The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at Dedication of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute

Edward M. Kennedy Institute
Boston, Massachusetts

12:16 P.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  To Vicki, Ted, Patrick, Curran, Caroline, Ambassador Smith, members of the Kennedy family -- thank you so much for inviting me to speak today.  Your Eminence, Cardinal O’Malley; Vice President Biden; Governor Baker; Mayor Walsh; members of Congress, past and present; and pretty much every elected official in Massachusetts -- (laughter) -- it is an honor to mark this occasion with you.

Boston, know that Michelle and I have joined our prayers with yours these past few days for a hero -- former Army Ranger and Boston Police Officer John Moynihan, who was shot in the line of duty on Friday night.  (Applause.)  I mention him because, last year, at the White House, the Vice President and I had the chance to honor Officer Moynihan as one of America’s “Top Cops” for his bravery in the line of duty, for risking his life to save a fellow officer.  And thanks to the heroes at Boston Medical Center, I’m told Officer Moynihan is awake, and talking, and we wish him a full and speedy recovery.  (Applause.) 
 
I also want to single out someone who very much wanted to be here, just as he was every day for nearly 25 years as he represented this commonwealth alongside Ted in the Senate -- and that's Secretary of State John Kerry.  (Applause.)  As many of you know, John is in Europe with our allies and partners, leading the negotiations with Iran and the world community, and standing up for a principle that Ted and his brother, President Kennedy, believed in so strongly:  “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”  (Applause.) 
 
And, finally, in his first years in the Senate, Ted dispatched a young aide to assemble a team of talent without rival.  The sell was simple:  Come and help Ted Kennedy make history.  So I want to give a special shout-out to his extraordinarily loyal staff -- (applause) -- 50 years later a family more than one thousand strong.  This is your day, as well.  We're proud of you.  (Applause.)  Of course, many of you now work with me.  (Laughter.)  So enjoy today, because we got to get back to work.  (Laughter.) 
 
Distinguished guests, fellow citizens -- in 1958, Ted Kennedy was a young man working to reelect his brother, Jack, to the United States Senate.  On election night, the two toasted one another:  “Here’s to 1960, Mr. President,” Ted said, “If you can make it.”  With his quick Irish wit, Jack returned the toast:  “Here’s to 1962, Senator Kennedy, if you can make it.”  (Laughter.)  They both made it.  And today, they’re together again in eternal rest at Arlington. 

But their legacies are as alive as ever together right here in Boston.  The John F. Kennedy Library next door is a symbol of our American idealism; the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate as a living example of the hard, frustrating, never-ending, but critical work required to make that idealism real.
 
What more fitting tribute, what better testament to the life of Ted Kennedy, than this place that he left for a new generation of Americans -- a monument not to himself but to what we, the people, have the power to do together.
 
Any of us who have had the privilege to serve in the Senate know that it’s impossible not to share Ted’s awe for the history swirling around you -- an awe instilled in him by his brother, Jack.  Ted waited more than a year to deliver his first speech on the Senate floor.  That's no longer the custom.  (Laughter.)  It's good to see Trent and Tom Daschle here, because they remember what customs were like back then.  (Laughter.)

And Ted gave a speech only because he felt there was a topic -- the Civil Rights Act -- that demanded it.  Nevertheless, he spoke with humility, aware, as he put it, that “a freshman Senator should be seen, not heard; should learn, and not teach.”
 
Some of us, I admit, have not always heeded that lesson.  (Laughter.)  But fortunately, we had Ted to show us the ropes anyway.  And no one made the Senate come alive like Ted Kennedy.  It was one of the great pleasures of my life to hear Ted Kennedy deliver one of his stem winders on the Floor.  Rarely was he more animated than when he’d lead you through the living museums that were his offices.  He could -- and he would -- tell you everything that there was to know about all of it.  (Laughter.)
 
And then there were more somber moments.  I still remember the first time I pulled open the drawer of my desk.  Each senator is assigned a desk, and there’s a tradition of carving the names of those who had used it before.  And those names in my desk included Taft and Baker, Simon, Wellstone, and Robert F. Kennedy. 

