-- they get comments and make different categories. justice alito: how can we tell the degree to which costs without knowing the criteria for creating subcategories? mr. smith: it is in the statute. justice alito: no, the 12% came into play after you created the category. mr. smith: right. justice alito: how do i know they create the subcategories? mr. smith: you can see it in a notice of proposed rulemaking. what happens is people comment and say, we are so different from that category. we have special problems. justice kagan: it is a rulemaking after the rulemaking that applies to the listing, is that right?

mr. smith: it is totally after that. if the second phase. justice breyer: you confirm it was not made up in my chambers. [laughter] mr. smith: they did a wonderful job. this -- justice breyer: the congress -- the brief said unambiguously required epa to consider costs at the second stage of the process. that is what it said. i read the statutes. reading that leads me to think it works along the lines you just said. if he did at the most expensive set of generators in the world you would ask epa to create a separate category in which case the top 12% would no longer be in your category and you wouldn't have to do it. when asking is, if you think it is the system, that is what i read in the statute. is there a treatise? an explanation that the epa has put out so it is clear it was

not made up and it is clear the system is following that? mr. smith: the only thing i can supply you with is the notice proposed rulemaking in the final rule. the process is laid out in detail. justice sotomayor: i think justice -- chief justice roberts: is there something in the administrative record where the epa. that, when somebody says you are not considering cost, we are going to the supreme court? and then epa says, no we will consider cost. mr. smith: well they certainly said, in the notice of proposed rulemaking, that we interpret the listing decision as being something that is based solely on health and not cost. right.

justice roberts: i want to know there's anything there that says don't worry because we are considering cost through categorization. mr. smith: that was so implicit in the whole system. this is been in operation since 1990. chief justice roberts: implicit usually doesn't work. mr. smith: they gave everybody the opportunity to attack the categories that they proposed. justice kennedy: i thought the position was that he didn't need to consider cost that the first step and that would include your initial category. mr. smith: the categories are the second step. justice kennedy: but you didn't take that second step. mr. smith: yes they did they categorized oil fired plants in four categories.

justice kennedy: you say that was done based on cost? how much did that save. justice scalia: did we know how much of the 9.6 alien dollar cost would be reduced? mr. smith: i don't have that calculus but something like 90% of that which is most of the $9.6 billion, has already been spent. and industry has not experienced the kinds of the peoples that are being described. the rule takes effect in the middle of april so the idea that the result was somehow ludicrous or outlandishly expensive, is belied by the fact that the industry is bringing itself into full compliance. justice scalia: instead of going to jail? it might be ludicrous but i had to be done. mr. smith: the other thing i would say is the $4.6 million

benefit is the proper comparator is wrong on so many levels. justice kennedy: is the $9 billion a year recurring annually are most of this is capital investment one time? mr. smith: most of it is amateurish station of the capital expenditures that have already been made. 40% will be operating costs, 60% of annual costs. the industry has been able to do this, and the situation is we are ready to have national standards. the states been regulating have -- will continue to have mercury flowing across state lines. a half's national, competitive electricity market were some companies have marginal cost and some don't that is a problem that needs to be solved. justice sotomayor: finish your

thought, the 4 million -- 4 billion that they are referring to is only mercury. the agency did not quantify other costs for other? mr. smith: it did not quantify many if not most of the others. sotomayor: let's put that aside. mr. smith: all of these other things that are not quantify in the will -- rule. a causes cardiovascular problems that are not a lot of things. it is extremely poisonous. some of the particular reduced is not mercury metal mercury acid gases they go into your lungs as tiny droplets. so all of those are being taken into -- taking care of in the controls of particulate. it is true that in controlling

those, you use the same technology and u.n. of controlling a lot of other kinds of particulate. primarily sulfur dioxide which causes the major deaths. -- premature deaths. so when they did the calculation they said we put these particulate controls and to control them. it saves a lot of lives because of sulfite or oxide -- sober dioxide is not being controlled. justice alito: was this the basis for the decision? i thought that position was, does it matter how much the benefit or costs exceed the benefits. mr. smith: that is correct. they did not consider the cost benefit analysis at the listing stage. the statute, it's conceding you don't do the cost benefit analysis of front. the statue came out of the time

of regulatory paralysis of 20 years. the epa was not regulating effectively. congress came in and said we are going to force regulation. of these chemicals being spewed into the environment. he gave one benefits of power planning industry and said you have three years to prove there wasn't health effects that are serious. but it did not give them the benefit of having a cost benefit analysis done up front. chief justice roberts: thank you, mr. smith. mr. lindstrom, you have four minutes. mr. lindstrom: thank you. any sub categorization is going to happen has already occurred. we are talking about the role that has been promulgated and despite any sub categorization there's still $9.6 billion in costs. justice sotomayor: it wasn't the question presented. is the question that -- not that

you have to take into account at listing, but somehow the ratio makes any emissions standards wrong. even if for some people, it's really not backbreaking to do it? mr. lindstrom: the question is whether cost has to be considered when you're regulating electric utilities. and this one thing i like to -- sotomayor: they do say it does. mr. lindstrom: i say that's what happens under 7412 if you have a listing decision first stage. for standard. in their approach -- justice sotomayor: you're taking out the categorization. they don't establish the floor until they categorized. mr. lindstrom: so categorization could happen here but my point is what happens under that is the first steps are merged.

the language says such regulation is appropriate and necessary. it's not whether it's going to be listed is looking at what is actually going to happen. they published emissions standards and were looking at a cost ahead. justice scalia: are you saying that they purported to make the categorization decision without taking into account cost? mr. lindstrom: yes, any categorization has already been done and they did not consider cost. and again, i would like to return to the big picture. this is an administrative law case. they've already made the determinations. they said costs are not relevant. they ignored an important part of the problem. justice sotomayor: they proposed categories and everybody had the opportunity to say it is wrong?

and argue why? and some people submitted complaints about cost relative to their technology and their kinds of plants? mr. lindstrom: yes, your honor. justice sotomayor: so it's not true that they propose them but everybody gets a chance to tell them this technology is different from the others are this is different from the other and imposes a cost much greater than anticipated. mr. lindstrom: they're already passed that faith. justice sotomayor: it's past because that has been the final rule issued. i'm talking during the rulemaking process. it does permit agency to consider the cost of knowledge he in setting up categorizations. -- technology in setting up categorizations.

mr. lindstrom: they adapted the exact opposite position. justice breyer: we just heard that the late-night people said we have specially for producing this. they are much more expensive. please don't put us in the same category as he put the other people. how did that happen? -- did that happen? and how would you do that without considering cost? mr. lynch him: we don't know how they -- i don't know how, but they said throughout that we are not considering cost. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> the u.s. and five other world powers today announced a one-day extension of talks with iran on the country's new year program. the deadline for agreement was

tonight but the talks will continue into tomorrow. there are reports about the announcement that came after a day of mixed signals. negotiators initially said an announcement would be made in advance of a self-imposed midnight tuesday deadline. then suggested the talks might have hit a snag. senator tom cotton, who earlier this month wrote to iranian leaders saying congress need to approve agreements, we did today with a statement from his office. we will have more about the negotiations tomorrow on c-span. live at 10:00 a.m. easton -- eastern from the brookings institution.

