wn upside down in the big experiment was federal welfare reform and by any measure big-time. people forget that. people forget that. the are, let's go market orientation. look at cbo numbers when we passed a bill and look what it costs today. dramatically decreased because republicans drafted the bill as focused on market competition. unemployment -- remember the big debate last year? classic, classic class warfare. those republicans wanted there was on the street, they hate poor people, the stuff we always hear, and we are going to go beyond two years and if you don't support us, you hate poor people is a party. and the republicans stood firm. they took all obese -- abu

se, and guess what happened? labor force increased over the past year and we have not taken credit for that at all. charter schools -- we owned the charter schools revolution. we were the 51st state to pass on in maryland. the teachers union and the entrenched bureaucracy in a completely -- not completely, but many schools by any measure dysfunction. mainly minority kids, brown and black kids being deprived as constitutional rights and as lawyers many to pay attention to this. we have taken this issue and brought this revolution around the country and we are allowing poor kids, regardless of their color, to punch their ticket the way our tickets were punched. many of us from poor working-class backgrounds and we

got a break. and we should be in the business of giving breaks. we should be in the business of all of the above when it comes to dysfunctional schools. i went around the state of maryland at the time and said, you know what? we can talk about all these niceties, but the fact of it is it is tomorrow issue because multigenerational poverty is a moral issue and we are depriving these kids of a constitutional right. if i did not hit anybody on that stop on those levels, it was you know what? a public safety level because guess where these kids will end up as we continue to send them to dysfunctional schools. your neighborhood will be less safe. and so will our country. we own these issues. criminal justice reform, the koch brothers and george soros agree on something. wow. think about how tonight. republican governors around the

country leaving on this, -- lead on this, but the fact is, a lot of folks on the right get it. as a number of the legislator in the 1980's, i remember debates where we would be decreasing the defenses -- in order to get decreasing the juvenile offenders waived off into the adult system. that was the big debate around the country. we are going to get tough. we are going to lock them up and throw away the key. the problem is in the future, those offenders are coming out. we better pay attention. it is being led by republican governors. by the way, republican members of the senate and house as well. this is our issue and it is not cowering -- counterintuitive, it is justice and fiscal sanity as well. does anybody remember the last party to bounce federal budget?

hours -- ours under john kasich. we actually balanced for three straight years. wow. so we really need to -- i think is a party and lawyers -- get the word out. we are not good at taking credit. we are typically demonized. and again, i go back to presidential elections like the last one. we had one of the finest individuals we ever had run for president. a wildly successful ceo, leadership skills, executive skills you need is a president and we had silly stuff like dogs and cars and mitt romney intercepting birth-control pills. and that stuff worked. it can't work any more. 2014 worked because they had no message and we said we are not there. when everybody shows up in 1.5

years, we have to have a message and it has to be out there. we talked about burwell, we should be ready and i think we are going to be ready with freedom alternatives. once the supreme court actually agrees with the statute says, which we hope it does. and immigration bill hornets already and security are fighting our values. senator rubio deserves credit. all of the above for kids and dysfunctional schools and all of you can play a part in that. most of those ballots are state level. criminal justice report that we talked about, 50 years since moynihan. go read it again, please. he was right in every respect. every respect. he got torched by the law

called a racist, an icon to the democratic party. read those words and they are true today not in respect to the black family, in respect to all families. as a result, we are paying a big price in this culture. big. finally, a good friend of mine server the chairman and he had the guts as republican chairman to throw out there and all the arrows came at him and he knew it would. conference of tax reform. we all know we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and we all know that jobs leaving offshore and we know about manufacturing being down to 12 million jobs and everybody says, oh, my god. we are going to fix it and it never happens. in 1986, ronald reagan sat down with to bone meal. the president-led. what a contest.

and it got worked out. we tend to think about this stuff and i read "the wall street journal" like you all and they're constantly talking about preferences and corporate welfare. any flat taxers in the room raise your hands. you guys are pure. [laughter] the fact of it is that it will pass. every extra provision, every extra statute, every extra preference, we discuss his some form of corporate welfare. everyone. any realtors in the room? charitable deduction? anybody give money to charity here?

from enterprise zones to your college 529, every thing legislators do these days is to pass a preference to get a public policy goal done. that is the definition of politician today. that and casework. that is what you do. so when we -- and we started this process as a party -- as a leadership party that counts -- we need to really figure this stuff out. anybody from texas here? you name your preference profession, and everybody has their favorite. the fact of it is -- we will not have a flat tax problem, but we are, i hope at some point soon, republicans lead and they slimmed down tax code that contains preferences back at the policy out from.

send your kids to school, buy a home, give to charity, set up a business in a depressed area whatever it is. and then as we debate all of this, let's figure out the ones that really do not work. and let's stay with the term special interests. i hated. -- i hate it. every room i walk in particularly in college campus and i asked who was with special-interest question mark --? i ask everybody what the parents to. and i say, you know what? everybody is special interest because it is a free country. we have to figure out the tax code that really does. the bottom line is that we built that and this party is really feeling that. it is ok to cling to your guns

and religion, western values and federalism and the constitution. [applause] and the opportunity in society really waits if a party can lead and that is not easy in this era. obviously, this is available. thank you very much for having me today. i am almost out of time. jc boz, my partner, does this group. he spends more time with this organization and he was lawyers of the year 19 years in a row. well, he should be. i want to shout out to him. i will leave time for a shout out or two. yes sir?

did we tracked down the driver? where should we be -- >> where should we be on the issue of medical marijuana or the legalization of drugs overall? should we have a short-term purpose like -- short-term focus like the democrats or take a higher ground to talk about abuse and a substance abuse over a? governor ehrlich: in my last term or two dove in congress, i became a major supporter of medical marijuana. i saw my 44-year-old brother-in-law die and i get icing death, colon cancer. -- an agonizing death, colon cancer. i would hope the party of freedom would stand for freedom

when it comes to those decisions. with regard to marijuana, i have written a column for the "baltimore sun paper." believe it or not, the paper that sydney do you remember? i called and the plaintiff. -- that suited me, do you remember? i called them the plaintiff. i got more comments all around the country when i go to these college campuses, i have been to lots of jails in my life as a member of the legislature, congress, governor, i talked to lots of kids in jail. all of you kind of know this. i am not moralizing. i am not preaching, but when you talk to these kids month there is always to elements present almost always. i did not have a dad and i started with marijuana. in this letter, i said to my son, i went to college in the 1970's.

i happened not to do it but i had a lot of friends who did. it didn't make sense to me. but a lot of friends who did it, it did not cost me any friends , and a lot of my friends did it and still do it and they are functional adults and they are successful. but in a lot of these prisons and i talked to a lot of these kids and some individuals cannot handle it. and through, my son, some of those kids look just like you. i hope that discussion has had -- is had in every family in this country. i don't want to moralize. i think it is a state issue. if you listen to the scientists, the stuff out there is more potent than he was 10 or 20 years ago. when we talk about decriminalization, legalization, the public safety aspects are clear.

