making decisions about the u.s. in afghanistan. in january, the next u.s. president will assume the most solemn responsibility of the commander-in-chief, the security of the united states and the security of the american people. this insures my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in afghanistan as well thelexibility to address threat of terrorism as it evolves. in closing, i want to address directly what i know is on the minds of many americans, especially our troops and their families who have borne a heavy burden for our security. forces first sent our into afghanistan 14 years ago, few americans imagine we would the there in any capacity this long. as president, i focused our strategy on training and building up afghan forces. it has been continually my believe that it is up to afghans to defend their country.

because we have emphasized training capabilities. 90%ave been able to bring troops home. but we have to deal with the reality of the world as it is. we cannot forget what is at stake in afghanistan. this is where al qaeda is trying to regroup. this is where i still continues to try to expand its presence. still continues to try to expand its presence. they will attempt more attacks against us. we cannot allow that to happen. i will not allow that to happen. this september will mark 15 ,ears since the attacks of 9/11 and once again, we will pause to remember the lives we lost. americans and people from around .he world

we will stand with survivors who still bear scars of the day. we will think first responders. and most importantly, we will salute our men and women in uniform, our 9/11 generation. ofwill honor the memory those who have given their lives in afghanistan. as we do, it's never forget the progress their service has made possible. not a perfect place. it remains one of the poorest countries in the world. it is going to continue to take time for them to build up military capacity that we sometimes take for granted.

and given the enormous challenges they face, the afghan people will need the partnership of the world, led by the united states, for many years to calm. but with our support, afghanistan is a better place than it once was. --lions of afghan children afghans have cast their ballots in democratic elections and seen the first to credit transfer of power in their country's history. the government continues to pursue reforms, including directed revenues to strengthen their country and to decrease the need for international support. that government is a strong partner with us. that is the progress we have helped make possible.

that is the progress our troops have helped make possible. and our diplomats and our personnel. that is the progress we can help sustain in partnership with the afghan people and our coalition partners. so, i firmly believe the decision i am making today is may god bless our troops and all who serve to protect us. may god bless the united states of america. >> president obama has left spain. earlier today, he met with the

countries acting prime minister. the meetings were scheduled for tomorrow but the president rearranged his schedule and cut visit to of his first spain after a series of deadly shootings in the u.s. the president has accepted an offer from the mayor of dallas to travel there for an interfaith memorial service. the president is currently on his way to washington and is expected to arrive tonight. on saturday, president obama held a news conference following a nato summit meeting. he spoke about those shootings, gun laws and race relations in the u.s. this is about one hour. president obama: good evening, everybody. i want to thank the government and people of poland for hosting this nato summit.

i want to especially thank the people of warsaw for their wonderful hospitality. it is my third visit to poland and each time, we have been received with tremendous friendship and it signifies a close bond between our countries. i want to begin with events that come. it has been a tough week. first of all for the friends and family back home, but the entire country. in a phone call with my attorney general, loretta lynch, i stressed that the justice department and our federal government should continue to do everything we can to assist the investigation in dallas and support the police and city of dallas as the deal with this tragedy. in my call to chief brown, i commended him for showing outstanding leadership during an

extremely challenging time and asked him to convey to all the officers and their families how the american people are grieving with them and we stand with them. i will have the opportunity to convey our condolences and show our solidarity when i visit dallas in a few days. but before i do, let me make some very brief points. all, as painful as this week has in, i firmly believe that america is not as divided as some have suggested. americans of all races and all backgrounds are rightly outraged i the inexcusable attacks on police whether it is in dallas or anyplace else. that includes protesters. members whofamily

have grave concerns about lee's conduct. and they have said that this is unacceptable. there's no division there. and americans of all races and all backgrounds are also rightly saddened and angered about the deaths men and about the larger persistent problem of african-americans and latinos being treated differently in our criminal justice system. so there is sorrow. there is anger. there is confusion about next steps. but there's unity in recognizing that this is not how we want our communities to operate.

this is not who we want to be as americans. that serves as the basis for us to be moving toward in a constructive and positive way. so we cannot let the actions of a few define all of us. the demented individual who carried out those attacks in dallas, he's no more represented of african-americans than the shooter in charleston was represented of white americans. or the shooter in orlando or san bernardino were representative of muslim americans. they don't speak for us. that's not who we are. and one of the things that gives

me hope this week is actually seeing how the overwhelming majority of americans have reacted with empathy and understanding. we've seen police continue to reach out to communities that they've served out to communities and showing incredible profession as they're protecting protestors. we've seen activists and grassroots groups who have expressed concern about police shootings but are also adamant in their support of the dallas police department. the police department is a great example of a department that has taken the issue of police shooting seriously and has engaged in an approach that has not only brought down their

murder rates, but also drastically reduced complaints around police misconduct. that's the spirit that we all need to embrace. that's the spirit that i want to build on. that's one of the reasons why next week using the task force that we have set up after ferguson, but also building on it and inviting both police and law enforcement and community activists and civil rights leaders bringing them together to white house. i want to start moving on constructive action that are going to make a difference because that is what all americans want.

