the same. >> so, again -- and i know that this has been addressed here, but just given exactly what you said there about the message the voters were sending in the election, doesn't it send the wrong message to have the president bring only democrats here tonight to talk about what he's going to do? you said you looked at this that this action would not foreclose the possibility of congress acting to do something more broadly in a bipartisan fashion, so why not start here? bring republicans in and say, this is what i'm doing. here are the details. and i know you don't approve of how i'm doing it but, you know, let's start to work together on something else. >> well, i certainly wouldn't rule out those kinds of conversations are occurring, but, jon, we've had any number of countless conversations with republicans, mostly in the house but also in the senate prior to the passage of the senate bill trying to find areas where they

can find common ground to make reform. there are 14 senate republicans who joined just about every if not every democratic senator to support a common sense proposal. we would like to see the house operate in that fashion. we've had a year and a half to do exactly that. they would if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote but the house republican leadership has concluded that they don't want that bill to come up for a vote probably because they fear it if the house would vote on it. you can describe the people having dinner with the president as democrats. that would be true. you can describe them as people who are genuine supporters of immigration reform, that would be true. we should not, however, allow disagreement of this issue to be a deal breaker over all the others including the appointment of highly qualified professionals to serve important roles in the government.

>> john boehner has said many times of the republicans as well, that the president taking this action would poison the well not only in terms of immigration reform but in terms of a whole range of other issues. in other words, it will make cooperation with the white house very difficult on issues of immigration. i'm told he sent that message directly to the president when they had lunch here. does the president take john boehner at his word when he says that the president taking this action will poison the well on a whole range of issues? >> jon, i think you highlight what i think is a pretty stark difference in approach between the house republican leadership at least and those of us who work here for the democratic president. you know, we've seen house republicans pass 40, 50, 60 different measures to defund or repeal obama care as they call it, and the fact is, it would be easy for the preds after maybe the fourth or fifth time to say,

look, if you are going to be so he focused on defunding obama care, there's no reason we can cooperate to get things done for the american people. there is no suggestion that repeated efforts by republicans to repeal the initiative was somehow poisoning the well. we chalked it up to mere difference of opinion. that difference of opinion happens to rest on peaceful legislation that has ensured that millions of people have gotten health care, we've slowed the growth in health care costs and a bunch of patient protections that were pretty popular with the american public. we can have legitimate differences of opinion. i'm not disagreeing that those differences of opinion exist. they obviously do. the question is what are you going to do in reaction to them. the reaction is we're not going to allow the differences of opinion to interfere to try to find common ground. >> what i'm asking is does the president believe john boehner when he says that if you go forward and take this executive action, we will not be able to work with you, not just on immigration but on a whole range

of other issues and it will poison the well? does he believe the speaker when he says that? >> i think the president always takes the speaker at his word, but i think the president also is willing to allow the speaker to change his mind. jared? >> following up on that. if the president, speaker boehner doesn't change his mind and says that this is a deal breaker for a host of other issues, i realize that's the wrong approach that you feel to take, but if that is the case, is immigration reform that the president is so intent on doing tomorrow worth it? is it a big enough issue as far as legacy, as far as, you know, all of the goals of this administration, is it worth that gamble? is it worth that risk? >> jared, this is something i've said before but let me sort of pose it to you again. this is the way that the president sees it. sitting before him right now is a pretty fundamental question. right now we have bipartisan legislation that passed through the senate. we have house republicans who have blocked it for more than a year and a half who have

indicated they're going to block it through the rest of the year and have also indicated in answering a question from one of your colleagues that they're not really willing to commit to bringing it up next year. so the president sits at his desk wondering, should i wait internal min ab bli for republicans to take an action that they say they oppose or should i use all of the authority that the american people have elected me to exercise to make progress for the american people in a way that would be good for our national security, in a way that would be good for strengthening security at the border, in a way that would be good for middle class families, in a way that would be consistent with our values of a nation of immigrants. when you sort of stack up all the pros and cons, this is one of those decisions the president often says, only the tough decisions reach his desk. this might be the one exception. >> isn't one of the cons at least the threat of, you know, serious inaction when it comes

to nominations, when it comes to a budget, when it comes to a host of other issues that certainly are important to both republicans and the president? >> well, i guess that is predicated on at least a premise that republicans have been exceedingly cooperative with the administration when it comes to the budget, nominations and other things, too. it may be a difference in degree, not in substance. mara? >> when you were given these actions, did you do some kind of analysis on how many illegal immigrants would come out of the shadows to take advantage of this temporary relief? >> what i anticipate we will be able to do once you see the proposals tomorrow is talk to you a little bit about the number of people who could be or would be affected by this. >> i'm asking a slightly different question. not how many could be but how many are willing to do something, in other words, identify themselves as illegal, which is what coming out of the shadows is. knowing that the next president could take this temporary deportation relief away from them and deport them.

i'm just saying it's a risk. wondering if you -- >> that's true. >> -- considered that? >> it certainly is something that was considered when the president made about daca, deferred action for childhood arrivals. this is an analysis that was done. the population of the people who would be affected by this -- by that decision, there was a discussion about the number of people who are likely i they they call it a take up rate. number of people who are available to benefit from this decision. i would expect that a similar analysis would be conducted in this instance as well. but we'll have more to say about this tomorrow. >> can i ask a question on a completely unrelated topic? >> of course. >> a real segue. what is the administration's position on lifting the 40 year old ban on exporting u.s. crude oil? there is a ban on it since the '70s. >> right. >> i wonder what -- >> this is a little like a pop quiz. >> i seriously don't know. i honestly don't know.

>> to make sure i get it right why don't we get back to you. >> that would be great. >> mike. >> i was really struck by your first answer to jonathan's first question. >> is that a compliment? >> it sounded like when you were saying -- jon was asking you, well, hey, if there's legislation defunding this, would you veto it? you were kind of saying, well, we'll see exactly how it's written. >> yeah. >> it sounds to me like what you're saying is this is the order but we'd be willing to negotiate with republicans over the scale and scope of this order short of them passing new immigration legislation. am i fairly interpreting your response? because otherwise why would you say we'll wait and see? >> mostly because i didn't want to comment on a hypothetical. i didn't want to sort of rule anything out. obviously we would take a dim view of the republicans trying to curtail the president's executive authority using a writer on a budget proposal. >> let me ask you --

>> that said -- >> the question straightforwardly. >> okay. >> is there room here after the republicans scream and cry about this for them to come back and -- with you and say, we're not going to pass legislation but we might do this for you if you would scale back a little bit in this way or that way or add this or add that? >> well, i think the president is always interested -- is not just open but interested in conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in trying to make progress on the kinds of priorities that the president has identified and they support. >> it is open to negotiations? >> we're open to conversations. like i said, i can't imagine a scenario where the president will be interested in curtailing his own authority in a way that didn't have the kinds of positives -- >> the authority will be curtailing your use of your authority. you always have discretion. >> that's true.

