life excel antsy could be correlated with the metro routes, the further you travel from the heart of the inner city y the greater your life expectancy. just last week it was reported that in washington, d.c., ward 8 has ten times the rate of infant deaths that ward 3 has. two wards, nearly five miles apart. ward 8 residents are primarily poor residents and people of color, and a just released study from the census data reported that geography plays a significant role in shaping a child's chance of future success. some counties dramatically improve a poor child's odds of moving up the social ladder. others exert a kind of negative pull on children where every year in that community whittles away at a poor child's odds of thriving with an adult measured by potential earnings in

adulthood. poor children in these neighborhoods contend with struggling schools and racial and economic health and housing segregation. we need to collectively do something about this. second point kids that are too sad or too mad have problems learning how to add. so kids that are sad too sad, too mad can't add. we know more about the impact of toxic stress, traumatic stress and exposure to violence than we've ever known in the past. we have researched techniques that map the neurodevelopmental brain and nervous system changes that occur with such exposures. we now know that these adverse childhood experiences can lead to chronic physical diseases, mental and substance use disorders, risky sexual behaviors, to the inability to regulate emotions and behaviors sometimes this is associated with violence.

we know that children exposed to physical maltreatment and chronic and complex trauma are often tightly wound, overly vigilant overly sad and depressed, hopelessly angry and oppressive, not knowing how to deal with the issues. we can't expect these children can ease into school and focus and attend to work. these children become wired differently and it takes a lot to rewire them and put them on a healthy developmental track but we know it can be done. it's not just a matter of school readiness for children getting our children ready for school, but that schools must be ready to receive and support these youth and all that they bring into the classroom. [ applause ] thank you. so we must ask ourselves can we disrupt the paths for youth of color and especially for youth with different kinds of mental, psychological challenges. we have a number of efforts

some in your cities focused on assessing and addressing a trauma of young people. some neighborhood programs community and public health, jobs and mentoring programs can prevent or reduce the impact of trauma and violence. we have emerging evidence that for youth in detention addressing their trauma may result in less probability of reoffending, but we need to put this trauma knowledge and prevention practices to work. my third and final point is collaboration which is what your teams are doing here, and what we're trying to do as federal agencies and working with you and across our federal agencies as well means more than being in the room together means putting resources and innovation on the table. as i mentioned earlier, multiple hhs agencies are involved in this initiative the department of justice education housing,

labor, and in this sense we all are making a commitment to collaboration and support of the public's health and the public's safety safety. we are learning to talk across silos and departmental mandates which is not easy to do for us often, to recognize that public health, public safety, public education, public housing go hand in hand and hand together. that good outcomes in each domain are depend nt on the other and are essential for flourishing neighborhoods. but convening and talking is just the first step. we must bring resources whether that's funding data, people or new ideas to the table to actually do things differently. we must generate sustained political will, and we must identify practices and policies that work for specific communities. as federal agencies, we are trying to go beyond the talk. we invite you to visit a new

cross-agency website which brought about 15 to 20 different agencies and departments together and to visit this website, www.youth.gov/nationalforum to find new funding announcements, informational resources, learning about success stories in communities and evidence-based programs that come from different systems perspectives. you have to recognize each one of our federal agencies we have our kind of own collection of evidence-based practices, whether they're in juvenile justice, child welfare health and mental health, education, law enforcement, all critical components for building safe, resilient and thriving communities. the challenge is for you all to put all of those together and we need to use new strategies, including technology which is so much the medium of youth of today, and something that we can very much learn from their leadership. so in closing, i want to acknowledge your critical work

and express our commitment to ongoing collaboration, and the collective impact that we can have in ensuring that every child has a support to maximize his or her potential and contribute to thriving communities. so finally i'll leave you with three questions as you go through this summit. first, think about why were you, why were you in particular selected to come to this summit, and why did you accept the invitation, and third, what are you going to do differently when you go back to your communities? thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you so much. what a great challenge to all of us with those three questions. now i'm pleased to introduce our

final speaker, one of our biggest and i mean biggest supporters on capitol hill. congressman bobby scott has fought consistently and passionately for comprehensive juvenile justice reform, and effective prevention programs for youth. it's safe to say he's one of the nation's most vocal advocates for kids. he's also been a tremendous ally and supporter of the administration's work under the national form. and i think it's worth pointing out that his district doesn't even have a forum site so you know yet how much his heart is in this work. it's an honor to have him with us this morning. please welcome congressman bobby scott.

>> thank you. thank you, beth for your very kind introduction, and promise for future site. good morning. i want to thank you for being with us today and i want to thank the attorney general and the secretary of education and representatives from health and human services for coming together and really pointing out the choice that we have. they represent the choice. we can educate the next generation today or we can incarcerate the generation tomorrow. that's the choice we have. i've commended cities that joined the forum. your dedication to a comprehensive approach is one that should be replicated all over the country. we know what works in reducing youth violence, when it comes to areas of the public policy we

know what works. unfortunately not always politically expedient. what polls well or has a catchy sound bite. we know that in congress for too long we've followed the political slogans and sound bites. we have come up with slogans tough on crime three strikes and you're out, mandatory minimum sentences. >> my name is robert zumwalt, board member with the national transportation safety board. ntsb is an independent federal agency, we're charged by congress to investigate transportation accidents to determine the probable cause and issue safety recommendations to try and keep these accidents from happening again. before i go any further i would like to offer our sincere condolences for the loss of lives and the injuries that

people have sustained and our thoughts and prayers are truly with them. ntsb investigators began arriving in philadelphia between 4:00 and 5:00 this morning and the majority of the go team was in place here in philadelphia by about 9:30 this morning. upon arrival here on the scene we coordinated with the local officials, the first responders, and then we conducted a pretty thorough walk-through of the accident site to be able to get an idea of what we're dealing with, sort of the lay of the land. at noon we held an organizational meeting where we established our investigative protocols, and parties to the investigation. the investigator in charge is mike flanagan. mike has other 40 years of railroad experience, and he has

more than 15 years of accident investigation experience with the ntsb. he is leading a multidisciplinary team of accident investigators that will be looking into the track, the signals and i'm talking about the train control signal system, the operations of the train the mechanical condition of the train to include the brake system recorders, survival factors and emergency response. in addition to our investigative team we have experts from the ntsb office of transportation disaster assistance, they are here to help facilitate the needs of the victims and their family s families. here is the factual information that we presently have.

last evening amtrak 188 on amtrak northeastern regional train departed philadelphia's 30th street station at 9:10 p.m. bound for new york city's penn station. the train consisted of one locomotive locomotive, and seven passenger cars, and according to amtrak there were 238 passengers and a crew of five for a total of 243 outs s occupants of the train. at approximately 9:21 p.m. while traveling through a left-hand turn the entire train derailed. just moments before the derailment the train was placed

into engineer-induced braking and this means the engineer applied a full emergency break application. maximum authorized speed through this curve was 50 miles per hour. when the engineer induced brake application was applied the train was traveling at approximately 106 miles per hour. three seconds later when the data to the recorders terminated the train speed was 102 miles per hour. i will indicate that these are preliminary figures of speed subject to further validation, but we're pretty close on that. that's our first look at it. it's a pretty complex thing. you don't just press a button and it spits out a speed. you have to measure the wheel speed and put that into a

formula but we're pretty confident that the train was traveling pretty close to those speeds, within one or two miles per hour. the train had recorders it had forward-facing video cameras taken had an event data recorder. both of these recorders are being sent to our laboratory for analysis in washington, d.c. we did get these initial speeds that we just provided you with from an initial download of the event recorder. we've released the track back to amtrak, and they will begin rebuilding it very soon. the locomotive and all but two of the train passenger cars are currently being moved to a secure location, where detailed examination and doumscumentation can occur. throughout the next few days,

the investigators will work on scene to thoroughly document the accident site and gather factual information. we will be doing a more detailed documentation of the rail cars and the scene. we plan to interview the train crew and other personnel. we would like to interview the passengers of the train. we will be conducting a site distance test. we'll be testing the signal system, the train control signals, we'll be testing the braking system and detailed analysis instead of the cursory analysis that i mentioned earlier of the recorders, we'll be doing a very detailed download and analysis of those recorders. our mission is to find out not only what happened, but why it happened, so that we can prevent it from happening again.

that's really what we're here for, is learn from these things so that we can keep them from happening again. i suspect that our investigators will be here in philadelphia on scene for about a week. i want to emphasize that we're not here on scene to determine the cause of the accident while we're on scene. we're not going to speculate our purpose for being here. i like to describe it as we are here to collect perishable evidence which is that information that will go away with the passage of time. that's what we're here to do collect that information that will go away with the passage of time. we can go back and do the analysis later but capture those data carefully now. i feel like arriving on scene this morning i feel like the preliminary information that we have is robust but we still have a lot to get.

