-- some of you remember that, right? back in the 1980's, we had a lot of debate over big institutions, where people were housed, but in many cases, they were warehoused. and the results of a lot of investigations which showed how people were not be adequately cared for was to shut down a lot of the institutions. at the same time, those who are worried about what would happen to people if there were no place for them were guaranteed we would have funding and timidity alternatives for mental health. so we shut down the institutions, by and large, and we never really invested what we should in mental health alternatives. that's going to be something that i push very hard. as you mentioned gun violence, which is something that is often directly related to mental health problems. the addiction issue, a lot of

people with mental health challenges are self-medicating with alcohol and drugs. so than they have a dual problem that has to be addressed. i think as we move forward with the a affordable care act, we have to enforce the decision that was made, that people with physical health and mental health can get treatment. the right now, a lot of insurance companies, a lot of states, a lot of businesses are not providing the kind of support you need for mental health. when somebody is either convinced, or decides to seek mental health problems, they very often are told we have no place for you, come back in six weeks or three months, and who knows what will happen. you know where most people now who are presenting with mental health problems show up? they are in our jails in our prisons. it's understandable, because

they are harm to themselves or to others. they often act out in a way that draws attention of law enforcement. and in most places in the country, there is nowhere else for them to go, so they are put in jail. and they may be held there for a long time. without any treatment, and in the end of in prison, they are still not getting adequate treatments. the other point i want to say about this is, because we have over prescribed painkillers, the opioids we have a lot of people who have gotten very addicted to them. and that creates a mental strain on top of whatever other problems you might have. and so we now have a lot of people who have to try and withdraw. and we have about 23 million people who are addicted in america. so when they go for help, only one in 10 can get it. see you got this real double whammy, people with mental health problems are getting -- are not getting help, people with addiction and substance abuse problems are not getting

help, and you got to figure out how we take resources and treat both people simultaneously, because too often, they become interconnected. and then we have a real problem. i pledge to you, i'm going to do everything i can, more facilities, more trained people, more insurance coverage, more revenues. you can call on somebody, you know everybody. [laughter] hillary clinton: that, and attention. he told me we only have time for more question. >> a man who lives next door to hear, his name is sanders, i think. he has an idea about sending kids to college for free, as he thinks they do in europe. it's not actually free, but you have a plan that would sort of make him back down a little bit on this? hillary clinton: i will speak for myself. he is clearly more than capable of speaking for himself.

we're going to have a debate in about eight days, so we will have a chance to contrast. but if you are interested in this issue, and i think everybody is, how we get college more affordable, and how we refinance student debt -- go to my website, hillary clinton.com. it's called the new college compact, but very briefly, i do have a different approach. first of all, my approach is been, thankfully, endorsed by a lot of people because i think what it does is it addresses many aspects of this problem. first, we've got to get the cost of college down. colleges and universities have to quit raising tuition and costs on students and families. if all we do is to say we are going to have free college, but we don't really put pressure on the colleges and universities to

lower the cost, you're going to continue to see costs going up, and then the cost of the quote free college will go up. that to me is unsustainable. first and foremost, i want colleges and universities looking at, and administrators they need, how many buildings they need, connie different courses are no longer really relevant. let's take a hard look at what we're doing on campus. yet those costs down so we can keep tuition down. secondly, i have said that the federal government -- i have a plan, $350 billion over 10 years. about $35 billion a year, where we would match for every dollar that the state would put in to making college more affordable for their students, we would match them for to one. they would have to agree on some of these changes the public colleges and universities to get the money. and then, if you choose a public college or university, i will

make it possible for you to go without borrowing money for tuition, but i will expect something from you. like, for example, 10 hours of work week. i worked when i was in college, i worked when i was in law school. [applause] hillary clinton: i want young people to know that this is an important value. and yes, you have to work for it. but it will be for a public college or university, possible to not borrow money for tuition. for living expenses, i will make it possible for the pell grants to be used for living expenses. because what happens now is young people who get a pell grant, they often find it doesn't even cover tuition anymore. so we will deal with the tuition side on the public college and university. and then we will deal with the living expense side. if you do have to borrow money, it will be with a low interest rate. and i will forgive loans to

people who do public service jobs after a period of time -- [applause] hillary clinton: so -- i have to tell you. i don't think college should be free for donald trump's children. i think people who are well off should have to pay for college. i'm interested in the middle class, and working people, and poor kids who deserve to have a better shot at going to college and graduating. [applause] hillary clinton: i feel strongly that, when you already have to -- who has student debt still? oh, yeah. we have 40 million people in america was doing debt.

