Obama News Conference: Street Smart (08/09)

Your next video will start in
  • Info

  • Comments


Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) -- On today's "Street Smart," Julie Hyman and Adam Johnson find your last trade of today and first trade for tomorrow. (Source: Bloomberg)

Propylene glycol, the food additive, coloring, and flavorings you see a lot of food products.

It is safe and as consistent flavor.

I wonder if there is any use of relying on a drug like nicotine.

Is it ok to deal with on a daily basis?

It's a potential problem because the mcfadden has not really come out and given good guidance how it tends to regulate this industry.

It will in some way.

Nicotine is one of those factors, what is the appropriate level that should be in this practice.

Ken, thanks so much.

Ken, thanks for that.

That does it for on the markets.

We'll be back in 30 minutes with another check of the market.

First "street smart" starts right now.

Moments away from president obama, his last formal press conference before heading on vacation, those remarks next.

Plus pacquiaoman attacks.

The largest j.c. penney shareholder steps on the pressure on the board.

We'll share the latest letter for a new c.e.o. now.

And water, water everywhere.

We'll talk to the man who has it all in his l.a. restaurant.

Why good old h. 2 o is worth a hefty price tag.

From bloomberg world headquarters in new york, this is "street smart" with trish regan and adam johnson.

Welcome to the most important hour of the session.

15 minutes until the closing bell.

Your first trade from monday morning and here with us today, julie, good to have you right here in the seat.

It's good to be here, thank you very much, adam.

We're seeing markets decline today, though.

It looks like we're setting up for a down week.

Yes, we are off the yellows but still down today.

We should make clear that president obama is going to be speaking any minute.

As soon as that happened, we'll take you there live right away.

First we have the big picture, the three charts you need to see right now that tell exactly what is happening in this market.

Look at where we are on the dow industrial average, down 66 points.

You can see we were, well, we were trying to get up earlier in the day, couldn't do it, and here we are.

Off the lows on a day when we find that wholesale trade volumes were only up .4, so not the growth that we thought.

The 10-year yield is down, not a lot, only about a basis point so a relatively quiet day.

Down nonetheless, suggesting there is a little bit less growth than we thought.

Finally, let's take a look at gold which is flat and quiet today, only up about $2. the range is $12 to $13. not too many days where you can say that.

No, overall we're seeing a relatively quiet session, but, of course, we can find some good movers to talk about.

Let's go to the big three stocks to watch into the close.

For that we go to matt miller.

What are you seeing today?

One of them is a company we were talking a lot about yesterday, priceline, earnings were better than analysts expected.

Really the amazing thing about the priceline move today is the scale.

First of all, the stock is coming back to almost $1,000 stock.

So back to a level that it hasn't hit since the dotcom bubble.

It did drop down into single dollar digits for a while.

From 1,000 down to single digits back up to 1,000. it's also a $50 billion company to point out.

It's an online travel agency.

J.c. penney is a big mover.

Perry capital files to say it holds 7.3% of the company, that's important because it can speak with management now directly and talk to management about its idea as to who should run the company.

Obviously bill actionman has been -- ack man has been doing that.

Perry capital would like to see the c.e.o. of foot locker running j.c. penney.

Gap put out sale results worse than expected.

The gap brand sales themselves were up 7% year over year.

That was better than expected, but the other company that owns like old navy and banana republic did much worse.

Gap is one of the biggest losers behind j.c. penney.

Thanks, matt.

We are moments away from hearing from president obama.

As you heard adam mention and the president is expected to lay out some steps to build trusts in the government's handling of anti-terrorism.

The president is going to speak and tell us what we expect to hear.

The president will be calling for rewriting certain provisions of the patriot act.

He will call for the creation of an independent panel on the n.s.a. surveillance program.

When you look at the gamut of issues facing the white house, it's revealing that he is starting with this n.s.a. program.

You look at the debt ceiling, the fed chairman debate.

We'll hear from the president in two minutes.

When you talk to white house officials or what are impediments to get the president's agenda over the finish line, it's the fracture over surveillance on the left and the strange confluence between liberty yarns and his own base questioning this.

We see the president try to get out in front of the story every step of the way.

Today we'll get a little bit more.

It's the president's last chance to sort of control this conversation before he goes on holiday.

Remember, members of congress are back in their area.

When they get back, they have a pretty busy agenda.


Yeah, certainly a very busy agenda, hans.

I would like to get your sense as someone who knows the power players in washington.

What's the sense of leaving washington now, granted, everyone needs a vacation, but leaving washington now with so many questions happening internationally as well as right here at home?

Well, the president usually takes a vacation this time.

Remember four years ago, he went to martha's vineyard.

That's exactly where he decided to reappoint ben bernanke.

The president will have a big and thick briefing book with no easy answers.

You have syria, iran, you have this central question what is going to guide the economy for the next three, four, perhaps longer and that is who does the president pick to replace ben bernanke at the federal reserve.