on the positive side we tend to , ignore the public health aspects. of passage. if you think that is significant, ask folks in colorado today. thanks, everybody. godspeed. take care. [applause] >> the republican national lawyers association also heard from michael carvin. he argued the 2012 health care law case before the supreme case and the more recent case was challenges of sharon's subsidies -- insurance subsidies under the affordable care act. this is 30 minutes. [applause] >> i am really worried about

that introduction port two reasons, it is not entertaining or intellectually stimulating. the reason being, this is literally the simplest case i have ever done, that anybody could ever do because the law is so clearly on our side in king v. burwell. as you know, the relevant provision says that the subsidies for the aca exchanges are available on exchanges established by the state under section 1311. the obama irs leading that language says that means it will be under section 1321. the issue is whether or not that is a state established exchange. under 1311. this is not a complicated

question -- [laughter] michael carvin: at least for the non-legal mind. this would be relatively straightforward. if this was a mortgage deduction case, no judge would say what are you talking about? it is because we are in this political maelstrom that people are taking this argument seriously. i will not bore you with walking through the various statutory nuances, but i will give you the basic pitch on the other side. you are ripping these words out of context. what an extraordinarily odd place. why would they ever put a tax credit in the tax code? [laughter] michael carvin: so you cannot take this language very seriously and our response is normally tax credits are in the tax code. we are not hiding any elephants in mouse holes here. the only provision in the affordable care act is this section 36 b. the only provision that even

discusses the subsidies for the exchanges or that limit them. all of the limits on when subsidies are available are contained in 36 b. for example, it's quite clear if you bought insurance outside of an exchange you can't get the subsidy. and so everybody seems to understand that and it's not in -- and it is found in the same provision and naturally of course this would be the place it would be. as to context, i can assure you we did not stand up for sprint -- to the supreme court and say please just focus myopic we on these words and ignore the statutory context and the purpose of the act. i think we said approximately 7000 times we employ you to look , at the context of the overall lack because in each and every particular of the structure and purpose of the act, reinforces our argument. the most obvious contextual point is section 1311 of the act says states shall.

this is in the act, state shall establish the exchange. so congress chose the strongest possible language it could to convey its deep desire for the states to create these exchanges. 36 b. tell you that there are no subsidies available unless the states create the exchange, and 1311 tell us you want, why would congress have done that. they did it because they need to provide an incentive to the states to take the task of creating these exchanges. the only one that would work would be saying if you don't do , then your citizens don't get the subsidies. this is not some novel invention of the aca. this is medicaid. this is exactly how they get the states to participate in medicaid. they say they don't do what we want, your citizens won't get the medicaid. this was a key part, as you

know, where they greatly expanded medicaid. my final contextual point is, the government kept arguing that because section 1321 says if the states don't established exchanges, then hhs shall establish such exchange , committee said such exchange. and we are like this, they said such exchange. hhs will establish such exchange. but 36 b turns on who establishes the exchange whether it's the state you get the subsidy, if it's hhs you don't. if there's any ambiguity about when to use of words such whether they're trying to somehow magically transform hhs into the state, all you have to do is look at the context of the act and look at the provisions dealing with territories. territories are also required to authorize or establish such exchange. and immediately after they held them to do that it says and

, shall be treated as a state for these purposes. so we know that such does not connote that hhs or the territories are a state and we know that congress does have a cash knows how to treat a nonstate entity as the state entity in the aca when it wanted to do so. so the argument on the other side, we were taking hyper liberal myopic approach in getting this effect to the text of the statute. and while people like scalia might buy that argument, no serious person can buy the argument because after all they look at other manifestations of congressional intent, most obviously legislative history and there certainly is a fight between scalia and breyer on whether not clear text in the statute can be affected by contrary legislative history. and my point has always been however that debate is resolved

, it doesn't affect this case. because you can look through the blogs of legislative history surrounding the aca and you will and not see a single expression by anyone anywhere suggesting that subsidies are available on hhs established exchanges. so, if you look at any legal materials that any justice ever looked at any context that concern congressional intent here's what you arrive at. clear text saying subsidies are only available on state exchanges, clear text explaining why subsidies are only available there so they can incentivize states, and not a scintilla of history. so as i begin this, this is literally the easiest case that a federal court has ever entertained. the response again is, well, secretly, congress didn't intend this and we know this because msnbc keeps telling us that congress didn't intend this.

this is not only a legally relevant argument it's difficult , to hypothesize an in a argument that is more insulting. nobody in the world wants to insult democratic majority that enacted the aca more than i do. but think about and and how insulting this is to them. these people english speaking in people sat down and wrote the words established on an exchange established by the states under section 1311. according to my opponent, they didn't intend to convey that. they can't explain to you why a rational person who intended for subsidies to be available on federally established exchanges ever would've written down those words, and more build and will -- and more more important they , are saying not only do they consciously write down the opposite of what they intended it never even occur occurred to and them that somebody might in

intro but the word in established by the state to meet established by the state. so they went to the entire legislative process and it didn't could anybody to say when we set state can we really meant hhs, for some goldberg reason but we did say the opposite of what we mean. so this was a giant mystery that existed without. this was some kind of scrivener's error. that's what the basis of the and -- of the above. among the many problems with that, additional once i put in for is the phrase that appears 11 times in the aca. so it's not a scrivener's error. it's some kind of bizarre to read syndrome where -- [laughter] michael carvin: where they kept saying with the domain over and in over again -- tourette's syndrome. [laughter] michael carvin: without any ability to control this. and so really what they're arguing that really what in everybody in the court room an knew what they were argued was a

naked policy argument which is look, 37 states have said no to the irs deal, not surprise lake since they gotten out nothing out of it for establishing the exchange, which will means two-thirds of the states won't have the subsidies if you follow the rule of law. and this is really, really bad. and in addition to the and fact of course these policy arguments for the legislative branch not , the judicial branch, irs caused the problem. if i arrested told the and you states as the drafters of the act intended to only get the subsidy if you establish the exchange, they are just like medicaid. they would've established the exchanges. if you need that billions would have been deprived to their citizens, then they would have done something about it.

so not irs has caused this problem and they come into court and say, sorry, you can't change what we have created to our lawless action. you must perpetuate which to me is always like the criminal defendant who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan, right? and he's the one who has create the problem but he nonetheless needs something. i don't know how this argument is going to be received. i've stopped making predicted a long time ago about how the court is going to be in any circumstances, particularly with respect to this act. i will identify two or three things that came up in argument that may be of interest to you folks. the first one is justice kennedy did ask, well, if they did condition the subsidies on thin -- on set these exchange isn't that unconstitutionally coercive activity use of the funding power? the government has not made this argument. no state that has a stake in this argument is in front of the court. so i don't think, i certainly think justice kennedy is taking this argument very serious about

it but it doesn't have the normal prerequisites for them to actually opine on the constitutional issue. in addition to the absence of anyone arguing this or any entity with a stake in this in front of the court he really, to , find that this coercive, find this funding scheme is coerce would require them to return a previous decision on medicaid from just three years ago. because clearly there they did endorse a form of funding, i.e. you can condition all the medicaid funding on the states upping their eligibility requirements which is at least , as coercive and is as at least problematic as anything involved here. and in the face of precisely the same kind of argument that you are receiving. the hospitals came in and said listen, if you don't, if you accept this argument and we don't get these medicaid funds then we are going to go bankrupt. because of the deal in the aca

was we get less money for serving poor people, low-income people at our hospitals and in exchange we were going to get all of these medicaid funds. if we don't get where going to -- if we don't get it, we are going to go bankrupt. i will point out 20 of the states have rejected the deal. the hospitals actually are doing fine but this is exactly the kind of argument that was bothering justice kennedy in terms of the insurance companies. the other practical point is that eight states filed a briefing saying we're going to reject this exchange via regardless so the notion that it is unduly coercive strikes me as odd. i don't think, therefore that , justice kennedy can reach the constitutional question, but what a don't think the liberals who now embrace federalism for the first time understand is, if he does, this will result in the worst result for them that if we prevail on statutory portion. why?