The Senate was a place where you instinctively pulled yourself up a little bit straighter; where you tried to act a little bit better.  “Being a senator changes a person,” Ted wrote in his memoirs.  As Vicki said, it may take a year, or two years, or three years, but it always happens; it fills you with a heightened sense of purpose.
 
That’s the magic of the Senate.  That’s the essence of what it can be.  And who but Ted Kennedy, and his family, would create a full-scale replica of the Senate chamber, and open it to everyone? 

We live in a time of such great cynicism about all our institutions.  And we are cynical about government and about Washington, most of all.  It’s hard for our children to see, in the noisy and too often trivial pursuits of today’s politics, the possibilities of our democracy -- our capacity, together, to do big things.

And this place can help change that.  It can help light the fire of imagination, plant the seed of noble ambition in the minds of future generations.  Imagine a gaggle of school kids clutching tablets, turning classrooms into cloakrooms and hallways into hearing rooms, assigned an issue of the day and the responsibility to solve it.
 
Imagine their moral universe expanding as they hear about the momentous battles waged in that chamber and how they echo throughout today’s society.  Great questions of war and peace, the tangled bargains between North and South, federal and state; the original sins of slavery and prejudice; and the unfinished battles for civil rights and opportunity and equality.
 
Imagine the shift in their sense of what’s possible.  The first time they see a video of senators who look like they do -- men and women, blacks and whites, Latinos, Asian-Americans; those born to great wealth but also those born of incredibly modest means.
 
Imagine what a child feels the first time she steps onto that floor, before she’s old enough to be cynical; before she’s told what she can’t do; before she’s told who she can’t talk to or work with; what she feels when she sits at one of those desks; what happens when it comes her turn to stand and speak on behalf of something she cares about; and cast a vote, and have a sense of purpose.
 
It’s maybe just not for kids.  What if we all carried ourselves that way?  What if our politics, our democracy, were as elevated, as purposeful, as she imagines it to be right here?
 
Towards the end of his life, Ted reflected on how Congress has changed over time.  And those who served earlier I think have those same conversations.  It’s a more diverse, more accurate reflection of America than it used to be, and that is a grand thing, a great achievement.  But Ted grieved the loss of camaraderie and collegiality, the face-to-face interaction.  I think he regretted the arguments now made to cameras instead of colleagues, directed at a narrow base instead of the body politic as a whole; the outsized influence of money and special interests -- and how it all leads more Americans to turn away in disgust and simply choose not to exercise their right to vote.
 
Now, since this is a joyous occasion, this is not the time for me to suggest a slew of new ideas for reform.  Although I do have some.  (Laughter.)  Maybe I’ll just mention one. 

What if we carried ourselves more like Ted Kennedy?  What if we worked to follow his example a little bit harder?  To his harshest critics, who saw him as nothing more than a partisan lightning rod -- that may sound foolish, but there are Republicans here today for a reason.  They know who Ted Kennedy was.  It’s not because they shared Ted’s ideology or his positions, but because they knew Ted as somebody who bridged the partisan divide over and over and over again, with genuine effort and affection, in an era when bipartisanship has become so very rare. 

They knew him as somebody who kept his word.  They knew him as somebody who was willing to take half a loaf and endure the anger of his own supporters to get something done.  They knew him as somebody who was not afraid.  And fear so permeates our politics, instead of hope.  People fight to get in the Senate and then they’re afraid.  We fight to get these positions and then don’t want to do anything with them.  And Ted understood the only point of running for office was to get something done -- not to posture; not to sit there worrying about the next election or the polls -- to take risks.  He understood that differences of party or philosophy could not become barriers to cooperation or respect.
 
He could howl at injustice on the Senate floor like a force of nature, while nervous aides tried to figure out which chart to pull up next.  (Laughter.)  But in his personal dealings, he answered Edmund Randolph’s call to keep the Senate a place to “restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy.”
 
I did not know Ted as long as some of the speakers here today.  But he was my friend.  I owe him a lot.  And as far as I could tell, it was never ideology that compelled him, except insofar as his ideology said, you should help people; that you should have a life of purpose; that you should be empathetic and be able to put yourself in somebody else’s shoes, and see through their eyes.  His tirelessness, his restlessness, they were rooted in his experience.

