job and also holding accountable the people who aren't doing a good job. and i'm sure that's demoralizing to the people who are doing a good job. >> senator, i think your points are very well made. i'm not sure we reward our program managers very well. i think that only thing that i have seen in my experience is you promote them. in terms of holding folks accountable, when we see a clear connection between what they did and their outcome, we do retire them or move them. both civilians and military. beyond that, the incentive structure that you're referring to is not clear and is not adequate. and it ties to what the earlier chairman and the ranking member talked about, is where the decisions are made and what paul talked about in terms of how is it that the culture and how the decisions are directed into a program manager relates to their ability to perform. >> well, one thing i would say is also as leaders, if you've got someone you have to let go at the captain level, the leader needs to be held accountable also. because any one of us, if our team does something, we are ultimately responsible, right? as the leaders? and i think that coming from the top is so critical of making this a priority. i had a specific question, also, about what senator mccain referenced, mr. francis mentioned, the kt-46 program and how the contractor absorbed the cost overruns. wouldn't it make sense for all major defense acquisitions production programs to be designed to that the contractor absorbs the cost overruns for production? >> if i could, senator. >> yes. >> i think it's important to understand the risks. sometimes the threat drives us to take risks if we need to. and when the risks aren't clear, that cost between us and the contractor has to be considered. when we ask for a fixed price contract, when the risks are high, the contractor in order to get their corporate headquarters to agree upon working in that contract, they add that risk related to cost. >> so i understand that issue with regard to rnd. but what i'm talking about is production costs. >> i agree with you in production. >> so are we doing that consistently across the board on production? >> we took a look at our contracts across all the enterprise, across the services and, indeed, yes. >> let me make one point regarding that. we talk about shipbuilding and the lead ship of a new class has been a cost-plus ship. but the ship being production. to the men in this office, we have been trying to drive down the number of costs plus ships in our program. and today across the department of the navy, we have two cost-plus ships in production. one of those is the cvn-78. >> my time is up. but i also will submit a question for the record that concerns me. as we look at the cvn-78 cost growth, i would like to understand as we look at the ohio submarine recovery program, what lessons we have learned from this so we don't go down the same road with the ohio class, which is obviously very important to our nation. so i'll submit that for the record. thank you, senator. >> senator, can i jump in on the time you don't have left? >> of course. with the chairman's latitude, how is that? >> thank you. on your right on production contracts, they should be fixed price. but there's still times, ships aside, there's still some contracts that are cost-plus going into low rate production. and you do have to match the risks you're taking with the contracts. so a good contract can save a bad program. so if the risks are high, i don't necessarily fault the contract type. i raise the question why we are going into production if we are not done with development yet. >> if it's a bad program, we shouldn't be investing in it in the first place. isn't that the fundamental question? >> yes, or if it is not ready to take the next step. and on your first point on program managers and people who are being held accountable, i think it's a really good philosophical question for accountable for what? what constitutes success? if i'm a program manager and trying to get my program through the next milestone and i do that, and then there's a cost increase, what am i going to be rated on? getting it through the next milestone or the cost increase? it's going to be the former. if you can support the program and get it moving, that's what you're mainly accountable for. >> that's a problem. because it could cost you a lot more and you're putting it through but you get it on time. that's not meeting your target. and so people need to be held accountable for both otherwise this is where we end up with the billions of dollars in overruns. thank you. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know that the department has undertaken headquarters reductions and congress reiterated the need to look at reducing headquarters positions for efficiencies and other savings. and while we all want to reduce waste and inefficiency, i would urge the department to look at possible headquarters reduction talks on a case-by-case basis and to make informed decisions, keeping in mind that cuts today can come back to cost much more in the long-term than we get in the short-term savings. the acquisition workforce is ensuring that our activation programs are managered and the need to successful outcomes so the men and women in uniform are given the tools that they need to effectively carry out their missions. we have to ensure that we are able to recruit and retain a quality acquisition workforce if we are to be successful in defense acquisitions. and we have acquisition teams that are understaffed, undertrained or too inexperie e inexperienced and cannot expect to have good results in our acquisition programs. as described in secretary mcfarland's testimony today, we cut the d.o.d. acquisition workforce by roughly 57% during the economy drives of the late 1990s and the early 2000s. i believe that the d.o.d. reductions contributed directly to a large number of the problems that d.o.d. has had in major acquisition programs over the last two decades. and i agree that congress has an important oversight role to play on acquisitions. however, that's a start. i want to know that our acquisition workforce can perform and we can reline on the analysis an processes of the acquisition team before a program is recommended. therefore, when we look to implement mandatory cuts to headquarters, we should be -- we should consider the potential long-term effects on our acquisition programs among, of course, other programs. so for secretary mcfarland, what is your assessment of the health of the acquisition workforce? especially as we deal with these very complicated acquisitions, such as the ford class. >> senator, first, thank you. this is such a human endeavor. that is the principle understanding of the underlying problems we have inside of acquisiti acquisition, to ensure our workforce is appropriately trained and experienced to do these jobs. in 1986, we had 622,000 core acquisition people. by the time frame of this program and 78 was conceived. we had reduced the workforce to less than 2,000 people. this committee, and congress, in general, has provided the defense workforce development fund that has allowed us to regrow, retrain and reeducate about 8,000 to 10,000 people to bring aboard since then. that is a critical improvement to where we are. the majority of our workforce is not imminent to retirement. yet the workforce we do have is predominantly younger and not necessarily in age but in experience. these incapabilities were bred by those who don't have acquisition experience or understanding the business case but needed to be executed here. so i would say that we're very fragile right now, that's the best way i can say it. these people are working very hard. they are very loyal. they are patriotic people that don't get very well paid. they get a lot of abuse in the press. there's also an opportunity to forget what they have done that is done well, like the tv program put together under the principles of the better buying power initiatives. and i can really commend the services in the marine corps for that program and others doing much better by the disappointed approach. the only way to protect our future is to invest and protect that core capability. >> secretary stackley, would you like to comment also? >> ma'am, i'll add just one comment. back in may of 2014, chairman mccain and senator levin signed a letter from inputs of individuals and organizations regarding what we need to do to improve this acquisition system. and i was fortune gnat enough to have the opportunity to respond and giving much thought. first and foremost, my concern and conclusion was, programs that