American interests around the world. So, is it beyond the possibility to think that the president did or will reach out to some of these leaders for discussion and or apology . Well, if he does, i dont anticipate that it will be the kind of conve a okay. Lastly, on detroit, this week, its expected to come out the city is expected to come out of bankruptcy. What do you say about that, particularly as they are coming out of bankruptcy and still they have a debt into the billions of dollars . Well, the city of the Obama Administration has worked closely with officials in the state of michigan and the city of detroit, as they have worked through the significant financial problems plaguing that city. We certainly are pleased that they appear to be nearing the end of their this bankruptcy period, but there is significant the administration will continue to work closely with offings in michigan and officials in the state of detroit city of detroit as they continue to recover from the significant financialt6ga problems that the have had. Theres no question that that region of the country has benefited significantly from the efforts that this president undertook to rescue the auto industry. And again, it is thanks to the grit and determination of American Workers that that industry has come roaring back, that we are seeing record sales. We are seeing record revenues from those companies and we anticipate that that will continue to have a positive Economic Impact on the city of detroit and on the broader state ofe m michigan, but thats not only way. We are going to continue to see the administration, whether its the department of education, the department of housing and urban development and other core agencies working closely with city officials in detroit to help that community recover. Should say they have come roaring back, using your words, they still again have this major debt. The auto industry. I know. I know. Thats different than the city of detroit. The financial position of the auto companies. But the city benefits from the auto industry. They do yes, thats what im saying. But the city still has this major value. Are you still concerned we continue to be committed to their recovery. Major . Josh, lets delicate fiction you have create around the cr. It is not a 1600 bill you are aware of . Not a particularly charitable yowza. You know what its in it, negotiated on the hill for two and a half weeks. Mckulski is not a stranger to this white house. So, because its the only piece of legislation thats operative to avoid a shutdown, just tell us the truth, youre he not going to veto it right . We have not reached that conclusion. It is possible you can veto it . We are going to continue to review the bill before we passed judgment. Nothing you said this morning is a discouraging word against all the things that are encourage and generally satisfying to you about this piece of legislation . At the same time, im trying to be honest, we do anticipate things in this piece of legislation we do not like. Right. Not the same as it becoming vetoed . That is correct. Why air not going to veto it, are you withholding judgment on this peas of legislation until we have had a chance to review t when will that be . 1600 pages long. Yes, thats factual truth but 1600 pages you dont know anything about. You know everything about this bill. I didnt say that either. And you did work in consultation with the relevant key players, democrat and republican, to put this thing together, did you not . That is true. But what is also true is that this is as somebody who covered capitol hill for a very long time, you understand that there are i think legitimate expectations that members of congress have about being able to exercise their own authority to reach these kind of agreements, so, what i will i guess the point is, the white house was not at the table with every conversation. We certainly have been kept in the loop by people on both sides, but we do not have the kind of granular knowledge about whats included in the legislation that members of congress one way or the other would jeopardize its passage in either chamber . No. [ inaudible ] well, again come to the desk naunchtsd i do not want to be in a position [ overlapping speakers ] i do not want to be in a position of there are other things that i privately thought would pass the how many times that ultimately didnt. So, im withholding [ inaudible ]. I hope not, right, cause we certainly dont want to be a government shutdown. Hopefully, they will take the action thats necessary to prevent the government shutdown. John brennan would not lie about something as important as what naufd would he . Well, as somebody who, again, as somebody who got to know [ inaudible ] it is. As somebody who got to know mr. Brennan when he worked here at the white house, had the opportunity to take a couple of trips with him when we were traveling with the president together, and he is somebody who i think adheres to the highest ethical standard that you would expect of a government official, and i i dont think theres any reason for anybody to question. [ inaudible ] correct. Explain to all of us how the moral authority of the United States is advanced when there is public accountability but absolutely no judicial accountability. Well, i will say a couple of things about that and i mentioned this in the gaggle yesterday and i think this bears repeating, the president alluded to this actual lish the Vice President alluded to this yesterday, too. Its difficult to imagine, and and of our detention process. And to demonstrate clearly that this is something thats never gonna happen again and i think that is uniquely american, in terms of our willingness to stand up for our values in that way. And i dont think anybody on other side of this debate and there is a very robust debit and i think worthy arguments to be made on either side of it but nobody argues about the fact that this moral authority is one of the