what i want is to refinance all the student debt. because right now, if you have a home mortgage, or you're making car payments, you can refinance it. we for bid you from refinancing student debt. and at the event i did earlier in holland, a young woman way in the back who said her just rate is 12%. i want us to refinance it, i want to provide everybody the chance to pay back their loans as a percentage of their income. if you are a firefighter or school principal, or social worker, or a police officer -- whatever you are doing that you want to do, but you are not making a lot of money, you are not going to have to pay back at that high interest rate. you are going to be able to pay back at about 10% of your income. when i got out of law school i went to work for the children's defense fund, i didn't go to a big law firm, i went to work for a nonprofit because i wanted to work on behalf of kids.

i was lucky enough that the university at that time offered me the chance to pay it back as a percentage. both bill and i had loans, and he was a law professor and i became a law professor. we were making $14,000, $17,000 a year. we were paying back our loans by what we can afford. i want this to be, as i say, a compact. where people do their part, obviously, young people how to do their part, families have to do what they can afford to do. colleges have to pitch in and get the costs down. and the federal government will partner with states. we've had this example of medicaid. if the state says no, we don't want to partner with the federal government, then i will write institutions like this one. i do want to me to colleges to -- i do want community colleges to be as inexpensive as possible, because it's an

important step for a lot of young people to take. thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

[indiscernible conversations]

[indiscernible conversations]

[indiscernible conversations]

today, in new hampshire the state's democratic governor announced she will be running for u.s. senate against kelly ayotte. she made her announcement in an online video. governor: wherever you go in new hampshire, our states in our myth -- our states enormous potential is not just something you see, but you feel. we hope to expand expense -- expand economic opportunity. re-froze tuition at universities and lowered it had committed to college. extended coverage for 40,000 granite state workers. roads andixing our bridges. republicans and democrats came together to cut taxes for research and development and small businesses, while maintaining fiscal responsibility. we held the line against an

incoming sales tax increase. and new hampshire's unemployment rate is at the lowest level since 2008. now we will continue working for the full potential, and we need a statement from washington to make progress at home. that is exactly why i'm running for united states senate, because washington as given into powerful interests from lobbies who rigged the system for themselves and against the middle class. i believe we can do better for new hampshire families. better for the teacher who said she cannot afford to send her own child to college, better for the woman who has a creative new idea to start a new small business my better for the police officer. seniors who watch the special interests take their hard earned social security benefits, and better for thousands of women who have had access to health care services

threatened from politicians playing games. washington has lost too many of the priorities that matter to new hampshire and you can count on me to dig a bipartisan approach, through common sense, and a commitment to results. movingr we can continue the economy ahead, protect our land and water, and keep our country safe, because the granite state is a state is -- that need to know that new hampshire comes first, and leads like it. >> all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfettered access to the candidates at town hall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. by taking your comments on facebook, i twitter, and by phone, and as always, all video is available at our website at www.c-span.org. as the supreme court starts

the new term, c-span debuts its new series, "landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions." we take a look at the famous marbury versus madison case, detailing the political battles thomas john adams, jefferson, and the newly appointed chief justice, john marshall. >> john marshall established the court as the interpreter of the constitution in his famous decision of >> marbury versus madison. versus madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. >> joined the discussion, a yellow author and professor -- a yale professor and author. exploring 12 supreme court rulings and the people affected by these cases. onight at 5 p.m. eastern