that evening, tomorrow evening at 6:30 eastern, from the world affairs council, we will hear from the obama administration's former deputy assistant secretary of state. life at 6:30. -- live at 6:30. >> the most memorable moment with hearing senator cory gardner's aim you need to be firm in principle exploit details. i think really reflects the solution of the heart polarization we are seeing. the methodology that is all of the senators and congressmen and women can adopt, we can come together as a country and solve many of our pertinent issues. >> my favorite quote came from julie adams. he said, remember to be humble and have a strong work ethic. the people you meet on the way up, you will meet them again on the way down. >> in congress itself, often

times we had a lack of truth. as much as i disagree with him senator john mccain did something impressive. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill, and reading the senate torture report, and maintaining that staying away from torture is central to our democracy. if we have people willing to cross the aisle and to make decisions with people they don't agree with, that is what we need to maintain the security and integrity of the nation. >> high school students who rank academically in the top 1% of their states were in washington dc as art of the united states senate youth program. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span security. -- c-span q and a. >> coming up tonight, the debate and that chicago mayors race. rahm emanuel seeking a second term. he was forced into a runoff.

in the first round, mr. emmanuel 145 percent -- 145%. that is that it caught p.m. eastern. in neighboring indiana, governor mike pence called for clarification of the religious freedom measure he signed into law last week. opponents say it allows businesses to discriminate against gay people. he says it is not that he is calling for a new law explicitly stating that it does not allow discrimination. the press conference is under 40 minutes. gov. pence: thank you all for coming. it has been a tough week here in the hoosier state. but we will move forward. as governor i have the great privilege of serving the

greatest people on earth in indiana. let me say first and foremost, i find the religious freedom restoration act last week. i believe religious liberty, as president clinton said, when he signed the federal law in 1993, religious liberty is our first freedom. it is vital to millions of americans who cherish faith as my family does. it is vital to the framework of our nation. and this legislation was designed to ensure the vitality of religious liberty in the hoosier state. i believe hoosiers are entitled to the same protections that are in place for our federal courts in the last 20 years and are the law in other states. clearly there has been confusion, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of the law.

we've been working around the clock, talking to people around the state of indiana. talking with people around the state and business leaders, and organizations around the country who had spent time in indiana and enjoyed the hospitality of indiana. we have been listening. let me say, first and foremost, the religious freedom credulous -- restoration act was about religious liberty. not about discrimination. as i said last week, had this long been about legalizing discrimination, i would have vetoed it. it does not give anyone a license to discriminate. it does not give anyone the right to deny services.

it is simply a balancing test given by our courts and jurisdictions across the united states. let me say on the subject of the bill itself. i do not believe for a minute it was intended for discrimination. or right to deny services to gays, lesbians, or anybody else. it certainly was not my intent. i have -- i can appreciate that that has become the -- perception. and we need to confirm that. and confronted boldly. in a way that respects the interests of all. personal reflection for a moment. i a poor -- abhor

discrimination. the way i was rose -- raised with the golden rule, that you do unto others as they would do unto you. i believe in my heart of hearts that no one should be harassed because of who they are, who the law -- who they love and with whom they believed. i believe every hoosier's errors that conviction. we have a perception problem because some people do. and we intend to correct that. after much reflection, and in consultation with leadership of the general assembly, i have come to the conclusion that it would be helpful to legislation this week that makes it clear that this law does not give his this is the right to deny

services to anyone. let me say that again. i think it would be helpful and i would like to see on my desk, before the end of this week, legislation that is adding to this law that makes it clear that we are not discriminating from anyone. we want to make it clear. hoosiers on the kindest, most generous, most decent people in the world. let me say that i believe this is a clarification, it is also a fix. it is a fix of a bill that through mischaracterization and confusion has come to be greatly misunderstood. and i'm determined to address this this week.

to move forward as a state. i know we well. indiana has come under the harsh glare of criticism from around the country. and some of us get paid to be under the harsh glare of criticism, so we do not complain about it and let the things that have been set about our state have been at times deeply offensive to me. i will continue to use every effort to defend good at the decent people of indiana. i think it is important that we take this action this week. i've spoken to legislative leaders all the way through the last hour and we will be working to make that happen.

i will be happy to take questions. >> when some speakers from your own party criticize, i would like to ask you, under this law is it legal for anyone to deny services to same-sex couples citing religious differences? gov. pence: this law does not give anyone the right to deny services to gay and lesbian couples. i could have handled that better this weekend. going into the interview, i was just determined to set the record straight. i'm very pleased that the reporting about the religious freedom restoration act has significantly improved over the

last several days. i think there is a growing public understanding that indiana has passed a law here that mirrors the lot that president lincoln signed. -- president clinton signed. i'm grateful for that. but my intention was to set the record straight. i want to be clear, and thank you for the opportunity. >> do you regret having signed it? gov. pence: absolutely not. religious liberty is vitally important in our nation. to ensure that hoosiers have the same level of scrutiny that they believe our religious liberty has in the state courts, that we already have in our federal court to my was simply the right thing to do. it is that important.

i was pleased to sign it, and i stand by the law. >> are you still opposed to giving protective status? gov. pence: i have never supported that. i want to be clear, it is not on my agenda. but i think it is a completely separate question. we are talking about the religious freedom restoration act. which is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny in our state courts. when matters of government action intrude upon the religious liberty of futures. that is where i want to stay focused. but i do believe that i will move legislation this week. it will make it clear the law

does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. that is still under discussion. and consideration. >> were you expecting this backlash? gov. pence: was i expecting this kind of backlash? heavens, no. when i first heard about the legislation, i heard that it was already federal law. i heard that it was the law through statute and court decisions in 30 jurisdictions. in the wake of last year's supreme court case, i thought it was an appropriate addition to indiana statutes. it moved through the legislative

process, with good debate, but not a considerable amount of controversy. so when this iraq did last week even though i had made my position clear weeks ago that i would send the bill, without much discussion, i was taken aback. i have to tell you that the gross mischaracterizations about the still early on, and some of the reckless reporting by the media about the bill, was deeply disappointing to me and millions of hoosiers. we are making progress on that. we are turning back. i am grateful for expressions of support from around the country, particularly those in the media for reporting what this is all about.

