The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Steven Joel Anthony, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Railroad Retirement Board for a term expiring August 28, 2018, vice Jerome F. Kever, term expired.   

Susan McCue, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation for a term of three years, vice Kenneth Francis Hackett, term expired.       

Debra L. Miller, of Kansas, to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board for a term expiring December 31, 2017, vice Francis Mulvey, term expired.      

Catherine Ann Novelli, of Virginia, to be an Under Secretary of  State (Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment), vice Robert D. Hormats, resigned.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States District Courts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama nominated Theodore David Chuang and George Jarrod Hazel for District Court judgeships.

“Throughout their careers, these nominees have displayed unwavering commitment to justice and integrity,” said President Obama.  “Their records of public service are distinguished and impressive and I am confident that they will serve the American people well from the United States District Court bench.  I am honored to nominate them today.”

Theodore David Chuang: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

Theodore David Chuang currently serves as Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of Homeland Security, where he has worked since 2009.  Previously, Chuang was the Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2009 and Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel for the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform from 2007 to 2009.  He spent three years in private practice at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP from 2004 to 2007.  From 1998 to 2004, Chuang served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Massachusetts, and from 1995 to 1998, Chuang served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.  He began his legal career as a law clerk for Judge Dorothy W. Nelson on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 1995.  Chuang received his J.D. magna cum laude in 1994 from Harvard Law School and his B.A. summa cum laude in 1991 from Harvard University.

George Jarrod Hazel: Nominee for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

George Jarrod Hazel currently serves as the Chief Deputy State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, a position he has held since 2011.  Before joining the Office of the State’s Attorney, Hazel served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Maryland from 2008 to 2010 and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia from 2005 to 2008.  He began his legal career in private practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Washington, D.C. from 1999 to 2004.  Hazel received his J.D. in 1999 from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.A. cum laude in 1996 from Morehouse College.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Signs North Carolina Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of North Carolina and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area affected by severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period of July 3-13, 2013.

Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides in the counties of Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Polk, Watauga, and Yancey and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures for all counties and Tribes within the State.

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Michael Bolch as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area.

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

Diplomacy in Action: The United Nations General Assembly

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during his address to the United Nations General Assembly

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, N.Y., Sept. 23, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Amanda Lucidon)

On September 23 and 24, President Obama joined Heads of State from all around the world at the opening of the 68th session of the U.N. General Assembly. Over the course of the two days, the President led a high-level event on supporting civil society, engaged in bilateral discussions with Nigerian, Lebanese, and Palestinian leaders, and addressed the General Assembly.

The President’s speech to the General Assembly outlined the United States’ perspective on the challenges that the international community is confronting with the Syrian crisis, the destabilization of the region, and the conflicts between and within countries in the Middle East and North Africa. In his remarks, the President:

  • Stated that there must be a “strong Security Council Resolution” to verify that the Asad regime is keeping its commitments with respect to chemical weapons and “there must be consequences” if they fail to do so;
  • Emphasized the U.S. commitment to resolving the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons, noting that resolution of that issue could “serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship—one based on mutual interests and mutual respect;” 
Steve Pomper is the Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at Fundraising Reception -- NY, NY

Waldorf Astoria Hotel
New York, New York 

8:11 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.  Hello!  Hello!  (Applause.)  Hello.  Hello, everybody.  Please have a seat.  Thank you.  Well, now, first of all, I had a chance to take pictures with everybody, and I have to say this has to be one of the best-looking crews I've ever been with.  (Applause.)

I do admit that being upstaged by a magician is something that I try to avoid.  (Laughter.)  Somebody told me that the face-painting guy is coming in soon.  (Laughter.) 

But it really is wonderful just to have a chance to be with families.  And obviously Malia and Sasha are starting to get a little bit older, but I still remember when they were this huggable.  (Laughter.)  And I got a couple hugs from some of you, so I very much appreciate that.  That made me feel good.

We've got some special guests here today.  First of all, your next mayor of New York City -- (applause) -- Bill de Blasio is here.  (Applause.)  We are thrilled with Bill.  His son, Dante, who has the same hairdo I had back in 1978 -- (laughter and applause.)  Although I have to confess, my afro was never that good.  (Laughter.)  It was a little unbalanced. 

But we could not be prouder of the campaign Bill ran, the way he gave voice to the values that make us Democrats.  And we are confident that he is going to continue to move New York in a direction where everybody has a chance to get ahead.  And so we're very proud of him and look forward to seeing him do a great job as the mayor of New York City.  (Applause.)

We also have here your outstanding representative, Carolyn Maloney, is here.  So give Carolyn a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  And all of you are here.

Now, some of you may be aware I gave a really long speech at the U.N. today, so I'm going to keep my remarks fairly brief -- also because some of you said you still had homework to do and were trying to get me to sign a note excusing you -- (laughter)  -- but we think you will get home in time to do your homework.

We live in such a challenging time.  Internationally, we have crises like Syria, the challenge of making sure that Iran’s nuclear program is not weaponized in a way that threatens the region.  Here domestically, at home, although we're now growing again, we've got a lot of people out there who are having trouble finding work, are having difficulty making ends meet.  We have environmental challenges that we're concerned about for the next generation.  We continue to battle on behalf of equality for all people. 

And so sometimes I think people tend to feel a little overwhelmed by what they read in the newspapers -- except he doesn’t feel overwhelmed at all.  (Laughter.)  He’s fine because he had some candy and is going to be up really late tonight.  (Laughter.)  Yay!  (Laughter.) 

But the good news is that when you look at the country and the direction we're moving in, what you see is a country that’s becoming more tolerant, a country that's becoming more inclusive, a country that understands there’s no contradiction between growing the economy and conserving this planet for the next generation.  We see a nation that in a few weeks is finally going to be in a position to make sure that every single person in America can get affordable health care when they need it.  (Applause.)

What you see is people all across the country from every walk of life who believe in this country deeply and understand that the contributions they make every day in working hard, looking after their families, treating people with respect, giving back to their community, volunteering in their places of worship -- that that’s what perfects our Union over time; that it’s not always flashy, but it’s making a difference each and every day.

And sometimes people ask me, how come you don't get more discouraged with some of the nonsense you see out of Washington  -- and other than you getting gray hair you seem like you're okay.  (Laughter.)  And the reason is, is because I get a chance to see all of you, and I see your families and I see your contributions, and I know why I fight for the things I fight for, because I want to make sure that the values that all of you stand for and that you're passing on to your kids, that those are the values that this whole country lives by.

But I can't do it alone.  The truth is, is that we could be doing a lot more.  The country could be growing faster.  We could be putting more people to work.  We could be rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure.  We could be putting in place early-childhood education for every family in America.  (Applause.)  We could be cutting our deficits in sensible ways, not in ways that impede our growth.  We could be caring for those who are vulnerable.  We could be opening up more opportunity.  We could be doing so much more if we had a Congress that was focused on you and not focused on politics day-to-day.  (Applause.)

And the only way that is going to happen is if we've got a strong DNC, and if we are able to get our message out at a time when folks who want to look backwards and roll back the clock and don't really have a lot of regard for people who are struggling  -- if we're able to counteract their message with a message of hope. 

We can't beat a message of fear if that message isn't delivered, if it’s not projected, if it’s not reaching people.  And at a time when folks naturally feel cynical about Washington and politics and the possibilities of change, the only way that we're going to battle back against that kind of cynicism is if all of you get involved.  And that's what you're doing here today.  (Applause.)

So I am thankful to all of you.  I intend to work as hard as I can to make sure that we're doing everything we can on behalf of working families and building a middle class, but I'm also going to be working as hard as I can to make sure that we have a Congress that is able in my last two years as President to get as much done as we got done in our first two years, and making sure that America is the country that we all know it can be.

So, God bless all of you.  Thanks for showing up.  (Applause.)  Appreciate it.  Remember to do your homework, those of you who didn’t do it.  All right?  Thank you.  (Applause.)  God bless you.  (Applause.)

END
8:19 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials

Waldorf Astoria Hotel
New York, New York

5:21 P.M. EDT

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Quickly, with the two bilats that the President did this afternoon -- with Lebanon, he and President Sleiman discussed our continued support for Lebanon as they go through their government formation process and deal with a very complex situation in the region.  We reiterated our commitment to the unity and stability of Lebanon and the need for all countries in the region to respect Lebanese sovereignty, and praised Lebanon’s commitment to democracy and respect for minority rights.

On Syria, the President noted our continued support for Lebanon as they deal with the refugee situation.  I’d note that of the $340 million in additional humanitarian assistance that the President announced in the UNGA speech, $74 million of that will go to Lebanon to deal with their refugee population.  And they also discussed our shared commitment to reaching a political solution inside of Syria.  The President also noted the need for groups like Hezbollah to respect Syria’s sovereignty and to not interfere further in the civil war there.

The President also expressed our support for the Lebanese Armed Forces.  You heard him announce some additional assistance we’re providing.  We’ll continue to work with the Lebanese Armed Forces as they promote the stability and unity of the country. 

And they also discussed other regional issues, in particular the Israeli-Palestinian issue and our pursuit of a peace agreement, which obviously Lebanon has an acute interest in given their Palestinian refugee population.

Then, in the bilat with President Abbas, I’d just first of all note that the majority of the meeting was a one-on-one discussion between the two Presidents.  President Obama praised, as he did publicly in his speech, President Abbas’s commitment to pursue Middle East peace through direct negotiations with Prime Minister Netanyahu -- acknowledged the hard choices that President Abbas has made in putting aside shortcuts to peace through the United Nations that we do not believe can succeed. 

