i'm going to let the individual campaigns manage their own relationships with the press corps who covers them, but speaking for the president i can indicate that the president does believe that the protective pool is something that's important for reporters were coming the president of the united states. it's not always convenient for him but yesterday was a pretty good example. the president decided to go on a hike with his daughter in great falls yesterday. most americans when you see the weather is nice they can just decide to head out the front door and go spend some time with their kids, but the president has made different arrangements, not just for security but also to make sure all of you can travel with him your so the

president is committed to this process, even when it's not particularly convenient for hi him. and that certain something that previous presidents have done and we'll see what the next president chooses to do. [inaudible] talking a straight veto, not a pocket veto? >> i'm not sure that's an available option. i guess if it were we might take it. but i'm not sure that it is. the president intends to veto this legislation, for reasons that i've walked through, and we will see what congress chooses to do from there. >> i don't expect you to volunteer many names but how

many members of congress told you they didn't like this bill and voted for it anyway? >> i'll let individual members of congress -- i'll let them search their conscience and described our position on this bill. >> tightens for today's congressional meeting includes a reference to his trip to asia. apart from the obvious which is tpp, author action items, things he wants congress to do related to asia policy whether it's new north korea sanctions or something else? is there and ask today you want congress to take steps that are directly related to this to? >> that reference was solution to do things. the first is is a trans-pacific partnership. the president did hear quite extensively from leaders across asia about how important it is for u.s. credibility for the kind of congress to ratify the trans-pacific partnership. there are important questions

about how the candidates will continue to compete in an international economy. if we are not engaged in the region is home to some of the most dynamic economies in the world. there are also some strategic questions that are raised. we know that china is looking to expand their influence in this region of the were. that china welcomes a rising china but it seems unwise, to put mildly, for our strategic interests, for the clinic not to compete there, too. particularly given the significant interest that we've already established there. so the president discusses that a lot leaders over the course of history. the second thing the president, that we were referring to in that phrase is the president had an opportunity to consult with a number of our allies and partners on the trip. some of them from asia, some of them from other the president

bilateral meetings with president erdogan, prime minister may, event obviously president she and -- xi end cone and president park, prime minister modi. the president had a number of conversations with world leaders and he's interested in making sure that leaders in congress understand the kinds of issues that were discussed in that setting. mark. >> josh, on the 9/11 lawsuit bill, is there anyone else out reach the 9/11 families explain why the president is going to veto this bill that the place so much importance on? >> i have not had the opportunity yet i think to reflect on something the president discussed in his remarks yesterday. the president has found the

families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 to be a source of inspiration, they are an inspiration to him and the people all across the country for the kind of resilience that they have shown in the face of this unimaginable loss. so bears no -- so there is no effort to diminish the sacrifice that they hav made for the paint they have endured, or the heroism they have displayed over the last 15 years. and i think there are a variety of ways to illustrate that, particularly when it comes to the president's own activities to the president made clear that bringing osama bin laden to justice was going to be a top

foreign policy and national security priority. and he made good on it. he was willing to assume significant risk i'm certainly not as much risk as our men and women in uniform who carried out that mission but he was willing to stake the future of his presidency on it. that is so strongly the president felt about looking out for america's national security interests and getting justice for the thousands of americans who were killed on that dark day 15 years ago. the president has been an aggressive advocate of the 9/11 first responders bill that would guarantee that individuals who worked at ground zero were going to get their health care needs taken care of your these were individuals who worked around ad the clock and performed locally to help our nation recover. they deserve leaders in congress and in the u.s. government who have their backs. and president obama has every single time. this administration requested

the declassification and release of the so-called 28 pages. that goes back to the president's commitment to transparency and also trying to provide the american people greater insight into what happened on 9/11 and what may have contributed to it. the president's commitment to fighting for the kinds of values that the 9/11 families represent i think has been well documented. as relates to specific conversations, i'm sure there are some conversations that having had. i don't know of any meetings or a presidential level conversations but i think it's fair for you to assume that the administration has certainly made our case to individuals on, who see the impact this legislation particularly. >> but president obama must realize he's going to disappoint if not anger a lot of 9/11

families with his veto. >> i think that's possible, but again i think the president's words and deeds when it comes to standing up for the interests of 9/11 families, speak for themselves, including prioritizing bringing osama bin laden to justice, fighting for the 9/11 first responders bill, fighting for the declassification of the 28 pages and using the opportunity on the anniversary of 9/11 every year to talk about the 9/11 families and the source of inspiration they continue to be them -- continued before him and for all the families across the country. >> can you say why his moment of silence was private and not on the south lawn like usually is?