There is a great deal of frustration at the white house at their ability to get congress to do anything about stimulating the economy.

This is all about monetary policy and the fed.

The president has one chance to put his one stamp on the federal reserve.

That is occupying the fair amount of conversation in washington when he is gone.

You have seen some of this on capitol hill.

Lawmakers questioning this idea of larry summers.

Look for the president publicly embraces larry summers the same way he did behind closed doors and what he has to say about the debt ceiling.

Here we have him.

Good afternoon, everybody, please have a seat.

Over the past few weeks, i have been talking about what i believe should be our number one priority as a country, building a better bargain for the middle class and for americans who want to work their way into the middle class.

At the same time i'm focused on my number one responsibility as commander in chief and that's keeping the american people safe.

In recent days, we have been reminded once again about the threats to our nation.

As i said at the national defense university back in may, in meeting those threats, we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms.

As part of this rebalancing, i called for a review of our surveillance programs.

Unfortunately, rather than an orderly and lawful process to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initial shaded the debate in a very passionate, but not always fully informed way.

Now, keep in mind that as a senator, i expressed a healthy skepticism about these programs and as president, i have taken steps to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the american people.

But given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives.

I'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas because american leadership around the world depends upon the example of american democracy and american openness.

What makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation, it's the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.

In other words, it's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs.

The american people need to have confidence in them as well.

That's why over the last few weeks, i have consulted members of congress who come at this issue from many different perspectives.

I have asked the privacy and civil liberties oversight board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension, and i directed my national security team to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices.

So today i would like to discuss four specific steps, not all inclusive, but some specific steps that we're going to be taking very shortly to move the debate forward.

First, i will work with congress to pursue appropriate reforms to section 215 of the patriot act, the program that collects telephone records.

As i have said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant.

But given the scale of this program, i understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse.

So after having a dialogue with members of congress and civil liberty tearans i believe there are steps we can take to give the american people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse.

For instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency and constraints on the use of this authority.

So i look forward to working with congress to meet those objectives.

Second, i'll work with congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the foreign intelligence surveillance court . it was created by congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the constitution.

However, to build greater confidence, i think we should consider some additional changes to it.

One of the concerns that people raised is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct problematic surveillance only hears one side of the story, may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty.

While i have got confidence in the court and i think they have done a fine job, i think we can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives, security and privacy.

So specifically, we can take steps to make sure civil liberties concerns have an independent voice in appropriate cases by insuring that the government's position is challenged by an adversary.

Number three, we can and must be more transparent.

So i directed the intelligence community to make public as much information about these programs as possible.

We have already declassified unprecedented information about the n.s.a., but we can go further.

So at my direction, the department of justice will make public the legal rationale for the government's colleges activities under section 215 of the patriot act.

The n.s.a. is taking steps to put in place a full-time civil liberties and privacy officer and released information that details its mission, authorities, and oversight.

Finally, the tenls community is creating a website that will serve as a hub for further transparency.

This will give americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so.

Fourthly, reforming a high level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies.

We need new thinking for a new era.

We now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack of global telecommunications.

Technology has given governments, including our own, unprecedented capability to monitor communications.

So i'm tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities, particularly, our surveillance technologies.

They'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people.

How we can make sure that absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how sr veil lance impacts our foreign policy, particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public and they will provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy, and our foreign policy.

So all of these steps are designed to ensure that the american people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values.

And to others around the world, i want to make clear once again that america is not interested in spying on ordinary people.

Our intelligence is focused above all on finding the information that is necessary to peck our people -- protect our people and in many cases to protect our allies.

It's true, we have significant capabilities.

What is also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world don't even think to do, refuse to show.

That includes, by the way, some of america's most vocal critics.

We shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online under strict guidelines and for narrow purposes and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online.

Let me close with one additional thought.

The men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe because they love this country and believe in our values.

They're patriots and i believe that those who have raised their voices on behalf of the privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want to live up to our highest ideals.

This is how we're going to resolve our differences in the united states, through vigorous public debate guided by our constitution with reverence for our history as a nation of laws and with respect for the facts.

So with that, i'm going to take some questions.

Let's see who we have got here.

We're going to start with julie of a.p. thank you, mr.


I wanted to ask about some of the foreign policy fallout from the disclosure of the n.s.a. programs that you discussed.

Your spokesman said yesterday that there is no question that the u.s. relationship with russia has gotten worse since vladmir putin has taken office.

How much of that decline do you attribute directly to mr.

Putin given that you had a good working relationship with his predecessor.

Are there any punitive measures for russia granted asylum to snow den or is canceling the summit for cooperation.

There has been cooperation in some rears, there has been competition in others.

It is true that in my first four years in working with president medvedev, we made a lot of progress.

We got star done or the star two done.

We were able to cooperate on iran sanctions.

They provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in afghanistan.

We were able to get russia into the w.t.o., which is not just good for russia, it's good for our companies and businesses because they're more likely to follow international norms and rules.