most important elements of our arsenal in protecting the interests and the people of the United States of america. [ inaudible ] you need not prosecute anyone . I think fessing up, as you described t you d it. You did, too. To be transparent about the shortcomings does a lot to rebuild our moral authority around the globe. That is why the president ended these techniques in the first place. It is why he put in place these reforms we talked about earlier and it is why the president has strongly supported the release of this declassified version of the executive summary. Last question. We have got a lot of questions about benefits and costs and risks. Is the United States and its diplomatic posts, its intelligence, military facilities at greater risk today than it was yesterday, before the release of this report . Yesterday the social media and the Jihadist Networks were crackling with outrage, indignation and calls for either more risks before yesterday before this report was released generally and is that risk worth this advancement of moral authority that you just described . Well, let me let me say a couple of things, the first is that there was an assessment that was reached by the Intelligence Community, that u. S. Facilities may be at higher risk as a result of the release of this report and as a result of that assessment, this administration, at the direction of the president of the United States, undertook necessary efforts to make sure that Additional Resources were necessary, were dedicated to ensure the protection of u. S. Facilities and u. S. Personnel around the globe. What is also true, so i guess the conclusion is this, is the president did decide that the benefit of releasing this report and taking a significant step to rebuild our moral authority was necessary and does overall strengthen our National Security and does more to protect our interests around the globe based on the fact that we can also take necessary steps to protect against any sort of increased risk that may occur. Okay . Kristen . Josh, thanks. I want to go back to the question of bin laden and just try to clarify the comments that you made in response to jims question. You said its impossible to know a counter factual, impossible to know been able to kill bin laden if you hospital had these harsher interrogation tactics if they had been outlawed at that point. Are you essentially acknowledging that they did play a role . No. What im acknowledging is that it is impossible for us to go back in time and determine whether or not some of the information about whether some of the information that those who believe that enhanced interrogation techniques yielded information that was critical to the success of the mission could have also been obtained through other measures. Its possible, and unknowable, actually, whether or not that information that they say was critical to the mission and was obtained because of these techniques, could also have been obtained if a more conventional interrogation technique had been used. Acknowledging that those tactics did, in fact, help lead to bin laden . No its not. So, did it play any role . Well, again there are people who are engaged in a pretty vociferous debit on both sides of this issue. It sounds like youre not ruling out the possibility that [ inaudible ] harsher interrogation tactics may have played a role in finding bin laden. Im acknowledging this there are good people on both sides of that debate. And the president comes down on this, regardless which side of the debate you are onning the need to strengthen and enhance our moral authority around the world is paramount when it comes to this question. President obama had to have seen the intelligence when he approved the raid, so, doesnt he have an opinion about what role this intelligence played . Well, the president did receive an intelligence briefing in advance of the raid, but that intelligence briefing doesnt necessarily provide a detailed account of how that intelligence was obtained. The point is that, again, for when it comes to the commander in chief and when it comes to making policy decisions, the president , i think, has spoken unequivocally about his view of this matter. It is his view that the use of these enhanced interrogation techniques did not serve our national interest, it does not make us safer because it undermines our moral authority and our moral authority around the globe is critically important to protecting and even advancing american interests around the globe. Let me ask you, secretary kerry said yesterday that he was testifying, he said that an aumf should not prevent use of Ground Troops, saying congress should not bind the president s hands when it comes to an aumf. Given that the president doesnt plan to send in Ground Troops, very clear about that, why shouldnt the legislation prevent these Ground Troops . I believe the secretary got into this. The reason is simply this, its impossible for us to imagine all of the contingencies that could occur. The president s been very clear that he does not envision a scenario where he is going to commit substantial u. S. Ground troops in a combat role in iraq or in syria but as some people have pointed out, there actually is one reported instance where the president did commit Ground Troops in what i think everybody would describe as a combat role in syria. Earlier this summer, the president ordered u. S. Personnel to go into syria and to try to put boots on the ground and to try to rescue american hostages that were held in syria. If we were to include in the aumf a provision banning the use of combat troops, the president s hands would be tied and he wouldnt be able to order a mission like that and that is what we are seeking to avoid and that is why we believe that that doesnt constitute, you know, a responsible limitation on the president s authority. But he still stands by the statement thats not putting boots on the ground in this current conflict . That is