we do not call it that when the president said it will be more akin to yemen or somalia. it's not a conflict, no american boots on the ground and so far, 190 sorties. is that serious? >> i think it's an excellent question. >> part of the danger here is strategy and execution that is basically half measures. you're absolutely right especially as you move across the border. this is a president that has staked his claim on ending wars. and he has not wanted to invest. he has not used the term or in his presentation to the nation. and not wanting to commit boots on the ground other than special risers and spotters, perhaps. at the end of the day we will have to do great for a long time

and hope that the allies come along with us. and are willing to fight on behalf of this cause understanding what our own limitations are. >> a lady in the back there. and this will have to be pretty close to the last question. >> having been senior adviser and tactical instructor to the u.s. marine corps on counterinsurgency in both iraq and afghanistan, one of the things that struck me most is we say the right thing as one of the gentleman on the podium said. we very rarely are seen to be doing the right thing. very often that is manifest in the so-called experts we have sent to particularly around but to some extent in afghanistan and iraq where there are lots of experts with no expertise, confined to mega bases and many cities and don't really know what we are dealing with. we need to be within a

community, those that have grudges, grievances, and frustrations. sadly, we have abdicated that role either being unwilling or unable to tackle how communities think and deal and the vacuum and avoid being created there has been taken over by the extra miss and fanatics we are now having to deal with. so that has been the bane of my existence and 12 and a half years in a rack and afghanistan and i don't know how anyone is going to be able to address that. >> it comes out to this issue i think we're very comfortable with, and what you're describing is incredibly nuanced policy and

politics. i have yet to see a bureaucracy that is very good it is to show rising and under ending that elledge. having one of the problems of the u.s. intelligence community is how to go from knowledge to wisdom. you can know lots of facts but how do you know what to do with it as an institution? it's really hard. think tanks are all about letting people do things with the idea that a lot of different people do a lot of different things and somehow out of the middle, you will end up in the right place but no individual decision is necessarily absolutely the right decision. i think what your experience suggests to me is that we have to think of the nation. how deep into this can we get? what outcomes can we produce? and if you become too reticent, i think a lot of my air france have claimed the obama administration is much too reticent and they think there's nothing you're willing to do and

you become less relevant. as a country, we have to be better at the gearing out where we can do things. there is physics and chemistry involved. there are times we have to be very precise about applying psychology politics. times three say that is too delicate. we can't do that. and we dust off and compensate for another direction. i think this is about the world that has become much more complex in which there has been a democratization of destruction in which a lot of individuals can have global reach that was not possible 10 years ago. and we're still trying to swallow what it is we can do and i think it will take us a while to get there. but your experience to me not only highlight what we were unable to do in a narrative and that you encountered in afghanistan and iraq, but as you

know better than anyone in this room, to get a really smart bureaucracy, a really smart bureaucracy, and all my time of working with u.s. government, i haven't seen one. >> we got this a little bit. it surge was successful. it worked. both administrations admitted at the end of the day that it worked. >> we will have to close here but we have the rare opportunity to call on someone who has been in washington longer than i have. he was here during the johnson administration and just raised his hand. you may ask the last question of this session. >> i didn't think you would call on me that way. >> i may never get another chance.

>> if i had orange socks on the university of texas and i see your purple tcu sox, johnson, what school has fuchsia socks? >> these are vicious socks that i got at a supply store. my son and i got matching ones. >> the president has said and it has been repeated by others that if isis constitute an existential threat to the middle east, to the region, to others that it here to the religious tenets, 71 percent of the american people as a whole believe our country should do something. it has been genuinely interesting to listen to the analysis and good questions.

what should the president have done and what should the president do? >> we will start with you, juliana. >> want me to go? >> i feel less comfortable saying what he should and shouldn't do. >> i sat with president bush the last four years of his administration, a very difficult time where it felt like we were losing in a rack. likely began to lose in western pakistan. and a certain point, the president and the country have to commit to real sacrifice and a real fight if that is what we are up against. we can leave it for others, we can maintain and contain. but if we are going to fight a group that has global ambitions and wants to reach and touch the west and attack us, it is giving life to a broader movement, we

have to be ready for a fight and that means not taking things off the table. what the president should not do is stop saying what we are not going to do. start believing in what we say we are going to commit to. because then our allies will really follow and we can really quarterback like a good university of texas quarterback or tcu quarterback. and you know it's going to happen. otherwise we will flail around. the real danger for this president is all the things he's wanted to avoid are coming to fruition for lack of action when it matters.

there are moments of reflection and moments of action. there are strategic windows were action matters more than most. we're running the danger of missing those opportunities. >> i think the administration should recognize the war on terror, whatever you want to call it, is not over. osama bin laden is dead and general motors is alive. but the war on terrorism is still there and it won't be over until the terrorist say it is over. that is simply recognizing reality and i don't think that is going back on your word. they are there. they are trying to kill us. i think we simply have to recognize that. when americans are murdered on television, i don't think it calls for a measured first font. i think you have to hit back.

and hit back hard, then step back and talk about the long-term strategy. >> i thought last august or september, the president should've have done something demonstrative and humiliating. not launching missiles from the middle of the mediterranean but that says we can do whatever we want to do and the reason we are not is because we don't want to, not because we can't. and put everybody on notice that there is not a predict ability to u.s. action or inaction. as we look at isis, we have to think about what happened in the sunni awakening and we have to understand this is a lot about politics. it's a lot about resources and about people feeling very vulnerable. and we have to work to shrink the area where isis can operate and you do that by bringing people over and making difficult deals with nasty people and ultimately moving towards drawing this group of. there is a smaller number of

people you will have to capture or kill. people will say, we will deal with this new environment. i don't see us thinking through where this needs to go strategically. where it needs to go is some sort of deal whereby the people who are letting these guys operate, whereby the people who are buying oil and doing all these things say we see a better way. i'm not sure we understand where that's going and we keep trying to pound them into the ground. but as long as they have a place operate, they will keep operating. >> the messaging will be very important. americans are scared and they see people beheaded on television and the response from the president should be one of leadership, reassuring the american people and being honest, not necessarily getting

into the rhetorical semantics games, the question of whether or not there will be boots on the ground. there are essentially burns on the -- boots on the ground now and it will be up to the president to be honest and admit if they need to recalibrate the strategy. and not at a medically be ruling things out but welcome and transparent debate in congress as well. >> thank you all very much on behalf of csi as an tcu. [applause] >> life coverage begins tomorrow morning from the bipartisan policy center at 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span. later in the day, discussion

with health and human services secretary silvio burwell about incrementing the health care law. according to the administration, 7.3 million people are enrolled through the exchanges. watch live coverage at 1:30 p.m. eastern. coming up on c-span. treasury secretary jack lew talks about the economy and climate change. and monday's white house reefing. later new jersey governor chris christie campaigns in new hampshire. >> c-span debate coverage continues thursday night at 9 p.m. sunday, the iowa u.s. senate debate between first braley and joni ernst.

war than 100 debates for the control of congress. >> next, treasury secretary jack lew talks about the economy and climate change. secretary lose remarks are a preview of president obama scheduled speech at the united nations tomorrow on climate change. part of you and climate summit. johns hopkins university and the brookings institution hosted this event. >> good afternoon. on behalf of the hamilton project, thank you for joining us this afternoon for public discussion of the economic costs

on climate change. it is our privilege today to host u.s. treasury secretary jacob lew who will give remarks on the challenge of climate change. these remarks would be followed by a roundtable discussion among secretary low and the former u.s. secretary and the professor of economics at the university of chicago. before i turn the podium over i would like to give a brief introduction to the hamilton project. -- is namedhas after alexander hamilton. the nation's first treasury secretary who laid the foundation for the modern american economy. to u.s. secretaries. the vision and intent is to promote evidence-based policies that work to secure academic growth, shared prosperity, and economic security. our goal is to foster innovative