By the age of 12, he was a member of a Gold Star Family.  By 36, two of his brothers were stolen from him in the most tragic, public of ways.  By 41, he nearly lost a beloved child to cancer.  And that made suffering something he knew.  And it made him more alive to the suffering of others. 
 
While his son was sleeping after treatment, Ted would wander the halls of the hospital and meet other parents keeping vigil over their own children.  They were parents terrified of what would happen when they couldn’t afford the next treatment; parents working out what they could sell or borrow or mortgage just to make it just a few more months -- and then, if they had to, bargain with God for the rest.
 
There, in the quiet night, working people of modest means and one of the most powerful men in the world shared the same intimate, immediate sense of helplessness.  He didn't see them as some abstraction.  He knew them.  He felt them.  Their pain was his as much as they might be separated by wealth and fame.  And those families would be at the heart of Ted’s passions.  Just like the young immigrant, he would see himself in that child.  They were his cause -- the sick child who couldn’t see a doctor; the young soldier sent to battle without armor; the citizen denied her rights because of what she looked like or where she came from or who she loves.

He quietly attended as many military funerals in Massachusetts as he could for those who fell in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He called and wrote each one of the 177 families in this commonwealth who lost a loved one on 9/11, and he took them sailing, and played with their children, not just in the days after, but every year after.
 
His life’s work was not to champion those with wealth or power or connections; they already had enough representation.  It was to give voice to the people who wrote and called him from every state, desperate for somebody who might listen and help.  It was about what he could do for others.
 
It’s why he’d take his hearings to hospitals in rural towns and inner cities, and push people out of their comfort zones, including his colleagues.  Because he had pushed himself out of his comfort zone.  And he tried to instill in his colleagues that same sense of empathy.  Even if they called him, as one did, “wrong at the top of his lungs.”  Even if they might disagree with him 99 percent of the time.  Because who knew what might happen with that other 1 percent?
 
Orrin Hatch was sent to Washington in part because he promised to fight Ted Kennedy.  And they fought a lot.  One was a conservative Mormon from Utah, after all; the other one was, well, Ted Kennedy.  (Laughter.)  But once they got to know one another, they discovered certain things in common -- a devout faith, a soft spot for health care, very fine singing voices.  (Laughter.)
 
In 1986, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Orrin held the first hearing on the AIDS epidemic, even hugging an AIDS patient -- an incredible and very important gesture at the time.  The next year, Ted took over the committee, and continued what Orrin started.  When Orrin’s father passed away, Ted was one of the first to call.  It was over dinner at Ted’s house one night that they decided to try and insure the 10 million children who didn’t have access to health care.
 
As that debate hit roadblocks in Congress, as apparently debates over health care tend to do, Ted would have his Chief of Staff serenade Orrin to court his support.  When hearings didn’t go Ted’s way, he might puff on a cigar to annoy Orrin, who disdained smoking.  (Laughter.)  When they didn’t go Orrin’s way, he might threaten to call Ted’s sister, Eunice.  (Laughter.)  And when it came time to find a way to pay for the Children’s Health Insurance Program that they, together, had devised, Ted pounced, offering a tobacco tax and asking, “Are you for Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, or millions of children who lack adequate health care?”
 
It was the kind of friendship unique to the Senate, calling to mind what John Calhoun once said of Henry Clay:  “I don’t like Clay.  He is a bad man, an imposter, a creator of wicked schemes.  I wouldn’t speak to him, but, by God, I love him!”  (Laughter.) 
 
So, sure, Orrin Hatch once called Ted “one of the major dangers to the country.”  (Laughter.)  But he also stood up at a gathering in Ted’s last months, and said, “I’m asking you all to pray for Ted Kennedy.”
 
The point is, we can fight on almost everything.  But we can come together on some things.  And those “somethings” can mean everything to a whole lot of people. 

It was common ground that led Ted and Orrin to forge a compromise that covered millions of kids with health care.  It was common ground, rooted in the plight of loved ones, that led Ted and Chuck Grassley to cover kids with disabilities; that led Ted and Pete Domenici to fight for equal rights for Americans with a mental illness.

