Later was chief counselor of the Senate Agriculture committee. In 1988 he founded the wellknown Government Relations firm with his brother tony. He served president clinton as to be the chief of staff and then as white house chief of staff until 2001. He was cochairman of obamas Transition Team in 2008. He is the proud father of air force captain gabe podesta. So much for prior review. Now to the process portion of our program. Anga a gas alliance is sponsoring todays breakfast. Our thanks to them, for sitting at the table back there keeping me from the pain of premature retirement. Sponsors or not, we are on the record here. No live blogging and no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to what the guest says. There will be no embargo at the end. As regular attendees know the monitor breakfast is one of the last bastions of fusty folkways. Do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal, and i will happily call on everyone with the time we have available. We will move to questions around the table. I would like to thank them again for doing this. Good to be here. I want to start and talk for two minutes. Lots has been going on in washington this week, what one of the things i have been focused on is the rollout of the proposal to reduce Carbon Pollution from power plants across the United States, which Gina Mccarthy announced on monday. I raise that because one of my principal duties now at the white house is to coordinate our activity on Climate Change and energy, and put this in a little bit of context. Power plants are accounting for about 40 of the co2 pollution in the u. S. , 1 3 of the overall Greenhouse Gas emissions. It is the largest source of Carbon Dioxide emissions in the United States. It is important to reduce the level of pollution. The president began to discuss this proposal when he went to Childrens Hospital to tape his weekly address a week ago today, which aired last saturday. The reason he did that is because there are Huge Public Health benefits that will attend and come from this rule. More than 130,000 asthma attacks amongst children avoided, 2800 heart attacks avoided, 2700 to 6600 premature deaths, visits to hospital emergency rooms, lost workdays. Today we will release a report that links the effects of Climate Change to Public Health. Many of the benefits that i just discussed come from that coal benefit from reducing traditional pollutants, so2, nox, and pm2. 5 emissions. Climate change itself will increasingly be a problem for our Public Health, and the report we will be releasing goes to the National Climate assessment as well as the ipcc report to show how the effects of Climate Change will have effect on groundlevel ozone, which is predicted to raise, for example, the emergency room visits in Suffolk County by 10 over the next decade. There are more frostfree days, which means there are more plantbased allergens in the upper midwest, which will lead to more lost workdays. Carbon pollution enhances the urban heat effects, and it has a particular effect on the elderly who are living in environments where they can be affected by it in stronger way, some in the distribution of diseases from west nile virus or lyme disease that are being affected in the United States. Particularly, dealing with this rule, reducing Carbon Pollution, will have the effect on asthma. It is the third leading cause of hospitalization for children. Africanamericans are twice as likely to be hospitalized for asthma than whites. Latino children are 40 more likely to be hospitalized. In 2004 u. S. Spent 5 billion on medicaid on asthmarelated illnesses. We tend to get the job done, but we have created a flexible rule that can be implemented, but it will have enormous Health Benefits. I wanted to start with that because it has been what i have been up to this week. I would note that the jobs report came out this morning. We have a rule in the white house we do not talk about until 9 30, so i will watch the clock here and if anybody wants to ask me about that, when the Witching Hour hits, i will be happy to talk about it. We will start with kate and then david. Coverage of the power plant rules listed four hurdles that could stand in the way of getting it implemented. A court challenge, action by coaldependent states, action by congress under the congressional review act, or action by the next president , since the states have until 2018 to file plans. Which of those risks do you consider the greatest, and what are you doing to counter it . We are committed to getting this done. That is why we released it now. We have a year to finalize the rule. We are taking comments for 120 days. We have requested the Comment Period to be extended. I said when i came into my position in january my job to do was make sure that that direction to epa that the president gave last summer as part of the overall Climate Action plan was to propose this rule by june 1. When i said that, i did not realize that june 1 was a sunday. We managed to get it in on june 2, and we are committed to finishing the rule by next june. It gives the states one year to create plans that will then be reviewed by epa. You know, dave, that some states can move that back, particularly if they get together in regional arrangements, which is the most costeffective way that states might come together to get the reductions that will be required once the rule is finalized. And if they choose to go that route, as the northeast states have done, or as california has done, to go to a more marketbased system and get together to find the most costeffective reductions, then they will have until 2018 to finalize