succeed, succeed because you've got a highly talented experienced team in place that is able to overcome, work through, in and around this very dense, difficult system that we've got. and, at the same time, master the technical details and pragmatic technical details and programatic oversight that problems fail often because of not having the same attributes in terms of the acquisition team. first and foremost, we've got to have the tools to attract and retain professionals to get the job done. >> i emphasize how important it is to have an acquisition team that we can reli. because these are complicated systems and programs. it would be difficult for congress to be the first line in terms of analyzing the efficacies and reliability of the programs like i expect acquisition people to do that. therefore, thank you very much mr. chairman. >> secretary carter's hearing for confirmation, i showed a chart of $40 billion that was spent on programs that never became reality. that is not an acceptable system or situation. we value the men and women who work in this business, but these problems are of such magnitude in the view of most members of this committee that we can't lose sight of the fact that the system is badly broken. senator sullivan? >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you for your leadership on this issue in terms of oversight, a critically important function of this committee. i'm not sure the question's been asked, but maybe i'll ask it. pretty simple. secretary stackly, secretary mcfarland, who is responsible? who's responsible? who's raised their hand and said, this cost overrun is my responsibility, i accept it? >> sir, i will tell you that today i am responsible. you see the gentlemen here at the table that are responsible for elements of the program that came come together for the carrier, as the service acquisition executive, as i stated in my opening remarks, i assume responsibility for this program, and the decisions that i have the opportunity to make as we execute. >> secretary mcfarland? >> the navy is responsible -- >> i'm not talking about an organization. that's amorphous. i'm talking about people, individuals. >> sir, i believe we could have done much better in preparing and advocating for the right aspects of this program to be conducted at the beginning and throughout execution. >> so who is responsible in your view? >> the department. not a good answer. not something that -- >> no, it's a ridiculous answer, okay. so who, in your view, who is responsible? part of the issue here is that the responsibility seems to be placed -- i mean, secretary stackly, i appreciate your statement. i think that's up front. secretary mcfarland, i'm asking the same question of you. who is responsible? i'm talking about individuals. that's how we fix it. we can't blame it on the navy. >> sir, i will take absolute responsibility for not having done the correct things in terms of helping this program along. >> so, who is responsible? >> then i would say myself, sir. >> okay. admiral moore, admiral, looking at your bios, very impressive in terms of -- >> you can watch the rest of the hearing on line at c-span.org. we leave it to take you live to the white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest. >> captain, i hope you're enjoying the view from the front row. nice to see you there. we'll let you start today. >> all right. i've been sitting -- [ inaudible ] i guess i'm go straight to the tpt. you've got 90 days at least. and jumping ahead, some of your allies from labor, environmentalists. >> sure. >> what's the strategy for keeping things from getting pounded for the next few months? >> our goal is going to be to stick by the benefits of the agreement and how the agreement like the one the president set out to achieve is one that expands access to overseas markets for products that are stamped "made in america." so we're going to spend time talking about details included in this agreement. essentially an agreement to cut 18,000 taxes. these are essentially import taxes that are placed on american goods shipped to some of the fastest growing economic markets in the world. this enhances the opportunity for american businesses and american workers. to give you some examples, you know, american poultry in some of these countries is taxed at up to 40%. american soybeans are taxed at 35%. these are all tariffs that will be slashed if not eliminated. some of the countries, there's a 59% tax on american machinery that's exported to these countries. some countries maintain an import tax of 70% on american auto products. again, these are trrls that are cut or -- tariffs that are cut or eliminated over a period of time that will only access to overseas market for american goods and services. the president remains confident that if we can do more to level the playing field for american goods and services that american businesses and workers will win. there's a competition that the president welcomes. it's also a competition that's going to be good for economic growth and job creation here in the united states. you'll hear from the president on this issue tomorrow. the president's planning to travel to the department of agriculture. it's no coincidence that the president's traveling to that department because the agriculture economy in the united states benefits from the terms of this agreement. while there, the president alongside secretary vilsack will be meeting with business leaders to talk about the benefits of the proposal. so we'll have more details on this tomorrow. >> briefings on the hill or other -- >> there have been a number of conversations that have already occurred between senior administration officials and leading legislators. i would anticipate that a significant number of those conversations are planned but have not yet taken place. the commitment that the president has made throughout the long debate that we had over the summer is that the american public and the united states congress would have ample opportunity to review the details of the agreement prior to the president signing the agreement, but also prior to congress having to take a vote on it. and i think that is an indication of a couple of things. the first is the priority that the president places on transparency. the second is it should give you a sense of the confidence that the administration has about the benefits of this agreement. the fact we welcome intense scrutiny of the agreement gives us confidence that it will only prompt more people to come on board. there are well-known differences of opinion on this. and i don't anticipate that we're going to persuade every single member of congress or every interest group that's had the opportunity to make their views known. that does not in any way diminish the confidence that we have in how an agreement like this would be good for our economy and good for middle-class families here in america. >> what exactly? >> sorry? >> when do you think you'll see a vote? >> it is not any time soon. there's -- this is the process where those who are involved in negotiating the agreement will have to spend time dealing with certain technical aspects of the agreement, and even some basic things like ensuring that the agreement is properly translated into a variety of different languages properly. so it will take a while before we will have the actual text of that agreement. but once that text of the agreement has been essentially completed, it will be made public even before the president himself signs it. and then once the president signs it, it will be forwarded to congress, and it will go through a process of being carefully considered by congress before -- before they vote on it. so i don't have a time frame at this point, but i would not anticipate that the vote would take place any time soon. >> and on afghanistan, the possibility over the weekend -- which was a strike by afghan forces. can you specify whether or not there are u.s. forces on the ground that took fire or how that happened. >> well, let me start by saying that, you know, the events in afghanistan are a profound tragedy. we're talking about doctors who have left the safety and comfort of their home to travel to a remote region of the world that everybody knows is dangerous. they are risking their lives to use the skills that they have developed to try to provide for the basic medical needs of people who live in the community. in some cases, they are treating innocent civilians who have been merely caught in the crossfire, or have been victimized by extremists. and these are brave individuals who are using their skills to try to improve the lives of people they