>> okay. >> nice seeing you. i'll see you. >> you tired? >> as the 115th congress gets under way, we will bring you live coverage of all cabinet level confirmation hearings on the c-span networks. we will show you the entire hearings live as they happen and we will reair each hearing that night in prime time. today, white house press secretary josh earnest briefed members of the press for the first time since president-elect donald trump announced that sean

spicer was his pick for white house press secretary. >> good afternoon, everybody. happy new year. hope you all got some quality time with your families over the last couple weeks. i know the president did while he was in hawaii. i hope you were able to do the same thing. before we get started, i actually wanted to mark a little memory with all of you. today actually reflects the ninth anniversary of the president's victory in the iowa caucuses and he -- i was fortunate enough to have worked on his iowa caucus campaign so this is a day that i know that many of my colleagues at the time will mark in their own way. i thought i would actually do it by reading just a couple of short excerpts from the speech

he delivered that night. this was the president speaking to a group of very excited supporters. there are some famous lines in this speech but my attention as i was reading this last night were attracted to a couple different paragraphs. years from now, you will look back and you will say that this was the moment, this was the place, where america remembered what it means to hope. for months we have been teased, even derided for talking about hope. we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. it's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the road blocks that stand in our path. it's not sitting on the sidelines [ inaudible ] from a fight. hope is that thing inside us that insists despite all the evidence to the contrary that something better [ inaudible ] fight for it. he went on to say that hope is the bedrock of this nation, the belief that our destiny will not

be written for us but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is but who have the courage to remake the world as it should be. i didn't deliver that speech nearly as well as he did that night and i certainly -- >> do a dramatic reading. >> i tried. i gave it the old college try. i certainly can't take credit for having written this powerful speech but i think it is an apt illustration of how remarkably committed president obama has been over the course of his presidential career to a core set of principles that aspire to something great, that put their hope in the american people to build the kind of country that we all believe in where we all have an opportunity to succeed regardless of what we look like or where we come from. and there's a reference in this to those men and women who are not content to settle for the

world as it is but who have the courage to remake the world as it should be. the president was talking about all americans who are committed to investing in this country but i have very vivid memories of the young men and women who signed up to work on president obama's campaign back in 2007 for the 2008 caucuses and i say young men and women because even back at the time, nine years ago when i was at the ripe old age of 32 i was the old guy and that our campaign was populated by young people. not young people in their 20s and 30s but young people in their 20s. i have a vivid memory of one fall afternoon in the middle of the week, the democrats in northeastern iowa were hosting their fall dinner and there were two obama campaign organizers who were eager to have somebody

from the campaign come and speak at the fall gathering for all the democrats. this was a prime opportunity to recruit supporters and other influential people in the community, particularly democrats, to win over their support. and the campaign unfortunately was not able to find anyone for them so i went up there and so i made the more than four hour drive from des moines, iowa. the county is in the northeastern part of the state. and what i found there were two obama campaign organizers, two young people, who were utterly committed to the task. it was this young woman from tennessee and a young african-american man and i point that out because i don't think there are too many other people in that county that either had a southern accent like that young lady did or were african-american like that young man. what i found in the few hours i was in town with them, is they knew everybody. when i got there, i pulled into their office and they said well, you must be thirsty after your

long drive, let's go to the grocery store and we will get you something to eat. we were walking through the grocery store aisles greeting people by name, greeting the clerk who was checking us out by name. we went to the county dinner. it was a small affair at an outdoor shelter at a park and they were greeting everybody by name. i remember that night after the dinner i took them out for a couple of drinks at a local bar and they were greeting the bartender and other people at the bar by name. it was an indication of how these two people were so committed to the cause and so passionate they mustered the courage to go some place they have never been, to a community where they were obviously outsiders because of the passion they felt for president obama and his vision for the future of the country. i appreciate you indulging me on the anniversary of the victory to talk about the warm memories i have of this important event not just in the history of the people who have supported president obama over his career but in the history of the country.

to all of my colleagues and friends who worked on that campaign and are marking that day today, i continue to feel the sense of solidarity and camaraderie with them that was so critical to our victory nine years ago. with that long windup, welcome back. happy new year. let's go to some questions. >> so tomorrow, the president is going to the capitol to talk to democrats about health care. >> that's right. >> what is the message? what is the goal? what does he hope to accomplish from going up there and meeting with them? >> this will be an opportunity for the president to meet with the democrats in the house and the senate for the incoming united states congress and they will be there to principally discuss how to counter the stated republican objective of repealing the affordable care act. the stakes are high.

i know that particularly in this -- at this time when we are thinking about there's a lot of discussion about the president's legacy, that some people might think that well, the president's very concerned about the political capital that he's invested in this and doesn't want to see it all go away. that's certainly true. the president's priority and the president's motivation is rooted in looking out for the interests of the 22 million americans whose health care would be taken away if republicans repeal the affordable care act. he's interested in looking out for the millions of americans who get health care through their employer who have seen that the growth in their health care costs has been sharply limited. just 3.4% in 2016. overall, the growth in health care costs is the lowest it's been on record and if republicans repeal the