so when we start suggesting that somehow there's this enormous polarization and we're back to the situation in the 1960's, that's just not true. you're not seeing riots and you're not seeing police going after people or protesting peacefully. you've seen almost uniformly peaceful protests and you've seen uniformly police handling those protests. and as tough and as disheartening as the life was this week, we got a foundation to build on. we just have to have confidence that we can build on those better angels of our nature.

and we have to make sure that all of us step back, do some reflection and make sure that the rhetoric that we engage in is constructive and not deconstructive. and we're not painting anybody with an overly broad brush. and we're not looking at the worst people. if we do that, i'm confident we will continue to make progress. now here in europe, this is a pivotal moment for our alliance in the nearly 70 years of nato, perhaps never have we faced such a range of challenge all at once, security, humanitarian, political. nato nations, the united states,

canada, france, belgium and turkey have endured heinous terrorist attacks directed or inspired by isil. russia has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent european nation, crain, and engaged in provocative nature towards allies. european voters -- european borders have been tested by migrants, and a vote in the united kingdom to leave the e.u. has raised questions about the future of european integration. in this challenging moment, i want to take this opportunity to state clearly what will never change. and that is the unwavering commitment of the united states to the security and defense of europe, to our transatlantic relationship, to our commitment to our common defense.

and next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the european troops arriving in the first world war and ever since through two world wars, along cold war and the decades since, generations of americans have served here for our commorn security. in quiet cemeteries from france to the netherlands to italy, americans still rest where they fell. even now more than 60,000 american military personnel serve in dozens of european countries. and my point is this. in good times and in bad, europe can count on the united states, always. here in warsaw, we haven't reaffirmed our on bases to our security, we're moving forward

with the most significant reinforcement of our collective defense. any time since the cold war. first, we're strengthening nato's defense in deterrence posture building in our european initiative which has already increased readiness to . the united states playing a battalion of american soldiers. the united kingdom will take the lead in estonia, canada and latvia. this will mean some 4,000 additional nato troops in this region. moreover, the additional u.s. armored brigade will rotate through europe, including an additional 4,000 u.s. troops. meanwhile to the south, we agreed on new deterrence

measures in romania and bulgaria. so nato is sending a clear message that we will defend every ally. we're also strengthening the readiness of our forces against a range of threats. so nato's joint task force is now operational and can deplay -- deploy anywhere in europe. recent progress in poland, roe -- romania and spain, missile defense is coming online, and we're coming up with new efforts to better benjamin - nato is increasing our support to ukraine and our meeting at the commission, we agreed on a assistance package for ukrainian forces. the prime minister cameron, chancellor merkel, prime minister rensi and i met with the president and we reaffirm our

support for territorial integrity as well as the need to continue economic reforms. [applause] thank you. i'm already getting applause. i'm not even finished yet. and even as the nato-russia council will meet next week, our 28 nations are united in our view that there can be no business as usual in russia until it fully implements its obligation. nato will do more also to fight against terrorist networks. every ally already contributed to the campaign against isil. now the alliance will contribute aircraft to improve our recognizance against isil. nato training of iraqi security forces will move to iraq where they can be more effective. and 39 nations including the u.s. have committed more than

12,000 troops to nato's training mission. and in addition, some 30 nations have pledged up towards of $900 million to abstain afghan forces, which is a strong message to afghanistan. we're bolstering our efforts on nato's southern flank. the alliance will increase our support to e.u. -- to stop arms traffickers and go after criminals that are exploiting desperate migrants and we're going to do more to help partners from north africa to the middle east to georgia strengthen their own defense capacity. and finally after many years, nato has stopped the collective decline in defense spending. over the past two years, most nato members have halted cuts and begun investing more in defense. and this means defense spending across the alliance is now

scheduled to increase. especially i want to commend our friends in the u.k., poland, greece, estonia, all two along with the united states pay their full share of at least 2% g.d.p. for our collective defense. but for those of you doing the math, that means that the majority of allies are still not hitting that 2% mark, an obligation we agreed to in wales. we had a very candid conversation about this. there's a recognition of given the range of threat that we face and the capability that we need, everybody's got to step up and everybody's got to do better. so in closing, i just note that this is my final nato summit. throughout my time in office, one of my top foreign policy priority has been to strengthen our alliances, especially with nato. and as i reflect on the past eight years both the progress

and the challenges, i can say with confidence that we've delivered on that promise. the united states has increased our presence here in europe. nato is as strong as nimble and as ready as ever. and as we see it from the presence of montenegro at this summit, the door to nato membership remains open to nations that can meet our high standards. so nobody should ever doubt the resolve of this alliance to stay united and focused on the future. and just as our nations have stood together over the past hundred years, i know that we'll stay united and grow even stronger for another hundred more. with that, let me take some questions. i'm going to start with kathleen hennessy of a.p. >> thanks, mr. president. i want to specifically ask about the dallas shooting and the attackers there -- attacker there now we know more about the

man who did the crimes. i'm wondering if you could help us understand how you describe his motives. do you consider this an act of domestic terrorism? was this a hate crime? was this a mentally ill man with a gun? how should americans understand why that happened? and then also on the issue of political division and looking for solutions, there has been some critics that who noted that you immediately called about gun control. do you think that ensure that people treat their corners, let's say as they think about this? : first of all, i think it's very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter. in a whole range of incidents with mass shooters,

they are, by definition, troubled. by definition, if you shoot people who post no threat to you, strangers, you have a troubled mind. what triggers that, what feeds it, what sets it off, i'll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents. what i can say is although he may have used as an excuse his anger about previous incidents as has been indicated in the press and as chief brown in no way does that represent what the overwhelming

majority of americans think. americans to a large degree want to make sure that we have a police force that is supported because they know our police officers do a really tough dangerous job. and witness the profession of our dallas police officers as they were being shot at. the fact that they helped to clear the area. they helped to get the fallen and the injured out of there. they were able to isolate the suspect. and you didn't have other casualties as a consequence of the police shooting back.