>> the reason is yesterday was a sunday and my colleagues and i at the white house rx for nearly hard-working but there aren't too many of us are before 9 a.m. on a sunday. so rather than have the president standing myself a with a small number of people on the south lawn, he just observed that moment of silence in private and spoke publicly. >> thanks. >> i want to ask you about the ex-im bank. right now there's no -- a bit of a log jam on larger loans being set up a i know white house whistling which put in his ear that was sort of a log to get around that blog gender am wondering how much i going to push that in reading, or are you going to push the any meeting at which i going to push that for that to be in the co so these loans that are larger than $10 billion will be able to go through? >> i don't know there's going to be a lot of detailed negotiating that goes on in the oval office.

maybe there will be but we are still relatively early stage of ensuring that the government doesn't shut down. i think the principle that you are singling out is an important one and again as result of republican dysfunction, even republican nominees to the ex-im bank are being boxed up in congress for no good reason. and it's impairing the ability for the federal government to do important work that would have a positive economic benefit for the country. so it's a rather obscure example but a relevant one in terms of leader mcconnell not making good on his promise to keep congress moving again. >> about syria, you all are

working with the russians at this point or planning to work with the russians. something the russians call for when it first started sort of flying in serious a year ago and the white house, as loud as rob said in a statement to the white house, was cool to the idea. what has changed and sort of you regret not being more open to working with russians a year ago? >> well, a couple of things. the first is that the time it has not begun coordinating with the russians on military actions against isil and mr.. before any of that -- al-nusra. before any of that cooperation begins, we need to see russia make good on this arrangement to prevail upon the assad regime to

observe the cessation of hostilities. and by reinvigorating the cessation of hostilities we can reduce the violence to increase the flow of humanitarian assistance and provide space for political negotiations. russia has been unwilling to do that thus far. there's a brief period in february and march where there was a cessation of hostilities that did largely prevent violence and the hotly contested areas of that country. but the cessation of hostilities was short-lived. after several weeks it began to fray, and it's only worsen over that period of time. but we should just be clear about why that happen. that happened because the assad regime didn't live up to the

commitments they made in the context of the cessation of those sausages. they continue to provoke and attacked opposition forces, and in some cases innocent civilians. it was a some kind of secret strategy that would simplify the assad regime. they were critical about announcing that they're going to go and bomb hospitals, targeting civilians until you get some of these groups to surrender. setting the immorality of that approach a side, it's an indication that the russians were either unable or unwilling to use their influence with the assad regime to get them to live up to the cessation of hostilities. for reasons that you should have asked the russians. they now are making a renewed commitment to doing so. i suspect part of it stems from their concerned about getting

sucked into this conflict, over the long-term, something that united states warned of since resolve is military intervention by russia last year. i suspect that some of this stems from ramp up concerns about extremist activity in syria on the part of al-qaeda in syria i think some of it stems from a russian desire to enhance their international reputation by being able to say that they are working with the americans. so the dynamics of this relationship i think are quite clear.

but being able to move forward is entirely contingent on russian credibility. and we will need to see them deliver before they get the kind of cooperation they would like to see. >> josh, the president has suggested that there could be new sanctions on north korea following their latest nuclear attack. what sanctions could be possible and within any effective and that north korea has continued to test nuclear test and listen missile tests and seems to be scoffing at the idea of more sanctions? >> this is something that the united nations duty council is considering even as we speak. there's a statement from the city council over the weekend that indicated that they were going to consider additional economic sanctions that could be imposed against north korea for