, nonpartisan ideas and ultimately to introduce new and effective policy options into the national conversation. we at the project acknowledge that a defining feature of our nation's history is that succeeding generations of americans have enjoyed standards of living higher than the generations that came before. looking around us today we see that america is failing to make critical investments in areas that would contribute to our nations economic growth and security. within this vision we recognize climate change as posing real and present challenges to our houses and our globe economic future. climate change is about risks to our safety and our economy. we need serious policy conversations about what actions to take to address those risks. that is what we're focused on this afternoon. thank you for joining us. i now invite secretary rubin to

introduce our featured guest. >> thank you. let me apologize for starting a little bit late. i had to fly in from laguardia. if there is any doubt in your mind about our need for infrastructure take that flight. the topic is- climate change. i will ask jack and lou and michael to and -- join me. i got pretty involved is twofold. as i learned more i began to realize that you have not only the most likely scenarios which are pretty serious in many cases and severe over time, but you also have the real possibility, unfortunately a hive of ability -- high probability, that consequences would be vast multiples of the base case. instead of just being severe, in

addition to being severe, in the long run it would become catastrophic. we can expand on that in our conversation. secondly, i said to a friend of mine the other day who is a well-known new york this newsman -- this newsman that i had developed an intense concern about this. he said we can deal with this decades done the road. i said no, the reason, as many of you know, the decay rate of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. what we do today will affect us for hundreds of years. their cumulative there they are irreversible, and as a consequence this is an issue that cannot wait. as hank paulson observed to me the other day, if you look past over the cap past 10 years and

see the predictions climate scientist have made, they bring forward the timeframe when the severe consequences occurred. this is an issue that we have to deal with now. in that context, let me invite to the podium secretary jack lew. and michael greenstone. [applause] i guess night -- i guess not. i'm going to on invite michael -- uninvite michael. i will only invite jack. i will say one thing. when jack was in the clinton administration, he was a pleasure to deal with. he is immensely substantive, and

very sensitive to the politics of the issues he deals with p review knows washington, and he also knows how to work with all of us numbers as we dealt with our issues. with that i introduced east distinguished secretary of the treasury, jack lew. [applause] >> thank you bob for that introduction and for your strong leadership. and thank you to the hamilton project and brookings for hosting this event. this is an issue of great significance to our economy and to our nations future. i want to talk today about the economic applications of a changing climate and i would like to say a few words about the u.s. economy. the u.s. economy emerged from the financial crisis that triggered a devastating recession pushing us to the second great depression.

our economy is now 6.6% larger than when the recession began in 2007. dvd increase in a 4.2% annual rate of the second quarter of this year. and our private sector has created 10 million new jobs over the past 54 months. the longest stretch of job growth in our nations history. while more work remains, confidence is strong at home and internationally, something i saw the last few days at the g 20 finance ministers meeting. in addition to discussing the needs to take the skies of action to grow the global a country a great jobs, we discussed leveling the playing field on tax policy, so that we would stop erosion of the corporate tax base and avoid a race to the bottom in international tax policy. today i will have more to say about inversions, where companies move outside to take it vantage of the tax base. they need for action is clear. the world can either choose to ignore the challenge today and be forced to take more drastic action further down the road a

greater cost. or we can make sensible, modest, gradual changes now, and in the process great jobs, reduce household expenses, and drive innovation, technology, and new industries. this choice should be clear. as in a correct matter, the cost of an action or delays far greater than the cost of action. cross associated with extreme weather events like rising sea levels, drought, heat waves, wildfires, solids and severe storms, that demonstrates the scope of economic exposure. the council of economic advisers estimates that of warming above the industrial levels increases to three degrees celsius instead of two, there could be a 1% decrease in global output of a newly. -- output annually. it threatens our agricultural

productivity, our transportation infrastructure, and drives up health care problems. we are facing historic levels of extreme weather from a range of conditions. some parts of the country face extreme flooding, and others face severe drought. nowhere is the economic cost of climate change more clear that in the area of infrastructure, which is fundamental to our economy's productivity and competitiveness. the fact is our water and sewer systems are power plant -- and sewer grids were not designed or built for the extreme climate conditions we face now or expect to face in the coming decades. hurricane sandy close to every tunnel and bridge leading into new york city, while all seven tunnels under the east river was flooded.

increased health care costs are well documented. high temperatures threatened the safety of construction workers, farmers, and those who work outdoors, while putting entire industries at risk. dangers air pollution creates the risk of similar negative consequences for the health and safety of americans across the country. on the other hand, much less has been said about the nation's fiscal system and climate change. disaster relief, crop insurance, protection from wildfires. health care, taxpayers pay the cost. already the national flood insurance program has had to borrow $24 billion from the treasury department because of a out resulting from the last

hurricanes, all of which happened in the last nine years. if the fiscal burden continues to climb, it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard to trade-offs and higher taxes. it would make it more challenging to invest in growth, meet the needs of an aging population, and provide for our national event -- defense. whatever your public policy views, whether you care about our death and deficit -- debt and deficit commission should care about coping with climate related damage. president obama understands what is at stake. after years of talk in washington about chasing the challenge of climate. he is investing in american energy including natural gas, solar, and when power. -- wind power.

making the right investments will make our economy stronger today, it greets tens of thousands of new jobs, and position the united states to lead the world and industries of the future. and we have already seen this work. our new fuel economy standards would double the distance our cars would go on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. we have doubled the amount of renewable energy reproduced. this means that we will compete effectively in a world looking for energy efficiency, lower cost, and fewer emissions. the fact of the matter in over the past few years, solar installations have increased, and now every form in the -- four minutes another solar institution goes into place in the united states. so far this initiative is led to $300 million in energy savings for homes and businesses.

how we power our country is good mrs. policy -- business policy. renewables now produce as much electricity worldwide as gas, and more than twice that from nuclear. in the coming years and expanding world would depend on more and more electricity, and renewables are the fastest-growing source to meet that increased demand. the better positions are companies and workers will be to take advantage of these new business opportunities. the president announced new rules this summer for existing power plants.

these rules represent the most significant policy to arrest climate change that united states has taken to date. will help us to cut carbon pollution and increase could energy -- clean energy production. tomorrow the president will join more than 20 heads of state in new york to mobilize global action about like a change. global action is imperative, and it is a good investment in global economic growth. first, making these changes is cost effective. look at the new powerplant rule i just mention. it will decrease them 30%. the health and climate benefits for producing more clean energy and reducing our use of dirty energy is expected to be worth 55 billion dollars and $93 billion in 2030.

if we fail making changes now, it will be more costly to do later, and may fail entirely. the alternative, allowing them to reach increasingly dangerous levels will require expensive and dangerous action later. the council of economic advisers found that for each decade of delay, the cost of hitting a given climate target goes up on average approximately 40%. we must adopt a risk management approach to climate change. we must do it we can to substantially lower the risk of the most catastrophic climate impacts, and that means reducing emissions.