if he says conditioning subsidies on establishing the exchanges is no good, he's not going to say i am therefore going to extend subsidies to all 50 states. he is going to say no states get the subsidies because the deal was unconstitutional. how do i know that? because that's exactly what justice kennedy wrote in a dissenting opinion. he said if the medicaid medicaid deal is to coercive, the answer is not to let medicaid funds go without the condition. the answer is to eliminate the subsidies entirely. so in these circumstances people who were on the other side of the aisle who are taking part to justice kennedy's opinion should actually be quite worried. in that regard, there is a mild form of the constitutional issue that might influence his decision but there's a candidate out there that if you can interpret a statute one way that doesn't raise constitutional issues but if you interpret another way, it does.

go with one that doesn't raise the constitutional issues. that would be marshaled an argument to avoid the unconstitutional coercion point. but two statements that justice kennedy made at a couple of other points i think refute that that will happen. first well in order to do that , you need an unambiguous interpretation of statutory code with the question. justice kennedy was clear he didn't think there was any ambiguity about whether the statement hhs. he also made and i think this is a key point, there's a basic separation of powers principle that you can't take money out of the federal treasury unless the custodians of perth, congress has expressly authorized the treasury to expand those monies. so, he said, therefore it needs to be very clear that the subsidies were unavailable and you would lose, you've the government would lose ambiguity. if you think about that, he can't therefore say because

there is in this statue i am now , going to expand subsidies to all 50 states and congress was clearly imposing some kind of condition on it. in other words, he would be creating a huge separation of powers problem that he himself identified at the argument in order to solve the federalism concern. and the final point i did get to make in rebuttal was there's no way for the statue to interpret that doesn't raise a serious concern about infringing on state sovereignty. the government's version of the statute imposes a very serious federalism concern. why is that? the point i did make of course it's not just a question of , subsidy. the employer mandate, the requirement that employers provide insurance for their employees is tied to the , subsidy. in other words, if the employer doesn't have that obligation unless one of his employees goes out and reaches and gets one of the subsidies.

so if he is saying that no subsidies will be available in all 50 states that would extend the employer mandate to all 50 states automatically. and the states would have no ability to veto it or as they would under our interpretation. what he would be saying is the federal government got the ability to tell states that they have to provide certain kind of health insurance benefits to their own employees which is the core principle of federalism that you really shouldn't be able to tell the state how to conduct their relations with her their own employees. so either way you interpret the statute raises serious constitutional questions. in light of all that, what i think might happen and why think -- what i think would be a resolution that would preserve justice justice kennedy's concerns would not affect the , outcome of the case is to do what he's done in a number of other cases including under the

voter rights act where he would join the proper statutory interpretation holding of the court but then write a separate brief saying this gives me great constitutional concerned and if and when the state wants to raise it, i will certainly entertain it. other than that i'm not going to , make any predictions about how the court is actually going to rule. these things always remind me of people are like chief justice roberts didn't say a lot during the argument, sort of like those old criminologists, gorbachev looking to his left at the general? we're supposed to read tea leaves. i think it's generally a sucker's game. i think it's a suckers game in this context to try to discern these types of predictions about how the justices are going to be have. so my bottom line is, for the reason i've articulated i expect a nine to nothing victory in june. [laughter] michael carvin: to some of you

saw the argument who are attending me have detected some skepticism by for the justices about my argument but nonetheless, i think once they read the briefs and it said the plane landed in the statute this would be a very short hike page -- short five-page opinion. [applause] [laughter] [applause] >> well, thank you, michael. since today's theme is the imperial presidency, i'm going to act in the early and we will -- act empirically and we will extend lunch 10 minutes. >> mike, i was at the argument and i have to tell you, you did a fabulous job. i've seen a lot of arguments. over the 14 years i have been in washington. i have never seen an estate -- in the state assault by the

liberals in any of the cases. but my question is this. justice didn't -- ginsburg let you get out one good sentence. >> guess it was a good sense. before she brought up the issue of standing which is such a subtle issue that the government didn't even argument in their brief. in fact, the first time this was brought up was one month before i think on msnbc which -- my question is, i read that the liberals are desperate because they gauged how the other justices will were feeling about the case and were hoping they could bring up a standard issue -- the standing issue, it might dispose of the case without it being disposed of substantive ground. is my reading, do you think my reading is off on that? michael carvin: well i have to , disagree with the premise. i just told you she was on my side.

[laughter] sure, it was bizarre really. every judge including all the judges who ruled against us on the merits, it was a very vanilla case of stanley. -- standing. it was dropped really got to the supreme court. msnbc gets involved. there was really no serious issue about it. in a way, she was doing me a favor i must say because i got i , think killed of the standing issue so it didn't come back and give it solicitor general verrilli was not giving them any solace. i think it was a nonissue. in terms of the vigor of the candidates changed a few points, there was literally the justices were not only interrupting my answers, they were interrupting their brethren's questions. it was a very hot bench and

-- and i am used to hostile questions -- this one was maybe unique because for the first time i've ever seen chief justice roberts just on his own site, you get 10 more minutes. he gave us 10 more minutes because he knew it'd been impossible for us, for me to get any answers out. >> let me go to the dark side for a minute and just ask, if the court somehow rules that the statute means what it doesn't say, are you able to discuss at all what you think that means for the loss of statutory interpretation of the future? michael carvin: well, if they continue to interpret statutes the way that you would have to interpret this statute to mean north means south, black means white, then will literally be no

law in the united states, right? because it would be quite impossible for you to enact the that -- a law that binds the judiciary or the executive agency to mean what it says and says what it means. i take solace in the fact that if we lose it will be only in , this case, only for this act and they will revert to when they like the results to honest, neutral interpretation of law. i think it really would be. there's a lot of obviously issues in terms of policy about, that divide people by policy obligations of the affordable -- implications of the affordable care act at this case is about the rule of law. this case is about whether or not we're going to honestly and neutrally interpret an act of a coequal branch of whether we're going to let policy concerns profit. there was a very revealing exchange i think during the argument where justice scalia said to solicitor general verrilli, who by the way i

thought did a fine job of arguing. he's a very able advocate that legitimate unrealistic because -- but i thought he made a real mistake. he said his policy arguments are so convincing, well then with congress right across the street and they can fix. justice pashtun solicitor general really said, this congress? [laughter] michael carvin: which elicited this kind of snarky laughter but i was looking at chief justice roberts and some of the other justices, and the notion that the solicitor general of administration would say, your deference to congress turns to on the partisan congress who is leading the congress, is extraordinary insulting, something the court is never going to take seriously, and i thought they were blanching at that notion. particularly since, my own prediction is this congress will actually take steps in the wake of our victory, numerous op-ed by senate and house leadership saying that there's a way to fix

this thing but there is a way to fix it. i'm hoping that that assurance that eventually the law to mean what it says, won't result in these dire policy consequences should be enough solace for them to do the right thing. >> one more. >> you mentioned that the chief justice gave both sides 10 more minutes but there was no other , case scheduled for that day. did that mean they were anticipating they're going to give them more time? michael: no. but you're right. it probably gave them more flexibility because there was not another one. they had another argument scheduled. did you hear about this? it was a pro se case. the guy was complaining, pro se many non-representative, deployment. they couldn't find him.