Common ground, not rooted in abstractions or stubborn, rigid ideologies, but shared experience, that led Ted and John McCain to work on a Patient’s Bill of Rights, and to work to forge a smarter, more just immigration system.
 
A common desire to fix what’s broken.  A willingness to compromise in pursuit of a larger goal.  A personal relationship that lets you fight like heck on one issue, and shake hands on the next -- not through just cajoling or horse-trading or serenades, but through Ted’s brand of friendship and kindness, and humor and grace. 
 
“What binds us together across our differences in religion or politics or economic theory,” Ted wrote in his memoirs, “[is] all we share as human beings -- the wonder that we experience when we look at the night sky; the gratitude that we know when we feel the heat of the sun; the sense of humor in the face of the unbearable; and the persistence of suffering.  And one thing more -- the capacity to reach across our differences to offer a hand of healing.”
 
For all the challenges of a changing world, for all the imperfections of our democracy, the capacity to reach across our differences is something that’s entirely up to us.
 
May we all, in our own lives, set an example for the kids who enter these doors, and exit with higher expectations for their country. 

May we all remember the times this American family has challenged us to ask what we can do; to dream and say why not; to seek a cause that endures; and sail against the wind in its pursuit, and live our lives with that heightened sense of purpose.
 
Thank you.  May God bless you.  May He continue to bless this country we love.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 

END
12:44 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Gaggle en route Boston, MA by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, 03/30/15

Aboard Air Force One
En Boston, Massachusetts 

9:53 A.M. EDT

MR. SCHULTZ:  Welcome aboard, everyone, on Air Force One.  And we are en route to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, where we'll celebrate the life and legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy and highlight the importance of the United States Senate in the lives of all Americans.

I actually have a few scheduling announcements to lead us off here.  This Thursday, the President will travel to Louisville, Kentucky, for an event on the economy.  On Friday, the President will visit Hill Air Force Base in Utah for an event on the economy as well.  Further details about the President’s travel to Kentucky and Utah will be available in the coming days. 
Now we'll switch to the coming year.  As you might have seen I think right before we took off, the government of Kenya has agreed to cohost the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit, otherwise known as the GES, in July.  Organized annually since 2009, this event has emerged as a global platform connecting emerging entrepreneurs with leaders from business, international organizations and governments looking to support them.  This will be the first time the GES will take place in sub-Sahara Africa.

President Obama will travel to Kenya in July, where he will hold bilateral meetings and participate in the Summit.  His trip will build on the success of the August 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, and continue our efforts to work with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya, to accelerate economic growth, strengthen democratic institutions, and improve security.

This will be President Obama’s fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa during his presidency.

With all of that news said, I'm happy to take your questions.

Q    Do you think that the President will see family members or anybody else in Kenya?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don't have any updates to the President’s schedule since we just announced the trip.  But as soon as we can flesh that out for you I will have that for you.

Q    Do you know when it is?

MR. SCHULTZ:  When in July?

Q    When, yes.

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think it's end of the month.

Q    The Nation reported July 23rd.  Is that accurate?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Stand by. 

Q    And if you can say how many days the trip will be that would be great.

MR. SCHULTZ:  I will try and nail down the exact dates.  I believe it's in the end of July, and I don't know if the exact parameters of the travel have been booked yet.

Q    Eric, can you tell us whether the President had been briefed on the latest in the Iran talks and what he thinks about this issue that has been discussed over the weekend of whether Iran should have to send its fuel elsewhere as part of the deal?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Thanks, Julie.  I can tell you that our team has been engaged in constant around-the-clock meetings and negotiations over in Switzerland.  I can also tell you the President has been briefed regularly and frequently, and also has provided guidance as necessary. 

In terms of the story that you are referencing, I would say that, unfortunately, some of the details in that story were not correct.  The idea that there had been an agreement that Iran backed away from in the last 24 hours is not true.  In terms of what’s going to happen with that stockpile that is something that our negotiators are working through, but it's not accurate to say there had been an agreement that was then backtracked.

As we've said all along now, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.  So I don't want to get ahead of what our negotiators are working on in the room, so beyond that we're not going to have much to say.