as the former secretary of the treasury said recently, there is a time for weighing evidence, and there is a time for acting. and if there is one thing i have learned, it is that it is to act when problems are still small let me close with two points. the first is that we cannot do this alone. rest ofwork with the the world to address this challenge. we must work with other industrialized economies so that everyone is cutting carbon pollution in a sustainable way. the g20 last week discussed the importance of this issue and agreed to continue its work to study ways to mobilize resources for climate finance. and we must work with developing countryings, many of which are fastest growing carbon emitters. so as they gr they move to

cleaner energy production. that's why treasury has made the case to finance clean energy programs and substantially reduce support in the development banks for new cole projects. this is helping to level the playing feel for clean energy alternatives and supporting low emission pour generation worldwide. to secure the agreement other countries and the development banks to adopt soon aspolicies as possible. we're also strong supporters of the green climate fund. a multilateral fund created to help developing countries limit gaseduce green house emissions and adapt to the impasse of climate change. second, we must continue to seek the most efficient market oriented ways to reduce carbon pollution. action based on market baitioned apurchasees is the most efficient way to reduce emissions and transition to a cloner economy. with that let me say climate change is one of the most important challenges of our time. what we do in the next to addressand years

this challenge will determine our nation's future, and if we steps we'll leave the next generation with a stronger and better, a stronger a better economy and a brighter future. thank you and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> michael greenstone was the director of the hamilton project. now milton freedman's something or other professor in chicago. some institute. what's that? ( laughter ) #. >> thank you, bob. >> and i thought thats with a introduction. let us start with two related questions. ofk, i spent a good amount time talking to you about

climate change, and almost to me, you know, it's a problem, now let's talk about something else. greater sense of urgency? people will acknowledge it's a problem, but they, and they'll make all kind of wonderful .peeches in fact i gave one myself. sense thathave a people have finally got tone the point where they recognize it's real? and once we get finished with that, i want to ask you one other thing and then ask michael to elaborate on the realness of this. >> i'd say there's two pieces of you that it is being taken very seriously. one is -- >> it is very substantial policy that we've put into effect. it is i think will have a serious impact both on power motor vehicles. and it is real policy. frankly, i think the work that

you and hank paul son and others bloomberg and have done on risky business brought together the business community and people who are aoking at pretty public-private perspective, in a way that puts it higher on the radar for ongoing policy debate. the question of whether or not legislation can be enacted is separate from whether or not the itlic is focused on and whether or not we can take action to deal with it. meetings like the meetings in new york this week are very important, because the commitments that we make internationally matter and the that leaders make they take home and that's true in the united states and true around the world. >> i know the argument the indians make and i guess the comz and many others is you created this problem, now we're we're adding more than you are, but you've got to orpensate us in some way another, or make us good for doing what you want us to do, given that you really created the problem.

what is our answer to that? think that one of the reasons that we are so much of international climate fund instruments and direct bilateral support face there are a lot of countries that will need help to take the measures that are both in their interest and in the global interest. economies in the developing world, like indias and china, there's more than they can do and there's more they need to do. one easyt fit into single pattern. think, is embracing the challenge of climate change and pollution in a different way than it did even a few years ago. there is a domestic demand problems of smog and asthma and other health issues. an issue of internal debate, not just international debate. to lead byhave

taking action where we take burdens on our self. our power plant rules reflect an important step in that direction. think there's not going to be a one size fits all answer as to how we deal with every internationally. but there's no doubt that the fastest growing largest economies are going to be a significant factor in addressing global emissions, because that's where the emissionings of the coming from.e >> but don't they say to us, you but we to do something, expect to have you sort of fund it to some extend since you're ones who created the problem and now we're trying to get what which is aady gotten more developmented state. >> they are correct that they different stage of development than we're at, and they need to add more generating capacity. but that also creates an opportunity for him that we didn't have when we were at a development. of we didn't have the renewable options when the united states firstilding its generation of power plenty.

we have to go back and deal with facilities.sting if going forward we all deal with the challenge of of putting new generating capacity in place, that would be a big help. and we're going back on existing plnt and say we've got to make sure they do better. so entering the discussion, but it's going to be a hard discussion. for natural gas resources than a lot other countries do. equals not a completely situation even in terms of requesting forward. that if countries like china don't address this issue, in a few years it won matter will havey, they domestic problems that are beyond the current imagine naights. so they're going to have to deal this, and setting ambitious goals is the only way we're challenge.ke on this >> let me complete -- thank you. let me complete the introduction of michael. he's a professor of economics,

direct are of energy policy at institute of chicago. why don't you gives us a sense the magnitude of the possible risk, not just the baseline, although that's important, but what might lie beyond that. mostthink what troubles me is, although there's great saisk consensus there's a among scientists that what's happening is related to human activity. abouts a l. uncertainty the extent of the changes being unleashed by the greenhouse gas emissions. so one key is very wonky. all turns on one what i like to call parameter. which is how much temperature will change in exchange for a in theg of co2 atmosphere, and it's a really wide range. the middle two-thirds of the probability somewhere 8 degrees.nd if it were just 3 degrees

fahrenheit marks would be okay. change the wayt we live. but if we really ended up at the that's wherehink life has we understand it in the united states and lots of other lot more becomes a complicated. thecan see huge parts of united states being roughly uninhabitable outside during the summer. large cropee declines, tremendous demands for new energy. nothing of theay very painful discussion that we could have, which parts of the toted states are we going build dams to protect and which parts are we going to let go. i think it's that risk of really bad stuff that drives a lot of, where a lot the concern is. add to, do you want to that? >> i tried to cover it in the my introduction. i think the debate is how bad but we knowo be, it's going to be bad, that's

enough of a case to act. the fact that there's no about the direction and legitimate debate about how is shouldn't be a reason not to -- >> i think there's not an of, sorry to interrupt, bob. payback. one thing is that's a line that that there's near consensus among the scientists. one thing people don't there's consensus among economists, and that the, ranges from milton freed man to fill in your favorite left wing economist, from the "new york times." there's a clear consensus about what to do, and that is when you thatngaged in an activity is harming other people, that be pricey.ould we shouldn't have a society where it's okay for me to go garbage in former secretary

ruben's front yard. look beyond that, michael, i heard somebody the a very well-known figure in american technology, a high thinks there's probability, and i'm saying what he said, that technologies will point that at some will pull these emissionings out of the atmosphere and that we can try to bridge our way to that. the other hand i've asked other people about that and they say that's a heck a risk to take. >> i think the private sector is going to play than enormous role in fixing this problem. but that's conditional on one thing which is them having an incentive to do it. comes down to creating a market price for carbon emissionings. athout it i'm not businessman, but without it, you just don't see companies spentivein investments. >> i guess what struck me, even it, you're taking a risk on something that nobody has if ied out how to do, and

doesn't happen, you get into the world we've been talking about. speak tok the're indians, i hear here's less receptive of moving forward than the chinese. what is the response, i don't understand how anybody could look at this and say we're not engulfed by be this. >> i this i they're a bit farther behind. i don't think it as much aich domestic issue in india as ofna, but it's only a matter wait -- it's a question of working on rules that don't interfere with the ability of a country like india to grow ask part of that dogoing to come down to how you finance the investments in the future. havee extent that we technology that's available to meet the electricity needs of a economy, and affordable cost, it will help a lot. toy're not going to be able