that just gives you an indication of what a tough job they have and how well, they do it on a regular basis. so i think the danger as i said, is that we somehow suggest that the act of a troubled individual speaks to some larger political statement across the country. it doesn't. when some white kid walks into a church and shoots a bunch of worshippers who invites him to worship with him, we don't assume somehow he's making a political statement that's relevant to the attitudes of the rest of america. and we shouldn't make those assumptions around a troubled muslim individual who is acting

on their own in that same way. now with respect to the issue of guns, i am going to keep on talking about the fact that we cannot eliminate all racial tension in our country overnight. we are not going to be able to identify ahead of time and eliminate every madman or troubled individual who might want to do harm against innocent people. but we can make it harder for them to do so.

and if you look at the pattern of death and violence and shootings that we've experienced over the course of the last year or the last five years or the last 10 years i've said this before. we are unique among advanced countries in the scale of violence that we experience and i'm not just talking about mass shootings. i'm talking about the hundreds of people who have already been shot this year in my hometown of chicago. the ones that we just consider routine. now we may not see that issue as connected to what happened in dallas, but part of what's creating tensions between communities and the police is

the fact that police have a really difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere. and as i said before, they have a right to come home and now they have very lomar gin of error in terms of making decisions. so if you care about the safety of our police officers, then you can't set aside the gun issue and pretend that that's irrelevant. at the protest in dallas, one of the challenges for the dallas police department as they're being shot at is because this is an open carry state, there are a bunch of people participating in the protest who have weapons on them.

imagine if you're a police officer and you're trying to sort out who is shooting at you and there a bunch of people who's not guns on them. -- who have got guns on them. in minneapolis, we don't know yet what happened but we do know that there was a gun in the car that apparently was licensed. but it caused in some fashion those tragic events. so, no, we can't just ignore that and pretend that that's somehow political or the president is pushing his policy agenda. it is a contributing factor. not the sole factor, but a contributing factor to the broader tensions that arise between

police and the communities where they serve. and so we have to talk about that. and as i've said before, there is a way to talk about that that is consistent with our constitution and the second amendment. the problem is even mention of it somehow evokes this kind of polarization. and you're right. when it comes to the issue of gun safety, there is polarization. between a very intense minority and a majority of americans who think we can be doing better when it comes to gun safety but that express itself in stark terms when it comes to legislation and congress or in state

legislatures. and that's too bad. we're going to have tackle that at some point and i'm not going to stop talking about it because if we don't talk about it, we're not going to solve these underlying problems. it's part of the problem. reporter: you mentioned san bernardino and orlando and americans have been warned that similar attacks could happen here in the -- over there in the united states and obviously what happened this week in minnesota and louisiana and dallas. these are not necessarily the same types of attacks and the motivations may be different. but collectively, they're having a real impact on the american public and in that there's a real anxiety out there where people are genuinely afraid going about their daily lives doing routine things.

so my questions are do you see any sort of common thread in these events? is there sort of just a new normal? is there anything that you can do about this? and what's your message to americans who are genuinely afraid because the anxiety just seems to be getting worse, not better and these attacks keep seeming to happen in much more regularity. it wasn't a part of their experience even say a year ago. president obama: i think we have to disentangle these issues. when it comes to terrorist attacks, people are understandably concerned not just because of what's happened in the united states but what happened in brussels and what's happened in paris and what's happened in

turkey and what is consistently happening in iraq and bangladesh and all around the world. and that's why the work that we've done with nato and our counterisil coalition and other partners is so vital. one of the things that's been commented on is that as isil loses territory and the fraud that caliphate becomes more obvious, they're going to start resorting to more traditional terrorist tactics. they can't govern. they can't deliver anything meaningful to the people whose territory they can control. the one thing they know how to do is kill. and so we're going to have two redouble our efforts in terms of intelligence, coordination, our

countermessaging on extreme -- extremism. working closely with muslim communities both overseas and in our own countries to make sure that we are reducing the number of people who are inspired by their message or trying to attack us. and obviously, we have built up a huge infrastructure to try to do it. the more successful we are in iraq and syria and libya and other places where isil has gotten a stronghold, the weaker they are, the less resources they have, the less effectively they can recruit. but when individuals are willing to die and they have no conscience and compunction about killing innocent people, they