i know that you have a lot of questions. we have a lot of questions. and our commitment to you is that we are, as we are discovering factual information, we will be releasing it. i will be looking for the press conference by this time tomorrow to tell you what we've learned tomorrow. that's the way it works our investigators are out in the field doing their jobs during the day and they report back to me, so i can report to you. i would encourage you to follow us on twitter, our twitter handle is @ntsb. as i wrap it up i'd like to thank the first responders for all of their efforts. they've been out here through the night, through the early morning, all day, trying to secure this area. we want to thank them for their hard efforts. now, i will call for questions, i'm going to call for questions. what i'd like for you to do is raise your hand i will call on you and once i call on you please, state your name and your

outlet. >> i had a chance to talk to the engineers, he did not comment on what happened before the curve. [ inaudible ] >> have we talked to the engineer the answer to that is no but we plan to. this person has gone through a very traumatic event and we want to give him a day to convalesce for a day or two. >> you talked about 106 miles per hour, the speed. how long did it take him to get up to 106, in other words had he been aggressively getting faster and faster, did he have a time line for that and also were there any whistles or bells going off warning him in the cab that he was speeding? >> so the question is, at what point did the train reach 106

miles per hour. our initial examination of the data, we have not gone back that far because it is a very detailed analysis of reading those data. we wanted to find out the speed so we could report those to you. we will be coming up with the time line. that's one of the things we will do. we don't have those exact figures at this point. >> any alarms? >> the alarms in the cab of the locomotive and we will discover that information. we should through the cockpit data, sorry from the cab, from the event recorders. yes, sir, right here. >> are you confident, chris o connell from fox 29. are you confident all the fatalities have been accounted for. you say most of the rail cars have been removed. you say there are one or two left. do you know there are any more fatalities? >> the question is do i know if there's any more fatalities and the information concerning the fatalities i don't want to sound

bureaucratic, we are here to investigate the accident and that's our lane. the release of the information on the injuries and fatalities is the domain of the philadelphia office of emergency management so they would have that information and so that's the answer to that. >> rosemary connor, nbc 10, you mentioned that the engineer applied full emergency braking system. would that have been enough to bring this speed under level was it too late? >> the question is the engineer applied, put the train into emergency braking a few seconds before, moments before the derailment, and in the next three or four seconds the speed of the train only decreased to 102. as we know it takes a long time and distance to decelerate a train. >> how long would it typically take to try to would have had to apply the brakes? >> how long would it take to get the speed down below 100 below

the track speed of 50 miles an hour? well, he was already in the curve at that point. you're supposed to enter the curve at 50 miles an hour. we'll take a question right here. >> [ inaudible ] is the black box, recorder, at the center? >> the question is, is the black box, is the event data recorder is that at amtrak? is that what your question is? >> yes. >> we took it to -- that's the question. we took the event recorder to amtrak's facilities because they have the equipment locally to download it. we took it there for the preliminary look now we're taking it to our own labs in washington, d.c. question right here. >> how many of the recorders are there? >> how many event recorders are there? one event recorder and that's in the locomotive in addition to the event recorder, there is a

forward-facing camera. question here. >> cbs radio. was the train equipped with any sort of system that could have or should have slowed a train that was going too fast prior to the curve? >> was the train equipped with any type of device that could have or should have slowed it down to keep it within its limits. and amtrak, throughout a good pit of bit of the northeastern corridor has advanced civil speed enforcement, called acses throughout most of the northeast corridor for amtrak hour it is not installed for this area where the accident occurred, where the derailment occurred. that type of a system we called it a powerful train system that type of system is designed to enforce the civil speed to keep the train below its maximum

speed, and so we have called for positive train control for many, many years. it's on our most wanted list. congress is mandated that it be installed by the end of this year. so we are very keen on positive train control. based on what we know right now we feel that, had such a system been installed in this section of track this accident would not have occurred. right here. >> is there a dead man switch in the train or any alert set up? >> some trains have it and some don't. oftentimes in place of the dead man switch they have an alerter. if there's no activity from the engineer within a certain period of time, the audio and visual alerter will activate in the cab of the locomotive and then if an engineer makes a throttle movement or something that will deactivate. we want to know exactly what was

in that car. >> you don't know? let me call on you. i'm going to take a question here. >> when was the last time the rail was inspected? >> when was the last time the rail was inspected post accident, before accident and post accident. rail geometry car went other across the track yesterday, and as far as our thorough examination of the track, you got to understand there's been a lot of activity out there right now. the cars have been piled up out there, so our real thorough examination of the car of the track will begin after those cars are thoroughly removed and i expect we'll be out there documenting that tomorrow. question right here. >> there were some tankers nearby. do we know if they were filled with fuel and are there any precautions being taken because the wreckage is so close to the tankers? >> so there's some rail tank cars that were very close to the

point of derailment. were they empty? i'm told i want to further verify this, i'm told they were not full at the time of the accident. there's a question right here. >> 11 news. do we know how long he's been on this route and how long he's been with amtrak. >> do we know how long the engineer operated this route and how long it he been with amtrak? that's the type of information i don't consider that perishable evidence. that's data that we can get to two weeks from now. what we're trying to do right now is get out there and measure everything that won't be here in two weeks, so to answer your question, we don't know. i can't tell you right now because i don't know how long he had been there but that's information we will get. so we want to interview him we want to review his training records, his employment records, that's standard. question right here. >> when did the train start moving faster than the -- >> the question is when did the train start moving faster than

the speed limit. we did not -- we have not gone back far enough in the data to see what occurred. the speed limit through the curve is 50 miles an hour. right before the curve the speed limit is 80. so it's 80 mooil-mile-an-hour speed limit and entering the curve the engineer is supposed to slow the train to 50. we will be putting together a time lane. we have' got good data from the event recorders and our priority was just to get an idea of what the speed was at the derailment. there's a question here. >> could the speed alone have caused this? >> that's analysis and exactly what we want to find out is why did this train derail. question here. >> bbc. in your initial assessment were

there any signal problems, anything that stuck out? >> are there any obvious mechanical or signal difficulties that we found and we have not. again, we just basically got here. we a lot of the emergency response has been going on until about 2:00 so we haven't been able to get that very thorough up close and personal view of the track. we will be downloading the signals to look at those. we will be doing a brake test of the train. we will be doing a site distance test. there's a lot of work that needs to be done that will be done and we'll let you know periodically how we're doing. again look for another press briefing tomorrow and that's it. i want to thank you for your time. we'll see you tomorrow. >> sir, can you talk about how the state controls -- >> robert zumwalt of the ntsb

live in philadelphia, briefing on last night's fatal amtrak derailment. mr. zumwalt saying their preliminary readings showed the train going about 106 miles per hour when the engineer applied emergency braking. the speed limit in the curve where the train derailed is 50 miles per hour. the national transportation safety board investigation just beginning, and will continue. in action on capitol hill related to amtrak, the house appropriations committee today voted to cut $260 million in funding for amtrak. that committee vote come the day after the deadly train crash in philadelphia. the congressman offered an amendment to restore that $260 million in amtrak funding but his amendment was voted down by the committee. now it's today's white house briefing with press secretary josh earnest.

>> good afternoon, everybody. nice to see you this afternoon. i don't have any announcements at the top so straight to your questions. nancy, nice to see you. >> josh, how is the white house recalibrating stat gee after saturday and what does it say about the president's ability to work and the relationship. >> what we're focused on right now is working with the senate to find a credible path forward to advance legislation that we know has strong bipartisan support. after all this is legislation that passed the senate finance

committee with the support of a majority of democrats and majority of republicans who serve on that committee. so these kinds of procedural snafus are not uncommon. in fact they happen pretty often even on pieces of legislation that are not particularly troers lyly controversial. this is a piece of legislation subject to extensive public debate and the fact that there is a procedural snafu to unravel here is not particularly surprising. the thing that's also important to recognize is that it's not as if after yesterday's events that anybody came forward and announced a change in their position on this legislation. the fact is, there continues to be bipartisan support around the idea that the president should have the authority to complete this negotiation, this agreement, and to have the authority to ensure that we can enforce the agreement. that's what's contemplated in the legislation.