he disappeared. so they accepted the case and then they said well, i guess he's not going to be here so they canceled the argument after that. >> she's got one more. >> assuming you win, a lot of people are going to lose subsidies. government subsidies. how do you see the implications of this playing out politically for republicans and the future of obamacare? michael: right. so look, let's put this into a better perspective. they are going to lose subsidies to the notion these subsidies are essential to health care is a little exaggerated. these subsidies have not been able except for the last 50 months. these people would be in exactly the same position would've been at the end of 2014 which was not exactly medieval time we saw sick people scattered across the sidewalks in d.c. and i say that because it's important recognize that nobody

is arguing the absence of subsidies will drive up insurance premiums. what the proponents are arguing other provisions of the act making insurance so expensive, these preexisting conditions that those will drive up insurance premiums and we need the subsidies to offset them. if you have read these offense there is a good way to get people who need the money the money. you give them a tax credit, but you don't say to them just buy insurance on the exchange and don't buy all of this restrictive insurance at the affordable care act -- under the affordable care act, a cap by catastrophic insurance, you have to buy mental health coverage, maternity, conscious all those kinds of things. got and by the kind of interest to them. -- go out and buy the kind of insurance you want. i think didn't think about going to buy insurance across state lines. if you live in new york you can go to utah and get a great deal.

the point would be people who need to help are getting it in the same way under this republican alternative but they're getting it in a way that empowers the consumer to make the choice about the insurance that he or she likes best rather than listening to it hhs says -- is best. my own view is that should be amenable to a consensus of republicans in the house and senate, and i think it will be there difficult for president obama to say no, because after all, you'd be saying no, these people are not getting their needed moneys simply because they are not getting it in the way i want to get it. i think that is very tough for them. and of course, if they cannot reach a compromise on the federal solution, -- prior to this, president obama has been perfectly amenable and easy to say no no, no, we are not changing anything. if he maintains the status quo and we prevail on this case, under his own predictions, there

will be a meltdown on exchanges and 34 states. there will not be in employer mandated 34 states and i think he would view that as very detrimental to what i assume would be what he viewed as his legacy. i think the normal option the president has had does far of just say no, may or may not be available to them. it will be very interesting politics over the summer, obviously. i think the republicans of a relatively straight toward message that would appeal to people who think relatively low income people should get subsidies and those who think that the affordable care act goes about it in the wrong way. >> thank you. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," fred burton discusses the security -- security concerns at u.s. embassies and daniel mention -- daniel

mitchell looks at the tax code and proposals to reform it. after that, maryland state court mcrae talks about efforts to restore voting rights to felons. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments tweets, "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. here are some of our featured programs for the week and on the c-span networks. on c-span2's "the tv" at 10:00 p.m. eastern eric foner on the fugitive slaves and the formation of the underground railroad. sunday night at 10:00 hassa on then rise and hassa throughout the day on c-spann3, american history tv joins historians and

authors at the abraham lincoln symposium. at 6:00 on american artifacts, a visit to the national museum of health and medicine to be items from the civil war connection -- civil war, including artifacts related to president abraham lincoln's assassination. financial schedule at www.c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs. call us at 202 626-3400, e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. or send us a tweet at c-span #comments. join the c-span conversation like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. on thursday, prince charles was in washington dc delivering remarks at an award ceremony for conservation group. he received the teddy roosevelt international conservation award and he talks about the importance of protecting the natural environment. prince charles was introduced by the cochairs of the foundation. senator talley -- sender of new mexico and california.

[applause] >> let me just begin by thanking all of you for being here. my wife marie and i must say it is an honor to be with you today , especially an honor to be here with his royal highness and to acknowledge the great contributions that he has made. as a matter of fact, he was with the members of the united states senate, pressing them on this issue, at a time when every hour three elephants are slaughtered on this planet. just as he presses around the world, so we congratulate him on receiving the teddy roosevelt award. as theodore roosevelt would say cherish these natural wonders

cherish the natural resources cherish the history. it is a sacred heritage for your children and your children's children. and his royal highness takes this to heart and carry this message around the world. the highest levels of governments must be invested. must be engaged. if we wish to see the drastic trends of poaching and wildlife trafficking reversed, the united kingdom put their commitment on display, hosting the london conference on the illegal wildlife trade. conservation is not solely an african issue. reducing the demand of these wildlife products isn't solely an asian issue. the irreversible damage of poaching is a global issue. what troubles me most as

chairman of the foreign affairs committee is the transnational aspect of this illegal trade. they use the same sophisticated and interest networks as drug runners and armed traffickers. as his royal highness explains we need to focus on breaking down these networks if we break down the networks these poachers won't have a means to get the wildlife products to market. and the icc as and other ngos a mystery today, are on the front lines, confronting this crisis. they have done an excellent job in exposing the severity of the problem and for conservation to be impactful, we need all stakeholders, governments, private sectors, ngos working together. our world depends upon it so we can congratulate those who are leaving, such as his royal highness and we congratulate him on this award tonight. [applause]

>> good evening. my wife jill and i, are thrilled to be here with you this evening. it lets you are a roundabout cost for everybody here who has helped this foundation growth and do the good work that it does. thank you for being here. thank you. [applause] your royal highness, the prince of wales, your royal highness, the duchess of cornwall, welcome this evening to the united states of america. [applause] it is an honor to be here to present this award to a true champion of the environment. in new mexico, the navajos the nation's largest native american tribe has a saying, when the land is sick, the people are sick. we rely on our natural systems for food, water, and shelter.

for the very air we breathe. when we protect our environment, we protect ourselves. the need has never been more urgent. the world's population is approaching 9 billion people. every night, one billion go to bed hungry. all life is connected. we are all connected. conservation is not just a personal virtue, it is essential to our prosperity, security, and our planet. his royal highness understands this and we honor him for that here tonight. he is a bright light in the other things we have seen. he stands up or what he has done. your royal highness, i think you said it best in a speech earlier this year. and you said, this is a battle about how we survive as a species on our one and only

planet. it is therefore, a battle we have to win but it cannot be wrong by just some of us. it requires a united international effort. that is the prince of wales. that is a champion. you have fought that battle for over four decades. your commitment has been on the world stage with the prince's rain forest project and addressing the threat of climate change. closer to home, with the home farm. a model of sustainable agriculture through organic farming. the original brand is well known for food that is good and that does good. raising $5 million annually for charity. it tastes good, is good, and does good. i recommend there dark chocolate ginger biscuits. [laughter]

served in america, that is known as a plug and i am happy to give it to you. your royal highness, thank you for your dedication to a sustainable future and your commitment that is lasting steadfast, and is an inspiration to all of us. it is my great privilege with my fellow cochair and friend that we started this caucus together in a house and to present the most prestigious award of this organization. we present the iccf teddy roosevelt international conservation award to the royal highness, the prince of wales. [applause]