c-span3 and c-span radio. of landmarkur copy cases companion book available for $8.95 plus shipping at www.c-span.org/landmarkcases. and just before "landmark ases" tonight on c-span, conversation about ending hunger around the globe. we will hear from prime minister tony blair and warren buffett. from the nation's capital at 7:30 p.m. right here on c-span. right now, today's press briefing with press secretary josh earnest. ernest: good afternoon -- press secretary

ernest: good afternoon. i do not have any announcements, so we can go right to questions. kathleen, it is nice to see right up front today. we will also let you start today. i guess i will just go straight to the ttp. you got 90 days at least before it comes up for a vote. some critics, some of them are your allies, some labor, some analysts. what do you think will keep it from getting pounded and beat up in the next two months? press secretary ernest: our world will be to talk about the agreement, like the one that the president sent out -- set out to achieve. we will spend a lot of time talking about the details included in this agreement, our agreement essentially to cut

18,000 in taxes, essentially important axis on american goods -- import taxes on american goods shipped to different parts of the world. this enhances opportunity for american businesses and workers. american poultry, for example, in some of these countries are taxed at 40%. american soybeans are taxed at 35%. these are taxes that will be slashed or eliminated. and some countries actually maintain an import tax of 70% on american auto products. terrorists that are cut or eliminated --tarrifs that are cut or eliminated and the president is confident that we can continue to level the playing field for american businesses and workers, and that

americans will win. it is competition that will be good for economic growth and job creation here in the united states. you will hear from the president on this issue tomorrow. the president is traveling to the department of agriculture. it is no coincidence, because the agricultural economy in the u.s. benefits significantly from the terms of this agreement. and secretary bill fact will be meeting with business leaders -- secretary bill fact --vilsack will be meeting with other business leaders. >> any conversations on the hill? secretary ernest: there have already been a number of conversations that occurred between leaders, and i would anticipate that a significant number of those conversations are also planned and have not taken place. the president is committed to the debate we've had over the summer, that the american public

and u.s. congress will have ample opportunity to review the details of this agreement prior to the president signing this limit, but also prior to congress having to take a vote on it. that is an indication of a couple of things. the first is the priority that the president places on transparency. the second is that it should give you an idea of the confidence of the president about the benefits of this agreement. intense scrutiny, he feels, will only prompt more people to come on board. there are well-known differences of opinion on this, and i do not anticipate we will persuade everything will member of congress, or every interest group that have already had the opportunity -- that has already had the opportunity to make their interests known. but we believe an agreement like this will be good for our economy and for middle-class families in america. >> when do you think you will see a vote? press secretary ernest: not

anytime soon. this is a process where those involved in negotiating the to deal with the certain technical aspects of the agreement, even things like making sure the remit is properly translated into a variety of languages properly. it will take a while before we have the actual text of that agreement, but once the agreement has essentially been completed, it will be public even before the president himself signs it. and that it will be forwarded to congress and go three process of being carefully considered by congress before they vote on it. -- through a process of being carefully considered by congress before they vote on it. i would not anticipate a vote anytime soon. on afghanistan, the , can you speculate on

whether there were any u.s. forces on the ground when that happened? ernest: let me start by saying that the events that happen on the ground in afghanistan are a profound tragedy. we are talking doctors who have left the comfort and safety of their homes to travel to a remote region of the world that everybody knows is dangerous. and they are risking their lives to use the skills they have developed to try to provide for the basic medical needs of people who live in his community. in some cases, they are treating innocent civilians who have been merely caught in the crossfire, or have been victimized by extremists. these are brave individuals who are using their skills to try to

improve the lives of people they would otherwise never come into contact with. and the fact that some of those individuals lost their lives over the weekend is a profound tragedy and nothing less. i have a general campbell had the opportunity to convey his to the afghani president, and other senior administration officials have had the opportunity to speak with the leadership of doctors without borders to convey their condolences there as well. the scale of this tragedy is significant enough that it ,emands a full investigation and you saw from the president's statement that he issued over the weekend that he expects a full accounting of what happened. are actually three different investigations that are ongoing. the first is a formal department of defense investigative process already underway, being led by brigadier general rich kim, who