this is a difficult one, mike, principally because it's a hypothetical situation so let me just say, i think the one thing that i can say that's rooted in fact and will continue to be true is that we're always going to be open to conversations with republicans who have a genuine interest in trying to strengthen or improve on policy priorities that the president has identified and the american people support. >> josh, following up on that last questioning, just so i understand what the priorities are because it's, yes, a hypothetical in a general sense but it may actually not be that hypothetical. if republicans put a rider on a continuing resolution in which a lot of other very important funding mechanisms for the government, ebola, isis, everything else are there, and this action is the one item that jeopardizes all the rest, which is the president's more private priority? >> well, if an eventuality like

that occurs we'll have ample opportunity to examine it, debate it, discuss it. if that happens, i'm sure we will. i'm not going to weigh in on it from here though. >> because by the president's own timing, he intended to do this, made a public promise to do this and then delayed. >> that's right. >> signaling that the timing of this is completely fluid, it is discretionary, it is at the president's discretion. >> that's right. >> so in that sense, putting it up against a continuing resolution and government shutdown scenario is also a discretionary decision of the president. seems like he is intentionally putting it right next to these other things. i'm wondering if that's a signal he's trying to send that this is more important than anything else that has to get done before the president and congress wrap up this legislative year? >> that's not the intent. the fact of the matter is we would have been happy if congress passed a budget last year when they were supposed to as opposed to moving forward with this continuing resolution, the kick the can to the middle of december. so, again, this is not an effort

to provoke a standoff here. in fact, the fact that republicans have refused to act on immigration is reform is why we're where we are anyway. >> all i'm saying, if you had done it in september, late september, it is -- >> my guess -- >> by your choosing they are closely aligned with one another, these two things now, by the president's own choice. >> again, it was congress's choice to pass the cr that only extended the budget through december 11th. i guess are both parties responsible for the fact that both of these things are happening in relative close proximity? probably. regardless of when the president had decided to move forward with this action, i'm confident that there are plenty of senators who would have found a way to raise a ruckus about this using legislative process and i'm sure that will occur this time, too, but i think that would have happened regardless of which season of the year that this decision has been announced.

>> you told mike that in that context this authority is negotiable within the conversation about keeping the government open, is that fair? >> well, i don't want to leave you with that impression. again, that was sort of a hypothetical scenario that would the president negotiate that would, a, assume that republicans are willing to negotiate after we said they wouldn't negotiate because the president took this action. i don't want to go too far down this hypothetical road. i will say as a practical matter a couple of things. the president is always open to conversations with republicans and, two, he's always open to those conversations when they are in pursuit of strengthening policies that he thinks are good for the country and that the american people support. >> very simple perhaps block head question which i sometimes come up with, is there something the president signed? is this a new order? does it have a number attached to it? or is it something in which he merely communicates to his bureaucracy a set of guidelines that implement authorities in a different way? >> right.

we'll have more to explain about this tomorrow. >> can you even -- >> it's a legitimate question to ask, but once the president has made these decisions, we can talk more. >> the mechanics. >> let me clarify. once the president has announced these decisions we can be in a better position to talk about how they are effectively implemented. >> you can't even explain the mechanics of it? >> i can once the proposal has been laid out. i don't want people to read into the description of the mechanics and assume that they know something about what the president's decided. >> josh -- >> wendell. >> i believe you've suggested a couple of times that one of the goals of the president is to encourage people to come out of the shadows with this executive order. it was my understanding that the way to do that was the path to citizenship that republicans call amnesty and object to. so given that i think the president's made clear that he

cannot offer people that, do you really expect this order to encourage people to come out of the shadows? >> well, again, once the president has rolled out exactly what he proposes to do, then we can have a discussion about what that intended effect would be. >> well, then let me ask you this, is it possible that the exec -- the path to citizenship mr. obama insisted be part of a comprehensive immigration reform is not necessary to lure people out of the shadows? >> again, we'll have an opportunity to discuss this once the president has made clear exactly what it is the president intends to do. chris? >> if he's sitting tonight with these democrats, are we to assume that this is a done deal, the decisions have been made, and it's not likely to change between now and when he speaks to the american people tomorrow night? >> it's my understanding there

are a couple of lingering policy decisions to get locked down. for all intents and purposes he will be ready to move forward. >> are those related to legal questions or is he waiting to hear what the democrats' reaction is to it tonight? >> well, i hear what you're asking now. i think i may have misunderstood your first question. i would anticipate that over the course of dinner the president would have a robust opportunity to speak to them about the decisions that he's made and to communicate to them what impact he hopes that those decisions will have. i would not anticipate that there's going to be a lot of horse trading or negotiating or back and forth in the context of the dinner. the vast majority of these decisions have been made. there are still some details to be locked down. this is more of an opportunity for the president to share his thinking with those who share his values on these issues. not really a negotiating session. >> can you give us a little

sense of his thinking in terms of the sell he has to make? "the wall street journal" poll shows that 48% of people disapprove of executive action on immigration. only 38% poll shows only 38% approve. now there is a pretty wide disparity in terms of republicans versus democrats. but clearly, almost half the people don't think he ought to do this. so can you tell us a little bit about the formulation of the case that he is going to make and how high the hill is that he has to climb. >> i'll say a couple of things about that, chris. the first is that i didn't see the exact wording that was included in the poll. but if the wording was something along the lines do you believe that this is a policy problem that should be fixed with legislation rather than executive action, then it sounds like you may have called the presidential cell phone, because he would probably answer that poll in the same way as it sounds like a plurality of americans did. which the president believes the congress should step forward and take the steps necessary to fix our broken immigration system. but they haven't.

>> do you approve or disapprove of the president taking executive action on immigration, or do you not know enough to have an opinion at this time. >> the president clearly has an opinion. >> so -- >> 48. >> oh, exactly. i'll get that to you later. so i think the point is the case the president will make is we have seen that congress has not acted. and so the question is should the president use the authority that is invested within the constitution, invested with the presidency to try to address some of these problems. and the president i think pretty unequivocally believes that the answer to that question is he should take the steps that are necessary to try to solve some of these problems. >> but obviously, he also thinks he needs to make his case to the americans. >> no question he needs to explain that to the american public. what are the consequences for the policies he'll be

announcing. border security and economy and job creation. the president and all of us will be spending quite a bit of time talking about that, not just tomorrow night, but for the days and weeks ahead. >> because he knows that he has -- he has a tough job to make this case? >> i think because he feels like he has an obligation of the president of the united states to explain to the people who elected him precisely why he is taking the actions that he has taken. >> is there some political mischief part of the calculation here? in other words, will republican -- the base of the republican party become so incensed in your calculation that they'll just after their big victory just drive the wagon train right off the cliff and start talking impeachment and shutting down the government? is that part of the calculation here and the timing? >> are you suggesting that would be the first time they would do that? i guess in this period. well, i think what the intended audience for this message is the american people. and the president is hopeful that the american people will

carefully consider exactly the steps that he has announced he is going to take. he is hopeful that the american people will carefully evaluate the consequences for the steps that he is planning to take. and i think if people do that, i think the vast majority of americans will share his view that these are steps that he should take, that these are steps that on par are good for the country, and that these are steps that if congress were to take them and essentially make them permanent, that they should supersede any sort of executive action that the president has taken. so we look forward to having this conversation. it's important. >> ill realize this -- >> sorry. >> go ahead. go ahead, mike. >> good for individual americans. >> i realize you plowed this ground a lot yesterday. but i'd like to come back to it now that we have a concrete schedule here. in a number of occasions the president said he couldn't act legally without congress. notably, last year in the san francisco speech where he was heckled said he couldn't violate the law, he had to work with congress. how do you square that?