>> i would like to bring the other cochairs of the caucus on stage tonight. [applause]

prince charles: ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great pleasure for both my wife and myself to join you this evening although it is briefly. i must say, coming back to the united states is always been and always pleasure and certainly to be met by such kindness, hospitality, and friendship is always wonderfully encouraging. i suddenly realized the other day -- in fact, i had been coming to the united states for 45 years -- look what it has done to me. [laughter] i must admit that my only anxiety about the evening is that i might possibly put my wife to sleep during my speech. i'm sure you all know would be a fate worse than death. whatever the case, i could not be more touched and flattered

that such an important and bipartisan group of international conservation caucus and the supporting foundation should have decided to give me so special and accolade, awarded in the name of one of the greatest of conservationists, president theodore roosevelt. if i may say so, i am even more touched that you should have even noticed some of the things i have been trying to do over the years. at the beginning of the 20th century as the frontier of the americas was disappearing, once common wildlife was disappearing with it. president roosevelt intervened to hold -- to halt this trend and created what has become

known as the conservation movement in the united states. the action he took laid firm foundations for conservation action over subsequent decades and in many other countries around the world. the national parks and other protected areas that he had the foresight to establish are being replicated worldwide, leading to perhaps the greatest conservation success that the world has yet seen. nearly 15% of the earth's land is under some form of protection which has helped to stem the loss of many ecosystems and species. in the early 20th century, many americans saw nature as limitless and write for exploitation.

-- ripe for exportation. roosevelt understood and he said the nation behaves well if it treats the national -- the natural resources as assets and it was turned over to the next generation. the generation increased. during his presidency, roosevelt created five national, four-game refugees, 51 national bird reservations, and 150 national forest, protecting a total of 230 million acres of public land. he set in motion a positive worldwide trend of enormous importance. yet, we see all too clearly now that in the 21st century, nature is nonetheless in a serious face

of decline. the question that has exercise me for many more years than i care to remember is why this might be the case. one conclusion i have reached is that a large part of a challenge relates not so much to whether we sufficiently appreciate the beauties and wonders of nature but whether we regard nature as essential for human well-being. i repeatedly hear it said, as i am sure you do, looking after nature is too costly, it is a growth to economic competitiveness. as long as this perspective prevails, then i fear the destruction of natural systems will be seen as some way rational and an unavoidable

price of progress. as president roosevelt himself pushes, the conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem, unless we solve that problem, it will prevent us from solving all others. in today's testing times, i believe we need a renewal of the kind of foresight demonstrated by president roosevelt. we need to move beyond creating reserves from nature to a new approach that places our relationship with the natural world much closer to the day today conservative -- conservation of humanity. to help with nature and the security of humankind are more links than we sometimes realized. it is essential to our well-being and ultimately, to

our survival that we address those together. this connection is something that i have sought to advance through my own modest efforts, efforts, including the work of my international colleagues, who also established the u.s. forest service. i have sought, then, to advance this connection because i believe the primary challenge of our times is to find ways in which the natural systems and resources on which we depend can be sustained to support our needs indefinitely into the future. while maintaining the incredible

diversity of life on earth. despite the evident challenges, there are nevertheless signs of the seeming insuperable problems, then they can be addressed in a number of areas. one of the greatest challenges and priorities is the establishment of genuinely sustainable fisheries. at a time when so many fish stocks are in serious long-term decline. since 2010, we've been working to establish consensus on our goal to rebuild stocks, as well as to protect the livelihoods of communities and to enhance food security. the potential to do this is underlined in many examples where it is already happening, including here in the united states, such as the recovery and

sustainable use of the morrow bay fishery, gulf of mexico red snapper, and pacific halibut stocks. so much can be achieved through taking an approach that goes beyond trading economic and ecological goals against one another, and instead finds ways to integrate them. as i see it, these and other breakthroughs such as the u.s. magnuson stevens act, are not a barrier to economic and social aspiration, but rather a means to achieve them. i was delighted to learn of the recent announcement by the u.s. government that it would require all u.s. agencies to track all

fish and seafood imports, and establish a system for american consensus to determine where fish and seafood have been caught, by whom, and how. this, if i may say so, is a tremendous step forward in the fight against illegal fishing. i very much hope it will be copied by other countries. now i need hardly say that collective action by governments is absolutely crucial when natural and marine ecosystems are under such pressure globally including through treaties such as the law of the sea and the agreement on the conservation of albatrosses. while i am well aware that united states has not yet ratified these important measures crisis back that with the help of the international consolation caucus, the kind of

leadership you have showed at home in protecting the marine environment would be a welcome inspiration towards making these international agreements more effective. president roosevelt -- [applause] prince charles: president roosevelt was very much ahead of his time in saying that conservation means development as much as it does protection. in some cultures i am led to believe that these beliefs are somewhat controversial, but i'm encouraged by the way that people are working to end deforestation, in particular and seek to embed economic rational strategies simultaneously to achieve

development and economic outcomes. what became known as the princes rain forest object saw positive action in this arena through the aim of making the forests worth more alive, then dead. -- than dead. the progress throughout the world shows what is possible with good leadership. the former prime minister of norway, who achieved so much on his agenda was not able to be here this evening. his work helped to establish the fundamental economic connections between forest conservation and human well-being. and if i may say so, he is a far more worth the recipient of the award you have so kindly just a stone on me.

his current role as secretary general of nato is one of supreme importance, and we are all incredibly fortunate to have someone else his stature and wisdom in such a position at this time. in the last year we have helped to be a series of international conferences. but the first time, we addressed the linkages between the illegal trade of wildlife and the economic stability and national security. if i may say so, it is enormously heartening that united states is providing such great leadership in this area, through addressing the threat of skyrocketing demands facilitated by organized criminals and then some cases terrorists groups for elephant tests, rhino horns by creating a presidential task force and

the national strategy on wildlife trafficking. it is clear that both parties are working well together to develop solutions to this most dire problem, and i can only hope that the international conservation caucus will build on this very important work at home and overseas while continuing to integrate into international defense programs. together with eight the world largest financial institutions the u.s. has issued a report that would allow the financial system to use all available tools against financial crime

related to the illegal wildlife trade . in response to these governments, key governments participating next week, will talk pledge for the first time to aggressively follow the money. i am pleased to say these are becoming a hereditary issue in my family, and my son recently formed a task force to examine the transport industry's role in the illegal wildlife trade and identify ways that we can break the chain between suppliers and consumers. [applause]

prince charles: he will be very pleased to know you all agree. [laughter] prince charles: i am also pleased to be able to tell you after attempts in the past years to gain enough support isu has embarked on a new work stream to look at solutions to the problem of plastic waste in the environment. [applause] prince charles: just yesterday, here in washington, i attended a meeting that they are loaded with the global mission to discuss this enormous challenge. the participants, representing private companies, and governments, expressed their willingness to work together to scale up of immediate actions to stop the flow of waste into the oceans, and those longer-term actions needed to begin the

transition across the plastics value chain to a more -- less wasteful system. they have equally embraced activities that at first sight might seem a little remote from traditional conservation concerns. this involves joining with my foundation of building community in looking at the case of cities and the worldwide problems. by addressing the question of how towns and cities might be developed in harmonious coexistence with their rural hinterlands, we're finding way s to coexist, and a positive synergy arises from how they can

gain a better understanding over rural ecosystems and the supply of food and water. while the issues might seem a desperate hotspots of the governmental concerns -- hodgepodge of environmental concerns, they can only be solved through the kind of integrated thinking and planning that includes genuine participation, aided by the realization that at the end of the day, these issues are also at heart of security, social and economic matters. the question then, is how can we speed up that integrated thinking while there is still time to do so? one thing i believe to be vital his leadership.