>> [indiscernible] gov. pence: let me say, the smear here is that it created a license to discriminate or a license to deny services. that is completely false. and baseless. the professor who i quoted this morning in my op-ed said this is not a license to discriminate. i think the proper legislative remedy is to focus on the perception that has been created

by the mischaracterization, and to make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. >> speaking of the backlash, most of the states pass this and that late 90's. do you think that explains the backlash? gov. pence: you mean the public reaction? i think it is explained by the fact that this was grossly mischaracterized by some frankly sloppy reporting the first couple of days. i really do believe that.

look, if i read some of the stuff about this bill, i would have the same concern that millions of hoosiers have had when president clinton signed this bill in 1993, the american civil liberties union said than that the religious freedom restoration act was the most important legislation considered by congress since the first amendment was approved. ok? when state senator barack obama voted for this bill in illinois, it was with broad bipartisan support. one of the great pieces of legislative history of the religious freedom restoration act it is a has a way of bringing people together. consensus. this has been broadly supported on a bipartisan basis. i would suggest to you that what

explains the concerns that have been expressed across our state and our nation is the mischaracterization. we need to focus specifically on this perception that this creates some license to discriminate. that is what i am calling on the legislature to do. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i think that the language is still being worked out. what i want to make sure is that it is clear to hoosiers and to the people that i serve, and frankly clear to anyone who would come to visit our state.

there is in this legislation no license to discriminate, no right to deny services. i think we can develop that language. >> [inaudible] governor pence: this law does not give anyone a license to discriminate. this law does not give anyone the right to deny services. the language that i'm talking about adding i believe we be consistent with what the general assembly intended. >> [inaudible]

governor pence: i am calling on the general assembly to send me a bill that focuses on the issue here. that focuses on -- frankly the smear that has been leveled against this law and the people of indiana. that somehow, through our legislative process, we enacted legislation that created a license to discriminate. that is so offensive to me as a hoosier. i know it is offensive to people across the state of indiana, that we have to correct that because it is not true. it has to do with the perception of our state and our businesses.

>> [inaudible] governor pence: we need to make it very clear. irrespective of where those ordinances are in community are not, that this law does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible] governor pence: the intent of the law, when president clinton signed it, when i signed it, was

to give the courts in our state the highest level of scrutiny in cases where they feel their religious liberty is being infringed upon by government action. >> you talk about the perceptions. how does the state of indiana get its good name back? governor pence: it has a good name. this law has been smeared. we are going to mark our 200th anniversary next year. the name and reputation of the people of indiana is strong and secure.

the reputation of this law and the intention of our legislature have been called into question. we need to deal with it, we need to deal with it this week, and we will. we will fix this and we will move forward. that is what hoosiers do. >> [inaudible] governor pence: no comments. >> what exactly do you want to see? governor pence: i want to make it clear in the law that the religious freedom restoration act does not give businesses the right to deny service to anyone. i have said before to people and i want to stipulate the

coverage on this has gone better and more fair. but early on there was some really reckless and irresponsible reporting about this. i would just submit to you that it is important that we address the principal allegation here. with legislation in this law that makes it clear that it does give you businesses the right to deny service to anyone. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i wasn't talking about you. frankly, can i say this, i don't want to let the indiana press off the hook here.

i think the indiana press has had this right from early on. some of the national reporting has been ridiculous. i would encourage you to do a quick google search. you will find all of it. >> [inaudible] governor pence: i have been on the phone. talking to business leaders, i have been reaching out to the leaders of associations and corporations around the country, setting the record straight about what this actually does, and what our intention is in passing it, and our intention to correct the perception that has taken hold.

>> [inaudible] governor pence: i think the more relevant event with the hobby lobby case by the supreme court. it was a case in point of the value of the religious freedom restoration act. it really is. obamacare was passed into law. it included mandates on health care coverage for businesses and hobby lobby and the university of notre dame, among others filed federal lawsuits to challenge obamacare under the religious freedom restoration act. the supreme court in the majority opinion last year upheld the right of private business owners, under the religious freedom restoration act.

citing the act. here is the background. in 1993, the federal law was signed by president clinton. in 1997, the supreme court of the united states ruled that the act did not apply to states that did not have their own statute. and that is why you have 19 states that have adopted statute. 11 other states that have adopted it in their case law. indiana never did. and so in the wake of the hobby lobby decision, to ensure that hoosiers in our state courts have the same level of scrutiny when their religious liberty they believe, is infringed upon, the general assembly room to this legislation. that was the precipitating event. >> [inaudible]

governor pence: people are entitled to their opinions. but this law does not create a license to discriminate and it does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone. i think it would be helpful if the general assembly were to get legislation to my desk that made that clear, and made that clear in the statute. >> court cases where the government is not a party. gov. pence: the purpose of the religious freedom restoration act is to give people in this

country the opportunity to go into our courts, state and federal for more than 20 years where they believed that government action has imposed and impinged upon their religious liberty. that is the foundation of this idea. this is about -- this is about restraining government overreach. i want to say again, the reason why this is such a broad and bipartisan measure over much of the last two decades is because every american cherishes religious liberty. we all understand the importance of the freedom of conscience. it is enshrined in our constitution. it is enshrined in the constitution of the state. that is what this is about. i understand the perception of

this has gone far from what the law really is. we have been doing our best to correct that perception. however imperfectly. we will continue to do that. i want to say i'm extremely grateful for voices around the country who have stepped up and stood by indiana as we stand by this law. that being said, as governor of the state of indiana, i believe it would be the right thing to do. to move legislation that would make it clear this law does not give businesses the right to deny services to anyone. >> in your conversation with business leaders are you confident? governor pence: those conversations are ongoing. i remain very hopeful that if we focus on the principal misperception that we will

garner support, restore confidence and we could move forward. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: i think a number of the 30 states that have the standards are in the same position indiana is in and the federal government is in in terms of protected status. let me say with great respect i think that is a separate issue. it is not my position. i am not advocating for it. i understand some people are. that is a separate question that should be considered separate from this idea of religious liberty and that we will give records indiana the ability to

discern with the highest level of certainty with people of our state believe government action has intruded upon their religious liberty. right here. she is right here. >> [indiscernible] governor pence: why is it contained? >> [inaudible] governor pence: you would have to talk to the indiana general assembly. i am pleased to answer the legislative history question. i believe it would be good to make it clear that businesses do not have the right to deny services to anyone. i will about you -- how about you?

go ahead. >> should it be legal in indiana to discriminate against gays? governor pence: i don't believe or support in discrimination against gays or lesbians or anyone else. i abhor discrimination. i want to say this -- no one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love or what they believe. i believe it with all my heart. this issue of discrimination has been an and him throughout my life. -- anthem throughout my life. i started out in politics as a democrat in high school. i was the use democrat party court -- use the democratic

party cordwainer in my hometown. not -- coordinator in my ho metown. the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. was one of my heroes in my youth and to this day. five years ago john lewis approached me on the floor and asked if i would co-host the annual program which -- pilgrimage to sleelma. it was one of the greatest honors i had. we felt so strongly about it that not only did my wife go with me, bout ourut our three teenage kids went with us. it was the 45th anniversary. the night before in montgomery we sat in dr. king's church. we talked to people who were there. we were deeply moved by the courage and the fate of the people that were there. -- and the faith of the people

that were there. i was walking across the bridge with john lewis. that is probably what has been most courageous about the debate. i'm very typical in indiana. hoosiers are a loving, kind, generous, decent and tolerant people. we are known all over the world for that and i'm just one of them. and, so the suggestion that because we passed a law to strengthen the foundation of religious liberty in our state courts that we had in some way created a license to discriminate is deeply offensive to me and millions of hoosiers. we will correct it and move forward.