>> i think as it relates to the hecklers, they were suggesting the president should stop all deportations. and that was sort of the thrust of the president suggesting he needs to follow the law. and that's true. and that's why the white house feels an obligation to fulfill your desire to understand the legal foundation that the white house will be using as the president moves forward with these executive actions. >> it was said in the context of dhaka. why couldn't he do the same thing for others to correct or somehow lessen the spike in deportations that was seen at the outset of this administration? >> well, again, in terms of the steps the president may take, we'll have an opportunity to evaluate those tomorrow. >> and i know alexis asked this, but i'd just like to press down a little bit. are you considering an implementation date some time after the republicans take control of congress in order to give them a chance to perhaps move legislation? >> well, let me just say as a

general manner to you and alexis that the kinds of proposals the president is talking about are not the kinds of things you flip a switch and start the next day. but we'll have an opportunity to discuss -- >> so there could be a lag time. >> -- what this process of implementation looks like once we have the proposals in front of us tomorrow. >> is anything certain? >> we'll have more on this tomorrow, okay? laurie? >> a question for you in the address is it's clear he is not going to be able to cover or protect 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country. but in his address tomorrow to the nation, will he have a message for those who will be left out? what is the next step for them? >> well, i -- i think there are a couple of things. again, i don't want to prejudge what the president may have -- may have decided here. but i think the president does want to send a pretty forceful case that is rooted in our nation's values that this -- the strength of this country comes from our diversity, and that diversity largely comes from the

decision that people made generations ago to come to this country and to bring their talents and skills to building this country. and creating a place where their family and their community cannot just survive, but actually drive. and talking about those values will be an important part of the speech. and i think that that is hearing the american president talk about those values in such personal terms i think will be part of the message that the president hopes everyone will receive. and that certainly be part of it. but, again, after you've seen the speech or at least the text of the speech, you'll be able to evaluate for yourself which part of it you would believe would resonate with people who may not be directly affected by these actions. >> also, speaker boehner has just put out a statement saying if he does go ahead with executive action, he will have cemented his governing with lawlessness. however, others have said it isn't necessary for the president to take this action maybe to push congress to go ahead and approve some type of

immigration reform. is that the purpose of him, a part of it of taking this step and taking executive action in trying to protect or fix what he says is wrong with the immigration system? >> well, i'll say a couple of things about the quote. i happened to see that too. there are a couple of things that stuck out to me. the first is, again, we'll have an ample opportunity to discuss the legal basis for the president's executive actions once he has announced them. you know, we've heard this kind of rhetoric about lawlessness from the house republicans for some time. i know that their most recent statement referred to emperor obama. the fact of the matter is the president is somebody who is willing to examine the law, review the law, and use every element of that law to make progress for the american people. and if that is something that republicans are critical of, then that's maybe a criticism of the president wears with a badge of honor, i think. as it relates to the other part of the quote that i noticed was that the president taking this action would ruin the chances for congressional action on this

issue. i think what is ruining the chances for congressional action is the speaker of the house who is unwilling to bring up a bipartisan proposal for a vote. frankly, that doesn't have a lot to do with the president. that's a responsibility that lies squarely on the desk of the speaker of the house. steve? >> yeah, a couple of days ago, jonathan had a conference call and he basically clearly flat-out said that he didn't think there was any way house republicans were going to be able to stop them. can you make a sort of statement about the immigration actions that you don't see the white house is confident, the president is confident, republicans and congress are not going to be able to stop them. >> well, i -- not many people are able to exude the confidence of the senior administration official to which you referred. but let me say that i do retain plenty of confidence that the

executive actions that the president will announce tomorrow will have the positive intended effect that we intend. which is to say that we're confident that there is a strong legal foundation for the president taking these actions, and we're confident that even though republicans object to it, that these are steps that will be fully implemented and will strengthen the economy, create jobs, strengthen our border security, strengthen our national security and do the other kinds of things that the president believes are in the best interests of the country. >> and that they won't be able to stop them? >> we'll see what republicans try. but there is a lot of confidence that is retained in these proposals by those of us working here at the white house. okay? justin? >> i want to ask about two things. the first is i know you talked a little bit about why the president is going to las vegas. but i know also that that's home state. there are reports he'll be

attending alongside the president. i was wondering if this was a public burying of the hatchet after the midterm elections. >> i think you asked me a couple of times about this. i guess you work at the hill. you're contractually obligated to care about these kinds of issues. let me just say that the president continues to value the strong working relationship he has with senator reid. and previous questions about this i recited the litany of successful -- the litany of legislation that was passed successfully through the united states senate because of the stewardship and leadership of senator reid. that's been the view of everybody here at the white house up to and including the president. and that continues to be the view here. so the president is looking forward to going to leader reid's home state. i haven't actually heard whether or not leader reid will be able to attend. i just haven't gotten the update

on his schedule. but if he does, we certainly would be pleased to have him there. >> i just want to ask about this in terms of a lot of actions or announcements from the white house in the last week or so. it's been the climate deal. >> -- exactly. all which seemed to have wrapped up the president's sort of democratic base, liberal base. i know that the president spoke after the elections about how he is going to try to change things, work out compromise more. so i'm wondering how you kind of square a lot of announcements that have upset republicans and wrapped up democrats with that kind of new approach that you guys kind of said that you were going to undertake but haven't yet. >> well, i think this goes back to a question, i don't know if it was roberto or someone else. i think this goes back to the president's philosophy here,

that we can't allow a disagreement over a single issue to become a deal breaker for every other one. so you're right. the president has talked about things like net neutrality and making progress to cut carbon pollution and even an announcement to reform our broken immigration system. at the same time, justin, the president was in the oval office just a couple of hours ago signing a piece of legislation that has the strong support of republicans. the president was pleased to do that. i would note in the context of signing that bill the president also threw in the waste basket proverbially an executive order that would have taken the kinds of steps that were already included in that legislation. s that pretty good evidence of the president's willingness to allow legislation to supersede any action he would take. that's true of the child care bill and true of any immigration reform bill that would be able to make its way through the congress. but the point i want to make, justin, the president also did a couple of things that presumably republicans would support in

addition to signing the bill. the president also spent a lot of time on his trip in asia focused on trying to open up overseas markets for american goods and service. that's something the president believes is good for the country. it's good for american business. it's good for american workers. he convened a meeting at the u.s. embassy in beijing with the leaders of countries that presumably would sign on to a transpacific partnership trade agreement. this is something that some democrats support, certainly not all of them. but we have seen pretty enthusiastic reception from republicans for this kind of proposal. so that would be an example of common ground that could be found in a way that sort of highlights how the president's policy priorities do at least in some areas overlap with the policy priorities of republicans themselves have identifieds as well. >> any of the policy priorities that the president has communicated to republicans that hadn't existed before the election. so the things that you mentioned, the tpp for instance are things that even though harry reid for instance doesn't