So there has been a lot of good work that has been done and that is going to continue to be done.

What is also true is that when president putin, who was prime minister when medvedev was president came back into power, i think we saw more rhetoric on the russian side that was anti-american, that played into some of the old stereotypes about the cold war contest between the united states and russia and i have encouraged mr.

Putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success.

I think the latest episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we have seen over the last several months around syria, around human rights issues where it is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that russia is going, what our interests are and calibrate the relationship so that we're doing things that are good for the united states and hopefully good for russia as well, but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we're not going to be able to completely disguise them.

And that's ok.

Keep in mind that although i'm not attending the summit, i'll still be going to st.

Petersburg because russia is hosting the g-20. that's important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are a concern to americans.

I know that one question that has been raised is how do we approach the olympics.

I want to just make very clear right now, i do not think it's appropriate to boycott the olympics.

We have got a bunch of americans out there who are training hard who are doing everything they can to succeed.

Nobody is more offended than me by some of the anti-gay and lesbian legislation that you have been seeing in russia, but as i said just this week, i have spoken out against that, not just with respect to russia, but a number of other countries where we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue.

One of the things that i'm really looking forward to is maybe some gay and lesbian athletes bringing home the golds or silvers or bronze, which i think would go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we're seeing there.

If russia doesn't have gay or lesbian athletes, then it would probably make their team weaker.

[inaudible] keep in mind that our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around mr.


On things where we can make some progress, russia has not moved.

We don't consider that strictly punitive.

We're going to assess where the relationship can advance u.s. interests and increase peace and stability and prosperity around the world.

Where it can, we're going to keep on working with them.

Where we have differences, we're going to state so clearly.

My hope is that over time, mr.

Putin and russia recognize that rather than a zero sum competition, in fact, if the two countries are working together, that we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples.

Chuck dodd.

Thank you, mr.


Given that you just announced a whole bunch of reports based on the leaks that edward snowden made on all of these surveillance programs, does that change -- does your mindset changed about him?

Is he a more whistle blower than he is a hacker, as you called him at one point or somebody that should be filed charged and should be provided more protection?

Is he a pirate?

You just used those words.

I want to follow up on a personal -- everyone is asking one question, would be helpful.

It was part of the question that you didn't answer.

Can you get, can you get stuff done with russia, big stuff done without having a good personal relationship with putin?

I don't have a bad personal relationship with putin.

When we have conversations, they're candid, they're blunt.

Oftentimes they're constructive.

I know the press likes to focus on body language and he has got that kind of slouch looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom, but the truth is, when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive.

The issue here really is where do they want to take russia?

It's substantive on a policy front.

No, right now this is just a matter of where mr.

Putin and the russian people want to go.

I think if they are looking forward into the 21st century and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some are joint concerns around counterterrorism are managed effectively, then i think we can work together.

If issues are framed of if you are for it, russia should be against it or where we find ways where we can poke each other at every opportunity, then we probably don't get as much stuff done.

See i have forgotten your first question which presumably was the more important one.

No, i don't think mr.

Snowden was a patriot.

As i said in my opening remarks, a called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before mr.

Snowden made these leaks.

My preference, and i think the american people's preference would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws, a thoughtful, fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place because i never made any claims that all the surveillance technicalologist -- technologies that have developed since the time these laws have been put in place somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms.

That's exactly what i called for.

So the fact is that mr.

Snowden has been charged with three felonies.

If, in fact, he believes that what he did was right, then like every american citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer and make his case.

If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, i signed an executive order well before mr.

Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community for the first time.

So there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.

But having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we have seen is information come out in drips and in drabs, sometimes coming out sideways.

Once the information is out, the administration comes in and tries to correct the record, but by that time, it's too late or we have moved on and a general impression has, i think, taken hold, not only among the american public, but also around the world that somehow we're out there willy-nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it.

That's not the case.

Our laws specifically prohibit us from surveiling u.s. persons without a warrant, and there are a whole range of safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that basic principal is abided by.

What is clear is that whether because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close and probably with fair criticism is my assumption that if we had checks and balances from the courts and congress, that that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurance that these programs were run properly, that assumption i think proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks.

I think people have questions about this program and so as a consequence, i think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions.

What i am pushing is rather than have a turning come out -- trunk come out here and a head and a tail out there, let's put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they're looking at.

Let's examine what is working, what is not.

Are there additional protections that could be put in place and let's move forward.

There is no doubt that mr.

Snowden's leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case in a had simply appointed this review board to go through and i had sat down with congress and we had worked this thing through, it would have been less exciting.

It would not have generated as much press.

I actually think we would have gotten to the same place and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country.

Major garrett.

Thank you, mr.


I would like to ask you about this debate that is playing itself out in editorial pages and blogosphere and the senate democratic caucus about the choice you will make for the future federal reserve chairman.