Q    Which of the two halves of that sentence aren't true?  Was there an agreement, or not?  And if there was, did they back away from it?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think both of those are not true.  There was never an agreement on this issue yet.  That’s still something being worked out.  And we expect that to be part of the negotiations.

Q    Eric, tomorrow is the deadline.  Is the President prepared to walk away if there’s not a deal by tomorrow?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Isaac, the President has made clear that he’s not going to take a bad deal, that the best way to eliminate Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is to both shut off its path to a nuclear weapon and impose the most intrusive, stringent inspections ever.  And so the President is not prepared to take a bad deal.

Q    My question is does he see tomorrow night as the deadline?

Q    Or is there any possibility of extending --

MR. SCHULTZ:  I can tell you we've been negotiating for over a year now, and it's going to be up to the Iranians in order to make some tough decisions as the deadline nears in order to show the international community that it wants to get rid of its pathway to a nuclear weapon.  I'm not going to presuppose failure.  Those negotiations are going to go down to the wire.  We've always said that when the extension was announced in November through June that we wanted a framework by the end of March, and that remains our position.

Q    So is there any flexibility at all about later this week?  And how should we imagine it for tomorrow?  Is it an Eastern Time deadline?  Is it European time?  What’s the specifics on that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  As you know, right now the negotiations are unfolding in Switzerland.  So in terms of any announcements that come out of Switzerland, I would refer you to the State Department.  But I'm not going to speculate -- I'm not going to presuppose failure on their part.  Our folks are working around the clock in earnest to try and get this done.  And so I'm going to leave the negotiating to them.

Q    -- on the U.S. side, there’s been reports that the President has been very engaged in trying to get congressional support and that there may be some leeway in allowing for congressional review of an agreement.  Can you bring us up to date on those?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Angela, as you know, we've been working very hard to keep Congress briefed and up to date on this.  I believe if you count up our engagements with Congress on this issue they total in the hundreds.  And that includes one-on-one meetings, phone calls, briefing sessions, both classified and unclassified, with a range of officials, including the President, the Vice President of the United States, staff at the White House and Cabinet secretaries.  So we are proud of our record of robust consultation with Congress.

We will still work through how we envision Congress’s oversight role here.  We believe there is a role.  But in terms of -- I know there’s been some -- like the Corker-Menendez bill, we said we’d veto that and we stand by that.

Q    Are there any circumstances under which he would allow Congress to disapprove of any agreement?

MR. SCHULTZ:  David, what we said is that we are very open to working with Congress on this, that we want a robust consultative role.  And I think we’ve put our money where our mouth is, because I think, again, there’s been several hundred different conversations, briefings, meetings, hearings, sessions that we’ve participated in.  But I don’t have any specific mechanisms to announce to you today.

Q    Just to clarify, though.  When you say you envision a role for Congress, does that just mean a role for them to be briefed?  I mean, if you guys see that Congress has a chance to have some input here but not through Corker-Menendez -- I mean, is there any legislative framework the President could envision giving to Congress to be able to have a say in this beyond just sitting in a briefing listening to what the details of the negotiations are?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Julie, the first half of this gaggle was about a deal that hasn’t come into place yet.  So I'm not going to go ahead and hypothetically engage that if and when that deal comes into play how we’re going to consult with Congress.  But I can assure you that if you look at our record hereto for of robustly consulting with Congress, I feel fairly confident that they’ll be involved.

Q    And, Eric, can you provide any more details on how the President has been regularly briefed and provided guidance?  How often that’s been?  Anything at all that would illuminate his role in this?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I can tell you -- I don’t have a lot of internal details to read out to you at this time, but I can tell you that the President has been briefed regularly, frequently, and as I said, as the situation warrants, provided guidance to his team that is used by the negotiators in Switzerland.

Q    I can’t quite tell.  Are there any circumstances under which he would sign a bill that allows Congress to block an agreement?

MR. SCHULTZ:  David, I don’t know what legislative proposal you’re referencing.  If it’s Corker-Menendez, we said we’d veto it.  If there’s another proposal out there --

Q    Let me ask, why would he veto it? 