support it, the president has for a long time now. so i'm wondering if after the election, there has been any change of policies or areas of compromise that the president has offered republicans that we haven't heard before the election. >> well, i think, justin, at least in a couple of ways. the first is i think before the election, there were some pretty obvious areas of common ground that could be seized that haven't been. 10 in some ways we don't have to look looking for new things. there are a bunch of things on the table that both sides support that they haven't been able to make progress on. a couple of examples beyond the trade agreement i just cited the president for a few years laid out a proposal for investing in early childhood education. this is something that very conservative governors across the country, republican governors have implemented in their states to great effect. again, these are republican governors that don't have a lot to say that is very nice about the president, i assume. certainly there is not a lot of

policy agreement. but there is a policy agreement on this issue. that early investments in early childhood education can have the profound impact on the life of a child. and there is a strong correlation between participation in a high quality early education childhood program and lower rates when it comes to things like illiteracy or jail time or teen pregnancy. that's a positive correlation and a good investment. and could potentially be a pretty fruitful area of agreement between democrats and republicans. a second proposal that has gotten more attention is tax reform, that both sides acknowledge that tax reform is needed. both sides agree that the tax rate cot be lowered. both sides agree that there are some corporate loopholes that should be closed. both sides agree, or at least some people on both sides agree that some of those revenues could be used to invest in infrastructure. so there are a lot of details, and presumably a lot of devils in those details. but there should be an opportunity for us to make -- to

find some common ground and make progress for the american people in ways that, again, both sides acknowledge would be really good for the business environment, and really good for the economy over the longer term. there is plenty of areas for common grounds, many of which were identified before the election. but there if there is additional work to be done to find new areas of common ground, the president here at the white house would stand ready to have those kinds of conversations too. peter? >> josh, a couple of when questions. when did all this come together on immigration? when did the president get all the advice he needed from the attorney general and secretary johnson and decided to set this time? >> i probably won't get into a really detailed sort of look back at all this. but i can tell you that at the end of last week, the president was nearing a final decision. the president didn't have an opportunity to spend much time working on this while he was in asia. but after the president returned from that trip, the president has been meeting with his

advisers and talking through some of the issues and making some decisions. and by the time the president steps to the podium at 8:00 p.m. eastern time tomorrow, i would anticipate that all the decisions will be locked down and made and will be in a position to talk about them in some more detail. >> you said in one of the news conferences on the trip that the attorney general had already, though, outlined to him the legal scope that could be contained in this order. so has he met with the attorney general since he came back? >> i don't believe that he has, no. >> okay. >> the other when question is exactly when? is he going to sign this during the announcement tomorrow night or in las vegas or when is he going to sign the order itself? >> what i would anticipate is that the president will make -- just deliver remarks or deliver an address to the nation on thursday evening. and then on friday, he'll give the speech at del sol high school in las vegas, and there will be some signing of the necessary paperwork in coordination with that event. >> las vegas.

>> so there is paperwork to sign. >> well, if there is, that's where it will be signed. john? >> thank you, josh. i noticed when you talk about who is going to be at the dinner, and you mentioned no republicans, you don't -- >> i think i mentioned they're all democrats. again, the glass half full over here, the glass half empty over there. but that's all right. >> in the whole process of discussion with members, has the president brought into the discussion senator angus king of maine who is neither republican nor democrat, but shares his position on immigration, however, is very skeptical about executive action. i believe he told reporters that if john kennedy and lyndon johnson had pursued civil rights the same way, it would have delayed the results for ten years. has he brought senator king in? >> i no that there been a number

of discussions between white house officials and senator king. he is somebody who has focused on this issue quite a bit. >> and your criticism of the executive action? >> not personally aware of that by having talked to him, but i've certainly read those reports about his comments. i will say he cited an interesting example when he cited president kennedy and president johnson. those are examples of two presidents who actually took executive action to grant parole to cuban refugees here in this country. so, again, an example of two presidents who used their executive action to address problems that they perceived in the immigration system. christy? >> thank you. to follow peter for a second, is it fair to say that the president was reading the recommendations while he was in asia, that he had some time to devote to this while he was traveling? >> i don't know that he had much of an opportunity when he was in asia really to do that. >> and now a theoretical question. can the president do by

executive action something that directly affects millions of people? >> well, we'll find out tomorrow, i guess, won't we? >> do you know if he has ever done that before, or can you think of an example wherein the scope was that grand? >> you're putting me on the spot a little bit. no. but we can look back to see if there are other examples like that, that my colleagues who are watching this are suggesting that i should say right now. in terms of -- in terms of these kind of executive acts, there are things that the president has done that do impact. so i've just thought of one off the top of my head there. the president talked about this my ra proposal. this was the effort that the government could support private companies as they provide a retirement benefit to their employees. so these are accounts that somebody is going to correct me if i am wrong, but there are at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that would be eligible for those kinds of accounts. but we can certainly have somebody who is more recently

fluent in nose executive actions who can walk you through the scope of some of those things. george? >> i've got to follow on your very first answer to wendell. you said announcing this on facebook was effective because you reached 1.5 million people. do you believe -- >> in the first hour. pretty impressive, george, right? >> do you believe if you announced to it the wires, the networks and the press corps? >> the good news is that the wires and the press corps are all on facebook. and i noticed that even one of the networks shortly after the video was posted to facebook actually broadcast it on their network. so the good news, george, we don't have to choose. isaac? >> has she been brought into these conversations yet? and also do you expect this issue is going to come with her confirmation hearings whenever they happen? >> i'm not aware that she has been included in any of these conversations. but i would anticipate that she'll get asked about it in the hearings.

and then she can probably say definitively for us whether or not she was included. i don't -- i don't necessarily know in advance that she would bring this up proactively in the context of her hearing. but i suspect there may be some republican senators in particular who be interested in discussing this issue with her. >> have she and the president discussed what is planned at all in the interview that she had through the nomination? >> i'm not aware of any of the discussions. but even if i were, i probably wouldn't be able to talk about them from here. yes, ma'am? >> some are saying this will be a good start to reaching across the aisle with a new congress, being that president obama has complained about the current congress. so what message is he sending to the new congress? >> yeah, well, i think the president the president is trying to send to the new congress is that we're going to have our differences opinion, and we shouldn't paper over those difference. but we can't allow disagreement over a single issue to become a deal breaker over every issue that republicans are going to try to -- i'm confident in