>> [inaudible] governor pence: the difference in what? >> the businesses are not following the reports on twitter. governor pence: a to want to talk about private conversations or interactions -- i don't want to talk about private conversations or interactions. this is a perception problem and we need to deal with it because it is the right thing to do, and so everyone around the country and the world knows indiana is a welcoming place to everybody. i agree. we have to correct that perception. the whole debate of how we got here -- we are where we are.

as ceo of the state of indiana i'm determined to bring people together to figure it out and move forward. yes? >> do you personally believe -- marriage should be compelled whether it is photography or baking, across the board. governor pence: this law does not give a license to discriminate to deny services. >> i understand that you personally. -- but you personally. we all know how things have changed. you personally, do you think that -- good thinking people

should have the right to deny services. governor pence: i don't support discrimination against anyone. the question that you posed though i believe -- we are d ealing in a free society with a careful balancing of interest. the facts and circumstances of each case determined the outcome. what this legislation does, what it did when president clinton signed it into law in 1993, and what it served in some 30 states is provide a framework for determining whether or not government action puts a substantial burden on a person's religious libertyl. .

it is counterbalanced against whether there is a compelling interest. first, in any case, does the government action place a substantial burden on the freedom of religion? under this standard, the next question is is there a compelling state interest? what courts have found without exception over the last 20 plus years is that the state has a compelling interest in combating discrimination. i support that interpretation. ok? the last one. >> [inaudible] governor pence: the conversations have just been ongoing, candid. we have been listening, sharing facts about this law and our determination to step forward

and provide the kind of solution that will allay the concerns and correct the misperception. there have been a lot of ideas shared. as i said, i don't believe for one minute that it was the intention of the general assembly to create a license to discriminate or to deny services to anyone in our state by this legislation. it was not my intention. i have made it clear to those businesses that we will take such action is necessary to correct that misperception and move our state forward. ok? thank you all. thank you all very much. >> we will take you live in chicago at 8 p.m. eastern for a debate in the city's mayor race. rahm emanuel seeking a second term.

he won 45% of the vote in the first round and mr. garcia got 34%. the debate is coming up live tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. at today's white house briefing, press josh earnest answered questions about the indiana's new religious freedom law allowing dissemination against gay people -- discrimination against gay people. he also talked about the possible extension of nuclear negotiations. the answered questions about harry reid's retirement and other topics. we will show you as much as we can to the debate in chicago gets underway at 8 p.m. eastern. josh earnest: all right. good afternoon everybody. nice to see you all. it is always nice to see so many smiling faces. i was hoping you would tell me. let me do a quick announcement before we get to your questions. this is something you have heard a little bit, but i want to

underscore the significance of it. last november, many of you were there when president obama stood alongside the president of china and made a commitment to reduce our country's carbon emissions by 2025. at the same event, china made a substantial commitment to reduce their carbon pollution by making a huge an unprecedented commitment to clean energy. today, the united states submitted to the united nations our plan for meeting this goal. it is evidence how president obama is leading the world to confront the challenge of climate change. in light of today's announcement, we are confident other countries will step up and follow our lead. the united states will take to meet our commitments includes the clean power plan, power efficiency standards on cars, standards for buildings, broader efforts to reduce methane

emissions, gases that have a disproportionate impact on climate change,. these steps are not just good for the environment, they work for the economy. we know investments in clean energy including manufacturing and research and development have tremendous economic potential. we can also look back over the last few years. even as the unsafe is that our carbon pollution by more than any other country in the last several years, we have also over the the similar time, bounced back from the worst economic downturn since the great depression and created many jobs. this is a significant announcement. i would anticipate over the course of this year, this is an issue that has an opportunity to continue to be discussed. do you want to get us started, julie? julie: officials are started to talk about the idea of extending the talks beyond this deadling withe with iran.

do you see enough signs for progress today to extend beyond themidnight? how flexible will the president be on the deadline? josh earnest: the president has been updated already today on the latest that us of the ongoing talks in switzerland to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i would not rule out the president be in touch with membership of the negotiating team later today. we will do our best to keep you updated. the update i have received is that our negotiators have determined over the context of a mostly sleepless night last night and long negotiations over the course of the day in europe today that they will continue these conversations tomorrow as long as -- if necessary -- as long as the conversations continue to be productive. now, the president has been very clear that we have been having

these conversations for more than a year now. the international community standing alongside the united states seeking very specific and very serious commitments from the iranians. every pathway to get a nuclear weapon and to agree to intrusive inspections. and, we have been very clear that after a year of negotiating that iran is not in position to make a serious commitments, we will be prepared to consider other alternatives. if necessary, and the conversations continue to be productive, it is possible the talks will continue. >> the decision has not been made yet? josh earnest: right now, it is still march 31. our negotiators are engaged in serious negotiations that have been going on not just over the course of the last year which is relevant, but also over the last day, there been engaged in very serious negotiations. if it is necessary -- i mean, it is midnight and a deal as not

been reached, but the conversations continue to be productive it would be prepared to continue the talks into tomorrow. >> does that apply to another day, another day after that? at what point do you reach your limit on these extensions? josh earnest: it is clear to say that we have reached our limit right now. as far as the conversations have been going on for more than a year. we have established the deadline to reach a political agreement where we can have a framework that would guide technical negotiations that would continue into june. but, at the same time, it also does that make sense -- not make sense if we getting serious engagement from the other side to just abruptly end the talks based on this deadline because the fact is if we are making progress towards the finish line, we should keep going. ultimately, this is, like i

said, something we have been talking about for more than a year now. it is time for iran to make a serious commitments that they know the international community is excitement to make -- expecting them to make. if they are not willing to make a serious commitments, the united states, alongside the international community, will be in position to consider some other alternatives. >> i want to move on to the indiana religion law. governor pence says he wants to amend the legislation earlier this morning. not allow discrimination to gays and lesbians. do you support amending it or a full repeal? josh earnest: this will require some decisions that have been made by the legislature and governor of indiana. the kind of public outcry we have seen in response to the signing of the law, i think it is indicative of how this piece

of legislation flies in the face of the kinds of values people across the country strongly support. and, we have seen the governor and other indiana officials in damage control mode because this is this law has provoked an outcry from business leaders across the state of indiana. we have seen criticism from even religious groups inside the state. we have seen concerns raised by the republindianapolis that the impact of this law would have on the economy of the state. understandably, we see business leaders saying they are reluctant to do business in a state where their customers or employees could be subjected to discrimination. that is not fair, not consistent with our values as a country that we hold dear.

and, i think that is what has provoked the strong outcry and what has provoked the previously defined governor to consider a position to change the law. >> that are legal scholars in support of the law and think it will be upheld. does the president feel they need to amend that law? josh earnest: at all the governor pence has tried to falsely suggest that the law is the same that was passed in the federal level in 1983. that is not true. and, the reason that is not true is the 1993 law was an effort to try to protect the religious liberty of religious minorities based on actions that could be taken by the federal government. the indiana law is much broader. it is not just apply to individuals or religious minorities, it applies to "a partnership, limited liability company, corporation company firm society, joint stock

company or and unincorporated association." this is a significant expansion of the law in terms of the way it would apply. it leaves open the question what religious views a joint stock company could hold. at the same time, it is worth noting the law in indiana does not just apply to interactions with the government, it also applies to private transactions as well. which means this is a much more open-ended piece of legislation that could reasonably be used to justify discriminating against someone because of who they love. that is why we are seeing such a bipartisan and even nonpolitical outcry against this law. again, think that is also what has prompted indiana officials to reconsider the wisdom this approach.