not have more electricity. is not going to be able to avoid growth and electricity. so the challenge meet that loadto with new technologist, and that's where i any we can work together. but i think it helps when there's a domestic pressure for it. that in chien -- india on the question that michael is raising on earlier in thewe administration made a proposal on a cap and trade kind of got through part of congress, not through all of congress. a very good discussion to get back into with markets on how to have forces to help shape this to a better solution. i think we can't wait until congress acts to take the steps doingn because what we're while it's increment al is very changingnt in terms of

what u.s. emissionings will be over the next decades. >> given to our political system seems to be coma less than perfectly functional to say the least, if you take a look at what you've done, which as i think really is heroic in terms of going forward these, as, if you take that percent, ality, what rough guess kind of question, totalercentage of the response that we'll have to have does that constitute? >> i'm a veteran at the -- i'm better at economics than i am at the signs. i know on the auto side, in doubling fuel economy, kind of itself.or taxsaying in gasoline receipts already. we're using less gas we were that's good.and the power plant rules will emissions.y reduce

i'm not sure what percentage of -- >> i think what i was driving at, the way you responded, to clarify the question, if you cafe standard changes and you take the cole, the cole changes, is that close to the usent to address peace this problem? >> it's sufficient to keep us on track towards meeting the commitments we've made in the international negotiations on climate policy. have to do more to get to the next level. certainly act accomplishes a great keel. wheret think we can stop we are. we're going to have could keep putting more policies interest place. buildings a foundation where there was a lot of skepticism that we could meet commitments that we made at the last round of climate negotiations. we'vecause of the actions taken we're on tram. so that's, this is not a problem

that we're going to solve in one action. think what we have to do is take the steps that we can to, that are clear and concrete. and if we were able to have a debate on the broader policy that would require legislation, more.k we could do but using thed in minute straightive authority we have i think is a substantial accomplishment. we're not resting on our laurels. stertly sufficient for the president to go to the international community and say part.doing our and there were a lot of skeptics ago thatuple years would be in a position to do that. we go back to previous iterationings of green house gas efforts, every single time the united states has had to show up and basically say may, guys, you guys should really do something. andou do it we'll go back

confer for a little while, we'll you.ack to and that was a tough position in 2009 as well. i think secretary lew is right, commitment ways mad made in twin, but now with these knew rules will be melt. 17% reduction by 2020. longer term commitment of preducks by 2050 will require a lot more effort. first time the united states can go to these international negotiations and doning so, and i think the noises that one out of china about a potential trade in carbon for a which is anuntry, at ma here, but in a economist okay starting in 2016 partially at recognize flexion of the evident the obama administrations that made. >> if you look at it over the

to do.as to what we have or 50%?re like 20% >> the way i think about it is been for decade that the effective price on a that is the penalty 200.mitting you 2.0. you have china doing things. huge step to get the price above zero. now we have to get at the fekive price at a higher level to achieve the levels of reductions that are necessary. an enormous step. and in fact if i could add one happen at the thet tame same that it golden age of fossil fuels. sites an enormous accomplishment.

>> what will happen in paris jay?year, >> few know, there's going to be a lot bilateral discussions paris, we ared going to work very hard to get then agreement with both developed and the developing countries to set ambitious standards. paris onhink going to some of these by lateral useful.ons would be so even in november when the is in away, i can't put a number out there. want the goal to be as ambitious as realistic and local beyond a realistic. and the challenge is going to be substantial, because everyone is worried with maintaining an growth in their own

country. so we'll have to be in a position where we can demonstrate that dealing with chiement change is compatible with economic growth. if it becomes a comies between economic growth and climate morey, it will be a much difficult hurdle in purse paris. question,u frame the you or, look at the question growth now andn climate change now? or do you look at it with the longer term perspective. that's the challenge. we are experiencing now that it to be a choice. perfectlyhink apparent in our cafe rules, in rules.ld economy by taking a lot the wait out of u.s. pickup trucks, we're gr to

sell more pickup trucks. it's completely consistent with now.ng jobs right in some level that can't be true wear.ry same, every but being more efficient should lead to more growth and more in the short-term. recoveringat we are and growing at different rates more the challenge also complicated. short-termd for growth is an independent challenge of deal with climate lot of 'world. >> that's with a i was driving at. >> it seems the long-term goal is inconsistent with the short-term objective. have been very much, i just spent the weekend in also trail the case again that we need to worry about demand and a good

number of parts of the global economy. think that's consistent with trying to make problem on climate change. better onttle short-term growth will expand to likelihood of an openness dealing with the long-term issues. don't think we can wait until everyone is feeling well in the over the world to deal with climate change. poise we'll have waited too is going to be a case of making the argument to do as much as we can as fast as can. and in different countries that will play out in a different way. i think that for a country that looking at being an exporter of technology in the future, they should to be at the cutting end of this, not the last adopters. they should want to be come lor andwith us in sale

land and should want to bl able to reduce their demand for fuel, which is a strategic risk for a and an economic prisk. so we can make the case to overcome the short-term issues, any realistically the fact that there are a lot parts of in world that are not experiencing robust grofort that they would like makes it more challenging. to, should know the answer that but i don't. administration's program, are there resources being incentivizing research. increased research both in the kept of -- of energy and we've used tax credit to create neubls.es for me we've seen a lot of them already effect. an interesting conversation at g to over the weekend was with a kind of expenditures

should countries provide or is if they're interested in long-term growth, and everyone anded it was research educationt e. and this is a double way of arearies put it into an where they would rekows their need for both kitery and fuel.ive >> michael, describe a little, would, the kia nammics with the ice sheet, with methane with the various specifics of what could become catastrophic impacts. >> so i think my high school teacher, palm, you're asking me to explain that. it, a lot ofrstand what is going to happen turns on call the climate sensitivity parameter. and then the temperature get ke peopling on what that proves to be, if it

higher than we expect it could the ice sleet to melt for rapidly than we would expect. increases in sea level. it could all the also the perma-frost to melt, which would have massive releases of meth answer, which speed up, we've had this on the righteffect at which climate is changing. so a lot is at stake with that. superthe month after storm sandy, there was a heighten awareness of now the be soible may not impossible. the amount of new york city that madender water, if you had it up before summer storm sandy, you wereuld have said exaggerating. but we're experienced it and hoping forat we're another natural disaster, but storms, junioror

floods, major droughts in the increased go an undeniable way. to get to thehave next level of extreme highlyments, which are credible if not certain to know that we are to deal with. >> we have time for another question. noaghts, but i don't know if it right or not. terrific job, but there isn't the sense of usual permeate orhat business and political system. g.d.p. we had a parallel that took interest account externalities and if in the tall from jekses -- had a separateu account took into potential effectses of climate change. would all of that increase and perhaps perhaps

help motivate action? >> well, each of them in a different way would play a role. let me start with the piece that i've had the most experience piece.he budget by its nature, budget backwardns are looking. so as we go through a decade of experiences,her there's more and more being built into the projections and you sigh it in the size of the relief fund, which has grown dramatically over the last decade. it encompasses every risk out there, but it is up.hing g.d.p., also know better than i, a complicated model that is imperfect but does bring in both effects withdirect utility.gh degree of the projection i referred to that the council of economic

advisors did looks at the impact versus two degree saysious increase in temperature d.d.p. reflects the impact of climate through the imvment d.p. model. enough of, on economist might be able to figure out how directly.ore but i think it's already being reflected in a way that makes to some extent it's a question of recognizing that opposeding with it as to the lack of transparency. side, theclosure isic standard of disclosure is -- i think that the more investors they considert climate risks material, the more under currente to rules and current law make these disclosurings. with specialience