would otherwise never come into contact with. and the fact that some of those individuals lost their loves over the weekend is a profound tragedy and nothing else. i know that general campbell had the opportunity to convey his condolences to the president. and there are senior administration officials who had the opportunity to speak with the leadership of doctors without borders to convey their condolences there, as well. the scale of this tragedy is significant enough that it demands a full investigation, and you saw from the president's statement that he issued over the weekend that he expects a full accounting of what exactly has happened. so they're their are actually three different investigations ongoing. the first is there is a formal department of defense investigative process underway led by brigadier general rich kim, who i understand is the leading investigative officer at the department of defense. he'll be leading a department of defense investigation into this. there also will be an investigation conducted by nato. and a third investigation will essentially be a joint investigation carried out by u.s. military personnel alongside afghan security officials. each of these investigations will be aimed at trying to get as much accuracy as possible around of details of what transpired in the lead up to the tragedy. you asked the specific details about what happened. i don't from here want to get ahead of what those -- what the investigation may uncover. other than to assure you and the american people that the president expects a full accounting of what transpired. okay. all right. >> doctors without borders has been concerned that the investigation -- would there be an independent investigation, and then the three investigations that you described are not exactly independent. one is the department of defense, the other is nato, the other is u.s. plus afghanistan working together. is there a need for another body, an independent body to take a look at this and to make sure that there's a true accounting of what happened? >> well, roberta, the president obviously has confidence in these three investigations to provide that full accounting that he seeks. his expectation is that details won't be whitewashed. they'll be a full accounting of what transpired. if it's necessary to take -- that it's necessary to take steps that this never happens again. that those reform put in place promptly. >> is there anything that you can say about an -- is there an accurate way to describe what happened? >> again, i wouldn't use the label like that because this is something that continues to be under investigation. the thing i do think warrants mentioning is there is no country in the world and no military in the world that goes to greater lengths and places a higher petroleum avoiding civilian casualties than the united states department of defense. and these are professionals who take that responsibility quite seriously. again, because this is -- this is under investigation, i would hesitate to say much beyond that. but that is a -- that is a responsibility that the department of defense takes quite seriously. it is a responsibility that the president believes is extremely important and should be prioritized, and it is. that certainly stands in stark contrast to the kinds of tactics that we see from other fighting forces around the world, including even the taliban. that in some cases doesn't just disregard the existence of civilians, it considers the presence of civilians an appealing target. and that is an indication of the security challenges that are faced by afghanistan, but also with our men and women in uniform. that does not diminish the expectation of the commander in chief, and the department of defense will -- will continue to prioritize. [ inaudible ] >> a plan to keep as many as 5,000 troops in afghanistan beyond 2016 and maintaining a few bases? i mean, you've talked in general, you know conditions on the ground influence -- i don't know if you can shed light on what is being considered and any timelines for that consideration. >> at this point i don't have a timeline for you. as the president makes decisions, he certainly takes into account the conditions on the ground and advice he receives from our military personnel serving on the front lines. but the president also has a responsibility to certain -- to broad broad broaden his perspective and make sure he's considering the full range of -- of impact of a decision like this. the president wants to look at the long-term trajectory, the longer term trajectory of our presence in afghanistan and factor in both what our experience has been in recent years, but also how best to account for the united states national interests inside of afghanistan. as you know, the reason the united states has been involved in afghanistan, and this has been at the center of the president's strategy for afghanistan, is making sure that afghanistan cannot be used as a safe haven for terrorists to plots and carry out attacks across the united states and the world. an important part of accomplishing that mission is improving the security situation inside of afghanistan. and the united states continues to work closely with afghan security forces as they try provide for their own security. there are u.s. military personnel in afghanistan that are conducting counterterrorism operations that affect the american people, but also continuing to offer some training and advice to afghan security forces that are trying to secure th country. so all of that will be factored into the president's decision, but i don't have a timeline for you at this point exactly when that decision will be announced. okay? nadia? [ inaudible ] >> nadia, that is not something i can confirm at this point. there have been a number of reports in the last few months speculating about the possibility. i previously confirmed earlier this summer that the united states had essentially carried out a strike which he was the target. i'm not in a position at this point to confirm the action. >> from syria, the president stated on friday he's willing to work with russia and iran. your position is that it is not part of the process, you support the moderate syrian opposition -- to what exactly -- what is the common ground between you and the russians and iranians? >> there are a couple places of common ground. the first is that both the united states and russia understand the significant threat that is posed by isil. we understand that this is not just a destabilizing threat in the region, but also poses a threat of varying degrees to our interests around the world. and that is one area of common ground. you've heard me, the president, did the same thing, raise significant concerns about the strategy that russia has carried out in pursuit of that particular priority. and i think there are reason to be skeptical that what they're doing is going to be effective in pursuit of that specific goal. but it is a goal that they have indicated nonetheless. i don't think there's any question -- to question their views. there is common ground about the need for a political transition. there's an acknowledgment on the part -- that is an acknowledgment on the part of the russians. there's no military solution that can be imposed on syria. that certainly is something that you've heard the president say on a number of occasions. and we welcomed that observation and usually a declaration from president putin last week. so the fact that there needs to be a political transition is a starting point for conversation. but we've also made no bones about the fact that there's a difference of opinion about what that transition, political transition looks like. and the president can make what i think is a -- a persuasive case. president assad is somebody who's lost legitimacy to lead that country. not just because of the moral authority he ceded by carrying out terrible acts of violence against citizens of syria but also because of the way that he has completely lost the confidence in the people of syria. the vast votmajority of people syria, three quarters of them, live in communities targeted by the assad regime. so you can understand why it's not practical, not feasible for president assad to continue to lead that country at least in the current form. and that is -- i think that is something that should be pretty evident. we're going to continue to make the case that a political transition is necessary and make, i think, what is a pretty obvious observation that president assad is not fit to lead the country. >> with respect, we have had this message almost for four years now. i mean, how willing