There is a perception among democrats that larry summers has the inside track.

Perhaps you have made some assurances to him of that.

There are many women in the senate who believe that breaking the glass ceiling would be historic and important.

Are you annoyed by this debate, do you find it unseemly?

Do you believe this would be one of the most important, if not the most important economic decision you'll make in the reminder of your presidency?

It is one of the most important economic decisions i'll make in the reminder of my presidency.

The federal reserve chairman is not the most important economic policymakers in america, but the world.

That person presumably will stay on after i'm president.

So this along with supreme court appointments is probably as important as a decision that i make as president.

I have a range of outstanding candidates.

You have mentioned two of them, mr.

Summers and ms.


They're both terrific people.

I think the perception that mr.

Summers might have an inside track simply had to do with a bunch of attacks that i was hearing on mr.

Summers' preemptively which is sort of a standard washington exercise that i don't like him . i know that the quality of those people and i see him getting slapped around in the press for no reason before they even have been nominated for anything and then i want to make sure that somebody is standing up for him.

I felt the same way when people were attacking season rice before she was nominated for anything.

So main criteria is someone who understands they have a mandate, a critical part of the job is making sure we keep inflation in check and our monetary policy is sound, that the dollar is sound.

Those are critical components of the job.

We see what happens when the fed is not paying attention.

We saw what happened prior to paul volcker coming into place, inflation shooting up.

It happened in ways that damaged the economy.

The other mandate is full employment.

The challenge is not inflation.

The challenge is we still have too many people out of work, to many long-term unemployed.

Too much slack in the economy.

We are not growing as fast as we should.

I want the fed chairman able to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation.

Make sure we are not seeing artificial bubbles in place.

But also recognizes a big part of my job is to make sure the economy is growing quickly and robustly and is sustained and durable so people were part in this country are able to find a job.

I think both larry summers and janet yellen are highly qualified candidates.

There are a couple of other candidates highly qualified as well.

I will make the decision in the fall.

[indiscernible] defending larry summers as vigorously as you just did.

[indiscernible] except i just told you i have not.

I would defend you if someone was saying something not true about you.

[laughter] i would.

In fact, i have done that in the white house.

[laughter] car ol, congratulations on hudson.

Do you have pictures?

I do.

I appreciate it.

I wanted to ask about your evolution on the surveillance issues.

Part of what you are talking about today is restoring the public trust.

The public has seen evolve from the u.s. senate to now.

As recently as june, use of the process was such that people should be comfortable with it.

Now you are saying people should be comfortable with the reforms.

Why should the public trust you on this issue.

Why did you change your position multiple times?

It is important to say i have not evolved in my assessment of the programs.

I consistently have said when i came into office i evaluated them.

Some of these programs i have been critical of when i was in the senate.

When i looked through what was being done, my determination was that two programs in particular offered valuable intelligence that helps us protect the american people and are worth preserving.

What we also saw was the at some things need to be tightened up on some of the programs.

We implemented compliance officers and audits and so forth.

If you look at the reports, even the disclosures mr.

Snowden has put forward, all the stories written, what you are not reading about is the government actually abusing these programs and listening in on people's phone calls or inappropriately reading e-mails.

What you are hearing about is the prospect these could be abused.

Part of the reason they are not being abused is because these checks are in place.

Those abuses would be against the law and the orders of the fisk.

Having said that, if you are outside of the intelligence community, if you are the ordinary person and start seeing a bunch of headlines saying u.s., big brother, collecting telephone records, etc., understandably people would be concerned.

I would be too if i was not inside the government.

In light of the changed environment where a set of questions have been raised, some in the most sensationalized manner possible, where these leaks are released drip by drip to maximize attention and see if they can catch us on something, in light of that it makes sense for us to go ahead and lay out exactly what we're doing.

Have a discussion with congress.

Have a discussion with industry, also impacted by this.

Have a discussion with the civil libertarians and see if we can do this better.

The main thing i want to emphasize is i do not have an interest.

The people of the nsa do not have an interest in doing anything other than making sure where we can prevent a terrorist attack, where we can get information ahead of time, that we are able to carry out the critical task.

We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that.

We have tried to set up a system that is as fail-safe as we have been able to think of to make sure these programs are not abused.

But people may have better ideas.

People may want to jigger the balance between the information we can get versus the incremental encroachments on privacy that might take place in the future administration or as technology develops further.

The other thing happening is as technology develops further, technology may provide additional safeguards.

If people do not have confidence along -- the law , the checks and balances of the court and congress are sufficient to give us confidence government is not snooping, maybe we can in bed -- embed technologies that prevent snooping regardless of what the government wants to do.

There may be some technological fixes that provide another layer of assurance.

Those are the kinds of things i am looking forward to having a conversation about.

[indiscernible] not trust what you are saying about [indiscernible] no, i cannot.

[indiscernible] the fact i said the programs are operating in a way that prevents and use -- prevents abuse, that continues to be true without reforms.