MR. SCHULTZ:  Because, as you know, David, this is a purview that’s been part of the executive branch for decades and the President retains the authority to conduct foreign policy.  As we’ve seen, there’s been a partisan effort by Republicans in the Senate to undermine that ability, but the President believes that the best way to rid Iran of a nuclear weapon is to solve that diplomatically. 

Q    So does any bill that gives Congress a vote to veto a deal usurp executive authority?

MR. SCHULTZ:  David, again, you’re asking about a legislative process -- a legislative proposal that I'm not familiar with.  I can tell you the one that has been widely reported and is on the books, Corker-Menendez, is one that we’d veto.

Q    -- agreement, who would sign it for the United States?

MR. SCHULTZ:  That’s a good technical question that I don’t know the answer to, so I’d refer you to the State Department.

Q    How do you guys feel about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner being in Israel these couple of days as the deadline for Iran comes, talking with Netanyahu and talking about how they don’t want this to go forward, the Iran deal?  Is that appropriate?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Isaac, I will admit I knew that trip was happening.  I didn’t know -- I haven’t seen any comments they’ve issued since they’ve been on the ground in Israel.  I will say, we’ve said that lawmakers from both parties visit the state of Israel all the time and we think that’s entirely appropriate.

Q    Eric, can you give us an update on the White House’s thinking about the evolving crisis in Yemen?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure.  Jeff, as you know, the Houthis’ continued actions, despite the repeated condemnations of the international community, have caused widespread instability and chaos that threaten the safety and well-being of the Yemeni citizens.  And in support of the GGC actions to defend against Houthi violence, President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations. 

Above all else, we strongly urge the Houthis the stop their destabilizing military actions and return to negotiations as part of the political dialogue.

Q    That sounds like basically what you guys said last week.  Are you concerned about the latest role that Iran continues to play in this crisis?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Jeff, as we have said, we do have concerns about Iran’s activities in Yemen, which are contributing to destabilizing the situation and contributing to the threat posed to the legitimate government there.

Q    Do you see any irony in the fact that you’re expressing this concern about Iran at the same time as these talks are going on?  And does it -- is it possible for us to assume that that is not being brought up in the Switzerland context?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Jeff, I believe the State Department has said that on the sidelines of those talks, Secretary Kerry has brought this up -- has brought up Yemen with counterparts on the ground in Switzerland.  But largely, we view the negotiations with Iran about ending their pathway to a nuclear weapon.  That is what the international community has been united on and that’s what we’re working towards.

Q    On one domestic issue, Eric.  Senator Lee, as you're announcing this trip to Utah, has announce that he plans to investigate whether there was a White House roll to push the FTC to ends its investigation in 2013 into Google.  Can you comment on whether there was a White House role and what you think about the possibility of Senator Lee looking into this?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Angela, I saw a quick news report on that before we took off, and I can tell you that the FTC is an independent organization which makes decisions independently.  So if you have questions about their process you should speak with the FTC.  I know that there was a news report about meetings with Google executives at the White House, and I would tell you that we meet with business leaders all the time.

Q    On Utah, that is the second to last state that the President has not visited, correct, while in office?  And did that play a role in choosing his itinerary?  And how soon will he be headed to South Dakota?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Juliette, I opened with so many scheduling announcements -- (laughter) -- I have none additional at this time.  But I can tell you that we are going to have more information about the President’s trip to Utah in the coming days.

Q    Does the President support the human trafficking bill that’s pending in the Senate?

MR. SCHULTZ:  David, this is something that’s been discouraging to this White House, that the United States Senate, only days after approaching a shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security, could not pass a human sex-trafficking bill.  That’s been a sign of Senate dysfunction and that is something we hope is resolved quickly. 

Q    But as you know, it’s the Democrats who are blocking it.  So is he troubled by that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We’re troubled that Congress, in this day and age -- especially as we head to the Edward Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate -- both struggles to fund the Department of Homeland Security and now cannot pass a bill discouraging human sex trafficking.

Q    Do you think the Democrats should stop blocking this bill?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think that, as you’ve seen, we believe that this is an issue that should normally -- under normal circumstances, under Senate leadership that vowed when they took office this past January to get the Senate moving, that this should be one that’s not controversial.