are you to back up words with action? what we've heard from the white house -- there's talk about the russians entering the air sprays, challenging nato, as well. there's escalation, and the russians are showing they can change things on the ground. what we hear from the white house is nothing but words. and we have heard that on friday -- >> nadia, i'd urge you to consider the actions that the united states has carried out. we have a coalition of 65 nations who are implementing a comprehensive strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. you've seen the united states take aggressive military action to carry out strikes against or take out the isil leaders that are operating inside of syria. this has placed enormous strain on the leadership of that organization. and the united states has worked effectively to partner with syrian kurds and syrian arabs on the ground in syria to drive isil out of significant portions of that country. there's no denying that there's important progress that needs to be -- that remains to be done. there's also no denying the fact that we've made an important progress against our goal which issy is -- which is degrading and destroying isil. >> the white house is in the process of supporting more kurdish rebel forces in the country. >> i know there's been some additional reporting, speculating about this. i'm not in a position to confirm any reports about operational plans that may or may not be in the works. what i will say is those plans cite continued support for syrian, kurdish and syrian arab fighters. i'll just observe that over the last six or seven months, there's been a variety of support by the united states to syrian kurdish and arab fighters specifically in northern and northeastern syria. one example is the president made a decision to resupply syrian kurdish fighters in the town of kobani. by resupplying the syrian fighters, it didn't just succeed in defeating the town from an isil advance, they actually succeeded in counterattacking against isil, driving isil out of the immediate vicinity of kobani but actually driving further east and clearing isil of a large swath of territory along the turkish border. that's an indication that -- i would note that the efforts by syrian/kurdish fighters have been backed by u.s. and coalition military air strikes that have improved their performance on the battlefield. that is one element of our counter-isil strategy that has yielded important progress. but as for speculation about what we may do in the future, i would -- i won't speculate on it from here. okay? cheryl? >> i want to make one more question on the timeline. do you think -- does the white house think it will be able to modify the agreement in 2016? >> well, i would -- i don't want to make predictions, but let me lay it out this way. that the 12 nations that were responsible for negotiating this agreement are working hard to finalize the tech so they can be made public in the united states and we can, as soon as possible, begin the process of public review and congressional consideration of the agreement. the administration will certainly be making the case to congress that this is something they should consider not just carefully but promptly because the sooner that this agreement is ratified, the sooner we can start cutting 18,000 taxes on american goods and services that can be exported around the globe, particularly into the 11 other countries in the asia-pacific. we'll be making the suggestion that congress act quickly. there's no reason they shouldn't be able to complete it in 2016. >> to follow that note, do you have a sense of when the earliest possible date that this could go into effect, that we can start -- >> i don't know the answer to that at this point. once we have finalized tech that can be made public, i think hopefully -- i say this both for your sake and for mine -- we'll be able to provide additional detail about the timeline. okay? go ahead, mara. >> okay. there's a 90-day block, that's my understanding, that he intends to sign it? how does that figure into making the tech public, can he make it public and later give the 90 days? >> this timeline is something we're still working through. but the president has made clear that there would be ample time for the public to review the documents before he would sign it. and that, of course, would give congress ample time to consider the agreement before a congressional action. so -- >> is it your intention to make it public and start the clock at that time? start the 90-day clock at the same time? >> we have an intent to get there moving as soon as possible. as soon as we have locked down text we can make public, we can talk about the full range of timelines here. our sense is we want to get this moving quickly. john? >> so i don't know if you've seen, but bernie sanders is already out with a statement on -- >> i think he was out before the announcement was made. those guys are getting up early on monday morning to get to work. >> so bernie sanders says that this deal is disastrous, wall street and the other big corporations have won again. i'm wondering your reaction to the democrat front-runner in new hampshire. >> well, in addition to the statistics that i cited about cutting 18,000 different taxes on american goods and services, this is an agreement that also includes the strongest worker protections in history. these are the strongest labor protections factored into any labor agreement in history that the united states has been a party to. this includes living up to the president's campaign promise to renegotiate and raise standards in nasa because both mexico and canada are part of the tpp agreement. that means that the agreement includes protections to allow workers to form unions, includes protections related to workplace conditions, outlawing child labor, and even has an impact on countries trying to set the minimum wage. in addition, this agreement also includes the strongest environmental protections and does more to raise environmental standards than any trade agreement in history. this includes everything from protection of sensitive fisheries to outlawing wildlife trafficking. so the point is that there are -- even if senator sanders has reached his conclusion, there's ample reason for those who may be participating in a democratic presidential primary to believe that the transpacific partnership isn't just good for middle-class families in the united states. that, of course, is the president's priority. but it's also good for advancing the kinds of priorities that the president's championed since he's been in office, including protecting workers in the united states and around the world and tightening environmental standards, as well. >> you disagree with that he says it's disastrous and a big victory for wall street, the corporations -- >> to say that i disagree with that conclusion is putting it mildly. >> okay. what about the other major democratic candidates? hillary clinton -- they would severely complicate your efforts to get this thing passed through congress if you have -- the top two democratic candidates opposed. has there been any discussion with hillary clinton or her team about this agreement? >> we certainly would welcome the support of every democratic candidate. i suppose that we can see lobbying efforts of senator sanders' campaign. we'll make the case to other democrats in the presidential field that -- about why we believe they should support the agreement. whether it's for economic reasons or because they believe strongly in labor standards or because they care about the environment, there are plenty of reasons for them to strongly support this agreement. i'll point out, john, that there were many democratic candidates for president who expressed significant skepticism about trade promotion authority legislation. and despite the skepticism, that was something that did pass the united states congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law by the president of the united states. >> are your efforts complicated then by the departure of john boehner? >> my -- i haven't done all the vote counting on this. i do believe that -- i don't know where all the declared candidate for the speakership currently were on trade promotion authority, what they've said about the transpacific partnership. but i certainly have heard a lot of republican leaders in congress talk about the importance of cut taxes. if they could cut $18,000 in taxes for w a trade agreement, i think there's a persuasive argument to congress, as well. >> there's a tough statement, serious concerns have been raised on a number of key issues. this