The question is how to make the american people more comfortable.

If i tell michelle i did the dishes, granted in the white house i do not do the dishes much, but back in the day -- and she is a little skeptical.

I would like her to trust me.

Maybe i need to bring her back and show her the dishes and not just have persi-- not just have her take my word for it.

The program is, i am comfortable the program is currently not being abused.

I am comfortable if the american people examine exactly what was taking place, how it was being used, what the safeguards were, that they would say these folks are falling all law and doing what they say they are doing -- following the law and doing what they say they're doing.

But it is absolutely true that with the expansion of technology, says an area moving quickly.

With the revelations that have depleted public trust, if there are additional things we can do to build the trust back up, we should do them.


Thank you.

You have said al qaeda has been decimated.

Its leaders are on the run.

Now we have seen a tariff threat that has resulted in indices closed -- in boston is closed throughout the arab world and much of africa.

-- embassies have been closed from the arab world and much of africa.

Do you still believe al qaeda has been decimated?

What i said in the same speech in may that i referred to earlier is that core al qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated.

What i also sent -- said was that of cod and other extremists have metastasized into regional groups that can pose significant dangers.

I would refer you to the speech in may where i said specifically although they are less likely to be able to carry out spectacular homeland attacks by 9/11, they have the capacity to go after are in dassies.

They have the capacity to go after our businesses and the capacity to be destabilizing and destructive in countries where the security apparatus is weak.

That is what we're seeing right now.

It is entirely consistent to say this tightly organized and relatively centralized al qaeda then attack us on 9/11 has been broken apart and is very weak and does not have a lot of operational capacity, and to say we still have these regional organizations like aqap that can pose a threat thatuntil some people.

-- and kill some people.

That requires us to make sure we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so they have their own capacities to deal with what are potentially unmanageable reasonable -- regional threats if these countries were stronger.

It means we have to continue to be vigilant and go after known terrorists potentially carrying out costs -- plots or will strengthen their capacity over time.

They're always testing the boundaries of what they can do.

This is an ongoing process.

We will not completely eliminate terrorism.

What we can do is weaken it and strengthen our partnerships in such a way that it does not pose the kind of horrible threat we saw on 9/11. i am not going to discuss specific operations that have taken place.

Again in my speech in may, i was very specific about how we make the determinations about potential legal strikes --lethal strikes, so i would refer you to that speech.

I will not have a discussion about operational issues.

Ed henry.

I hope you would defend me as well.

I would.

I want to ask about two important dates.

October 1 you will implement your signature health care law.

You decided to delay a key part of that.

If you pick and choose which parts to implement, could your successor pick and choose whether they will implement your law and keep in place?

On september 11, we will have the first anniversary of benghazi.

You said we will bring to justice the killers that attacked our people.

11 months later, where are they?

I also said we would get osama bin laden.

We did not give him 11 months.

-- we did not get him in 11 months.

We have informed the public there is a sealed indictment here it is sealed for a reason.

We are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack.

We will stay on until we get them.

Do you have a suspect in custody?

I will leave it at that.

This remains a top priority for us.

Anybody who attacks americans, anybody who kills four americans serving us in a very dangerous place, we're going to do everything we can to get those who carried out those attacks.

With respect to health care, i did not simply choose to delay this on my own.

This was in consultation with businesses across the country, many of whom are supportive of the affordable care act, and many of whom more are already providing health insurance to their employees but were concerned about the operational details of changing their operations if they have a lot of employees, which could be costly for them.

They suggested there may be easier ways to do this.

What is true is in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to call of the speaker and say, this is a tweak that does not go to the essence of the law.

It goes to whether we're able to simplify things for employers.

It looks like there may be better ways to do this.

Let's make a technical change to the law.

That would be the normal thing i would prefer to do, but we're not in a normal atmosphere in the comes to "obamacare." we did have the executive authority to do so and we did so.

But this does not go to the core of implementation.

Let me tell you what is the core of implementation.

It has already taken place.

As we speak right now, for the 85% of americans who already have health insurance, they are benefiting from being able to keep their kid on their plan if they are 26 or younger.

That is benefiting millions of young people run the country -- around the country, which is why lack of health insurance among young people has gone down.

In large part, that is attributable to the steps we've taken.

You have millions of people have received rebates.

Part of the affordable care act was to say if an insurance company is not spending 80% of your premium on your health care, you get some money back.

Lo and behold, people have been getting money back.

It means the folks who have been bumping up against lifetime limits on insurance that leaves them vulnerable, that does not exist.

Seniors have been getting discounts on their prescription drugs.

That is happening right now.

Free preventive care.

Mammograms, contraceptives.

That is happening right now.

I met a young man on a bill signing for the stallone bill.

He said thank you.

He could not have been more than 25 or 26. he said bank you.

I have cancer.

Thanks to the affordable care act working with the california program, i was able to get health care and now in remission.

Right now, people are benefiting.