He encouraged President Abbas, as he has Prime Minister Netanyahu, to move quickly in those discussions so that the two sides are addressing the final status issues of security and borders, and refugees, and Jerusalem.  Again, the point being that we have a window of opportunity here with direct negotiations, and the quicker that they get to the hard issues, the greater likelihood there is of success.  The President committed to staying in close contact in support of those discussions, and also noted that Secretary Kerry of course will continue to play a lead role in that peace process.

And then, just -- well, with that, I’ll just take your questions on anything else.  The speech you saw -- I’m happy to talk about that.  And I’m sure you’re interested in Iran, too.

Q    Can you go over the situation with Iran?  You cited some complications earlier that prevented a meeting from taking place.  Can we get a little deeper into that?  What are the internal dynamics that you encountered?  How did you hear about this?  Was this from a third party -- the Swiss, for instance?  Any other details you can provide?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, first, let me step back and -- we believe that the new Iranian government under President Rouhani does present an opportunity to make progress on a diplomatic negotiation; that they’ve indicated a seriousness that we had not seen under the previous government.  And it’s precisely because of that that Secretary Kerry is going to be meeting with the P5-plus-1 and Foreign Minister Zarif, which is a uniquely high-level meeting for the United States and Iran to be participating in together.

We indicated to the Iranians the same thing privately that we said publicly, which is that President Obama is open to a discussion with his Iranian counterpart.  We did not intend to have a formal bilateral meeting and negotiation of any kind.  This would have rather been them having a few minutes to have a discussion on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly.  That was done at the staff level directly with the Iranians, so not through any intermediary.  Particularly here in New York, it’s not difficult to communicate directly to the Iranians, as they’re coming to UNGA.

In terms of complications, I think our assessment is while President Rouhani has been elected with a mandate to pursue a more moderate foreign policy towards the West and to pursue negotiations -- in part to achieve sanctions relief -- the issue of the relationship between the United States and Iran is incredibly controversial within Iran.  You heard the President speak to it today -- the decades of mistrust between our countries.  And I think that from the Iranian side, for them it was just too difficult for them to move forward with that type of encounter at the presidential level, at this juncture.  So we’re going to continue the negotiating track through our foreign ministers.

Q    When did these conversations begin?  And when did you guys get final word that it wouldn’t happen?  Was it before the President addressed the Assembly this morning, or after?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think -- we’ve been having these contacts, I’d just say, while we’ve been here in New York.  Again, I think it’s important to note we never would have contemplated any kind of formal bilateral meeting, but were open to an encounter discussion on the margins.  It became apparent that that was not going to happen today after the President’s remarks, because that’s the window of time when he was going to be over at the U.N. 

I’d also underscore -- since we came into office, one of the reasons that we’ve been able to maintain international unity among the P5-plus-1 and other countries, and build the sanctions regime that we have in place, is because the United States has indicated our openness to diplomacy with Iran, so that the issue in play is not whether the United States is being recalcitrant in refusing to negotiate, but whether the Iranians will do so.

So I think it’s important for us to continue to demonstrate to the world that even as we see positive indicators from President Rouhani, that those words needs to be followed by actions.  And there is still clearly need to do more work in order to create the basis for not just a negotiation, but the type of encounter that we were contemplating today.

Q    I don’t know if you just were able to hear any of Rouhani’s speech -- he just finished up -- and a lot of the things that he said are pretty similar to the things that we’ve heard from Iranian leaders in the past.  He blasted U.S. sanctions.  He defended Iran’s right to enrich uranium.  He said he was open to a process to negotiate over the nuclear program, but he didn’t give any indication of giving ground on any of the issues where the U.S. has sought changes.  Have you guys been given any indications privately they they’re willing to take some of these steps you’ve been seeking?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’d like to say a couple things.  First of all, that’s not surprising.  Iran has a baseline set of positions that they have taken for a long time.  I think what's different about President Rouhani is not simply some matter of personality.  Clearly, he is not as bombastic as President Ahmadinejad.  He does not say things that are quite as inflammatory as his predecessor.  What's different is he was elected expressly on a mandate to pursue a more moderate foreign policy and to achieve a nuclear deal in order to achieve sanctions relief. 

And this is the important point:  This is not something that we believe happens out of goodwill; we believe that Iran has an imperative to improve its economy, because every single economic indicator is negative for them.  The only way that they can improve the economy is through achieving sanctions relief.  So that's the context that's changed.  And so if President Rouhani is going to fulfill his commitments to improve the Iranian economy, he is going to need to achieve sanctions relief.  That can only be achieved through a meaningful negotiation and agreement with the international community.  So that's what I think gives us a sense that there's a basis for progress here. 

So we'll have to continue to test whether those indications can be followed through with different negotiating positions from the Iranian side.  That will take place in the P5-plus-1, starting on Thursday, when Secretary Kerry sits down with his P5 counterparts and Foreign Minister Zarif.  But we would not expect them to shift their negotiating positions publicly on the front end of that process, just as we would not shift our commitment to maintain strong sanctions at the front end of any negotiation.

Q    I’m curious, did you go into today thinking that there was a realistic chance that this encounter was going to happen?  Or was this just sort of a diplomatic olive branch that you were extending?  Was that ever really realistic?  And then, how do you explain how the Iranians decided to say no?  Do you know whether or not Iran's Supreme Leader said, this is not going to happen?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I don’t think we had -- the interesting thing here is that it's difficult for the Iranians to take this step, given their history.  And so I think we always recognize that.  It was certainly not likely that they'd be able to get over that type of hurdle.  What we're in a position of saying is we want to test this diplomatic process in every way we can.  The substance will take place through the P5-plus-1 and through Secretary Kerry's efforts. 

At the same time, it's important for us to demonstrate that we're open to any type of negotiation.  And, frankly, in our view, it's a demonstration of strength to say here's a new leader, he’s had some new things to say about this issue -- we're willing to hear him out.  And we'll do that at any time.  And the fact of the matter is we're going to continue to test this, because the achievement of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program, as the President said today, would address a significant national security concern in the United States and the world, and also potentially reduce tensions more broadly in the region.

So we felt it was important to test today.  It was not something that we had any high degree of certainty would take place.  But we're going to continue to put the test to the Iranians -- because, frankly, ultimately, the onus is on them to demonstrate that this is a real change in course and a real opening.

The only thing I’d note in that regard, though, is that just the foreign minister-level meeting on Thursday is a change.  Iranian foreign ministers have not sat down with American secretaries of state in any context in a very long time.  And, frankly, that’s where the substance of these negotiations will take place anyway.

Q    Was there any concern that there was -- or some risks inherent in going ahead and doing the handshake?  Because obviously it would have further rattled the Israelis, it might have bothered some Persian Gulf allies.  It might have been viewed as prematurely rewarding Rouhani.  And particularly given the tone of his speech just now, which as Julie correctly said, is not sort of that strikingly more moderate than what we’ve heard in the past.  Could it have been an awkward day for the President if he had done that handshake?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, we’ve always rejected the premise that somehow just having an encounter with a foreign leader, even of an adversarial nation, is in any way a concession.  And, frankly, the very fact that they were unwilling to go forward with it demonstrates that they were the ones who had discomfort with it in terms of dealing with their own complexities back home.

I think that it’s important for us to demonstrate to the international community that even as we hear some new things from this leader, we need to stay united in the enforcement of sanctions and the insistence that Iran undertake meaningful commitments as a part of a negotiation and an agreement.  They can't just say different things and expect to achieve a different result, unless they actually follow through with those actions.

On his speech, look, the President reiterated today our determination to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon, identified a core interest in the prevention of nuclear proliferation, indicated that all options are available in terms of how we carry out that core interest and protect it.  So I'm sure that's something that the Iranians would indicate has been something that they do not like in our rhetoric.

The fact of the matter is these issues are going to have to be dealt with through negotiation.  And I think that we are moving with some urgency in that regard.  The Iranians have a sense of urgency, given the fact that the only way their economy can improve is through sanctions relief.  And I think the foreign minister's participation in these meetings indicates the seriousness with which they're approaching diplomacy.

At the same time, we have a sense of urgency in no small measure because of our concerns about Iran's nuclear program.  And that's something that the Israelis frequently comment on and talk to us about.  We're in close coordination with both Israel and our Gulf allies.  I think they have recognition that it would be preferable to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear issue.  They're skeptical of Iranian intentions -- which is understandable, given their history with Iran -- but we do see the potential for progress, certainly more so than we have in the last several years, since we had a negotiation with them in 2009.  And we're going to test that in the weeks ahead. 

Q    You said that today was a test.  Can you say anything more about what you feel you learned today?  And also, can you talk about whether it's true that there were two or three Americans among the attackers in Nairobi?  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On today, I think what we learned is, as the President said in his speech, we are overcoming a significant history of mistrust, and that there are hurdles to achieving a diplomatic resolution; and that Iran has to do more to demonstrate that some of the conciliatory words that we’ve seen out of President Rouhani will lead to a different position at the negotiating table and different actions in terms of their foreign policy.

Again, not surprising, but I think important to demonstrate to the world, that the U.S. is open.  The U.S. is ready to negotiate, and that the Iranians need to come seriously to the table.  And we hope that that will be the case beginning later this week, and we’ll continue to test this proposition going forward.

On the Americans that have been alleged to have been involved, I know that’s something that we're talking to the Kenyans about.  I don’t have any further information for you on that, but we're in communication with Kenyan authorities and working to establish what we can determine about any American participation. 

Yes.

Q    Can you help us understand better the complexities that you were sensing from them as to why they couldn’t come to the table?  Did the Iranians ask for anything specifically of the U.S. to have a meeting?  And also, just curious to get an understanding of why you're briefing all of us while Rouhani was speaking.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I wouldn’t read anything into the latter.  We're just -- that’s purely a logistical issue, so in no way timed to his speaking. 