deal demands intense scrutiny by congress. has the president spoken to -- >> i don't know if the president has spoken to him on this particular issue. but the thing that i would say is that the administration welcomes disagreement. even if you want to scrutinize the tax cuts in here, there are 18,000. it might take a while to work through all the tax cuts more american goods and services. the bottom line for the president is this is an agreement that makes it easier for american goods made in america to be shipped to markets overseas. that's good for economic growth in the united states, good for job creation in the united states and good for middle-class families in the united states. okay. kevin? >> thank you. we were just -- would you help me understand the importance of tpp. are they confused? are they just not getting it? unpack for them where they're wrong in this. what are they missing? >> i think the thing that they're missing now is there will be an opportunity for everybody to look at the agreement before they have to announce a position. based on what i've been briefed that's included in the agreement, there are lots of reasons for both democrats and republicans to support the agreement. i understand why there might be members of congress who say i don't want to rely on a briefing, i want to see the text of the agreement. that is certainly a reasonable position for them to take. and that's why we're working as expeditiously as possible to finalize that agreement and send it up not just to capitol hill but also post it on the internet so people across the country can look at the agreement and understand exactly how an agreement like this creates opportunity for american businesses and american workers. >> can you assure the american people that this is not nasa 2.0? >> well, i would say that this is -- let me say it this way -- the president made a prom nicetuate that he -- promise in 2008 that he would raise the standards of nasa and express the concerns of many about the true impact of the agreement. it took seven years, but the president kept that promise. and the text of the trade agreement that will be rolled out later this year is an agreement that raises labor standards, raises environmental standards, and makes sure that those standards are enforceable as part of the agreement. and that addresses the concerns that many people had previously raise good nasa. and the president -- raised about nasa. and the president is pleased and confident that the agreement of one that's been reached is clearly in the best interests of american businesses and american workers. >> couple more. one on afghanistan. i wasn't sure if i understood you correctly, the afghans called in an air strike, is that your understanding? >> well, there's a lot of mixed reporting about this, kevin. that's why there's an investigation being led -- there's one investigation by the chief investigator at the department of defense to determine what exactly occurred and get to the truth of what the facts are. i don't want to speculate at this point about what i know about this, we've got the chief investigator at the department of defense looking into this, and we'll look to see what he learns. >> lastly on oregon, is it possible that the president might be making a trip to the community that's so devastated by the shooting over the weekend? >> i don't have any presidential trips to tell you about at this point. if anything materializes, we'll let you know. anita? >> a couple also on oregon. today or actually a few month ago, president obama said he exhausted what he could do with executive action on guns. today secretary clinton said that she would go further and outlined a four-point plan. i don't know if you saw that or not. i'm wondering your reaction. this is at least the second time she said on another issue, immigration, that she would take more executive action to go further than the president said he's able it. >> yeah. aneat anita, i want to quibble a little with your question. the president said in his news conference friday, he said in terms of what i can do, i've asked my team, as i have in the past, to describe what authorities we have to enforce the laws we have in place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. are there additional actions that we can take that might prevent even a handful of these tragic deaths from taking place? the president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn't have access to them. that's that said -- that is ongoing here. that said, when it comes to proposals like those put forward by secretary clinton, we obviously welcome this kind of debate. we want democratic candidates and republican candidates to put forward their ideas about how we can keep guns out of the hand of those who shouldn't have them. that's say simple proposition. the fact is, there are a lot of thanks can be done that don't undermine the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. there are obvious things that members of congress can do. they've resisted doing them, unfortunately. and the president's made clear that he's going to continue to use the bully pulpit here at the white house to make the case to congress and to the american public that those are the kinds of actions that need to take place. >> he hasn't done anything by executive action since three to six months after newtown. we haven't seen anything. and i feel like he has said before that he took actions, and that's where we are. should we expecting another announcement soon? >> well, i don't have any announcements to preview. i think the president has made clear this is a priority, something that he feels quite passionately about. i think anybody who had the opportunity to see him standing here on thursday evening saw that that passion was evident. but i don't have anything to announce at this point. we certainly welcome the kind of debate that secretary clinton is continuing whether she rolls out the proposals that she announced today. >> and the second question on that issue or on the shooting. i don't know if you've seen several groups today calling for the resignation of the sheriff in douglas county, oregon, saying this is his jurisdiction. he wrote a letter to the vice president during his task force looking at gun control about how he wouldn't enforce certain things that he thought weren't constitutional. are you aware of this? what do you knowledge of the controversy? they're also saying he shouldn't be in charge of the investigation. >> well, i'm certainly aware that -- of the letter and the views that the sheriff has announced. i think that the case that we have regularly made and will continue to make is that there are some common sense things that congress can do to advance gun safety, to make gun violence at least a little less likely, and do something important to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn't have them. the details of those proposals indicate that those things can be achieved without undermining the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. so i think the point is that this is an issue that so often becomes part of a charged -- eerks emotionally charged debate. and i think for understandable reasons. the case that administration and the president have made are that there are noncontroversial things we can do to address this controversial topic. that's why you see such strong support all across the country for proposals like closing the gun show loophole. this is a loophole that allows individuals to purchase firearms without going through a background check. support has strong bipartisan support across the country. there's ample public data to indicated that even a majority of gun owners support something like that. the point is this is a controversial debate. but there are noncontroversial things that the congress can do to address this problem. i'll stipulate one last time, there's no piece of legislation that congress can pass that will prevent every single incident of gun violence. if there are common sense things that congress to can do to prevent a handful of violence that doesn't violate the rights of law-abiding americans, why can't they do it? it's a source of frustration not just on the part of the president of the united states but on the part of democrats and republican voters across the country. >> it doesn't sound like you're weighing in at all. [ inaudible ] >> not really. ron? >> on the gun show loophole and background checks, that's one area that secretary clinton is saying that she thought that could be closed somehow by executive action. is that something the administration has looked at? again, it