those plans. I am confident we will get our job done. I am confident we will resist any i have no doubt that there will be an attempt to try to overturn this to the congressional review act, but i am certain we have the votes to uphold the rule once it is finalized. There is a long history of litigation starting in 2007 that recognizes that co2 is a dangerous pollutant and that epa has the authority to regulate it. Theres no doubt going to be legal challenges to this, legal challenges to almost anything the epa does. But they have had a stunning string of success just this spring in terms of upholding their authority to tackle these major causes of pollution and major causes of illness in our country. Last one, about the politics of this. The president has been quoted to say i do not care to be president without the senate, but it was written in the post, in a contest between president ial legacy and senate control, obama has chosen legacy. He has exposed some Democratic Senate candidates to Political Risk he refused to take himself. I wonder if anything is wrong with that analysis . As some of you may remember me from my Previous Service of the white house, where i banned the word legacy, what the president is thinking about is he has an obligation to the American People, children, grandchildren, people who are making decisions today to build a cleaner, Brighter Future them, to build a Strong Economy based on a cleanenergy future, to tackle the problem of Climate Change. We are seeing the costs of that already from increased droughts and heat waves to storm surges, sea level rise. Across the country we are seeing the effects of Climate Change. We are seeing in the Public Health, as i mentioned earlier. The president s obligation is to do what he needs to do under the legal authorities that he has been granted by congress, through the clean air act, to ensure that we tackle this most important, really almost existential, problem. And i think if you think about it from a political perspective, a poll came out this week that shows there is a broad support for aching action to reduce Carbon Pollution. Roughly 70 cross the country. In red states and blue states, amongst republicans, independents, democrats, strong support for taking action to reduce Carbon Pollution. Theres no doubt some states where this is an issue that presents a different sort of political challenge, particularly coalproducing states. They will try to attack it and try to knock down that rating, and they will try to put it squarely in the context of the political campaigns that are ongoing in 2014. But i think anyone who wants to go out and talk about the benefits from this rule, do what the president did, visit Childrens Hospital in their home state. I think they will find that the politics is such that you can defend taking action here and the public will support that. I think we think that people who deny the existence of Climate Change, who want to try to run, suggesting they really are not scientists and they do not really get it, and cannot see what is going on around them, and they want to deny the Public Health effects that the pollution is having on our families and children in the country, i think that is the losing side of the argument. I am certain that if you think about this in the cycle coming forward, anybody who tries to be a climate denier in 2016 will have a hard time running on that nationally. But people need to put together the resources to fight back against Advertising Campaign from Koch Brothers and others, i think that is politics that people have to decide on their own and a statebystate or districtbydistrict basis. [indiscernible] i think it is a hard choice. [laughter] but i think i have no doubt that the narrative she tells in the book from her experience of secretary of state albright, and she will lay the fact is out as she saw them. I am anxious to read it. I have read some of the excerpts of the book, and i saw a little bit, a couple of passages of it earlier. Like most of you, im still catching up with the excerpts that are now being printed. I am sure it will be interesting for the public to see what it is like to have to take on those tough problems that she took on quite successfully, and i think as secretary of state, and i think the public is awaiting being able to line up at the bookstore in manhattan, i guess, tuesday, and get copies of the book. What is a complicated epa rule [indiscernible] one thing that you mentioned earlier was about how some states have until as late as 2018 to finalize how theyre going to do this. As you know that was used to the next administration. You run the risk of possibly ceding too much ground to that next what house, especially if a republican is there . Well, you know, i think again that the country needs to tackle this problem. I think with the deadline of 2018, it exists for states that want to join together to try to reduce emissions in the most costeffective way possible. I think states that choose that option will make a commitment to do that and Carry Forward with making those reductions. The rule will have been finalized. So the need for states to reduce their emissions will have been finalized by the end of the obama administration. They will be under legal obligation to try to take those reductions down. I think states that decide whether they want to join with california, and i know there are some discussions on the west coast of not only washington and oregon, but other states, perhaps, combining with ab32 system that california has implemented or other standards wanted to join rggi, new jersey, depending on what the