-- is leadership. it is one of the reasons why so many people around the world are waiting to become participants. i know how fostering leadership, that all too rare quality is one of the core concerns of international caucus. it seems to me that your bipartisan efforts in this arena, which are unique in this day and age, could not be more important. the same thing must be said about your work to show how, in the end of a conservation relates to the fundamental concerns of societies and governments, including the well-being of citizens, the health, security, nutrition, and prospects for continued economic development. all of which, ultimately depend

on the successful functioning of nature's own unique economy and biodiversity. ladies and gentlemen, the world has look to united states or -- the united states for leadership and 70 shouting circumstances in the past. however, today we are faced by truly exceptional challenges and threats, a veritable perfect storm which, if not met by strong decisive and farsighted leadership, could overwhelm our capacity to rectify the damage, and thereby destroy our grandchildren's future. america's impact is profound and it is my and many others fervent hope that you will continue to inspire others, both

at home, and on the global stage. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] >> on newsmakers this weekend, california congressman adam schiff is our guest. he talks about the isis threat cyber security, and the recent controversy over hillary clinton's e-mails as secretary of state. on friday, president obama

hosted the second annual white house student film festival. the president spoke briefly about the importance of mentorship and stem education. [applause] president obama: hello. hello. thank you. hello everybody, and welcome to the second annual white house film festival. [applause] president obama: it is like the sundance or cannes, is open

to the public, and it may be the only film festival where one the entrance had his to lose -- ofne of the entrants had his tooth loose. [laughter] president obama: our emcees, kal penn, and terrance jay. i do not know if they will be doing musical numbers either. [laughter] president obama: i do want to thank the folks at the american film institute for partnering with us on this event. give them a big round of applause. [applause] president obama: i want to give a shout out to all of the honorees tonight, which either parents, teachers, or someone who supported these outstanding

young people every step of the way. and most importantly let's event up for our outstanding young filmmakers just give it up for our outstanding and filmmakers. [applause] president obama: so, i love this event. this is a second year we have hosted the white house student film festival. it is a great example of what happens when we just unleashed the skills and imagination of america's young people. in this country, if we get all of our kids the best opportunities and technology and resources, there is no telling what they will create, now and in the years ahead. this year we received more than 1500 submissions that came from all across the country. they actually even came as far as as a writer on -- azerbaijan. they were all on the theme of giving back, and we are proud to

unveil our official selections. they are great examples of how young people are making it -- a difference all over the country. we're celebrating a secure old and montana. [applause] -- a six-year-old in montana. he is the guy who was missing teeth. [laughter] he is challenging us to see conservation through a child's eyes. we have a immense story of service to the environment and his country. a teenager who started a wheelchair challenge and raised tens of thousands of dollars to make his school more accessible to students with disabilities. a third-grader who wears a cape as he delivers food to the homeless. you can see even in the film

festival the superheroes are invading. [laughter] president obama: and then there are two women, allison and madison who adopted a highway to clean up the roads in their town. where are these young ladies? raise your hands. there you go. [applause] president obama: so, they decided they wanted to make a bigger impact, so they reached out to young people on the globe , and this is part of the power of the internet, and i have groups in india, france, nigeria, argentina, all getting into the act. cleaning up their schools, beaches, roads, is because these two and women -- just because of these two young women. we're often told how much we are different than how much divides us, but to our shared community service we realize how much

brings us together. that is a profound statement. i do not think i was that smart when i was your age. that is the idea the lies of the heart of service, empathy, understanding, "to make a connection. -- being able to make a connection. as these are people show us, it is a message that can be told powerfully through film. it is a medium that connects us with stories we might never know. it puts us in the shoes of people potentially other side of the world. ordinary never a neighborhood very different than the one we grew up. that is true for your middle schooler to go pro, or a hollywood director on a custom-made soundstage. we know that if today's middle schools are going to become those big-time directors, and we have some big time folks here --

steve mcqueen, from 12 years a slave. and because her winter, a profound film, with issue your presence -- a big oscar winner, a profound film. we appreciate your presence. [applause] president obama: feel free to give some tips. [laughter] president obama: but the next steve mcqueen, or scorsese, or spielberg, or documentary, if we're going to make sure these young people have opportunities we have to support them. we have to give them a world-class education, access to science, technology engineering and math as well as the arts. they have to have is to the technology they need to learn to explore, and grow. it is not optional to have access to the technology today's world. it is one of the reasons i have lost the connect ed initiative.

to connect 90% of our students to broadband and wireless print when we expect free wi-fi with our coffee, we should have it in our schools as well. [applause] president obama: the good news is we are making great progress. more than 1800 school districts have led to bring high-speed broadband and digital learning to their students. companies have donated billions of dollars, and it is making a difference. students in rural alabama used software donated by dopey to make a music video that $1000 for their school in equipment -- thousands of dollars for their school and equipment. parents, teachers, people love

and then farther, coaches, mentors to help and guide their way. today, as part of our united we serve effort i am proud to announce that the screen actors guild is pairing up to give each of the young filmmakers here a mentor to bring out the best of them in the months ahead. [applause] president obama: that is pretty cool. and the organizations are also reaching beyond these young people. they are going to pledge one million hours of educational programs for you people across the next three years. that is great. [applause] president obama: we have seen our impactful these mentoring experiences can be. that's how impactful these mentoring experiences can be.

i want to give you the story of the young woman we honor here last year. she made this wonderful video -- is she here? there she is. i am going to brag about you for a second. she made a wonderful video about how technology in her classroom fueled her passion for filmmaking, but when she came to the white house she was still working on a project that meant a lot to her. after the festival, afi connected her with an accomplished documentarian who served ats her mentor. a few months later her documentary was featured at the international festival. that is pretty cool. and today, the mentoring she received on the technology she has been given did not just help

become a better filmmaker and helped her become closer with her dad. that is the power of what is being done here. experiences like these are not just about a person's future career, they are helping them connect in new and meaningful ways whether it was with your parents, or with someone around the world who may share more in common with you then you think. we do not know what these new connections will produced on the road, but if these movies are any indication, i know that these young people are going to make in a -- an even bigger impact. i am proud of you. good work. i cannot stay to watch the ball but i'm going to get them all digitally. i'm going to give them big thumbs up. thank you. i'm really proud of you guys.

