call on you also need to counter another threat which is one that leans over the future of our world. we need to fight global warming. professor, you remind us that france will be hosting a conference on climate change the end of this year. it is not just to welcome heads of state or government to paris. we are doing this not just to state our principles and to deliver a forum on the state of the world. we are not just coming for a meeting. it needs to result in a binding global agreement that will map out an effective fight against

climate change. that is the major challenge of the 21st century. time is past where humankind thought it could selfishly draw on inexhaustible resources. we know now the world is not a commodity, it is not a source of revenue. it is a common good, it is our heritage. the consequences of climate change are fully known now. we're not talking about theories anymore. we're talking about certainties. if nothing is done, then we are talking about increasing temperatures for degrees by the end of the century. a need to stay below the threshold of two degrees. we are also fully aware of the consequences. it would mean we would certainly

see the disappearance of many island states in the indian ocean and the pacific, and huge damage to the coastlines of all continents. the 25 cities that in 2015 had more than 10 million inhabitants 19 are located on the coastline. a huge number of individuals are directly threatened by the consequences of global warming. you can imagine the huge consequences that that could have on the world. we are already familiar with refugees in crisis. i mentioned syria only a moment ago. more than 20 million.

so here again we are faced with a moral responsibility, political responsibility. because a botched a solution to a crisis might result in exacerbating the consequences of climate change. but allow me to present a more confident aspect of our future. energy transition the sense opportunities filled with hope of growth. we are in a rapidly changing world. a model that is on its way out that which is powered by. you will -- that which is powered by fossil fuels. we are moving to a post-carbon world. we are a huge effect caused by technological changes which is

happening in many areas -- transport, construction, energy, health, food technology. our whole economy will be transformed if only we show the will to step up the pace of change, step up the pace of our decision-making. the fight against climate change is also a matter of solidarity. the countries who are most affected are those who are already the most vulnerable. it is ironic that those places are already burdened by a shortage of revenue while those having to face the hardest effects of climate change. if we do not respond with an approach that encompasses solidarity, there will not be an effective answer to paris. there can only be a true solution if those countries have

not exhausted the resources of the world so far can be reassured that their economic development -- that is why i will make a personal commitment along with the heads of state and government who wish to join me and i am sure there will be many of them. achieving an outcome for the financing of the paris agreement , i'm talking about the green fund which would gather capital to ensure the transition of developing countries, 10 billion euros already collected and more than 100 are necessary for us to be able to realistically believe an agreement is possible . we need to be able to find multimillion euros by june.

where are they going to come from? of course, from individual states. that is part of their responsibility. financial institutions, yes. they can participate. but also, major corporations. major financial companies. in any governing that understands that by contributing -- and any government that understands that by educating to this fun -- contributing to this fun, they are creating better investment opportunities for the future. again here, everybody has to recognize their own response ability. the states have a responsibility to come to an agreement. the countries then have to sign a very specific agreement to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, but also, society as a

whole has a responsibility. i'm talking about what you could call the agenda of solutions alongside the green fund that needs to be created. the responsibility of states enshrined in an agreement. there is a broad social commitment to the necessary changes, and france, in the run-up to the conference wants to ensure that france can play a major role. there will be many events organized. we want to see businesses innovate, research, and prepared with us and with organizations and civil society, prepare label groundwork -- labor groundwork for tomorrow's society, tomorrow's economy. it is absolutely essential that the lifeblood of the world's economy is fully involved in

developing a response to climate change. it is what i call the paris alliance for the climate. i have come here to urge you to participate in this alliance. we need huge investments of capital in the green economy. today, if you look at the traditional investment portfolios, less than 1% is invested in the green economy. we need to create a new market a market of financial products, a market of green bonds that would operate at the global level. on the one hand, you need to create demand, capital ready to be invested. on the other hand, the opportunities, which would be part of this new green economy.

we also recognize the right to send the right message to the market, and carbon prices are essential if businesses are going to be able to plan their investments ahead. if this theory -- in this period, one of our greatest challenges is uncertainty. we see it everywhere -- in the exchange rates, in the private commodities, in the world geopolitical situation. and when there is instability, uncertainty, volatility, there isn't any investment. so i have come here to advocate a clear vision of how the world will be in a few years. to foster a determination to

fight against risk and the understanding of how we will get there. carbon pricing is one element of that clear vision. now, you might see the drop in the oil price might be an impediment to the understanding of the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels from the energy next. but if you ask me, i think the opposite is the case. the drop in the oil price -- we don't know how far it will drop. we understand we will have to have some kind of limits. but the drop in the oil price creates an opportunity for investment because when we can do now with this margin that has been created is make the

investments that are absolutely essential in the energy transition. we have the capacity. you as key players in the economy have the capacity to invest in this change. i come here on behalf of france to say that we are ready. we are looking as the conditions will enable france to keep its position in the international context and in the context of technology and industry. we recognize today that growth has been too weak. it is not the same level throughout the world. particularly in the euro zone. we know that what underlyiines

the potential for growth today is doubt relating to geopolitical tensions. i raise the issue of the middle east, but also, ukraine. this creates worries not only at the humanitarian level, where we are seeing people dying every day on europe's very frontiers but also the major risks of instability. sanctions, embargos, which in turn create difficulty beyond ukraine itself, and also financial instability. the world needs to respond. the g 20 has taken good steps in advocating stronger growth, better coordination of economic policies, better regulation of financial -- an effective combat

against tax evasion, tax havens. and i welcome these efforts and indeed, the results from them, because it shows that the world is capable of improving its regulation. now, there are still problems. there is capital movements that are not well-regulated enough. there is shadow economy, there are countries which seek to attract people who are looking for a way out of taxation. but there is progress as well. i think the biggest risk of -- at the global level is that of inequality. inequality between countries and the incredible frustrations that that can create, and inequality

within our countries. and the tension that that can also create. the world needs to recognize that it has a responsibility in this regard, and the fight against inequality can also a growth factor. how can we achieve positive results from education, through improving skills, through training ? that is why i would call for major investments. digital technology can help us here and it needs to help us everywhere and all our countries , especially the most vulnerable. europe has come a long way as well. it has come through the sovereign debt crisis, it has established a banking union each means in the case of a banking failure it is no longer

the taxpayer that has to suffer. but our priority has to be growth and the structural reforms need to be carried out in the name of competitiveness productivity innovation, and here again, francis taking important decisions -- france is taking important decisions to move along this path, and europe has to come along as well. i welcome the decision of the european commission to lunch -- to launch a major program of more than 350 million euros which states as well would be able to contribute to. i would also like to underscore while recognizing the phenomenal principle of independence, the actions of the european central bank because it is very important step that as been taken to inject liquidity.

the ecb has been able to take this step because it has achieved its objective in terms of limiting inflation. with inflation close to zero, it certainly can make more liquidity available to the economy without worrying about deregulation and at the same time promoting growth. and the effect of this decision -- i'm not talking about the market's reaction here, i'm talking about the effect on the real economy -- is that of making investment in the economy more attractive, drawing savings away from government funds towards the financing of business. -- away from government bonds towards the financing of business.