election in pennsylvania, you might see that happening. There are other states that might decide that path forward. But i think once you made that decision, then i think there will be a legal obligation to move forward with it. There will be a political commitment to move forward with it. I think this will be implemented. President bush tried to overturn a number of rules that president clinton issued at the end of his term. I believe none were successful, many in the environmental arena, a few that president bush finally, when they did go into effect, took credit for, if my memory serves me correctly, including the diesel rule and others, but he tried to reverse others, and they were the courts finalized them under the laws that were prevailing at the time. People could try to roll it back. Im fairly confident. I am fairly confident we will have a president who embraces the cause of tackling Climate Change and reducing emissions. I think if you think about a challenge in the 2016 context and the politics of this in the 2016 politics, if you are a climate denier trying to run nationally, you will have a hard road to hoe getting elected in the United States. The Climate Action plan, the rules, is that the peak . Do you hope to accomplish more in the Obama Presidency . The Climate Action plan that was put out last summer is based on three pillars. Mitigation, of which this is the crown jewel, but other elements, including implementing efficiency rules for heavyduty truck and more deployment of renewables. We are doubling the amount of renewables on publicpermitted lands. We just had a successful solar summit. The president was out in california recently expanding both the commitment to distribute solar as well to more building efficiency. One is mitigation. The second is resilience. This is the First Administration that has focused on the fact that were looking at a significant amount of Climate Change baked into the system and that communities are going to have to react to that, plan for that, and build more resilient economies Going Forward, so that there is a whole work stream Going Forward on that. The president has proposed 1 billion in the current budget gives states and communities the resources they need to begin to plan for the bakedin the effects of Climate Change. The third is on the international front. We have a strong dialogue going at both the multilateral level. The president was just at the g7. This was a serious topic, and all the g7 leaders recommitted themselves to try to move forward towards positive outcome in negotiations that will culminate in paris in 2015, and are all committed to put forward significant reduction strategies in the post2020 period at that time. They spent a lot of time talking about Building Energy security, particularly in the european system, as a result of the aggressive actions the russians have taken in ukraine. So there is a lot to do at the international side. One of the principal places we are in dialogue is the with the chinese. Theres news coming out of china, but it is mostly from academic advisors to the government, about what they intend to do in this post2020 period, but theres movement in china to take on a commitment to have their emissions peak and reduce them. There is a lot to do. I think this is the most important element, but it is one element of a multipronged strategy. [indiscernible] as opposed to medicare. Why not do it permanently . Why not just turn it into a voucher, . The veteran system, and i think people who you have seen in the press recently has served veterans well when they are getting care. This has been a problem of being able to get into the system. I think the bill that senator sanders and senator mccain just agreed upon night is a much better way to go than privatizing our Veterans Health care. We have a sacred obligation to our veterans to provide Health Benefits that they have been promised, and i think resources that are contained in the sandersmccain bill will focus on getting more primary care doctors into the system, the focus on improving the facilities that would come from the resources that are contained in that bill would be a much better way to go than simply privatizing the system. And that bill is on the president s commitment, which sometimes gets lost in the recent conversations, of having expanding access for pts for agent orange, for taking care of veterans, the babyboomer veterans that are now entering the system, as well as the post 9 11 veterans who need care and need quality of care that the veterans system is capable of delivering, but we obviously have problems in the structure of how that service was being performed. And, you know, the acting secretary has not taken action, as he announced in phoenix yesterday, you improve that, but i think it is going to take the kind of legislation that is not moving on a bipartisan aces to the senate to really improve the delivery of health care in the system. We also obviously are looking for someone to lead the v. A. , who can lead the Veterans Health system, who can perform the kind of reinvention that will be necessary to get those improvements in place. George . There is a lot of democratic unhappiness with the level of the president s engagement in the congressional campaigns. They are happy with how effective he is at raising money, but do not feel that he has been at all effective in framing a message that the democrats can run on. When are we going to see that, and how do you break through . How will he break through the issues that are getting the headlines of bergdahl and the v. A. . The president has framed a choice between an