What happens on october 1 in 53 days is for the remaining 15% of the population does not have health insurance, they will be able to go on the web site or call and sign up for affordable, quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market.

Even if they cannot support it at lower premiums, we will be able to provide a tax credit to help them buy it.

Between october 1 and the end of march, there will be an open enrollment period where millions of americans for the first time will be able to get affordable health care.

I think the interesting question is, why it is my friends in the other party made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, their number one priority.

The number one unifying principle in the republican party at the moment is making sure 30 million people do not have health care.

And presumably, repealing the benefits i just mentioned, kids staying on the parent's plans, seniors getting discounts on prescription drugs, the return to lifetime limits, people with pre-existing conditions continuing to be blocked from getting health insurance.

That is hard to understand as an agenda that will strengthen our middle-class.

At least they used to say we will replace it with something better.

There is not even a pretense of that now.

The notion is simply that those 30 million people or the 150 million benefiting from the other aspects of affordable care will be better off without it.

That is their assertion, not backed by fact or evidence . it has just become an ideological fixation.

I tell you what.

They are wrong about that.

There is no doubt in implementing the affordable care act there will be some glitches.

No doubt about it.

There will be some things we should have bought of earlier.

There will be things that with work better or things that need adjusting.

That was true social security and medicare.

That was true of the children's health insurance program.

That was true of the prescription drug program part d rolled out by republican president and supported by republicans still in the house of representatives.

That is true of a car company rolling out a new car and apple rolling out a new ipad.

You will be able to find occasions where you say that could have been done better or that is not how this was thought to originally work.


Because our goal is to deliver high-quality, affordable health care for people and reform the system so costs start going down and people start getting better bang for the buck.

I make no apologies about that.

The i did you would shut down the government -- the idea you would shut down the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea.

What you should be thinking about is how we can advance and improve ways for middle-class families to have some security so if they work hard, they can get ahead in their kids can get ahead.


Thank you, mr.


Republicans in the house might give you that choice soon to either allow the government shut down or see obamacare day funded.

Would you choose to let the obamacare -- to let the government shut down to insure obamacare remains funded?

I will not engage in hypothetical.

I will tell you the american people would have difficulty understanding why we would weaken our economy, shut down our government, shut down vital services, have people not getting paid who cannot go to restaurants or shop for clothes or all the other things we're doing here, because republicans are determined they do not want to see these folks get health care.

They used to say they have a replacement.

That never arrived.

I have been hearing about this replace thing for two years.

Now i do not hear about it because they do not have an agenda to provide health insurance to people at affordable rates.

The idea if you would shut down the government at a time when the recovery is getting some traction, we're growing, the housing market is recovering although not as fast as we would like, that we would precipitate another crisis in washington that no economist thinks is a good idea, i am assuming they will not take that path.

I have confidence that common sense will prevail.

[indiscernible] we will see what happens.

We have a couple of months.

[indiscernible] . recently.

Probably right before the election.


Thank you, mr.


Part of the political logic behind immigration reform was the strong showing by latino voters last november.

That does not seem to resonate with house republicans that represent white districts.

What other political leverage can you bring to bear to mid -- move the bill in the house?

We have an economic report that shows our economy would be $1 trillion stronger if we get immigration reform done.

We have evidence our housing market would be stronger if immigrants would have the ability to enter into the housing market.

We have strong evidence our technological and research edge would be better if we get immigration reform done.

We know the senate bill strengthens border security.

It puts unprecedented resources on top of the unprecedented resources i have already put into border security.

If your main priority is border security, i would think he would want to vote for this bill.

We know the senate bill creates a system in which employers are held accountable for when they hire undocumented workers.

This is something people say is a bad thing.

I agree.

Let's make sure that system for holding employers accountable is in place.

When i hear the opposition to immigration reform, i run through the list of things that are concerned about.

I look at what the senate bill does.

I say to myself, the senate bill improves the situation on every issue they say they are concerned about.

They argue it does not solve the problem 100%. i do not know a law that solves the problem 100%. social security lifted millions of seniors out of poverty, but there are still some poor seniors.

The civil rights act and voting rights act drastically reduced discrimination, but there is still discrimination.

It does not make them bad laws.

It just means there are very few human problems that are 100 percent unsolvable.

What i see is a strong bipartisan vote coming out of the senate.

I think the speaker and others have said they need to do something.

I would urge them when they get back to do something.

Put forward a bill that has an opportunity to pass.

It may not be precisely what is in the senate bill.

My preference would be for them to call the senate bill.

If they have additional ideas, i think the senate is happy to consider them.

Get that bill on the floor.

Put it up for a vote.

I am certain that votes for the senate bill that strengthened border security, the man's responsibility from undocumented workers to pay a fine and penalty and it to the back of the line, performs our legal immigration system, holds employers accountable, i am confident if that bill was on the floor of the house, it would pass.

The challenge is not that there are not a majority of house members, just like a majority of senate members, who were not prepared to support the bill.