i understand is the leading investigative officer at the department of defense. a departmentading of defense investigation into this. it will also be an investigation conducted by nato. there will be a third investigation that will be a joint investigation carried out by u.s. personnel alongside afghan security officials. each of these investigations will be aimed at trying to get as much accuracy as possible around the details of what transpired in the lead up to this tragedy. you ask a specific question about the details of what happened, and i don't from here want to get ahead of what this otherigation may uncover than to assure you, and certainly the american people, that the president expects a full accounting of what

transpired. borders hasithout great concerns that the investigations be independent. the three that you described are not exactly independent. one is the department of is there another need for an independent body to take a look at this? the president obviously has confidence in these three to provide the full accounting that he seeks. details will not be whitewashed. there will be a full accounting of what exactly transpired. it is necessary to take steps to prevent something like this room ever happening again. those reforms are implemented effectively. >> is anything you can say about

the war crimes? a again, i would not use label like that because this is something that continues to be under investigation. i do think it warrants mentioning. there is no country in the world, and no military in the world, that goes to greater links and places a higher premium on avoiding casualties than the united states department of offense. -- department of defense. this is something they take quite seriously. this continues to be under investigation. i hesitate to say much beyond that. something the department of defense takes quite seriously. it is a responsibility the president believes is extremely important and should be prioritized. and it is. that certainly stands to the

types of contacts that we see from other fighting forces around the world. in some places, they do not just presence ofhe civilians, but in some places, considers the presence of civilians and appealing target. that is indication of the security challenges that are faced by afghanistan. but also, what our men and women are up against. it does not diminish the expectations of the commander-in-chief. the department of defense will continue to prioritized avoiding civilian casualties. is the president considering maintaining a number of troops in afghanistan? at all oned any light what is being considered and any timelines for that

consideration? >> at this time, i do not have a timeline for consideration to provide to you. as the president makes these policy decisions, he certainly takes into account the conditions on the ground and the advice he receives from our military personnel that are serving on the front lines. the president also has a , toonsibility to certain broaden his perspective and make sure he is considering the full of impacts of a decision like this. he was to look at the long-term trajectory of our presence in afghanistan and factor in both what our experiences have been in recent years, but also how best to account for the united states national security interest inside of afghanistan. know, the reason the

united states has been involved in afghanistan has been at the center of the president's strategy is making sure that afghanistan cannot be used as a safe haven for terrorists to plot and carry out attacks against the united states. obviously, an important part of a couple she mission is improving the security situation of afghanistan. to united states continues work closely with afghanistan as they provide for their own military. they are conducting counterterrorist operations to protect the american people, but also continuing to offer training and advice to afghan security forces that are trying to secure their country. in of that will be factored to the decision of the president. i do not have a timeline for you at this point. [indiscernible]

josh earnest: that is not something i can confirm at this point. there have been a number of concerns in the last few months, speculating at this possibility. i believe it was earlier this summer that the united states had essentially carried out a strike in which he was the target. i'm not in a position at this point to confirm the results of that action. your position is clear. the.'s position is also -- the iranian's position is also clear. what is the coming relationship between you, the russians, and the iranians? what is the common ground?

both the united states and russia understand the significant threat that is posed by isil. we understand this is not just a destabilizing threat in the like --but also places places that pose a threat of varying degrees around the world. that is one area, ground. the president raised significant concerns about the strategy russia has carried out in pursuit of that particular priority. i think there are reasons to be skeptical of what they are doing and that it is going to be ofective in the pursuing that specific goal. there is a reason to call into question their true views on that. i think the second thing i would point out is there is some common ground about the need for a political transition. there is an intelligent, i think, on the part that it is