economy that works for the middle class and working people versus an economy that is based on old, failed ideas. So his push for raising the minimum wage, which is has caught traction across the country, as we have seen states and cities raising the minimum wage, his push for pay equity, his push for reforming the way individuals are paid for overtime, i think are all things that are valuable pointers in the direction that a Democratic Congress would leave the country versus a republican congress. So i think he is doing what he needs to do, which is doing his job, first and foremost. And secondly, putting issues on the table where we can make harvest through executive action, but noting that with democrats in congress they can be much more effective in getting the economy working to get wages growing for the american public. When does he engage that . He is not out running himself, and he will engage when it is appropriate. He makes that argument, i think, to democratic constituencies as he is out and around the country. You will see an increase in that as the Campaign Season really heats up in the fall. I think he has been out there talking about the issues that are according to the american public. Whether that is the cost of college, the minimum wage, pay equity those are all issues that are critical to moving the country forward and they are all issues that democrats on capitol hill have said are ones they want to campaign on. I think he is not on the ballot. They are and they have to make the case to their own constituents but i think he can provide a narrative in a supporting environment that he is trying to make. This is where we are going next thank you. You talked earlier about candidates running and problems they would have. Natalie kenneth, democratic set candidate for the senate and West Virginia and mr. Mr. Lundgren grimes running and kentucky both came out after the many republicans in denouncing the new standards and referred to it as an assault on the coal industry while republicans rather than take the Climate Change approach, their criticism is its a war on the floor and disbelief to hire extra city higher electricity rates. How do you respond to those charges and what do you say about other democrats and when they criticize this within hours . With respect to the republicans, i think the poor might be surprised to learn of the concern that of the lack of concern for them. If you look at the real economics of this, as the epa analysis shows, because of the efficiency being built into the system here, you will see prices you will see bills on average go down by about eight percent over the course of the program. All income earners . Thats the price of electric bills at the household level. I think that there are things that we need to do to ensure that people and the administration has a commitment to making sure that people get affordable, reliable electricity. We think this bill gives the flex ability to do that. The states need to implement that. I mentioned reggie earlier. If you look at the reggie system, the nine states that are now in reggie, they have spent a significant amount of money of weatherizing the homes of lowincome individuals and they have reduced their bills by 2 billion. So its possible to do that with the right policies. Thats what i think we are asking the states to look at. Of course its ultimately, they have the flexibility to decide how to move forward with that. The other thing i would say is i will come back where i started which is the poor are the most affected by the Public Health implications of continued pollution at the levels we are seeing. I gave you some statistics at the beginning to demonstrate that. They get both the Public Health benefit and i think there are ways to ensure that electricity remains affordable and reliable and thats why the flexibility is an ultrathin to do that. Is built into do that. With respect to the politics in coal country, i would say couple of things this rule does not end coal in the electric system. It reduces the amount over a fairly long period of time, between now and 20 dirty from 40 to 30 . There will be increases in gas, renewables and a significant reduction in demand as a result of the rule. But we are not taking all the coal out of the system. The coal that will be burned will have to be done in a more efficient way and more effective way to raise the efficiency of coal that is being utilized. The oldest, dirtiest, least efficient plants, i think states and utilities will make decisions about whether to keep those online or whether to retrofit them. We are not taking coal out of the electric system through this rule. Questions on unemployment are available. We will go to susan page. [indiscernible] having served in the bill Clinton White house and the obama white house, how would a Hillary Clinton president to be different from obamas presidency and from bill clintons presidency . Thats a topic i have not pondered, susan. I think each person who comes into Office Brings their own skills and the times are different and the challenges are different. We obviously faced the breakup of the soviet union and we tried to expand a democratic and more unified europe. That is being challenged right now. I think the project was pushed forward. We had to deal with al qaeda and terrorism that nothing in the way that president bush and then president obama had to come to grips with in terms of that question. The challenges will be different. I think people bring their own personalities, their own talents to the job. I think that one thing three of them share is i think the purpose of the job. That is