>> i want to ask about the elections in nigeria. what is the white house's reaction to the election of the new president? what is the perception of new leadership will mean for the fight against boko haram? josh earnest: it is too soon to speculate on the outcome. we congratulate the people of nigeria who exercise their political duty by going to the polls. we would like to commend the patience voters have demonstrated. we also have been heartened by the consensus of independent international observers that the elections were largely free, fair and transparent with only isolated disruptions due to violence and technical challenges. the world is paying close attention to what happens next. we here continue to encourage all candidates to abide by the law signed in january and the peace pledge signed last week.

this is entirely consistent with the message the president delivered to the nigerian people in the internet video we released last week. >> what has to happen for the white house to a knowledge -- acknowledge the election? josh earnest: we want to see an announcement from election officials inside nigeria about the results before we would weigh in. reporter: lastklyly, how does the white house view the military force that was announced during the weekend? josh earnest: what we saw from the arab nations meeting in egypt over the weekend was essentially a commitment to put together a coalition armed forces that they could drop on aw upon to react to security

challenges. they were a lot of details that were left unstated or on agreed to -- unaggreed to. it depends a lot on how -- what the command structure looks like, how decisions will be made about deploying the force. the united states has strong relationships and even strong military to military relationship with many countries that have entered into this broad agreement. so, we are obviously going to watch closely what additional steps countries take to but this together. it is something that we will watch closely and have conversations about. the other thing i would point out is that many of these countries are countries that have contributed to the ongoing military effort inside of yemen that saudi arabia initiated in response to security concerns along their border. the united states is providing some important intelligence, logistical support to that

ongoing military operation. this is indicative of the kind of strong military to military relationship we have with saudi arabia. and, so, we are going to continue to watch the decisions that are being made by the countries that have agreed to this in principle. it is hard for me to say at this point or a specific judgment because there are so many details that have not been locked down. reporter: the out of government having conversations with their parties? some of the details were left unsaid? josh earnest: these are countries the united states often -- given all the events taking place in that region of the world and given the close relationship we have with some of the countries that have been involved in those negotiations, it should not be a surprise that there have been u.s. officials including the president, that have been in touch with them in

recent days. ok? reporter: the deadline tonight -- does it not begin with an arbitrary deadline? it could be extended which essentially means it will be extended. isn't it a fact the deadline is two weeks from now when congress gets back? josh earnest: i would concede a little bit on the front end that the date is a little arbitrary. the reason for that is because these negotiations have been going on for more than a year. it is appropriate at some point for everybody to say we are either going to reach an agreement or try something else because we don't want to be in a position where we are just sort of mindlessly talking without actually advancing towards an agreement. that is why it is appropriate to put in what some might observe could describe as an arbitrary deadline. it is a serious one nonetheless.

based on the that we have been in conversations for more than a year, it is clear to the iranians what sort of commitment to the international community is seeking from them. that is why we believe by the end of march, we should be able to reach at least the broad outlines of an agreement that would establish a framework for the technical talks that would continue. reporter: what about when negotiators away for a couple of days and then come back? josh earnest: our negotiators are still having constructive conversations and we have not reached a deadline yet. what my colleagues in europe have indicated is that if the conversations continue to be productive but are not finalized by the end of the day today they would leave open the possibility of continuing the negotiations. i do want to speculate beyond that. reporter: there was a report today of military aircraft having an end to encounter with

an american helicopter. with a tangled alliances involved in the region. the u.s. and saudi arabia are against iran. u.s. and saudi arabia are against hassan. iran is on hassan's side. the houthis are fighting. does all this get a little confusing to the american public? josh earnest: i think it is fair to point out that the security and political situation in the middle east has been complicated and even confusing for centuries. these kinds of alliances that you are observing are not you need to the middle east and certainly not -- unique to the middle east and not unprecedented. what the president's approach

has prioritized is the safety and well-being of the american people. and trying to strategically and opportunistically advance our interest in this very collocated -- complicated region. the way the president has chosen to do this is to build on the kinds of relationships that already exist in the middle east. that is -- the best evidence i can point to is the success that this president had in building a coalition of more than 60 nations to confront isil. that the united states is one of the few countries in the world that could step up and build a coalition like that. all of the countries that are part of the coalition have an interest in the grading and ultimately destroying isil. it is the interest of all those countries but it requires leadership for someone to step up and say this is all in our

collective interest. let's act together to confront it. that is the kind of leadership this president has shown and we have seen evidence of the success of that approach that we have seen inside iraq. up to 25% of the ground that had previously been taken over by isil is now an area where isil can no longer move freely. that is one pisa and evidence -- piece of evidence that the president can ensure the interest of the united states and our allies are advanced. reporter: saudi arabia is very much suspicious of the talks with iran. reaching a deal with iran strengthens iran economically would ultimately pose more of the threat to saudi arabia? josh earnest: let me say a couple of things.

it is fair to say to use your word suspicious that saudi arabia has been suspicious of iran long before any sort of conversations begin between iran and the broader international community to obtain a nuclear weapon. it is not a new phenomenon. the international partners are engaged in this effort because we believe the policy is the best way to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- get them to make amendments that will shut off paths to a nuclear weapon and get them to agree to a set of intrusive inspections will verify their compliance. that is in the best interest of the united states, our allies in the region. we also believe it is in the best interest of our partners in the region as well, including saudi arabia. the united states as we are doing right now in yemen has taken steps to support saudi

arabia's national security and to advance their interests in the region. we do that in a way that is consistent with u.s. interests of course. we believe this is another way that we can do that. preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is in the best interest of saudi arabia. we say that because a nuclear armed iran is only more destabilizing. it only makes more dangerous the kind of support they can offer terrorist organizations. it only makes it easier and more dangerous for iran to meennace those countries the united states have strong relationships, including israel and potentially saudi arabia. we believe that preventing iran from obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy is the best way for us to get a good outcome. by good outcome, i mean an outcome that is consistent with national security interest of the united states and consistent with the national security interests of other countries we have a strong relationship with.

alexis. alexis: last week, president rouhani spoke to prime minister cameron. the prime are there any circumstances under which president obama will be directly with president rouhani? josh earnest: the president has not recently had a phone call with president rouhani. at this point, i don't have anything else to tell you about the president's day. there is no call scheduled at this point. alexis: you were talking about the outcry about the enemy situation being bipartisan and not political -- the indiana situation being bipartisan and not political. former leaders immediately embrace it. the you think they were acting in a political way or did not

understand what the laws implications might be? josh earnest: i do not know what is motivating their position to speak out. alexsis: it is a public outcry as opposed to officials. josh earnest: there is criticism for the law. michelle? michelle: the deadline is firm, we have heard that said this week. now the deadline might move and we heard it has been going on for a year and by now everybody should be ready in where they are be, but it would be wrong to end it if there is progress. i guess you are left with which is it? it has been going on for a year. if iran is serious and the commitments they have to make our clear wouldn't they be there right now? josh earnest: just because these negotiations have been going on for a long time and that we have been very clear about what sort of commitments we are seeking

that these kinds of conversations are easy -- they are not. we are talking about a complex issue and an issue that has a significant consequences for the world. so i think it makes sense that they are very serious. we have been pleased to see that iran is engage in these conversations over the last year with purpose. in recent days, the talks have been productive. if they continue to be productive then we would be in a position where if an agreement has not been reached by the end of the day the serious conversations could extend to tomorrow. reporter: the sanctions -- what to do about the stockpiles -- would you say there has been progress made in any of those three areas or do they remain the stalemate? josh earnest: the other thing that has been true is that we have the declined to get into the play-by-play of the negotiations.