On the former, I think we're just mainly speaking to the fact that even with a different Iranian president than President Rouhani -- who has made a central part of his campaign in his initial presidency outreach to the West -- I think given the history in Iran, has difficulty in going forward with this type of encounter.  Every leader has his or her own politics, and that’s certainly the case with President Rouhani.

Again, I think our view is it's a demonstration of strength to say that you'll meet anytime, anywhere to discuss how to resolve an issue.  And the President is certainly -- will continue to be willing to do that.  I think President Rouhani and the Iranian side will need to determine how they can both move forward through a negotiation that will include the foreign minister level, and then ultimately, what types of changes that they're willing to make in their positions in order to achieve a new relationship with the United States, which depends upon resolving this nuclear issue.

So it's something we'll continue to test.  This is already a different environment, given the seriousness of the Iranian side in pursuing negotiations in the level that will be started on Thursday.  But we don’t expect there to be an agreement reached on Thursday, either.  This is going to be a process that takes place over time, and that time is not unlimited by any stretch.  I think both sides feel some urgency.  But we'll just continue to test this diplomatic opportunity.

Q    But to be clear, did they propose anything in exchange for a handshake today?  Was there any sort of a --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I wouldn’t want to characterize their views too much.  I mean, obviously, they have a set of negotiating positions, but the fact of the matter is we were never contemplating any negotiation between the Presidents.  We were very clear in our discussions that this was not any venue, formal bilateral meeting, or nuclear negotiation; this would have been an informal encounter on the margins of the General Assembly.  And that’s precisely because we want to empower the P5-plus-1 process, the foreign ministers, Secretary Kerry, to be the ones negotiating substance.  That’s why the President announced in his speech that Secretary Kerry will be taking the lead in terms of pursuing this negotiation with the Iranians and the P5-plus-1.

Couple in the back there, yes.

Q    Given the vehemence -- I know you didn’t see the whole speech yet -- but the vehemence with which Rouhani condemned what he called "war mongering" -- he referred directly to the President's statement to the General Assembly -- is that enough to perhaps obtain some kind of moderation in the kind of language on the military option, for example, in future contacts with Iran?

Q    Well, look, we have a clear statement of policy, which is that we are determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  Now, we've also made clear we have a preference to do that through diplomacy, but we're not going to change that policy simply because there's a new leader in Iran.

Again, it's not surprising that the Iranian leader would condemn sanctions.  Sanctions are precisely what has significantly damaged their economy and I think invested them in trying to achieve a resolution through diplomacy.  But we are open to negotiation, open to find ways to build confidence with the Iranians.  As the President said, there's space for an agreement, given that both the Supreme Leader and President Rouhani have said that it is not their policy to pursue nuclear weapons, and the President has said that the Iranian people can have access to peaceful nuclear energy.  It's defining the space within those statements that is going to be the work of diplomats going forward.

Just take a couple more there.  Yes, in the back.

Q    I'd like to ask about President Obama's meeting with President Abbas.  President Obama said that the border with Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed-to swaps.  So can you say anything about President Abbas's response to these swaps, either like positive or negative?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  Well, I think on this issue, since May of 2011, we've established that the U.S. position on territories, it should be based on ‘67 borders with mutually agreed swaps.  We don’t expect Israelis and Palestinians to publicly, in the middle of the negotiation, enunciate a position on that final status issue.  That’s a subject for them to negotiate. 

We believe that the United States, having laid that out in May of 2011, can provide some baseline for that negotiation.  But again, that’s for the Israelis and Palestinians to determine through their direct talks.  So I wouldn’t want to characterize President Abbas's view of the matter, nor Israel's for that matter, given that it's ultimately for them to work out.

What I would say is that we do see an opportunity here.  They're in final status negotiations.  They've already made some sacrifices and hard decisions -- the release of prisoners on the Israeli side, for instance; not pursuing the U.N. track, on the Palestinian side.  Now it's imperative for them to accelerate their process of getting to those final status issues and resolving them through negotiation.  And that’s the process we're going to support in the coming months.

Q    Sorry if this has already been addressed, but one thing -- is there any reason why Ambassador Power didn’t stay in her seat for all of Rouhani's speech, number one?  Number two, taking another shot at Devin's question, was there something the Iranians wanted in return to make that handshake happen?  Was there something that they wanted to agree to behind the scenes -- not about nuclear war, not about anything like that?  Is there something they wanted that we were unwilling to give them?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On Sam Power, I don’t think she was there for the speech.  My understanding is that she was in the bilat with Foreign Minister Lavrov, which, obviously, we have a negotiation going on over the chemical weapons resolution.  But State can speak to that -- but that’s my understanding. 

On the second thing, I think our point to them -- I wouldn’t want to characterize their side of the discussions other than to say that, in our view, this wasn't a negotiation over substance.  There was never going to be some type of agreement reached in the meeting in the first place.  So that wasn't a discussion we were having or entertaining with them in terms of what we agree -- any substantive agreement that would be reached out of the meeting.  This was more about whether or not the two leaders would get together on the margins of the Assembly.

Q    Is there any sense of disappointment from the President that this did not happen?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  No, I think -- look, the President has said for six years now that he's willing to meet the Iranian leadership.  And I think there's, frankly, not just a necessity of testing this proposition, but also demonstrating to the world that we're the ones who are open to negotiation.  That’s how we have maintained international unity.  Without a U.S. willingness to engage Iran, I don’t think we would have achieved the sanctions that we have.  I don’t think we would have maintained P5-plus-1 unity.

So it's important for us to continue to send that signal.  President Rouhani had sent a number of signals through interviews that he had given leading into the trip that he's taken to New York.  At the end of the day, though, I think we want to demonstrate that the United States is certainly open to this.  But Iran has to change its policies, not just in atmospherics but in their actions.

I'll just close then, real quickly -- I just want to say one thing about the speech.  I would just note that, really, what the President was intending to do is provide an overview of our policy in the region for the rest of his time in office.  I think we have, in three areas, significant diplomatic work underway:  the Syrian chemical weapons issue that we're aiming to resolve; the Iranian nuclear program; and Middle East peace.

So this is as active a diplomatic agenda as we've had in the region in some time.  Of course, the Syrian chemical weapons issue, the President said, can lead into and energize a political process to resolve the situation in Syria.  But I think you'll see this is going to be an area of very active diplomatic follow-up going forward. 

Of course, he was also able to speak much more broadly to both the situation in the Arab world, and indicate a realism about our ability to influence events in those countries, but also a continued commitment to do what we can to support a set of principles, as well as, I think, challenging the international community to recognize that if they don’t step up and do more to resolve these issues, that you're only going to see more conflict and more -- frankly, a lack of appetite from the United States to bear the burdens that other nations need to share with us going forward.

Thanks, everybody.

END
5:49 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by President Obama and Former President Clinton at Clinton Global Initiative Health Care Forum

Sheraton New York Hotel and Towers
New York, New York 

5:02 P.M. EDT

MRS. CLINTON:  Good afternoon, everyone.  (Applause.)  Well, thank you.  Thank you very much.  I have the great pleasure to introduce our next two speakers, who are about to have a conversation concerning health care.  And I thought hard about how to introduce these two men.  (Laughter.)

And the more I thought about it, the more I realized how much they have in common.  They are both left-handed.  (Laughter.)  They both love golf, a game that does not often reciprocate the love they put into it.  (Laughter.)  They both are fanatic sports fans and go to great lengths to be in front of the TV or on the side of the court or the field.  They both are master politicians.  Each of them has only lost one election.  (Laughter.)  They are both Democrats.  They have fabulous daughters.  (Laughter.)  They each married far above themselves. (Laughter and applause.)  And they each love our country.

And so please join me in welcoming Number 42 and Number 44, Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President.  (Laughter.) 

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Are you interviewing me?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  That would be bad.  I've been talking a lot today.

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I want to thank you for giving Hillary a job.  That was a good thing you did.  (Laughter.)  Thank you for coming.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, it is wonderful to be back.  And let me start just by saying to all the people who have for years now supported the incredible efforts of CGI, thank you.  Because wherever we travel, all across the globe, we see the impact that it's making every single day.  And we're very proud of what you all do. 

And let me say that we still miss our former Secretary of State.  (Applause.)  And I should add that there's nothing she said that was not true, particularly the part about us marrying up.  (Laughter.) 

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, that brings me to my first health care comment.  This is going to be a conversation about domestic and international health, and America's role in it.  But I want to begin by telling you that I think the First Lady has done a great job in this fight against childhood obesity. 

We have been honored at our foundation to be asked to represent her effort in 18,000 schools where we've lowered the calories in drinks being served in schools by 90 percent.  But she has been great on that one.  The other thing I think is that I was a little upset -- and, as you know, called one of your administration members when you got to Africa -- when I read an article that said that you didn't have a big initiative in Africa.  And I said -- I can't say exactly what I said -- (laughter) -- but I said that is inaccurate.  (Laughter.)  That's the sanitized version of what I said.  (Laughter.)

Because when the President took office, our program, begun under President Bush, PEPFAR, was giving antiretroviral medicine to 1.7 million people.  Because of an agreement that I made with President Bush to use generic drugs that were approved by the FDA, about half our drugs were being purchased in that way.  Under President Obama, we've gone to 99 percent.  We are treating more than 5.1 million, three times as many for less money.  (Applause.) 

That is a stunning legacy -- so that more money has been put into malaria medicine, bed nets, so you saved a lot of money and saved more lives while doing it.  And I'm very proud of that.  And I want to thank you for it.  It's important.  (Applause.)