this is an important decision because it has been made by europe, a determination to look towards the future. we have restructured our banking system, even if there is still work to do. we are looking towards the future, and this decision of the european central-bank shall be welcomed. but it should not stop us from the continuing along the path of reform, especially in france. quite the opposite, i think the decision taken by the ecb compels us to be more daring on growth and job creation. france will take a three-pronged approach. firstly, promoting competitiveness. the agreement which i presented one year ago for business represents a drop of 40 billion

euros in the financial burden of business and makes very important civilizations to the regulations at work in the economy. it is an important statement being sent to the stakeholders and investors. thirdly, we have seen other reforms in france to ensure more funds could be directed towards the unemployed. we seeing all of the labor market advance which should serve to bring our economy into line with reality, while at the same time protecting workers. we are promoting apprenticeships and we have undertaken a new form which is currently under discussion in parliament which will provide greater flexibly at work reducing the time period

within the labor market, and giving incentives to competition. france knows what its advantages are. i'm not going to go through them all with you because i'm sure you are aware of them. but we are also little aware of our limitations and we have to act to improve our position if we're going to stay in this position. france as undertaken efforts to attract talent from all over the world in the same process of promoting innovation. we have is alleged -- we have established innovation tax credits in france to ensure greater levels of r&d. favoring three-minute -- three

major areas of industry, energy transition and the digital economy -- and we also promoted efforts to increase our investments in these areas. france has seen these efforts bear fruit. the other high-strength countries for -- we are the high-strength countries for startups. but we are also aware that we need to increase our attractiveness, alongside promoting exports. we need to increase our exports. what that means is we need to be more productive. 2 million french people work in those companies. we wanted to make efforts --

>> good afternoon, everybody. tgif. it has been a long week, but a good one. >> no briefing. [laughter] >> ooh. >> let me assure you bill, the feeling is mutual. [laughter] now that we are being so friendly -- >> do you have the week ahead? >> we can go there if you like. >> what better way to say welcome back? >> yes, thank you. i have something i want to mention. joining us at the briefing is the director of research here at the white house. today is his last day at the white house. many of you may not recognize him that he has been in a lot of work over the last four years.

he is exceedingly skilled at what he does but is also a person of high character. we appreciate all his years of service of the white house and wish him well as he moves. now that we've gotten that out of the way i think it is location tbd but we will let you know, but with that, you want to get started today? >> well, thanks, josh, and good luck, and belated happy birthday. i want to talk about iran and a couple other subjects. in light of the full-court press from the white house on the sanctions bill that senator menendez is pushing, is the white house confident you will be able to musterr enough support for a veto if it will come to that? >> jim, you are right, we have been quite clear about what we have concerns about this piece

of legislation passing the united states congress right now . this is an argument the president made one week ago today when he stood at a news conference with prime minister cameron and made clear that putting in place additional sanctions against iran right now could undermine the broad international coalition we have put in place that has been so effective in bringing the iranian regime to the negotiating table. prime minister cameron echoed those concerns. he noted that he of personally served as the interlocutor with our european allies about the implementation of the sanctions regime, and because he working closely with the united states had succeeded in persuading countries around the world to abide by the sanctions regime in economic pressure was placed on iran. and therefore it is not a coincidence that the iranian

regime agreed to come to the negotiating table to work through the international community's concerns. as part of the agreement that undergirds the talks, the iranians would take concrete specific, verifiable steps to roll back surgeon aspects of their nuclear program and in exchange, the international community in park agreed not to put in place additional sanctions while talks were ongoing. this served to ensure that the iranians could not, as they have done in the past, use diplomatic negotiations as cover to make progress on their nuclear program. that is not the case -- in fact the iranian nuclear program is not as advanced as it was when the talks began because of this agreement. the success of this agreement depends upon the international community continuing to work with the united states and our allies to intimate the sanctions

regime -- implement the sanctions regime. if congress were to put in place additional sanctions much of the international community would perceive that as a violation of the agreement, and it would lead some to conclude that they should know longer enforce the sanctions regime and in doing so would eliminate or at least significantly reduce the economic pressure that is succeeded in bringing iran to this point so far. what the president has said is that we have a diplomatic opening that we can pursue year. there is no particularly persuasive reason that anybody can marshal right now for why additional sections need to go into effect or additional legislation needs to be passed right now. the president has said this pursue this to the medic open -- this diplomatic open, and if we reach the point where it is clear that the iranian regime cannot get to yes as the president described it, we will

be happy and whether willing to work with congress to apply additional pressure, working closely with the international community, on the iranian regime. and the president has been clear about the fact that that is a possibility. the likelihood of success for these diplomatic talks is at best 50-50, but the reason they are worth pursuing his they are the best way to resolve the international community's concerns about iran's nuclear program. if iran voluntarily agrees to live up to widely accepted international standards and agrees to allow international experts to review their facilities and get them access to regularly check on their facilities, we can ensure that the agreement is verifiable. that is a preferable outcome than some of the options -- some

of the other options that have been floated, including military options. >> are you satisfied that the argument you just posited has gained traction and that you can sustain -- >> i think there is plenty of indication that at least some members of congress have found this rather plausible line of argument pretty persuasive. but ultimately, fortunately for the white house, i am not responsible for counting votes. but based on the extensive consultations that have taken place between the white house and members of congress on this issue, there is an open line of dialogue and the reaction we have gotten for many is that the president's argument is pretty persuasive. he had the opportunity to do this when he spoke to democratic senators last week at their retreat. one of the other aspects that is

important, the president believes that congress should be a full partner in this effort. we want congressional involvement. the sanctions regime we put in place was passed by congress. the president signed into law and this administration went to work with diplomatic partners, including prime minister cameron, who had an important leadership role here, to implement it, to maximize pressure on iran. this is, outside of the current debate -- the success we've had applying pressure to the current regime actually is a really good example of democrats and republicans in congress and the administration putting aside partisan differences and actually working together to advance the national security interests of the united states. we would like to keep that spirit of cooperation" a nation going. -- cooperation and coordination going. >> there is almost made it effort on the hill led by senator corker to have an up or down vote. should there be an agreement between the p5 plus one?

the in administration seems to be resisting that. why? >> couple of reasons. in our view, it would undermine the ongoing negotiations in the same white -- in the same way principally because one of united states comes to the negotiating table with other countries and the iranians, the united states is in a position of signing onto an agreement that is then subject to congressional approval, which means that there still remains an open question about whether or not the united extended up to the commitments reached at the table -- united states can live up to the commitment's reach of the table. >> that happens with any number of agreements the government strikes. >> this is clearly a different kind of agreement and it is not a treaty. but it is a scenario in which we welcome congressional involvement, as i mentioned, the sanctions were not have been put in place without congress taking

action. and we also would have benefited from eating able to say that republicans and democrats agree it is a national security priority that is worth pursuing. we want to have a constructive working relationship with congress, but steps that undermine talks were steps that put in place additional sanctions in this diplomatic negotiating period while talks are ongoing aren't constructive and will not further our effort to resolve what is a pretty serious national security priority for the united states of america. >> on yemen, you discussed this yesterday. president hadi stepped down and you discussed continual tracking of aqap in yemen, but i wonder if you could comment on other aspects of this unstable situation. what does it mean for u.s. interests in the region, for security in the region, to have

an iran-backed rebel force gaining control, very anti-american, and to have saudi arabia with iran's influence on the southern border? >> well, i do not get asked about the specific question yesterday, but i can tell you that based on what we know right now it is not clear that iran is exerting any sort of command-and-control influence over the houthii rebels. we are aware for was that there are ties between the rebel group and the iranians and we are concerned about them. but more generally, i can tell you that the people of yemen deserve a clear path back to illegitimate yemeni government -- 28 legitimate yemeni -- two a legitimate yemeni government.

with clearly defined timelines to finish writing a new yemeni constitution and hold a referendum on the constitution and then to launch national elections. the future of yemen, to put it plainly, should be determined by the yemeni people, in accordance with the human constitution and the national by log -- national dialogue. all yemenid has a right and response ability to participate in the process and the united states remains fully committed to supporting your many -- yem enis in the effort. >> follow-up to the death of king abdullah of saudi arabia, is the united states confident that they will maintain the same track in terms of energy and foreign policy? >> jeff, let me start by saying that the president articulated in his statement last night expressed his deepest sip of these and condolences to the family of king abella and the people of saudi arabia.