would seem like something that could be done, it would have been done by now. >> i haven't looked closely at the proposals that secretary clinton has put forward. but i have seen the discussion in press reports this morning. i don't have a lot of details to provide you in terms of the work being done by the president's team to do the scrub of the available authorities that the president may have to address gun violence. that is ongoing work. if there are any conclusions that are arrived at that the president agrees with, then we'll announce them publicly. >> have they reached a conclusion that there's nothing more that can be done? is there some technical side to it? again, this has been going on for many years. something people feel passionate about. i don't understand where they are. are they stumped? do you need -- what to move forward? >> it's hard to answer in question without also protecting their ability to do their work. i can tell you that they're not stumped. they're continuing to review the law that's on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also with others who may have ideas about what steps can be taken to take guns out of the hands of criminals. >> a week later, is there anything russians are doing that is degrading isis? >> i have seen some published reports that indicate that there have been at least a couple of strikes that russia has carried out over the last several days that were aimed at isil-controlled areas. you'll recall when we talked about this thursday, this was after essentially the first day of russian bombing runs in syria, they hadn't taken any strikes where there were essentially confirmed isil forces. but there is no indication at this point that the russians have changed their strategy to more effectively concentrate their efforts on isil-held territory. in fact, what we see is that they're concentrating their efforts on territory that is held by opponents of the regime who -- which may include some extremists but don't, according to our analysts, include many, if any, isil forces. >> what do you do about that? there are reports about the intercept by the turkish warplanes. there was also reports -- there are reports of artillery and troops moving into the hamas provinces. what's the -- i know you can't -- there's a line, but what can russians do before the united states does something else to counter this? >> well -- >> or is all this foreseeable and allowable and okay and so on? >> let me answer that in a couple of ways. first as it relates to the turkish airspace incursion. the united states alongside the turkish government and our nato allies have been in active discussion on this issue. i don't want to get ahead of what the discussions might result in, but it's fair to say that the united states and our nato allies are quite concerned by that provocation. more generally, when it comes to the russians, the real risk that's being taken here is the risk that's being taken by the russians. they are involving themselves much more deeply in a sectarian civil war inside of syria. and again, you don't just have to take my word for it. this is consistent with the public statements of the leaders of many of our 65 nations who are parts of our counter -isil coalition. the fact that they're ramping up support for assad, they're carrying out strikes against opponents of the regime, and they appear to be based on reports essentially concluding with the iranians -- colluding with the iranians to carry out this military activity. what that does, that more deeply involves russian in a sectarian civil war that isolates them from the internet community even further than they already are. it also poses a significant risk to russia as moderate sunnis inside of syria see that they are aiding and abetting, if not outright carrying out strikes against other sunnis inside of syria, russia becomes the target of that anger. and that certainly poses risks to russia, not just inside of syria but also inside of russia where there's a significant muslim population. >> lastly -- >> let me say one last thing which is it also puts further off into the distance the kind of political transition that the russians themselves acknowledge are necessary to accomplish their goals. they're not going to be able to succeed in hastening a political transition inside of syria if they're taking aggressive efforts to prop up the political leadership that's still in the country. >> but the goal is to prop up the regime and have a transition that may involve assad still, and concluding and aligning themselves with iran. isn't there a point where the united states sees all this and -- and is putting pressure on the russians, but also undermining america's objectives in that particular conflict, is it not? is there a line that the russians can't cross before it becomes really problematic? >> well, as i mentioned in response to nadia's question earlier, the united states would like to see a political transition inside of syria, as well. and there's no denying that russia's active military involvement as part of the assad regime puts that political transition farther into the distance. but again, that is going to be a significant problem for russia, and it's going to isolate them. it's going to put them knee deep in the middle of a sectarian conflict, and it's going to give them the task for something they know based on their own previous experience inside of afghanistan four decades ago is impossible, which is trying to impose a military solution on this problem. there is no military solution inside of syria. there's political transition -- russia will not succeed in solving their problems by trying to impose a military solution. if anything, they're going to make the problems worse. okay? april? >> i want to go back to the issue of guns and the gun show loophole first. what's different now with the gunshot loophole debate from when bill clinton, then-president bill clinton was dealing with it, what is it now, and chhow can it gain traction d momentum? >> well, april, i think that we've seen there's broad support across the country for closing the gun show loophole. the gun show loophole is a loophole that exists that makes it easier for criminals, those with mental problems and others who shouldn't be able to get access to guns to be able to buy them. that is why the vast majority of american, according to some polls, the majority of republicans, certainly a majority of democrats, and even a majority of gun owners supports closing that loophole. what we have not yet seen, however, is sufficient intensiti. proponents of closing the loophole to overcome the concentrated, forceful advocacy of a minority of others who have been successful in making their voices known to congress. and this isn't a part of an issue -- this vocal minority has also successfully pressured democrats in congress to prevent action on closing this loophole. and that's why you heard the president observe in his public statements last week that it may be time for some voters to see they're single issue voters, that they're ready to prioritize this over others. so that's -- that will ultimately have to be the decision that's made by voters across the country, for them to demonstrate the same kind of passion that opponents who are closing the loophole have also showed. >> sorry -- [ all talking at once ] >> tell me this. what about the issue of -- you said the same thing in last few years, there has been support from both sides when it comes to background checks. so we're hearing lots of support. when it comes to getting it done, it doesn't happen. what do you say to that? >> well, again, i think the president spoke here on thursday pretty powerfully about that. indicated that what we'll need to see, we'll need to see voters across the country stand up and speak out with the kind of passion that we see on the other side. >> lastly, the day of the shootings in oregon, i asked an expert at the brookings institute. i said the brady lobby -- does it make a difference in the past few years when it came to getting the public to step up and say this needs to be done. he said no. what do you say to that when these people, the white house is working with these groups to try to help pass new gun laws, gun reform? >> we certainly welcome the efforts of a variety of groups to mobilize support for closing the gun show loophole. and the more effectively that we can mobilize support for efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the more likely we are to see the kind of congressional action that's strongly supported by people all across the country. >> clearly frustrate d and upset -- i know he's