saying that in the new congress, republicans are going to vote to defund obamacare. the president is going to strongly disagree with that. and the president going the take other steps that republicans don't agree with. what the president is determined, however, is -- what the president has determined, however, he is not going to allow those differences of opinion to prevent him from trying to find common ground with republicans. so that will be hard work. that's not going to come easily, particularly for groups of people that have such starkly different views where. that common ground exists, the president remains committed to making the most of it. >> and a follow-up on christy's question. >> sure. >> what executive actions that were taken in the past regarding immigration would involve millions of people like this, the upcoming one? >> there are a couple of them. president george h.w. bush, i believe this was -- i think this would have been -- i'm not sure what year this was, but i can look this up for you. he expanded the family fairness program to cover more than 1.5 million unauthorized spouses and children. this represented about 40% of the undocumented population at

the time. and then there are other steps that have been taken, including with not quite a million people, but still a substantial number of people were affected. president reagan provided relief to children whose parents were applying for legal status under the 1986 amnesty law, even though they themselves had been excluded from the statue. and again, this is the family fairness program. and it affected more than 100,000 families. i referred to kennedy and johnson and their treatment of cuban refugees. if you combine the efforts of eisenhower, kennedy, johnson and nixon to grant parole to cuban refugees, more than 600,000 cuban refugees were affected by that action. there is a pretty long track record of presidents using their executive authority in a way that has significant consequences for a large number of immigrants in this country thinking will be almost more than twice as many. >> we'll see tomorrow how many people are affected by it. okay. jared, i'll give you the last one.

>> josh, in your answer to fox radio earlier, you said that president's sitting down, he's got this in front of him. and the question in his mind is should i act and do this. when the president meets with democrats tonight, i know that your loathe to give details about the policy. but about the politics of it. when he meets with democrats tonight, is the message to them i should have done this before the election or aren't you glad i waited until after the election to do this? >> well, again, adds you often hear me say here, i know that you guys view a lot of these things in the context of elections that about to occur or have recently occurred. the president as it relates to this one is really focused on the substance here. and i think that focus will be shared by others who are attending the dinner. i think they, like all you have, are pretty interested in understanding what the president has decided and why he decided to take the action that he did, and what the law said about the action that he is prepared to take. and they think will be the substance of the discussion at the dinner, and it will be the substance of the discussion that we'll have with all of you tomorrow as well.

go ahead, jared. >> yeah, sorry. that put me off a bit. since republicans aren't in the room, though, i think the president potentially could have a more candid conversation about the political impact. dow i don't know think it's going to come up at all? is that what you think, josh, that politics isn't going to be a topic of all in the conversation between the president and several democrats tonight? >> i suspect the politics of this decision may come up, because there are clear political consequences for it. i think as chris and her poll might suggest, the president is taking this action because he believes it's the right thing to do, not because the polls are telling him it's an extraordinarily popular thing to do with people all across the country. but saying that there is a discussion about politics is different than saying there is a discussion about the election that took place two weeks ago, right? there is a discussion about why the president thinks this is important. there may be some people who have concerns about what this says about the politics. but the president believes that

all of these issues, particularly the potential for significant benefit for the country and for the economy and for national security trumps any concerns that anybody may have about the politics. thanks a lot, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow. >> thanks, josh. c-span2 will be live at 8:50 p.m. eastern from the national book awards in new york city. with the announcements of the winners for nonfiction, fiction, poetry, and young people's literature. you can also watch it sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern time on book tv. the miami book fair is this weekend. join us both days starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern for our live coverage on book tv on c-span2. you'll see best-selling authors talking about their nonfiction books, and we'll take your calls, e-mails, and tweets. authors include former counsel to president nixon john dean,

norman leer and philosopher and activist cornel west. the miami book fair. live coverage all day saturday and sunday, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2s book tv. next, a discussion on the nsa surveillance bill written by senate judiciary committee chair patrick leahy that would end the nsa's act to collect bulk records from americans' phones. laura murphy of the aclu was a guest on "washington journal." this is 20 minutes. >> and we are back with laura murphy of the american civil liberties union. she is their washington legislative director. the senate last night voted 58-42 to not consider legislation that would rein in the nsa's surveillance program. your reaction. >> well, we are deeply disappointed. this was an opportunity to make the first round of reforms since 9/11. and since the disclosures of

edward snowden. and we really are upset that the government is acting in a secret fashion, making secret law and surveilling all of americans' phone records, gathering that information, in some cases e-mail. so we believe that the government had an opportunity. the congress had an opportunity to correct the wrongs, and they missed that opportunity last night. >> what would this legislation do? the usa freedom act of 2014. >> the usa freedom act would first rein in section 215 of the patriot act, which would allow the government to have a more targeted approach in collecting information on intelligence matters. so if they're investigating terrorism, this bill would have narrowed and gotten rid of the most of the bulk collection that the government engages in right

now on every u.s. citizen. so we would have our privacy protected. it would also allow the opinions of the secret foreign intelligence intelligence surveillance court to be released in summary form when they made significant decisions so we would understand how they are interpreting the law. it would also greatly expand the role of an adversarial relationship in front of the court. in other words, there would be an individual in the court who could prevent an opposing viewpoint. nowhere else in our judicial system do we have a nonadversarial proceeding. so this would create an ability to argue on behalf of the american people and protect four fourth amendment and first amendment rights. >> what about technology companies and the information that they are required to give to the government?

>> well, this bill would not force the technology companies to give the information to the government? they would be allowed to keep the information and with a narrowed surveillance capacity, the government could seek information related to a terrorism investigation. but the government wouldn't hold the information. and we've known historically when the government holds this information, it has been misused, sometimes for political purposes. >> can these companies let the american people know what they have had to give to the government or what they've disclosed to the government? >> yes, under the legislation they would have more flexibility in disclosing when customer information has been sought. >> in light of isis, some are arguing that this is the wrong time to try to reform our intelligence agencies. i want to show you what the leader of the republican party in the senate had to say. >> right. >> senator mitch mcconnell.

>> or most damagingly, it would hinder the ability of intelligence community analysts to query a database to determine links between potential terrorists. instead, the leahy bill would have this data be held by telephone companies, and it would make it far harder for records to be gathered for a specific selection term. under the leahy bill, the telephone companies would face no statutory requirement to even hold irrelevant data. there is a legitimate debate to be had over the proper balance to strike in our democracy. and we continue to have that debate. and we should. but the opponents of this collection program have not provided any examples, no examples of the national security agency intentionally spying on innocent civilians. no examples of that. in fact, the nsa, the courts, and the congress have put in

place detailed oversight procedures to protect both privacy and national security. >> laura murphy? >> well, i think that's a very insincere criticism. nothing in this legislation would stop the foreign intelligence from being gathered. the government admits it had these powers and nothing in the usa freedom act would stop the government from finding out about isis. this legislation -- i mean this law that congress and the administration are operating under just goes too far. we are talking about protecting domestic records of american citizens. and i think this argument is really specious. it has nothing to do with isis and the government's ability to follow isis. >> what about what senator mcconnell said and what our previous guest said, ron

johnson, republican of wisconsin who said where is the evidence of that there has been abuse? >> the fact that we live in a country that has a fourth amendment is very important for people to understand. in other words, this conflicts with american values. we were founded in response to king george's issuance of general warrants. and those warrants allowed british soldiers to go through all of the possessions and the houses, looking for contraband of the colonists. and the founding documents of this country argue for the fact that the government should not look at our private information unless they have probable cause. so this goes straight to american values and what we assistant for. if the government can collect information that details our personal activity, who we're