affordable care act, they will reverse that progress. millions of americans across the country are protected from being discriminated against because they have a pre-existing condition. they are allowed to keep their kids on their insurance plan until their kids turn 26. women are not allowed to be charged more by their insurance company just because they are women. all of that would be undone if republicans repeal the affordable care act. obviously we are deeply concerned about the impact this would have on medicaid and medicare. the affordable care act extended the life span of the medicare trust fund by 11 years. so if republicans repeal the affordable care act they will be hastening the demise of medicare that millions of seniors rely upon for their basic health care needs. so the president's deeply concerned about the impact that this republican action could have. he's also concerned about this

republican tactic of repeal and delay that ultimately is nothing more than just bait and switch. the prospect of oh, don't worry, the 22 million americans who have health insurance because of the affordable care act. we will get around to offering up a replacement at some later date. that's not a responsible way to govern and it certainly is not an indication that you are looking out for working people in this country. democrats are, however, interested in looking out for working people in this country. no one more so than the democratic president of the united states, barack obama. so that's what they will be there to talk about. the president's message will be to encourage them in that fight and to offer his own insight about the most effective way to engage in that fight. >> is he going to be looking in some way to exploit republicans appearing to be divided over what to replace obamacare with?

is that part of the discussion tomorrow? is he hoping to take advantage of their inability to agree on a replacement? >> well, there does appear to be some division in the republican party. that's understandable. many of you have told the stories of people who are represented in congress by republicans who voted for those republicans hoshwho are pleadin with those republicans not to take away their obamacare. so it's not surprising to me there are some republicans who are now a little queasy about the prospect of the impact that repealing obamacare would have on their own supporters, on people in their congressional districts, because we know there are people all across the country who benefit from this law. who are protected from this law. whose lives have been saved by this law. and the prospect of taking it

away is a question of life or death for some people. so it's not surprising to me that that does leave some republicans queasy. what the president has long said and i'm sure this is true of other republicans on capitol hill, i don't speak for them, but the president has long been open to the idea that if there are republicans who are genuinely interested in reforming the affordable care act in a way that would strengthen the program, the president would be strongly supportive of that effort and he's put forward his own ideas for how we can do that but he certainly would be open to ideas from republicans to do that but that's not what republicans have offered. what they have offered more than 50 times is just a proposal for tearing the program down in a way that would leave millions of americans vulnerable. so there is this division in the republican party that does leave them vulnerable because they haven't actually indicated any desire to work with democrats to strengthen the program, which means that there's a premium

placed on republican unity and if they're not able to preserve that unity, it will pose a challenge to their efforts to accomplish this goal, but there are a lot of -- there are a lot of steps to this process that republicans have laid out that they are prepared to undertake and we will see if they are able to do them. the country would be much better served by them looking to work in a jn wgenuinely bipartisan an to extend and strengthen the many protections offered to americans across the country. >> the president has said on a few occasions his administration has been good on policy but where they have fallen down has been in communicating policy to the public. >> i try not to take that personally when he says that. >> i'm wondering if the trip up to capitol hill tomorrow and then this interview he's doing later in the week on friday, is

this some sort of attempt to kind of do the sales job on the aca over or better? >> well, look, i don't think -- i think you all have seen in covering the president the last eight years there aren't many do-overs. i can't think of any. so no, this is not a do-over. i think this is an opportunity for the president once again to make what he finds to be a particularly persuasive argument about the benefits of the proposal and the one thing we have long said that has proved to be true is that the more that people understand what's included in the affordable care act, the more that people see first-hand how they benefit from the affordable care act, the more popular it's likely to be. there's no denying that obamacare has been subbed subje

of millions of dollars of political attacks. many of them if not most of them false about the impact of the law. so there are stiff head winds we have encountered in trying to make the argument in favor of the affordable care act but the one thing that has proved to be true is that the more that people understand what's included in the affordable care act and how they benefit from it, the more popular the program is. and the harder it is for republicans to win political support for tearing it down. jeff? >> josh, north korea has said it is close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile. has the obama administration comes close to its end, what more can you do with north korea in the remaining three weeks of the president's term and what kind of advice do you have for the incoming administration? >> well, the most important thing that any commander in chief has to do is to protect the american people. for years, the united states has at the direction of the

commander in chief, president obama, has increased the defenses that are deployed in the pacific region to protect the american people from this threat. so there are radar facilities and anti-ballistic missile facilities that have been installed in places like japan and guam and alaska. there are naval vessels, ballistic missile defense ships that are patrolling the pacific ocean. the number of them has been increased as a result of a decision made early on by the commander in chief to make sure we can protect the american people from this threat. i can confirm once again that the united states military does believe it has the capacity to protect the american people from the threat that's emanating from north korea. but these defenses are not the only steps the commander in chief has ordered. the united states has also engaged in a rigorous, intensive

diplomatic effort to build international support for tough sanctions against the north korean regime and the united nations security council last fall passed the toughest resolution yet imposing the toughest sanctions yet against the north korean regime, putting a hard cap on the amount of coal that can be exported because we know they use revenue from coal exports to try to fund some of these programs so putting that hard cap in place will have an impact on their ability to continue to develop their programs and we are only able to succeed in implementing those measures with the cooperation of china and given the differences that we have with china on a number of other issues, it's no small diplomatic undertaking to get them to work effectively with us, which they have, to their credit, to impose some of these measures and to increase pressure on the north korean regime. the problem has not been solved but we certainly have defenses