constantly frustrated. how much of a priority is this for him? >> it's a high priority and will continue to be until we see more progress in this town. olivier? >> thanks, guys. where do you come down on whether the media should or should not name the snoort. >> i've been given the opportunity over the course of the last year or two to offer my own advice in the media, and i have pretty consistently declined to do so. all of you certainly are well positioned to factor in the range of consideration in deciding whether or not to name the individual who carried out this terrible attack in oregon last week. so i would -- i would allow all of you to make that decision in a way that you believe that suits the interests of your news organization and your readers or viewers. >> i want to make sure i understand on the afghanistan -- you were asked about doctors without borders' request for an independent investigation, the ongoing investigation. that was a no, we don't need an independent investigation, right? >> well, i think it was a -- an expression of support for the three ongoing investigations. an expression of confidence that those investigations will have the access to the information that's necessary to arrive at the full accounting of what occurred that the president asked for. >> okay. i'm going to have try to pin you down. they are asking for an independent investigation. you don't care for that. you favor letting these three run their course, is that correct? >> what i'm indicating is that the president said over the weekend that he wanted a full accounting of what transpired in this incident in afghanistan. we have confidence that in the context of conducting these three investigations that full accounting will be reached. >> okay. >> keith? >> the senator voted for tpa and would lead the fight for tpp on the floor over tobacco. he said it would set a dangerous precedent to allow discrimination against an agricultural product. and mitch mcconnell previously issued -- was very upset about the potential for tobacco legislation. wondering what you have to say and whether you think you could still pass it with tobacco-state senators and representatives. >> my position has, first of all, been acknowledgment that tobacco poses a unique challenge to public health. that's why we work to include in the final tpp agreement an explicit recognition that individual countries' health authorities have the right to institutes tobacco-control measures to protect public health. that's the position of this country and the ability of individual countries to put in place priorities to preserve the health of citizens is an important step. that's what we fought to include in this agreement. >> the votes you need to get a deal, you indend up -- >> signing a bad deal just to get it through congress was never part of the equation here. >> on guantanamo, just last week you threatened a veto of the ndaa authorization bill over spending levels. does your previous veto threat over guantanamo stand with feature ndaas? no matter if you keep them with the ndaa and guantanamo decision, you'll bob is it? >> i think we'll consider one ndaa at a time. as it relates to the one ndaa proposal that's been put forward by congress so far, and as you point out, pass the by the house of representatives. that is a piece of legislation that the president would veto quite simply because it includes an irresponsible way for funding our core national defense priorities. other republicans have referred to this gimmick as a slush fund. and it's irresponsible, and it's certainly not the most effective way to provide for the national defense of the united states. it certainly is also not the most effective way for us to show our support to our men and women in uniform. they're all doing their jobs, and it's time for congress to do theirs. that is to pass a budget that properly reflects the economic and national security priorities of the country. the ndaa doesn't do that. that's why the president would veto it. and our position on proposals included in the ndaa that would make it harder to close the present guantanamo bay is something we continue to oppose. >> you're not reissuing the veto threat for a couple months -- >> well, the veto threat was based on a previous version of the ndaa. so it still stands in case that one is resuscitated. the current version that was passed through the house of representatives is something that the president would veto principally because of this -- the irresponsible way that it fund our national defense priorities. but also because of the efforts to prevent the closure at the present guantanamo bay. our position hasn't changed. we continue to feel strongly about it. the good news, and frankly some have observed that this is what distinguishes this situation from previous years, is that based on the vote that we saw in the house of representatives, there actually are enough democrats in the thousands sustain the president's veto. so this is an indication that the republicans are going to need to find a way to work with democrats to put forward a national defense authorization act that will earn not just the support of congress but also the support of the commander in chief. >> on a different subject, jason chavous, speaker today -- >> i did -- >> talked about the debt limit and shutting down the government over other issues, corporations, two issues coming to a head in the next couple months. says the white house shouldn't get that for free. and the president has said i'm not giving you anything for it. so how worried are you given that this is now a selling point for the speakership of jason chavous that we're going to have this in the last few weeks? >> well, that would be unfortunate. it's certainly not what i think the vast majority of the american public is looking for. i think most americans are ready for members of congress to do their jobs. part of the job of a member of congress is to vote for and pass a budget for the federal governme government, and the american people are counting on them to take that action because failing to to pass that budget would result in the government shutdown, and we know that that's not good for the economy. there's also ample data out there to indicate that shutting down the government actually costs more money than keeping the government open. so if the true aim here of republicans is to save money, then the best way they can save money is to do the jobs that they're getting paid to do. when it comes to the debt limit, you know, our views on this are quite well known, as well. i guess if anything, the stakes are even higher, though, for the u.s. and the global economy. there's significant risk associated with monkeying around with the debt limit. and using it as a -- you know, as essentially a political football in the midst of an intensive leadership race i think would satisfy the requirement of describing something as monkeying around. so it's not responsible, and it's not what the american people expect of their elected representatives in congress. this is the kind of rhetoric we actually hear from republicans a lot, which is that washington should just get oust of the way. that the american people in the private sector can succeed. here's a good example. and a good way the republicans in congress can just get the heck out of the way. and that's to do the responsible thing, pass the budget on time that adequately funds our economic and national defense priorities and make sure that the debt limit doesn't inject the kind of volatility into the u.s. financial markets that we surely don't need right now. [ inaudible ] >> the economy really is -- is there anything the president would be willing to accompany a debt limit increase to get it done? >> the president's said this many times, and i'm happy to repeat it here. there will be no negotiating over the debt limit. that is the responsibility of the united states congress, and that's what we expect them to do. when it comes to trying to tryih a bipartisan budget agreement, democrats on capitol hill have for fmonths have been asking fo they can to negotiate with them and republicans have resisted for quite some time. but ultimately we know that that is the only way this will get involved. republicans will not succeed in passing a budget strictly along party lines. they will have to find a way to work with democrats that will be signed by the president into law. so there is a lot of work for members of congress to get going on. >> speaking of congress, last week on friday, secret service joe clancy acknowledged that he was changing his story, his recollection of when he first learned of