Now, maybe at the end of this conversation we can get back to some of your current global health initiatives.  But let's talk a little about the health care law, because we're about to begin on October 1st open enrollment for six months.  And I'd like to give you a chance, first of all, to tell them why -- when you took office, we were teetering on the brink of a depression. You had to avert it.  You had to start the recovery again.  Why in the midst of all this grief did you also take on this complex issue?  Many people were saying, why doesn't he just focus on the economy and leave this alone?  So tell us why you did it.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think it's important to remember that health care is the economy.  A massive part of our economy.  And so the idea that somehow we can separate out the two is a fallacy. 

Second of all, the effort for us to deal with a multifaceted health care crisis has been going on for decades.  And the person who just introduced us, as well as you, early in your presidency, had as much to do with helping to shape the conversation as anybody.

The fact is that we have been, up until recently, the only advanced industrialized nation on Earth that permits large numbers of its people to languish without health insurance.  Not only is there the cruelty of people who are unable to get health insurance having to use the emergency room as their doctor or their health service, but -- we’re also more efficient than anybody else and so when we talk about, for example, our deficit -- you know this better than anybody -- the reason that we have not only current deficits but also projected long-term deficits -- the structural deficit that we have is primarily based on the fact that we have a hugely inefficient, wildly expensive health care system that does not produce better outcomes. 

And if we spent the same amount of money on health care that Canada or France or Great Britain did, or Japan, or any other industrialized country, with the same outcomes or better outcomes, that essentially would remove our structural deficit, which would then free up dollars for us to invest in early-childhood education and infrastructure and medical research and all the other things that can make sure that we’re competitive and growing rapidly over the long term.

So my view when I came into office was we’ve got an immediate crisis -- we’ve got to get the economy growing.  But what we also have to do is to start tackling some of these structural problems that had been building up for years.  And one of the biggest structural problems was health care.  It’s what accounts for our deficit.  It’s what accounts for our debt.  It causes pain and misery to millions of people all across the country.  It is a huge burden on our businesses. 

I was out at a Ford plant out in Missouri, making the F series out there, and this is a big stamping plant.  Ford is now the biggest seller in the United States.  We took that lead back from the Japanese automakers.  But we are still burdened by the fact that every U.S. automobile that is manufactured requires a couple of thousand dollars in added health care costs that our foreign competitors don’t have to pay.

So this has everything to do with the economy, in addition to what I consider to be the moral imperative that a mom should not have to go bankrupt if her son or daughter gets sick; that a family who’s dealing with a layoff and is already struggling to pay the bills shouldn’t also be wondering whether they’re one illness away from losing their home.  And I think most Americans agree with that.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  So first of all, folks, for those of you who are from the United States, that’s about as good an overview as you’re ever going to hear of what this economic issue is.  But you remember the President said our structural deficit would disappear if we had a comparable health care system in terms of cost to the French and Germans that are consistently rated the highest.  It’s about a trillion dollars a year, and somewhere around 44 percent of that money is government-funded money.  So you just run the numbers.  Think -- over half of our deficit has already disappeared because of economic growth and the revenues you raised and the spending we cut.  And you pretty much get rid of the rest of it if we just had a comparably expensive system to any other country.

Before you took office, we lost a car company that wanted to locate in Michigan that went instead to Canada, and they announced -- they said, look, we’re a car company that provides health care benefits to an employee, were not a health care company that sells cars to cover our bills.  We have to go to Canada.  And it was one of the few companies willing to go on record and say this.  So thank you for doing it.

So let’s talk about this.  What does this open enrollment mean?  How are people going to get involved?  When you have universal enrollment you can manage your costs better and cut inflation down. 

I'll give the President a chance to talk about all the good stuff that's happened, but I just want you to know one thing.  In the last three years, just as we started doing this, inflation in health care costs has dropped to 4 percent for three years in a row for the first time in 50 years.  Fifty years.  (Applause.)  Before that, the costs were going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade.

So now what?  What are you going to do on October 1st?  Tell them how this has got to work.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, let me give folks just a little bit of background about what’s already in place and then what happens on October 1st.

When we passed the Affordable Care Act, there were a number of components to it.  A big part of it was essentially providing a Patient’s Bill of Rights that Americans and advocates have been fighting for for decades.  So what we wanted to do was make sure if you already have health insurance that you get a fair deal, that you're being treated well by your insurers.

So we eliminated, prohibited insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits, which oftentimes if a family member really got sick, they thought they were covered until suddenly they hit that limit and now they’re out hundreds of thousands of dollars with no way of paying.

We said to insurance companies, you’ve got to use at least 80 percent of your premium that you're receiving on actual health care -- not on administrative costs and CEO bonuses.  And if you don't, you’ve got to rebate anything that you spent back to the consumer.  So there are millions of Americans who’ve received rebates.  They may not know that they got it because of the Affordable Care Act -- or “Obamacare” -- but they’re pretty happy to get those rebates back, because it made sure that the insurance companies were treating folks fairly.

We said that any young person who doesn’t have health insurance can stay on their parent’s health insurance until they’re 26 years old.  And as a consequence, what we’ve seen is steadily the rate of uninsured for young people dropping over the last three years since the bill passed and obviously providing a lot of relief to a lot of parents out there because a lot of young people, as they’ve been entering into the job market at a time when jobs are tough to get and oftentimes benefits are slim, this is providing enormous security until they get more firmly established in the labor market.

We provided additional discounts for prescription drugs for seniors under the Medicare program.  And so seniors have saved billions of dollars when it comes to their prescription drugs.

So there have been over the last three years a whole array of consumer protections and savings for consumers that result directly from the law that we passed.  And for those who say that they want to repeal it, typically when you ask them about, what are all these various benefits, they say, well, that one is good, and that one is pretty good, and we’d keep that.  And you pretty much go down the list, and there’s not too much people object to.

You will recall also at the time that part of the way that we paid for the health care bill was we said Medicare is wasting a lot of money without making seniors healthier.  And there was a lot of hue and cry about how we were taking money out of Medicare -- well, it turns out that we were right, that we could change how doctors and hospitals and providers were operating, rewarding them for outcomes, as opposed to simply how many procedures that they did.  You started seeing practices change among millions of providers across the country.  Medicare rates have actually slowed in terms of inflation.  Seniors have saved money.  Folks are healthier.  And some of those savings we’ve been able to use to make sure that people who don't have health insurance get health insurance.

Now, this brings me to October 1st.  The one part of the Affordable Care Act that required several years to set up, but a critical part, was how do we provide health insurance for individuals who don't get health insurance through the job?  It’s a historical accident that in this country health care is attached to employers.  And part of the problem is if you’re out there shopping for health insurance on your own, you're not part of a big pool, well, there’s no aggregation of risk taking place for the insurers.  So they're basically going to say, let’s see, you're 50 years old.  You got high blood pressure.  And we just look at the actuarial tables and we figure you’re going to get sick, so we’re going to charge you $1,500 a month for health insurance, which the average person has no way of affording -- because there’s no pooling of risk.

So what we said was we need to set up a mechanism to pool people who currently don't have health insurance so that they have the same purchasing power, the same leverage that a big companies does when they're negotiating with the insurance company. 

And essentially what we’ve done is we’ve created what we’re calling marketplaces in every state across the country where consumers are now able to be part of a big pool.  Insurers have to bid, essentially compete for the business of that pool.  And what we now have set up are these marketplaces that provide high-quality health care at affordable prices, giving people choices so that they can get the health insurance that they need and they want.  And the premiums are significantly lower than what they were able to previously get. 

I’ll take the example of New York State.  The insurers put in their bids to participate in these marketplaces.  It turns out that their rates are up to 50 percent lower than what was available previously if you just went on the open market and you tried to get health insurance.  (Applause.)  Fifty percent lower in this state.  California -- it’s about 33 percent lower.  In my home state of Illinois, they just announced it’s about 25 percent lower.

So just by pooling and creating competition so that insurers have to go after people’s business the way they go after a group plan, we have drastically reduced premiums and costs.  On top of that, what we’re now doing is we’re saying if with the better deal that you got you still can’t afford it, we’re going to give you tax credits to essentially subsidize your purchase of health insurance.

And here’s the net result.  We’ll be continuing to roll out what the actual prices are going to end up being, but I can tell you right now that in many states across the country, if you’re, say, a 27-year-old young woman, don’t have health insurance, you get on that exchange, you’re going to be able to purchase high-quality health insurance for less than the cost of your cellphone bill.  And because all the insurers who participate are required to, for example, provide free preventive care, free contraceptive care, that young woman, she may make up what she’s spending on premiums just on her monthly use of health care. 

So this is going to be a good deal for those who don’t have health insurance.  Those who already have health insurance get better health insurance.  And the best part of the whole thing is, because of these changes we initiated in terms of how we’re paying providers, health care costs have grown, as you pointed out, Mr. President, at the slowest rate in 50 years.  We are bending the cost curve and getting at the problems that are creating our deficits in Medicare and Medicaid.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I should point out that, so far, in most states, one of the good things that at least I didn’t know whether it would happen is when we began this in the United States, more than 80 percent of the American states had only one or two companies providing health insurance who had more than 80 percent of the market.  So there was, in effect, no price competition.  So what I was terrified of was we’d open these things and there would only be one company show up and bid, and this whole thing, we’d be having an academic conversation.  Instead, it’s actually led to the establishment of more companies doing more bidding. 

And I think part of it is they have greater confidence that they can deliver health care at a more modest cost.  So, so far, it’s good.  But I think it’s important for you to the tell the people why we’re doing all this outreach -- because this only works, for example, if young people show up.  And even if they buy their cheapest plan, then they claim their tax credits, so it won’t cost them much -- 100 bucks a month or so.  We got to have them in the pools, because otherwise all these projected low costs cannot be held if older people with preexisting conditions are disproportionately represented in any given state.  You've got to have everybody lined up. 