Q    Does the President think Ted Kennedy would be upset by what’s going on in the Senate today?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, Isaac, I can tell you the President and First Lady both look forward to today’s events.  I do think that it is worth noting that Senator Kennedy was a fierce fighter and a champion for those in our country who needed help the most.  And whether that was advancing civil rights, whether that was extending health care to the nation’s most vulnerable populations, or securing the economic well-being of everyday Americans, Senator Ted Kennedy was driven by those not with connections and power, but by helping those precisely without the fame and fortune. 

At the same time, though, I think what the President admires most about Senator Kennedy was his ability to find common ground with Republicans, and work on issues across the aisle with Republicans in pursuit of a larger goal -- whether that was working with Senator Orrin Hatch on children’s health insurance, Senator Grassley on their historic work to cover kids with disabilities, or with Senator Domenici to end injustice in treatment for the mentally ill.

Nobody fought harder for his ideals than Senator Kennedy.  But he was a master at finding common ground and working with political adversaries if it meant fixing something that was broken.

Q    So you said that what’s going on with the trafficking bill is ironic given that we’re going to the Kennedy Institute today.  So does the President think that Kennedy’s legacy is not being upheld by the modern Senate?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Isaac, I’d encourage you to stay tuned for the President’s remarks.

Q    Before we go, I wanted to ask you -- the reports in Australia that personal details of the world leaders was leaked from the Brisbane summit.  Can you confirm that the President’s details weren’t leaked?  And what more can you tell us?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I have seen those reports.  I can’t confirm that at this time.  I can tell you that we’re looking into them and we’ll take all appropriate steps necessary to ensure the privacy and security of the President’s personal information.

Q    What kind of recourse does the United States government have if the President’s passport details and other personal information has been sent to a football club?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, you’re presupposing facts that I’m unable to confirm at this time.  So, as I said, we’re going to look into this and make sure the President’s privacy and security are maintained.

Q    Small follow-up question.  Does the President actually use a passport when he travels?  Is that information given to a foreign government for visas and so forth, or not?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Julia, you’re asking a good technical question that I don’t know the answer to, but I’m happy to look into it.

Q    Thank you.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Thank you.

END
10:09 A.M. EDT

Reinforcing the U.S.-Africa Partnership

Last summer, the United States paved new pathways for our relationship with Africa by hosting the historic U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. Fifty-one African leaders joined President Obama in Washington for a discussion on "Investing in the Next Generation", the theme of the Summit. This gathering resulted in $33 billion dollars in new commitments to support economic growth across Africa, as well as tangible U.S. and African efforts to improve security, promote human rights and good governance, and provide opportunities for Africa’s sizeable youth population.

As the White House announced earlier today, the United States is partnering with the Government of Kenya to host the sixth annual Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES). The President will travel to Kenya this summer – his fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa and the most of any sitting U.S. president – where he will participate in bilateral meetings and attend this important event.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Global Entrepreneurship Summit and the President’s Travel to Africa

The Government of Kenya has agreed to co-host the 2015 Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) this July.  Organized annually since 2009, the GES has emerged as a global platform connecting emerging entrepreneurs with leaders from business, international organizations, and governments looking to support them.  This will be the first time the GES will take place in sub-Saharan Africa.

President Obama will travel to Kenya in July, where he will hold bilateral meetings and participate in the GES.  His trip will build on the success of the August 2014 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and continue our efforts to work with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya, to accelerate economic growth, strengthen democratic institutions, and improve security.  This will be President Obama’s fourth trip to sub-Saharan Africa during his presidency.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Weekly Address: Protecting Working Americans’ Paychecks

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week’s address, the President highlighted the progress made protecting American consumers since he signed Wall Street Reform into law five years ago, including an important new step taken by the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this week toward preventing abuses in payday lending.  The President emphasized his commitment to fighting to advance middle-class economics and ensure everybody who works hard can get ahead, while opposing attempts by Republicans both to weaken the CFPB and give large tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, March 28, 2015.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
March 28, 2015

Hi, everybody.  Five years ago, after the worst financial crisis in decades, we passed historic Wall Street reform to end the era of bailouts and too big to fail. 