the president enjoyed a genuinely close and warm friendship with the king. under the king's reign, we have worked together on a number of challenges. king abella was a proponent -- king abella was opponent of the arab peace initiative and shared in the vision we share, israel and palestine living side-by-side in peace and security. jeff, i will say that the president has not yet had an opportunity to speak with king salman, the new king of saudi arabia, but i anticipate he will have an opportunity to do so. the president certainly hopes and we expect that the strong relationship that exists between the united states and saudi arabia will endure under the leadership of anything -- of the new king. >> do you anticipate that their policies with regard to energy will continue in the same direction as they have? >> i wouldn't want to speculate

about any decisions that the 70 government will have to make along these lines -- that the saudi government will have to make along these lines. but these and other issues are among the priorities with which we coordinate with our partners in saudi arabia. >> do you see an opening with the new king to have perhaps a more aggressive dialogue in saudi arabia about human rights policies and some of its positions that the united states does not agree with? >> welcome i can tell you, jeff, that we will continue to express and raise those concerns as we have in the past, but at this point it is too early for me to speculate about what sort of policies or how open the new saudi king might be to those concerns raised. >> we understand vice president biden is going to saudi arabia. does the president plan to travel there anytime soon and/or invite the new king to washington? >> i don't have any announcement along those lines but we will

keep you apprised of the schedule. >> just to follow-up on jeff's questions, the vice president said in a statement last night that he will be going in the coming days. any details on when that might happen? >> they have not worked out the precise timing of the trip at this point but as soon as we have more information we will let all of you know. >> there has been a lot of discussion about the president's relationship with prime minister netanyahu after the invitation from the speaker to speak before congress. on a scale of one to 10, how irritated is the white house with prime minister netanyahu? >> well, jim, let's unpack this a couple different ways. the first is -- >> [indiscernible] >> toe of the measure is there. let me restate the thing i said before, which is that it is inconsistent with long-standing practice for the leader of a foreign government when they plan to visit the united states

to contact and coordinate a visit with the leader of the united states. the invitation that was extended and the acceptance of the invitation did represent a departure from protocol will stop but ultimately, it is the response ability of the speaker of the house to make decisions about the floor schedule of the house of representatives. certainly if we had the opportunity to weigh in on the schedule a little bit more, we would welcome the opportunity and make a variety of changes. the other thing we have made clear, jim, is that the president at this point does not plan to meet with prime minister netanyahu on this visit that apparently is scheduled for march.the reason for that is that prime minister netanyahu's visit comes about two weeks before the israeli elections and this administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don't give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome of a democratically held election in another country. and for that reason, the

president will not be meeting with the prime minister netanyahu went he visits the u.s. in march. but as all of you have noted on a number of occasions, the president has spent more time talking to prime minister netanyahu that any other world leader. and the reason for that is sadly that the united states and its president recognizes that we have a clear national security interest within our alliance with israel. and that kind of commitment that we have to their national security is unshakable, certainly transcends partisan politics, and something that despite some of the differences of opinion that we have with the current israeli prime minister doesn't undermine our commitment to israel's security. our differences of opinion about the strategy we should pursue to resolve the international community's concerns about iran's nuclear program are long-standing.

we have been talking about this difference of opinion for years now. over that same timeframe since 2011 while president obama has been in office, the united states provided israel with more than a billion dollars for the iron dome system including last summer when israeli supplies were running low while they were being shelled by extremists in gaza. we have not allowed -- this president has certainly not allowed the disagreement over our iran approach to in any way shape the commitment of the united states to the national security of israel. >> the way this was hatched though, the speaking engagement right after the state of the union address, was a bit of a slap. >> i certainly didn't interpret it that way. i know some in the news media did. but it is this possibility of the speaker of asked to did --

the response ability of the speaker of the house to determine the full schedule. >> was the president annoyed by this or people in the administration not to go there -- >> i mean, no -- >> not going to quantify it? >> certainly not going to quantify it. we did note that this was a departure from protocol but we also noted that it was the responsibility of the speaker of has to decide whether or not to give prime minister netanyahu of venue on this. >> lobbying congress on sanctions legislation -- the reason i ask is that prime minister cameron was calling members of congress about this legislation will >> what we would prefer is that the israeli prime ministers shares of -- share our presidents you about the approach to solving iran's nuclear program. he does not agree. pursuing the diplomatic opening that has been created because of

the forceful sanctions regime put in place is worth pursuing. but time and time again prime minister netanyahu has indicated he's does agree it is worth pursuing and we have a final disagreement about that. the president has made clear anything's the strategy should be. as prime minister cameron indicated, he shares that view with the president and we will continue to make that case in public as i am now but also in private conversations that white house officials have with israeli counterparts. >> this weekend congressman steve king is hosting a republican summit in iowa. the reason i'm asking you about this is congressman king referred to the president and first lady's guests on tuesday night as deportable.

what is your response? >> i don't have a response. >> what is the president's reaction to deflate-gate? >> ha ha. >> he is a sports fan. >> he is a sports fan. i have not spoken to him about this particular issue. for years it has been clear that there is no risk that i would take tom brady's job escorted back of the new england patriots, but today it it is clear that there is no risk of him taking my job, either. >> oh! [laughter] >> that was kind of fun, right? no, i came up with that on my own. thank you, thank you. the thing that is clear about mr. brady's job is that it does

cause him to make a snap decisions in very high pressure situations -- >> oh. >> and he does it very well. and he does it in a position where the decisions are second-guessed, so on that level he and i can relate to one another. at the same time, he is preparing for his sixth super bowl. >> you don't think the patriots should be penalized? >> i understand that that is something the nfl is considering so will leave it to them. >> not to ruin everybody's fun i will go back to israel. the president wants the israeli prime minister to share his view on iran. is it safe to say that you would welcome a change of israeli prime minister? >> the case we have made to him on many occasions and the case has been made at a variety of levels, but also it is the

responsibility of the israeli prime minister to pursue a national security strategy that he believes is in the interest of his country. the president happens to have a difference of opinion, that he believes it is worth pursuing this diplomatic option with the iranians and he believes that doing so is not just in the national security interest of the united states, but in the national security interests of our closest ally in the region israel. >> would you welcome a new person in the prime minister's job? >> question of whether or not you would welcome a new israeli -- >> i'm sorry, i thought you said welcome a new position taken by the israeli prime minister. but you said do we want a new israeli prime minister? >> yes. >> that is honestly -- [laughter] >> i know we were having a little bit of fun, but -- >> the point is, it is our well-established position -- this is the reason the president will not be meeting with prime minister netanyahu when it comes

to the united states in march, that we have no interest in even appearing to interfere or influence the outcome of a democratically held election in another country. the decision about who should be the leader of israel is the responsibility of the voters of israel and i'm not going to weigh in one way or the other. >> you would -- the president would welcome someone who shares his view? >> i misunderstood your question. what i thought you asked me is whether or not we would welcome the prime minister taking a new position. i think that is evident based on our efforts to persuade him to take the decision on this. he has to make his own decision about what he believes is in the national security interest of his own country. the president happens to believe that pursuing this to o-matic opportunity -- this diplomatic opportunity with iran is in the

best interest of america's national security and the interest of our closest ally in the region, which is israel. getting the iranian regime to voluntarily come into compliance with generally accepted international standards and to do so in no way that we can verify is the best way for us to ensure that those concerns are resolved. other options, including a military strike, don't have the benefits of a policy change adopted by the leadership of the country and don't have the benefit of continued verification measures. the president has been clear and it is pretty clear to anybody -- it is pretty clear that this is the option that is in the best interest of our countries. prime minister netanyahu is the leader of israel and he should be making the decisions in the interests of his country and where the differences occur, we will discuss them robustly in public and in private, but it will not prevent us from continuing the very important ongoing national security

cooperation and coordination that is so critical to both of our countries. >> in his tenure as prime minister, has the white house had any indication from prime minister netanyahu that he is willing to meet the president where the president is on this issue of iran? >> i am not going to read out the many, many many private conversations that president obama and prime minister netanyahu -- >> i'm not asking you -- >> you are you are asking me to characterize the conversations and i'm not quite do it. >> reports that the two japanese hostages taken by isis has been tilted can you confirm those reports? >> this is the first i'm hearing those reports. the united states strongly condemns isil's threat to murder japanese civilians. the united states is fully supportive of japan in this matter and we are coordinating closely with them.