their continued and flagrant violations of a variety of security council resolutions. for a statement like that to come forward, it has to unanimous agreement of the security council. i think that's an indication of identified international community is in prioritizing the situation in north korea, him being alarmed about the situation in north korea, in considering additional steps to isolate the north korean government even further. so there's some important work to be done at the united nations, and the united states will be supportive of the process but the other thing i would point out is that on thursday the president did a news conference in laos, prior to this recent to most recent nuclear tests in north korea. and the president talked about how, while we've been pleased with the constructive contribution that the chinese have made to applying pressure

on the north koreans, the president believes there is more they could do. and there've been a number of conversations, including between president obama and president xi about the need to continue to make dealing with this situation a priority. >> is there no like separate your sanctions that might be considered? >> i certainly would not rule out an announcement like that, but those kinds of sanction sane not the kind of sanctions we talk about publicly because doing so would only tip our hand and allow those who are the target of the sanctions to make arrangements to try to avoid it before we even able to implement them in the first place. if there are more sanctions like that are put forward then we will certainly announcing publicly and explain to you the rationale for why they were imposed but we will not do that until a final policy decision has been made about them. >> just one more. what is the level of concern

about north korea developing ballistic missiles that could have a nuclear weapon on it, reaching the united states? >> you've heard experts and the u.s. government indicate their continuing concern with the way that north korea's missile program and the nuclear program has danced. in part that is why the united states has taken steps at the direction of the commander in chief to enhance our anti-ballistic missile capabilities in the asia-pacific. the united states has deployed additional naval assets in the pacific, including aegis systems that can be used to defend the united states against a list of missiles. there's technology that's been deployed to japan to better track those missiles and enhance our ability to defend the united states and our allies against them. there are, there's a fat battery that's been deployed to guam and

as you know the united states and south korea recently agreed to deploy additional thad battery in south korea, all of which is oriented against the threat from north korea. i think it's an indication that president obama takes the threat seriously and is committed to taking the prudent steps that are required to protect the american people and our allies. >> shortly before the briefing the white house made the decision to let the pool of access to the president's meeting with congress today. can you give us a little insight into the thinking behind the? >> primarily the idea was the president was interested in having a meeting with the congressional leaders, and there's a discussion about the most effective way to convey to all of you exactly what did happen in the context of that

meeting. and so the original plan had been to do a written readout, and we decided to let at least a small set under a subset of you. >> so not to be totally artist but not too -- >> i always appreciate that. >> it did nothing to do with a likely of questions about protected pools and transparency at that sort of thing? >> no, it did not speak one more obvious ones. you said not to lon too long ago president obama's government conspiracy evidence that even noted and why would future president or candidate speak at a trigger is any evidence of that transparency has practical or political benefits beyond getting cheers from the press corps? >> i think that's the point of the letter that i try to write. a different point i made clear that the only real constituency for transparency in government is all of you.

and that's a good thing. that's an important role but all of you play in our democracy. american voters i think largely, almost all of them, are considering a range of other factors when it walked into the voting booth. so that's why it's important for all of you to play the role that you do. and it is why our approach to transparency is one in which we would never expect for anybody who's sitting in those chairs to say that we have done enough. it's your responsible to constantly push for more. and all of you have lived up faithfully to that responsibility, so thank you. the point of the letter though was that i express my opinion that that kind of advocacy is more effective and more credible

when you give us credit, those instances when we do it right. and mr. rutenberg whom i respect greatly, i think he's an excellent journalist and, obviously, someone who has, brings a wide range of experts to the job he has no, overlooked that fact in the column he wrote a couple of weeks ago and that's what prompted me sending that letter. the truth is i express the concern to them privately after reading his column, and he acknowledged that was a fair point and a torch me to make it publicly. so i give him credit for a willingness to engage on that. i don't want to leave you the impression he agreed entirely with the point i was making but i believe he thought it was incredible want and that's a

baxter on how the letter to the editor appeared. >> the incident with secretary clinton over the weekend, is that maybe evidence of a political benefit to being more transparent? >> well look, i think that's hard to assess. part of the argument that president obama was making in 2008 when he was making the case for greater transparency in government is that there were instances where the bush administration had not been. and president obama was are interested in making a forceful and clear case about the different approach to governing the country that he would pursue than his predecessor did. so i think of from that standpoint his ability to talk about transparency was an effective way for and illustrate some of the differences with the bush administration, but i think my point is that transparency in