As part that reform, we created an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with one mission: to protect American consumers from some of the worst practices of the financial industry. 

They’ve already put $5 billion back in the pockets of more than 15 million families.  And this week, they took an important first step towards cracking down on some of the most abusive practices involving payday loans. 

Millions of Americans take out these loans every year.  In Alabama, where I visited this week, there are four times as many payday lending stores as there are McDonald’s.  But while payday loans might seem like easy money, folks often end up trapped in a cycle of debt.  If you take out a $500 loan, it’s easy to wind up paying more than $1,000 in interest and fees. 

The step the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced this week is designed to change that.  The idea is pretty common sense: if you’re a payday lender preparing to give a loan, you should make sure that the borrower can afford to pay it back first. 

As Americans, we believe there’s nothing wrong with making a profit.  But there is something wrong with making that profit by trapping hard-working men and women in a vicious cycle of debt.  

Protecting working Americans’ paychecks shouldn’t be a partisan issue.  But the budget Republicans unveiled last week would make it harder, not easier, to crack down on financial fraud and abuse.  And this week, when Republicans rolled out their next economic idea, it had nothing to do with the middle class.  It was a new, more-than-$250 billion tax cut for the top one-tenth of the top one percent of Americans.  That would mean handing out an average tax cut of $4 million a year to just 4,000 Americans per year, and leaving the rest of the country to pay for it. 

I don’t think our top economic priority should be helping a tiny number of Americans who are already doing extraordinarily well, and asking everybody else to foot the bill.  I think our top priority should be helping everybody who works hard get ahead.  This country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. 

That’s what middle-class economics is all about, and as long as I’m your President, that’s what I’ll keep on fighting to do.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Weekly Address: Protecting Working Americans’ Paychecks

President Barack Obama tapes the Weekly Address in the Map Room of the White House, March 27, 2015

President Barack Obama tapes the Weekly Address in the Map Room of the White House, March 27, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Amanda Lucidon)

In this week’s address, the President highlighted the progress made protecting American consumers since he signed Wall Street reform into law five years ago, including an important new step taken by the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this week toward preventing abuses in payday lending.

The President emphasized his commitment to fighting to advance middle-class economics and ensure everybody who works hard can get ahead, while opposing attempts by Republicans both to weaken the CFPB and give large tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class.

Transcript | mp4 | mp3

Related Topics: Economy

Weekly Address: Protecting Working Americans' Paychecks

March 28, 2015 | 2:52 | Public Domain

In this week’s address, the President highlighted the progress made protecting American consumers since he signed Wall Street reform into law five years ago, including an important new step taken by the independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau earlier this week toward preventing abuses in payday lending.

Download mp4 (106MB) | mp3 (6MB)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on the President’s Call with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia

Today, the President spoke with King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud of Saudi Arabia to discuss recent developments in Yemen.  The President reaffirmed the strong friendship between the United States and Saudi Arabia and emphasized the United States’ support for the action taken by Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others in response to President Hadi’s request and in support of the legitimate government of Yemen.  The President underscored our commitment to Saudi Arabia’s security.  The President and King Salman agreed that our collective goal is to achieve lasting stability in Yemen through a negotiated political solution facilitated by the United Nations and involving all parties as envisioned in the GCC Initiative.

President Obama Meets with the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

March 27, 2015 | 4:33 | Public Domain

President Obama meets with members of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, March 27, 2015.

Download mp4 (166MB) | mp3 (11MB)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond of the United Kingdom

National Security Advisor Susan Rice met today with Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond of the United Kingdom to discuss a range of issues.  They continued their close coordination with regard to the ongoing P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran, reaffirming their commitment to achieving a long term, comprehensive deal that fully and verifiably addresses the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.  They also discussed Yemen, agreeing that a negotiated political solution remains the best outcome, as a military-only approach will lead to further suffering and destabilization in the region.  On Libya, the two reiterated their agreement of support for the UN’s efforts to help form a unity government and forge a political resolution to the conflict that is currently destabilizing the country.