So explain what kind of -- all the work you've been doing on the outreach for the opening on October.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  I think President Clinton makes a really important point.  And the way pools work, any pool, is essentially those of us who are healthy subsidize somebody who is sick at any given time.  We do that because we anticipate, well, at some point we'll get sick and hope the healthy person is in our pool so those costs and those risks get spread.  That's what insurance is all about.

And what happens is if you don't have pools that are a cross-section of society, then people who are already sick or more likely to get sick, they'll all rush out and buy insurance. People who are healthy, they say, you know what, I won't bother. And you get what's called adverse selection.  Essentially what happens is that the premiums start going higher and higher because the risks aren't spread broadly enough across the population. 

So you want to get a good cross-section in every pool.  That's why big companies have an easier time getting good rates for their employees than small companies, because if you only have five employees and one person is stricken with breast cancer, let's say, your rates potentially shoot up.  But if it's a thousand employees, then it gets spread out.

So on October 1st, open enrollment begins.  All these folks can start signing up for the marketplace.  And what we want to make sure of is that everybody, in every category, in every age group, understands why health insurance is important, understands why they should sign up, understands the choices that are going to be available to them.  They're going to be able to go to a computer, tap on the web page and they're going to be able to shop just like you shopped for an airline ticket or a flat-screen TV, and see what's the best price for you, what's the plan that's best suited for you, and go ahead and sign up right there and then. 

And that the open enrollment period will last from October 1st until the end of March and so there will be six months for folks to sign up.  Normally, this would be pretty straightforward.  A lot of people don't have health insurance.  A lot of people realize they should get health insurance.  But let's face it, it's been a little political, this whole Obamacare thing.  (Laughter.)  And so what you’ve had is an unprecedented effort that you’ve seen ramp up over the last month or so in which those who have opposed the idea of universal health care in the first place and have fought this thing tooth and nail through Congress and through the courts and so forth have been trying to scare and discourage people from getting a good deal.  And some of you may have seen some of the commercials out there that are a little whacky. 

And the main message we have -- and we’re using social media, we’re talking to churches, we’re talking to various civic groups -- and what we’re saying to people is, look, just go to the website yourself.  Go to healthcare.gov; take a look at whether this is a good deal or not and make your own decision about whether this is good for you.  Because what we are confident about is that when people look and see that they can get high-quality, affordable health care for less than their cell phone bill, they’re going to sign up.  They are going to sign up. 
And part of what I think the resistance that we’ve seen ramp up particularly over the last couple of months is all about is the opponents of health care reform know they’re going to sign up.  In fact, one of the major opponents, when asked, well, why is it that you’d potentially shut down the government at this point just to block Obamacare, he basically fessed up.  He said, well, once consumers get hooked on having health insurance and subsidies, then they won’t want to give it up.  (Laughter.)  I mean, that’s -- you can look at the transcript.  This is one of the major opponents of health care reform.  It is an odd logic.  Essentially they’re saying people will like this thing too much and then it will be really hard to roll back. 

So it is very important that people just know what’s out there, what’s available to them, and let people make up their own minds as to whether it makes sense or not.

Now, one last thing I want to say, because I do think sometimes -- people come up to me and they say, well, if this is such a good deal, how come the polls show that it’s not popular? Well, one of the things you and I both know is that when you come to health care, there’s no more personal and intimate decision for people.  I mean, this is something that people really care about.  And frankly, the devil you know is always better than the devil you don’t know.  And that’s what “Harry and Louise” was all about back in the ‘90s, right?  It was scaring people with the prospect of change. 

And so part of our goal here is just to make sure people have good information.  And there has been billions of dollars spent making people scared and worried about this stuff.  And rather than trying to disabuse people of every single bit of misinformation that’s been out there, what we’re saying is just look for yourself.  Take a look at it and you will discover that this is a good deal for you.

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Well, first of all, I completely agree with that.  I think we’ve got to just drive people to the websites.  The states that are participating -- the Supreme Court decision that upheld the health care law said that states didn’t have to set up these marketplaces if they didn’t want to, but if they didn’t the federal government would set it up.  They also said that states didn’t have to expand Medicaid coverage to help people whose incomes are up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level buy health insurance. 

There are some states, believe it or not, that want the marketplace but don't want the Medicaid.  And that's going to lead to a cruel result, and there’s nothing the President can do and it’s not his fault.  That's what the Supreme Court said.  So we can have this bizarre situation where, let’s say, a business with 60 employees can -- or an individual going into the individual market will get the benefit of tax credits for everybody with incomes of 138 percent of the federal poverty level or above, but they won't get it for people who are between 100 and 138 percent.  So lower-income people who desperately need the health insurance -- we would have the cruelest of all situations in those states.  And there’s nothing the President can do about it because of the Supreme Court decision.  So we have to persuade the states to come on.  But more and more states with Republican governors, Republican legislatures are doing it.

Tell them about Arkansas, because we're doing well down there.  (Laughter.) 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  A little hometown bias, there’s nothing wrong with that.  (Laughter.)  A couple of things that are happening that I think are very interesting.  First of all, look, I'm sympathetic to some of these Republican governors who are under a lot of pressure because the whole issue of whether you're for Obamacare or not has become a litmus test in the other party. So some of them, politically it’s been tough; sometimes state legislatures that refuse to allow governors to go ahead and implement.

But as you indicated, what we've seen is that when Republican governors take a look at the deal they’re getting where, in addition to these exchanges, we're also providing a much more significant match, much more federal money to provide health insurance -- from the state’s perspective, they’re not paying; the federal government is picking up the tab -- and this is helping them because people are no longer going to the emergency room and they now have good health care, they’re now getting preventive care.  You're seeing some Republican governors step up and saying, I may not like Obamacare, but I’m going to go ahead and make sure that my people are benefiting from this plan. So that's one good thing that's happening.

The second thing that's happening is there are a couple of states -- Arkansas is a good example; Kentucky is another good example; Idaho, interesting example -- these are states where I just got beat.  I mean, I do not have a big constituency in these states.  (Laughter.)  Well, I take that back.  You know what, 40 percent is still a lot of people -- but I’m losing by 20 percent in these states.  But the governors were still able to say we’re going to set up our own state exchanges, their own marketplaces. And each state is just using their own name for it. 

So I had a meet -- I had a conference, a video conference with all the state directors of all the marketplaces, and I’m talking to the director in Kentucky and Idaho.  And in Kentucky, it’s called like, Kentucky Connect.  And in Idaho, it’s called the Idaho Health Care Exchange.  And there’s a story that came out of Kentucky where some folks were signing people up at a county fair somewhere.  Some guy goes up and he starts looking at the rates and decides he’s going to sign up.  And he turns to his friend and said, this is a great deal.  This is a lot better than Obamacare.  (Laughter.)  Right?  Which is fine.  (Laughter.)  Because we -- I don't have pride of authorship on this thing.  I just want the thing to work.

And Arkansas just came out with its rates, and as has been true in virtually every single state, not only are premiums lower than they were, they're a lot lower than even the most optimistic predictions were about how low they would be.

And once these marketplaces are up and running, it turns out that what has traditionally been a pretty conservative principle, which is competition and choice work, well, in the insurance market, competition and choice work.  And what we’re seeing is that people are going to be able to get the kind of health care that they have never been able to get before.  States are going to benefit from it because they're going to save money. 

And one thing that all of you -- there are probably very few people in this room who don't have health insurance, although if you don't, you should sign up starting on October 1st.  (Laughter.)  One of the things that many people don't realize is that the subsidy that all of you provide for the uninsured is about $1,000 per family.  You pay $1,000 -- everybody here who has got health insurance pays about $1,000 more for your families' insurance than you otherwise would have, because hospitals are mandated, they are required to provide service to anybody who shows up.  And so what happens is when you've got 15 percent of the population without health insurance, they end up showing up at the emergency room typically at a point when they're much sicker than if they had been getting regular checkups and preventive care.  So you pay for the most expensive care there is, because hospitals have got to recoup that money somewhere. 

And the way they do it is to charge higher prices.  And people who have health insurance end up picking it up.  So part of what will help reduce the increase in health care costs is making sure that that hidden subsidy no longer exists. 

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  Let's talk a little bit about business, because we're out of time, but I think it's really important.  As you pointed out, most people who have insurance work for a living, or somebody in their family does, and they get their insurance through their workplace.  The law says that all employers have to participate if they have 50 employees or more. Many employers with fewer than 50 employees already voluntarily provide some health insurance.

Both the companies with 50 or more and the companies with fewer than 50 are somewhat concerned.  And the employees that have to be insured are those who work 30 hours a week or more.  So there were many people who speculated that when this law came into place that it would add to the cost and there would be a lot more part-time workers instead of full-time workers.  I'll save the President the time in the interview on this -- so far, that's not true.  The overwhelming number of people who have been hired coming out of this recession have been -- they have been hired at lower wages, but they have been full-time employees. 

There has not been an increase in the percentage of our employment in part-time work.  There has been an increase in relatively lower-wage new jobs.  But that means they need health insurance even more.  So explain very briefly to them how this is going to work, how private employers are helped to buy their insurance and the requirements.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, if you're a large employer or an employer with more than 50 employees, you’re already providing health insurance, you don’t have to do anything other than just make sure that you can show that you’re providing health insurance.

And there was a lot of news recently about how we delayed the so-called employer mandate for a year -- because under the law, what it says is if you have more than 50 employees, you’re not providing health insurance to your employees, then you’re going to pay a penalty to help pay for the fact that we, the taxpayers, are going to have to provide your employees with health insurance -- which, by the way, is only fair.