their primary duty and thats to ensure that everybody has opportunity in this country. Thats what motivated all three of them. I think if she does decide to run, and she is elected president , she will get up every day as president obama gets up every day as president clinton got up every day and go into the oval office and think what can i do to help the middle class and help working people. You have known Hillary Clinton for a long time. Do you have three adjectives that would describe her presidency . [laughter] disciplined tough and determined. Has the president was weighing the pros and cons of the bergdahl trade, did he ponder what terms he could live with and how is this a political problem for you guys . The secretary of defense made the determination that the transfer was in the natural security interest of the United States and that the threat posed by the detainees to the United States or u. S. Persons would be substantially mitigated. There were assurances given by the qataris i cannot get into that there are were ways we had to monitor them beyond what al qaeda is doing. I think that first and foremost, the president thought that we had a commitment in the duty to leave no man or woman in uniform behind in the battlefield and he exercise that and has talked about it several times this week. He thought was the right thing to do and the secretary of defense who had to make those findings felt like first it was in the National Security interest to move forward with this and second, that the threat posed by the detainees, now the transferees, could be substantially mitigated. Thats what the discussions and dialogue with the qataris was all about. [inaudible] as you probably know, there are many ways of knowing what people are doing around the country and around the world. I think its f i think its fair to say we will keep an eye on them i know and your current role, you have been in this role for a small portion of time. The president has nearly had nearly six years to go big on Climate Change and specifically to address Carbon Emissions from power plants. Why did he wait until now to do it . I have to say that in the first two years, we were seeking legislation. A bill passed the house and ultimately did not pass the senate. That was an economy wide approach that if you are an economist, you would save might be more efficient in getting those reductions. In the meantime, you got substantial reductions out of the transportation sector. He came back into office and immediately began to work on the Climate Action plan in the second term. Again, the centerpiece was to take reductions out of the sector for co2 emissions coming from the power sector. He has been deliberative trying to get her legislation when that failed, the congress is unlikely to really move forward. I think he was working in sectors of the economy to reduce the co2 pollution as much as possible. Thats why we are in the position to keep our copenhagen pledge with this rule to reduce Carbon Emissions by 17 by 2020. Had the president not taken the actions and the Climate Action plan let me start that over had he not done anything including the transportation improvements to those who think this is all about fracking and natural sm these omissions were going to come down anyway, if he had not done that, you missions would have been four percent above 2005 levels. Having done those actions in the first term, they would have been five percent below 2005 levels. As result of the Climate Action plan, we will be in the range of 17 , below 2020 so that is a significant movement. If you look across the globe, the United States has reduced its omissions more than any other country over this time. I think thats a testament to his leadership both in terms of the investments that were made in clean energy at the beginning of the Administration Due to the recovery act and these important regulations including much more efficient appliances and commercial appliances. Karen . [inaudible] you have the experience of serving in the clinton administration. Some critics lately including some democrats have accused this white house of political tone deafness lately on the rose garden appearance on bergdahl and perhaps the president s slowness to take action on the v. A. Scandal. Im wondering what you think about those criticisms. I think the president that goes both ways. The president knew this was a controversial decision. This was a decision and he has spoken to this that he has taken ownership of and went out the rose garden because its important to stay to the American People that this was about an actual human being who was under great distress, being held by the telegram and that the taliban and that while controversial, he needed to do explain that to the American People. He makes no apologies for that. He said that yesterday in europe and i think it was the right decision and we will move forward with it. With respect to the v. A. , he asked secretary shiseki to do a review and after those reviews were done, i think the secretary decided that the department would be better led by someone else and he accepted his resignation. These are tough calls. I think particularly the the decision to bring back was a tough call and we knew it was controversial but it was the look right thing to do as chairman dempsey said, this was our last clear chance to bring them home and the president made a decision to do that. Alexis . Because of your role in the transition and now, i wanted to come back to the guantanamo question. Does the president believe he has the Constitutional Executive Authority before the end of his term to close