in place to protect against the threat that emanates from there and we certainly have made progress in building important diplomatic support to apply pressure to the north korean regime to limit their ability to continue to develop this program but also to give them an incentive to change their strategy. they haven't yet but we are going to continue to apply that pressure. our advice to the next administration i think will largely be to listen to the advice of our military commanders about what's necessary to protect the american people with regard to our deployments in the pacific and to look for opportunities to work effectively with countries like china and russia and our allies, south korea and japan, to apply pressure to north korea to make clear that they should renounce their nuclear ambitions and put an end to the kind of destabilizing rhetoric we have seen all too often emanate from the north korean capital. >> thank you. on a separate issue, the white

house's reaction to the congressional republicans' decision to curtail and then not curtail the office of congressional ethics today. is this one of those perhaps rare instances where you agree with president-elect trump? >> well, first of all, i think that it is rather revealing that the first step taken by congressional republicans in the new congress was to vote in secret to gut ethics regulations. these are ethics regulations, by the way, put in place by democrats in response to ethical scandals plaguing congressional republicans. so i know there's a lot of talk about ethics and revolving doors, but the revolving door we see right now is the continual challenge on the part of congressional republicans to skirt responsibility for their

ethical violations. with regard to -- let me also say, i suspect this is not going to be the first time that we see congressional republicans in this congress seeking to help people in positions of power and influence escape accountability when it comes to the interests of the american people. i'm confident we are going to see congressional republicans do the work of their donors on wall street to try to gut wall street reform, that would allow them to escape accountability for a bunch of financial transactions that we know are not in the public interest and actually do put taxpayers at risk, and potentially put taxpayers on the hook for bailing out those big banks if those risky bets go bad. another thing we know congressional republicans are likely to do is to go to their donors in the oil industry and say hey, we can help you escape accountability for polluting the

air and water and land that the american people treasure and in some cases depend on for sustenance. i think the real question for the president-elect is will he stand up to them then. >> would you agree then with my i guess question that this is a rare instance where you agree with the president-elect's criticism? >> well, first of all, i will let the president-elect's team explain exactly what he was intending to communicate in his tweet. it's not immediately obvious to me. that he was indicating opposition to the gutting of ethical requirements. some people at least interpreted his tweet as indicating the optics of doing it first were bad but again, i will leave it to the incoming team to explain it. because the position of this

administration is that people who are entrusted with positions of authority in the united states government do have certain ethical obligations and they should be held independently accountable for a hearing to those ethical requirements. certainly the executive branch does in a variety of ways and i do recall that when president obama served in the united states senate, he was one of a small number of members of the united states senate who championed legislation to create an independent ethical oversight structure on the senate side too. unfortunately, that effort did not succeed but the president's views on the importance of these kinds of ethical oversight structures are well known and the president has long placed a priority on ensuring that they

are strong. michelle? >> you didn't paint a very hopeful picture at one point there but the fact that this did die, the leadership took it out, do you see that as promising at all? >> well, again, i started out reading a speech about hope so i try to be an optimistic guy. just to go back to that speech, we know that hope is not blind optimism. it's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the road blocks that stand in our path. so when you have a bunch of republicans who campaigned for their office saying that they want to gut regulations that prevent wall street bankers from taking advantage of middle class families, when you have a bunch of republicans who run for congress saying they are going to make it easier for their largest contributors in the oil industry to pollute our water and our air, it's hard to feel particularly optimistic about

their willingness to look out for the american people. but like i said, if the president-elect is willing to stand up to them in those instances, that would be welcome news. so we just have to wait and see exactly how that plays out. i will say that it is even in the face of all that optimism, it is disheartening that the very first thing that republicans in congress chose to do was to vote in secret to gut ethical accountability. that's not draining the swamp. but you know, that's day one. we'll see what day -- the days in the future lead to. >> you talked about the president on the hill tomorrow talking to democrats to encourage them and how best to counter gutting obamacare so what specifically does he want

them to do? i'm confused on what there is that can be done. >> well, you will have an opportunity as darlene referenced to hear from the president at greater length about this later this week, but i think you can certainly anticipate that the president will encourage democrats to focus on those aspects of the affordable care act that are strongly supported in a bipartisan fashion all across the country. the best example for this is consumer protection that prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people that have pre-existing conditions. there's nothing idealogical or partisan about that notion. it's actually just a matter of basic fairness. what we have found is now that that law or that rule has been in effect for the last few years, we have actually seen democrats and republicans both come together and acknowledge that that's a good idea. that actually is fair. so the question really for republicans is how do you

construct a policy that protects that fairness. right now, what republicans are suggesting is that they would basically take away the requirement that everybody has health insurance. and that ultimately is going to interfere with the ability to ensure that insurance companies sign everybody up. so that's ultimately something that republicans will have to reconcile. i think this is something the president has talked about at some length which is there's a difference between campaigning and governing. there's a difference between going out there on the campaign trail and using all kinds of rhetoric saying you are going to repeal the affordable care act, because of the impact it's having on our economy, so you have to ignore a lot of facts in order to make that kind of rhetorical statement but once you are faced with actually implementing it, the questions get a lot harder. and your ability to follow through on that promise that sounded really good on the

campaign trail is called into question. >> he said he wants democrats to pressure their republican colleagues, when you say focus on that, what does he expect them to be doing right now? >> i think the presidents message is they should be out there telling the story of their constituents who are benefiting from this law. that's the most important thing they can do. 'some of them may choose to use this as an opportunity to offer up additional suggestions and try to seek republican cooperation to strengthen the law. the president certainly would encourage them to do that. i think you can also expect to hear the president make the case that it's not just about protecting the affordable care act but protecting medicare and medicaid. if we tear down the affordable care act we have a terribly negative impact on medicare and medicaid. there are a lot of persuasive