that's what passed the senate finance committee with bipartisan support and we're hopeful that we can advance the stage of actually debating this on the floor of the united states senate so it can be put to a vote there. >> do you think that senator brown's comments about the president's remarks on senator warren reflect broader sentiment in the caucus that may have contributed to problems with members of his party? >> again the president met with ten democrats here at the white house just yesterday. these are ten democrats all of whom agree that giving the president the authority to complete the negotiation of this agreement and the authority to enforce the agreement is the right thing to do and consistent with our values as a party. and so we are going to continue to build on that relationship, and hopefully seek to advance this legislation in a way that is good for the country and good for our economy. >> just one comment question on

amtrak. are there any conversations between the white house about amtrak funding? >> well, we've been very clear about what we believe is the appropriate level of funding for amtrak. in the president's budget is i think what's nearly a $1 billion increase in funding for amtrak. there are extensive infrastructure upgrades that could be made that would benefit the traveling public. it would be good for our economy, and that's why we've long advocated those kinds of investments. republicans unfortunately are currently considering legislation at the committee level that would actually cut funding from amtrak's budget by i believe a quarter of a billion dollars a year. so that certainly is not consistent with the kinds of priorities the president advocated and sought to advance but we're at the beginning of the appropriations process and what was successful a couple of

years ago was bipartisan work between paul ryan and patty murray to find bipartisan common ground about a way forward on the budget that reflects our country's priorities when it comes to national security and our economy and to do so in a fiscally responsible way and we're hopeful that the congress will consider a similar bipartisan approach as it considers this year's budget as well. okay. jeff? >> josh, starting off with foreign policy there's been or may have been, does the white house view that as a coup or who is the current leader of that country? >> jeff, i can tell you that the united states is following with concern the news coming out of bujamborah. we call on all sides to lay down arms just as the authorities

need to hold credible elections. we support the efforts of region leaders who as i understand it are meeting now in tanzania to take all necessary action to restore peace and unity in barundi, particularly focused on ensuring officials respect the democratic procedures and practices as they seek to govern that country and there are legitimate concerns right now that's not happening. and we're continuing to monitor that news and we're obviously supportive of the ongoing regional effort to try to defuse the tensions there. >> who does the united states view as the current leader? >> the current president is meeting with regional leaders to try to resolve the political differences there. the question right now that has provoked so much controversy in barundi is whether or not the current president should seek

re-election. there are some who based on the reading of the baurundian constitution, something i have not done concluded he's not eligible to run as a third term for president and that has provoked even some violence in barundi. what we're focused on is supporting the ongoing regional effort to defuse tensions and hopefully prevent additional violence as they try to work through their differences here. >> you use the phrase "the current president." does that mean you consider him to still be the president now? >> yes. >> on trade has the white house been fielding calls from other nations involved in tpp about what happened yesterday? are they concerned? and what have you been telling them? >> i'm not aware of any phone calls like that. i don't know of any calls that have been taken here at the white house. it's certainly possible that there might have been other agencies that heard from their initial counterparts. if it those calls occurred i'm

confident that the same message that was relaid to those foreign governments is the same message that i've been relaying to all of you. i don't know how snafu translates into a variety of asian languages but i do think that the conversation that they're having is, reflects the fact that the differences on display right now in the united states senate are focused on process, and while there continue to be some differences around substance particularly among democrats, that there is strong bipartisan support for the approach that passed through the senate finance committee. and we're looking forward to a credible path forward that will allow us to actually have a robust debate on the substance of the bill and again the importance here is ensuring that the president has the authority that he needs to complete the agreement, and to do so in a way that would raise labor standards, raise environmental

standards and level the playing field for american businesses and american workers. that would be good for our economy but we also want to make sure that when we're talking about the enforceable labor provisions and environmental provisions that the president has the authority he needs to, to enforce the agreement. we want to make sure whatever authority of the united states congress decides to give the president that he has the authority to do both and the senate's working through this even as we speak. >> snafu is your word of the day? >> it was yesterday. >> has the president spoken to senator mcconnell about a way forward? >> the president has been in touch with regular members of congress over the last several weeks on this issue. i don't have any specific telephone conversations to tell you about a at this point. jim? >> earlier this morning on one of the morning talk shows you

said senator brown should apologize to the president. has that happened? >> i didn't dictate how he should conduct himself. i did observe what many others observed senator brown is a standup guy and given the opportunity to review the comments that seemed like they were made in some haste that i felt confident he'll do the right thing and apologize. >> that has not occurred yet as far as you know? >> i'm not sure if it has or not. i wouldn't necessarily expect a public apology but we'll see how senator brown chooses to pursue this. >> i'm just curious if there are any second thoughts about how the president went about selling this trade deal and whether it just got too personal, putting aside the accusation he made a sexist remark which seems off base, there were times he described his opponents in the democratic party as dishonest, being political, talked about elizabeth warren, senator warren in that fashion and i'm just going out to the nike factory

also rubbed people in the progressive wing of the democratic party the wrong way because you know, nike, i know that that announcement about the jobs -- >> it's significantly undermining their argument. i can understand why they may not have been pleased. >> the jobs are not guaranteed that they'll be happening, but -- >> nike said that they were. are you suggesting that nike is not telling the truth? >> i guess we'll have to wait and see if that occurs. they're a chief offshore of jobs. >> exactly the reason that the president went to that company to demonstrate that passing trade legislation like this would actually result in jobs being created in the united states and that failure to do so and failure to engage only continues to give nike an incentive to go and make investments overseas as they have, which as you point out has drawn the ire of progressives. the point is that if you wanted to address this dynamic -- >> let me finish my question.

they feel burned by nafta and i don't know if the president took that into account when he stood at nike and talked about how this is going to create jobs and at the same time he's going after his opponents inside of his own party suggesting they're being political and dishonest. i don't think it's a stretch to ask you whether or not the president mishandled the politics of this within his own party. >> look, i -- the point is this is the debate we want to have because this is the substance of the debate, jim. the fact is we are well aware that there are people in both parties that have raised concerns about nike's previous practices in terms of doing business overseas. and so the question right now is what are we going to do about it and what we see from progressives is a lot of complaining about it. what the president has said is -- >> isn't the president progressive? >> yes and this is what the president has said let's go do something about it. let's engage in a region of the world where we can raise labor standards, raise environmental standards and the result of that will be that companies are going

to invest in the united states and we have prima fascia evidence that when given the opportunity to work on a level playing field that they're going to create jobs in the united states of america. that's exactly the point that the president is trying to make and that's how the president can make the case that advocating the most progressive trade bill that's ever been contemplated by the congress is entirely consistent with our values as progressives, that if we care about business and care about middle class families and care about american workers, we want to engage the world to create more opportunities for american workers back here at home. it's exactly what this bill would do. >> the other acquisition that bugged people on the left is going after senator warren for saying that the tpp is being crafted in secret and i know you're saying there are senators who can go behind closed doors and read this thing. >> that's not true. >> why not put it online so

everybody can read it? why not -- >> and we've been very direct about why. this is the case, jim. there's no agreement. nothing is agreed to until everything's agreed to. >> what could the senators possibly read? >> what the senators are reading are the documents the sensitive documents that are currently being negotiated. >> you can't put that online? can't make that public? >> no because we wouldn't put forward an agreement everybody hasn't agreed to. that wouldn't be fair to the u.s. position and wouldn't be fair to the position that's being negotiated by our partners. so that's precisely because we haven't agreed to everything until they have, too. here's the good news let me finish my answer. i let you finish your question, willet me finish my answer. no, that's not the case jim, it would be secret if nobody knew what was in the agreement. the fa kt is the administration knows what's in the agreement and every member of congress who is responsible for casting a vote can actually read every word that's currently being negotiated and the fact is before the president is able to sign a final agreement if one is reached the public will have the opportunity to read it online for 60 days and to weigh in in

an articulated opinion and there will be an additional several months before congress would actually weigh in with their view, too. there will be ample opportunity for individuals all around the world to review the agreement before the president signs it and before congress has to weigh in. that's why the claims of secrecy are just not true. and i guess this is the last thing. if people do want to raise a substantive objection to pursuing this strategy then they should stick to the facts. we're interested in a substantive debate. and the president's point is that we should have a subtannive debate on this but we don't vahave to say things that aren't true in order to have the debate. >> i did not intend the back and forth to go that long. if i could ask one question about the train accident. >> sure. >> if you travel to asia they have these beautiful high-speed trains that crisscross much of that continent.

you go to europe, you can get on a euro star. it's travel from rome to venice in half the time that you could here in the united states. the vice president talks about infrastructure a lot, talks about the state of the mass transit system in this country laguardia as a third world airport once called. is it embarrassing do you think, the quality of mass transit and infrastructure that we have in this country when you measure it against what people have in europe and asia? is it embarrassing? >> let me make one thing real clear the cause of last night's derailment is still under investigation. i don't want to link the two things but i will say as a general matter that since his first weeks in office, the president has been a leading advocate obviously with a strong support input of the vice president in investing in our infrastructure including investing in high speed rail, that there's a tremendous opportunity particularly in those transportation corridors

that are plagued with pretty bad traffic and whether that's the i-4 corridor in florida or some of the major cities along the california coast, that there's an opportunity for us to try to address that problem in a way that's good for the local economy, and frankly, more convenient for the people who live there. and unfortunately, we have seen a concerted effort by republicans for partisan reasons to step in front of those kinds of advancements, and the president's been very disappointed by that partisan reaction from republicans because there is a genuine opportunity for to us do something really good for the economy and something really good for people across the country, and this is something that we're going to continue to push for and going to continue to be supportive of these projects and this is why you see the funding increases, the president's proposed in his own budget. let's move around a bit. sheryl? >> thanks. not to pile on progressives but yesterday a bunch of -- >> still have that going on lately. they'd be happy to tell you.