are hard to detect and it means that we've got to continually up our game. having said that, i think it is important to note just the success that we've seen in the last several weeks when it comes to rolling back al qaeda. the liberation of fallujah got a little bit lost in the news. but that's a big town. and with our support, the counterisil coalition support, the iraqi government was able to move through there quickly. they're now positioning themselves so that they can start going after mosul in syria. you're seeing progress along a pocket margin that has been used for foreign fighter flows. and so they're on their heels and we're going to stay on it. now when it comes to crime

generally, i think it's just important to keep in mind that our crime rate today is substantially lower than it was five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. over the last four or five years during the course of my presidency, violent crime in the united states is the lowest it's been since probably the 1960's. maybe before the early 1960's. there's been an incredible drop in violent crime. so that doesn't lessen, i think, people's understandable fears, if they see a video clip of somebody getting killed. but it is important to keep in

perspective that in places like new york or los angeles or dallas you have seen huge drops in the murder rates. that is a testimony to smarter policing and a range of other factors that have contributed to that. that should not -- we should never be satisfied when any innocent person is being killed. but that should not be something that is driving our anxieties relative to where we have been in the past. and with respect to the issue of police shootings. there is no doubt that the visual records that we are seeing have elevated people's consciousness about this. but as i've said before, for

african-americans, for latinos in the pre-smartphone age, i don't think that people were not aware of the fact that there is evidence of racial bias in our criminal justice system. it is been well documented and it has been experienced. even before i got to the u.s. senate, when i was in the state senate in illinois, i passed legislation to try to reduce the incidence of racial profiling by collecting data. that was prompted by evidence that was taking place in certain parts of the state.

and the fact we are aware of it may increase anxiety right now, and hurt and anger, but it has been said sunshine is the best disinfectant. by seeing it, by people feeling a sense of urgency, by the larger american community realizing that, gosh, maybe this is a problem and we have seen conservative commentators began to acknowledge this is something maybe we need to work on. that promises the possibility of actually getting it done. it hurts. but if we don't diagnose this, we can't fix it. reporter: thank you, mr. president. as you come to the end of your

term there was a lot of talk about your legacy. i know you may like to leave that to historians but when you look back on your presidency and consider race relations what you hope your legacy will be? how do you think the shootings in dallas and the high-profile shooting by police and other events will shape the way your presidency is remembered? i president obama: i do want to leave legacy questions to the history books. what i can do, and maybe this is a fair response to your question, is to say how i have tried to lead the country on this issue. more than anything what i hope is that my voice has tried to get all of us as americans to understand the difficult legacy

of race. to encourage people to listen to each other. to recognize that the legacy of slavery and jim crow and discrimination did not suddenly vanish with the passage of the civil rights act or the voting rights act or the election of barack obama. that things have gotten better, substantially better, but that we have still got a lot more work to do and as that was the case with the police task force we set up that i try to encourage people to come up with practical, concrete solutions that can reduce, if not eliminate the problems of racial bias.

and if my voice has been true and positive, then my hope would be that it may not fix everything right away but it services problems, it frames them, it allows us to wrestle with these issues and try to come up with practical solutions. and that perspective may lead to continued improvement so that not just malia and sasha can experience the country that is more just and more united and more equal. and that is not going to happen right away. and that's ok. we plant seeds. somebody else may be sits under the shade of the tree that we planted.

i would like to think that as best as i could i have been true in speaking about these issues. justin sing? reporter: thank you, mr. president. throughout the summit, you talk about your confidence about brexit having. he stressed the year k will have -- u.k. to have access to an open market and must continue to respect the freedom of migration for workers. someone who has repeatedly advocated for globalization and extolled virtues of immigration, should not be in the negotiations? what specific assurances did you get in the summit from other leaders that confidence in the currency market is wrong and the subsequent effort to leave the eu will go smoothly?

both you and secretary kerry have used "if" to describe brexit. israel her away to put the toothpaste back into the tube on this issue? president obama: i think we have to assume that a referendum having been passed with a lot of attention, and link the campaign -- lengthy campaign with relatively high participation rates will stick and that the incoming government, a conservative government is going to invoke article 50. how that process unfolds, how the negotiation work will be up to the parties involved. the main message i've had here is we are close friends, allies, commercial partners with the u.k. and with the eu.

we will remain close friends, allies, partners, continue to have strong relationships on both sides of the channel. our primary interest is to make sure that the negotiations and this process are as orderly and as sensible as possible. recognizing that is in the interest of both sides to get it right. they are major trading partners. that is where goods get sent, back and forth. and it is important that neither side hardened positions in ways that ultimately do damage to their respective economies and ultimately to the world economy at a time when our world economy

is still pretty wobbly in places. i want to make a further point. i am not sure it is accurate to say that i am a huge booster of globalization. what is accurate to say is that i believe the process of globalization is here to stay. as a consequence of technology and the mobility of capital. and cargo container ships and global supply chains. and conceivably we could run back the tape to 50 years ago and see whether we could rearrange some of that process, but it is happening. it is here. and we see it every day in our lives.