friends with, where we go to church with, we're not living in a free society. that's chilling free speech. that's chilling journalism. and the journalists' ability to go to sources. this is really a bad idea to continue these kinds of programs. and even the authors of the patriot act themselves, senator jim sensenbrenner and -- >> i'm sorry, congressman jim sensenbrenner and senator pat leahy said this legislation is not what congress intended when they wrote section 215 of the patriot act. so it's really -- it's really difficult to understand the rational basis for the kinds of arguments that senator mcconnell is making. >> and a quick history lesson. section 215 of the patriot act was passed when and why this usa freedom act now? >> 40 days after the events of 9/11, the usa patriot act was

passed. congress did not have a chance to read it. it was a secret bill was inserted at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, that the house members never got a chance to see. the bill didn't go through a markup process in the senate. and so we are left with a law that is overbroad and in reaction, passed in a panic to the events of 9/11. fast forward over a year ago, edward snowden said, you know, he felt compelled to release documents that showed how the government was spying on law-abiding americans. so this legislation came as a result of the snowden disclosures. and i don't think we'd be having this conversation if edward snowden hadn't done what he had done. circumstances the patriot act about to expire? >> most of the patriot act is permanent. there are three provisions that

come up for expiration in june of next year. so this debate will be revisited. >> okay. let's get to calls. steven in montana, independent caller. hi, steven. >> good morning, ladies. thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity. i am a very outspoken man. i'm 58 years old. i have been -- i have been locking horns literally with the government since 1972. i was just a teenager then. and the reason being is number one, they don't teach the doggone constitution in our schools, even in montana. we didn't learn the constitution in our schools. okay, and i've been arguing this ever since then. >> okay, steven. so what's your question here for our guest? >> i hope you'll hold up with me here just a little bit, please. >> steven, we don't have a lot of time. i need you to get to a question here for our guest. >> what the deal is my question

is is why cannot people in america read the constitution and understand the simplicity of it and get rid of the corporate socialism that has been in our country since the beginning or the late '30s. >> okay. laura murphy? >> well, i do think that there is a lack of civics education in our country. people don't know their rights. people are often afraid to stand up for those rights. and that's why organizations like the aclu were created, because the first amendment, the fourth amendment, all of these provisions in the constitution and the bill of rights that allow for individual liberty, that allow freedom from government excess, these values are being abandoned in this national security surveillance state that we've created in the aftermath of 9/11. and people need to understand

that their rights are being abridged by the very collection of the information about them. >> gary, eaton, ohio, democrat. hi, gary. >> hi. all these people took the oath to the constitution in our government. what -- what need to be done is everyone in washington that is participating in this should be prosecuted under the rico act. because it's against the constitution, and this is a mob type deal. >> ms. murphy? >> i think, you know, the republican leadership in the senate really pushed a lot of senators away from voting for this legislation. if this vote were held a week ago, i think it would have passed. but in the last minute, the people like senator rand paul

and others decided to vote against consideration of this legislation. and it was really surprising and shocking. >> well, senator rand paul, though, saying it doesn't go far enough. i mean, this is the tweet he sent out. well need real nsa reforms. urge your representative to hold up the representation. >> i really don't buy that argument because this was real reform. this is the law that would make the proceedings of the secret court more transparent. this would end the bulk collection of americans' meta data, who they call, when they call, where they call, who they e-mail, what websites they search. this was an opportunity to make real change. was it perfect? no. but i don't ever think congress comes up with perfect answers. but this would have been a major

positive first step to push this legislation forward and end the surveillance state. >> susan, you're next. ft. myers, florida. go ahead. republican caller. >> yes, ma'am, i'm kind of pro and con on this. if you remember tim mcveigh, we had a homegrown terrorist who attacked our own citizens and killed many innocent people. i don't know if this would have stopped it or prevented it. and you know, i always kind of figured just from what i'd gleaned in the world, you know, there are always people that were, you know, because of the way i've seen some of these court cases come out, how the heck did they get to the end and it wasn't just informants, and if they weren't already tapping phones and doing what they wanted to do anyway? >> so, i think the caller makes a very good point. i don't think these programs have been effective. and if you don't believe me, you

may want to believe the director of national intelligence, mr. clapper. you may want to believe the attorney general and the president who say that this does not interfere with legitimate intelligence investigations. and so we have the intelligence community on our side. we have the president on our side. we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house of representatives earlier this year, just overwhelming republican and democratic support, something like 303 votes passing this legislation. so no one in the house who voted for this legislation thought that this would undermine legitimate law enforcement activities. >> well, there are two folks that do believe that, and that's michael hayden and michael mcasey who write in "the wall street journal" yesterday, nsa

reform that only isis could love. they write the bill ends the national agency's collection of meta data. the date, time, duration and telephone content or the identity of the caller or called. and it's information already held by telephone companies. the bill would substitute a cumbersome and untried process that would require the nsa when it seeks to check on which telephone numbers called or have been called by a number reasonably associated with a terrorist activity to obtain a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance court. and then scurry to each of the nation's telephone service providers to comb through the information that remains in their hands rather than in the nsa's. >> yes, i've debated michael hayden. and i'm familiar with all of his arguments. but my question is what is it about the fourth amendment he doesn't understand. the government is only supposed to seize this information when they have probable cause. or they can argue that there is an urgent necessity for this

information. these procedures in the usa freedom act are not cumbersome, already else the intelligence community wouldn't support it. but hayden is trying to protect his own record because he helped create these laws. and so did michael mukasey. so the government has been on binge of passing national security laws without adequate checks and balances for the american people. and the american people have had enough. and i think that they'll rise up again next june and say that congress needs to act. >> michael hayden, a retired air force general and the former director of the cia from 2006 to 2009 and the national security agency from '99 to 2005. and michael mukasey is the former attorney general of the united states. he servinged from 2007 to '09 and a former district judge who served from '88 to 2006.

sally in michigan, independent caller. hi, sally. >> hello. i am very bad at public speaking, so please bear with me. i would like to say first of all, you're 100% right. i don't want to argue any of that, the constitution, the fourth amendment, everything. is correct. but the terrorism threat is very real. so even though it hasn't stopped terrorism as of yet, it may in the future. i believe that the problem is actually that we shouldn't be allowing any of this information to go anywhere but towards terrorism activity. there should be no law enforcement opportunity for any of this collected data, not even for murder, because it's only supposed to be for terrorism. law-abiding americans, there are no law-abiding americans because

we're all committing three felonies a day there are so many laws. they can pick on anybody they want and go in as law enforcement. so basically, they can if i can and choose. >> okay, sally, i'll have laura murphy give us a response. >> the caller makes an excellent point. the information collected allegedly for terrorism investigations, we've known to be used in criminal prosecutions. that was not the intent of the authors of the patriot act. so there needs to be a wall erected to stop the sharing of information and creating a back door around the fourth amendment. but, you know, to the caller's earlier point, yes, if you hang everyone, you'll get the guilty. but that's not the american way. we don't collect information on

everyone so that we can find the criminals. we have a system that makes prosecutors go to the court, police officers go to the court, and get an authorization to investigate and surveil individuals. so what our national security laws do right now is turn that value on its head and say you must all give us all your information, and then we'll sift through it to decide which one of you is guilty. and that's just not the american way. that does not comport with our founding principles. >> we're talking with laura murphy of the american civil liberties union, washington's legislative director. we'll go to chuck next in las cruces, new mexico, republican caller. >> hi. i just had a statement and then a question. i work in the ic community.