>> do you know if japan has been able to contact isis? >> i don't have an update on that. >> follow-up on yemen, and the question that jim was asking, moving forward, what does it mean to the u.s. policy specifically on the issue of drones? these houthi rebels are opposed to the use of drones. they see it as a violation of sovereignty. is that part of the discussion are now? >> this administration remains committed to pursuing a counterterrorism strategy against aqap to protect the american people and our interests. we have indicated on a number of occasions that aqap is the most dangerous al qaeda affiliate around the world. some of that is because of the sophistication they have demonstrated in terms of their bomb making program. we remain vigilant about the

threat that is posed by aqap. we certainly did have a strong working relationship with president hadi and other members of the yemeni national security infrastructure to jointly confronting the threat. after all aqap has carried out a number of terror attacks against the yemeni people. the united states certainly welcomes that kind of coordination and collaboration. but i don't have any policy changes to an at this point. i wouldn't know another thing that is relevant -- i would note another thing that is relevant. the houthi rebels are not in line with aqap. in fact, they are enemies. the fact that there is this instability in yemen does not mean that aqap is gaining

influence. we remain concerned because al qaeda affiliates around the globe have tried to capitalize on insecurity in one country and fill the power vacuum. but it is not as if this is some sort of aqap-synthetic e-government. >> they do see these drones is a violation -- does that not complicate for policy moving forward and the ability to work with them? has there been any outreach to them? >> no -- i don't know the answer to that. we have worked closely with the hadi government and we want to continue our work with the government of yemen to pursue the important counterterrorism effort that, again, is clearly in the best interest of the united states and also the best interest of the yemeni people. aqap has killed far more yemeni

citizens that american citizens. it is a good reason for us to expect to have a counterterrorism partnership with the leadership of the country. >> my understanding is that many u.s. personnel have been evacuated. is that still accurate? if not, why is it still open given what is happening there right now? >> last fall there was a drawdown of personnel from the embassy to just to the core essential staff operating there. the usmc as of today continues to remain open and functioning -- the u.s. embassy as of today continues to remain opening and functioning in yemen could we have security experts on the ground in yemen who are regularly evaluating the security situation, and if additional steps need to be taken to ensure the safety and security of american personnel we will take those steps and we have all the capacity that we need to take those steps.

i want to repeat something that people on both sides -- leaders on both sides of the conflict have articulated, that they have committed to protecting the safety of foreign diplomats operating in yemen. we certainly would expect them to keep that commitment. but we are also going to be vigilant as we monitor the security situation in yemen and we will take whatever steps are experts believe are necessary to ensure the safety and security of americans serving the country. >> back to the state of the union for eight second. the president made no reference at all to what happened in the midterm elections, specifically not congratulating or welcoming senator mitch mcconnell as the new majority leader of the republican senate. was that included in any early ideas of the speech or drafts of the speech? >> i wasn't in all the discussions of the speech but it

did not come up in any of the discussions i was in and i did not see it in the draft. one reason for that is that the president on a number of occasions since the midterm elections had the opportunity to congratulate senator mcconnell on his new position and indicate is desire to work closely with the new republican majority where we can to advance the interests of the american middle class. i think that is the best way i can answer your question, which is to say that he already has congratulated them. >> the biggest audience the president has had since then he completely ignored him. what does that say about the desire of his white house to work with the new republican leaders in congress? >> jeff, what i would do is point you to the number of meanings the president has had in the white house with the new republican leadership to find common ground where it exists. there were a number of occasions in the speech where the president made specific reference to opportunities to work with republicans.

the president laid out what i think -- when i guess all of you even described as a pretty bold and ambitious agenda for the remaining two years, and president is keenly aware that in order to advance the agenda, we will have to work in a bipartisan fashion, at least if we advance through the congress, because of the republican majority in both houses of congress. that is why the president went to great lengths in his speech to talk about how important it is for us to focus on our shared values. it would be easy for us to identify different positions on things and they are plentiful but there are areas where there are value-based agreements and the president is hopeful that we can capitalize on those that exist to help the country forward. >> --senator mcconnell have made that easier, though? >> senator mcconnell is somebody who has accepted the congratulations of the president and it wouldn't have been the first time he heard that from the president.

i also know that senator mcconnell is somebody who doesn't allow his own ego to get in the way of pursuing a constructive agenda for the country. i would be surprised if senator mcconnell or someone on his team would say "we are so offended by the president's speech that we will not work with you on anything." that is not the kind of leadership that senator mcconnell has shown throughout his career. he has indicated on a number of occasions his desire to work with the president and we should take him at his word. alexis. >> as you know in the past, one of the rubs against president obama is that his speeches are well-received by the public, but with lawmakers it falls apart and doesn't go anywhere. >> that is what lawmakers often say. >> because the president is now dealing with a republican majority, and i don't know if you saw speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell being interviewed on "60 minutes."

>> i didn't. sounds interesting. i will have to set my dvr. >> yeah. the question is, what is the president's actual technique to follow through? is he going to convene the kinds of discussions you suggested, talking about real issues, piece by piece? how is he going to approach his new relationship in trying to push forward the agenda? >> let me put it this way -- the president understands how important it is to work with republican leaders to advance legislation in the congress. and, again, it is self-evident that there is a republican majority in the congress and we want to advance our agenda to the congress, we have to work in bipartisan fashion to do it and it may require doing things like the president did at the end of last year, signing a peace of budget legislation that was

overall good for the country but included some things the president didn't like. i'm confident there will be other signing ceremonies where the president has to do something similar, and that is the spirit of cooperation and compromise that will be critical to making any progress through the congress. the other thing that is important to recognize and certainly the president understands this too that estimates powerful elected leader in the united states of america, there are other ways to advance your agenda than just working through congress, and that is particularly important because over the last four or six years, we have seen republican members of congress execute a political strategy to just block the president in whatever he does. if there is an opportunity for the president to use his executive authority to move the country court, he will not hesitate to do that. and if there is an opportunity to work with governors and mayors and local elected officials to advance his agenda at the state and local level, we will do that too. the president is meeting at the

conference of mayors to try to do that, too. i would urge you not to just use the passage of legislation as the singular measure of success of the president's ability to advance his agenda. the reason i say that is that that is not the bar of success we use. >> a more particular question -->> for instance, when speaker boehner said last night to cbs that he is open to tripling the childcare tax credit, he went through a list of things that he said "i am open to that." and mitch mcconnell said "i want to add trade." i am asking a very particular question -- is the president dealing with them off-line, on the phone, talking to them issue by issue? this is a new age. i'm asking the particulars of how he wants to do with them. >> the president will be meeting