everybody who has got a smart phone in a pocket is seeing it. my argument has been that there are enormous benefits to be gained from that global integration. just as there are enormous benefits from european integration, so long as we recognize that with that integration there is the danger of increased inequality, of workers having less leverage and capital having more leverage, that it threatens to leave people behind and if we don't take steps to make sure everybody can participate in that global integration, making sure that wages are high enough, making sure that we rebuild the social compact so that pensions and health care are taking care

of, making sure that communities are not completely abandoned when a factory leaves and there is an economic plan for transition. if we do not do that effectively, then it will be a backlash. with respect to immigration, it is america's experience that immigration has been by far a net plus for our economic growth, our culture, our way of life. in america that is by necessity because unless you are a native american everybody came from someplace else. europe may not have as many of those traditions, but keep in mind one of the huge macro

economic advantages that america has is we're still a relatively young country. our birthrate is not dropping off like europe's is or russia's is or china's or japan's. that is a consequence of immigration. it is economics 101 that if you have a younger population, your growth rate will be higher. and immigrants are strivers and they work hard. they are looking to build a better life. otherwise they would not move from where they were. that is in part of our tradition and our culture and our society. a huge influx of this work we have seen in europe, that will always be a shock to the system. hi think it is appropriate for europe, even as generous as it has been. i think that chancellor merkel deserves enormous credit and

other leaders that have taken and migrants deserve enormous credit. it's a strain on budget, politics, culture. it is legitimate for them to say we have to slow this thing down. we have to manage it properly. that is why we are setting up a u.n. conference on refugees on the margins of the united nations general assembly because a few countries should not be shouldering the burden for 60 million refugees. and we have got to come up with strategies to allow people in countries that are very poor or are in the middle of a war zone enjoys in peace and prosperity. other words that otherwise the world shrinks and they want to move. it is one more reason why given the fact of global integration

we have to think globally, more broadly. because our security interests, our economies are all going to depend on the institutional arrangements that we have across boundaries. and nato is an example of a really enduring multilateral institution that helped us get through some very difficult times. but even the best of institutions have to be adopted -- adapted to new circumstances. that is true for organizations like nato. organizations like the u.n. is true for organizations like the eu. it is true for all the

architecture that has helped the world and our countries improve their standard of living and reduce overall violence between states substantially over the last several decades. mark lander? reporter: thank you very much, mr. president. you have been scrupulous about saying he would not comment on the justice department investigation of hillary clinton's e-mail. that investigation is now closed and i hope i could ask you about some of the comments that fbi director, he made a few days ago. president obama: you may, but i want to make sure you not wasting your question. i will continue to be scrupulous about not commenting because i think director comey could not have been more exhaustive. while we were over here or

flying he was presenting to congress for hours on end. but i want to give you a chance just in case you didn't want to burn your question. reporter: i have a backup. [laughter] maybe i could cut to the chase and ask you about a broader question. he did talk at the end of his presentation about how he feared there was a broader cultural issue in the state department towards the handling of classified information that troubled him. i wondered if you, since you rely on the state department to conduct foreign policy, whether that concerns you as well? and could i ask the other question because i think it might get an interesting response? you last may past a milestone in that you were president longer when the country was at war in your predecessor, george w. bush. any he complete your presidency as you will with troops in afghanistan, syria and iraq, he

will be the only two-term president in american history to have served with a country at war. given the way you ran for office and the aspiration to broaden the office how you feel about that reality. and a second follow-up. should the american people simply resign themselves to living in a state of perpetual war, even if that war is not the all-out war we think of in the 20th century? president obama: that was an interesting question. first of all, with respect to the state department i am concerned. and the challenge we have got is primarily driven by the changing nature of how information flows. the advent of e-mail and texts

and smartphones is just generating enormous amounts of data. it is hugely convenient. in real-time i'm getting information that some of my predecessors why not a gotten for weeks. but what it also is doing is creating this massive influx of information on a daily basis. putting enormous pressure on the department to sort through it, classified properly, figure out what are the various points of entry because of the cyber attack risks that these systems have. knowing our adversaries are possibly trying to hack into these various systems. if you over classified, all the

advantages of this new information suddenly go away because it is taking too long to process. we have been trying to think about this in a smart way. i think secretary kerry has a range of initiatives to get our arms around this. it reflects a larger problem in government. we recently -- i just recently signed a bill about freedom of information and requests built on a number of reforms we put in place. we are processing more freedom of information act requests and doing so faster than ever before. the problem is the volume of requests has skyrocketed. the amount of information that answers the requests has multiplied exponentially.

across government you are seeing this problem. and it is a problem in terms of domestic affairs. it becomes even bigger problem when you're talking about national security issues. it is something we will have to take care of. with respect to reflections on war, when i came in the office we had 180,000 troops in iraq and afghanistan. today we have a fraction of that. they are not involved in active combat situations, but are involved in training, advise and assist situations other than the direct attacks we lost against -- we launch against isil with conjunction with the iraqi government and the syrian government.