it took me over a year to do a test because of these fisa courts. >> chuck, we didn't hear that first part. >> oh. i was in the ic community. >> ic? >> ic community? >> intelligence community. sorry. >> so it took me over a year to get things through the fisa courts. to dot every i and cross every t. it was extremely difficult. and what lady is saying, it baffles me. what i don't understand is, and this is my question, if she is so concerned about all of these things, which i believe we follow, why didn't she go after the irs when they were going after these conservative groups? because she is obviously leaning left from her statements and stuff. >> okay. >> okay, chuck, you still there?

you believe what? oh, i think we lost him. go ahead, laura, and respond. >> first of all, we were involved in criticizing the irs about going after conservative groups. so the caller has that inaccurate. secondly, because something is difficult to achieve, it may be a reflection on how the law enforcement agency is going about achieving it. the fisa court has turned down very, very few warrants. an infinite number of warrant requests from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. but the question i have is why do we have a secret court in america? why don't we know the opinions of that court? why doesn't the supreme court review the opinions of that court? this is just not the american way. i understand there are intelligence secrets that cannot be shared.

but there is a -- there is something called cepa, which is a law that protects intelligence information in the courts. we've been able to prosecute terrorism cases and suspects successfully in the u.s. federal courts without giving away important state secrets. and so i just think that this whole star chamber type of court has to be examined and has to be opened up. >> i want to ask you about the politics of this. daily beast has this headline. rand paul beats ted cruz, saves nsa from reform. they say the fight to rein in nsa stalled tuesday, meaning the lasting impact of the months long reform will be more about the presidential aspirations of senators rand paul and ted cruz. ironically, it was paul, the libertarian icon who helped sink to bill to help curb america's

most notorious intelligence agency, and he did it with arguments that many civil libertarians found disingenuous. meanwhile, cruz, the senator with a reputation as a political arsonist was suddenly thrust into the role of insider looking to fix the nsa from within the system. it didn't work. so are you concerned that this gets tied up with 2016 presidential politics? >> oh, absolutely. you know, president obama started his campaign in february of 2007. and so the equivalent of that for the next presidential cycle is february of 2015. so this will become a political football. and it will be involved in presidential debates. >> laura murphy, you can find more on their website, aclu.org. she is the washington legislative office director for that organization. thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you for having me. >> appreciate it. next, a hearing on energy security and development

challenges in africa. federal officials and the head of a u.s.-based african development group testify. according to usaid, an estimated 600 million people on the african continent do not have access to electricity. last year, president obama announced a program designed to increase the electification of africa. >> we'll come to order. good afternoon. i appreciate the patience and witnesses of our guests. in the 21st century energy has become vital to modern societies. well all know that. we no longer have to shop for food each day because refrigerators keep food cold and preserve it longer. whether in our homes are ooh restaurants. cell phone, computers, televisions and other electronics require electrical

power to allow us to lead more productive lives in the modern world. as we have seen even in the ebola crisis, and epidemic, it is necessary that medicines and plasma be kept cold so they don't lose their potency. thus, it's both unfortunate and absolutely unnecessary that more than half a billion africans, especially in rural areas, live without electricity. perhaps the great irony is that africa has more than enough energy capacity to join the rest of the world in utilizing modern technologies that require energy supplies. approximately 30% of global oil and gas discoveries over the past five years alone have been in subsaharan africa. yet current i will only 290 million out of 914 million africans have access to electricity. and the total number lacking such access continues to rise. bioenergy, mainly fuel, wood, and charcoal is still a major source of fuel.

hydro power accounts for about 20% of total power supply in the region. but less than 10% of its estimated potential has been utilized. this hearing today will examine the current and perspective impact of u.s. government programs such as power africa and electrify africa as well as private international energy projects. and i thank our very distinguished witnesses who i will introduce momentarily for their leadership in making the dream of electification of africa an increasingly reality. last year chairman royce backed by karen bass and i introduced hr 2548, the electrify africa act. it seek for increased production to more productive energy. but it has not had action yet in the senate. days after the act was introduced, the administration, i'm very happy to say, announced

its power africa initiative and has committed up to $7.81 billion in various types of u.s. technical and credit assistance and other aid to build the capacity of the african power sector. it seems that every few month there's is yet another discovery of petroleum or natural gas in africa. nevertheless, african countries remain net importers of energy at distribution of power from the many new source of power in africa remain unfulfilled. this constrains trade and economic progress, social development, and overall quality of life for the people of africa. even now, one country, south africa, accounts for 2/3 of africa's electricity generation. all of africa produces less than 10% of the energy produced in the united states. meanwhile, people across the continent are forced to meet their energy needs by gathering or purchasing charcoal or coal,

often putting women in dangerous situations too far from home. even when such fuels are safely brought back home, their use produces indoor pollution that all too often contributes to sickness and even death. the current situation cannot continue much longer. even with 13% of the world's population, africa represents only 4% of the world's energy demand, but this situation thankfully is change. according to the report this year by the international energy agency, the iea, since 2000, subsaharan africa has seen rapid growth and a rise in energy use by some 45%. so that's a good trend. we often speak of the rise of the african communities, but for that rise to be realized the supply must match the growing demand for power. the cell phones that are transforming all forms of commerce in africa must be charged. the consumer goods, the growing african middle class's purchasing needs electricity.

africans are increasingly unwilling to accept the blackouts and power surges that have made life so difficult for so long. africans who have traveled or live somewhere else know this doesn't have to be their lot in life. in fact, even those who don't travel and perhaps have seen on tv or heard about power ought to be available to them just like everyone else. during the colonial period in africa, countries were limited in their industrialization. but that period is now long past. it must no longer be used as a reason why african countries are behind in the process of industrialization or power generation. today this lag in power generation is more due to inadequate or unrealistic regulation, lack of finance for significant power generation projects, underinvestment in power generation, even when financing isn't -- is available. the disconnection of rural populations from national and regional power grids, high costs for energy and other factors. these obstacles can and must be

overcome, but they will require additional international collaboration, public/private partnerships, and the will of governments and their citizens. we will not get to the point where we believe it is necessary overnight, but we will get there if we do it and take serious measures now and work robustly to bring this about. with regular electricity, young students will be able to study under electrical light, but also use computers to advance their studies. home makers will be able to keep food fresh were refrigerators and can stretch household income further. and of course hospitals. i personally as well as greg simkin, our chief of staff for the subcommittee. we have been in so many hospitals if it wasn't for a generator, that hospital wouldn't even have a refrigerator that can keep supplies cold as they must remain so. particularly plasma and certain medicines. our two panels today will examine international and national programs to achieve