arguments to be made that would i think persuade many americans that the idea of tearing down the affordable care act is a bad idea. >> quickly, does the administration believe that north korea is that close to that icbm capability and what does the president think of donald trump's response to north korea via his tweets? >> what i can -- the intelligence community has previously said that the united states has not seen north korea test or demonstrate the ability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on an icbm. i'm not aware that that assessment has changed. some of the administration -- intelligence community officials i have spoken to today were not aware that assessment has changed. if it has changed it's something that will come from the intelligence community. with regard to the president-elect's tweets, i will let his team explain exactly what he means. margaret. >> thank you, josh. happy new year. >> happy new year to you.

>> i'm just wondering whether you have spoken with president obama about the possibility of slapping a tariff on cars made in mexico and imported into the u.s. and what you think the impacts of that would be on foreign policy or the economy. >> i have not spoken to president obama about that. i know that that is contrary to the approach that president obama has taken when it comes to trying to manage our trade relationships around the world. in fact, the president was strongly supportive of a trans pacific partnership agreement that his administration negotiated that included mexico, that would have raised labor standards, raised environmental standards, would have protected intellectual property and would have made it easier and fairer for u.s. businesses that are competing against mexican businesses that. would have been good for the u.s. economy, good for u.s. workers, good for u.s. businesses. the incoming president does not seem to share that view. he believes in a different approach and many economists

have expressed concerns about how the imposition of tariffs like some have suggested would actually have a starkly negative impact on the economy because it would not just result in higher prices being paid by american customers, it means that american goods that are shipped overseas face a similar retaliatory tariff and since we are not starting out on a level playing field, even if the tariff is equal in stature to the tariff that's imposed by the united states, it will have a disproportionate negative impact on those american products. so many economists have made the argument that imposing a tariff like that is the worst of both worlds when it comes to the interests of the united states, our consumers, our workers and our economy. that's why the president has tried a much different approach. but ultimately, the next

administration will have to pursue that strategy they believe is the best and will have an opportunity to evaluate what works best. the president has a very strong track record when you consider the performance of the u.s. economy under his leadership, under the economic strategy he has put together, but the incoming president was elected on a promise to try things different, to try different things and to do things differently, and we will have an opportunity to evaluate how well it works. >> do you know whether president obama has spoken with the president of mexico today, perhaps? >> no, i'm not aware that they have spoken today. >> the kind of flipside to the president-elect's twitter related actions on foreign policy, ford motor company has announced they canceled this major expansion to mexico and will preserve some jobs in the

u.s. would you say that's good news and would you applaud president-elect trump for his actions on that or do you know enough about it? >> i have read some of the news coverage of this. i have not been in touch with either the transition team or the auto -- ford, about their announcement. but i read in published reports about their announcement that it was not tied to any political considerations. and i noted that over the last five years or so that ford has actually increased the number of workers at their company by about 28,000 so this is only the latest step in a long running significant and positive trend for the u.s. economy that those jobs are being protected so that's obviously good news. okay? john. we can look up the numbers for you. >> josh, on the measures taken against russia, why was vladimir

putin not mentioned as one of those sanctions? is that an indication you didn't have evidence that the russian leader was responsible for this or directed this or approved it? >> not necessarily. the intelligence community has indicated their view that given the significance of the actions that russia carried out against the united states, their conclusion is this is something that had to have been directed at the highest levels of the russian government. >> why not hit the president? he's the guy responsible. >> as you know, typically with regard to sanctions policy, that there are only certain circumstances in which the leader of the country is personally named. i can't get into all -- there's no denying this is a significant action so what i would say is just that it would be rather extraordinary if mr. putin himself were among the people who were listed but i can't speak to the decisions that were

made by the experts at the treasury department about who was named and who was not. >> when the chinese hacked opm in 2015, 21 plus million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal records stolen by the chinese, why did the white house do nothing publicly in reaction to that happening? which in some ways, was even more widespread and that we saw here from the russians allegedly. >> i think that what we have seen is that these are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature but materially different. >> 21 million people had their personal data taken. fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks. this was a far-reaching -- >> i'm not downplaying the significance of it.

i'm just saying it's different than seeking to interfere in the conduct of a u.s. national election. i can't speak to the steps that have been taken by the united states in response to that chinese malicious cyberactivity. >> nothing was announced. there was not a single step announced by the white house in response to that. >> that is true, there was no public announcement about our response, but i can't speak to what response may have been initiated in private. >> no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct? >> i can't speak to -- >> you don't do that stuff secretly. >> when it comes to the diplomats, that's right. that's something we would announce publicly. look, i can't speak to the response because as you pointed out, that's not something we have announced. it is certainly something we take seriously. it's something the president raised directly with his chinese counterpart and we have seen commitments from the chinese with regard to some norms in