in some ways i think you would recognize that our military operations today in iraq and afghanistan are fundamentally different than the wars we were engaged in when when i came at office. but i think you are making an important point which is when we are dealing with nonstate actors and those nonstate actors are located in countries with limited capacity our ultimate goal is to partner with those countries so they can secure their borders and themselves eliminate these terrorist threats. but as we have seen and

afghanistan, that takes time. the afghans are fighting. they are much more capable now than they were when i came in the office. but they still need support. it is really tough territory and it's a really poor country. with really low literacy rates and not much experience in things that we take for granted like logistics. we have an option of going in, taking out al qaeda, pulling out, potentially seeing a country crumble under strange of -- the strains of continued terrorist activity or insurgency and then going back in. or we can try to maintain a limited partnership that allows

them to continue to build their capacity over time. and selectively take our own actions against those organizations that we know are trying to attack us or our allies. because they are nonstate actors it is very hard for us ever to get the satisfaction of macarthur and the emperor meeting and a war officially being over. aqi was defeated in the sense we were able to execute a transition to a democratically elected iraqi government. but for all of our efforts and incredible courage and bravery and sacrifice of our troops, the political structure there was still uneven.

you had continued sunni resentments, continued debathification. and as a consequence those vestiges of aqi were able to reconstitute themselves, move into syria has syria began to engage in civil war, rebuilding come back in. some have argued that this is the reason why we should have never pulled out of iraq, or we should have left some larger presence. the problem was that we did not have an iraqi government that wanted them, unlike afghanistan for we have been invited. it is very difficult for us -- for me to put our troops in a precarious situation where they

are not protected. i think what we've been trying to do, what i have been trying to do is to create an architecture, a structure. it is not there yet, that emphasizes partnership of countries. emphasizes building up fragile states, resolving internal conflicts wherever we can, trying to do as much as we can through our local partners, preserving the possibility, the necessity, to take strikes ourselves against organizations or individuals we know are trying to kill americans or belgians or french or german's. combine that with much more

effective intelligence gathering. but it becomes more of a hybrid approach to national security. and that i do think is probably going to be something we have to continue to grapple with for years to come. the good news is that there are fewer wars between states than ever before. and almost no wars between great powers. and that is a great legacy of leaders in the united states and europe and asia after the cold war, or after the end of world war ii that built this international architecture that has worked. we should be proud of that and preserve it.

but this different kind of low great threat, one that is not an existential threat but can do real damage and real harm to our societies, and creates the kind of fear that can cause division and political reactions. we have to do that better. we have to continually refine it. the reason that i put out our announcement about the civiliant civilian casualties resulting from drone attacks -- understanding that there are those who dispute the numbers. what i am trying to do there is institutionalized a system where we begin to hold ourselves accountable.

for this different kind of national security threat, these different kinds of operations. and it's imperfect still. but i think we can get there. ,nd what i can say honestly whether we are talking about the way the nsa operates or drone strikes operate or how we are partnering with other countries or my efforts to close guantánamo, by the end of my president the -- or banning torture, by the end of my presidency, i feel confident these efforts will be on a footing, more reflective of our values and ethics. do.ave more work to

commander-in-chief of the most powerful military the world, you know, i spend a lot of time brooding over these issues, and i'm not satisfied we've got it perfect yet. i can honestly say we have it better than when i came into office. thank you very everybody. thank you, poland. [applause] -- if we haveion additional $100,000 in the commonwealth, we have to that -- expect more from the dollars we are giving. >> a discussion on the state of education in the u.s. >> there is a body of literature that indicates courses that you should take if you expect to be

successful in college. school -- to let them in a school is doing, i think, a great disservice to them. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern, on c-span's q anq&a. and saturday, the democrats held the national committee platform meeting in orlando, florida. they voted on the transpacific partnership. bernie sanders' supporters were limitingnclude fracking, but were not able to include language specifically opposing the transpacific ardor ship. here is part of that platform. this is about 20 minutes.

>> we need to come to order. please take your seat. >> all right. i need people to take their seats, please. let's be ready to reconvene. please.

you'll want to get home this -- if you want to get home this weekend. no one's used to our starting on time. no one's used to it. >> courtney. >> testing. amendment number 36 has been withdrawn. amendment number 58 sponsored by dennis on page 10 line 35. the proposed amendment is to add the following -- many state democratic parties have voiced opposition to the t.p.p.

and in this case, full and more complete discussion of the contents should be debated in public. the idea trust but verified. we do not support any senate vote on the t.p.p. during their lame duck session this year. the agreement was not publicly discussed and debated on an issue by issue basis and we owe to it the next generation of americans to give more thoughtful consideration prior to entering into a well meaning but questionably agreement. there are too many questions to condone support of the t.p.p. >> the proponent of this amendment has one minute to explain it. >> i yield my time to tim hightower. >> is it on here? >> yes. you're only yielding one minute. >> yeah, i'm yielding my time to him.

>> i got it. and we'll start the clock. >> i call up my second degree amendment to the abdusky amendment. >> that's not an order because we have not had anyone speak to the original amendment. it hasn't been seconded yet sthofmente original amendment needs to be spoken to. you have one minute to do it. i will then see if there are 15 supporters which i assume there will be but we have to follow some decorum here. and i'm extending your one minute but it is on the issue of the original amendment. >> i'm in support of the original amendment and i would be substituting a -- to it. >> ok. you are in support of the original amendment. that's what you're in support of? you have spoken to in support of it. are there 15 individuals in

support of it? there are 15 individuals in support of it. we will now go to a debate with respect to the original amendment. >> we want to offer the second-degree amendment. >> listen, there is an amendment -- >> i've submitted. we have an amendment that has not been spoken to. >> it's been submitted. >> but with a one-minute explanation and then a motion. >> yeah. correct. >> ok. >> you need an explanation or a movement -- >> no, there's been a finding of -- ok. just give us one minute and we'll try to figure it out. i think some people are having a discussion. ok. just give me one minute.