that is because we have been guided by this notion that nothing is agreed to went until every element has been agreed to. i declined to give you an assessment other than to tell you some remain. as long as we are making serious progress towards resolving those sticking points, it is possible those negotiations could continue until tomorrow. but the president is very serious about the fact that we have been talking about this over the course of the year. it is time for iran to make some serious decisions about whether or not they will make the kinds of commitment the international community expects them to make. michelle: is there any indication that they are not 100% serious just the fact that there is no agreement at the deadline? would that alone be an indication they are not serious? josh earnest: no, i think the willingness they have displayed to engage in serious

discussions about some very serious issues is an indication that they take this seriously. it is a long way from actually getting them to make the kinds of commitments that are required to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that ultimately is what we are most focused on. reporter: you said the president was very involved and called negotiators today. would you say that he is encouraged by what you call serious progress or how is the viewing this today? josh earnest: i think the president is interested in hearing from his team today about what additional, about where things stand in terms of negotiations. and i think i would characterize him as being very interested in these serious talks. he recognizes the stakes here. but, what is also true is that it is time for iran to make some

serious decisions. if they are unwilling to make those serious decisions i have no doubt that the president will be ready to move on to consider other alternatives, but we continue to believe that the best way for the united states including the international community is through diplomacy. that is why we are so aggressive in pursuing this option. ok? reporter: as you said, the stakes are so high. the president has set up this deadline. with all that in mind, how far would it be for president obama to ashley walked away from the negotiating table -- to actually walk away from the negotiating table? josh earnest: it would certainly not be the outcome he prefers. no deal is far better than a bad deal. the president is not in a position to sign a bad deal. iran is going to have to make serious commitments that shuts down every pathway to have a

nuclear weapon. they would have to commit to cooperating with intrusive inspections. the reason for that is simply as we have seen repeated attempts over the years of, by iran, to circumvent international inspections. that is why this agreement will be contingent upon iran's cooperation with probably the most intrusive inspections of a nuclear program that has ever been conducted. iran has earned a reputation as an organization, a government that will go to great lakes to try to circumvent -- great lengths to try to circumvent these inspections. if iran can make those kinds of commitments in the context of this political agreement, that would be the best possible way for us to resolve concerns about iran's nuclear program and

verify they are not acquiring a nuclear weapon. if they are unwilling to make those kinds of commitments that give us that assurance. the international community and we will have to walk away from the negotiating table and look at other offers. reporter: consider the other options available -- what message has been sent to iran or told to them directly at the negotiating table that either we come to an agreement here where this is going to happen? what is the this that we have told them? josh earnest: we have been very clear publicly. i will not get into the details of what words were exchanged but we have been very public about the fact that every option with feeling -- dealing with the

situation has been on the table for some time. that is not a threat but it is intended -- reporter: is there a military option? josh earnest: it continues to be on the table today. we haven't very clear that the diplomatic approach would be more effective in resolving the international community's concerns. we know between sending back their programs, extending the time having clarity into the actual composition of the nuclear program that we can have negotiations and a lot of it goes away if we consider the military option. deployiong military option, we would have less insight into iran's nuclear program. it is possible to buy the greater incentive inside the country to actually pursue the breakout window that currently exist for them. and, we would do much less to

set back their program over the longer term than we could potentially do through diplomacy. i say that because we have been clear based on some of the reports that the agreement we are seeking is one in excess of a decade. it is not like military action would have a long-term impact like that on their nuclear program. reporter: just to make it clear -- the president is prepared and let the iranians know that he is prepared to walk away from the table over the next two days? josh earnest: the president himself has said that no deal is better than a bad deal. the united states will not sign on to a bad deal. the only kind of diplomacy agreement that we have envisioned is one that definitively just that every path to nuclear weapon for iran

and imposes and iran cooperates with intrusive inspections. major? reporter: that is not a direct answer to that. the direct question is will he end the process. not if he will take a bad deal. the key question is after a day or two, if there is no resolution come with a negotiations cease? josh earnest: i was not weighing the merits of a good deal or bad deal. when i was adjusting is that no deal is preferable to way that deal. the president is repaired to walk away from negotiating table before he signs of that agreement. by bad agreement, mean one that is not disability -- definitively shut down their path to 11 and is not get a

commitment to cooperate with intrusive inspections. reporter: the joint plan of action is to continue the course? josh earnest: it does. it is in place through june. that is true regardless of what was described as the arbitrary deadline. reporter: if there is no deal, then it alle ends, correct? whatever is going on under the joint actions disappears at the end of june if there is no deal, correct? josh earnest: it is my understanding, that is how it is structured. what the united states and the international community said was knowing there are technical aspects of this agreement that will take some time to hammer out, what we should do in the midway point, by the end of march, the international community and iran should come

together around a political agreement that would establish a framework for that technical agreement. reporter: the deadline is june 31? josh earnest: in the mind of the united states, this is shared by the international community and even the iranians would say there is merit to this argument -- that trying to work out the political framework and all the technical agreement at the same time would be very difficult. that by establishing a framework in the context of a political agreement, which we believe we should do now, would give our experts time to go through and it through all of the details. an agreement like this certainly fulfills that old cliche about the devil being in the details and making sure that every technical detail this agreement is locked down and carefully reviewed by both sides to make sure there is no and acuity --

ambiguity. these are very technical details that require a lot of precision. we want to make sure we leave apple time for the scientists to work through -- ample time for the scientist to work through. we want to make sure the technical negotiators have to were three months to work through the details. reporter: as you all know, in november 2011, there was a report about possible military applications of iran's nuclear program. not just material but other advances have made in pursuit of what is viewed as a nuclear arsenal. iran has given no explanation about what those things were, or even admitted they exist. does iran have to admit those things were pursued and does there need to be a means, other

technological advancement, have to be eradicated for this deal to be done? josh earnest: again, i don't want to get too far ahead of what is being negotiated right now. let me say two things. the first thing is at least some of the things you are describing are the kinds of things that are the subject of ongoing negotiations now and would be the kinds of things that would be resolved in the context of the ongoing negotiations. what is also true, this is the second thing an important for people to understand when it comes to our approach, even if we are able to reach what we and the international community would describe as a good agreement, one that shut down every pathway they have to a nuclear weapon and in a commitments about complying with international inspections we are still going to have a long list of concerns about iran and their behavior. i do want to leave any impression that those kinds of concerns will not be -- there

are a lot of negatives. i do want to leave any impression that we will resolve those >> this is one of those otherworldly concerns. josh earnest: americans who are unjustly detained. threats against israel. >> what i asked you about is not about those things. it is central to what iran's ambitions were. they have made no representation to the iea about what it is doing, no evidence to suggest what was going on, and i'm asking you, does iran have to come clean on that aspect of its history and have a way for that technology to be destroyed for this deal to work and be acceptable to this administration? josh earnest: this history you

are siding is obviously in the mind of our negotiators sitting around the table right now. some of the issues you have raised are these issues under discussion. i don't want to get into those details. >> is it a high priority? josh earnest: at some point if we are able to reach an agreement we will be in a position where we can talk to you and the american people and the congress about what commitments iran may in the negotiations. concerns like the ones that you are raising is something we will have an opportunity to discuss at that point. >> does the administration believed to crete has been freed of isis or isil domination? josh earnest: there have been conflicting reports.