>> were calling for some updated policies including things like paid family leave. >> um-hum. >> i know that's something the president has also talked about in the past. has he been able to make any progress on that? >> well this is obviously something that we have spent a lot of time in congress talking about, and this is a good example where the president has worked closely with progressive democrats to try to advance legislation that would do for american workers what the vast majority of workers in developed countries around the world already enjoy which is fair paid leave policies that will allow them to better balance the responsibilities that they had at work and the responsibilities that they have at home. we haven't gotten as much traction as we would like through the united states congress, but we have been gratified that we have started to see announcements in the private sector, where private sector companies are hearing the call of the president and stepping up and demonstrating a leadership role. overnight we got an announcement from facebook that they were

actually interested in implementing a new set of standards for their contractors and their vendors here in the united states. and the benefits that they will require their contractors and vendors to provide to their employees is a $15 minimum wage, a minimum of 15 paid days off for holidays, sick time and vacation and for those workers who don't received paid parental leave they'll require the vendors or contractors to offer a $4000 new child benefit for new parents. this is an example of the kind of leadership that we're seeing in the private sector and the thing that i'll say is that we don't see companies like facebook doing this out of charity. they think it's good for business. and the president thinks it's good for business too. that's why we'll continue to advocate for these kinds of policies in the united states congress and proud to have the support of a lot of progressive democrats as we make that case.

okay, john. >> on the trade question specific, the substance of what senator brown said he said the president had been disrespectful when he suggested that senator warren was just another politician. first of all, can you take that part of it, what's the president's response to the allegation that he was being disrespectful? >> well, i believe that that's reference p i should have brought the text. the president is asked directly about senator warren and the president noted that senator warren holds elective office as the president does. the president included himself in the category. and i think he said like the rest of us. that's an indication the point the president is making is that she's making a political argument and we can have a robust difference of opinion and a robust debate and the point is though, that this doesn't reflect the difference in values. the president and senator warren

both believe that it's important for our government to be putting in place policies that will expand economic opportunity for middle class families. they share that as a top priority. they have a pretty stark difference of opinion about the best way to do that in this case. when it comes to raising minimum wage or affordable care act or implementing wall street reform there is strong opinion on the merits, values and on the principles at stake and that's why there may be differences over this one issue but the president has, continues to have confidence in the strong working relationship that he has with democrats on capitol hill. >> what about the suggestion by using her first name, the president was acting in a way that he would not have, he was speak being her in a way that he would not speak about a male senator? >> well, john, you don't mind if i call you john, do you? >> not at all. that >> that works all morning.

>> well you know sometimes these things just come to you like a lightning bolt, major. you know? it's a gift. [ laughter ] >> there you go. know, sometimes these things come to you. i would point out multiple instances where he's referred to sherrod brown as sharod. i don't think given an opportunity to give his remarks, he would offer an apology. >> we asked him, we haven't heard back yet. >> two other differences. one, the reports that chemical weapons, traces of chemical weapons have been found in syria, both ricin and sarin gas. i assume the white house is aware of this intelligence. >> we're aware of the opcw,

continues to receive credible allegations that the use of chemical weapons in syria is still taking place. attempts by the opcw to resolve some gaps and inconsistencies in syria's declaration of chemical weapons have gone unresolved. progress toward destroying all remaining chemical weapons has been agonizingly slow. the assad regime continues to not abide by international standards and norms, including the chemical weapons convention and united nation's court council resolutions, 2018 and 2209 2209. as has also been well documented, they terrorize the people of syria, through barrel bombings arbitrary detention and other gross acts of violence that are committed against their own people. >> what is the response going to be if syria has essentially crossed the red line again even after this agreement.

>> well -- >> and used chemical weapons. >> this is something that we are very concerned about, and closely monitoring, we're aware of these allegations and we believe it's important for the opcw to investigate them fully. >> and then the other one is -- you talked about the cy hersh report on the bin laden raid. someone who has a lot of respect on this issue, a lot of credibility on this issue, has a suggestion that at least -- suggested at least parts of the seymour hersh article are credible. specifically that the information that lead to us knowing where beenin laden was came from a source within the pakistani intelligence. what's your response to that. >> there's been a lot of discussion in public over the last four years since this

successful operation took place about the intelligence that led to the discovery and ultimately the mission against osama bin laden. the administration skaen went to great lengths to reveal as much of that operation as possible. we've been very clear about what has happened. certainly, clear when you consider the understandably classified nature of operations, so many elements of the operation. but what's also true is that the -- there's declassified portions of the senate select committee on the inning tell against report and the cio response to that report, both of whom spent a lot of time talking about the intelligence developed as it relates to this specific mission. neither of those extensive accounts features the role of a pakistani intelligence walk in revealing osama bin laden's location to the united states.

the fact is that the united states was able to piece together information about bin laden's location. based on painstaking intelligence work that spanned years, spanned a variety of sources. even as the president decided to order the operation, there was no definitive information to confirm that the individual that had been identified in this compound actually was osama bin laden. i think the last point that i would make is that for the version of events that miss gall cites in her reporting to be true. it would require hundreds of officials, political appointees career civil servants, officers in the military to all be conspiring and coordinating their stories on one lie. and i think those of you that have been covering this town long enough understand that that

he is highly implausible. >> it's not a source for pakistani intelligence that led to the information about bin laden's whereabouts? >> it was -- her reporting is specific, that a pakistani intelligence walk in revealed osama bin laden's location to the united states. and that is not true. okay? >> back on trade for a second. part of the snafu up on the hill was that some democrats are holding out for more funding or more training or better protections for workers who may be displaced by a new trade agreement. we may expect the president to be in favor of that does that then fly in the face of what he was saying in -- at the nike headquarter s headquarters. >> it does not, for a couple reasons. the point the president was making, to go back to my

inexplicably heated discussion, for which i take responsibility -- >> could be? >> the point of the president's trip to the nike headquarters was to illustrate that there are companies that have a record of doing a lot of business overseas and investing in overseas operations, and that if we want to make the case to them that they should start investing in the united states and creating jobs in the united states, what we need to do is we need to engage in the countries in which they currently do business and raise labor standards raise environmental standards do that in an enforceable way, and that will make those companies consider investments in the united states. because again if we choose not to engage in that region of the world, those companies are going to continue their practices, and further invest in those countries where they can get this unfair advantage. but by raising standards and leveling the playing field, it creates jobs and economic

opportunity right here in the united states. as it relates to this trade adjustment assistance, which i think is what you're referring to. the trade adjustment assistance package that's been put forward. is one that actually doubles funding for trade assistance. that's an indication the president is focused on making sure that we're looking out for the best interest of the american workers. and essentially what that adjustment assistance would do is, it would make sure that workers in this country have access to the training they need so they can get the skills that will allow them to benefit from these kinds of progressive trade agreements. that's what the president has in mind. the statistics that we know already indicate that jobs that are based on an export economy are jobs that are higher paying than the average american job. that is a way that we can expand the economic opportunity for

middle class families. it also happens to be good for american businesses. if they're hiring new workers it means they have business to do. that's all a part of expanding opportunity, raising wages and doing things we know are going to be good for our economy and middle class families. >> you believe that democrats should hold out for a little bit? >> what we believe is that the trade adjustment assistance package, essentially doubled the amount of trade adjustment systems available. that is a representative substantial achievement particularly when you consider it's republicans who have the majority of both houses of congress who have been opposes to trade adjustment assistance. >> this represents, i think, an element of why we can describe this proposal as the most progressive trade proposal that's advanced to the congress. major? >> you mentioned earlier you're looking for a path forward on tpa, you do not have one correct? >> this is something that -- >> yes or no? >> well, i don't have any

announcements now to make about specific -- >> well, again, i don't have one to announce here, this is something that's under a lot of discussion on capitol hill and again the reason that it's under so much discussion, there are democrats and republicans who want to resolve the situation resolve the snafu and find a credible path forward. >> does the path forward, from the administration's point of view, have to include or not include currency legislation or customs reform legislation? >> ultimately it's going to be the senate that is going to determine what the path forward is. >> your diagnostic on those two pieces of legislation -- >> the white house will be supportive to try to find the path forward we've been clear about the concerns we have about some of the currency legislation that's been proposed that some of the elements of the -- >> objection? >> of course. the concerns we have principally are -- this doesn't

apply to every element of currency, there are some currency proposals that have been put forward that would jeopardize the ability of the federal reserve here in the united states to make monetary policy decisions that are consistent with the best interest of our economy and if we've seen anything over the last six or seven years it's how important the independence of those decisions are to the strength of our overall economy. >> you told us from this podium, or previously you told us that the senate should support the package as is. the tpa legislation and the worker adjustment legislation. what i hear you saying now is whatever else the senate needs to throw in absence of the things you object to on currency, you'll have to swallow to get this moved on? >> the case that we have made to -- >> you're open to other proposals being added to those two bills which you previously said should be approved as is.