>> if we can come back to order. progress has made.

>> if >> if we can come back to order. progress has made. pursuant to agreement of the parties, we will hear the hightower amendment. and once it is read by mr. hightower -- is that how we're going to do it? once it is read by mr. hightower, you then have one minute to describe it. once you've described it, i will ascertain whether there are 15 supporters. if there are 15 supporters, we will go immediately to a discussion. pursuant to that discussion, you will be granted -- i assume you're going to take five minutes to be followed by five minutes of discussion by an opponent. and then i'm going to call a vote. this is all pursuant toon

-- to an agreement. we are going to do this as agreed. i now recognize mr. hightower for the purposes of making an amendment. one minute. >> thank you. it is the essence of this amendment that it is the policy of the democratic party that the trans-pacific partnership must not get a vote in this congress or in future sessions of congress. [applause] >> this proposal is very important to grassroots americans and to the future success of our parties. that's because t.p.p. is not just another trade proposal. it's a little shop of corporate horrors that unleashes global wage busters, big pharma, the world's banksters, and a hoard of other predators to rip us off and subvert our people's democratic sovereignty. woody guthrie once said, were ever i travel, i see some funny men. some will rob you with a sixgun. some will rob you with a fountain pen. at so we're doing serious stealing in our society today. it's not enough to think that we can control this with soft words and regulation. rather, we must kill it before

it kills our democracy. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> pursuant to agreement, i will now ask if there are 15 supporters. there are 15 supporters. we will now have five minutes by the proponents of this amendment to speak to it followed by five minutes of the opponents of this amendment. please begin the five minutes. please begin the clock. >> i appreciate the unity that we're feeling here. this is going to carry us great distance into the next couple of months and i urge us, however, to join in the boldest, most absolute action that we can take against t.p.p., not just condemn it, but to act against it. there's an old cowboy saying out in west texas. speak the truth but ride a fast horse. ate it now stands, it is not soft, it's disastrously inadequate statement of our party's political real will. it's crucial that we fix this

for two reasons. one, on principle. millions of our core voters are on fire about the t.p.p. power grab, naturally assuming the leaders of the people's party would be on fire about it. but using lame language tells them that we will not stand with them on this fight against the greed itself, against the people who wrote this thing, the corporate powers. and the second reason is politics. donny trump is telling working class americans all across this country that he will flat out kill t.p.p. no equivocation in it, particularly effective in the midwesterner swing states that we're counting on. and by the way, wee now learned

the g.o.p. platform was specifically say no lame duck vote on t.p.p.. the republicans are going to be a flat out statement. he is going to hammer hillary mercilessly on the wimpy language in her platform. it is humiliating for -- [applause] so i offer this straight -- straightforward amendment as a political form of political viagra. to stiffen the spine of our party so ordinary americans can , know without doubt that we, democrats are on their side. lyndon johnson said you can't make chicken salad without -- you can make chicken salad with chicken minute or -- with chicken manure. he was a little more graphic documentre, but this is 2000 pages appear, unadulterated manure. it has only six chapters deal with trade. the rest of this was thrown.

and even adds new incentives for profiteering ceos to offshore more of our middle-class jobs. more of them. as lily tomlin says, it's -- no matter how cynical you get, it's a most impossible to keep up. >> two minutes. you got a lot of people behind you. two minutes. >> chairman cummings said yesterday we should keep our eyes on our children in writing a platform. he's right about that. and on their children too and on their grandchildren and their grandchildren. the reason is t.p.p. is forever. most people don't know that. future presidents can't get out of it. future congress can't. the supreme court cannot. you can just put a photographer stamp on this thing if it is signed and the reason that it's a corporate wet dream is because the corporations wrote it. but we were not at the table. labor wasn't and environmentalists weren't and consumers weren't.

you're not at the table, you're on the menu. and that is why it's absurd that our platform said that democrats are 50/50 divided on tpp. that's not even close to true. 85% of the house democratic caucus is on record against the t.p.p. that's the majority of grassroots democrats are. and if that's not enough -- [no audio] these are boxes take 10,000 to 15,000 petitions signed by the american people in the last week and a half. for this amendment. more than 700,000 of them have been signed. >> thank you very much. we could -- if we could clear the -- when you're done, please clear so we could have the opponents use their agreed to five minutes so that then we'll go to a vote. you're done.

thank you very much. >> my pleasure. >> now the opponents of the hightower amendment, which actually does appear before you, i believe, on the screen because it was -- mr. hightower's original amendment in essence, offered. people understand where we are? ok. five minutes in opposition beginning now. >> good morning, brothers and sisters. i am from the great state of new jersey. i rise. we just supported the texans -- the sanders amendment -- >> saunders. >> saunders. >> i made that mistake. >> sanders, saunders. it's very close. it lays out principles that will allow now, the trade deals including the tpp, long into the future. this is about principles, not process. i urge you not to support the hightower amendment.