cyberspace we would like to see them observe. for example, we did see the chinese president commit in the rose garden in the fall of 2015 that russia or that china would not be engaged in the kind of cyber-enabled theft for commercial gain that's sponsored by national governments. so that represents some progress and it does represent the protection of u.s. commercial interests here in the united states and that certainly is an important step, an important part of establishing some of these rules of the road that will allow the international community to resolve how to limit the malicious behavior of some actors in cyberspace. >> you see how there's just this widely different response. with the russians which of course is very politically charged, the white house takes this action, makes it public. with the chinese which was not so politically charged but was absolutely as far-reaching a hack as we had ever seen in this

country, nothing. >> at least at the government. there are ample examples of other malicious cyber actors in the private sector. >> in response to thee pvate se. >> in response to the opm hack. >> exploiting personally identifiable information and engaging in other wide-reaching malicious cyberactivity. i'm not suggesting that somehow that's not important. what i'm just saying is it's materially different than the kind of hack and leak strategy that we saw the russians engage in to try to influence our democracy. that is significant. that's serious. that explains the serious steps that president obama has imposed against the russians in response. but with regard to the chinese, we have made some progress with them in trying to limit the kind of malicious cyber activity that could threaten u.s. interests either in the united states or around the world in our

government or in the private sector, and we are pleased with some of the progress we have made but there's no denying that the next administration will assume a significant burden in trying to craft a policy in cyberspace that effectively stands up to aur adversaries and looks out for the interests of the american people. >> one other quick, sean spicer, your first briefing since he was announced as the incoming press secretary for president trump. any advice to sean on how to conduct this job? >> listen, i had an opportunity to congratulate sean via e-mail shortly after the announcement was made. as you all have heard me say on a number of occasions, the opportunity and the honor to stand before this podium and advocate for a set of values in a president that i deeply believe in is extraordinary. it's the kind of opportunity i

wouldn't trade for anything. i sincerely hope he finds the same kind of challenge and satisfaction in the job that i have. i don't know sean personally but i expect to get the chance to meet him soon and talk to him about this job a little bit. isaac? >> want to bring it back to north korea for a second. does the president feel confident in donald trump's ability to protect the united states if a nuclear missile is launched by north korea? >> well, i think that harkens back to some of the rhetoric that was used by both sides in the campaign leading up to the election and the president expressed some rather profound concerns about the incoming president, but the election's over. i have done my best to avoid

relitigating those fights. i think what i can tell you is that the president has strong confidence in the men and women of the united states military, the men and women of the united states intelligence community, the men and women of the united states state department, who ultimately are responsible for implementing policies that protect the american people, including from the threats that emanate in north korea. we are going to be counting on our men and women in the intelligence community to continue to provide decision makers with the best available intelligence about north korea's actions. we are going to rely on the department of defense and the men and women of the united states military to make smart strategic decisions about stationing equipment and antiballistic missile technology to protect the american people and we are going to be relying on the men and women of the state department to go and build an international coalition to increase the pressure on the north korean regime to compel them to pursue a different path,

and those are all institutions and patriots who every day set aside politics, set aside their own political leanings, set aside their own preferences about who should be president of the united states and just focus on the task at hand, and the people in those three communities, the state department, defense department and intelligence community, all have substantial responsibilities when it comes to protecting the american people, and the president has confidence that those men and women, those american patriots, will continue to do their important work with enormous skill and expertise and patriotism to protect the country. >> going back to as you said, a lot of talk about this during the campaign, it's been about two months since he delivered his last campaign speech. in those two months does he feel more confident in donald trump's abilities to handle the nuclear situation, both having the nuclear codes and protecting from nuclear attack, less confident or is he in the same place he was the day of the

election? >> i haven't spoken to the president about this but my assessment would be that his opinions have not changed. but the time and place for presenting those opinions has come and gone and we are focused now on a transition. >> just on wikileaks, julian assange did an interview in which he says that the administration, first of all he says wikileaks did not receive its information from a state actor and second of all, says that there are essentially holes in the case of the administration, that it's laid out about the role wikileaks had, that wikileaks wasn't mentioned in anything and that must mean you guys aren't sure there's a connection there. what's your response to that? >> my response is the president has complete confidence in the assessment that's been put forward by the intelligence community. there's no reason to doubt it. >> and that wikileaks received -- there is no lack of

mentioning wikileaks for any purpose, what assange is talking about is that you guys didn't say okay, you connected it to the russians but you haven't said well, then it went to wikileaks from the russians. that's just semantics, essentially, from assange? >> again, i didn't see the entirety of his -- i didn't see much of any of his interview. so it's hard for me to respond directly in kind. what i can tell you is the president has complete confidence in the intelligence community's assessment and the president has tasked the intelligence community with putting forward more information before january 20th not just about what russia did in the 2016 election, but about some of the malicious cyberactivity we saw in the context of the 2008 and 2012 elections as well. there certainly is the possibility that more evidence that are pertinent to some of

those claims could be included. we have to want sit and see. >> any update when we can expect the intelligence report the president asked for? >> i don't have an update on timing. just before january 20th. >> david axelrod tweeted going back to the house ethics office, david axelrod tweeted this house ethics drama was an absolute gift to donald trump. a big fat zeppelin for him to shoot down, which he did. do you think this was teed up for the president-elect who himself has had some issues regarding conflicts of interest and some of his own ethical questions swirling around him leading into his inauguration? >> well, i haven't spoken to david today. my guess is he wasn't expressing admiration for a clever strategic move on the part of republicans to make the president-elect look good. i actually think he was making