subjects specific requirements to the s.e.c. has not been as successful as the general materiality standards. i will actually discuss with the chairman of the s.e.c. sense muchnd get a their reaction to a separate standard, i think the challenge information most is for investors to say they need to know more about the risks, and then firms will have to make the disclosures under current law. >> that is absolutely right. maybe i'm being unduly concerned. but just doesn't seem to be the inse of urgency in the world live in. >> i don't disagree about the sense of urgency. work that that the you and others did on risky business raised it for a period a level where it was on the top of people's minds. make -- have to it's not a lack of analysis or information. repetition.ion of

at the risk of sounding like a pessimist, one has to say this is serious and we have to deal with.t, until it's dealt sure thaty, i'm not you want to wait until the public stands up and demands action. too late whenl be people are feeling it that personally. so it's going to be a measure of leadership to get to the solution before it's out of control. >> yes, michael? >> i just want to join in the conversation about how you get people engaged on this question. g.d.p. idea is an excellent idea and i think corporate disclosure is also an excellent idea. and the challenge in all of that month -- how do you monetize it. solution, which is a u.s. government has the there estimatedof the

damages from each extra ton of atmospheres in the and in principal that number could be used for the g.d.p. number, could be used for corporate disclosure, could be used by state public utility commissions. it could be used in the treatment of our natural them.ces and how we sell and in principal that exercise you're suggesting is not do.icult to >> jack, i'm being threatened with being fired. you've been terrific. and thank you for joining us. [applause] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicp.org--

>> president obama will be at the united nations today, talking about climate change, to reduce global green house gas emissions. atll have life coverage 12:50 eastern on c-span 2. and then the president will speak at the clinton global initiative meeting. live coverage from new york at c-span 2.rn, also on

president obama's trip to new york including the united nations was among the topics at monday's white house briefing. spokesman josh earnest was also recent security breach at the white house.

>> let me say a couple things the secret service has indicated that they are conducting a incident that occurred on friday night. include a wide variety of things, and for a full list i'd refer to you the secret service. but it will include a variety of things including the tactical andof nontactical assets inside and outside the fence line. review ofclude a technical or physical security enhancements that may bees in to improve security at the white house. it will also include a question and anngoing staffing assessment about whether or not additional staffing is needed. review of will be a policy and procedures related to the assessment of threats. and also will include a review withevious interactions the subject. let me also say that the

providing secure at the white business.omplicated the white house is, as many moree know, one of the popular tourists destinations in our nation's capital. of tourists on a typical day will tour the white house. that thousands of public,, members of the won't walk out that front door at the conclusion of their tour is a place ofouse business, it's essentially a large office building. it's where members of the white and journalists show up every day to do their work. in facilitating your entry to complex is an important priority. right outside the gate is lafayette park, which is one of the more prominent first amendment zones in the country, will gather ins that area to make their first views known.

and this means that the secret the challenging task of balancing the need to ensure the safety and security of the first family, while also ensuring that the white house people's to be the house. and balancing those equities is challenging work, but it's clear in this case a review of that work is warranted and that conducted. be >> what was the president's personal reaction to this? did he express concern about and his family are truly safe here? >> josh, i had the opportunity to speak previously about the president earlier today. he did indicate his family lives and so he ishouse, obviously concerned by the incident that occurred on friday. at the same time, the president continues to have complete professionalsthe at the secret service, to do the very challenging work that i earlierd the president is also confident that this review that is under way is one that will be

conducted with the highest amount of professionalism and he's confident a the reforms are determined to be necessary will be implemented in the proper way. >> you talked about the need to strike the right balance between intsity and access to this steution. does the president favor expanding the security perimeter house grounds,e or further restricting the ability for tourists and other the immediaten area? >> fortunately, josh, there are experienced, highly professionals at the united states secret service who will be conducting a broader review about security at the white house. and the kinds of questions that you're asking are the kind of included inwill be that review. >> turning to the united nations aifts activities this week, when the president made out his strategy this month to combat the islamic state group, one of secretary kerry and other folks at the white house said was that they haveted other nations to their commitments to this coalition to physically be time we go tohe

new york this week for the general assembly. is that still the case? the president looking to use the next few days to continue to press countries to and toute to the effort brd en the coalition that he'sing about. >> the effort to build a is something that will be ongoing. for weeks now the president and the cabinet including the secretary of defense, seniorry of state, other members of the national security team that work at the white house, have been actively with their counterparts world,tries around the related to contributions to this broader coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. high priority, and we have seen important public from individuals, from individual countries around the globe, indicating their goals that the president has laid out for this broader coalition. reach thel never

place, are at least i don't place, i don'ta anticipate that we'll reach a place where we sort of stand up and say our effort to build this coalition have been complete. and will be ongoing work there is the support and task that general allen is foxed on, which is a saying the needs of the coalition and again those will be, will change over time. and he will also be assessing the capabilities of individual nations who are committed to the broaderf coalition, and matching up those capabilities with the needs of coalition will be a work that's ongoing. do subpoena that when the president is participating in activities associated with the united nations general assembly week that he'll have the kind of conversations with world how they can contribute to this brter international sootion. but that work has been going on

that will oh work your can during the united nations general assembly. i'm wondering what would be the u.s. response to leaking those issues. tothe conversations related the plus one talks have to do international the community's concerns about the program.uclear those conversations to try to those concerns are entirely separate from any of

the overlapping interests that iran may have with the broader international community as it relates to isil. as you heard me discuss on at othera couple of occasionings, it is not in the sw of the iranian regime for this extremist organization to be wreaking havoc on its doorstep. international community, the iranians are understandably concerned about isil has made in iraq. and nay have indicated that they to fight isil. but the united states will not coordinate any of our military activities with the iranians. will not betates involved in sharing intelligence and the iranians, united states will not be in a as respectstrading nuclear program to secure commitments to take on isil.

these two issues are entirely separate. the p5 plus 1of talks will remain on resolving concernsonal community about the iranian nuclear perhaps. alreadyssible, as we've indicated a couple of times, that conversations on the couldnes of those talks occur. iran's concerns or iran's overlapping interest with the international communities as it sell.s to a as recently as this weekend, the secretary of state john kerry to en tbainl in conversationings in the context talks about iran's nuclear perhaps. sidelines he did have a conversation with his iranian isil.rpart to discuss i don't have any additional readout of that meeting, but the's an indication of approach we're talking, that these are two separate matters that will be resolved separately.