regular sufficient electrical power in africa and private projects to add to the supply of energy on the continent. the future of africa, of energy in africa is brighter than it has been in the past. but again, diligent efforts need to be -- we need to seize the day. i want to yield to my colleague and friend for my comments he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your leadership when you say the prospect of energy in africa is brighter. it's in large part because of your relentless leadership on this issue. i want to thank you and ranking member bass for your work and for convening this hearing, and thank our witnesses for being here today. it's very obvious that the lack of power available throughout the continent has many negative consequences. it constrains economic growth. it undermines human resource development. it hinders quality of life progress, and particularly limits the quality of social service and public safety. so the impact both on the economic prosperity of the

continent, as well as on its ability to meet many of the urgent challenges is severely compromised by the lack of energy. this hearing will give us an opportunity to really assess both perspective and current cu of power africa and electrify africa and i'm looking forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and thank you for being here. with that i thank you. now i defer to the ranking member. >> to mr. stockton for any opening comments you might have. >> mr. chairman, on several accounts or occasions as the republic of congo and, unfortunately, there i contracted an unwanted visitor to my body and had to go to the hospital. that's when i found out the need for refrigeration and the need for antibiotics. and it actually started my journey into trying to ship antibiotics and other medicines to africa was my own personal

experience, having none, and the importance of energy and the importance of having -- and ironically here's a country, the republic of congo who is producing quite a bit of oil. yet they didn't have enough oil at that time -- they didn't have lights and somebody donated street lights. what really astonished me. we were driving down the streets. you've been over there. they fill little coke bottles full of gasoline and kerosene. you just marvel at here's a country that's of great wealth, natural wealth, and yet its own people are very poor and restricted in terms of what they can get. and it is mind boggling. i know being from texas i have 87 refineries in my district that produce half of all the gasoline in the united states. i was marveling at the lack of infrastructure for the ability to harvest their own oil for

their own needs. to me i've always been interested in what a country in africa has versus what it needs, and the confusing outcomes of when you don't have that infrastructure and you don't have that ability to refine, and it's unfortunate. i know there's a great deal of what people would call corruption, but on the other hand, the lack of knowledge and how to take their natural resources and make sure it benefits their own people. and it's kind of sad to see that difference. have great wealth and great poverty and yet little electricity. i remember that the year -- i went back there again. i think the french donated these lights for solar power lights so when you drive down the road now at least you have street lights and they're individually ironically powered by the sun. but the time before that i was driving down there and the only

lights in existence in the capital were the lights from the car. and you could see all these people walking in the streets and the only lights that they had really were from our car lights, which was a little bit alarming. this is why this hearing's very important. and i think this is why we need to in the united states facilitate helping them take their energy instead of exporting it but to use it in their own countries. with that i'll yield back my time. >> i'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member of you or committee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, as always, especially for your leadership on calling this particular hearing. you and i have worked a long time on this issue and are clear in understanding that one of the most important needs on the continent is building the infrastructure so the type of trade that you and i would love to see happen can take place. i want to thank our distinguished witnesses including the senior u.s. government officials from the

state department, usaid and usdoe as well as those from civil society. i look forward to hearing your perspectives on the challenges of energy resource development in africa including an assessment of the economic national security and human development aspects related to the energy sector. to help address the challenge, we all know that president obama lod launched power africa last year which is aimed at doubling electricity on the continent. it sought for 10,000 megawatts of new cleaner electricity and increase access to at least 20 million more households and businesses. traditionally during the historic u.s. africa summit electrification was a central discussion among african heads of states. president obama announced a further commitment of $300 million to the power africa

initiative. and this new commitment would increase the initial pledge of 10,000 megawatts to 30,000 megawatts. and the hope is that this creates an opportunity to reach up to 60 million households and businesses. so based on these early successes, it's critical that we continue to invest in initiatives that bring increased electricity to the african continent. that's why i was proud to join both chairmans royce and smith as well as ranking member i thinkle -- ingel. i'm interested in what more congress can do to be of help. >> all of whom have made major contributions in the past and present who can author at a timively speak to this subject. so i thank you on behalf of the subcommittee for being here. mr. jonathan el kin who currently serves as acting

assistant secretary for the aus of international affairs having previously served as principal deputy assistant secretary for policy and international affairs from '09 to 2013. he worked as a senior fellow at the brookings institution focusing on energy security and other foreign policy issues. he also founded and headed a consulting company, served on the staff of the u.s. national security council and in a variety of other positions working for the vice president of the united states at the u.s. department of energy and at the council on environmental quality. we'll then hear from mr. eric postell who began at usaid's growth education and environment in march of 2011. in october of 2014 he was asked by dr. schaub usaid administrator to serve as an assistant for the administrator of africa. mr. postell brings to the

position more than 25 years of private sector experience working in emerging markets, especially those in africa. he's founded an investment banking and investment firm, served as a commissioner of the u.s. helping to enhance the livelihood of people around the globe commission and worked for citibank tokyo. then we'll hear from dr. robert eichhorn who serves on the bureau of resources. he's responsible for the transformation of energy systems to achieve greater efficiency and market forces and innovative financing approaches that leads to bureau's efforts to reform electricity and power systems to develop more efficient and reliable national and regional electricity markets. dr. ichord has a long history of service in the field having worked for the energy research and development agency, the u.s. department of energy and, again,

usaid. thank you for being here today. i'd like to begin with mr. elkhorn. >> i'm very pleased to be here to testify on behalf of the u.s. department of energy. the department of energy's focuses on some of the world's most pressing issues. from science and technology from addressing market volatility to facilitating long-term efforts to mitigate climate change. we work to leverage the technical expertise of the department of energy headquarters and our national laboratories in energy technologies, markets and policies. so in that context i'm very pleased at the interest of the subcommittee in energy development in africa and propose to sketch some of the

major contours in those markets and some of the department of energy's activities. africa, particularly sub-saharan africa, as the chairman noted, is experiencing rapid economic development. sub-saharan africa is the world's second fastest growing region, in fact. the world bank reports that economic growth rates in sub-saharan africa continue to rise have been 4.7% growth in 2014 and forecast at 5.2% for the current year. thus many african nations are positioned to become increasingly important both as energy consumers and as energy producers. the international energy agency in the report that the chairman referred to issued just this week estimates that the sub-saharan african economy will quadruple in size growing by 80% between now and 2040. even with robust economic and energy development in coming

years, unfortunately, sub-saharan countries will struggle to meet the energy needs of their people unless they can find ektive new policies, technologies and investment most importantly to spur sustained energy development. while 950 million people in africa, according to iea, will gain access to electricity between now and 2040, over half a billion will still lack it. if i turn to oil development in africa, sub-saharan africa has long been an important player in the global oil market and its role will only grow in coming years. oil production in the region has doubled since 1990 and now accounts for 6% of global production and in addition sub-saharan africa accounted for almost 30% of oil and gas discoveries over the last five years. sub-saharan african oil production is projected to grow from 5.3 million