the opposite point, that republicans in congress had revealed a lot about their priorities when the first action that they took was to vote in secret to gut some of the ethical requirements they are subject to. i think the point that david was making is simply that it's pretty obvious to everybody that's a really bad idea. kevin? >> thanks, josh. i just want to circle back on the question about russia versus china and the reaction. lisa monaco previously cited diplomatic inroads with china as part of the reason why the administration has had some success in limiting and reducing cyberactivity, negative cyberactivity from the chinese. i'm curious why then would the administration continue that same process with the russians to get a similar response rather than the sort of heavy-handed expelling operatives and shuttering facilities? >> well, i think the response to

the chinese action has been different than the response to the russian action because they are actions that both those countries undertook were different. what we saw on the part of the chinese was concerning with regard to some of the malicious cyberactivity that had an impact on the u.s. government. the russian cyberactivity was more specifically directed threat to undermine u.s. democracy. so their tactics were different, their ultimate goal was different and that would explain why our response was different'. in both cases we have taken that malicious cyberactivity and those breaches quite seriously, but our response as i have acknowledged to john, have been different. >> also on the ford motor announcement, you may or may not have had a chance to see it, the one where they are saying essentially they are not developing this plant over in mexico, donald trump had previously threatened to levy

some sort of tax or if you will, some sort of tariff on cars that were made there that would come back to the u.s. you were asked earlier if you thought this was a victory for i think maybe donald trump. i'm curious if you victory. victory for the american people, american -- who may now benefit from the fact that a few more jobs related to this decision. >> well, it won't surprise you to hear the president has presided over an economy that's created nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs. pleased to hear another -- >> want to ask you something the president sort of hinted at maybe not hinted at, just came out and said it. he said if i were able to run again, i would have beaten donald trump. why do you think the president made that point? what was behind his decision to make the comment like that? >> because it's pointless if you

go back and look at the interview. he was making a point that the message that he delivered in his 2008 campaign and in his 2012 campaign is one that deeply resognated with the american people and got him allowed him to build a strong coalition all across the country. that allowed him to be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. with strong majorities not just of the electoral college, but actually the majority of the voting population and president obama is the first president to be elected and re-elected with 51% of the vote since eisenhower. that's an indication of how much strong support there is all across the country for the president's message and the president believes after eight years, that he stayed true to that message. that he's campaigning on the same set of values. the same set of message that appeals to the idea that everybody in america should have an opportunity to succeed.

and people shouldn't -- >> they saw the message in michigan. he was up there forcefully. and went for the democrat in that particular -- >> what we found and this is true in 2010 and to a lesser extent in 2014, that when the president wasn't on the ballot, that he didn't have as much success as he would have liked in making that same argument in support of other candidates and there are a lot of theorys as to why that is, but that's undeny bly true. >> debate donald trump? >> no. he wouldn't. he would not. april. >> the president against -- comes to aca and the contributions given to millions of people and you've already cited some of the highest

performance. but because this is to important for the president like this, can you get into the conversations that president obama has had with donald trump and the lead up to tomorrow? can you talk to us about what he said? >> i can't. i've worked hard to try to protect the b ability of the president. to have private conversations with the president-elect. when some of the fact of those calls has spilled into the public, we've done our be best to try to confirm and ek plain to you the context of those conversation, but for the substance of the calls, i'm going to protect the ability to have those calls. >> the president in the last day before he went on vacation, did say when he talks to donald trump, he explains the benefits of some issues. was he talking about aca's conversations and the benefits that he was talking about? >> i wouldn't be surprise d if

the affordable care act was among those. >> so, when he says benefits, does he tout the things that we already know or go into weeds about things and talk about more than, thing that is the average person doesn't know and how it works, what makes it work, what would be a problem if it's taken away? what does he say when he talks to donald trump like that? >> just not going to get into the substance of the conversations they're having. >> he didn't allude, he did tell us that. >> okay. >> so, lastly with with everything going on now, the back and forth between the president-elect and the sitting president of the united states the days of his presidency, is there a possibility, strong possibility, that there will be final press conference from president obama before he leaves office? >> i don't have any scheduling announcements at this point, but i wouldn't be surprised of something like that. we'll keep you posted. >> would it be to protect his legacy more so or to put a final

note to america? >> well, we'll wait if we have something to announce to describe why we announced it. >> jordan. >> while the president was in hawaii, it was reported that the obama administration for congress that it could transfer up to 19 prisoners from guantanamo bay before the president leaves office. are you confirming -- >> i'm not in a position to confirm as you know, jordan, statute does require that when the administration is prepared to -- a detainee to another country, to another country in the context of security requirements that would limit their ability to pose a threat to the united states, the administration is required to give congress 30 days notice before completing that. so, this is part of our rue u teen effort.