>> so you've been cleared that the idea of a tradeoff is a nonstart. >> that's correct. i believe there's a speech that was given but tirnian leader weekend in which had was discussed. but i read news accounts of this proposal, and i'm df dent that our views on this topic have been con dayed the >> what's the timeline for the review that you discussed? you that the senior secret service officials who are responsible for review arethis carrying it out with a sense of

urgency. i don't have a specific timeline share but at this point. you might check with secret service to see if they have a timeline. i know this is something that they are pursuing urgently and i know this is a review that friday night. onbecause of this incident friday occurred just a few minutes after the president and left whitey had house, i would think the president would be more than just concerned. was he angry? e he pick up the phone and call the head of the secret service? can you guys us more on his response? >> i can tell you that the the weekend was briefed. on friday night he was briefed on the actual incident. and over the course of the weekend he was updated on the investigation. have any specific presidential conversations to read out to you other than the presidential conversation that i earlier today. but there are senior members here at the white house, the chief of staff and others who

have been in frequent touch with service personnel over the weekend and even today to the review that the secret service has already started. >> do you and other top officials at the white house, their headsratching over as to how the dogs weren't deployed, or how the north door was locked. any reaction to some of these along the way that allowed this intruder to get so far? >> many of the things that raising are topics that ofl be the somebody subject this review that the secret service is conducting. number of changes that have already been implemented. and the secret service has beefed up foot patrols around the fence line of the white

house complex. the secret service has deployed additional surveillance resources to beef up surveillance around the white house. the secret service has changed for ensuring that the entrance to the white house is secure. and there's already some stepped training for officer who are standing on the front lines of the white house to ensure that they are aware of the policies that are related to securing the white house and an instance like the one we saw on friday. >> some antiquated procedures, that fair to say? >> i wouldn't describe them that way much there's a review that will examine exactly what procedures are appropriate and some of those procedures need to but i'm confident the changes will be implemented. >> a spokesman for isis issued a foreign fighters around

the world to carry out attacks countries.n what is the administration's response to that. >> i don't have a response to that. >> quickly though, during a background previousing, a senior say that there's a concern that the international company is not prepared to deal with these kind of calls, these kind of foreign fighter calls by isis.issued the president wants to accomplish that, that is one of key deliverable this is week, is that right? >> as you know, the president the be chairing the melt of united nations security council. it's only the second time that a u.s. president has chaired a security council meeting. the topic of discussion will be what nations around the globe do to mitigate the threat poasessed about by foreign frighters. there were self dozen countries whereround the globe, individuals have traveled to the region, taken up arms alongside isil fighters. these are individuals who have

been trained, they have access theseitary equipment and are individuals who indicated a willingness to die for their cause. concern that again the u.s. has that our allies in person europe have and that our globe have,und the is that these individual to die to return to their home country and possibly carry out acts of violence. what the president hopes to flish is to have a discussion about what kind of with be put ins place to mit agrees the threat from these kids individuals. followup. (inaudible question) >> well, you did raise another another challenge the service service deals with.

overlapping jurisdiction this is place the secret service does have to work closely with park police the metropolitan washington d.c. police department. as they provide security at the white house. another layer of complexity that has added to this task. relates to who might be involved, i'd refer to you the other law enforcement agencies with that. the reviewent that that the secret service will conduct will consider a wide factors the secret service is always updating and review are their the whiteosture at house, so there have been some port about a possible change to screening of tourists before they participate in a white house to you. obviously the individual in was not on friday night a enter fek respective tourists. is an indication of two things. one, there is always a review of security protocols that secret service is continue actually

updating. the context of this incident there will abe pretty broad look at a wide range of security procedures to ensure that the secret service is accomplishing their mission. of protecting the president and first family, but also protecting the status of the white house as the peoples mouse. reaction to the idea of a buffer zone on the turkish-syrian border? >> i haven't seen that specific proposal that's floated, so we'll check with my colleagues response. there's a >> you had the f.b.i. director, the counterterrorism director, and other law enforcement officials testifying last week saying sometimes they want these to are suspect to come into the country because then they with keep an eye on see who they're contacting, is that being taken consideration?

>> i don't want to get into the that are currently in place to try to mitigate the threat from frorn terrorist fighters. one of the concerns is that we want to ensure the countries world are taking advantage of reverie ton that they have to monitor the traveled towho syria and to mitigate the threat may they pose, either to their homeland or to other countries around the globe. thoseing to raise standards will be a topic of discussion at the security meeting. >> over the weekend 130,000 into turkey crossed said thatnerals have onierl take six month to onier -- is this kind of a weakness in the president's strategy? >> a couple things about that. the humanitarian

weighings in syria and the refugee situation surrounding we've beens one that concerned about for quite some time. lrmeststates is the bilateral donor to refugees from the syrian con politics, we've closely with our allies in turkey and with our partners the region to try to assist them as they meet the needs of these individuals who are flying violence. is ahat we have seen there terrible humanitarian tragedy. and we're very concerned about it. we're concerned about it both because of the concern that we for our fellow human beings and for vulnerable population subjected toeen terrible violence or are fleeing terrible violence in difficult conditions. we're also concerned about the destablizing impact that of refugeesflows could have on the politics of the already volatile region. the second thing is that the

providingtes has been both military and nonmilitary assistance to the syrian opposition. what the president mass indicated is a couple of things. believes that we should be ramping up the assistance, the training and equipment that is currently being provided to syrian fighters. we were gratified last week. that should improve their ability to counter isil attacks on the battlefield. the other thing that will assist the syrian opposition fighters is a campaign of coalition air strikes. indicated in ant speech to the nation about 10 ready tothat he is expand the air campaign in a broadened systematic way into syria. and that will also have an

impact on our ultimate goal, which is to degrade and destroy isil. understanding of that -- what's the white house understanding of what are all a sudden isis decided to release turkish diplomats? >> well, we here at the white house are obviously pleased that about 49omats, diplomats mo were being held hostage by isil are currently in the process being reunited with their families, that is good news and we are relieved that that is occurring. as it relates to the circumstances of their release, i don't have any information to but on that. secretary of defense hagel was in turkey i believe two weeks

ago today to discuss with them their efforts or their willingness to participate in a broader coalition. turkey has been robustly engaged in some of the other conversations. the united states and our partners and allies have been having on this matter. we've said for some time, nations like turkey have their vested personal interest in confronting the threat posed by isil. mayhem and havoc that isil is wreaking in iraq and in syria is right on turkey's doorstep. interest not in their for all of that instability and violence to be occurring so close to their border. and that is why the united international community, we will build a coalition, that includes countries around the world and also muslim countries in the region. >> on the question of air

i'm confusedria, about the contradictory seniornts coming from officials in this administration about what exactly the president's intention is and decided or not decided to do. you told us last week that the made a decision, the quote was the president made ago.ision more than a week the night of his speech, september 10, a senior administration official said this is something the president has decided to do. samanthayesterday power, ambassador to the u. in tod if the president decided do the air strikes, if, saying yet,d not made a decision and general dempsey just said he had presented a plan to the president had the not okayed it yet. so can you just clear this up? is it if the president makes a decision, or the president has made a decision. >> john, the president has made he announced to the country about 10 days ago. he gave a prime time address

he believed it was in the interest of the united states to broaden a systematic air campaign against isil targets to include targets in syria. have heard in your conversations with the military officials for a number of weeks now that degrading and isil will destroying require preventing isil from establishing a safe haven or syria.ng a save haven in oh this grod ended air complain the syriail targets is necessary to accomplishing this broader goal. has decided,dent and he announced that decision to the country on last wednesday night, so so or 12 days ago. top persond that the at the u. n. and his top military advisor both seem to be else? something >> i can't account for their individual comments. the confident that

ambassador and chierm of the joint chiefs of staff are well aware of the president's been workinghave closely with them to advance our strategy. thaw our strategy is not just focused on military strikes, that there are other aspects that are important as well. letterpresident sent a over the weekend, to '1 republican senators saying that gravely, quote, concerned about the negotiations with iran over the nuclear the administration is, the president will grant iraniansnings to the while also allowing them to nuclear to produce explosive material. as the president received letter, do you have any response to that? >> i haven't seen the letter and i'm not aware of it. but we can get you a response. say general matter, i will