you are opening add ones to get this dislodged. >> there is already a pretty strong bipartisan support for the -- >> that's only in theory, you had that and you broke down yesterday, you saw it -- >> well -- >> who said were with you, came against you. the deal is different now. all that is past ancient and irrelevant history. you have to create a new reality, what's the reality. >> all the people who support -- all the democrats who supported this in the senate finance committee, still support that legislation today. that's the thing nobody's position has changed, that's why it's not ancient history it's directly relevant, it's exactly why. >> they would have gotten cloture yet, if they hadn't changed their mind about what else needs to be added to this to pass -- >> this is why less patient observers of the senate are ready to pull their hair out when they observe these snafus. there's strong support for this bill. and there's reason to believe this would pass if it went

through the process. there are procedural hurdles that have to be overcome. it's not uncommon for the senate procedure to get wrapped around the axle really on simple straightforward noncontroversial pieces of legislation. the fact that there are these kinds of obstructions or snafus shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. but it does require those who are more patient than i am to sit around the table and work this out, so they can have the opportunity to consider a piece of legislation that they already know has strong bipartisan support. >> let me ask you something that you said a moment ago. it's not a disagreement about values, it's a disagreement between the president and the progressive party. >> many of the democrats see this argument on a substance basis, they also say, look. the people who are with the president on this issue are the

ones that the president and fellow democrats have criticized for their position on spending taxation regulation, climate change. a whole variety of issues central to the economic debate in the country. progressive democrats suddenly say what, did republicans get smarter than me on this issue, and i'm suddenly the person who's out of touch and doesn't understand? when on all these other issues the president and i agreed but now we don't. when did i suddenly become wrong? how would you address that? >> i think what i would say is, the president is pursuing this progressive trade promotion authority legislation precisely because of his progressive values, because he is primarily concerned with expanding economic opportunity for middle class families. there is a difference of opinion among progressives, about whether or not the legislation would do that, there's nobody --

the president certainly isn't questioning the values of those who are -- those democrats who are against the particular bill. what he's doing is, he's appeal appealing to those values to try to win their support for it. and again, there have been some pretty aggressive criticisms that have been lodged at the president, and some accusations, again, i don't think that there are democrats in the senate who are questioning the president's values over this, again i think they have a difference of opinion with the president but it's not one that's rooted in a difference in values. okay? >> you keep referring to this as a procedural snafu. can you give us a sense of what happened yesterday? did elizabeth warren out argue? in spite of the fact the president thinks she was wrong. did she have a better position? what happened? >> well, i -- again, there are people who are more steeped in legislative procedure than i am who can walk you through --

>> there's nothing in the facts that you see that contributed to this? >> the reason for that chris, is simply that all of the people who were in favor of progressive trade promotion authority legislation on tuesday morning were still strongly in favor of that same legislation on tuesday night, after the legislative snafu was encountered. so it is typical of the senate process process, it's true that these kinds of snafus ss crop up and they simply require people more patient than i am to sit down around the table and work through their differences. we're confident that that can be done. because there are people on both sides of the aisle who are interested in seeing this legislation advance to the process. >> is the anti-currency

manipulation language that has been floated from harry reid's office being brought as something the president thinks could move this? >> i think that's unclear. this is what this among other things among many other things is the subject of on going discussions on capitol hill right now, they try to find their credible path forward. >> is there anything you can tell us about the discussion last night with the senate democrats? >> not beyond the written read out we put out. >> speaking of read outs. did the president call michael nutter on amtrak? >> he did have the opportunity to call michael nutter, i believe he had the opportunity to call pennsylvania governor tom wolf and the president told both men that he was pleased with the way their local jurisdictions and state jurisdictions responded to this incident. this is obviously a horrific incident. and the carnage was vast, and

there are -- according to reports a couple hundred people on the train. there are a lot of people that needed to be saved. and again, it's a testament to the courage and professionalism of our first respond irs many of whom live in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. they auctioned selflessly and put themselves in harm's way to rescue their fellow citizens who were in danger on that train. we certainly are grateful for their service, and the president asked both the governor and the mayor to pass along his gratitude to those men and women who are first responders who responded to the incident last night. the president also offered his condolences on behalf of everybody who works here at the white house, to the families of those who lost loved ones in the derailment, and he let them know that those who had been jaured will continue to be in his prayers. the last thing is the president vowed to make sure that this is an incident that receives a

thorough investigation. and the department of transportation investigators responded to the derailment last night, were on the scene last night, gathering information trying to determine what had happened. that investigation was hindered based on darkness overnight. so i know that the investigation ramped up after daybreak, the president is certainly very interested in getting more in insight into this incident. and i know that mayor nutter and governor wolf are as well. you're going to see federal officials working closely and cooperatively with state and local officials in this matter. >> we don't know what happened here, the cause of this crash? >> that's true. >> it does shine a light on a couple hearings that were held today with amtrak. there was a vote to increase transportation to the white house proposed level. that would have meant fully

funding amtrak, and that was defeated infrastructure is something you pointed out, both the president and vice president have talked about. does this give any new impetus to some of those discussions about infrastructure? >> that's unclear, the cause of this particular train derailment is under investigation, it's unclear whether or not the condition of the track or the condition of the train or any sort of element of the railway infrastructure was at all involved in contributing to the cause of this derailment. but i will just say as a general matter, that the administration strongly believes that these kinds of investments and infrastructures make good sense. there's no reason that the infrastructure has to be a part season issue. traditionally, proposals that quickly earn strong bipartisan support. and bipartisanship has broken down and republicans for some reason now aren't as supportive of that as they used to be even

when they are pursued in a fiscally responsible way. that's been a disappointment to the president, but it's not a new one. we've seen that partisan structure. you'll recall that the recovery act was a piece of legislation that had been passed when the president had been in office a couple months, it included an historic investment in infrastructure. it wasn't supported by republicans. it was a disappointment then and that disappointment continues to this day, the president's zeal and enthusiasm and passion for making smart investments in infrastructure that yield benefits for middle class families is something that continues to burn bright. >> if memory serve ss the last time one of the things you said about the way congress and the

white house has -- >> i think it's a hope we still have based on recent legislative history that traditionally there had been bipartisan support for common sense and infrastructure. we're hopeful over the next year and a half, we can rekindle that spirit of bipartisanship around investing infrastructure in this country that will create jobs. >> how do you do that? >> again, i think part of that is working with republicans and trying to find common ground. nothing's going to get through the united states congress and be signed by the president on a party line vote. that's not going to happen. we have a divided government. we're going to have to find a way to work together. one area where democrats and republicans have been able to work together is around investments and infrastructure, hopefully we can go back to that. >> yesterday secretary kerry was just going into his meeting with russian president putin at the time we had the briefing, i know

that the state department said the purpose of the trip was mostly to keep lines of communication between the two countries open, and even you said there weren't huge expectations or no expectations from that. i was wondering what you think was achieved from yesterday's talks. >> my colleagues would be able to speak to this directly. i was briefed on them from here. but i think what was relayed very directly by the secretary of state to officials in the highest levels of the russian government is the resolve of the international community that russia must live up to the commitments they made in the context of the minsk agreements and they need to get them to abide by those commitments. there should be and there is a path toward resolving the

differences in that country around the negotiating table. and that continued bloodshed, and continued fighting doesn't serve the interests of anybody. and -- but that starts with the respecting of a basic international norm which is it the territorial integrity of independent countries. and we've seen russia violate the sovereignty of ukraine repeatedly, and the secretary of state delivered a tough and direct may to the russian leadership that we expect them to respect the basic international norms to live up to the commitments they made and be supportive of the efforts to try to reach a political solution. >> you may be able to speak more to this, do you think the talks paved the way for the president and the russian president to be able to speak nace to face or have berlines of communication? >> i don't know of any

additional conversations that are planned but that could come up, we look at those conversations when they occur, if one occurs, we'll probably let you know. >> jordan. >> i want to ask you to clear up something, there's a report in politico yesterday where the anonymous administration officials were saying, the push for tpa was a concession to republicans. i want to have you square that with the president and what other officials have said, this legislation is crucial to getting a tpp agreement done. >> well, i didn't see that story much i'll say as a general matter the anonymous comments as you cited them are not the same as the president's priorities. he's made that case at nike about how a trade agreement, which includes enforceable labor standards is clearly in the best inof our economy, and clearly in the best interest of middle class families.