acknowledgment acknowledgment on the part of the russians that there is to military solution that can be imposed on syria. that is something you over the president say on a number of occasions and we numbered the observations -- and we welcome the observations and declarations by president last week. effects of their needs to be a political transition is a sparking point of four conversations. o excusealso made n for the fact that there are different opinions. moral authority he has by carrying out terrible acts on citizens in syria, but also the way he has completely lost the confidence of the people in syria. the best majority of the people in syria, two thirds, three quarters, or more of them,

officially live in communities that have been targeted by the assad regime. you can understand why it is simply not practical, not president assad to continue to lead that country. .t least in the current forrum that is something that should be pretty evident. we will continue to make the case that a political transition is necessary. and make what i think is a pretty obvious observation that president assad is not fit to lead the country. >> we have heard this message for almost four years now. there are talks now that the russians are challenging nato.

what do we hear from the white house? toh earnest: i urge you consider the actions the white house has carried out. we have built the coalition of 65 nations, who are implementing a comprehensive strategy to destroy i so. the united states has taken a strong military action to take out issa leaders that are operating inside of syria. this has placed enormous strain on the leaders of that organization. the united states has worked effectively to partner with syrian kurds on the ground inside of syria to drive isil out of portions of the country. there is no denying there is important progress the needs to be done. there is no denying as well the fact that we have made important progress against our principal

goal, which is destroying isil. you are not on the process of kurd point ofe view. josh earnest: i'm not in a position to confirm any operational plans that may or may not be in the works. i will say that those plan site continued support for syrian arabsh and syrian ai fighters. there has been a variety of support provided by the united last six months to syrian kurdish and syrian arab fighters. one example of that was the president made a decision to resupply syrian kurdish fighters in the town of kobani.

a resupplying the syrian kurdish fighters, they did not just succeed in defending the town sil advance, they actually succeeded in counter attacking and driving them out of the immediate vicinity of kobani. they actually drove them further east. further east among the turkish border. that is an indication that those efforts by syrian kurdish buyrts have then back to the united states support. our examples of -isil strategies. do you think, does the white house they could will be

able to ratify the agreement in 2016? i would, i don't want to make any predictions. twelve nations responsible for this agreement are working hard to finalize the text so it can be made public here and the united states and we can, as soon as possible, begin the process of public review and congressional consideration of the agreement. the administration will certainly be making the case to congress that this is something they should consider, not just carefully, but promptly. the sooner the agreement is ratified, the sooner we can start cutting $18,000 of taxes that can be exported around the girl -- around the world to these nations. we will be making the case that congress can act quickly and there is no reason they cannot complete it in 2016.

node.follow that do have a sense of when the earliest possible dates that it could go into effect? josh earnest: i don't of the answer to that at this point. once we have the finalize text that can be made public, i think hopefully, and i say this both for your sake and mine, we will be able to provide additional detail about the timeline. okay understanding that the intent to sign it has given them a 90 day clock. makings that figure into the text public? can you make it public and later give them the 90 days? josh earnest: this timeline is something we are still working through, but the president has made it clear that there would be able time for the public to review the document before he would sign it. that would give congress ample time to consider the agreement before a congressional action. >> so your intention is to make

it public and then start the 90 day clock? have an intente to get this process moving as quickly as possible. as soon as we have a locked down text we can make public, we can start talking about the full range of timelines that are triggered. we want to get this moving quickly. bernie sanders is already out with a statement -- josh earnest: i think you is out before the announcement was made. those guys are getting up early on monday morning. >> bernie sanders said this deal is disastrous. oner big corporations of again. i wondering what your reactions were to the democratic front-runner in new hampshire. josh earnest: in addition to the specifics that i cited about the , about cutting 18,000 different taxes on american goods and services, this is an agreement that includes the strongest

worker protections in history. these of the strongest labor protections that have been figured into any trade agreement in history. this includes living up to the tosident's campaign promise renegotiate and raise standards and nasa. both mexico and canada are part of the agreement. that means that the agreement protections for workers to allow unions. ludes outlawing child labor. in addition, this agreement also includes the strongest environmental protections and does more to raise environmental standards than any trade agreement and history. this includes everything from protection of sensitive fisheries to outlawing wildlife trafficking. the point is is that there are, even if senator sanders has