The problem is internal republican caucus politics.

That is what the american people do not want us to be worrying about.

Do not worry about your washington politics.

Solve problems.

This is one where you have a broad consensus.

I do not know an issue where you have labor, the chamber of commerce, evangelicals, student groups, you name it, supportive of the bill.

Let's get it done.

Thank you very much, everybody.

We have just concluded a press conference with president obama at the white house as he prepares to leave for vacation.

He defined the issues that marked his presidency from immigration reform to help care reform.

He also addressed what is happening in the national- security debate, pledging to work with congress as well as the justice department on that issue.

You also heard him discuss his upcoming decision regarding a fed chairman choice.

That will not happen until september.

Finally acknowledging the differences with president putin of russia.

There was literally something for everyone in this speech.

We would like to bring in hans nichols who was at the white house listening to the speech.

We're also joined by peter cook.

We are also joined by peter cook.

What stood out for you?

It was the president's comments on the fed choice and what direction he is going in.

There is this big public embrace of larry summers.

This gives you an indication , with susan rice, she did not end up getting the job.

He also had a public embrace of janet yellen, but not as strong.

This was on the dual mandate, the idea that it has to have lower unemployment and actually do something about inflation.

The president talked about the inflation aspect of that equation.

That sounded like a president who is going to look into the inflation questions and which fed chairman can combat inflation.

He mentioned paul volcker and implicitly criticized the fed chairman before him.

It was the fed news that stuck out the most.

He addressed to the inflation issue for 2-3 minutes before making -- mentioning the jobs and then he made it clear about the balance for job creation and the growth of the economy.

He mentioned inflation for four jobs.

Why did he do that?

There might be a balance that he's concerned about.

On to larry summers , one of the reasons why it was so important is that he explained his defense.

He is defending larry summers.

He did that behind closed doors on capitol hill.

He did that because larry summers had been attacked.

His response was that i am defending someone who had been attacked.

Do not read too much into this decision.

Then he mentioned susan rice who in the same room six months ago, the president defended from attacks on capitol hill and then not appointing her as secretary of state.

He ended up giving her a job in the national security council.

There is not a job on the economic team in house that a soft landing for larry summers.

I want to turn to the topic that the president himself wanted to info size in his comments before he opened it up to questions and that is the concept of national security.

The four steps to increase transparency and increase the process of the national security agency and other surveillance of the u.s. public.

What was the most new thing in here or the most significant step of what he is talking about and how much trouble will we have implementing the steps?

Democrats and republicans, from the public as a whole are wondering about his programs, wondering if american phone records, internet, e-mail are being tracked, has the government gone too far.

He defended those programs but he picked up these various steps that he has taken on the steps the white house has been unwilling to take which includes declassifying the legal rationale for the phone collection program and other aspects of these surveillance programs.

As he was speaking, the justice department released some of that.

We will have the oversight panel, the outside group.

Do not be surprised if there are some from the business community.

A more adversarial approach.

There will be someone in that room asking questions of the government, do we need to do this.

Is this an encroachment on civil liberties?

The president says he remains confident but at the end of the day he needs americans confident in these programs.

This white house is not convinced they have won the public relations message on this.

Speaker weiner's office issued a statement saying -- speaker weiner jon weiner poss office issued the statement saying -- your thoughts . but that is the flip side, he has been hearing it from a lot of democrats and republicans civil liberties rubes that worried that the government goes too far.

This is the national security side, particularly john boehner office.

We are all in favor of transparency of to a point.

These programs have saved lives.

Do not do anything to diminish the effectiveness of this.

The president will be hearing this from democrats and republicans.

I have not heard anyone say that any of these steps go too far and do expose them to perhaps too much oversight were questioning.

That is something we will be hearing more of, particularly from republicans and light of what the president said today and what the nsa will be releasing today.

Peter cook and hans nichols , our white house correspondent at the white house.

Thank you for bringing us all of the insight.

If you have missed everything else that happened airing today's session because there is a market out there.

We are about to get you caught up on the only stocks you need to know about.

The gap closing down nearly 3%. they reported sales edged up 1% last month which was last than -- less than analyst estimates.

The stock price run ups is a 2011 is a reason for a downgrade.

Multicore down almost 10%. -- multicore molycorp down almost 10%. they expect prices to rise.

Shares are down more than two percent.

They have reported first- quarter results that came in just shy of analyst estimates.

They project sales growth of eight teen percent-20% for the year.

-- 18%-20% for the year.

American tower will acquire powers fromni -- towers from naii.

American move old possum may interfere oh -- apple is down almost 2%. the shares of china's smart phone market was cut by half in the second quarter.

Chinese has tumor consumers opting for lower price -- chinese consumers opting for lower prices.

Will we get a cheaper model iphone?

It is not even a question, is it?

We are just waiting for when.

There might be a couple of interim steps because we are looking for the new iphone five which comes out sometime in the fourth quarter.

The cheaper one, we are still waiting on.