again, i recognize there may be a difference over this issue among some democrats. but the fact is it's because of the president's commitment to commanding opportunity for middle class families he's pursuing this specific agreement. the president put it in more colorful terms in saying it wasn't the chamber of commerce that got me elected, he observed that he built a coalition of working people all across the country. and that's what he's -- those are the interests that he has in mind as he pursues this progressive trade agreement. >> there's a vote today in the house on a bill that would have ban most apportions after 20 weeks. >> i have seen this. this is a piece of legislation that was considered by the house back in january, it was pulled back after a pretty significant

outcry from women members of congress including a substantial number of women in the republican conference in the house. the fact is there have been some rather cursory changes that have been made to the legislation. and our concerns persist. the bill continues to add a harsh burden to survivors of sexual assault rate and incest, who are already enduring unimaginable hardship. and you hear republicans, a lot, particularly in their discussions about health care articulating that it's a

priority for them to keep the government out of the doctor's office. but in fact, this piece of legislation would actually ironically enough actually insert the government right between a woman and her doctor. not only is this entirely inconsistent with the argument we hear republicans make on a range of issues. it is disgraceful that house republicans would be considering a party line vote on a piece of legislation that would continue to impose even additional harsh burdens on survivors of sexual assault, rain and incest. i guess you can tell from my comments that the administration strongly opposes this bill. pam? >> on the trade issue. it seems like one of the major concerns of people who are critical is the fact that maybe they are skeptical of it being

able to be enforced? what is the enforcement mechanism. how would the united states make sure that the other parties to the agreement live up to the labor and environment a.m. standards. some companies maybe like nike have found it difficult in the past to get their contractors to live up to the standards that they have? >> well let me start by saying that there is -- that for a technical explanation of how this works i would encourage you to contact the trade office let me do my best. there are two things that come to mind. the first is, previous trade agreements have not included enforceable provisions related to higher labor standards. when previous administrations have complained about not being able to enforce certain provisions in the law, it's because those provisions are in the agreement, they weren't

enforceable. in some cases these provisions about environmental standards and labor standards were included in letters that were exchanged on the sidelines of the agreement, but were not actually written into the texts of the agreement. what the president envisions and what the trade promotion requires is that these enforceable labor standards and these enforceable environmental standards, some of these provisions related to human rights are written into the texts of the agreement that's the first thing, the second thing is we know that there are a lot of companies -- a lot of companies inside countries who are party to this agreement that would like to have better access to u.s. markets, that having the opportunity to compete for business among american customers is an opportunity for them. and they're not going to risk

that opportunity by violating the terms of the agreement. if they violate the terms of the agreement, it's going to undermine their ability to have access to the u.s. market. there's an incentive for them to follow the rules is the point i'm trying to make here. that doesn't guarantee enforcement, but it does indicate there will be a strong interest -- it will be in the strong financial interest to live up to the commitments they make in the context of the agreement. the last thing, and this is part of what you've heard me say over the last couple days, the president is seeking two things from this legislation, he's seeking the authority that he needs to complete this agreement, but he also wants to make sure he has the authority to enforce it. there are a number of provisions that have been passed again that would strengthen the hand of the administration, to enforce the terms of this agreement, we would like to see both passed by the congress. and hopefully they'll be able to

find a credible path forward to allow for consideration of those proposals. >> on the summit, you said that king solomon did not come -- his decision not to come was not having anything to do with the agenda of the summit, but have the saudis or any other participants expressed dissatisfaction in terms of a defense commitment a nato type agreement that will come to your aid if attacked, or the kind of military they're getting. >> most importantly king salmon when he met directly with john kerry in riyhad last week did not express any specific concerns about the agenda at camp david. i'll note that after the change in travel plans was announced by the saudi government that senior saudi officials came out and said publicly, the change in travel plans was not related to

any concerns or in anyway related to the substance of the agenda at the camp david meeting. and i think that you now know that earlier this week, the president had a telephone conversation with king solomon in which the king reiterated his change in travel plans was not related to any objections or concerns that he had about the agenda of the camp david meeting. in fact, it's because saudi arabia and the other gcc countries are so committed to the agenda of the camp david meeting, that we saw saudi arabia take what the foreign minister described as an unprecedented step. assigning the crown prince and deputy crown prince to represent saudi arabia at the same meeting. the saudis certainly take all of this seriously. as it relates to the security cooperation between the united states and our gcc partners we value that security cooperation.

the national security of the united states is enhanced by the strong counter terrorism and intelligence sharing relationship that we have with many countries with each of these countries. what's also true the united states support for their security is critical to their very existence. and they understand that the strong relationship that they have with the united states is one that's worth investing in, and worth maintaining. and that will be the essence of the agreement. use the hardware that they have to better coordinate their efforts and better provide for the security of their citizens. i used the example yesterday of ballistic missile defense each of these countries has a lot of technology and a lot of hardware when it comes to repelling the threat from ballistic missiles. those -- that architecture will be much more effective if they

can integrate those efforts that if -- you know, if that ballistic missile is flying over one country headed for another, that is a good reason for those countries that are partners and allies and many things to make sure that their systems have some interoperatability so that the ballistic missile defense system in one country can be instrumental to the safety and security of another country. that's one example of the kind of interoperatability that we want to facilitate in the meeting. and that's one way that the united states can continue to deepen and modernize our security cooperation with these countries. >> is that approach going as far as they would like? >> again, i think that the -- each of these countries is attending this meeting because they want to deepen and strengthen their security situation with the united

states. there are a variety of ways that can be done. i'm confident that after the meeting, at least some of those leaders will come out and have a conversation with all of you about what they conclude about the results of the meeting. okay? >> josh, i want to follow up on jim's conversation. hopefully not in the same tone. >> okay. >> oh, why not. >> you talk about shared ground a little bit. the hill is reporting that terry o'neil of now has said this about the president's comments. it's a clear subtext that the little lady just doesn't know what she's talking about. i think it was disrespectful. how does the white house feel about those comments. >> that is not the tone of the comments. >> i want to ask you something he said about media coverage. he mentioned a certain network i work for.

>> hope you didn't take it personally seems like you might have. >> he said if we're going to change how john boehner and mitch mcconnell think we're going to have to change how our body politic thinks which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and what it's like to struggle in this economy looks like, and how budgets weren't on to connect. it requires a much broader conversation than typically we have in the nightly news. i'm curious, when the president says the media should change how they report on issues, is he objecting to the coverage that he finds too critical of the way the administration is handling a particular -- >> that's not at all what he said. if you go back and look at the president's comments what he pointed out is that it's important for us to recognize that we all have a stake in the success of our citizens in this country. we value individuals who seize the opportunity that they have. and through their own hard work and ambition achieve as much as

their dreams will allow them to do so. preserving that equality of opportunity as critical to the success of our country and that's the kind of debate that he believes we should be having, and that's the kind of debate he'd like to see covered on the national news. >> what was he objecting to in terms of fox's coverage, for example. >> i'll let the president's comments stand for themselves. >> was there something in particular. >> he talked about it specifically. you can use his comments if that's what you want to do. >> is the white house making progress on immigration reform? well, not the progress we'd like. >> how about enforcement? >> well, the -- let's unpack this a couple different ways here, before we get going too quickly. we believe in order to address the wide variety of problems that exist in our broken immigration system that congress needs to pass the bill. those members of congress who

have expressed concerns about the president's executive action have an opportunity to override that executive auction, merely by passing this legislation. they have more authority to do so than the president does. we saw promising progress made a couple years ago, where democrats and republicans in the senate got together and wrote a piece of legislation that had strong bipartisan support in the senate. and atractive support of the business and labor and faith communities all across the country. unfortunately, it was blocked by house republicans and the president was disappointed by that. we continue to purge congress to take up legislation reform. unfortunately, republican majorities in the house and senate, we've seen very little appetite for doing that. >> i ask you about enforcement. there's a new ig report out that found that homeland security is failing to track data in an effective and meaningful way despite spending $21 billion to