reached his conclusion, there are ample reasons for those who may be participating in a democratic presidential primary to believe that the transpacific partnership is not as good for middle-class families in the united states. course is the president's priority. it is also good for advancing the kinds of priorities that the president has championed since he has been in office, including protecting workers in the united states and around the world. also, tightening and environmental standards. >> so, you disagree with him when he says it is a disastrous victory for wall street? what that i: to say disagree with that conclusion is putting it mildly. >> what about the other democratic candidates. hillary clinton has severely complicated to efforts to get this through congress. you have the top two democratic candidates opposed to this.

are there any discussions with hillary clinton or her team? josh earnest: we certainly would welcome the support of every democratic candidate. i suppose we can cease our lobbying efforts to the senator sanders's campaign. whether it is for economic reasons or they care about the environment, there are plenty of reasons for them to strongly support this agreement. i will point out john, there are many democratic candidates for president that discussed skepticism for trade promotion authority legislation. that did pass in the united states congress with bipartisan support and was signed into law. >> we are efforts complicated by the departure of john boehner? i have not done all of the vote counting on this.

and do believe that, well, i don't know where all of the candidates, the declared candidates for the speaker ship, whether they work early on the trade promotion authority and what i said about the transpacific partnership. have heard a lot of republican leaders in congress speaking of cutting taxes. if they can cut $18,000 in taxes, i think we will have a persuasive message for republicans in congress as well. he said that serious concerns of been raised by, on a number of key issues. this deal demands intense scrutiny by congress. has the president spoken to team?ll conley's josh earnest: i don't know the president has had a chance to speak to him on this particular issue. the administration welcome scrutiny of this agreement. even if you just want to scrutinize the text that is

included in here, there are 18,000 of them. a while to work your way through the tax cuts. the bottom line is, this is an agreement that makes it easier for american goods made in america to be shipped to markets overseas. that is good for economic growth and the united states. it is good for job creation in the united dates. it is good for middle-class families in the united states. >> if you just sort of help me understand the opponents of the agreement. as a confused, are they just not getting it? what are they missing on this? josh earnest: what they're missing right now kevin, is there will be an opportunity to take a look at the agreement before they announce a position. his is what i have been briefed that is included in the agreement, there are a lot of reasons for democrats and republicans to support this agreement. i understand weather might be members of congress that did not want to rely on a briefing.

i want to see the text of the agreement. that is a reasonable position for them to take. that is why we are working as expeditiously as possible to finalize the agreement and to send it up to capitol hill and two posted on the internets of people across the country can take a look at the agreement and understand exactly how an agreement like this creates so much economic opportunity for american businesses and workers. >> can you assure the american people that this is not nasa 2.0? would actually say -- let me say it this way. the president made a promise in 2008 that he would renegotiate nasa and raise standards and address the concerns that had been expressed by many about the true impact of that trade agreement. it took seven years, but the president kept that promise. the text of the trade agreement that will be rolled out later is an agreement that raises labor standards, raises environmental standards, and

makes sure those standards are enforceable as part of the agreement. that addresses many of the concerns that people had previously raised about nasa. the president is pleased and continues to be confident that an agreement like the one that has been reached is clearly in the best interest of american businesses and american workers. >> if i understood you correctly, the afghans were not sure. was a lot of there mixed reporting about this, kevin. that is why there is an investigation that is a being led by the chief investigator at the department of defense. to determine what exactly the truthnd get to about what those facts are. i don't want to speculate at this point about what i know about this. we of the chief investigator at the department of defense looking into this. we will have to see what he learns. on oregon, is it possible the

president will be making a trip to the community that was devastated by the shooting? josh earnest: i don't have any presidential trips to tell you about at this point but if anything materializes, we will be sure to let you know. oregon, if you times that we have heard president he has adopted what he can do on executive action on guns. secretary clinton said she would ourfurther and outlined a f point plan. i don't know what your reaction is. she said she would take more executive action on immigration as well to go further than the president. josh earnest: i do want to quibble a little bit with her question. in his newst said conference on friday, in terms of what i can do, i have asked my team to find it what kind of authorities we have to enforce the laws to keep guns out of the