what i understand to be accurate , the statement posted this morning, in the context of that what that indicated is that portions of western and southern tikrit had been taken by the iraq's security forces under the command of the iraqi control government. they have been able to make that progress because they are backed by coalition airstrikes launched at the request of the prime minister. it is apparent those airstrikes have the intendant affect, make them more affected on the battlefield. we continue to see these of iraqi security forces offering under the command of the iraqi control government, and the organize and carry out their missions in the multi-sectarian fashion that reflects iraq, and

the prime minister's commitment that this military operation would not be used as cover to exact sectarian revenge. >> on a set -- newsmagazine assad was interviewed. i wonder the have any comment on his assessment that he continues to roll with the consent of the governed, and that he is encouraged by secretary kerry's comments about willing to negotiate his future with him directly. josh earnest: i did not have the opportunity to see that program that you described. i did see reports that the program. what i would say is we have been clear about how we believe the future of syria can be resolved which is that it should be resolved around the negotiating table in which elements of the assad regime would participate.

the reason we do not believe a saw to participate is that he has lost legitimacy to lead the country. his willingness to use his own military to target his citizens is something that the international community cannot buy. it is why he has lost legitimacy as a leader. the future of syria should be decided around the negotiating table. we will support efforts to create it not with him. >> i want to go back to iran and differentiate between technical. today was the state of this interim place to see was there will, a commitment that could lead to a permanent deal. what falls under the political category and the technical category sounds movable, for example.

in lebanon -- are the things that we talk about being the difficult things, does there need to be something worked out at this point for it to be considered to have the intent to make a serious deal? josh earnest: you are asking an important question. it is difficult to talk about while the negotiations are ongoing. i can try to describe for you the idea behind the way these are structured. it is simply at a top line level , political leaders in both countries, because we are talking about political leaders from iran and the united states and france, and the u.k., and germany, and russia, and china and as political leaders want to come to a political agreement about what kind of method iran is willing to make to

demonstrate they are not going to acquire a nuclear weapon. in the context of those political agreements we would want to have an facilitate detailed technical discussions where you could essentially a very detailed fashion demonstrate how iran would fill those commitments. i think that is the goal of these talks. we established the top line. >> the breakout time. those numbers would be there details of subcategories. josh earnest: generally speaking. i don't want to get into the details. we are talking about the broader context of an agreement. in the context of the technical details we would give iran the opportunity to demonstrate in consultation with a technical experts how they will solve the

political agreements they have reached. >> the un's human rights breach -- does the administration agree with that assessment? >> it is not the first time someone has made that assessment. yemen is a tumultuous price -- place. we are concerned about the political situation inside yemen. it is clear there is a lot of violence in that country more than usual. the united states is supportive of the efforts by saudi arabia to try to resolve the security situation along the border. ultimately we believe that the u.n. led diplomatic process is one that everyone should support. it was -- it would result in sitting at the negotiating table to resolve their disagreements rather than on the battlefield. there were reports there were

dozens of innocent civilians killed in a camp in human. the details of how that violence occurred are still unknown at this point. i do think it underscores how important it is for the violence to come to an end and for the diplomatic effort to commence. so that we can try to bring stability to that situation in the violence. >> the state department officials received a letter from the lawyer from the american who is being held in yemen since 2010 expressing concerns suggesting this administration suspended operations at the embassy and has abandoned americans. they are asking for concerns --

is the white house of where of this letter? josh earnest quote josh earnest: i don't know if we have the letter that we can check on that. >> [inaudible] what is the administration thinking on moving forward with a land that there is no where we can physically achievement when these other countries are not going to make the deadline but bigger concern, long-term whether there's going to be commitment and sacrifices we are committing to. josh earnest: we have seen china make serious commitments. this is an agreement that will

stretch over 10 years. it is too early to say or judge whether or not they will be able to live up to their commitments. they have demonstrated how that was possible to making the historic an unprecedented investment in clean energy that was succeed in winning their power generation off of or away from coal-fired plants. that would have been extraordinarily powerful impact on the efforts to fight climate change because climate is the world's largest in matter of carbon pollution. the commitment we saw them make would have a material difference. i would acknowledge you are right over time china will have the opportunity to demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment to this issue. there are a host of reasons to be serious about it. one is that they obviously are keenly aware of the impact of our changing climate.

there are -- there is plenty of evidence to indicate there is political activity in china associated with this. the population has expressed concerns about the quality. there is an interest in china in making these kinds of commitments and in backing them up. time will tell us if they are willing. >> there is pushed back saying this for presents yet another agreement that congress should be involved with, and they should have a voice in net. how do you respond to them? >>josh earnest: i'm not sure they would be in the best decision whether a -- the kind of agreement the president succeed in striking with china and is implement a here is one that will have a positive impact on carbon

pollution will have a positive impact on trying to make the air safer for americans in this country. and will have a positive impact on our economy. that is why the president is pursuing the so aggressively. we would welcome any support we could get from congress and that measure. >> is this an agreement congress should have the ability to sign off on? josh earnest: it is hard to take serious way from some members of congress who deny climate change exists they should have the opportunity to render judgment about the climate change agreement. >> yesterday the administration the administration said march 31 the deadline has to mean something. given that you are selling showing willingness to extend the deadline, how does that show the

message that march 31 doesn't has to mean something, how can you expect to accomplish in another day when you haven't been able to? josh earnest: this has been a longer process. we have made some progress. we have seen a sustained commitment by the iranians to engage in serious negotiations. these talks, there are two scenarios under which the talks would continue tomorrow. the first is they have not reached an agreement today. there are several hours before the deadline and the second is they are making progress toward that goal candidate means that we continue the conversation tomorrow to complete the agreement common sense would dictate it is worth pursuing. it certainly doesn't get any easier. what is heart of these kinds of

conversations is as negotiators work through the different issues, the most difficult are the ones put to the end. now that we're at the end of the negotiations the only things that are left are the toughest things to resolve. i think that is why you have seen so many long negotiations. as long as those conversations continue to be productive we are going to continue to have them. >> use of the toughest thing to resolve are the things that are left. [inaudible question] josh earnest: we are mindful of the fact that any agreement will have to be signed off on by

iran's political leadership. it is fair to say those decisions aren't made with transparency. there is some doubt about that way that this gets resolved and whether or not iran will make the kinds of commitments that are being discussed and insisted upon. it is that measure of doubt that leaves us to continue to conclude that there is a definite possibility that iran can't make the commitments of the international community is insisting upon. if that is the case the immunity will be forced to consider alternatives. >> you have mentioned over the course of the last year there have been briefings. are those going to continue? or is the u.s. going dark in the final days of this negotiation