A lot of the controversy around the Affordable Care Act had to do with these so-called mandates, both an employer mandate and an individual mandate.  And the employer mandate says, if you don’t meet your responsibilities by your employees, and they end up getting Medicaid or they’re ending up in the emergency room, you’re basically dumping those costs onto society.  That’s not fair.  So we’re going to charge you a couple thousand dollars to help pay for health care for those employees.

To the individuals, what we said was we’re going to make health insurance so affordable, so cheap for you, so heavily subsidized if you’re not making a lot of money, that if you’re not getting health insurance then it’s because you just decided you don’t want to, you don’t need to.  And in that circumstance, what happens when you get hit by a bus, heaven forbid, or somebody in your family gets sick, and you hadn’t had them covered?  Well, we’re going to end up having to pay for you anyway because we’re not going to just let somebody bleed in front of the emergency room.  So what we’ve said is you’ve got to take responsibility, and so there’s a small penalty if you don’t get health insurance.

This is where a lot of the controversy and unpopularity came in, because people generally don’t like to be told, “you’ve got to get health insurance,” and employers don’t like be told, “you’ve got to give your employees health insurance.”  But, as a society, what we cannot do is to say, you have no responsibilities whatsoever, but you’ve got guaranteed coverage.

And this raises the whole issue of preexisting conditions, which we haven’t talked a lot about but is really important.  One of the central components of this law, one of the main perversities of the health care system before this law passed was there were millions of people around the country who, if you had gotten sick before, if you had had a heart attack, if you had had cancer, if you had diabetes; let’s say, when it first happened you had a job, you got cured; then you lose your job or you’re trying to change jobs or you’re trying to start a business, you try to go out and get health insurance, the health insurance company not only could deny you but had every incentive to deny you.  Because, basically, they’d rather have healthy people who are paying premiums and never asking for a payout.  They don’t want somebody who actuarially they can anticipate might get sick.

And so, keep in mind that a huge percentage of our society has some sort of preexisting condition, and they can be locked out.  You can do everything right, work hard, build a strong middle-class life, but if you’ve been sick and then you lose your job or something happens, you may suddenly be locked out of the insurance market, or the premiums may be so high that only somebody fabulously rich could afford it.

So what we said is, all right, you know what, insurance companies, you can no longer bar somebody from getting health insurance just because they’ve got a preexisting condition.  But the only way that works is if everybody had a requirement to get health insurance.  Because think about what happens if you don’t have that rule.  Well, all of us -- not all of us, but a lot of us who were trying to figure out how to save some money would say, well, I’m not going to worry about it until I get sick, and then right when I’m diagnosed with something that’s going to be expensive I’ll go to the insurance company and say, you can’t prevent me from getting health insurance just because I’ve got a preexisting condition.  So they could potentially game the system and it wouldn’t work. 

So now what we’ve done is said you’ve got to provide health insurance to anybody, all comers -- that’s the deal.  The flipside of it is everybody has got some responsibility and we’ll help you pay for it to get health insurance.  And that's where a lot of the misunderstandings, the frustrations about health care reform came in.

I should add, by the way, that this was the same proposition that was set up in Massachusetts under a governor named Mitt Romney that's working really well.  Ninety-nine percent of the people in Massachusetts have coverage.  And that same principle was, ironically, considered a very smart Republican conservative principle.  But it was the right one.  The economics of it are true.

So, just to finish up the question, when it comes to businesses, if you're already providing health insurance for your employees, that's great.  You don't have do much other than just make sure that you show us that you’ve got health insurance for your employees.

If you have more than 50 employees, and you’re not providing health insurance for them, you now have the opportunity to join a pool of small businesses to get a better price and a better deal on health insurance.  You're eligible for tax credits in providing health insurance to your employees.  Up to 35 percent of the premiums for each employee will be a tax benefit -- a tax credit from the federal government.  But if you still aren’t providing health insurance for your employees after that, then we’re going to go ahead and penalize you for it.

And I can understand why some businesses wouldn’t want to pay for it.  If they're not currently providing health insurance for their employees, what that means is that they’d rather have those additional profits than make sure that their employees are getting a fair deal. 

In some cases, they may be operating under some very small margins.  But keep in mind, since people are -- companies are exempted, the average small business with five employees, mom-and-pop shop, 10 employees, they're not under that requirement.  So I’m not that sympathetic to a company, typically, if it’s got more than 50 employees and generating some significant revenue, we’re making it affordable for them to provide health insurance for their employees.  They should do the right thing.  (Applause.)

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  I agree with that.   We have to close, but I think there’s one last issue we ought to deal with.  The most important thing obviously is just to get people enrolled in this.  We’ll work through it as we go along. 

But you just heard the President say that so far in virtually every state, the actual prices of the insurance are coming in quite a bit lower than they were originally estimated to.  With the original price estimates and with the government obligated to provide subsidies -- which costs money on the budget, right? -- it was, nonetheless, estimated that in the first 10 years, this would keep the national debt $110 billion lower than it otherwise would have been, which means if we come in at even less, we can bring the debt down more, or we can subsidize more small businesses and get more small businesses into this loop. 

A lot of people come up to me and say, now, you sound like the people you used to criticize who say we could cut taxes all day long, increase spending and balance the budget.  Don't give me that; this sounds too good to be true.  So I think before you leave, you should tell people how we can spend more -- not so much in direct spending, but in tax credits -- and still wind up reducing overall federal spending by $110 billion during this decade.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, a couple of things just in terms of how this whole thing got paid for.  First of all, I think it’s really important to point out here that the total cost of the Affordable Care Act to provide health insurance for every American out there at an affordable rate is costing about the same amount over the course of 10 years as the cost of the prescription drug bill that President Bush passed -- except that wasn’t paid for.  We felt obliged to actually pay for it and not just add to the deficit.  (Applause.)

So what we did -- it’s paid for by a combination of things. We did raise taxes on some things.  We, for example, said that for high-end income individuals, you can pay a slightly higher Medicare rate -- Medicare tax.  So we bumped that up a little bit.  We said that for employers who are currently providing a so-called Cadillac health care plan, where there are so many bells and whistles, there’s no incentive to actually spend wisely when it comes to health care -- we’re actually going to penalize you for that -- not only to raise a little bit of money, but also to say you're encouraging the worst aspects of a health care system where you spend a lot of money, you don't get better outcomes. 

I mentioned to you Medicare.  We basically said -- there’s a program in Medicare called Medicare Advantage that provides some additional options for Medicare recipients above and beyond standard Medicare.  And it’s very popular with a lot of seniors. You get eyeglasses and other benefits.  But it turned out that it was so uncompetitive that we were providing tens of billions of dollars of subsidies to the insurance companies under this Medicare Advantage Plan without getting better outcomes, health outcomes for seniors. 

So what we said was we'll keep Medicare Advantage and we'll give them a small premium if they're providing better services for seniors, but we're going to make you compete for it a little bit.  And we're going to save tens of billions of dollars in the process, and that will go into paying for the Affordable Care Act. 

So the bottom line is, through these various mechanisms we raised enough money to pay for providing health insurance for those who don't have it, to provide these tax credits in the marketplace, and at the same time, because we're driving down costs, we actually end up saving a little money.  It is a net reduction of our deficit. 

The irony of those who are talking about repealing Obamacare because it's so wildly expensive is if they actually repealed the law, it would add to the deficit.  It would add to the deficit.

Now, there have been a couple of Republicans in the House who have been smart enough to say, we're going to repeal all the benefits so that 25, 30 million people don't get health insurance, but we're going to keep the taxes that Obama raised,  we just won't talk about that.  And then, that way we can say we reduced the deficit.  But obviously, you're doing some funny business there with the budget.

But, look, nothing is free.  The bottom line, though, is do we want to continue to live in a society where we've got the most inefficient health care system on Earth, leaving millions of people exposed to the possibilities that they could lose everything because they get sick?  Or we've got little children and families going to the emergency room once a week because they've got asthma and other preventable diseases, because their families aren't linked up with a primary care physician who is providing them regular care?  Where the costs to society for reduced productivity, illnesses, et cetera, all burden our businesses?  Is that the kind of society we aspire to?

And I think the answer is no.  And the notion that we would resist, or at least some would resist as fiercely as they have, make this their number-one agenda, perpetuating a system in which millions of people across the country, hardworking Americans don't have access to health care I think is wrong.  (Applause.) 

PRESIDENT CLINTON:  We have to close.  But I will close with a story.  I told you all this morning that the employee that our health access program lost in the Kenya mall shooting was a Dutch nurse.  And we spend a lot of time in the Netherlands; we get a lot of support there.  Oxi is one of the biggest insurance companies in Europe.  They're one of our partners here.  I went to celebrate their 200th anniversary with them.  They started as a fire insurance company with 39 farmers, 200 years ago. 

And we were out there in this big farm field in a tent in the shadow of a 13th century church and a big Dutch windmill.  And I asked the chairman of the company, I said, do you write health insurance?  Because in the Netherlands there's no Medicare and no Medicaid, everybody is on an individual mandate and you just subsidize people based on their incomes. 

He said, yes, I write it; we all do.  And he looked at me and he said, but we don't make any money on it.  And he said, we shouldn't.  This guy is running a huge -- can you imagine somebody saying that in America?  (Laughter.)  He said, we shouldn't.  If I can't make money on this business doing traditional insurance business, I've got no business in the work.  He said, look, health care is a public good and you've got to find a way to finance it for everybody.  (Applause.)  And he said, it's just an intermediary function that somebody has to handle.  But in the end, it's how it's delivered, how it's priced, and how healthy you can keep your people. 