and having conversations with republicans both in public and private. it has been that way for six years and i think that will continue and we are hopeful that the kind of spirit that apparently speaker boehner and mcconnell were expressing in that interview actually does bear fruit. the president said pretty persuasively yesterday in lawrence kansas that he does believe strongly that significantly increasing the tax credit for child care would have been very positive impact on middle-class families all across the country. there are opportunities like that were common god exists and we will seize it and that will include presidential conversations and i'm confident it will include staff level conversations and include some public meetings and may include a press meeting, too. the president is determined to advance his agenda wherever he can and we will look for every opportunity we have with congress but we will look for other opportunities. >> you said last week that the

president would make a forceful case on trade with both republicans and democrats. i'm wondering why he hasn't met with members of the transpacific partnership caucus in congress. if you could tell me how much he wants to get involved to talking to members of that lobby on trade. >> i'm confident there are members of caucus who have heard from white house officials including the united states trade representative on that issue. we are committed to working closely with congress because ultimately to secure an agreement like this we want to get congressional approval for it. the president has made clear he will not reach any international agreement that he does not believe is in the best interests of american businesses, american workers, and middle-class families. that stance is one that we will continue to apply. prices back that that is a standard that a majority of members of congress agree with and we will continue to make that case both with democrats

and republicans, including members of the transpacific >> they have been asking for meeting, but they have not gotten one for months. >> i have not aware of any meetings on the books. i'm confident that they will have a conversation and he will get a phone call returns. >> what is the cut off for the president -- for example, he did a joint interview and he went to berlin, what is the. in which -- what is the period in which this is acceptable? >> i am not sure if there is a big difference between 30 days or 45 days, or whatever it is.

i think we can all probably as reasonable observers of the political process would conclude that having a meeting of about two weeks before a national election might raise questions about whether or not that was an attempt to interfere or try to influence the outcome of a democratic election. that is precisely what we are trying to avoid. we would like to avoid the appearance of doing so. that is why the president has decided on his trip for march that he was the meeting. >> the president said that the 2010 united citizens decision allows big companies, including foreign corporations, to spend money on elections. he made that statement in 2010 and again this week. what is the basis for that statement? the decision did not address specifically for corporations spending money and courts have upheld the ban on foreign spending. what is the basis for that?

>> he was talking about the practical impact of that ruling. the practical impact of that willingness it has blunted a lot of transparency requirements. therefore, it is very difficult for us to tell who is funding some of these campaigns. that is something that president has talked about extensively, as you point out. that is why he is supported of what will probably be required to change that policy. it is likely to be a constitutional amendment. the viability of getting that through congress and through the requisite number of states is difficult. that is by the president was very concerned about the impact of the citizens united ruling. that is why he continues to advocate for measures of the congress that will bring later transparency and disclosure to the local financing process. >> there are things he can do unilaterally to make changes including commissioners whose terms have expired and the white

house is considering the contractor disclosure in 2012. why haven't any of those things got done if the president is so unhappy with the state of financing question mark -- state of financing? >> we are certainly interested in this issue. he has been pretty clear bite is important. i do not have any other personal announcements for speculation about executive orders to intervene to at this point. >> like to ask about the possibility of more american boots on the ground. >> well, was there a recent report about this? i have not seen that report, but i can't tell you that the president remains resolute about what he believes is clearly the national security interest of the united states. he does not believe that it would be in our best interest for large scale military deployment to be executed in iraq. that is committing more american

ground troops in a combat role to iraq and it is not in our best and -- best interest. the president is continued to pursue a strategy that has board some improvement in iraq. we can put a limited number of military personnel into iraq to serve in a training world. to build up the capacity of a iraqi security forces so they can take the fight on the ground to iso-forces that are operating that country. the president continues to believe that is the best strategy. >> i would like to go back to the middle east, there is some instability now, especially what is with happening in yemen. obviously with a change of leadership in saudi arabia and iran's growing profile. he talked about they have tentacles in place like iraq and syria. obviously yemen and even lebanon, how concerned is the white house about that growing influence? >> well, the middle east is a turbulent place.

it has been quite volatile for a number of years. it is why the united states stands so closely with our allies in israel. that they live in a pretty dangerous neighborhood. the united states is keenly aware that and that is why you have seen such a strong commitment to israel's natural security. -- national security. it is also why the president has devoted much time attention and sweat equity, if you will, to pursuing peace talks with the iranian regime. the last thing we need in a volatile region of the world is another nuclear arms race. trying to resolve these concerns is a top national security priority. the best way to do that is through diplomacy. we can get -- diplomacy is successful and the president's been pretty candid about his assessment. at best, the likelihood that these talks will succeed is

5050. if we could pursue this diplomatic action and succeed in doing so, it would serve to reduce some of the tension there. it would certainly eased concerns that people around the world have. about the possibility of a nuclear arms proliferation and the middle arms -- and an arms race in the middle east. that would be really bad for the stability of an already volatile region. >> the saudi's in particular might have an issue with any negotiations with iran, given their influence, especially now given the change of leadership there. will you at least a knowledge their concerns about? >> we believe -- and the president continues to play, that it is in the best interest of the whole planet, and certainly our allies and partners, for iran not to have access to nuclear weapons. that certainly would not be in best interest to saudi arabia. it certainly would not be in best interest to israel. and i would not be in the best

interest to any of our other partners in the region. this is something the president is pursuing very aggressively. the potential here -- for the potential benefit here, is substantial. that is why the likelihood of the talks succeeding is at best 50\50. this is something he believes we should pursue. congress should take some unprompted action -- congress should not take an unprompted action that could force those talks to grandma. that is what we have been very forceful with those talks with our allies in congress. >> given the closeness and their relationship, would it make sense for the president to go to the funeral for the king of saudi arabia? >> my understanding is that the funeral is today. that is a something that is typically, by tradition and custom, only attended by other muslims.

what is, is this case -- what is common in this case is for world leaders to go and express condolences and be received by the royal family and other leaders in saudi arabia. at this point, the vice president will lead the american delegation because the president is likely to be in india while that is taking place. >> i just want to drill down close to proximity the force of the long-standing practice -- you just said a minute ago that in july 2008, a person would assume that barack obama would have been the democratic nominee. he went to europe and met with many leaders, so what is the difference? >> well, are you talking about

july in advance of the november election? >> he emerged victorious as a primary candidate. >> true. i anticipate -- the point is, we are talking about a visit with a much -- a visit in july in advance of november election is much different of a visit in march in a march election. when mitt romney visited the same leaders in israel and we are not making that case. there were no concerns raised about that and i'm not concerned about any concerns raised about that. i'm also not concerned about any concerns about obama's trip in 2008. in 2012, governor romney was obviously running against incumbent president of united states. again, i do think there is a difference between a july visit

in advance of november election and a march visit in advance of march election. >> thank you, josh. more broadly u.s.-saudi relations in respect to isolate and demonstrate what would you say the message needs to be to the saudi's? >> well, i think the message is pretty clear. that the united states is willing to work with anybody including our good friends in saudi arabia. as we try to prevent extremists from gaining a foothold in a war-torn country and using that foothold for safekeeping to carry out terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. i think for understandable reasons, given their shared border saudi arabia is particularly concerned about activities of extremists in you. that is why -- extremists in

yemen. that is why to this point you have seen cooperation. not just between the united states and saudi river on -- saudi arabia, but other countries that are concerned they could use a safe haven in yemen to carry out attacks against the united states and the west. we certainly have seen that the hapless aspirations. -- that they have those aspirations. we will continue to work with our allies in the west. >> are you anticipating any changes under the new king in terms of cooperation? >> we certainly welcome the kind of cooperation and support that the saudi's have offered to the national coalition against iso. against isil. there are military aircraft -- american military aircraft that

are carrying out attacks against iso in syria. we do welcome that. we are hopeful and expect that that kind of cooperation and coordination will continue under the new king. >> do you expect the president to her on the king's death? >> anticipate that he will. we put out a written statement from the president last night. >> josh, i was wondering if you can swear that those changes to the 539 and his message in the state of the union in which he would support middle-class families. as you probably know, the median income is around hundred $20,000. >> -- $120,000.