do so. >> i haven't seen the i.g. report. >> is immigration enforcement as it currently stands successful for more -- from where you stand. >> the president made an announcement about his executive branches, there is more enforcement we would like to see from congress. that was included in the bipartisan legislation that house republicans blocked. but what the president has said given our limitedry sources, again, resources that were not augmented, because republicans in the house of representatives blocked it what the president has said is, we need to focus our resources on those individuals that pose a genuine threat to our communities. and that our enforcement efforts should be focused on felons, not on families. the department of homeland security has been focused on those priorities, and implements those priorities, consistent

with the views of the president. >> one of the dangers of the tpa bill. the president will be out of office in less than two years. the administration could use the authority to do another deal that would roll back some of the financial reforms that have been put in place. the president has said he would find a bill that would undue dodd frank or roll back those administrations. the next administration, particularly may use tpa for that purpose. >> what i will do i will show you the specific text that's included in the legislation that specifically word for word bars the agreement from being used to change u.s. law, that's written into the bill, that's a concern people do not have to have. the concern that she may have that is a legitimate one is that down the road we can see

republicans in congress not going through the machinations of a trade agreement, but taking their own steps, doing the bidding of wall street lobbyists and trying to unravel wall street reform. that's why the president has worked closely with senator warren to make sure that the implementation of wall street reform has been effective, has been fair, that's work that continues to this day that's work that requires blunting the significant influence of wall street lobbyists. that's an example of where senator warren and the administration have been able to work closely together. it is written into the bill. i did not bring it with me, perhaps i should have. i will show you the specific texts in the legislation that prevents the trade agreement from being used to change u.s. law. >> senator shelby has a bill that would basically roll back some of dodd frank on small community banks as well as do

some more or take a closer look at the fed in terms of the oversight there. does the president have a take on that? >> this is the legislation i have in mind when i say, this is what we should be worried about. this is an example of wall street interests trying to advance legislation that would weaken important consumer investor, and taxpayer protections, that were established in the aftermath of the financial crisis. to make sure that we're not putting taxpayers on the hook for a bailout. to make sure that middle class families, continue to have a watchdog here in washington, d.c., that's looking out for their interests in the form of the cfpb these are the kinds of principles that were included in wall street reform, the kinds of principles that we have implemented over the strenuous objection of the most powerful influences in washington, d.c. this is where democrats have been able to stand up for middle class families and work

effectively together to protect reform. senator shelby would undo a lot of that good work that would make taxpayers and middle class families vulnerable once again. that's not something the president is voefled with. >> part of the bill focuses on dodd frank, part of it focuses on the fed says there needs to be a commission to look at the structure of the fed. does the president believe that the structure of the fed needs to be -- the structure of the fed needs to be reconsidered? >> the president has long said that our system benefits tremendously, from a genuinely independent federal reserve, so that is -- that independence is something the president believes is worth protecting.

>> jared? >> this week and last, you said that the republicans have been rallying votes on their side. emphasized that republicans have fought for a majority of both chambers of congress, this is something they should be willing to vote for. when we see votes like one democrat is that the kind of parliamentary foe paw you're talking about. is that the kind of situation where you can still point the finger at republicans who are in majorities in both chambers? >> well, again, this is -- the vote that we saw yesterday was a reflection of a procedural snafu, that is not uncommon in the united states senate, it's not uncommon under democratic leadership, under republican leadership. >> why do you think -- >> why do you think it's so split along party lines not the way you were hoping for? >> what we -- you heard me also

say a lot, is that legislation that's passed along strict party lines in both houses of congress, still have to be signed into law by a democratic president. that generally means that in order to get anything passed and signed into law. it's going to require bipartisan support. and so -- we are -- the president is doing his part to try to facilitate that kind of bipartisanship. and senator mcconnell has spoken publicly and praised the president in the white house for our work on trade, and to try to foster a bipartisan agreement here, senator mcconnell has lived up to his end of the bargain as well. it doesn't mean we're going to agree on everything. it does mean where there are areas of bipartisan agreement, we need to try to seize the opportunity to make progress for the american people this is one

opportunity that republicans have indicated an interest in seizing, hopefully we'll be able to do that once we work our way through this latest procedural snafu. >> the president and majority leader in the senate both praise each other for doing a good job. and yet -- are you still saying that republicans need to lead more than they have in both chambers? especially the senate? >> i'm trying to square your comments today and yesterday with what you have been saying the last few weeks which is to push more of the blame on the republican leadership in both chambers. >> i was talking about matters other than trade i think in most of those instances we were talking about funding for the department of homeland security or a timely -- we have seen a willingness on the part of leader mcconnell to find some bipartisan ground. and the fact is, we have been

able to that's why we have a majority supporting the same piece of legislation. what we want to do is to try to find -- help members of the senate find a credible path forward, when it comes to resolving this procedural snafu and getting on a robust debate on the substance, we know that on the substance of the legislation, there is some bipartisan support. >> and your response to major earlier, you said that you didn't have a path forward at this time, and yet you're saying -- >> that's what major said, not what i said. >> i thought it was what you said. maybe you can clear it up. you're talking about leading the democratic party. >> i don't think the president of the united states is the senate democratic leader i don't think i said he was. >> in the wake of yesterday's

events, for however long tpa remains in the snafu repair shop. >> if oath there were one. what's the practical application of the pact itself. does the president and the u.s. believe this does have an effect on the progress of negotiating the pact going-forward, while it's -- >> the president believes that this -- as we've long said, this kind of authority. this progressive trade promotion authority legislation that's moving through the congress, will give the president the authority he needs to complete the agreement. he's banking on the congress taking that vote and giving him the authority that he needs to enforce the agreement. we certainly are interested in seeing this legislation work its way through congress as efficiently as possible. understanding that congress doesn't work as efficiently as we would like.

but we're hopeful it will advance. it's going to require the resolution of the latest procedural difficulties here. >> the administration is going to continue to do its part working with the 11 other nations to complete the pact? >> yeah, there continue to be on going negotiations and the ustr can give you an update on that. >> sarah? >> in light of the tragedy with amtrak and on monday in washington the entire morning commute was ruined because of problems with the d.c. metro system, related to a similar issue that caused somebody to die a few months ago. metro north trains in new york are a constant mess does the president feel that the mass transit system in the united states is safe for american commuters. >> i don't want my comments to be taken in the context of the current, of the accident that occurred over night.

it's unclear what contributed to that tragedy i will say as a general matter, the president does believe there are upgrades that are needed in our mass transit system particularly when it comes to our rail system. these are common sense investments that would make our system safer. it would be good for our economy in terms of making the forms of transportation more reliable. and in the form of creating jobs, you know obviously there will be good construction jobs that are associated with updating and in some cases expanding these mass transit systems. that's why, you know, for years, literally since the president's first days in office, his administration has been advocating for a robust investment in our transportation infrastructure. >> is there anything he can do as president rather than asking for more money from congress to improve the safety of these systems? >> it is congress that has the power of the purse and so for

significant investment and infrastructure. we're going to need to see congressional action. the president has -- we will get you more details in terms of the impact that will have on our rail system. the president has put forward his own specific plan, that would be fully paid for. it's based on this principle that some republicans have indicated some support for, which is closing some tax loopholes. we haven't seen a lot of movement on this on capitol hill, but we're going to continue to try to push it. >> i'll give you the last one. >> whose decision was it is it the gcc or the united states to expand the agenda of the summit to include conflicts in syria, yemen and iran. how important is it for support

for the new iran deal. >> well, the goal of the summit has been deepening the security cooperation between the united states and our gcc partners, deepening and modernizing that relationship, that means a variety of things. it certainly mean ss discussion about the military to military relationship, both in terms of the support the united states can offer them but the kind of assistance they can provide to us. it involves discussions about military equipment and what steps the united states can take. whether it's engaging in training exercises or other things that can strengthen the bonds between our security forces and the ability of our security forces to work together. what's also true these countries have significant concerns about regional stability. the united states continued to have concerns about regional stability in this part of the

world. when it comes to our shared security interests, it makes a lot of sense that the situation in yemen the situation in iraq syria, are all subject to discussion -- in addition to our on going efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. this is an important part of our relationship with them. what's also important to regional stability is preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. there will be a discussion about how the president prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is diplomacy. the president happens to believe it's in the best interest of our gcc partners, that influences his commitment to try to reach this agreement. >> would you say that you and the united states and saudi arabia, at least, you are in total agreement about the agenda of this summit and what could

come after it tomorrow. >> there is strong agreement that the kinds of issues you and i have discussed should be at the top of the agenda there will be a robust discussion of these issues, i wouldn't leave you with the impression that every single leader will have the same view on every issue. what we'll find is that there is broad agreement about the kinds of steps that the united states and our partners can take to preserve and strengthen our countries national security in that region of the world. >> nbc just tweeted something out, a senator said we will have an announcement in a few minutes and a path forward. >> how about that? >> there will be an announcement for the united states senate to make. we'll defer to senator widen to do that.