So the First Lady is trying to keep us all healthier, and you're trying to change the delivery and the pricing.  And you have to cover everybody to do it.  I think this is a big step forward for America.  This will, over the next decade, not only make us healthier, but it will free up in the private sector largely funds that can then be reinvested in other areas of economic growth, and give us a much more well-balanced economy.  But, first, we've got to get everybody to sign up.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Everybody, sign up.  Go to healthcare.gov.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
5:52 P.M. EDT

President Obama Discusses the Prospects for Progress at the United Nations General Assembly

President Barack Obama delivers remarks at United Nations General Assembly (September 24, 2013)

President Barack Obama delivers remarks during his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, N.Y., Sept. 23, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Amanda Lucidon)

Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly this morning, President Obama expressed optimism at the prospects for diplomacy in solving a range of long-simmering conflicts across the globe.

"For decades, the United Nations has in fact made a difference -- from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace," he said. "But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested. The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time."

Specifically, he focused his remarks on three themes -- the civil war in Syria and the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, the potential for diplomatic engagement with Iran, and a revival of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

Discussing Syria, the President said that we've seen progress in recent days.

"The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles," he said. "Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so."

The President also told the General Assembly that he has hopes for a diplomatic solution to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons -- despite decades of mistrust.

"I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight -- the suspicions run too deep," he said. "But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect."

Finally, the President urged the entire international community to rally behind the pursuit of peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

"Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state, and we should say so clearly," he said. "Arab states, and those who supported the Palestinians, must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution and a secure Israel. All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future."

Watch the video here

President Obama Addresses the United Nations General Assembly

September 24, 2013 | 43:09 | Public Domain

President Obama delivers remarks to the United Nationals General Assembly.

Download mp4 (1628MB) | mp3 (104MB)

Read the Transcript

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly

United Nations
New York, New York

10:10 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen:  Each year we come together to reaffirm the founding vision of this institution.  For most of recorded history, individual aspirations were subject to the whims of tyrants and empires.  Divisions of race and religion and tribe were settled through the sword and the clash of armies.  The idea that nations and peoples could come together in peace to solve their disputes and advance a common prosperity seemed unimaginable. 

It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.  The leaders who built the United Nations were not naïve; they did not think this body could eradicate all wars.  But in the wake of millions dead and continents in rubble, and with the development of nuclear weapons that could annihilate a planet, they understood that humanity could not survive the course it was on.  And so they gave us this institution, believing that it could allow us to resolve conflicts, enforce rules of behavior, and build habits of cooperation that would grow stronger over time. 

For decades, the United Nations has in fact made a difference -- from helping to eradicate disease, to educating children, to brokering peace.  But like every generation of leaders, we face new and profound challenges, and this body continues to be tested.  The question is whether we possess the wisdom and the courage, as nation-states and members of an international community, to squarely meet those challenges; whether the United Nations can meet the tests of our time.

For much of my tenure as President, some of our most urgent challenges have revolved around an increasingly integrated global economy, and our efforts to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetime.  Now, five years after the global economy collapsed, and thanks to coordinated efforts by the countries here today, jobs are being created, global financial systems have stabilized, and people are once again being lifted out of poverty.  But this progress is fragile and unequal, and we still have work to do together to assure that our citizens can access the opportunities that they need to thrive in the 21st century. 

Together, we’ve also worked to end a decade of war.  Five years ago, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in harm’s way, and the war in Iraq was the dominant issue in our relationship with the rest of the world.  Today, all of our troops have left Iraq.  Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.

For the United States, these new circumstances have also meant shifting away from a perpetual war footing.  Beyond bringing our troops home, we have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible, and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.  We’re transferring detainees to other countries and trying terrorists in courts of law, while working diligently to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we’ve begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share. 

As a result of this work, and cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago.  But even a glance at today’s headlines indicates that dangers remain.  In Kenya, we’ve seen terrorists target innocent civilians in a crowded shopping mall, and our hearts go out to the families of those who have been affected.  In Pakistan, nearly 100 people were recently killed by suicide bombers outside a church.  In Iraq, killings and car bombs continue to be a terrible part of life.  And meanwhile, al Qaeda has splintered into regional networks and militias, which doesn't give them the capacity at this point to carry out attacks like 9/11, but does pose serious threats to governments and diplomats, businesses and civilians all across the globe.

Just as significantly, the convulsions in the Middle East and North Africa have laid bare deep divisions within societies, as an old order is upended and people grapple with what comes next.  Peaceful movements have too often been answered by violence -- from those resisting change and from extremists trying to hijack change.  Sectarian conflict has reemerged.  And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction continues to cast a shadow over the pursuit of peace. 

Nowhere have we seen these trends converge more powerfully than in Syria.  There, peaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter.  In the face of such carnage, many retreated to their sectarian identity -- Alawite and Sunni; Christian and Kurd -- and the situation spiraled into civil war. 

The international community recognized the stakes early on, but our response has not matched the scale of the challenge.  Aid cannot keep pace with the suffering of the wounded and displaced.  A peace process is stillborn.  America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition, but extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis.  Assad’s traditional allies have propped him up, citing principles of sovereignty to shield his regime.  And on August 21st, the regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.

Now, the crisis in Syria, and the destabilization of the region, goes to the heart of broader challenges that the international community must now confront.  How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa -- conflicts between countries, but also conflicts within them?  How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?  What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?  What is the role of the United Nations and international law in meeting cries for justice?

Today, I want to outline where the United States of America stands on these issues.  With respect to Syria, we believe that as a starting point, the international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.  When I stated my willingness to order a limited strike against the Assad regime in response to the brazen use of chemical weapons, I did not do so lightly.  I did so because I believe it is in the security interest of the United States and in the interest of the world to meaningfully enforce a prohibition whose origins are older than the United Nations itself.  The ban against the use of chemical weapons, even in war, has been agreed to by 98 percent of humanity.  It is strengthened by the searing memories of soldiers suffocating in the trenches; Jews slaughtered in gas chambers; Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st.  U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians.  These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood, and landed in opposition neighborhoods.  It’s an insult to human reason -- and to the legitimacy of this institution -- to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.

Now, I know that in the immediate aftermath of the attack there were those who questioned the legitimacy of even a limited strike in the absence of a clear mandate from the Security Council.  But without a credible military threat, the Security Council had demonstrated no inclination to act at all.  However, as I’ve discussed with President Putin for over a year, most recently in St. Petersburg, my preference has always been a diplomatic resolution to this issue.  And in the past several weeks, the United States, Russia and our allies have reached an agreement to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, and then to destroy them.

The Syrian government took a first step by giving an accounting of its stockpiles.  Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.  If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws.  On the other hand, if we succeed, it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st century, and that this body means what it says.

Agreement on chemical weapons should energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria.  I do not believe that military action -- by those within Syria, or by external powers -- can achieve a lasting peace.  Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria; that is for the Syrian people to decide.  Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.  The notion that Syria can somehow return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. 

It’s time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad’s rule will lead directly to the outcome that they fear:  an increasingly violent space for extremists to operate.  In turn, those of us who continue to support the moderate opposition must persuade them that the Syrian people cannot afford a collapse of state institutions, and that a political settlement cannot be reached without addressing the legitimate fears and concerns of Alawites and other minorities.

We are committed to working this political track.  And as we pursue a settlement, let’s remember this is not a zero-sum endeavor.  We’re no longer in a Cold War.  There’s no Great Game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the wellbeing of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists. 

I welcome the influence of all nations that can help bring about a peaceful resolution of Syria’s civil war.  And as we move the Geneva process forward, I urge all nations here to step up to meet humanitarian needs in Syria and surrounding countries.  America has committed over a billion dollars to this effort, and today I can announce that we will be providing an additional $340 million.  No aid can take the place of a political resolution that gives the Syrian people the chance to rebuild their country, but it can help desperate people to survive.

What broader conclusions can be drawn from America’s policy toward Syria?  I know there are those who have been frustrated by our unwillingness to use our military might to depose Assad, and believe that a failure to do so indicates a weakening of American resolve in the region.  Others have suggested that my willingness to direct even limited military strikes to deter the further use of chemical weapons shows we’ve learned nothing from Iraq, and that America continues to seek control over the Middle East for our own purposes.  In this way, the situation in Syria mirrors a contradiction that has persisted in the region for decades:  the United States is chastised for meddling in the region, accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region’s problems and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslim populations.

I realize some of this is inevitable, given America’s role in the world.  But these contradictory attitudes have a practical impact on the American people’s support for our involvement in the region, and allow leaders in the region -- as well as the international community sometimes -- to avoid addressing difficult problems themselves. 

So let me take this opportunity to outline what has been U.S. policy towards the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency.

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. 

We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world.  Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply, and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people.  Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror.  But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.  Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global nonproliferation regime.

Now, to say that these are America’s core interests is not to say that they are our only interests.  We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous, and will continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.  But I also believe that we can rarely achieve these objectives through unilateral American action, particularly through military action.  Iraq shows us that democracy cannot simply be imposed by force.  Rather, these objectives are best achieved when we partner with the international community and with the countries and peoples of the region.

So what does this mean going forward?  In the near term, America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues:  Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.  While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a major source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.  This mistrust has deep roots.  Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.  On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly -- or through proxies -- taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight -- the suspicions run too deep.  But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

Since I took office, I’ve made it clear in letters to the Supreme Leader in Iran and more recently to President Rouhani that America prefers to resolve our concerns over Iran’s nuclear program peacefully, although we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  We are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.  Instead, we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.

So these statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement.  We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful.  But to succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable.  After all, it's the Iranian government’s choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place.  And this is not simply an issue between the United States and Iran.  The world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.   

But I want to be clear we are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.  And given President Rouhani’s stated commitment to reach an agreement, I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort with the Iranian government in close cooperation with the European Union -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. 