absolutely correct. If congress does authorize an aumf that includes the possible use of Ground Troops, whats to stop this president , the next president from engaging the United States in an ongoing endless war . Well, these are policy decisions that are made by the commander in chief. The reason the president would like to see the passable of an updated, rightsized authorization to use military force that actually reflects the conflict that we are engaged in right now is an indication that this president is eager to move the United States away from a permanent war footing. Secretary kerry made reference to the fact yesterday that he supports that this administration continues to support the repel of the 2002 aumf. The president has given at least one highprofile speech on this precise issue. And you know the other thing that i think is relevant is the American People are going to have some bearing on this, right . That we have a civilian in charge of our military. We have a civilian commander in chief thats elected by the people of the United States of america to make decisions about whether or not to take prolonged military action in a way that protects our National Security interests and we entrust the commander in chief thats elected by the American People to make these kinds of decisions. So i guess the point is, the president took office, vowing to get our troops out of iraq in a responsible way, to deal with the situation in afghanistan and wind down our involvement in that effort, that to move us off of a permanent war footing, these are all things that the president catch pained on and was strongly supported by the American Public. So, i guess the point is, those sort of whatif provisions are things that are going to be are outcomes that will at least be heavily influenced by the American Public and thats the way that it should be. Okay . Jessica . Josh, i want to go back to what you were talking about with moral authority and potential impact on American Foreign policy. If you acknowledge that the u. S. Has lost moral authority, how does that impact u. S. Foreign policy, especially when calling out other countries for human rights abuses . Well, i will say a couple of things about that. First, think we have made substantial progress in rebuilding that moral authority since that these these actions were implemented. And i think are a couple of reasons that we can assert that the first is the president did take these steps in early 2009 to put in place a task force that later in 2009 announced significant reforms to the way that u. S. Personnel interrogate and detain individuals that happen to be in the custody of the United States government. So, thats notable. I think the second thing is the president was very clear in outlawing these techniques. He was unequivocal in doing so and that, i do think, substantially rebuilt a u. S. Credibility and moral authority around the globe. And we have evidence that this is that the that this effect is having an impact on our ability to protect american National Security interests around the globe. If the u. S. Moral authority had been substantially diminished, we would not have had so much successes in building a coalition of more than 60 countries shall including many muslim majority countries in the middle east joining us in the fight against isil. So, we have made substantial progress but the president believes there is more that we are going to continue to do precisely because u. S. Moral authority is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal for protecting and advancing american interests around the globe. [ inaudible ] as we have seen in russia, china, north korea about human rights abuses. Will we see any backing away or backing off of the condemnation of the practices in other countries . Absolutely not. This Administration Remains as committed as ever to these basic universal human rights. React to the Chinese Foreign ministrys statement on the reform or the report, excuse me, that chinas consistently opposed torture, we believe that the u. S. Side should reflect on this, [ inaudible ] respect and follow the rules related International Conventions . Do you agree . Well, i think what i can just say as a factual matter is the president during his second full day in office took steps to unequivocally ban the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by u. S. Personnel and he did that because he believes that it undermined our moral authority to continue to implement those techniques and he believed that it would make the United States stronger and safer to do so, okay . Tam ron, im going to give you the last one. I have a couple of questions, hopefully they are short. Doyle my best to answer them. Chris van hollen, the leading democrat on the Budget Committee and the house while you were speaking has announced that you should take the internet away from us, that he has announced thats going to be voting against the [ inaudible ] because he is very concerned about it lifting champaign finance limits and also about the dodd frank roll backs that are in there. Does the white house have any feelings about how democrats should vote on this measure . Well, as always, we believe the democrats should vote their conscious. They hud should make those kinds of decisions for themselves. The president s decision about whether or not to support this legislation is certainly something that he will do based on his own conscience. As the leading budget as the leading democrat on the house Budget Committee, mr. Van hollen has more immediate and detailed no, maam of this proposal than we do here at the white house so far. But we are endeavoring to review this and hope we can have a clearer position on this specific legislation soon. And you had said that it is 1600 pages and you have only had is for 16 hours, not even 16 hours. Can the president veto this . This is, you know, mustpass bill, three most powerful words in washington possibly. Is the presi