that the united states continues oure actively engaged with p5 plus 1 partners, in conversations with iran, to broaderthe international community's concerns about their nuclear program. of the interim far, iranin place so has rolled back key aspects of allownuclear program to for these conversations to continue. so we are pleased that the administration has been able to work closely with our partners in congress. place the extensions that have taken a significant economy, hasranian brought them to the negotiating table and in the context of iran hasotiations, agreed in verifiable steps to roll back key aspects of that program. however, that is different than resolving the broader international concerns about the nuclear program. work, itry difficult

continues to be under way. and >> certainly it is an opportunity to work with

organizations across the country's to try to counter this threat. the entrance to the white house is secure. does that mean the door is locked now? door isl tell you the the door that is used by tourists. that is true if today, i do not know of there are tours monday. there are staffers at the white house who are responsible for doing the work in the east wing for the residents, they occasionally use that door. after friday night deposit incident, when the door is not in use it will be securely locked. been anas obviously jumpers all the time. you know that, i know that. do you think there is something that the public should be call

mode then it is about this, that it is an anomaly. maybe there are things particularly unusual about this, or do you think it represents something that is bigger and broader and requires a more sweeping assessment of what goes on here on a day to day basis. >> more important than mine is -- opinion of the security secret service. i am confident they will consider all of the factors that may have contributed to the situation and to ensure that our future ability to deal with the situations and deal with them promptly will be strengthened as a result. >> does the president have an opinion as to whether there should be a second fence? >> the president will leave it up to the secret service to determine the posture necessary to protect the first family that lives here and also to ensure

the white house remains the people upon house. and did was of duty in iraq there is some sense he may have fallen through the cracks and not had the kind of care that he was obtaining or needs to have now and needed to have up until this episode. has there been any request from the white house to have a rundown to find out where he was in the system and find out if he had been a victim of a whiting -- waiting list? >> will, major, let me say a couple things. i am hesitant to talk about the case of one individual because the subject we are discussing is in the midst of a criminal prosecution. i would not want to get ahead of this. let me say as a general matter, the president has spoken on a number of occasions on the important commitment he has as commander-in-chief to ensure who served onose

numerous deployments to iraq and theanistan have access to benefits to which they are entitled. a number of reforms have been them place at the v.a. to improve the ability of individuals to have access to benefits to which they are entitled. this is a top priority of the newly-affirmed v.a. secretary as he continues the work on what reforms are necessary that continue to be a high priority regardless of whether the incident had occurred on friday night or not. [indiscernible] is difficultnge

work. the concern he president had, particularly early on before the individuals could be vetted by national security professionals, is that to our weapons and training could fall into the hands of individuals who do not share our goals, interest and values. what we have been engaged in is a longer-term effort to determine who are the syrian opposition fighters that are fighting in syria for their country and that are fighting for the right reasons. for the kind of inclusive government that the people of syria would like to have. over the last three years we have made tremendous progress in learning about these individuals.

>> what would've been worse, isil, which we have now and requires a tremendous amount of work to assemble this correlation, self-finest thing, that would've been worse, that which we have now are a few weapons given a few years ago into leaking into different hands? i know it is hard to imagine that in all of this complexity, but you have something that is a legitimate threat that is here now, that might have been stopped or slow. not according to me, but according to those who worked for the former president. that would've been worse? >> the element of your question i want to raise is that i do not think even secretary panetta would have thought a few weapons would've altered the outcome

here. tothey would've been given someone who was thoroughly vetted it. that is all i am saying. >> i think a significant investment of time and hardware would've been required with the help, not the conclusion but the hope that it could alter the outcome. we are not in a situation where we know that for sure providing additional weapons would solve the problem. in fact, providing a large chunk of weapons early on to a group of syrians that were not fully that ted would have done more harm than good. so the president and his national security team are confident that in the midst of dealing with these complicated variables, that at each turn, a decision was made that recognized the centrality of american security as they were implemented.

>> how much effort will be administration poured into new york this week in talking to russians about isil. i have read the reports about president putin's comments. i know that president putin has been outspoken expressing his concern about isil. what we have demonstrated over the course of our relationship with russia is that it is possible for us to have strenuous disagreements related to their behavior in certain parts of the world while being able to maintain collaboration in other parts of the world. our counter-terrorism relationship with pleasure, despite our differences as it relates to the ukraine, is ongoing. i think there is an opportunity for us to demonstrate cooperation between the united states and russia despite our in ukraine.

president putin has made it clear that he is concerned about the threats emanating from a isil, and the rest of the community is, too. an earlier question, you are asked about the islamic state? to the islamic state, do you have no response? could you elaborate a little bit? >> i appreciate the opportunity to elaborate, but i'm not going to. let's could you draw a contrast between the president paz reaction and the run-up to the roof. some have drawn comparisons to the two. there is no -- how do you see ?he president paul's approach >> the two examples that you

cited, there were two examples from the iraqi government to american efforts to counter isil. that is part and parcel of the strategy. and inclusive central government in iraq was the linchpin. the decision we president announced one and a half weeks ago was predicated on the formation of an inclusive central government and iraq. the iraqiement of government is important because the president does not want to into a pattern- of making a mistake that was made any previous conflict, which is that the united states was put in the position of essentially trying to deploy significant resources and address the try to security situation across the nation of iraq. thanks to the bravery and courage of our men and women in

uniform, as well as our diplomats and intelligent professionals, significant gains were made. but what we saw was that those changes and improvements did not iraqi our because the central government was not invested in them. rather the iraqi central government lapsed back into governing in a sectarian weight that quickly exposed divisions and allowed i sold to make significant gains across the countryside. that is one way in which the president the -- the approach the president is taking is different than the president approach in the past decade. not an unrelated point, but i will make it anyway because it is important, the president is committing 140ng thousand u.s. military personnel to go on the ground in iraq. he is not contemplating columns

of american tanks rolling across the desert seeking to occupy large swathes of desert territory inside of iraq. he believes in their own support of their country. the iraqi people can count on the american government in a broader coalition coming in behind them. so they can get the kind of equipment and training they need, even tactical advice they may need to wage this campaign against isil. it will do that with the full support of the american people, the american military, and the broader community. but there's no doubt the president has determined that sending a large contingent of american ground troops in a combat ground role is not the way to get the desired outcome. >> thank you, but the parallel that i would point out is that the president is talking about

going forward with airstrikes in syria in a sovereign nation. like president bush before him, he is going to the u.n. asking world leaders to tacitly support that. >> the principle as it relates to syria is a -- is one that is central to this presidency. the president has made it clear that he will actively deny a safe heaven to organizations that are seeking to do harm to united states and our homeland. united stateshe has used as a counterterrorism strategy to deny safe havens to extremist statements and other parts of the world. this is a strategy that involves building up the capacity of local forces. this is a strategy that involves supporting local governance structures. it is a strategy that involves building a broader coalition and involves using the military

might of the u.s. to back those local forces as they think the fight to extremist organizations that may have designs on attacking the u.s. homeland. andre talking about yemen somalia, each situation is very different of course. the strategy the president is hoping to deploy has been successful at most two other places in mitigating the threat that it has posed to the u.s. around the globe. we believe the strategy will be successful in syria as well. >> the president has made it in his tax reform it is said over the weekend they are putting patches on the regulation. can you update us on the timing of that, and what has been holding it up given it has been close for so long? >> the top priority is getting congress to pass legislation

that would close this loophole. there is precedent for congress close loopholes related to inversion. on aess passed legislation loophole like this in 2004. that passed with bipartisan support in the house of representatives, in the senate, and was signed into law just one month or six weeks before election day. there is no reason congress should not be able to address this loophole during that timeframe. the other thing i will point out is bps of legislation signed in 2004 shortly before election day also was retroactive. it invented companies from trying to take advantage of this loophole shortly before legislation was enacted. to see congress pass a measure that would be retroactive to ensure that companies trying to

game the system and beat congress to the punchline are not able to do so, or at least are not able to benefit from it. the cousin you have not taken the concrete steps we would like them to take, the u.s. treasury, at the direction of the president, has been conducting a review of their own to determine if there is anything in the existing law that would allow reduce the financial incentive that currently exists to exploit these loopholes. these loopholes are allowing companies to renounce american citizenship so they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. ats work has been undergoing the treasury department for a number of weeks now by experts. my colleagues, the secretary of the treasury, and give you the best assessment of the status of the work and can give you the best assessment about what kind of options they are considering.