The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.  For while the status quo will only deepen Iran’s isolation, Iran’s genuine commitment to go down a different path will be good for the region and the world, and will help the Iranian people meet their extraordinary potential -- in commerce and culture; in science and education.

We are also determined to resolve a conflict that goes back even further than our differences with Iran, and that is the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.  I’ve made it clear that the United States will never compromise our commitment to Israel’s security, nor our support for its existence as a Jewish state.  Earlier this year, in Jerusalem, I was inspired by young Israelis who stood up for the belief that peace was necessary, just, and possible.  And I believe there’s a growing recognition within Israel that the occupation of the West Bank is tearing at the democratic fabric of the Jewish state.  But the children of Israel have the right to live in a world where the nations assembled in this body fully recognize their country, and where we unequivocally reject those who fire rockets at their homes or incite others to hate them.

Likewise, the United States remains committed to the belief that the Palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state.  On the same trip, I had the opportunity to meet with young Palestinians in Ramallah whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations.  They are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made, and they’re frustrated by their families enduring the daily indignity of occupation.  But they too recognize that two states is the only real path to peace -- because just as the Palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of Israel is here to stay.

So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace.  Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.  President Abbas has put aside efforts to short-cut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has released Palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a Palestinian state.  Current talks are focused on final status issues of borders and security, refugees and Jerusalem.

So now the rest of us must be willing to take risks as well.  Friends of Israel, including the United States, must recognize that Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state depends upon the realization of a Palestinian state, and we should say so clearly.  Arab states, and those who supported the Palestinians, must recognize that stability will only be served through a two-state solution and a secure Israel. 

All of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region, and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future.  And moreover, ties of trade and commerce between Israelis and Arabs could be an engine of growth and opportunity at a time when too many young people in the region are languishing without work.  So let’s emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice.  Let’s support Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace.

Real breakthroughs on these two issues -- Iran’s nuclear program, and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.  But the current convulsions arising out of the Arab Spring remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations.  It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations.  And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot more work to do. 

When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt, the entire world was filled with hope.  And although the United States -- like others -- was struck by the speed of transition, and although we did not -- and in fact could not -- dictate events, we chose to support those who called for change.  And we did so based on the belief that while these transitions will be hard and take time, societies based upon democracy and openness and the dignity of the individual will ultimately be more stable, more prosperous, and more peaceful. 

Over the last few years, particularly in Egypt, we’ve seen just how hard this transition will be.  Mohamed Morsi was democratically elected, but proved unwilling or unable to govern in a way that was fully inclusive.  The interim government that replaced him responded to the desires of millions of Egyptians who believed the revolution had taken a wrong turn, but it, too, has made decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy -- through an emergency law, and restrictions on the press and civil society and opposition parties.

Of course, America has been attacked by all sides of this internal conflict, simultaneously accused of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and engineering their removal of power.  In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides.  Our overriding interest throughout these past few years has been to encourage a government that legitimately reflects the will of the Egyptian people, and recognizes true democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights and the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society.

That remains our interest today.  And so, going forward, the United States will maintain a constructive relationship with the interim government that promotes core interests like the Camp David Accords and counterterrorism.  We’ll continue support in areas like education that directly benefit the Egyptian people.  But we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems, and our support will depend upon Egypt’s progress in pursuing a more democratic path. 

And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point:  The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.  Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

We will reject the notion that these principles are simply Western exports, incompatible with Islam or the Arab World.  We believe they are the birthright of every person.  And while we recognize that our influence will at times be limited, although we will be wary of efforts to impose democracy through military force, and although we will at times be accused of hypocrisy and inconsistency, we will be engaged in the region for the long haul.  For the hard work of forging freedom and democracy is the task of a generation.

And this includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and Syria.  We understand such longstanding issues cannot be solved by outsiders; they must be addressed by Muslim communities themselves.  But we’ve seen grinding conflicts come to an end before -- most recently in Northern Ireland, where Catholics and Protestants finally recognized that an endless cycle of conflict was causing both communities to fall behind a fast-moving world.  And so we believe those same sectarian conflicts can be overcome in the Middle East and North Africa. 

To summarize, the United States has a hard-earned humility when it comes to our ability to determine events inside other countries.  The notion of American empire may be useful propaganda, but it isn’t borne out by America’s current policy or by public opinion.  Indeed, as recent debates within the United States over Syria clearly show, the danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries or to take on every problem in the region as its own.  The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war -- rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world -- may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.

I believe such disengagement would be a mistake.  I believe America must remain engaged for our own security.  But I also believe the world is better for it.  Some may disagree, but I believe America is exceptional -- in part because we have shown a willingness through the sacrifice of blood and treasure to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interests, but for the interests of all. 

I must be honest, though.  We're far more likely to invest our energy in those countries that want to work with us, that invest in their people instead of a corrupt few; that embrace a vision of society where everyone can contribute -- men and women, Shia or Sunni, Muslim, Christian or Jew.  Because from Europe to Asia, from Africa to the Americas, nations that have persevered on a democratic path have emerged more prosperous, more peaceful, and more invested in upholding our common security and our common humanity.  And I believe that the same will hold true for the Arab world.

This leads me to a final point.  There will be times when the breakdown of societies is so great, the violence against civilians so substantial that the international community will be called upon to act.  This will require new thinking and some very tough choices.  While the United Nations was designed to prevent wars between states, increasingly we face the challenge of preventing slaughter within states.  And these challenges will grow more pronounced as we are confronted with states that are fragile or failing -- places where horrendous violence can put innocent men, women and children at risk, with no hope of protection from their national institutions.

I have made it clear that even when America’s core interests are not directly threatened, we stand ready to do our part to prevent mass atrocities and protect basic human rights.  But we cannot and should not bear that burden alone.  In Mali, we supported both the French intervention that successfully pushed back al Qaeda, and the African forces who are keeping the peace.  In Eastern Africa, we are working with partners to bring the Lord’s Resistance Army to an end.  And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action.  Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.

I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson.  They point to the problems that the country now confronts -- a democratically elected government struggling to provide security; armed groups, in some places extremists, ruling parts of a fractured land.  And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail -- look at Libya.  No one is more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens -- a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.  But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better if Qaddafi had been allowed to kill, imprison, or brutalize his people into submission?  It’s far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.

We live in a world of imperfect choices.  Different nations will not agree on the need for action in every instance, and the principle of sovereignty is at the center of our international order.  But sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye.  While we need to be modest in our belief that we can remedy every evil, while we need to be mindful that the world is full of unintended consequences, should we really accept the notion that the world is powerless in the face of a Rwanda or Srebrenica?  If that’s the world that people want to live in, they should say so and reckon with the cold logic of mass graves.

But I believe we can embrace a different future.  And if we don’t want to choose between inaction and war, we must get better -- all of us -- at the policies that prevent the breakdown of basic order.  Through respect for the responsibilities of nations and the rights of individuals.  Through meaningful sanctions for those who break the rules.  Through dogged diplomacy that resolves the root causes of conflict, not merely its aftermath.  Through development assistance that brings hope to the marginalized.  And yes, sometimes -- although this will not be enough -- there are going to be moments where the international community will need to acknowledge that the multilateral use of military force may be required to prevent the very worst from occurring.

Ultimately, this is the international community that America seeks -- one where nations do not covet the land or resources of other nations, but one in which we carry out the founding purpose of this institution and where we all take responsibility.  A world in which the rules established out of the horrors of war can help us resolve conflicts peacefully, and prevent the kinds of wars that our forefathers fought.  A world where human beings can live with dignity and meet their basic needs, whether they live in New York or Nairobi; in Peshawar or Damascus.

These are extraordinary times, with extraordinary opportunities.  Thanks to human progress, a child born anywhere on Earth today can do things today that 60 years ago would have been out of reach for the mass of humanity.  I saw this in Africa, where nations moving beyond conflict are now poised to take off.  And America is with them, partnering to feed the hungry and care for the sick, and to bring power to places off the grid.

I see it across the Pacific region, where hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty in a single generation.  I see it in the faces of young people everywhere who can access the entire world with the click of a button, and who are eager to join the cause of eradicating extreme poverty, and combating climate change, starting businesses, expanding freedom, and leaving behind the old ideological battles of the past.  That’s what’s happening in Asia and Africa.  It’s happening in Europe and across the Americas.  That’s the future that the people of the Middle East and North Africa deserve as well -- one where they can focus on opportunity, instead of whether they’ll be killed or repressed because of who they are or what they believe.

Time and again, nations and people have shown our capacity to change -- to live up to humanity’s highest ideals, to choose our better history.  Last month, I stood where 50 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. told America about his dream, at a time when many people of my race could not even vote for President.  Earlier this year, I stood in the small cell where Nelson Mandela endured decades cut off from his own people and the world.  Who are we to believe that today’s challenges cannot be overcome, when we have seen what changes the human spirit can bring?  Who in this hall can argue that the future belongs to those who seek to repress that spirit, rather than those who seek to liberate it?

I know what side of history I want to the United States of America to be on.  We're ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges with you -- firm in the belief that all men and women are in fact created equal, each individual possessed with a dignity and inalienable rights that cannot be denied.  That is why we look to the future not with fear, but with hope.  And that’s why we remain convinced that this community of nations can deliver a more peaceful, prosperous and just world to the next generation.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)
  
END
10:52 A.M. EDT

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

David Jeremiah Barron, of Massachusetts, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, vice Michael Boudin, retired.

Mark G. Mastroianni, of Massachusetts, to be United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, vice Michael A. Ponsor, retired.

Indira Talwani, of Massachusetts, to be United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, vice Mark L. Wolf, retired.