>> visit reforms he would only consider in the context of other reforms he is put forth. if you consider the entire package of reforms, the tax cut looking out for middle-class families is $50 billion. there is a pretty substantial down payment in the context of these reforms. it is made to help middle-class amylase afford a college education. the reason for that is simply, we understand the president understands, that ecologists patient education has never been more important to getting the kind of paying jobs for middle-class people. we want to make sure that every middle-class family has the opportunity to pursue a college education for the kids. there are a variety of proposals the president put forth. some are related to the presence proposal to make community college free. for hard-working students who are making good grades. that would have the benefit of essentially cutting costs of a four-year education in half. if you can do the first two years and community college and

that is paid for, the next two years is something you could pay for. essentially, your tuition costs have been cut in half. we would consider the 529 as part of the package that the president has put forth that would yield a $50 billion tax cut for middle-class families. >> regarding yemen, the u.s. has worked with yemen at least somewhat and had an agreement on drone strikes and done some training. communications, intelligence sharing. where do those programs stand right now given the uncertainty about who was in charge? >> well, one of the things that we have talked about in the past is the effort that we have made to try and invest in the stability of the central government. so they can serve to being an effective partner with us as we try to battle terrorists on the ground in the country. one example that we talked about quite a bit is in iraq. once isil had made their

advance, we wanted to find good partners in iraq that could lead the country. we made some more investments in yemen to build up their security forces and build up the capacity of their civil institutions so they could be good partners with the united states on the ground in yemen. i can tell you that some of our counterterrorist partnerships to continue in yemen. there are national security relationships that continue to exist. they continue to be useful in protecting the united states. we obviously are concerned about the situation in yemen of political instability there. that is a source of some concern. that is why you heard me mention earlier, we are hopeful that both sides of this dispute will avoid violence and actually pursue the kind of political reforms and transitions that is consistent with tradition and diplomatic agreements that have previously been reached in yemen.

as it relates to the governing the country. >> so are you saying that the programs are not hold or some of them are and some aren't? >> we continue to have a strong counterterrorism ridership with the national instruments are -- national infrastructure of yemen. we continue to be vigilant about the ongoing effort to counter a q ap in yemen. i also do not want to leave an impression that we are not concerned about the political instability in yemen. we are concerned about that. we want to try and help the yemeni people and work through the transmission -- transition in a peaceful way. we believe that our efforts are enhanced when we have a stable and function central government there. >> regarding 529 some are suggesting that the presence proposal is basically saying that middle-class kids will go to community college and these kids are the only ones who can afford a four-year institution.

they are saying that more broadly the president's proposal is shrugging off middle class children. i'm not bashing community college. >> my guess is that those are critics of the president. that is fine. the facts about the presence proposal speak for themselves. if you look at the reform the president put in place for a whole host of tax programs that benefit middle-class families and make the college education more affordable. that would yield a $50 billion tax cut for middle-class families. that is reflected of the president's commitment to make a college education accessible to every middle-class family. christie. >> counterterrorism seems to be a major subject for the president and prime minister to discuss over the next few days. can you say what tasks are on the table?

>> i do not have anything specific to preview those conversations, but certainly the u.s. doesn't value the relationship we have with india. we certainly are interested in discussing with them ways that we can strengthen that relationship. i do not have any preview of the talks at this point. >> the president mentioned his talk with india today. did he actually called the pakistani leaders because he was referencing the ongoing conversation? >> this administration has expressed concerns about some areas of pakistan where extremist do operate in virtual impunity. in many cases, they use that to carry out taxes of american forces that are operating in afghanistan. that is something that we are concerned about and we have raised those concerns with our

partners in pakistan. there has been additional steps taken by the pakistani government to try and root out the extremist that are operating in that area. we certainly would welcome the steps, but those are steps that are ultimately taken by the pakistani government because they recognize that the extremist threat that it -- that exists, poses a significant threat to their citizens. we spent a lot of time, and for good reason, attacks in paris week or two ago. a week or two before that, we saw an atrocious act carried out in pakistan. more than 100 schoolchildren were gunned down in their school. by extremists in pakistan. it reflects what we have often said, which is that so many of these al qaeda affiliates that are operating -- monday carry out acts of terror, -- when they

carry out acts of terror, they are more violent act toward muslim countries. i think they understand that they have a clear stake in this fight and they have an interest to taking the fight to extremists were operating in the country. >> while we are talking a lot into it, give us an update on press access to the u.s. president is traveling in india over the next few days. what are the access to the president? >> well christie, these are conversations we have with other governments leading up to presidential visit anytime he goes anywhere. certainly we want to make sure that you and your colleagues have the opportunity to get some access to the president and get a good sense about what he is doing. when he is representing the united states of america on

foreign soil these can be very challenging negotiations. particularly when we are going to countries that do not have the same kind of respect or do not value an independent news media. sometimes i can make the negotiations or complicated. fortunately, we are traveling to india which is the world's largest democracy. they have a very healthy and robust news media. a professional news media in india. the indian government is well aware of how important it is for there to be a professional independent press corps that is holding elected leaders of that country accountable. the point is that because we share these buyers, i do anticipate that we will be able to press access in india. there were some complicated logistics with the prime minister's visit to the 90's is

faster, and we were able to work through those concerns in a way that reflects the strong working relationship that exists. not just between india and the nazis, but also between president obama and the prime minister. the prime minister has demonstrated and he did this when he visited the united states last year, he has demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the way that his actions and his government's actions are reported in the media. he has a very strong following of indian americans who are closely watching his administration and are excited about his leadership. i think that as a practical matter, he and his government understand that not successfully resolving some of the concerns about press access could happen impact on the coverage of the president's trip. that is definitely something we

want to work hard to avoid. i am confident that our partners in india will want to avoid that too. >> what about china, where we had a chance to present -- question the president and the chinese leader. it sounds like you are optimistically comparing the two, and my reading you write a short -- and my reading you right? >> we believe that there was important access to president obama and -- in china. if we can resolve those logistical concerns with a country that has a different view of the news media do we do, then surely we will be able to resolve the results with whom shares are value of a free and independent media. >> there are reports of a rebel

offensive. is there any change or have there been any representations made to the rebels? >> there have been no policy changes to report today. he recalled that just like we, the president called for the congress to pass legislation providing additional economic assistance to the people of ukraine in the form of a $1 billion loan guarantee in the first half of 2015. that is contingent on the adoption of some important reforms. as those reforms are implemented the prison can imagine a scenario where identity of congress would pass another to pass another $1 billion. this is critical to the functioning of the government and the civilian economy in the ukraine. we are hoping that the many members of congress who have expressed concerns about the situation in ukraine, will

enthusiastically take up this priority. beyond that, i have no additional policies to announce. >> juliet. >> obviously the president will advocate with some of his policies when he took me years later today, can you provide a few more details on what specifically you will be talking about and what he hopes to get out of that session? >> in the spirit of christie's question, there will be some processes with the president's meeting with mayors. he will get a chance to hear from the president directly on what he was to bring up in the context of this meeting. when we just say as a general matter, the president has appreciated the bipartisan cooperation and spirit that we have seen in the context of these meetings with mayors. that mayors are so often essentially on the front line of government and they are very in tune with the needs of their citizens and what is required from the government to try and

meet those needs. with that often means is that mayors are willing to put aside partisan differences and arrived at practical solutions that benefit their citizens. the president certainly appreciate the spirit in which they approach their jobs and the practical problem solving. frankly, something we could use a little bit more in washington dc. this meeting serves as a meeting -- an opportunity for the president to see where the mayors are and where they hope to stand with the government. that is the reason why he is looking forward to the meeting. by hearing from the smears, we are hearing from people who are area close and very closely in touch with the needs and concerns of the american people. it is what additional weight of the president can hear those concerns and talk to them about steps that can be taken. i would give you the last one before we go to india. >> two questions.