people inside the agency looking into congressman chaffetz's personal information. is that acceptable to the president, the fact that the director is now changing his story on this? >> jim, i think what director clancy indicated is that after reviewing the report, he remembered that he had better information to provide them. and so to his credit, he proactively reached out to both the inspector general and to congressman chaffetz to let them know. and that's what he did. i will say that the president certainly takes it this issue very serious will he. is this sensitive information and the thought that something like this would be politicized is wrong 37 frgs and the president does have confidence that following p on the information included in the inspector general's report, that secretary johnson and director clancy will ensure that steps are taken to prevent the disclosure of this kind of information in the future but also hold accountable those who engaged in that kind of wrongdoing. >> and congressman chaffetz was talking to cnn this morning and said that he would like to see a criminal investigation opened into this. he said he feels violated. is the white house open to that? >> well, jim, i think i said quite clearly that this kind of conduct that takes sensitive information like this and makes it public for political purpose is wrong. but decisions about investigating criminal conduct are decisions that are made by prosecutors at the department of justice. so i certainty wouldn't want to say anything that might influence a decision like that. so i'll reserve judgment on whether or not a criminal prosecution like that is appropriate. that will certainly be a decision for someone else. s >> and i know you talked about hillary clinton and benghazi committee and mccarthy's comments last week about the purpose of the benghazi committee and i was curious if i could ask it a slightly different way. i think hillary clinton was asked about this this morning and she indicated she will appear before the committee later this month. does the white house have an opinion as to whether or not she should continue to appear before the committee? whi >> that obviously is a decision for she and her campaign to make. i think the only reason we're having this conversation is because of the leading republicans decided that the goal was to try to drive down her poll numbers. i think the fact that the administration more broadly has worked in good faith to cooperate with that investigation i think is an indication of how far we're willing to go to cooperate with congressional oversight. even when legitimate concerns are raised about the true intent of that committee, concerns that are raised based on the public statements of the likely next speaker of the house the administration continues to cooperate with that committee. >> so that cooperation will continue putting aside whether secretary clinton should appear, the white house plans to continue to cooperate with the committee to provide any information that it needs? >> well, jim, my observation last week that leader mccarthy had committed classic washington gaffe of saying in public the thing that everybody knows is true, i think the point i'm trying to make here, would he have we've known for a long time that the motives of the benghazi committee were not pure. and despite that knowledge, we've continued to cooperate with them and we'll do that in the future even though mccarthy has made it pretty embarrassing i think for many republicans on the committee. >> and lastly, getting back to guns, it sounds pretty clear that legislation really just won't go anywhere because. political climate in washington as it stands right now. but the president talked about using the bully pulpit for his remaining months in office. i would imagine that that opens up the possibility of summits, meeting with families, perhaps traveling to places where these mass shooting incidents have occurred. are any of these possibilities for the president on his radar screen in the coming months or is it just when a shooting happens, he'll come out to the podium and talk about it? >> well, i certainly wouldn't rule out any of the things that you've described. but the fact that whenever the president has something to say in public, all of you are there to cover it. and to make sure that your readers and viewers understand it is a pretty significant authority that is vested in the presidency. and the president will use that authority to make clear that he believes congress needs to take some common sense steps to make gun violence less frequent in this country. the president is under no illusions that there is a law that can be pass that had would prevent every incident of gun violence, but there surely is something that congress can do to keep guns out of the hand of criminals and others who shouldn't have them and that will have a corresponding impact on the frequency of these kinds of incidents. it certainly will have an impact on those shooting incidents that don't get nearly as much attention. what happened in oregon was a genuine tragedy. and it's touched hundreds if not thousands of lives. but we see this kind of gunxhun across the country every single day. and the thought that congress can do something to at least partially address that without threatening and undermining the basic constitutional rights of law abiding americans is a proceed toufound disappointment president and he's not alone. millions of americans are disappointed by congressional inaction in this regard. >> do you expect to have any further conversations with congressional leaders about any possibility of a compromised package, nothing on the radar? >> i wouldn't rule out something like that, but ultimately -- the reason i wouldn't rule out something like that is because the president is willing to work with democrats and republicans to try to get this done. there is no reason this has to be a political or partisan issue. and i think the president has made clear that his concerns on this matter extend to some democrats, as well. so the president doesn't view this as a political or part son issue. this would certainly be in the category of things that is far too important for partisan and political consideration. >> one of my colleagues is reporting that the president could make a decision in the next week to ten days on whether he will run for the presidency. can can you give us an indication of whether the president himself will be meeting with the vice president about this? >> we have studiously avoided weighing in on the vice president's deliberations. many have speculated that this is something that the president and vice president have periodically had the opportunity to talk about. i'm not privy to those conversations, but i certainly wouldn't be surprised if the person who has won the last two national elections was consulted before the vice president made his decision about whether or not to participate in the next one. so ultimately the time line for making the decision is something that vice president biden will decide. and given his storied career and given the influence that he has in the democratic party, he certainly is entitled to all the time that he believes is necessary to make that decision. >> do you have plans to meet this week? >> not that i'm aware of. the president and vice president typically have lunch on a weekly basis when both are in town. so if that's something that occurs, we'll be sure you all are at least aware of it. but i don't anticipate that we'll have much of a read out of those private conversations. >> and i want to come back to something you said on syria in regards to russian warplanes. you said quite concerned about that. and any sense that this is anything other than the potentially provocative action? >> at this point given the stakes and sensitivity around the russian military action in that region of the world, i think our concerns are well founded and these are concerns that we'll continue to discuss with turkey and our other nature toy nato allies. [ inaudible question ] >> well, again, the -- this is something we'll continue to discuss. angela. >> you've alluded to the concern of the opposition of lawmakers and a similar outcry from -- [ inaudible question ]

Related Keywords

Douglas County , Oregon , United States , Mexico , Canada , New Hampshire , Iran , Afghanistan , Turkey , Syria , Ohio , Capitol Hill , District Of Columbia , Russia , Washington , Americans , America , Afghan , Turkish , Syrian , Russian , Russians , American , Afghans , Iranians , Mitch Mcconnell , Joe Clancy , Hillary Clinton , John Boehner , Bernie Sanders ,