i saw the same report you did, -- treasury is expect doing >> do you expect this to be discussed this afternoon? >> i am not in a position to preview that meeting between the president and his treasury secretary. obviously, it is a high priority and something they have discussed previously. i would not be surprised. >> justin? president, he said he wanted those recommendations as quickly as possible which was very reminiscent of the immigration reform language. expect an announcement before the midterm election? >> this is a ruling that would be determined by the treasury department so i will defer you to them for timing. i would be mindful by the guidelines that they have already offered, i wouldn't dissipate they would go same. -- an you talk about how

lot is going on with foreign week, and the u.n. this it is maybe one month and one week until election day. are we going to start hearing more from you guys about the straight up election and a return to the economy? will you guys talk about that? toi do not have anything tell you from this podium today. i can tidy why the president says he believes it is so important for americans to participate in the elect oral process, particularly in the upcoming elections. he is spoken wistfully about how this is the last election in which he has such a clear, direct stake in the outcome as an elected official. he has this as a priority on supporting democratic candidates on the ballot.

four months he has been traveling across the country to raise money in support of this candidates and committees that will benefit those candidates. in the context of those it events principally, the president has made a persuasive case about the determination of this administration and democrats in congress to advance policies that will benefit middle-class families. oft is the presidents direct in the policy agenda. he believes there is a choice between candidates of those who are supportive, and those that benefit the wealthy for the republicans with the hope that trickle downwill to middle-class families. the president does not believe that approaches worked in the past. he does not believe that approach will be successful this time. he is hopeful the american public will participate in the elections into be supportive of democratic candidates who are of his agenda.

>> obviously, the president has -- [indiscernible] >> the president believes that his top priority as commander in chief is the safety and security of the american public. the president as confident as he makes decisions to secure the homeland and protect american interests at home and around the world, that is the most important part of his job. we will leave it to you to analyze the polls, but the president is confident that over the next two years and remains in office, regardless of what the polls say, his greatest interest is the safety and security of the american public.

is they were going to cost against isil? >> i do not have an estimate on that. interested in having an open dialogue with congress to ensure that our military has the resources necessary to carry out the mission that the president has laid out. we're also actively engaged with all of our partners around the globe for ways they could participate in this broader effort. in the briefing last friday, one way they can return of it to the broad effort contributeith a can to the broader effort is to take the fight to the isil. in terms of a specific number, i do not have one. been outside experts who said it might be one

billion or $2 billion per month. i do not know if you want to comment on that number. goese president, when he to the u.n., will he be specifically making asked us of the other countries and saying if you cannot send planes, send a check? >> i am not sure he will put it exactly that way. i think you will be engaged with world leaders about how they can contribute to this broader coalition. i would remind you the president has an aggressive agenda at the united nations assembly on climate change, he will discuss the leadership role the united states plays in reducing the causes of climate change. he is going to lead this meeting and talk about foreign fighters, he also has events dedicated to building up civil society in countries around the globe as institutions that can affect the will of the people. the president has a wide ranging

agenda at the u.n. he will have a conversation with world leaders that will include this topic. >> you will just talking about the midterms and saying that the has said there are clear differences between the policies. does he believe there is a clear difference between the two parties as voters go to impose on the issues of foreign policy, and if he does see a distinction, how does he described that distinction? >> it is a difficult thing to assess. we have heard a variety of opinions expressed by democrats and republicans on capitol hill. i will repeat we are gratified that democrats and republicans put aside their partisan differences last week and we saw majority of both in the house voten the senate all together to approve giving the administration the authority to ramp up. that was a welcome indication

that members of the sentiment -- of the senate, in that instance, are willing to put aside their interests in the interest of the country. that certainly will be the approach the president will take, even in the run-up to some hotly contested midterm elections. >> i have a question about the training. because the rebel training and saudi arabia -- rebel university or whatever it is, [laughter] >> i would encourage you to contact the secretary of defense on that. will they be wearing uniforms of some particular country? will they be wearing syrian uniforms?

will taxpayers, through efforts, be offered a subsistence to live because one of the arguments inut isil is doing well recruitment and is because they pay recruits more than syrians or the free syrian army. can you explain how soon, how soon will it get up and running? will they be wearing uniforms, and will they be paid? >> it is like you are asking me for the dress code at the university. you are asking a lot of legitimate questions, but there are long lines of details the department of defense will have. i would encourage you to check with the department of defense. i can tell you a couple things. this is a priority of the administration of that the president made clear. it is urgent for congress to grant the administration authority, because we have already seen commitment from

partners to participate in this broader training effort and the president wanted to strike robbie allen is hot. take these result governments up on their commitment to be actively involved with training programs. the kingdom of saudi arabia announced their willingness to host a training site. we went to work closely with the saudi's to advance our goals along those lines will stop rest assured the department of defense and the staffers responsible for ramping up our training and assistance to the opposition is already hard at work in doing that. in terms of a timetable, i would urge you to contact the department of defense about that as it relates to specific recruits. over the course of the last three years, the united states and partners in the region have been the editing the individuals and elements of the syrian opposition. we do have relationships with

some of these groups that could be useful in terms of a broader training effort. in terms of timing as to when we uniforms -- individualist will start and what uniforms they wear, i refer you to the department of defense. theo you have any update on [indiscernible] >> i can tell you that the united states and law enforcement professionals in the united states are constantly vigilant about threats that may

be related to american citizens and the american homeland. our national security professionals are constantly reviewing our security posture to make sure we are taking all of the steps necessary to keep the american public safe. does the president believe that the national football league should be a nonprofit? >> i have heard the president about the coaching of the chicago bears. [laughter] not heard him right in on the tax policies as it relates to the national football league. >> as part of the broader tax reform that may or may not or may never happen -- what impact the

tax reform may have. it is on the rotor of several billion dollars a year, so that is why that particular issue has emerged as a rather high priority with the administration. i do not believe the price tag for the nfl is quite that large. if it is, we should have that conversation but i do not think it is. [indiscernible] >> as a general matter, let me say that the united states and

here, asnforcement well as national officials, are very focused. again, this is individuals from the rest that have taken up arms along the ice and the concern is that they could return to the u.s. and carry out acts of violence here. we're working closely on our international -- with our international partners and interpol to track the movements of these individuals. this is an inter-agency response to a significant threat that we are watching closely. >>-twisting is a term used on capitol hill, but when it comes to the sisal coalition, are there some nations that still need to be cajoled, pushed along, encouraged to join this coalition to do more, to do their part, to do something at