Exciting for apple shareholders.

They have lost market share.

A lot of this is due to their chinese market cut in half.

Here is something that is not cheap, john deere.

You pay a premium for going green.

Nothing runs like a deere.

It has followed downgrades at ubs.

Ubs sites falling corn prices.

Isi is being more selective within the industry.

Is you that you driving that track her?

I wish that was me.

Freeport back to moran -- freeport mac moran, they had better than expected copper prices.

There was a jump in manufacturing adding to the size of the chinese economy is stabilizing.

The country is the biggest consumer of raw materials, copper in particular.

Number 300 25% after the company lowered in sentiment for sales of their -- number three, 25% after the company lowered their estimate of their cancer fighting drug.

Priceline is up four percent.

Investors jumping on board after the travel booking company reported better-than-expected second-quarter earnings.

They said their profit rose 24% as customers booked more flights from a rental cars, and hotel rooms.

We have had the closing bell.

You can see where the dow jones closed, down about 72 points.

The s&p 500 was down about six points.

The nasdaq down about a quarter.

At one point we were down about 150 points.

The optimist in me says that we closed off of the lows.

That is your close.

Time for the roundup.

The stories we are tracking ahead of monday's open.

Our closer is the chief investment officer at bank of america, merrill lynch.

Christina alessi, let's start with you.

We had a busy day in the activist world.

Awesome news around both jcpenney and of course smithfield.

Both had activist stocks.

We have seen some headlines as a result.

This is going to be the year of the activist.

Both because they have a lot of firepower and they are gaining momentum, not unlikely place, the long-term shareholder.

These guys call of activists and say, we have five underperforming stocks.

Go do something about it.

The activists will go do something about it.

Bill ackman, one thing that is important is reputation.

Not only have they raised the money but they want to raise even bigger funds.

If you are going to go out there and raise money, your reputation had better be valid.

Jcpenney was down six percent.

This very public fight him a nasty fight that he is picking with the board of jcpenney --. the stock is down 58%. he should want to see this turnaround.

He is facing a situation where the board has lost confidence in him.

They basically have given him no support.

They brought in ron johnson, that do not go well.

What about his force shareholders?

He is up 18%. lex's reputation is on the line.

Smithfield is trying to get -- his reputation is on the line.

Smithfield is trying to get this deal done.

Why is it that we are seeing so much activism?

Whether it is carl icahn, dan loeb, what does this tell you?

What they are trying to create value out of the company.

-- they are trying to create value out of the company.

We hence have come so far off the lows of 2009. if you want to make money, you have to get in there and get active.

I would not say that.

Just putting hedge funds and watching hedge funds that have closely held positions in companies, generally they can influence management.

They can get the value of the stock higher.

I think it is a benefit for shareholders that if you have good assets, if you have an activist in their to really break out what the value of the company is.

That is what they are trying to do.

We just have a lot of media over it now.

We certainly do.

We are glad you are here.

We will take a quick rake.

We will be right back.

-- we will take a quick break.

It's tech tremors and mobile dreams.

The ceo of tremor video talks about how to bring the certainty of science to be less than certain consumer.

Hollywood unleashes the heavyweights.

A surprising place for a harness.

A meal in a can.

This is all part of today's "weird wall street." stay tuned for your first trade monday, all coming up when "streetsmarts" continues.

We are back with a roundup of the stories we are tracking ahead of monday's open.

We have elections in germany.

The german chancellor candidate kicked off his election campaign.

He is going head-to-head with angela merkel.

He used his first rally to talk about straight talking.

He told a crowd of 3000 germans that angela merkel is misleading voters about the true cost of the financial process.

Angela merkel is still in the lead.

They had a coalition before.

This is not just about local german politics.

It is about what will happen in the euro zone, what will germany allow.

They have no other choice.

Whoever is in charge does not want to tell the voters how much it will cost them.

Maybe there is less pressure on germany.

Let's bring back j.p. morgan . they are nearing a deal.

Regulators are getting close to resolving the investigation into the london whale scandal.

J.p. morgan is compared to say they made an error on how the oversaw the unit.

Executives are not likely to admit mistakes beyond what they have already disclosed.

The company already said it was their fault.

It was about a $6 billion mistake among other things.

Ranks are settling and paying fines.

This is a relatively recent one.

Bank of america got something for 2008. the government is running a deficit.

These banks are making money.

J.p. morgan never had a down quarter.

They never lost money through the crisis.

We can slap on a penalty, get some of the money back from these guys.

That is what the bankers are saying.

That is the roundup.

We will be back with the ceo of the video business.

This guy is fascinating, what he is doing.

In the early days of phase , mark zucker berg was reluctant to monetize the site with advertising.

He might have no choice.

Investors want the site to make money.

How do you do this correctly?

We are joined by tremor video ceo, a company on the cutting edge with special technology of embedding videos within videos.

Thank you for joining me.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.


BTV Channel Finder


ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change