its own right is not something that a lot of voters are going to consider. and that's okay. there are lots of other things they can consider that are timely legitimate them for example, economic plans that are put forward by the individual candidates, the confidence of the candidates bring to the job, the values that they can do to bring to the job, the ability of the carriage to represent the next it's on a national stage, the experience. those are all entirely reasonable criteria for voters to consider. not a lot of them are prioritizing this question of transparency and i know this is something that all of you both professionally and personally believe is important. and that means that you play an important role in our democracy in holding whoever is in the oval office accountable, accountable to the american people and for being transparent with the american people. but again i guess the point i'm trying to make that's a little

meandering, i acknowledge, i chalk that up to us to let 3m and laos right now. [laughter] by the plan i'm going to make his there are bright of ways to evaluate transparency. and again i think is the point all of you make with some persuasive power on the radio basis, that it doesn't just apply to the every other year before you get to the president's position, for example. it also applies to access to the pressure wednesday with congressional leaders. it also applies to the records related to the individuals who visit the president at the white house. so it applies to tax returns, something that just about every presidents attended in both parties as provided in the context of running for this office to it certainly applies to the financial disclosures that sitting presidents file. so there are a variety of ways

to draw that assessment, and it's not just whether or not a candidate included the press corps and motorcade on one, okay? a couple more. >> quick policy one. back on this year, senator cruz is looking to add a rider's biggest i haven't heard his name in your in a while. >> looking to add a rider to the cr period that would prohibit the commerce department from giving out some of its oversight on internet domain names. i'm wondering if that would be a big problem for this white hou house. >> i think it may be a bigger problem for republicans if senator cruz considers maneuver like the one he employed back in 2013.

so again i haven't seen the specific proposal from senator cruz, and knowing him he's not particularly concerned with the details. but the fact of the matter is that there is a long established transition that's scheduled to take place that would essentially transfer respond to that of establishing internet domain names outside advance of government into the hands of a nongovernmental organization. i know what you are thinking. you might think that somebody who is an ardent champion of smaller government and getting the government out of the hands are out of the visit of the american people would praise such an effort. so it might lead you to conclude that senator cruz do something from his interest in something other than the merits of the specific proposal. but internet experts, scientists, business leaders,

technology experts all agree that this is the most effective approach and the right thing for the long-term security and well being of the internet. so that's the approach we are intending to pursue. we'll see what kind of tricks senator cruz has up his sleeves your gregory, i will give you the last one. [inaudible] >> well, for any reason? i think that's -- >> i'm including meaningful positions to talk about health care policy. >> right. look, i don't think that we are going to set a standard what we were we to have a conversation with president has with the doctor and i don't think -- >> the american people have a right to know the health status of the person occupies the oval office. hasn't been any material change

in any complaints coming in elements that we should know about? >> look, all of you been in situations where seen him coughing at a news conference or having a cold, but no, serving not aware of any material change in the president's overall health. added opaque that standard the people expect this every time the president talks with doctor that we're going to reach out the conversation to all of you speak of kurdistan is whether we have to ask whether -- >> i'm not suggesting that's the standard i think the standard is you would get a memo like this on the prejudice doctor don't think it's pretty detailed in terms of listing his body mass index, his resting heart rate, his blood pressure, you know, a whole bunch of other things that give you an indication of the health of the president of the united states. i think it's fair to assume that if there were a significant change in any of this, that we would either kill you or you would be able to tell.

but until they were going to set the standard where become the president talks to his doctor that we're going to weed out the conversation. [inaudible] >> sorbent no one that i'm aware of the i'm not a doctor and i'm not prepared to play one on tv, either. but no, i'm not aware of any make a change to the presence health since the last update you receive from his position which was just back in march, so not that long ago. all right? spirit as the white house briefing wraps up we will take you live to the senate floor containing for the weekend beginning, getting back to work on the water projects bill. and operation bill for flood control and hurricane damage that would also provide state and local funds to flint, michigan, and other cities with access lead levels in the printing system. a vote to advance the bill is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. also later in the week they may take up a bill extending government funding be on this month with reports saying the deal is developing. cq supporting the president