that we have undertaken to reduce the -- of potential transfers, but i think i would expect additional transfers to be announced. >> from guantanamo, is that is his attitude on that issue going to factor into the administration's decisions at all on transfers? >> no, it will not. he'll have an opportunity to implement policy for ta he believes is most effective when he takes office on january 20 oth. >> okay. ron. >> president-elect some skeptical of the intelligence assessments. has there been any conversation between members of this administration and the incoming administration about the

skepticism about the intelligence, pressure of being honest. >> well, i can't speak to any specific conversation, but i'm confident in the context of the transition and getting the president-elect's team up to paid. i'm confident that the white house have represented to the transition team full confidence in the assessment and conclusions that have been announced by the intelligence committee. >> what do o you make of the president-elect's statements that he knows things that others don't know and that he still is not convinced the russians are behind this. >> i'm glad that it's somebody else's job b to explain what he meant because i don't know. so, presumably, somebody has an opportunity directly can try to explain to those of us in the public who weren't quite sure of what he was referring to. >> this is obviously a serious

thing. it was a matter of national security. >> yeah. >> these diplomat, this was a big, big deal. but you have the, how concerned is the president or the administration about the president-elect's attitude that he knows more, something different and that he's still not convinced? >> well, in the context of the xam, we had ample opportunity. the campaign is over. that's right. and so now, we are in a position where our responsibilities as public servants in the obama administration, to do what we can to help the president-elect's team get up to speed and understand the complexity and depth of that they're going to be tasked managing. >> bottom line. there's a reason why the president-elect has his own spokesperson.

and that there will be someone else on the podium when he takes office. >> talking about the review that's underway. i think you said that in terms of proof or evidence that that, there may or may not be a public release of what we consider proof or evidence of the claims. >> well, just asking me about the claims that were apparently made in an interview about how or whether or to what extent wikileaks may have been involved in this effort. though i don't know, but it's possible. helpful in understanding what wikileaks' role in this could be included. that's a definitive conclusion that's been reached that was anoupsed before the election. some of the information

concluded in the report released by the fbi and dhs last week included technical information about the tactics and technology and software that was used by the russians to carry out these actions and others like them. that's a, i think that's, it's technical. i think it's pretty solid evidence of russian involvement in this matter. >> so, the administration doesn't feel a need to present more proof. >> no. the administration feels a responsibility to communicate as directly as clearly as possible with the american public to help them understand what the u.s. government knows about russia b b efforts to undermine our system of government. and i would anticipate the report would, that the intelligence community is working on would further that goal. >> meetings with on the hill about the affordable care act a,

is that the only issue on the agenda or is there anything else that the president wants to communicate the incoming members of congress about his concerns, his priorities, his hopes and fears. >> the affordable care act is the primary topic on the agenda. i wouldn't rule out that eothers may come up. if they do, do your best to give you a read out. >> just trying to get a sense of 17 and a half day, what else is there that the president is really trying to -- >> yeah. well, obviously, we've touched on a couple of them. we talked about the affordable care act. there isn't just the need to protect the afford bable care act from being destroyed by republicans. there's also a need to make sure we're doing everything we can to make it possible for people to sign up for the affordable care act. we've seen people signing up at record clip despite all this negative publicity and the uncertainty that republicans are injecting into this process, we're seeing a record number of people signing up at a report

rate. that's a positive step. that didn't happen by accident. we want to make sure we're doing what's necessary to facilitate those sign ups. obviously, following through on the business with russia in terms of implementing the steps that were announced last week and also putting forward this report before january 20th, our steps we're focused on. you can certainly always expect the president to be focused on the counter isil campaign and he'll continue to meet with his nation team and members of congress may be interested in and of course, we're focused on a smooth and effective transition. that means trying to pay attention to all the little details that may not rise to the level of interaction like this, but are still critical to a seamless hand off of governing responsibility from one administration to the next and that requires the time and attention of a lot of people inside the administration, including the president of the united states. >> how is it going? >> so far, it's going well.

i've heard mixed messages about this from the other side. but this administration has remained focused on the effective facilitating the effective transition that president obama promised at the beginning of last year. and we've made good on that promise. >> mark. >> now that the new congress has been convened, does president obama have any intention of making any nominations or resubmitting any old nominations? >> nothing that i have here, but if we're going to renominate some people, we'll let you know publicly. >> shouldn't you assume the garland nomination has now lapsed? >> i think the president acknowledged at a hanukkah event that judge garland attended last year, that president obama -- people with distinction on the

united states court of appeal. to explain to the senate and the american people why he would have serve d the country honor bly. is a scar on the reputation of the united states senate. it is a part of the legacy of the republican leadership in congress from the last several years and i don't mean that as a compliment and i think for years, the united states senate will be dealing with the fallout so agree jously subject chief judge garland to such unfair treatment.

republicans have described him as a consensus. republicans have praised his service to our country. the department of justice who led the department of investigation, garland is a patriot and deserved far better treatme treatment. because he's the bigger man, he's going to continue to serve his country with honor and distinction at the united states circuit court of appeals and the president's quite proud he'll be there. >> what do you mean by fallout? >> well, i mean there will be difficulty in the senate, not just but for future presidents as they navigate the process of nominating judges to the federal

bench. what sort of credibility do republicans have in making the case to democrats that they should fairly consider the nomination of a republican judge? of a a republican president. they qualified supreme court nominee whose qualifications were not in question. simply because he was nominated by a democratic president. how then can republicans go to democratic senators aened say they should support nominees put forward by a republican president. i think they probably will. but they won't be doing it because republicans have any semblance of of moral high dwround or any sort of moral

leverage or any moral weight to their claim that that's what democratic senators should do. i think that breakdown of comedy in the united states senate, that abdication of the basic responsible responsibility -- constitutional obligation, it's discouraging. and it's a precedent that a i think republicans will regret. >> president obama's thinking is -- the farewell address checked back the eisenhower here

at the white house. why does president obama -- >> well, president obama is is going to go back to his hometown. back to the place where he began his career in public service. a community, a city, that was so supportive of him throughout his career in public service and there's a unique story to president obama's public service. having started out as a community organizer and somebody b who's first job in public service wasn't in politics. per se. at least it didn't involve running for office. but trying to help people in the economically disadvantaged xhints. that is something that has motivated president obama from his and so, it's a -- that he would go back to that city.