[applause] >> now isis rears their ugly heads, and we cannot be surprised by that. you cannot undo decades of stuff with just a few years. afghanistan, according to the president's announcement, we currently have about 10,000 troops there in a trading and advising role. i would warn that will probably see a similar result to what we saw in iraq when that isis army attacked. >> retired army lieutenant general daniel bolger on the failed u.s. strategy in iraq and afghanistan, and what we should have done differently. on c-span q&a. the director of the council

spoke at the christian science monitor breakfast. this is about an hour. mr. cook: thank you for coming.

now onto the morning's mechanics. you are on the record here. give us time to actually listen to what the guests say.

we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all of the reporters here as soon as the event ends. >> i wanted to give you all a little bit of how we are thinking about the state of affairs is where we find ourselves today. as we think about our position economically, we are in a moment where we are seeing durable

momentum in the economic recovery. one of our key questions is how can we, as an administration position ourselves to be maximally effective at encouraging economic growth and benefits when they are broadly shared. since the election, the president has had a pretty explicit strategy around how to achieve that broad objective. it has consisted of trying to stay on offense, trying to push where he can, to move the agenda through executive action. you have seen that places like climate change immigration, the cuba announcement, but also in places like making mortgages more affordable through the fha

taking on conflicts of interests that plague retirement accounts to help typical americans save more money for retirement. you're going to keep seeing the president in that posture going forward. the other component of this strategy is to lay out a broad expansive ambitious vision of what middle class economics mean and how we as a country should move in that direction. that was the animating principle behind the state of the union and the president budget. speaking with aspirational vision about where we need to take the country. i think the result of these two components is what you seen over the past weeks. seen the president driving the agenda. you have seen him defining the

debate, and you have seen them in the position where they are responding to things that the president is doing. we are looking for opportunities where we can work with congress to move the agenda. one of the things the president is going to do is be very clear about what his vision is and where his priorities are. it is a question if the republican leadership can effectively govern and where they are working together privately speaking -- pragmatically speaking. i me turn it over to jeff and then we will take your questions. jeff: the president said in the state of the union 2014 was a

milestone year for the economy and we are off to a good start in 2015. last month job numbers were almost 300,000 new jobs. that is 12 straight months of more than 200,000 jobs. that is the first time that has happened in almost 40 years. if you step back and look at the position in the global economy. our workforce is the most productive in the world. a decade ago when he have talked about vulnerability in terms of our competitive position in energy, and that is a new source of commemorative advantage as it accrues big benefit.

a big focus on wages, this is a several decades old problem of stagnant wages. the president announce a -- you

will continue to see executive action like the conflict of interest role that brian talked about. we have 5 million job openings in the u.s. right now, 500,000 of those are tech jobs. they are important for innovation and they very well so we are working with private sector companies and mayors to take advantage of trading models like coding camps that can get people in jobs and 10 or 12 weeks instead of years. we will continue to execute on executive actions and do new executive actions. likely across the next couple of months there will be an update of the overtime rule which has not been updated in quite some

time. right now workers have to earn less than $23,000 to qualify for automatic overtime. that is obviously too low in this economy. the legislative front we will look at the intersection of middle-class economic and where we can get things done in bipartisan ways. the president is very committed to trade, trade agreements that are good for american workers. on business tax reform i believe there is a growing consensus that business tax reform is needed and that some of the revenue from business tax reform should be used to fund infrastructure. we have a significant deficit in infrastructure and this combination of reforming business tax code and funding infrastructure is a train that has growing bipartisan interest and we want to capitalize on that if at all possible. the economy is solid, we have a strong global position. at the same time does more work to be done on executive actions and working together in a bipartisan way was -- there is more work to be done on executive actions and working together in a bipartisan way with congress. host: let me ask you about the biggest economic challenge you see the country facing. janet yellen said it really of that economic growth had "moderated somewhat," and the strong dollar was hurting export

and keeping inflation too low. what keeps you up at night? jeff: i think that making sure that we are doing all we can on the middle-class wage front is most important. as i said that is a decades-old problem and there are several levers we should pull. infrastructure is good for the middle-class. we have seen positive effort with states increasing minimum wage and we should do that across the board and congress should back a minimum wage. we should continue to, as i talked about earlier, invest in job training methods and programs that work and have well-paying jobs on the other end of the program. so that we are working with the private sector in partnership with local employers and local businesses and community colleges to ensure we are taking

advantage of new training methods and filling well-paying jobs on the other end. so we need to continue to address wages and make sure we have good middle-class opportunities. host: last thing for me. you said we would see more with that posture on executive actions and we have fracking rules today. what is left on climate? brian: if you look at the end on the -- agenda around greenhouse emissions, this is a place

where we have a very aggressive agenda. most of the actions that we are pushing for are actions that we can move forward on through the executive space. so the short answer to your question is yes. yesterday we announced a goal in the president executive action to reduce greenhouse emissions from the federal government by 70% and there are a whole host of actions associated with that. today we are releasing new standards for fracking on federal lands but if you look forward, core to the agenda is the clean power plan, which will be focused on reducing emissions from the private sector and that has been proposed and then we will implement that. we have an opportunity in the international space to leverage what we are doing domestically into a viable global agreement. then beyond that, if you look at in the area of methane or energy

efficiency, we have a lot more to do to tighten down on energy waste and pollution but also provide long-term incentives to encourage investment in that space. host: will you be doing that by burning the constitution? jeff: this follows legal precepts not only of the clean air act but other environmental laws. if you look at the clean power plan which is what you are obliquely referencing, this is a role that -- rule that at its core is based on providing flexibility to states. the structure of the law, the clean air act and the structure of the rule, is about setting targets and giving states broad flexibility to achieve that. what you have seen outside of

washington is broad interest in red states and blue states around how to be pragmatic about creating plans that will work for those states. that is our focus, will remain our focus going forward. host: ron by the power outlet. ron: some questions for you guys. there has been a lot of attention on capitol hill on net neutrality arguing that the white house interfered. can you comment, did you interfere with the fcc process? brian: the fcc is an independent agency. the president made his is

known through the appropriate channels including a video that was publicly released. fcc independent and the president's views known through legal channels. ron: over the course of the last year congress has 1600 pages of e-mails that point out a fact that you have met with the chairman repeatedly, some files from the beginning of november in which the white house expressed concerns. we are saying that for months the fcc was pressured. brian: i was referring to legal channels for the president to express his views. in terms of meeting with wheeler, i do that periodically on a wide range of issues, net neutrality being one of them. ron: can you sketch out for us over the next several months you guys will be doing on tech and telecom? brian: we will continue to implement initiatives like tech

hire. we started out with partnerships with cities and rural areas with employers to fill the half-million open tech jobs and take advantage of the models. we will continue to execute existing executive actions like private and public partnerships in hiring and rollout new executive actions and i will not get ahead of those. mike: on the trade agenda, you said that the president is very committed to the trade promotion authority. and you talked about that. can you give me some sense of specifically what the president is going to be doing and when he is going to be doing it and what

portion of his time he is going to be spending on this when that comes up? what commitments have you made to do tangible things? will he be touring around the country and making that the focus of remarks or is this something he will leave to cabinet members and make the occasional remark in speeches focused on other things? is this washington focused versus public focused? and briefly, brian you talked about there will be a lot to room for rules on energy efficiency and methane. can you give me a better sense of what that is? pipeline rules or more than that?

brian: as i said before, the president is committed to trade agreements, starting with the passage of tpa, that is his top legislative priority. you see that in the state of the union, a full throated argument in favor of trade agreements good for american workers. he actually did a weekly address on trade agreements. he is spending time with members from the house and senate. it is also an all cabinet effort. secretary lou was in miami yesterday on trade. the cabinet is spending time in washington and out talking about the benefits of trade.

most importantly are the frontlines of negotiations so this is a priority of the president's and therefore a priority of all of us who work for the president including his cabinet. there is an all out effort to make sure there is a full understanding of the benefits to the american worker of strong free-trade agreements. jeff: on your second question, with respect to methane, we have announced a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40% to 45%. the way we will do that is still a combination of regulatory action and voluntary action. on the regulatory side this includes measures like the epa proposing rules for new sources on methane which is something that we anticipate will come

forward here in the next several months. on the voluntary side, this includes work through for example the usda was working with the agricultural industry to get a voluntary agreement to reduce emissions from the sector. in the efficiency context, part of what the president did in the climate action plan was set bold overall goals to reduce energy waste and increase energy efficiency. the department of energy has a cadence of rulemakings to increase standards in buildings, appliances, and otherwise. you can expect that cadence to continue over the next two years. this is a place we are looking to partner with the private sector because the truth is that by providing the right incentives this is a place where there is huge opportunity.