open to finalize a deal? josh earnest: i don't have the specific conversations to talk about. the administration take seriously the need to keep leaders in congress carefully apprised of the status of the negotiations. with congress not in session and scattered around the globe it is not always to easy to track them down. we have provided updates. we stand ready to provide additional updates. >> what looks like a sliding deadline, does that impact keeping congress on board? a lot of democrats said they would wait until the deadline before they move forward. now it seems like the deadline is sliding to make it difficult to keep congress from going ahead and acting on its own. josh earnest: our case to congress has been that congress

should and will have an opportunity of a deal is reached to evaluate that agreement. they should do so on the merits but the ultimate goal in mind to verify that i ran is not able to obtain a nuclear weapon. that is going to require iran making commitments, and require iran to show a willingness to cooperate with intrusive inspections. there will be ample opportunity for members of congress, for our allies, for the american people evaluate the wisdom of the steel if a deal is reached -- wisdom of this deal if the deal is reached. [inaudible question]

josh earnest: this will obviously be a discussion for the leaders of that committee and secretary clinton to have. i don't have an opinion on it. >> you have said the white house administration has done enough. josh earnest: we certainly have. if the committee makes a request secretary clinton decides she wants to josh earnest: once again go above and beyond in terms of trying to provide information and access, then that will be a decision for her to make. >> senator warner said you would sign on to menendez review that could -- what is the strategy to keep democrats in line as they approach a majority on this legislation? josh earnest: our strategy is

principled with staying in touch with members of congress, to ensure members of congress as the president has and as i have on a number of occasions they will have an opportunity to evaluate the political agreement if one is reached. we would intend to help them understand what iran has committed to do. we would encourage them to consider an agreement if an agreement is reached on the merits. it is the deal of the president who is leading the strategy that diplomacy is by far the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that is the context in which we believe the agreement should be evaluated area at this point it is too early for anybody to say they have concerns about it or it is going to be a bad deal. >> what does it say about negotiations that the

president's own party is checking him here? josh earnest: i am a that is how they would describe it. we are going to continue to keep an open mind and communication with democrats and republicans. what's unfortunate is over the course of the situation we have seen republicans acted in a brazenly partisan faction to undermine a deal. i'm referring to the letter signed by republicans to the leaders of iran. it is unfortunate that an agreement like this would be subject to such rank partisanship. we are hopeful that that kind of partisan fever has ended enough to convince members of congress to set aside their partisan interests and evaluate an agreement if one is reached with the country's best interest in mind.

that is something we have only seen on the republican side of the aisle so far. >> there is enough democratic support. josh earnest: i'm confident democrats and republicans will have an opportunity to evaluate the agreement and we are hopeful that both democrats and republicans will set aside partisan interests and a biweekly agreement they slowly -- evaluate the agreement. again, this presumes that an agreement is able to be reached and we haven't reached one yet. >> given the deadline has changed for today, should we expect june 30 is a firm deadline or could we be sitting here with you saying well, if things continue to make progress we will continue to have conversations? >> there is a difference that has been highlighted between the

deadline at the end of march and the june deadline. the june deadline is when the joint plan of action agreement would end. as many have pointed out it is an agreement that has been extended at least twice. again, the fact that it has been extended twice as evidence we have been negotiating over this a long time. >> is that when the president starts to consider other options? josh earnest: i would say if we are not able to reach a political agreement and the timeline we have described, we would walk away from the negotiating table. if we are not able to reach a political agreement then we are not going to wait until june 30 to walk away.

because of the way these negotiations are structured the believe it is important for us i ran command in -- iran, and the international community to enter a framework before entering into the technical negotiations take place. that is will we envision. >> the only thing holding on a deal of things related to the deal -- not other things in the region? josh earnest: that is our view. the p5 plus one is united. what is really holding up the talks is the commitment from the iranians that we need to see. that is what we are making progress against. we are only going to -- that would lead us to continuing the conversations tomorrow. if we are not able to reach an agreement tonight.

the conversations continue to be productive. >> i want to ask about iran. you just said you are democrats and republicans to put aside partisan differences. there seems to be growing bipartisan opposition. i just wonder if you can clarify what you mean by having democrats and republicans set aside bipartisan concerns. josh earnest: i am saying two things. one is that we have seen republicans play in a pretty brazen fashion partisan politics with this. we saw senator cotton and 46 of his partners in the republican get together & a letter to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran to undermanned -- undermine the talks. that was a partisan effort and not consistent with the way the

american the would expect that elected representatives to evaluate the best interest of the united states of america. it may be the best way to try to seek a partisan advantage. but we are looking for is an american advantage. that is the whether the president is trying to conduct these negotiations read -- negotiations. this has sometimes been misunderstood by some members of called chris. that is specifically part of this agreement eventually the removal of the sanctions that congress put in place against iran. in order for those sanctions to be removed congress will have to take a vote. what the obama administration has said is that the sanctions put in place by congress should

remain in place for some time until we can see iran has agreed to live up to the commitments they make. what congress wrote into that sanctions legislation was the ability of the president of the united states to waive some elements of those sanctions understanding that agreement would work and we would see over time the production and sanctions over a time. that is the way we believe it should be structured. there is some difference of agreement about this and iran. iran would like to see those sanctions removed because they have a debilitating impact on their economy. the united states, given the past history and the compliance with international agreements, we will make sure i ran shows -- before moving them.

>> your announcement today about the $508 million in aid a total of $4 billion, half of what the u.n. said it needs to do what it needs to do to shore up the humanitarian efforts. given that much of the united states be doing more? should others be giving even more? josh earnest: it is my understanding the united states continues to be the largest contributor on a bilateral basis to this humanitarian disaster. there are millions of people in syria and across the region will been displaced by the violence. it is tragic. some of the recording i have seen from the region puts a human face on something that we discussed in academic terms here. there has been a real human cost to this political instability. it is tragic.

the united states is demonstrating we are going to continue to lead not just based on our economic and political influence, but by our moral influence. that we as a country understand people are suffering, and we have an opportunity to try and alleviate that. that need is significant and we're going to work with the international community to mobilize resources to meet these needs. >> donating on the lower end of the total, saudi arabia donated $60 million. should those nations that are in the neighborhood be stepping up more and providing more? especially the saudi's who could afford it? josh earnest: based on the substantial commitment, you can interpret this is something we feel strongly about. we will encourage countries all

over the world to consider what they can do to try to meet this humanitarian disaster for moral reasons. >> coming up, the final debate between rahm emanuel and his challenger jesus garcia. later, mike pence holds a news conference on the state new religious freedom law. rahm emanuel and his challenger jesus garcia are meeting for their final debate before next week's mayoral runoff on april 7. the debate comes as a recent chicago tribune poll finds emmanuel leading his challenger. the election had no clear winner on february 24. the runoff election is next

week. the event is hosted by wttw-yv. live coverage is next. >> the city club of chicago. >> smart people may disagree about what makes a great city. part of what makes chicago great is we don't have to agree. a lot of issues,. the city club of chicago is the place to debate those issues and hear from men and women who shape the policy is, leave the industry's, and tell the stories that define our city. for the free and open exchange of ideas, the city club of chicago. moderator: good evening. on this tuesday, march