>> on the hill? >> i know there have been a lot of discussions about a variety of proposals for finding this credible path forward but we'll see what senator widen has to announce if it's the bill. thanks, everybody. have a good afternoon. at a news briefing today the ntsb shows the amtrak train was traveling 106 miles per hour before it derailed in philadelphia yesterday. on the senate floor bob menendez spoke about the crash that killed seven people and injured over 140 passenger ss. >> i rise to bring attention to the tragic amtrak derailment that took seven lives. and injured 140 people.

including jim gaines of plains borrow new jersey. our thoughts and players are with the families that are with their lives. to those in new jersey and that live along the northeast corridor, they're our neighbors, our friends, our relatives. they could be us and it hits especially close to home. i know because i take amtrak virtually every week back to new jersey jersey. there was a period of time last night where i didn't know the whereabouts of my son rob who was scheduled to be on amtrak back to new york i later found out he was on the next train, immediately behind the one that derailed and thankfully he was safe. i'm grateful for that others were not so lucky. but luck should not be america's transportation policy.

it's imperative that the cause is fully investigated so we can prevent tragedies like these in the future. i've already been on the phone with anthony fox and continue to closely monitor the situation. i want to recognize the extraordinary work of our first responders. once again firefighters, police officers, emergency responders showed us what bravery is really all about. they ran to the crash site to save lives while others were running away. for that we should all be grateful. >> we don't know what caused this accident. we do know we need to invest in 21st century systems and equipment, and stop relying on patchwork upgrades to old rusted 19th century rail lines. i travel amtrak every week i

travel the assesscela, which is our high speed rail it's shake, rattle and roll. japan has a bullet train, you cannot feel anything while you're on the train. going in speeds far in excess of what we call high speed rail. now there's still many questions we don't know the answer to was there human failure? was there a mechanical failure? were there infrastructure issues, was it a combination of issues? what we do know is that our rail passengers deserve safe and modern infrastructure. new jersey is at the heart of the north east corridor, it's long held a competitive advantage with some of the nation's most modern high wes, and extensive transit network and some of the freight corridors in the world the con flew answer of some of the

largest and busiest rail line zs. in a densely populated state like new jersey the ability to move people and goods safely is critical to our quality of life. new jersey and the nation as a whole has fallen behind. we have 20 years maximum before the hudson river tunnels are taken out of service. 20 years may sound to many some of our young pages like a long time, but it's a flash of the eye think about what happens if we take either or both of those tunnel tunnels. tunnels that are absolutely essential to moving people and goods in a region that contributes $3.5 trillion to our nation's economy. 20% of the entire nation's gross domestic product.

65% of major roads in america are in poor condition. one in four bridges in our nation need significant repair. there's an backlog in highway and bridge investments needs. on the transit side there is an $86 billion backlog of transit maintenance needs. maintenance needs not expanding but just maintaining that which we have. and it will take almost $19 billion a year through the year 2030 to bring our transit assets into good repair. these are just a handful of the statistics underscoring our nation's favorable to invest in our transportation network but we have to talk about what congress's failure to act means to the people we represent to every community, every community.

every commuter every family, everyone who travels every day and every construction worker looking for a job. failure to act means construction workers now face a 10% unemployment rate at a time when our infrastructure is crumbling around us. they won't get the work they need. it means a business can't compete in a globalized economy because their goods can't get to market in time. it means a working mother is stuck in traffic and can't get home in time for dinner with her kids and in the very worst cases, cases like we saw yesterday on amtrak it may mean that a loved one is lost in a senseless tragedy. in congress we too treat our infrastructure like it's an academic exercise like it's numbers on a page we adjust to score political points or balance a budget or make an argument about what types of transportation are worthy of our support. but that's not the real world.

in the real world the choices we make have an impact on people's lives, on their jobs, on their incomes they have an impact on our nation's ability to compete. they have an impact on the safety of americans and america's ability to lead the economy globally in the world. we in congress are failing to recognize the real-world impacts of the choices we make about our transportation infrastructure. we have a passenger rail bill that expired in 2013. we have a highway trust fund on the brink of insolvency with no plans -- no plans -- to fix it sustainably. we have a crowded and outdated aviation system that we refuse to adequately fund. we have failed to upgrade with presently available technologies that can reduce the number of failures. we have appropriation bills

cutting low funding levels of amtrak in particular to meet an arbitrary budget cap. i can't understand that. we are living off the greatest generation's investment in infrastructure? this country. and we have done nothing to honor that investment to sustain it or to build upon it. and yet, mr. president nothing we're doing is aimed at fixing the problem and our inaction comes with an extraordinarily high cost. so i -- i can tell you as the senior democrat on the subcommittee on mass transit i cat categorically afford not to fix it. we have to act. we are reminded of the tragic

consequences of inaction and the impact of inaction on the lives of workers and their families on their ability to get to work and do their jobs with confidence they will be safe. and so as a member of the finance committee and a ranking member of the transit subcommittee i've been advocating that we act as soon as possible. we can't keep pretending the problem is going to resolve itself if we just wait long enough. we just simply can't afford to wait. i hope everyone in this chamber, democrats, republicans and independents alike will come together, will work together and make progress in building a future we can be proud of. we can start by putting politics aside and think about the safety of american people think about the future, think about america's competitiveness and finding common ground to do whatever it takes to invest in america's railroads, ports, highways and bridges and invest in our future. so let's not wait.

-- until there is another tragic headline. or to see the consequences of what flows as people along the entire northeast corridor are trying to figure out alternatives in the midst of a system that is now shut down for intercity travel and all the transit lines of states and regions within the northeast corridor that depend upon using amtrak lines to get to different destinations for their residence. to get people to one of the great hospitals along the northeast corridor to get people to their nation's capital to advocate with their government. to get people and their sales forces of companies to work to get home, let's not wait until we have another tragedy to think about the consequences of our transportation system, what it means to the nation or to see

until the next time which lives are lost. i think we can do much better mr. president, and i have faith that this will be a crystallizing moment for us on this critical issue. the new congressional directly is a handy guide to the 114th congress with color photos of every senator and house member and bio and contact information and twitter handles. a fold out map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors, order your copy today. it's $13.95 plus shipping and handling through the c-span online store. defense secretary ashton carter gave condolences to people families of those who died in

the amtrak accident. good afternoon. thanks for coming. i know we've all been watching the aftermath of last night's tragedy in philadelphia and i want to note how deeply saddened we all are to hear that a midshipman in the naval academy was among those who perished in that accident. this is a painful day for that midshipman's family. for the entire academy community and for all of thosing affected by this tragedy. our thoughts and prayers are with them. i'm here today to announce the nomination of general mark mille as the next chief of staff of the army and john richardson as the next chief of naval

operations. president obama accepted these rem recommendations from me. ray and john have been tremendous leaders for their representative services over these last four years. four years that have been critical for our military and for the country, marked by an ever-changing security environment. and persistent budget turbulence but also by magnificent performance by these two services under their leadership. we'll have plenty of time in the months ahead for the proper tributes and farewells but for now, president obama chairman dempsey and i could not have been better served. and the same is true for the american soldiers and sailors and their families serving across the country and across the world. for that we're grateful.

general mark mille. where is mark? a warrior and a statesman. he not only has plenty of operational and joint experience in afghanistan, in iraq and on the joint staff but he also has the intellect and vision to lead change throughout the army. when he was in afghanistan as commanding general of isaf joint command i saw him leading our coalition of allies and partners and helping the afghan people preparing to take responsibility for their own security. mark and i flew to huerot the day after an attack on the u.s. consulate there and i saw mark take command of the scene and stand with our people there. i was impressed by his candor

and good judgment and i knew right away he had more to offer to the united states army. likewise, admiral john richardson was a clear choice. he's a bold thinker, a tremendous leader and the go-to officer for many of the navy's tough issues in recent years. from preparing for the ohio class replacement ballistic missile submarine to handling problems of integrity and ethics. he is in high demand. i had to wrestle him away from the secretary of energy. but as anyone who has worked with john will tell you, he is worth the fight. i told ernie that if i could clone john richardson i would. i know he'll do an excellent job of helping steer the united states navy in the years to come. so to mark and your