jimmy carter discovered india and then president clinton and president bush both open the door widely, and now president obama. he embraced india. my question is, this is the first time that any u.s. president will be honored during the january meeting in india. this is the first time that any u.s. president has visited twice during his -- my question is, what we get from this is that president obama is very committed. >> i will see if i can find some. i can put you that the president is very much looking forward to this visit. it is a genuine honor to be invited as the guest for public

day. the president is looking forward to traveling there to see the festivities associated with the public day. -- republic day. we have made descriptions of what happens on this day. he is also looking forward to a series of serious meetings with political leaders and india. and certainly the meeting that he will have with prime minister modi. prime minister modi had the opportunity to visit washington at the end of last year. the president certainly enjoyed the conversation he had with prime mr. modi. i think he doesn't see an opportunity to tell a strong working relationship, not just between the two countries, but between the two leaders who did share a common sense of purpose in vitality. we do know that prime minister modi is very interested in

injecting the kind of energy and vitality into the relationship between the united states and india. i can tell you that president obama shares that desire in making the first ever second trip by he was president during his presidency. i think it reflects his commitment to india and indian people, and the relationship between the u.s. and india. >> prime minister modi met the president of australia. my question is how the two leaders know each of them and while he was in washington, he addressed the u.s.-india concept. do you think that this will be the discussion, to create jobs in india, and how do you do it? >> that is a good question because there is an important

economic component to the policy agenda in india. there will be a number of business leaders who will be traveling to india in conjunction with the president's visit. that is because there is tremendous economic opportunities for american businesses in india. we are interested in strengthening those ties, both for the benefit of the indian people but the american president is interested in strengthening those ties to benefit the american people. certainly, the business opportunities that exist in india serve as a good opportunity to do just that. let me just give you a look at the week ahead. the president is leaving early tomorrow morning for india. he will be there for three days. we have seen a robust schedule the president plans for india. i won't read all of it now. the president and the first lady will return to the united states very early on wednesday morning. later on wednesday, the president will deliver remarks

at the armed services farewell in honor of secretary hagel. he will then attend a retreat in philadelphia on thursday. the vice president will tend on friday. the president will return from philadelphia on thursday evening. right now, he is scheduled to attend a variety of meetings at the white house on friday. >> will he be out of the country at the same time? >> that possibility does exist and it won't be the first time. >> the president is leaving early tomorrow morning for a three-day visit to india meetings with prime minister modine, talking about issues like climate change and nuclear trade. the president will also celebrate india's republic day on it -- at a parade on tuesday. we will hear from president obama this afternoon at 445 p.m. eastern. the nation's mayors are in town for the annual winter meeting of

the u.s. conference of mayors. president obama will speak to a gathering of mayors in the east wing of the white house. we will have that live for you at 4:45 p.m. eastern. congress gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern on monday. they will debate a bill dealing with human trafficking. they are also expected to vote on a order security bill next week. the senate is back next week on c-span two. amendments are planned on a bill on the keystone pipeline. mitch mcconnell filed a motion yesterday to limit debate and amendments to the bill as they go into their second week on the measure. there has been some disagreement to the amendment process between mitch mcconnell and dick durbin. here is part of their exchange late last night. >> the clerk will report the cloture motion.

>> we the undersigned do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the michalski amendment, number two, the keystone xl pipeline approval act signed by 17 senators as follows. >> i move the dispensing of the names being read. is there an objection? the clerk: cloture motion. we, the debate on s. 1 the bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further reading of the names be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. friday, tomorrow, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed -- sullivan 67, cardin 75 murkowski 98, flake 103

cruz 15, moran 73, daines 132. further, that all amendments on the list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second degrees be in order to the amendments. i ask consent there be two minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all vote after the first in the series be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. durbin: mr. president reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: now that we have purged the calendar of five of the six democratic amendments, the majority leader tells us it's time to vote. it doesn't strike me that this is in the best interests of what we are trying to achieve here in going back and forth in a bipartisan constructive fashion. i would like to ask the majority leader are you prepared to be in session tomorrow and to consider democratic and republican amendments and work through the list including the ones that

you just tabled? mr. mcconnell: does the senator from illinois intend to object to my consent? mr. durbin: what i'm asking, frankly, is to try to amend this so it does have some balance. you mentioned one democratic amendment and at least five or six republican amendments to be considered tomorrow. mr. mcconnell: well, we just had votes on democratic amendments that your members had offered and didn't want to agree to -- to have a vote on. mr. durbin: and the record will reflect the spirited debate on those amendments when you wouldn't even give the authors 60 seconds to describe what was in the amendment. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, am i correct that the senator from illinois is going to object to this consent agreement? mr. durbin: i click senators gavel back in monday at 4:30 p.m. eastern.

andrew keen, author of "the internet is not the answer," on how companies make profits. >> in the old days, people worked in factories did their labor from 9:00-5:00, went home and decided how to spend the money. but at google and ebay, we are unpaid labor working 24 hours a day and we are the ones being packaged as a product. with these companies are doing is learning more and more about this from our behavior. from our photographs from our ideas, from what we buy, from what we say, from what we don't say, then learning about things

and transforming us, repackaging us, as the product. we are the ones being sold. not only are we working for free we are being sold. is the ultimate scam. it is a perfect hitchcock movie. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. pacific on c-span's q&a. >> next, the national congress of american indians president delivers the state of the indian nations address from washington d.c. he talks about strengthening the indian nation. senator john barrasso of wyoming, who serves as indian affairs committee chair provides the congressional response. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome to the 14th annual state of the indian nations. we are so excited that you can join us here today in washington, d.c., in the news he

eum. i am the director of the national congress of american indians, the largest and oldest native american indian organizations serving tribal governments and communities all across the country. as part of our effort to serve indian country, and cai strives to bring together tribal leaders, government officials and members of congress to discuss challenges, opportunities, and most importantly, solutions. and that is what today is all about. we have a full house here today of tribal leaders, members of congress senior federal officials and so many others who are dedicated to the good work of indian country. i want to thank each of you for attending today. for those of you watching and listening across the country thank you. we have more than 50 groups and

communities of business leaders gather together to watch. we will be joined by some tribes online via live stream. the confederated tribes of the unitary indian reservation, the miami tribes, rancheria a, and the navajo nation. we encourage all those watching via live stream and here in our studios to use our social media tools. you can tweet your comments and questions using the official prunty 15 hash -- 2015 hashtag. you can also share your photos via a facebook or instagram. i would like to recognize some of the guests we are honored to have with us today. we have the staff on the committee of indian affairs and the subcommittee on indian affairs and alaska native

affairs. we have staff representing senator reed, high camp, and other members of congress. and from the administration, we have the solicitor of the department of the interior, the assistant secretary kevin washburn, dr. rubato from ihs lillian sparks robinson from the commission on native americans bill mendoza from the white house initiative on american indians and alaska native education, and we also have three representatives from other agencies including the departments of agriculture commerce education, fcc, interior, justice, veterans affairs, homeland security. we are also honored to be joined by senator campbell and ernest stevens junior. we're also joined by german manual hard who gave the indication this morning and lance come. we are joined by tribal leaders