one, on his own say so believing its a National Security issue to transfer the detainees before he departs . I think the president wants to close one, and is working hard to do it and he is doing in it within the bounds of the laws being passed by the congress. We have let our friends on capitol hill know what restrictions are unacceptable in the current round of negotiations. I think we will just keep working to ensure that the remaining detainees there are moved or tried and that the guantanamo is closed by the end of the administration. [inaudible] there is a quote in the New York Times by Senate Democrats say they have to stop putting out fires related to guantanamo. Are you sympathetic to Senate Democrats who feel that way . We would like to be talking about the Economic Future of the country. When the president has an obligation and there is a problem as we found in the scheduling at the v. A. , you have to tackle that. When there is the opportunity to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home, its a tough call but you have to make it. That gets served up to you. The president will make those tough decisions. I think the context for that is he will keep coming back and coming back and we will do it when he comes back from europe in talking about an economic progress that will deliver better results to the American People. You just dont get the choice in this game to say im sorry, im going to wait until after november to deal with the opportunity to bring one of our young soldiers home who has been captured by the taliban. You dont get to make that call. You have to make a decision right then and there and he made at any rate and he made the right decision to bring Sergeant Bergdahl home. I want to ask you about immigration. [inaudible] the white house has asked the pentagon to stand down for now on any actions, administrative actions that could be taken as a mobile because House Republicans can act between now and august. I wonder if the mere threat of taking action is jeopardizing your position because republicans will say that he will still do something on his own at the same time, given the litmus of what you can through executive action, are you putting yourself the twin a rock and a hard place at the advocates of legal status who want broader action from you . I never tried to make a living psychoanalyzing republicans. I think there is an opportunity. I think that Speaker Boehner would like to see registration legislation move forward. I think that is what the president thinks, that theres an opportunity to get comprehensive Immigration Reform done. That is a much better solution and a permanent solution for our broken immigration system and the pain that it is causing across the country. If that means we have to wait to see whether the Republican Leadership can get a compromise together that can earn bipartisan support over the course of the summer, the president is prepared to do that. The secretary is reviewing his authorities about how to particularly alleviate the pain of family dislocation that he is focused on. I think we will have to think through what our options are if congress is unable to act. If we went ahead and acted, im fairly certain that they would use that as an excuse for inaction. We will have to wait and make an assessment sometime during the course of this summer about whether they have the capacity to act. Are the moves that you have at your disposal enough to satisfy people who want something country as of done . Something comprehensive done . I will not comment on that. I want to followup on something the administration determined this week the number of unaccompanied minors across the border has risen to crisis numbers. How is the administration looking at that issue . How will that propelled him to act now were made before they were willing to hold off a little longer . A big lump this summer is we have seen a big largely bump the summer that is largely coming from Central America. The law requires that unless the children, unaccompanied minors are coming from china for from canada or mexico, they cannot be returned. They need to be turned over to the department of health and human services. That surge in numbers has put pressure on the systems so secretary johnson has pulled together an Interagency Group to work this problem with the task force that is led by fema and craig fugate this is a heartbreaking situation where you see 10, 12yearold kids unaccompanied by their parents fleeing violence particularly in Central America to find their way to the u. S. , often to be reunited with maybe their parents who are living up here. Its another reason why we think to reform the system and get a Legal Immigration system that will work and be viable. In the meantime, we have to deal with the humanitarian crisis. All of the agencies in the government led by dhs and hhs but core dated by fema are femat now coordinated by are finding appropriate places to house and make sure those kids are safe and well taken care of. Is there any indication that congress is looking at this issue . I dont know the answer to that. Lets go back to the epa issue. The critics of what the administration is doing. 