hands of criminals. are there additional actions we can take that might prevent even a handful of these tragic deaths taking place? the president has regally pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have access to them. that said, that is something that is ongoing here. that said, when it comes to proposals like those that are put forward by secretary clinton, we obviously welcome this kind of debate. we want a democratic candidate, and republican candidates, to put forward their ideas about how we can keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. that is a producible proposition. a their is, -- that is important proposition. there are things congress can do. the president has made clear he will continue to use the pulpit

here at the white house to make congress and to the american public that those are the kinds of actions that need to take place. >> he is not done anything by executive action 376 months 6 monthsw town -- 3- after newtown. will we be expecting another announcement? josh earnest: i don't have any announcements to brief you, but the president has made this a priority and he is quite passionate about it. when you saw him appear thursday evening, you could have seen the passion was evident. i do not have anything to announce at this point, but we certainly welcome the kind of debate that secretary clinton is continuing when she rolls out the proposals she announced. >> the second question on that shooting. i don't know if you have seen

this. several groups today are calling for the resignation of the sheriffs in douglas county, oregon. zero wrote a letter to the vice president during his task force looking at gun control about how he would not enforce things that he thought were unconstutional. what do you think of this controversy. they are also saying he should not be in charge of the investigation. josh earnest: i'm certainly aware of this letter and the views that the sheriff has announced. havenk that the case we regularly made, and will continue to make, is that there are some common sense things advancegress can do to gun safety.-- to make gun violence a little and do something important to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them.

the details of those proposals indicate that those things can be achieved without undermining the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. i think the point is, this is an issue. a so often becomes part of charged, emotionally charged debate. i think for understandable reasons. the case that this administration, the president, has made. there are noncontroversial things we can do to address this controversial topic. that is why you can see such a strong support all across the country for proposals like closing the gun show loophole. this is a loophole that allows individuals to purchase firearms without going through a background check. closing that loophole is something that has strong bipartisan support across the country. tore is ample public data

indicate that even a majority of gun owner support something like that. the point is, this is a controversial debate. there are some very noncontroversial things that congress can do to address this problem. stipulate one last time. there is no piece of legislation that congress can pass that will prevent every single incident of gun violence. if there is some common sense thing that, and -- that congress can do that will prevent even a cts of gun as violence without harming the american rice, why would they not do it? on the part of democratic and republican voters all apart the country. >> it is not some a you are weighing in on that at all. you have an opinion? josh earnest: not really. area secretary

clinton mentioned. is that something the administration discusses. it seems like if it could've of been done, it would have been done by now. josh earnest: i have valid closely at the proposals secretary clinton has put forward, but i have seen this discussion in press reports this morning. i do not have a lot of details to provide you in terms of the work that is being done by the president's team to do this scrub of available authorities. the president has to address gun violence. that is his ongoing work. the very conclusions he has arrived at that the president agrees with, we will announce in public. >> if it is ongoing, have they restated the conclusion that there is nothing more that can be done? this is something that has been going on for many years. something the president clearly

feels passionate about. i don't quite understand where they are. are they stumped? it is hard to .nswer this question are notll you they stumped. they are continuing to review the law there is on the books in continuing to consult with legal authorities, but also with others who may have ideas about what steps can be taken that would he guns out of the hands of criminals. >> on syria, is there any evidence now, a week later, that the russians are doing anything that is degrading isis? josh earnest: i did the indicatingeports that there were a couple of strikes that russia has carried out over the last several days that were aimed at isil

controlled areas. thursdayabout this on after the first day of russian bombing runs in syria. they had not taken any strikes where there were confirmed i confirmed isil forces. there is no indication that the russians have changed their strategy to concentrate on isil territory. they are focusing on territories are opposed to their regime, which may include some extremists. they do not necessarily include isil territories. >> our troops moving into the province?

i know y