from more than a dozen tribes. leaders and staff of many of our partner organizations are also in the audience today. we are honored to have several importance and ncai partners from outside the government today. we have representatives from google walmart the asian pacific island community and we also want to recognize our future leaders here. we have native students from george washington american university and student parties watching across indian country

including arizona state and yale university. i especially want to take a moment to thank senator grasso for taking time out of his busy day to join us and provide the congressional response. as a new chairman of the senate commission on indian affairs, we look forward to continuing our close relationship with the senator and his key team. and now, it is time for me to introduce the 21st president of the national congress of american indians to deliver the state of indian nations address. he was elected in october, 2013 and he has served the indian tribal community as chairman since 1997. he has spent his career furthering the interests of native people to help create jobs, open trade opportunities and reinvigorate the fish and seafood industries. he is a respected leader in his

home state of washington, throughout the northwest, and across the nation. please help me welcome president brian cut a -- >> i want to thank the creator for this beautiful day and for allowing me the privilege to address indian country and providing me the opportunity to honor our history and celebrate the promise of a nation to nation relationship. in this week, when we remember a great civil rights leader, the reverend dr. martin luther king jr., and when our president delivers his annual state of the

union address -- and unlike him i do have one more election. [laughter] it is fitting that we take this time to consider the transformation and change that was underway in indian country today. indian country is leading. indian country is innovating. indian country is growing, and the state of indian nations grow stronger by the day. tribal nations are steadily reclaiming our rightful place among the american family of governments. and we are doing this despite antiquated ways of thinking about people and tribal governments and outdated policies that belong to another century.

we are not where we want to be in our relationship with the federal government. but we are glad we are not where we used to be. [applause] today, i bring a simple message to the tribes of the 21st-century. we must tear down barriers to growth, simplify regulations that are limiting opportunities and acknowledge the tribes have the capability is governments to oversee our own affairs -- as governments to oversee our own affairs. as we reach out to the federal government as a true partner, we must continue to insist that the united states honors its trust responsibility to native peoples. honoring its trust responsibility means recognizing

indian country's legal authority to control its own destiny. it means respecting native peoples for who we are, not who others think we are, and it means modernizing the trust relationship between our nations. these are things we can and must do. as a united indian country, we are determined to create opportunities for success within our borders and beyond. this is a remarkable moment in our shared history. over 566 federally recognized tribal nations, with more than 5 million native people in cities

and reservations across this great land, these are the days that our ancestors prayed for. we must seize the opportunity to sustain our progress. i have been privileged to witness great progress over the past few years from our families to our tribal councils, to capitol hill. we have worked with republicans democrats, and independence in congress to make the country safer by reauthorizing the violence against women act. [applause] we made indian country healthier by working together to permanently reauthorize the indian health care improvement act.

we made indian country fairer by tribe -- bypassing the tribal inclusion act to ensure that indian people are not unjustly taxed for benefits they receive from their own tribal governments. in the last six years, we have seen congress and this administration work together to pass none president in number of bipartisan bills that would increase -- to pass an unprecedented number of bipartisan bills that would increase indian benefits. we participated in the sixth annual tribal nations summit with president obama.

and of course, 2014 was also the year that we were privileged to have president obama visit one of our homelands. the president told me his trip to standing rock reservation had a profound impact in the -- and he urged the cabinet to follow his lead to make indian country a top priority in 2015. today, i want to make a personal invitation to speaker boehner leader pelosi, majority leader mcconnell and minority leader reid as well as every member of congress. make a goal to come to indian country this year. this week, several members of

congress and representatives of the administration will visit the navajo nation. let's make that visit the beginning of a year of unprecedented engagements between us. among all the gains in recent years, we have also suffered some losses. close to my heart and to many across indian country was the loss of my friend and mentor. he was not only a native american hero. he was an american hero. billy frank junior. billy, like me, was from the pacific northwest. his people, the squally nation -- thepascual nation, our

fishing people. he fished in the river. as he put it, he was not a policy guy. he was a getting arrested guy. over the years, he was arrested more than 50 times for exercising his treaty rights. that is one of his a college men's that i have yet to achieve. in those arrests he laid the groundwork for in a store except in her ruling that it knowledged that our treaty -- an historic supreme court ruling that acknowledged that our treaty gave rights to our nations. our rights as sovereign nations

were not granted by the constitution. they existed before there was a constitution. [applause] now, if you don't know who billy frank was, you're not alone. the history that he lived, that our people lived, is not often taught in schools. but it is essential to understanding the connection between our nations, the trust that defines our partnership and the responsibility that is entrusted to all federal officials, especially members of congress. that is why, as long as i knew billy, billy had the same

message. tell your story. tell your story. tell your story. billy knew that no one could tell our story better than we can. for those of you who may not now, let me tell you the story of our trust relationship. if the story has a theme it is the story of pride and resilience book ended by self-determination on either end. there are too many people that believe that when europeans got to this land and moved west, they simply claimed empty land for themselves but that is not true. in fact, the u.s. government signed more than 400 treaties. today is a special day for us in the northwest. it was 160 years ago today that my dad's great grandfather

signed the point elliott treaty between his tribe in the united states. my dad's great grandfather. my dad proudly carries on the name. dad is 81 years old, watching this speech, and like his namesake, he inspires me every single day. tribal nations like ours accepted a smaller land base in exchange for government making three basic, says -- basic promises to guard our right to govern ourselves to enable tribal governments to the liver essential governmental services, and to help manage our many

lands and resources in our best interest. these treaties are older than many u.s. state constitutions. in fact, our treaty, the point elliott treaty preceded the existence of the state of washington by three and a half decades. all of our treaties continued today to stand as the supreme law of the land. every member of congress and federal official is responsible for carrying out that trust. part of their job description is to make sure that the united states of america honors its commitment and lives up to its word. after all, this trust is not a handout. it is a contract.

it is a commitment. it is their duty to honor it. so, why do i mention this history now? the relationship between the united states of america and indian country has reached a crossroads. many tribes today are on the forefront of innovative 21st-century governance. but don't take my word for it, as i mentioned earlier, i invite you to come and see for yourself. come to our play below -- pueb lo where you will see 700 euros homes being revalidated -- readabilityrehabilitated. it means face of the strong

people. come to where you will meet the first cavity free elementary classes. [applause] this is a success story. this is the direct result of a dental health therapist workforce, the first of its kind in the nation. today, 40,000 people have been treated at 30% of the cost. other states are studying how they can replicate the success that alaska has achieved. come to the nation where you will see the first tribal operated commercial wetland mitigation bank in the united states. more than 2000 acres creating

income streams for the tribal government while preserving fishing streams for fifth -- for salmon and shellfish. many tribes in our nation are engines of economic growth not just for native people, but for non-native people as well. in fact, there are nearly a quarter of a million native businesses across the united states. besides tribes in idaho -- the five tribes in idaho contribute more than 800 $50 million to the state's economy. and have increased statewide employment by more than 10,000 jobs. 11 tribal nations and minnesota have collectively contributed more than 2.7 billion dollars to the local economy while

employing 41,000 native and non-native minnesotans. these are more than native american success stories. they are american success stories. and we are ready to write many more in years to come. of course, there is much more work to be done. too many of indian countries nations and communities are a long way from prosperity. too many tribal communities are still plagued by high unemployment rates, high dropout rates, rampant drug and on-call abuse -- alcohol abuse, and an appalling suicide epidemic. together, we must believe that we can overcome these challenges

. of course, trust itself is based on respect. our trust relationship means modernizing the way native to this reason i want to address an issue of the national congress of american indians which has worked on for almost 50 years, i want to talk about the negative stereotypes that native people continue be subjected to in our society, in particular i want to talk about the name of the washington