2 these figures that show that this rule would cause job losses averaging 124 thousand per year in 16 years. You said earlier something that struck me that Climate Change is an existential issue. Im wondering if its truly an existential issue. Are you even taking into consideration whether there are potential job losses and economic costs . Sure, if you look at the epa filings, youll see what they say about the effect on jobs. We think it will have a positive effect because we will go about more Clean Energy Infrastructure in the shortterm and much more longterm efficiency in general in the electric system over the long term. I think these claims of massive job losses have been debunked. They are tased on a set of assumptions that have zero to do with the role that was put on the table. The fantasy job loss numbers is what they are. They have been debunked by independent experts who have looked at them. That is not to say that there will not be places and occupations where you will see some job loss. I think we need to be sensitive to that and attend to it and make investments in communities that might be affected by job loss whether that is the loss of a plant or otherwise. We need to ensure that we have and the white house, our efforts to make sure we can respond to that i think the Congress Also has an Important Role to play in smoothing that transition. Every time an environmental regulation has been put forward, they say massive job losses, lights going off, electricity system crashing, bills going through the roof, they were wrong before, they are wrong now. I think the particular Chamber Study you referenced is based on the assumptions that have absolutely zero to do with the rule the epa put forward. Its a fantasy analysis. And terms of your motivation, if you see Climate Change as an existential threat to the country maybe to the planet, does that mean anything at all . We are paying the cost. We have over 100 billion of losses last year from extreme weather events. We are already paying the cost. Which side is the risk on . We think we can build a stronger economy, better economy based on a clean energy future. The people who are invested in the status quo, the polluters, want to keep getting the rent set of the Current System but there is no question the opportunity to build new industries, to create jobs, to create new technology, to make the world a Global Leader in clean tech is available to us. The question is whether we will put the right policy environment in place to ensure that that goes forward. We are very much about trying to build a strong and powerful and good economy. But that will come through investments in cleaner energy systems, not in reliance on the systems we have had in place which have now increasingly are burdening our economy through these years in agriculture and forestry and extreme weather losses and sea levels rising. If you want to ask the question where is the risk . Clean or dirty . You mentioned the president s commitment to veterans got a little lost with the uproar over the weights waits. Was there a review on this and was very a review with congress over the bergdahl decision . The people who made the decision are briefing congress. They will hear why. I think there was evidence there was an analysis that a premature disclosure could result in the loss of his life because of divisions and the taliban, etc,. They will answer those questions. With respect to the former, we are always trying to take a look. In this case in particular, im sure sloan gibson who now is the acting secretary, rob neighbors who has gone over to the v. A. From the white house when we have a full, to people at the top at the v. A. Are going to drill down and look at that question. I think we owe it to our veterans and to american citizens to always be asking why did we miss that, not just in this particular case, but across other issues in government to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government. You try to learn from error rather than just run from it. I think thats what we will have to do here. With respect to the specific question you asked me, again, i think that is what rob and the acting secretary are in the process of doing, trying to figure out this was not a oneoff problem in phoenix. There was more systematic error here and why wasnt that attended to earlier . I have one minute left. You talked about how the president s were different. How is your role different . It is a lot better to be a counselor then chief of staff. [laughter] we have the quote. Thank you for doing this very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] next, live, your calls and comments on washington journal. Then a discussion on russian politics on the situation in ukraine. After that, a forum on the recent European Parliament elections. For over 35 years, cspan brings Public Affairs events from washington directly to you come up putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences and offering complete gaveltogavel coverage of the u. S. House all as a Public Service of private industry. We are cspan, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. This morning, National Journal correspondent discusses the may jobs report and a look ahead at hiring the summer. Then a wall street journal reporter talks about a wall street journal report that some Veterans Affairs facilities show vastly different treatment results among patients. Later, seth jones of the Rand Corporation discusses their new report that says the number of al qaeda and other jihadist groups are growing, not shrinking. As always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal is next. White house officials will brief officials next week about the prisoner exchange. Also chuck hagel will appear before the House Armed Services committee. You can see that live on cspan three. Go to our website or more information. The cia is now on twitter and facebook. Good morning, it is june 7. With the release of yesterday cost job report that of yesterdays jobs report came reports that 9 million jobs that were lost he