i was with the president and a who's who of the fortune 100 yesterday when the white house made the announcement and you have everywhere from ge to hewlett-packard that only committing to work as contractors for the federal government but also setting greenhouse gas reduction plans and a lot of that is driven on the fact that it is low hanging fruit, short payoffs, two or three or four year returns. this is a place where by being smart about how we partner we can leverage impact substantially. reporter: you talked about offense through executive actions. i was hoping you could give us some insight on how the executive actions come together. do you get the playbook on the

offense? some of these like the greenhouse gas emissions are big executive orders, other things may be smaller bore regulations packaged together by the white house to give it more impact. in the fourth quarter of the clinton administration, there was project modesta. is there a project dese, or project zients? jeff: there is a project zients, but i told you about it, i would have to kill you all. so it is a good question. and part of this comes from leadership and direction from the top, and part of the tone of

that the president set. many of you have heard this directly from him, but coming off the election and over the last couple of months was, you know, we are in the fourth quarter. a lot of games get decided in the fourth quarter. that has resonated with me as a patriots fan. we need to be creative and stay at the effort to look for every reasonable and creative way to leverage the assets that we have to help make progress on these broad middle-class economic themes. so in practice the way that gets manifested is you have the white house policy council, one of which jeff leads, and the domestic policy council. it is a collaborative effort working with agencies trying to identify ourare there places where we have not thought as creatively as we could. some of that is on rulemaking. the regulatory space. but some of it is on partnership. finding new ways to partner. the word

bully pulpit is often thrown around, but this is also a time of us very concretely and hardheaded on how to use of platforms that the president and also the first lady have to drive progress. also this is a wide-ranging effort, and one that frankly the energy and enthusiasm around it is largely coming from the president himself. jeff: let me add a little to that. i agree with everything brian said. there is a clear message from the president to his whole team and his cabinet. in the fourth quarter, get as much done as we can. getting stuff done falls into two broad categories when it comes to executive action. one is what we have already announced and executing against those initiatives. on monday and tuesday, we are holding sweat usa over at the national harbor.

the president will be addressing a crowd of about 2500 including over 1200 overseas investors. this is about having companies pick the u.s. for their investments. this effort started several years ago at commerce, and has now grown to the scale and has real results in facilitating investments in the u.s. so constant execution against executive actions that have already been announced is as important, if not more important, as new executive action. so we will continue to roll out new executive action, but the president is holding us to account on strong execution of executive actions that have been announced over the past several years. kevin: [indiscernible] a couple of questions for each of you.

fast-moving questions. for jeff, the labor department overtime standard. there has been some grumbling that the number you are looking at is not as big a number as the labor advocates would like. let's talk about what you are wayneeighing against. i know you don't want to get out of it but what the trade-off you're looking at. i will save the tougher one for brian. one on autos. you were deeply involved in that, a great front page story in "the wall street journal" this week on mexico and the trade pacts. how it is winning new plants. what can be done short of tpa, what other practical steps could help to bring these auto plants that are going to mexico, or elsewhere, back. and then on energy the potential in exports. do you think exports would create artificial shortages, or

do you think oil experts -- exports are needed. jeff: i'm not getting in the specifics of the world. -- of the rule. as i said it will come out in the next few months. it is $23,000 for and salary workers. we think there is an opportunity to make a significant change there that will help many workers earn what they deserve. reporter: there's a trade-off in everything you do. what are some of the things that you are weighing? jeff: i want to make sure workers are earning what they deserve. at the same time, that we continue to have a competitive economy, in what is increasingly a global economy. the level is so outdated at this point, there is an opportunity to move significantly. brian: just briefly, on your two points. i think reflecting on the american auto industry, it is really striking to me where the

industry is today, given where we were in the winter and spring of 2009. even the optimists at that time weren't projecting either the pace at which job growth would return to the domestic auto industry or the pace at which the overall industry would recover. the second thing that people were not projecting, which probably goes to the competitive question you raised, is that in the last couple of years, we've seen something striking which is that the detroit three have actually gained market share. against their foreign competitors in the united states. so, the up swing is not simply that we're back selling, you know, a little north of 16 million cars a year, when we were, when we bottomed out at just over nine million.

it's also that these companies are finding ways to actually out-compete and take market share from their foreign competitors, which was something that was absolutely not conventional wisdom or prevailing wisdom and instead was a sort of slow march of losing market share for the american companies. i think the question going forward about how to keep the united states a competitive location for domestic manufacturing investment is broader than the auto industry alone. and it's an issue that we spend a lot of time on. we are seeing trends both in health care and energy and otherwise that have really helped change the game in terms of the competitive posture for manufacturing domestically. i think that there's more that we can do. jeff mentioned select u.s.a. on monday. it's an incredible event and initiative where we are bringing foreign investment to choose the united states.

there's also more that we can do, and usgr has been aggressive in enforcing trade agreements, which is an issue that's important in the auto space. i think that continued vigilance on the enforcement side is important as well. just very briefly on the energy side, we have not changed the longstanding policy with respect to crude oil exports. the changes we've seen in the industry over the past several years, increase in production, changes within the industry itself, raise a number of questions about where the industry is overall. and we are looking at that and monitoring the industry constantly. but we don't have a change of policy with respect to that. and don't have anything else on that.

jeff: to add a little data to the position we have in the global economy, due to these strategic innovations we have. productivity in our work force and now energy. we're the number one place to invest, when you poll global c.e.o.'s. and more than half of c.e.o.'s of manufacturing companies are looking to bring facilities or locate facilities here in the u.s. so that's part of why you have such strong interests in select u.s.a. next week. reporter: could you talk a little bit about the fiscal issues? it was clear this week from congress is that there are deep divisions in the republican party and there's a lot of chafing beneath the budget control act caps on the defense side but also on the domestic side. when people talk about a ryan-murray type deal, there's no patty murray, anymore. it's the white house. the white house is the democratic side.

what are you doing to try to drive the republicans to the table before there's a crisis at the end of the year? and what are the prospects of some kind of settlement that would get the president his higher caps and satisfy the republicans on their deficit reduction? brian: there still is a patty murray. she's still a force to be reckoned with. i think overall on the fiscal side, and then to the specifics of the, you know, of the discretionary issues that you're raising, our hope, as we were moving into this budget season was that the changes that we've seen in the economy and in our fiscal position would actually help move us beyond the fiscal -- the old fiscal debates of the last several years. part of what we were trying to

do in our budget was acknowledge that our fiscal situation and our economic situation have changed in important ways. both in the near term, in terms of the rapid fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction we've seen, but also in the medium term, largely around the reduction in the rate of growth of health care costs continuing to step down, baseline estimates of deficits in the future. that's not to say that long-term fiscal challenges have been solved. but we are in a different position. unfortunately what we saw with the republican budget, what we saw was largely the same approach, prioritizing deficit reduction over shared growth starting principally with tax cuts aimed at wealthier americans and then forcing very deep cuts in order to pay for those and hit the fiscal objectives.