yes, i would suspect his last as presidency. [ inaudible ] what to expect, the plan. to act in a unique kind of way. to extend the benefit. to maintain. >> well, i'm not aware of any specific announcements that are, that you should expect from the president on this issue. of course there is long standing -- the way that information like this is maintained. you know, there's a commitment that was made.

to people who came forward. to apply for deferred action dreamers. these are individuals who came to the united states as children were brought to the united states as children. and are here through no fault of their own and the united states is the only country they've known and many of these are young people who have graduated from high school, gone on to college, served in our military, who have otherwise shown themselves to be quality additions to the, to the country and to communities across the country. and so, the president's view is that these individuals are american in every way but their papers and that the limited enforcement resources of the united states government are better focused on people who are in the united states illegally or have criminal records or have recently krosed the border. those are the kinds of people

worthy of aggressive enforcement action. that is exactly what this administration has pursued. it's made our country safer. fairer. and i know at least at one point, the president-elect indicated he thought that was a pretty smart approach. but when it comes to what he will do, after january 20th, even the current president of the united states is not sure what the incoming president may decide to do. >> is there change to the normal protocal where we expect the president-elect to come to coffee at the white house and to ride together with the outstanding president to the swearing in? >> i haven't seen the schedule for january 20th, but obviously as that date gets closer, we'll be able to walk you through the minute details of the day that symbolize the kind of peaceful transition, the peaceful

transfer of power that is hallmark of american dploksy and is critical to the strength and success of our country. >> president obama and mrs. obama have extended an invitation to the trumps to come for coffee pfr they go. >> i would expect as we have over the last couple of months, we would observe tradition and steps that have ensured a smooth and effective transition. i would expect that to kobt on the last day, but when it comes to the actual details o f the schedule, we'll have more to say about that as the ta gets closer. francesca. >> you said you'd seen a very -- consideration to the decision, at least that you hadn't seen anything. ford indicated their decision was not affected by politics.

but did say he was encouraged and the new congress. that sounds like it's a political consideration that we are better to -- under the incoming president. >> you should ask somebody who's spoken to him. >> on a different subject. you seemed a little bit feistier today in response to some of the thing that is the president-elect has said. >> maybe it's just -- yeah. maybe it's because i shaved that holiday beard this morning. >> it does seem like during the two weeks between the last -- and now, that the -- between the old mgs administration and new has been broken.

you have president-elect trump talking about roadblocks this administration is putting up and directly challenging him today when it comes to evidence, to trade, that sort of thing. is there a reason to the administration, do not -- >> i don't see it that way. what i have done since the day after the election, is i've made that the vigorous deeply held that we have on a range of issues from policy to basic american values. there have been differences and they're profound. including the president has to ensure a smooth and effective transition. doesn't mean we're prepared to go along with everything that

the incoming administration says. but it certainly means we have a responsibility. to to give the incoming president every opportunity to get a running start on the b job. that's something president obama has taken to heart in his in the oval office meeting and the conversations they've had on the telephone since then. there have been a number of meetings all across the federal government that demonstrate our ongoing commitment to ensure a smooth and effective transition. doesn't mean those differences went away. the fact they economist don't mean that the transition has hit a rough spot. they differ sharply with the president-elect. but the president-elect campaigned on doing things

differently. he campaigned on taking a different approach. pursuing the strategy similar to what -- the president-elect didn't get more vote, but he did win the election. since day one. this administration has been focused on ensuring a smooth and effective transition and would make good on the promise. the fact we have differences of opinion, that the transition, it's evidence that we've got well-known differences, but we're letting them -- >> about the tone the president would take in the speech next week, would be and whether or not his family would be. >> we'll have more op the speech this week.

go through some drafts, let it get farther down the process of being written. i'll come back to you with something. okay. george. >> what happened to those two two young organizers? they end up in the cabinet as ambassadors? >> one of them worked at the white house and i'm not sure what happened to the other one. both have gone on to do quite well, i'm sure, but there are at least a couple of other people that i first met in that iowa des moines, des moines iowa campaign headquarters that are still working at the white house today. i'm not the only one who's still around. >> chris, last one u. >> over the weekend, the

preefing on the affordable care act to discrimination against trans gender people and women who have had abortions. does it make sense for the administration to fight that decision as 17 days remain? >> well, i've been referring to the department of justice for the legal strategy that will pursue. obviously they believe deeply that regardless of their sexual orientation should have access to quality, affordable health care, free from any sort of discrimination. that's not just a principle and value that the administration believes strongly in, i'm confident the vast majority of americans believe in as well. thanks, everybody, see you tomorrow. >> shaving a beard and being feisty.

>> i don't know if there's a connection or not. is it possible to preserve the beard and remain feisty? happy new year. >> happy new year. >> the inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20th. cspan will have live coverage of the day's events and ceremonies. watch live on cspan and cspan.org and listen live on the free cspan radio app. the snal avp armed services committee will hear from james clapper and the national security administration mike rogers. live on thursday. today in the senate, new members and returning senators took their oaths and posed for foe e