laborers come together and we spored our amendment and i believe this is the right thing for working families and working people of the united states. thank you. >> next speaker. excuse me. excuse me. please, next speaker. >> gary blackburn from tennessee. you need to get closer to it. >> ok. >> i've never met a shy person from tennessee. you've got to get close. >> home of andrew jackson. >> there you go. go ahead. >> who was a free trade guy, by the way. mr. chairman, i think most of us in this room share the zeal that has been expressed here. sometimes, however, a zealous approach can make the -- can lead us to certain unintended

consequences. this amendment states that there should never be any first future session of the congress on the vote on t.p.p. that is basically -- [applause] >> we elect our congressman in tennessee and we expect them to stand up and represent us , including on issues such as this. this is the approach that the republicans are taking on gun control. if you want to -- to my friends in the peanut gallery, i want to remind you -- listen. >> let's have some decorum here. if you're going to do that, you are adding time. and i would like to get to a vote one way or another. so complete your comments. you have three minutes left. >> i want to remind you of one thing. if the -- first of all, we have no authority whatsoever to tell the congress that they can't vote on legislation. that is undemocratic, absurd and unconstitutional. the second, if they can't debate the t.p.p., how can they make positive changes to it? thank you.

>> all right. next speaker, thank you. next speaker. >> mr. chairman, fran turner, new york state. i rise in opposition to this amendment and go back to the saunders amendment that we just supported that has the highest standards for workers, the highest standards to protect our environment that will apply not only now, but in the future to all trade agreements including t.p.p. thank you. >> additional speakers? any additional speakers? then we're going to go to -- pursuant to agreement. the debate was limited. we're going to go to a voment -- were going to go to a vote. please put up the issue. >> is there still time? >> no. pursuant to an agreement. we're going to go to a vote. pursuant to an agreement. this is a yes vote would be in favor of the hightower -- please do not vote until it

is up on the screen. this is a yes note -- yes vote would be in favor of the hightower amendment. a no vote would be against the hightower amendment.

>> the amendment failed. courtney, please read the next amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. amendment number 46 sponsored by -- >> excuse me. i apologize. that was my mistake. courtney, i apologize. that was an amendment to the amendment. we have the original amendment. which is number 58. so we have the original amendment. that was a substitute. is that a substitute? and it failed. ok. pursuant to agreement. courtney, read the next amendment. the amendment is deemed failed. >> thank you, mr. chair. amendment number 46, sponsored by domingo garcia on page 10

line number 36. the proposed amendment is to have this section read as follows. democrats will support laws and regulations that will prohibit any american company who leaves the country from doing business in the united states. >> one minute to speak to the issue. >> ladies and gentlemen. my name is domingo garcia. i am from dallas, texas. my brother is a dallas police officer. as you know the evens there have been pretty hard on a lot of people there. but some have been what's going on in wall street. and which we see over and over again my carrier in indiana leaving mexico and company after company leaving the united states and coming back and wanting us do business and buy their products. that's so wrong that i think democrats say if you want to do business in america, you need to stay in america. >> thank you.

there are 15 seconders? one, two, three, four, five. -- there are 15. the proponents have five minutes. what's the time? five minutes. the proponents have five minutes if they want to use it. if they don't want to use it, the opponents have five minutes. using absence of anyone it, we are going to call the question. please put the 30-second clock up. please don't vote until i call for a vote. if you're in favor of the amendment, you vote yes. if you're against the amendment, you vote no. this is a 30-second clock. so please vote.

15 seconds. it failed. we're going to do -- i'm going to ask for one more amendment -- two more amendments and then we're going to break for lunch, ok? and let's give me some guidance on how long lunch will be. but courtney, please read the next amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. amendment number 143 has been withdrawn. amendment number 40 sponsored by domingo garcia on page 8, line 21. the proposed amendment is to have this section read as follows. democrats will support stronger criminal laws in civil penalties -- and civil penalties to be applied to wall street criminal who prey on the public trust. [applause] >> proponent. one minute. >> i don't know how many of

you all saw the movie "the big short." that's really what happened. nobody at goldman-sachs, nobody at any wall street went to jail while millions of americans lost their homes when millions of americans went bankrupt. and nobody prosecuted them. a young man may go in and steal or rob a 7-eleven and take $20 and go to prison for life. but people who steal millions and billons of dollars never get held accountable. and i think the democratic party needs to stand with consumers and the working people of america and go after the criminals in wall street. not off the streets. thank you. >> do we have 15 seconds? ok. we have 15 seconds. do the proponents wish to use their five minutes? i don't see anyone. do the proponents 2013 use five minutes? i'm going to call the question. i think we can do this one on

hand. all in favor, raise your white card. all oppose. it passes with at least three, four votes again. passes with four votes again. now let me just -- because we made a lot of progress that may not seem like that, but we actually have. i want to thank everybody. we're going to take a one-hour, one-hour lunch. and we're going to hold people strictly to this, including myself which means i have to hold other people strictly to it. there are concessions immediately outside here. it is a cash sale. there are facilities in the hotel as well. or you can go anywhere and eat anything as long as you're back in your seat in one hour. we will reconvene in this ballroom in your spot. leave your clickers where they are, please. leave your clickers. we will reconvene in one hour. thank you.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >>