The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Proclamation -- National Manufacturing Day, 2014

NATIONAL MANUFACTURING DAY, 2014

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

With ingenuity and a determined spirit, hardworking Americans are creating products and unlocking new technologies that will shape our Nation and grow our economy. In uncertain times, our parents and grandparents built a robust manufacturing sector that spurred the world's largest economy and strongest middle class. When our generation faced an economy in free fall and an industry on the brink of collapse, we bet on American resilience and American workers, and today innovative technologies, new wellsprings of manufacturing entrepreneurship, and our country's increasing competitiveness are fueling a revitalization of American manufacturing. On National Manufacturing Day, we celebrate all those who proudly stand behind our goods and services made in America, and we renew our commitment to winning the race for the jobs of tomorrow.

America's manufacturers have created jobs at the fastest pace in decades, adding more than 700,000 new jobs since February 2010. Factories are reopening their doors and businesses are hiring new workers; companies that were shipping jobs overseas are bringing those jobs back to America. As we work to rebuild a foundation of growth and prosperity, we have an opportunity to capitalize on this momentum and accelerate the resurgence of American manufacturing.

Ensuring that America is at the forefront of 21st century manufacturing requires research, investment, and a workforce with high-tech skills. That is why my Administration is investing in regional manufacturing hubs, which bring together private industry, leading universities, and public agencies to solve technology challenges too significant for any one firm. These partnerships will help develop cutting-edge technology and train workers in the skills they need for the next generation of American manufacturing. Across our country, we are creating magnets that attract good, high-tech manufacturing jobs -- they have the potential to lift up our communities, spark technology that jumpstarts new industries, and fundamentally change the way we build things in America.

My Administration continues to encourage manufacturing production and investment because the next revolution in manufacturing should be an American revolution, and our Nation's promise of opportunity should be within the reach of everyone willing to work for it. In response to my call to action and as part of the first-ever White House Maker Faire, more than 90 mayors and local leaders have committed to increase access to manufacturing spaces and equipment in their communities, and to provide the chance for more students and adults to become Makers and manufacturing entrepreneurs. The Federal Government is leading the way by expanding access to more than $5 billion worth of Federal technology. Together, we are building an economy that works for all Americans.

On National Manufacturing Day, more than 1,600 American manufacturers will open their doors and take up the important work of inspiring our young people to pursue careers in manufacturing and engineering. Today's science, technology, engineering, and math graduates will power the next chapter of American production and innovation, and harnessing their potential is an economic imperative.

When our manufacturing base is strong, our entire economy is strong. Today, we continue our work to bolster the industry at the heart of our Nation. With grit and resolve, we can create new jobs and widen the circle of opportunity for more Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 3, 2014, as National Manufacturing Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with programs and activities that highlight the contributions of American manufacturers, and I encourage all Americans to visit a manufacturer in their local community.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand fourteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-ninth.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President on the Economy -- Northwestern University

Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois

1:11 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Evanston!  (Applause.)  Hello, Northwestern!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Everybody, have a seat.  Have a seat.  It is so good to be here.  Go ‘Cats!  (Applause.)  I want to thank your president, Morty Schapiro, and the dean of the Kellogg Business School, Sally Blount, for having me.  I brought along some guests.  Your Governor, Pat Quinn, is here.  (Applause.)  Your Senator, Dick Durbin, is here.  (Applause.)  Your Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky, is here.  (Applause.)  We’ve got some who represent the Chicagoland area in Congress and do a great job every day -- Danny Davis, Robin Kelly, Mike Quigley, Brad Schneider.  (Applause.)  We’ve got your mayor, Elizabeth Tisdahl.  (Applause.)  Where’s Elizabeth?  There she is.  One of my great friends and former chief of staff -- the mild-mannered Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, is here.  (Laughter and applause.)

It is great to be back home.  (Applause.)  It’s great to be back at Northwestern.  Back when I was a senator, I had the honor of delivering the commencement address for the class of 2006.  And as it turns out, I’ve got a bunch of staff who graduated from here, and so they’re constantly lobbying me about stuff.  And so earlier this year, I popped in via video to help kick off the dance marathon.  I figured this time I’d come in person -- not only because it’s nice to be so close to home, but it’s also just nice to see old friends, people who helped to form how I think about public service; people who helped me along the way.  Toni Preckwinkle was my alderwoman and was a great supporter.  (Applause.)  Lisa Madigan, your attorney general, was my seatmate.  State Senator Terry Link was my golf buddy.  So you’ve got people here who I’ve just known for years and really not only helped me be where I am today, but helped develop how I think about public service.

And I’m also happy to be here because this is a university that is brimming with the possibilities of a new economy -- your research and technology; the ideas and the innovation; the training of doctors and educators, and scientists and entrepreneurs.  But you can’t help but visit a campus like this and feel the promise of the future. 

And that’s why I’m here -- because it’s going to be young people like you, and universities like this, that will shape the American economy and set the conditions for middle-class growth well into the 21st century.

And obviously, recent months have seen their fair share of turmoil around the globe.  But one thing should be crystal clear:  American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world.  It’s America -- our troops, our diplomats -- that lead the fight to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. 

It’s America -- our doctors, our scientists, our know-how -- that leads the fight to contain and combat the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. 

It’s America -- our colleges, our graduate schools, our unrivaled private sector -- that attracts so many people to our shores to study and start businesses and tackle some of the most challenging problems in the world. 

When alarms go off somewhere in the world, whether it’s a disaster that is natural or man-made; when there’s an idea or an invention that can make a difference, this is where things start.  This is who the world calls -- America.  They don’t call Moscow.  They don’t call Beijing.  They call us.  And we welcome that responsibility of leadership, because that’s who we are.  That’s what we expect of ourselves. 

But what supports our leadership role in the world is ultimately the strength of our economy here at home.  And today, I want to step back from the rush of global events to take a clear-eyed look at our economy, its successes and its shortcomings, and determine what we still need to build for your generation -- what you can help us build. 

As Americans, we can and should be proud of the progress that our country has made over these past six years.  And here are the facts -- because sometimes the noise clutters and I think confuses the nature of the reality out there.  Here are the facts:  When I took office, businesses were laying off 800,000 Americans a month.  Today, our businesses are hiring 200,000 Americans a month.  (Applause.)  The unemployment rate has come down from a high of 10 percent in 2009, to 6.1 percent today.  (Applause.)  Over the past four and a half years, our businesses have created 10 million new jobs; this is the longest uninterrupted stretch of private sector job creation in our history.  Think about that.  And you don’t have to applaud at -- because I’m going to be giving you a lot of good statistics.  (Laughter.)  Right now, there are more job openings than at any time since 2001.  All told, the United States has put more people back to work than Europe, Japan, and every other advanced economy combined.  I want you to think about that.  We have put more people back to work, here in America, than Europe, Japan, and every other advanced economy combined.

This progress has been hard, but it has been steady and it has been real.  And it’s the direct result of the American people’s drive and their determination and their resilience, and it’s also the result of sound decisions made by my administration.

So it is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office.  By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office.  At the same time, it’s also indisputable that millions of Americans don’t yet feel enough of the benefits of a growing economy where it matters most -- and that's in their own lives. 

And these truths aren’t incompatible.  Our broader economy in the aggregate has come a long way, but the gains of recovery are not yet broadly shared -- or at least not broadly shared enough.  We can see that homes in our communities are selling for more money, and that the stock market has doubled, and maybe the neighbors have new health care or a car fresh off an American assembly line.  And these are all good things.  But the stress that families feel -- that’s real, too.  It’s still harder than it should be to pay the bills and to put away some money.  Even when you’re working your tail off, it’s harder than it should be to get ahead. 

And this isn’t just a hangover from the Great Recession.  I’ve always said that recovering from the crisis of 2008 was our first order of business, but I also said that our economy wouldn’t be truly healthy until we reverse the much longer and profound erosion of middle-class jobs and incomes. 

So here’s our challenge.  We’re creating more jobs at a steady pace.  We’ve got a recovering housing market, a revitalized manufacturing sector -- two things that are critical to middle-class success.  We’ve also begun to see some modest wage growth in recent months.  All of that has gotten the economy rolling again, despite the fact that the economies of many other countries around the world are softening.  But as Americans, we measure our success by something more than our GDP, or a jobs report.  We measure it by whether our jobs provide meaningful work that give people a sense of purpose, and whether it allows folks to take care of their families.  And too many families still work too many hours with too little to show for it.  Job growth could be so much faster and wages could be going up faster if we made some better decisions going forward with the help of Congress.  So our task now is to harness the momentum that is real, that does exist, and make sure that we accelerate that momentum, that the economy grows and jobs grow and wages grow.  That's our challenge. 

When the typical family isn’t bringing home any more than it did in 1997, then that means it’s harder for middle-class Americans to climb the ladder of success.  It means that it’s harder for poor Americans to grab hold of the ladder into the middle class.  That’s not what America is supposed to be about.  It offends the very essence of who we are.  Because if being an American means anything, it means we believe that even if we’re born with nothing -- regardless of our circumstances, a last name, whether we were wealthy, whether our parents were advantaged -- no matter what our circumstances, with hard work we can change our lives, and then our kids can too. 

And that's about more than just fairness.  It’s more than just the idea of what America is about.  When middle-class families can’t afford to buy the goods or services our businesses sell, it actually makes it harder for our economy to grow.  Our economy cannot truly succeed if we’re stuck in a winner-take-all system where a shrinking few do very well while a growing many are struggling to get by.  Historically, our economic greatness rests on a simple principle:  When the middle class thrives, and when people can work hard to get into the middle class, then America thrives.  And when it doesn’t, America doesn't.  

This is going to be a central challenge of our times.  We have to make our economy work for every working American.  And every policy I pursue as President is aimed at answering that challenge. 

Over the last decade, we learned the hard way that it wasn’t sustainable to have an economy where too much of the growth was based on inflated home prices and bubbles that burst and a casino mentality on Wall Street; where the recklessness of a few could threaten all of us; where incomes at the top skyrocketed, while working families saw theirs decline.  That was not a formula for sustained growth.  We need an economy that’s built on a rock, and that -- a rock that is durable and competitive, and that's a steady source of good, middle-class jobs.  When that's happening, everybody does well.

So that’s why on day one, when I took office, with Rahm and Dick Durbin and others who were working with us, I said we would rebuild our economy on a new foundation for growth and prosperity.  And with dedicated, persistent effort, we’ve actually been laying the cornerstones of this foundation every single day since.

So I mentioned earlier that there is not an economic measure by which we’re not better off than when we took official.  But let me break down what we’ve also been doing structurally to make sure that we have a strong foundation for growth going forward.

The first cornerstone is new investments in the energy and technologies that make America a magnet for good, middle-class jobs.

So right off the bat, as soon as I came into office, we upped our investments in American energy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our own energy security.  And today, the number-one oil and gas producer in the world is no longer Russia or Saudi Arabia.  It’s America.  (Applause.) 

For the first time in nearly two decades, we now produce more oil than we buy from other countries.  We’re advancing so fast in this area that two years ago I set a goal to cut our oil imports by half by -- in half by 2020, and we’ve actually -- we will meet that goal this year, six years ahead of schedule.  (Applause.)

So that's in the traditional fossil fuel area.  But at the same time, we’ve helped put tens of thousands of people to work manufacturing wind turbines, and installing solar panels on homes and businesses.  We have tripled the electricity that we harness from the wind.  We have increased tenfold what we generate from the sun.  We have brought enough clean energy online to power every home and business in Illinois and Wisconsin, 24/7.  And that’s the kind of progress that we can be proud of and in part accounts for the progress we have also made in reducing carbon emissions that cause climate change.  And I know that here at Northwestern, your researchers are working to convert sunlight into liquid fuel -- which sounds impossible, or at least really hard.  (Laughter.)  But the good news is, if you need to get the hard or the impossible done, America and American universities are a pretty good place to start.

Meanwhile, our 100-year supply of natural gas is a big factor in drawing jobs back to our shores.  Many are in manufacturing -- which produce the quintessential middle-class job.  During the last decade, it was widely accepted that American manufacturing was in irreversible decline.  And just six years ago, its crown jewel, the American auto industry, could not survive on its own.  With the help of folks like Jan and Dick and Mike Quigley and others, we helped our automakers restructure and retool.  Today, they’re building and selling new cars at the fastest rate in eight years.  We invested in new plants, new technologies, new high-tech hubs like the Digital Manufacturing and Design Institute that Northwestern has partnered with in Chicago. 

Today, American manufacturing has added more than 700,000 new jobs.  It’s growing almost twice as fast as the rest of the economy.  And more than half of all manufacturing executives have said they are actively looking at bringing jobs back from China.  To many in the middle class, the last decade was defined by outsourcing good jobs overseas.  If we keep up these investments, we can define this decade by what’s known as “insourcing” -- with new factories now opening their doors here in America at the fastest pace in decades.  And in the process, we’ve also worked to grow American exports and open new markets, knock down barriers to trade, because businesses that export tend to have better-paying jobs.  So today, our businesses sell more goods and services made in America to the rest of the world than ever before.  Ever.

And that’s progress we can be proud of.  Now, we also know that many of these manufacturing jobs have changed.  You’re not just punching in and pounding rivets anymore; you’re coding computers and you’re guiding robots.  You’re mastering 3D printing.  And these jobs require some higher education or technical training.  And that’s why the second cornerstone of the new foundation we’ve been building is making sure our children are prepared and our workers are prepared to fill the jobs of the future.

America thrived in the 20th century because we made high school free.  We sent a generation to college.  We cultivated the most educated workforce in the world.  But it didn't take long for other countries to look at our policies and caught on to the secret of our success.  So they set out to educate their kids too, so they could out-compete our kids.  We have to lead the world in education once again.  (Applause.)

That’s why we launched a Race to the Top in our schools, trained thousands of math and science teachers, supported states that raised standards for learning.  Today, teachers in 48 states and D.C. are teaching our kids the knowledge and skills they need to compete and win in the global economy.  Working with parents and educators, we’ve turned around some of the country’s lowest-performing schools.  We’re on our way to connecting 99 percent of students to high-speed Internet, and making sure every child, at every seat, has the best technology for learning. 

Look, let’s face it:  Some of these changes are hard.  Sometimes they cause controversy.  And we have a long way to go.  But public education in America is actually improving.  Last year, our elementary and middle school students had the highest math and reading scores on record.  The dropout rates for Latinos and African Americans are down.  (Applause.)  The high school graduation rate -- the high school graduation rate is up.  It’s now above 80 percent for the first time in history.  We’ve invested in more than 700 community colleges -- which are so often gateways to the middle class -- and we’re connecting them with employers to train high school graduates for good jobs in fast-growing fields like high-tech manufacturing and energy and IT and cybersecurity.

Here in Chicago, Rahm just announced that the city will pay community college tuition for more striving high school graduates.  We’ve helped more students afford college with grants and tax credits and loans.  And today, more young people are graduating than ever before.  We’ve sent more veterans to college on the Post-9/11 GI Bill -- including several veterans here at Northwestern -- and a few of them are in this hall today, and we thank them for their service.  (Applause.)

So we’ve made progress on manufacturing and creating good jobs.  We’ve made progress on education.  Of course, even if you have the right education, for decades, one of the things that made it harder for families to make ends meet and businesses to grow was the high cost of health care.  And so the third cornerstone had to be health care reform.

In the decade before the Affordable Care Act, aka, Obamacare -- (laughter and applause) -- in the decade before the Affordable Care Act, double-digit premium increases were common.  CEOs called them one of the biggest challenges to their competitiveness.  And if your employer didn’t drop your coverage to avoid these costs, they might pass them on to you and take them out of your wages. 

Today, we have seen a dramatic slowdown in the rising cost of health care.  When we passed the Affordable Care Act, the critics were saying, what are you doing about cost.  Well, let me tell you what we’ve done about cost.  If your family gets your health care through your employer, premiums are rising at a rate tied for the lowest on record.  And what this means for the economy is staggering.  If we hadn’t taken this on, and premiums had kept growing at the rate they did in the last decade, the average premium for family coverage today would be $1,800 higher than they are.  Now, most people don't notice it, but that’s $1,800 you don’t have to pay out of your pocket or see vanish from your paycheck.  That’s like a $1,800 tax cut.  That's not for folks who signed up for Obamacare.  That's the consequences of some of the reforms that we’ve made.

And because the insurance marketplaces we created encourage insurers to compete for your business, in many of cities they’ve announced that next year’s premiums -- well, something important is happening here -- next year’s premiums are actually falling in some of these markets.  One expert said this is “defying the law of physics.”  But we’re getting it done.  And it is progress we can be proud of.

So we’re slowing the cost of health care, and we’re covering more people at the same time.  In just the last year, we reduced the share of uninsured Americans by 26 percent.  That means one in four uninsured Americans -- about 10 million people -- have gained the financial security of health insurance in less than one year.  And for young entrepreneurs, like many of you here today, the fact that you can compare and buy affordable plans in the marketplace frees you up to strike out on your own, chase that new idea -- something I hope will unleash new services and products and enterprises all across the country.  So the job lock that used to exist because you needed health insurance, you’re free from that now.   You can go out and do something on your own and get affordable health care.

And meanwhile, partly because health care prices have been growing at the slowest rate in nearly 50 years, the growth in what health care costs the government is down, also.  I want everybody to listen carefully here, because when we were debating the Affordable Care Act there was a lot of complaining about how we couldn’t afford this.  The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently reported that in 2020, Medicare and Medicaid will cost us $188 billion less than projected just four years ago.  And here’s what that means in layman’s terms:  Health care has long been the single biggest driver of America’s future deficits.  It’s been the single biggest driver of our debt.  Health care is now the single biggest factor driving down those deficits.

And this is a game-changer for the fourth cornerstone of this new foundation -- getting our fiscal house in order for the long run, so we can afford to make investments that grow the middle class.

Between a growing economy, some prudent spending cuts, health care reform, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more on their taxes, over the past five years we’ve cut our deficits by more than half.  When I took office, the deficit was nearly 10 percent of our economy.  Today, it’s approaching 3 percent.  (Applause.)  In other words, we can shore up America’s long-term finances without falling back into the mindless austerity or manufactured crises or trying to find excuses to slash benefits to seniors that dominated Washington budget debates for so long.

And finally, we’ve put in place financial reform to protect consumers and prevent a crisis on Wall Street from hammering Main Street ever again.  We have new tools to prevent “too big to fail,” to stop taxpayer-funded bailouts.  We made it illegal for big banks to gamble with your money.  We established the first-ever consumer watchdog to protect consumers from irresponsible lending or credit card practices.  We secured billions of dollars in relief for consumers who get taken advantage of.  And working with states attorneys general like Lisa Madigan, we’ve seen industry practices changing.

Now, an argument you’ll hear oftentimes from critics is that the way to grow the economy is to just get rid of regulations; free folks up from the oppressive hand of the government.  And you know, it turns out, truth be told, there are still some kind of dopey regulations on the books.  (Laughter.)  There are regulations that are outdated or are no longer serving a useful purpose.  And we have scrubbed the laws out there and identified hundreds that are outdated, that don’t help our economy, that don’t make sense, and we’re saving businesses billions of dollars by gradually eliminating those unnecessary regulations.  But you have to contrast that with rules that discourage a casino-style mentality on Wall Street, or rules that protect the basic safety of workers on the job, or rules that safeguard the air our children breathe and keep mercury or arsenic out of our water supply.  These don’t just have economic benefits, these are rules that save lives and protect families.  And I’ll always stand up for those -- and they’re good for our economy.

So here’s the bottom line:  For all the work that remains, for all the citizens that we still need to reach, what I want people to know is that there are some really good things happening in America.  Unemployment down.  Jobs up.  Manufacturing growing.  Deficits cut by more than half.  High school graduation is up.  College enrollment up.  Energy production up.  Clean energy production up.  Financial system more stable.  Health care costs rising at a slower rate.  Across the board, the trend lines have moved in the right direction.

That’s because this new foundation is now in place.  New investments in energy and technologies that create new jobs and new industries.  New investments in education that will make our workforce more skilled and competitive.  New reforms to health care that cut costs for families and businesses.  New reforms to our federal budget that will promote smart investments and a stronger economy for future generations.  New rules for our financial system to protect consumers and prevent the kinds of crises that we endured from happening again.

You add it all up, and it’s no surprise that for the first time in more than a decade, business leaders from around the world -- these are business surveys.  Kellogg, you’re familiar with these.  (Laughter.)  Business leaders from around the world have said the world’s most attractive place to invest is not India or China, it’s the United States of America.  And that’s because the financial sector is healthier; because manufacturing is healthier; because the housing market is healthier; because health care inflation is at a 50-year low; because our energy boom is at new highs.  Because of all these things, our economy isn’t just primed for steadier, more sustained growth; America is better poised to lead and succeed in the 21st century than any other nation on Earth.  We’ve got the best cards. 

And I will not allow anyone to dismantle this foundation.  Because for the first time, we can see real, tangible evidence of what the contours of the new economy will look like.  It’s an economy teeming with new industry and commerce, and humming with new energy and new technologies, and bustling with highly skilled, higher-wage workers. 

It’s an America where a student graduating from college has the chance to advance through a vibrant job market, and where an entrepreneur can start a new business and succeed, and where an older worker can retool for that new job.  And to fully realize this vision requires steady, relentless investment in these areas.  We cannot let up and we cannot be complacent.  We have to be hungry as a nation.  We have to compete.  When we do -- if we take the necessary steps to build on the foundation that through some really hard work we have laid over the last several years -- I promise you, over the next 10 years we’ll build an economy where wage growth is stronger than it was in the past three decades.  It is achievable.

So let me just talk a little more specifically about what we should be doing right now. 

First of all, we’ve got to realize that the trends that have battered the middle class for so long aren’t ones that we’re going to reverse overnight.  The facts that I just laid out don’t mean that there aren’t a lot of folks out there who are underpaid, they’re underemployed, they’re working long hours, they’re having trouble making ends meet.  I hear from them every day, I meet with them.  And it’s heartbreaking -- because they’re struggling hard.  And there are no silver bullets for job creation or faster wage growth.  Anybody who tells you otherwise is not telling the truth.  But there are policies that would grow jobs and wages faster than we’re doing right now.

If we rebuild roads and bridges -- because we’ve got $2 trillion of deferred maintenance on our infrastructure -- we won’t just put construction workers and engineers on the job; we will revitalize entire communities, and connect people to jobs, and make it easier for businesses to ship goods around the world.  And we can pay for it with tax reform that actually cuts rates on businesses, but closes wasteful loopholes, making it even more attractive for companies to invest and create jobs here in the United States.  Let’s do this and make our economy stronger.

If we make it easier for first-time homebuyers to get a loan, we won’t just create even more construction jobs and speed up recovery in the housing market; we’ll speed up your efforts to grow a nest egg and start a new company, and send your own kids to college and graduate school someday.  So let’s help more young families buy that first home, make our economy stronger.

If we keep investing in clean energy technology, we won’t just put people to work on the assembly lines, pounding into place the zero-carbon components of a clean energy age; we’ll reduce our carbon emissions and prevent the worst costs of climate change down the road.  Let’s do this -- invest in new American energy and make our economy stronger.

If we make high-quality preschool available to every child, not only will we give our kids a safe place to learn and grow while their parents go to work; we’ll give them the start that they need to succeed in school, and earn higher wages, and form more stable families of their own.  In fact, today, I’m setting a new goal:  By the end of this decade, let’s enroll 6 million children in high-quality preschool.  That is an achievable goal that we know will make our workforce stronger.  (Applause.) 

If we redesign our high schools, we’ll graduate more kids with the real-world skills that lead directly to a good job in the new economy.  If we invest more in job training and apprenticeships, we’ll help more workers fill more good jobs that are coming back to this country.  If we make it easier for students to pay off their college loans, we’ll help a whole lot of young people breathe easier and feel freer to take the jobs they really want.  (Applause.)  So look, let’s do this -- let’s keep reforming our education system to make sure young people at every level have a shot at success, just like folks at Northwestern do. 

If we fix our broken immigration system, we won’t just prevent some of the challenges like the ones that we saw at the border this summer; we’ll encourage the best and brightest from around the world to study here and stay here, and create jobs here.  Independent economists say that a big bipartisan reform bill that the House has now blocked for over a year would grow our economy, shrink our deficits, secure our borders.  Let’s pass that bill.  Let’s make America stronger.  (Applause.)

If we want to make and sell the best products, we have to invest in the best ideas, like you do here at Northwestern.  Your nanotechnology institute doesn’t just conduct groundbreaking research; that research has spun off 20 startups and more than 1,800 products -- that means jobs.  (Applause.)

Here’s another example.  Over a decade ago, America led the international effort to sequence the human genome.  One study found that every dollar we invested returned $140 to our economy.  Now, I don’t have an MBA, but that’s sounds like a good return on investment.  (Laughter and applause.)

Today, though, the world’s largest genomics center is in China.  That doesn’t mean America is slipping.  It does mean America isn’t investing.  We can’t let other countries discover the products and businesses that will shape the next century and the century after that.  So we’ve got to invest more in the kinds of basic research that led to Google and GPS, and makes our economy stronger.

If we raise the minimum wage, we won’t just put -- (applause) -- we won’t just put more money in workers’ pockets; they’ll spend that money at local businesses, who in turn will hire more people.

In the two years since I first asked Congress to raise the national minimum wage, 13 states and D.C. went and raised theirs.  And more business owners are joining them on their own.  It’s on the ballot in five states this November, including Illinois.  (Applause.)  And here’s the thing -- recent surveys show that a majority of small business owners support a gradual increase to $10.10 an hour.  A survey just last week showed that nearly two-thirds of employers thought the minimum wage should go up in their state -- and more than half of them think it should be at least $10.  So what’s stopping us?  Let’s agree that nobody who works full-time in America should ever have to raise a family in poverty.  Let’s give America a raise.  It will make the economy stronger.  (Applause.)

If we make sure a woman is paid equal to a man for her efforts -- (applause) -- that is not just giving women a boost.  Gentlemen, you want your wife making that money that she has earned.  (Laughter.)  It gives the entire family a boost and it gives the entire economy a boost.  Women now outpace men in college degrees and graduate degrees, but they often start their careers with lower pay.  And that gap grows over time, and that affects their families.  It’s stupid.  (Laughter and applause.)  Let’s inspire and support more women, especially in fields like science and technology and engineering and math.  (Applause.)  Let’s catch up to 2014, pass a fair pay law, make our economy stronger.

And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of the barriers that keep more moms who want to work from entering the workforce.  Let’s do what Dean Blount did here at Kellogg.  She’s been working with us at the White House, helping business and political leaders who recognize that flexibility in the workplace and paid maternity leave are actually good for business.  And let’s offer those deals to dads, too.  (Applause.)  Because we want to make sure that they can participate in child-rearing.  And let’s make sure work pays for parents who are raising young kids.  It’s a good investment.

California adopted paid leave, which boosted work and earnings for moms with young kids.  Let’s follow their lead.  Let’s make our economy stronger.

Now, none of these policies I just mentioned on their own will entirely get us to where we want to be.  But if we do these things systematically, the cumulative impact will be huge.  Unemployment will drop a little faster, which means workers will gain a little more leverage when it comes to wages and salaries, which means consumer confidence will go up, which means families will be able to spend a little more and save a little more, which means our economy grows stronger, and growth will be shared.  More people will feel this recovery, rather than just reading about it in the newspapers.  That’s the truth.

And I’m going to keep making the argument for these policies, because they are right for America.  They are supported by the facts.  And I’m always willing to work with anyone, Democrat or Republican, to get things done.  And every once in a while, we actually see a bill land on my desk from Congress.  (Laughter.)  And we do a bill signing and I look at the members, and I say -- I tell them, look how much fun this is.  Let’s do this again.  Let’s do it again.  (Laughter and applause.)

But if gridlock prevails, if cooperation and compromise are no longer valued, but vilified, then I’ll keep doing everything I can on my own if it will make a difference for working Americans.  (Applause.)

I will keep teaming up with governors and mayors and CEOs and philanthropists who want to help.  Here’s an example.  There are 28 million Americans who would benefit from a minimum wage increase -- 28 million.  Over the past two years, because we’ve teamed up with cities and states and businesses, and went around Congress, 7 million of them have gotten a raise.  So until Congress chooses to step up and help all of them, I’ll keep fighting to get an extra million here and an extra million there with a raise.  We’ll keep fighting for this.

And let me just say one other thing about the economy -- because oftentimes you hear this from the critics:  The notion is that the agenda I’ve just outlined is somehow contrary to pro-business, capitalist, free-market values.  And since we’re here at a business school, I thought it might be useful to point out that Bloomberg, for example, I think came out with an article today saying that corporate balance sheets are the strongest just about that they’ve ever been.  Corporate debt is down.  Profits are up.  Businesses are doing good.

So this idea that somehow any of these policies -- like the minimum wage or fair pay or clean energy -- are somehow bad for business is simply belied by the facts.  It’s not true.  And if you talk to business leaders, even the ones who really don't like to admit it because they don't like me that much -- (laughter) -- they’ll admit that actually their balance sheets look really strong, and that this economy is doing better than our competitors around the world.  So don't buy this notion that somehow this is an anti-business agenda.  This is a pro-business agenda.  This is a pro-economic growth agenda. 

Now, I am not on the ballot this fall.  Michelle is pretty happy about that.  (Laughter.)  But make no mistake:  These policies are on the ballot -- every single one of them.  This isn’t some official campaign speech, or political speech, and I’m not going to tell you who to vote for -- although I suppose it is kind of implied.  (Laughter and applause.)  But what I have done is laid out my ideas to create more jobs and to grow more wages.  And I’ve also tried to correct the record -- because, as I said, there’s a lot of noise out there.  Every item I ticked off, those are the facts.  It’s not conjecture.  It’s not opinion.  It’s not partisan rhetoric.  I laid out facts. 

So I laid out what I know has happened over the six years of my presidency so far, and I’ve laid out an agenda for what I think should happen to make us grow even better, grow even faster.  A true opposition party should now have the courage to lay out their agenda, hopefully also grounded in facts.

There’s a reason fewer Republicans are preaching doom on deficits -- it’s because the deficits have come down at almost a record pace, and they’re now manageable.  There’s a reason fewer Republicans you hear them running about Obamacare -- because while good, affordable health care might seem like a fanged threat to the freedom of the American people on Fox News -- (laughter) -- it’s turns out it’s working pretty well in the real world.  (Applause.)

Now, when push came to shove this year, and Republicans in Congress actually had to take a stand on policies that would help the middle class and working Americans -- like raising the minimum wage, or enacting fair pay, or refinancing student loans, or extending insurance for the unemployed -- the answer was “no.”  But one thing they did vote “yes” on was another massive tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.  In fact, just last month, at least one top Republican in Congress said that tax cuts for those at the top are -- and I’m quoting here -- “even more pressing now” than they were 30 years ago.  More pressing.  When nearly all the gains of the recovery have gone to the top 1 percent, when income inequality is at as high a rate as we’ve seen in decades, I find that a little hard to swallow that they really desperately need a tax cut right now, it’s urgent.  ]

Why?  (Laughter.)  What are the facts?  What is the empirical data that would justify that position?  Kellogg Business School, you guys are all smart.  You do all this analysis.  You run the numbers.  Has anybody here seen a credible argument that that is what our economy needs right now?  Seriously.  (Laughter.)

But this is the -- if you watch the debate, including on some of the business newscasts -- (laughter) -- and folks are just pontificating about how important this is.  Based on what?  What’s the data?  What’s the proof?  If there were any credible argument that says when those at the top do well and eventually everybody else will do well, it would have borne itself out by now.  We’d see data that that was true.  It’s not.

American economic greatness has never trickled down from the top.  It grows from a rising, thriving middle class and opportunity for working people.  That's what makes us different.  (Applause.)

So I just want to be clear here -- because you guys are going to be business leaders of the future, and you’re going to be making decisions based on logic and reason and facts and data.  And right now you’ve got two starkly different visions for this country.  And I believe, with every bone in my body, that there’s one clear choice here because it’s supported by facts.

And this is our moment to define what the next decade and beyond will look like.  This is our chance to set the conditions for middle-class growth in the 21st century.  The decisions we make this year, and over the next few years, will determine whether or not we set the stage for America’s greatness in this century just like we did in the last one -- whether or not we restore the link between hard work and higher wages; whether or not we continue to invest in a skilled, educated citizenry; whether or not we rebuild an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead.

And some of that depends on you.  There is a reason why I came to a business school instead of a school of government.  I actually believe that capitalism is the greatest force for prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known.  And I believe in private enterprise -- not government, but innovators and risk-takers and makers and doers -- driving job creation.
 
But I also believe in a higher principle, which is we’re all in this together.  (Applause.)  That’s the spirit that made the American economy work.  That's what made the American economy not just the world’s greatest wealth creator, but the world’s greatest opportunity generator.  And because you’re America’s future business leaders and civic leaders, that makes you the stewards of America’s greatest singlet asset -- and that's our people.

So as you engage in the pursuit of profits, I challenge you to do so with a sense of purpose.  As you chase your own success, I challenge you to cultivate more ways to help more Americans chase their success.

It is the American people who’ve made the progress of the last six years possible.  It is the American people who will make our future progress possible.  It is the American people that make American business successful.  And they should share in that success.  It’s not just for you.  It’s for us.  Because it’s the American people that made the investments over the course of generations to allow you and me to be here and experience this success.  That's the story of America.  America is a story of progress -- sometimes halting, sometimes incomplete, sometimes harshly challenged.  But the story of America is a story of progress. 

And it has now been six long years since our economy nearly collapsed.  Despite that shock, through the pain that so many fellow Americans felt; for all the gritty, grueling work required to come back, all the work that’s left to be done -- a new foundation is laid.  A new future is yet to be written.  And I am as confident as ever that that future will be led by the United States of America. 

Thank you, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless America.

END
2:06 P.M. CDT

"A New Foundation Is Laid": President Obama on America's 21st Century Economy

Watch on YouTube

The story of the last six years is the story of progress. In 2009, businesses were laying off 80,000 Americans a month. The unemployment rate sat at 10 percent. Manufacturing lagged behind while health care costs skyrocketed. And the deficit stood at nearly 10 percent of our economy.

Now, thanks to the determination of the American people and the decisions of the Obama administration, our economy is telling a remarkable story. Businesses have added 10 million jobs over 52 straight months of job growth, the longest streak on record. The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.1 percent, there are more job openings now than at any time since 2001, our country is the most attractive location in the world for investment, health care prices have risen at the lowest rate in nearly 50 years since the Affordable Care Act, and the deficit is approaching three percent of our economy. 

President Obama laid out these facts today in an address to the young entrepreneurs of Northwestern University's School of Management. "It is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than it was when I took office. By every economic measure," he said. "At the same time, it also indisputable that millions of Americans don't yet feel enought of the benefits of a growing economy where it matters most -- and that's in their own lives." 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with Indian National Security Advisor Doval

National Security Advisor Rice and Indian National Security Advisor Doval met today to follow-up on the President’s meetings with Prime Minister Modi earlier this week. They discussed how we can best build on the accomplishments from the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington to strengthen the U.S.-India strategic partnership for the benefit of citizens in both countries and beyond.  They exchanged views on regional developments, including cooperating on maritime security and the importance of reinforcing stability in Afghanistan after the inauguration of a new National Unity Government this week.  They agreed to work together to address global crises such as the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa and the spread of violent extremism, and looked forward to continuing close consultations in the future.

Have This in Front of You When You Watch the President Today:

Today at 2:15 p.m. ET, President Obama will speak to entrepreneurs at Northwestern University about the future of America's 21st century economy.

Take a first look at what he'll be talking about. 

Our economy is stronger now than when the President took office during the Great Recession. Businesses are creating more jobs, our manufacturing sector is booming, and our nation is more energy independent than ever before.

But we're not there yet, and to build an economy that works for every American -- not just the privileged few -- we must invest in key economic cornerstones that will create security and opportunity for America’s middle class.

See where we stand on these essential parts of our economic foundation -- then have these charts on hand when you tune in to the President’s speech at 2:15 p.m. ET to hear how we can continue this progress and ensure a future of growth and prosperity for every American.

Watch and Engage: President Obama Speaks on the Future of America's 21st Century Economy

This afternoon, the President is heading to Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, to make the case for what has always fueled America's leadership -- America's economic greatness. Be sure to tune in live at 2:15 p.m. ET today, and then join a series of chats with White House senior advisors on topics covered in the speech.

Here's the full schedule: 

Thursday, October 2:

  • 3:30 p.m. ET: Jeff Zients, Director of the National Economic Council, answers your questions on the White House Tumblr. Submit a question now.
Related Topics: Economy

West Wing Week: 10/03/14 or, "If the Body is Strong"

October 02, 2014 | 4:17

This week, the President convened summits on global public health and on the BRAIN Initiative, hosted the Prime Ministers of India and Israel, welcomed the 2013 MLS Champion Sporting Kansas City to the White House, and traveled to Chicago to speak on the resurgence of the American economy.

Download mp4 (167MB)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 10/1/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 
 
**Please see below for a correction marked with an asterisk.
 
3:30 P.M. EDT
 
MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I apologize for the delayed start of today’s briefing.  It's obviously been a busy day for us here at the administration.
 
I suspect that many of you have seen the statement from the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson.  In that statement, he noted that he had accepted this afternoon the resignation of Julia Pierson, the Director of the United States Secret Service.  
 
Before I get to your questions, let me just tell you that this afternoon the President had the opportunity to telephone Director Pierson to express his appreciation for her service to the agency and to the country.  She dedicated more than 30 years of her life to the United States Secret Service and to the important work that they do over there.
 
As I mentioned yesterday, she spent several hours in front of the cameras yesterday answering difficult questions from members of Congress.  In the context of that interaction, she took responsibility for the shortcomings of the agency that she led, and she took responsibility for fixing them.  And that, quite simply, I think is a testament to her professionalism and to her character.
 
So, with that, Jim, why don't you get us started on questions today?
 
Q    Thanks, Josh.  In that phone call, had she already submitted her resignation, or did the President ask for it?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, in a meeting earlier this afternoon, the Director of -- the Secretary of Homeland Security met with Director Pierson and accepted her resignation at that time.
 
Q    Now, as recently as this morning you were expressing the President’s support for her.  If there was such support, why did the President allow Secretary Johnson to accept her resignation?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Director Pierson offered her resignation today because she believed that it was in the best interest of the agency to which she has dedicated her career.  The Secretary agreed with that assessment.  The President did, as well.  Over the last several days we've seen recent and accumulating reports raising questions about the performance of the agency, and the President concluded that new leadership of that agency was required.
 
Q    Did the President take into consideration the mounting opposition that was rising on the Hill, bipartisan opposition to her remaining?
 
MR. EARNEST:  No, I think what the Secretary of Homeland Security and the President were both considering were the performance of the agency.  And in light of recent and accumulating reports about the agency, I think legitimate questions were raised -- at least they were in the mind of both the Secretary and the President.
 
Q    Does the President have a timetable for replacing her?
 
MR. EARNEST:  He does not.  As you know, and as you probably saw from the statement that Secretary Johnson issued, the President recommended, and Secretary Johnson agreed, that Joe Clancy, someone who had served with distinction in the Secret Service until the summer of 2011, would be a good candidate for serving as the Acting Director of Secret Service until a more permanent replacement can be found.
 
Mr. Clancy is somebody who had a distinguished career in the Secret Service.  Prior to serving in the Secret Service he graduated from  attended* West Point.  But he is somebody, over the course of his tenure at the Secret Service, rose to the level of being the Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division.  He is somebody who has earned the respect and admiration of the men and women who were his colleagues at the United States Secret Service.  He is also somebody who has the full confidence of the President and the First Lady.  So he is an appropriate choice to lead the agency until a permanent director is found.
 
Q    If I could ask you about another news event today.  The President met with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  I'm wondering if the President raised any concerns about new construction in East Jerusalem that some Israeli officials confirmed today, or the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, I can tell you that the United States is deeply concerned by reports that the Israeli government has moved forward with the planning process in a sensitive area of East Jerusalem.  The step is contrary to Israel’s stated goal of negotiating a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians.  And it would send a very troubling message if they were to proceed with tenders or construction in that area.
 
This development will only draw condemnation from the international community, distance Israel from even its closest allies, poison the atmosphere not only with the Palestinians but also with the very Arab governments with which Prime Minister Netanyahu said he wanted to build relations.  It also would call into question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.
 
Additionally, the United States condemns the recent occupation of residential buildings in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem -- this is near the Old City -- by individuals who are associated with an organization whose agenda, by definition, stokes tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.  These provocative acts, these acts by this organization, only serves to escalate tensions at a moment when those tensions have already been high.  
 
The final status of Jerusalem should not be prejudged and can only be legitimately determined through direct negotiations between the parties.  At this sensitive time, we call on all parties to redouble their efforts to restore trust and confidence, promote calm, and return to the path of peace.
 
Q    So were those discussed?
 
MR. EARNEST:  This did come up in the conversations, yes.
 
Q    And was there any indication that the timing of this was related to the Prime Minister’s visit?
 
MR. EARNEST:  On a question about the timing you’d obviously have to ask the Israeli government about that.
 
Jeff.
 
Q    Back to the Secret Service.  Clearly the problems at the agency are beyond one person.  Would the President like to see more resignations, more firings as a result of these issues?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, let me say a couple of things about that.  The first is the President has nothing but the highest regard for the men and women of the Secret Service.  These are individuals who are highly trained, highly skilled professionals, who wake up every morning prepared to put their lives on the line to protect the First Family and to protect the White House.  That is a commitment to service that is worthy of our respect.
 
At the same time, as Secretary Johnson mentioned in his statement, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security will be conducting a review into the September 19th incident in which an individual scaled the fence along the North Lawn of the White House and was able to gain access to the White House.  That review will be conducted by the Deputy Secretary.  When that review has been concluded, it will be put before an independent panel of experts to get their outside perspective on what changes to White House security may be required.  That panel will also be responsible for making recommendations to the Secretary about who would be a good candidate to lead the United States Secret Service.  They will certainly consider individuals from outside that agency.   
 
Importantly, they will also offer a recommendation to the Secretary about whether or not a review of broader issues concerning the Secret Service is necessary.  So we are confident and the President is confident that the Department of Homeland Security will take a hard look at this situation; that we’ll assemble a panel of outside experts who will take a hard look at this situation and develop a set of recommendations that will ensure that the United States Secret Service can meet the very high standard of performance that they set for themselves.
 
Q    Does the President believe that more people besides the Director need to go?
 
MR. EARNEST:  The President believes that an independent panel should review the results of this assessment that is being conducted by the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to determine what steps are appropriate moving forward.
 
Q    Does the President or the White House generally believe that any of the shortfalls -- or any of the problems at the Secret Service are related to shortfalls that are connected to sequestration?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Again, Jeff, you’re raising questions that will be part of this broader, careful review that’s being conducted by the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.  So he’ll be, after he has conducted his review, he will be in a much better position to answer that question than I can from here.
 
Jim.
 
Q    Josh, earlier this morning you expressed confidence and you said that the White House had confidence in Julia Pierson.  What changed over the course of the day?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, obviously, the first thing that changed, Jim, was that Director Pierson offered her resignation.  She did so to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and she did that because she believes it’s in the best agency -- best interest of the agency to which she’s dedicated the last 30 years of her life.
 
The Secretary agreed with that assessment, as did the President.  They both agreed with that assessment because of the recent and accumulating reports that raise legitimate questions about the performance of the agency.  Those reports led the Secretary and the President to conclude that a new direction was necessary.
 
Q    And just to ask you about this latest incident to have emerged -- I guess it happened prior to the fence-jumping incident -- the security contractor at the CDC who was in the elevator, who was armed in the presence of the President, in violation of Secret Service protocols.  Did Director Pierson brief the President on that incident?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Jim, I can tell you that the White House first learned of that incident yesterday afternoon, shortly before it was reported by -- before it was publicly reported by news organizations. 
 
Q    So she did not tell him about that?  Or the agency did not tell the White House about that until -- you didn’t know about it until yesterday?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Until shortly before it was reported publicly.  That’s correct.
 
Q    And that’s a problem, right?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I would -- I think -- it would be accurate for you to assume that when incidents like that occur that there would be a pretty open channel of communication between the United States Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and ultimately the White House.
 
Q    And does he want to -- does the President want to see the channels of communication to be more open, to be more transparent?  Does the White House feel like it’s kept in the dark a little bit too much by the Secret Service in terms of these problems that occur from time to time?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think this will be part of some of the things that this independent panel will consider -- what is the appropriate level of Secret Service response to incidents like this when the crop up.  And that obviously would involve communicating reforms or even information where necessary to senior members of the Department of Homeland Security and, again, ultimately, in some occasions, to the White House.
 
Q    And does the President think that Julia Pierson let him down?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, like I said, the President took time out of his day this afternoon to call Director Pierson, to thank her for her service to the agency and to the country.  And the President is deeply appreciative of her service.  She spent 30 years at the United States Secret Service because she believes so strongly in the core mission of the agency.
 
Q    And if I could ask one quick question about the CDC -- because on September 16th the President said, “In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores…” -- he used those words, “unlikely event.”  And as we know, there’s a case down in Dallas.  Did the President not get, I guess, reliable information from the CDC as to the likelihood that Ebola could come over here?  What do you make of that?  He talked about it being an unlikely event -- and it did happen.  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, would you read that quote for me one more time?
 
Q    He said, “In the unlikely event that someone with Ebola does reach our shores…”  I can give you the full quote if you want it.  But he talked about it being an unlikely event.  He went on to say that the CDC is prepared to deal with that.  
 
MR. EARNEST:  My suspicion is that you might be slightly over-parsing what the President said, because when he delivered those remarks there had been at least a couple of health care professionals who had been trying to provide medical services to Ebola victims in Africa who had been returned to the United States for treatment.  So obviously these individuals who had contracted Ebola in the performance of their medical work were on the shores of the United States of America.
 
So I think the broader point that the President was trying to convey to you and to the broader American public is that we retain confidence in the sophisticated, medical infrastructure of the United States of America to respond to meet the needs of those individuals that have contracted Ebola, and to put protocols in place that will prevent an Ebola epidemic from striking the United States.  There are a couple of reasons for that.  The first is Ebola is not easily transmitted.  It isn’t transmitted through the air like the flu.  It is not transmitted through water or food here in the United States.  The only way that Ebola can be transmitted is through the bodily fluids of an individual who is already showing symptoms of being sick with Ebola.
 
So there is -- there are protocols in which the President does have strong confidence that can be put in place to prevent the spread of Ebola. 
 
Q    This doesn’t lead you to think that this could be a bigger, more widespread problem than previously thought -- I guess that's -- that was the thrust of my question initially.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I see.  That's correct.  It is our view that we have the medical infrastructure that is necessary to meet the -- to try to treat this individual that does have Ebola in a way that doesn’t pose a significant risk to other patients in the hospital, to the doctors and nurses who will be caring for that individual, and certainly doesn’t post a significant risk to the broader community. 
 
Alexis.
 
Q    Josh, a couple of quick questions.  Just to follow up on what Jim was asking you.  Based on the scenario that we understand from the Dallas patient, is there anything that's going to change with airlines or security in terms of what we know about the incubation period or screening, the free access or free movement of folks who fly from affected countries?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, it’s my understanding, Alexis, and you can check with the CDC about this, but it’s my understanding that the individual in Dallas who has been hospitalized with Ebola is somebody who did recently travel to the United States from West Africa.
 
Again, according to those medical professionals, this individual was not displaying any symptoms, was not experiencing any symptoms while he was traveling.  That means there is no risk to the individuals who were traveling with that person. 
 
So there are protocols in place where those individuals who are leaving West Africa and traveling to the West are screened.  While we’ve also provided guidance to pilots, flight attendants and others who make up the -- who are sort of responsible for staffing our transportation infrastructure, we’ve given them guidance for monitoring the health and wellbeing of travelers to ensure that if they notice individuals who are exhibiting symptoms that seem to be consistent with Ebola, that the proper authorities are notified.
 
There also are screening procedures in place at our border.  So as individuals enter the country, they are observed by Customs and Border Patrol and others to protect the broader American public.  So there’s nothing about this case that we know so far that would indicate any weakness or any flaws in that system right now.
 
But that said, in light of this incident, the administration has taken the step of recirculating our guidance to law enforcement agencies that are responsible for securing the border, to those agencies that represent individuals who staff the airline industry, and to medical professionals all across the country to make sure that people are aware that there is an important protocol that should be implemented if an individual presents with symptoms that are consistent with Ebola. 
 
Q    And then back to the Secret Service, to follow up on that -- because the independent investigation Secretary Johnson wants to get underway is going to last a month, and the President is going to be very active in the next month, can you say whether anything is going to change or whether there is satisfaction that, in the interim, procedures either here or when he is traveling are sufficient and adequate to ensure his safety and the safety of the White House?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Let me say three things about that.  The first is Director Pierson has said -- and she did in her testimony yesterday -- that in the immediate aftermath of the incident on September 19th, the United States Secret Service put in place some additional security precautions to bolster security here at the White House.  So there are already some changes that have been made.  
 
Second, the President continues to have full confidence in the men and women of the United States Secret Service.  These are highly skilled, highly trained professionals who are very good at what they do.  And these individuals also take very seriously their responsibility to protect the President and to protect the White House.
 
The third thing is the President is very appreciative that somebody with the résumé and skills of Joe Clancy is taking responsibility for leading the Secret Service during this interim period.  Mr. Clancy is somebody who is taking a leave of absence from his private-sector job to re-enter government service.  That is, I think, a demonstration of the sacrifice that he is making, principally because of the loyalty that he feels to this organization and this agency that he served for so long.
 
Q    And he is authorized to make any additional changes that he might think is necessary in the next month?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Absolutely.  As the acting director, Mr. Clancy will have the responsibility for leading that organization.  The President is grateful that he has taken on that very significant responsibility.
 
Todd.
 
Q    Thanks.  Josh, on the Dallas Ebola case, so following up on Alexis’s other questions, everyone understands that this particular patient was asymptomatic when he was traveling and there was no risk -- I think we get that from the health professionals -- but also, that means that there is no way to effectively screen for somebody who is infected and will become symptomatic within a week or a few days.  So given that, what are the conditions under which the President would order or want to see travel restrictions?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the thing that’s important about that is that individuals who are not displaying symptoms of Ebola are not able to spread Ebola to other people.  And that is why we have a protocol in place that does carefully evaluate the medical care for individuals that are displaying symptoms of Ebola.
 
What I would say about that is that the -- there’s a little sound over here.  Can we get to the bottom of what that is?  We really can’t?  Is it that tape recorder there, Dominique?  Okay, I’ll muscle through here.
 
So, Todd, the CDC has put in place specific protocols that govern how to handle these kinds of situations.  And what they do is they place a priority on ensuring that individuals who are displaying the symptoms of Ebola are limited from broader public contact.  And the reason for that is simply that individuals who are displaying symptoms of Ebola are the only ones who can spread Ebola.  And that's why there are specific protocols in place.
 
And we are confident that the sophisticated medical infrastructure that exists here in the United States can prevent the wide spread of Ebola.
 
Q    Doesn’t that imply that we’re willing to accept a certain number of people coming into this country who will be diagnosed and develop Ebola once they're here?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, we do -- we live in a global world, and what we’re confident that we can do is to both protect the safety of the traveling public and prevent -- and protect the broader American public by rigorously applying the kind of medical protocols that are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.
 
These are the experts.  They have a keen understanding of how to prevent the spread of this specific disease.  And Dr. Frieden himself expressed his confidence that because of our infrastructure and because of the expertise that exists here in this country that we can stop the spread of Ebola in its tracks.
 
Q    Has the President or will the President speak with Governor Perry or any other Texas officials about the Ebola outbreak?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don't know of any calls that the President expects to make here, but I know that there are a number of senior administration officials at the CDC, at the Department of Homeland Security and at HHS who have been in touch with senior officials in the State of Texas and in the Dallas area to ensure that there is seamless coordination and communication between local officials who are responsible for responding to this incident, and for the national officials in the federal government who can offer their own expertise to deal with this matter.
 
I will say, if I didn't say it before, that there is a team of specialists from the CDC who are already on the ground in north Texas to assist local officials as they respond to this specific incident.  And they will certainly benefit from the expertise of these CDC professionals in ensuring that this doesn’t pose a significant risk to the people in the Dallas metro area.
 
Stephen.  Congratulations on your new job, by the way, Stephen.
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  I was pleased to read about it. 
 
Q    Does the U.S. see any outcome of the Iran nuclear talks that would leave Iran in the position whereby it could be described as a “threshold nuclear power”?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, we have talked about this a little bit.  The United States in close coordination with our P5-plus-1 partners have been engaged in conversations with the Iranians about bringing their nuclear program into compliance with generally accepted international standards.  
 
And as a result of those conversations, we have had some success in getting the Iranians to roll back key aspects of their nuclear program.  That part has been successful.  But what is clear is that the United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon; that creating a nuclear arms race in that region of the world would be terribly destabilizing and would not be in the broader national security interest of our friends and allies and partners in the region, and it certainly wouldn’t be in the national security interest of the United States of America.
 
What I would point to is that there are statements from leaders in Iran indicating that they don't have designs on a nuclear weapon.  And what we need to do is we need to reach an agreement between the Iranian regime and the general international community, a verifiable agreement to demonstrate that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon.
 
Q    So was there any surprise when the Prime Minister of Israel says in the Oval Office next to the President that he’s worried that that deal could end up leaving Iran as a threshold nuclear power?  It seems he has a completely different understanding of the position than the U.S. -- the one that U.S. is advocating.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I’m not sure I entirely agree with that because there isn’t a deal so far.  These talks and conversations are ongoing.  And the President has articulated his determination, working closely with our P5-plus-1 partners, to make sure that we have in place a verifiable regime to satisfy the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, that we want to be able to have insight into that program and confirm transparently that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon.
 
That's what they say.  We’re looking for the kind of an agreement that would ensure that the international community can verify that.
 
The other point that I want to make, and this is important too:  Previous interactions with Iran about their nuclear program have drawn the expressions of frustration from some in the international community because they have observed Iran using ongoing diplomatic conversations as cover to make advances on their nuclear program.  That is not the case in the context of these talks.  Rather, the opposite has occurred.
 
In the context of the conversations that the United States has led with our P5-plus-1 partners, Iran has actually agreed to roll back key aspects of their nuclear program.  That includes not enriching uranium above the 5-percent level.  It means converting or diluting the entirety of their 20-percent enriched uranium stockpile.  It involves not installing or operating additional centrifuges in its plants, including next-generation models.  They’ve also refrained from making further advances at their enrichment facilities, including the facility in Arak.  And they have also agreed to more frequent inspections of some of the facilities that they have previously been less than transparent about.  
 
So we have in the context of these conversations made important steps, or reached important steps that have rolled back their nuclear program.  But we have not, however, reached a final agreement that would satisfy the international community’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program.
 
Let’s move around a bit.  Kathleen.
 
Q    So to follow on that, can you say how much of the conversation between the President and Netanyahu the Iran issue in their talks consumed?  And did the Prime Minister also raise sort of broader concerns that the U.S. is being kind of duped by Rouhani and the charm offensive, and might also collaborate in some way on the ISIS operation?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kathleen, there certainly was a lot of discussion about the important and strong relationship between the United States and Israel.  As you know, the security cooperation between our two nations is unprecedented and it continues to grow stronger.  This has been manifested most recently by the partnership related to the Iron Dome system.  Recently, the United States invested additional funds in ensuring that that Iron Dome system could be well stocked and well supplied to continue to provide protection for civilians who are living under the threat of rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza.
 
You’ve also seen the United States on numerous occasions stand with Israel as they confront the threat that is posed by Hamas, that the President and other members of this administration have steadfastly defended Israel’s right to defend their territory and to defend their citizens from violent, provocative actions by Hamas.
 
You’ve also seen the United States in a variety of diplomatic forums defend against efforts to isolate and undermine Israel’s standing in the international community.  That is a testament to the strength and coordination of the relationship that exists between the United States and Israel.  
 
Those elements of our relationship were the focal point of the discussions today.  They did have a conversation about the efforts of the United States to lead an international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, and the President welcomed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s support for those ongoing efforts.  
 
Q    Did Netanyahu bring up concerns about Iran’s participation in that effort?  And how much did they talk about the nuclear issue?
 
MR. EARNEST:  They did discuss the nuclear issue.  I didn’t sit in on it, so I can't give a minute-by-minute tick-tock of that.  And as it relates to what Prime Minister Netanyahu brought up, what I'm prepared to do is to read out what President Obama said, and I’ll let my counterpart in the Israeli government discuss the Prime Minister’s participation in the meeting.
 
Julie.
 
Q    I want to go back to the Secret Service.  I want to make sure I understand what changed between this morning when the President was said to have full confidence in Ms. Pierson and this afternoon when you said now he thinks that the agency needs a new direction and new leadership.  So I'm just wondering, did something happen to make him lose confidence in her in that time?  We're learning now that there’s video of this whole incident from September 19th that captured the whole intrusion into the mansion.  Is he aware of that?  Did that play into the decision that ultimately the drip-drip was not going to stop and she had to go?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I'm not aware of the video.  There may be some of my counterparts here at the White House who are, but I am not. I can tell you that there are a couple of key things that have changed just in the last few hours.  The first is, and most importantly, Director Pierson offered her resignation.  She did so because she believed it was in the best interest of the agency to which she dedicated her professional life.  And the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security both agreed with her assessment that it was, indeed, in the best interest of the agency for her to do so.
 
They reached that conclusion because of the recent and accumulating reports about the performance of the agency.  And that is what led the President to believe that new leadership was required.
 
Q    So when you say “recent and accumulated reports,” these reports about the intruder have been out there for some time.  What’s new since yesterday is this incident at the CDC where somebody was in the elevator -- an armed person was in the elevator with the President who wasn’t supposed to be there.  Was that a fulcrum, was that a pivot point for President Obama, learning that that was out there and had not been previously disclosed?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, as you point out, that is -- or as I guess I mentioned earlier, that is something that the White House learned of just yesterday, just minutes before it was publicly reported.
 
Q    So did that play into his decision that -- 
 
MR. EARNEST:  I think you could assume that that is part of the recent and accumulating reports to which I'm referring.  
 
Q    But, Josh, you went on TV this morning after you knew that a person with a criminal record and a gun --
 
MR. EARNEST:  I had read those reports, Ed, that’s correct.
 
Q    You hadn’t been able to confirm it overnight with the Secret Service?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, I had read those reports.  And I guess to reiterate my answer to Julie, the most significant change from today is that Director Pierson offered her resignation because she herself had concluded that it would be in the best interest of her agency for her to do so.
 
Q    So I guess my question is, why didn’t senior people here at the White House, including the President, determine on their own?  Why were you waiting for her to give her resignation? Isn’t a person with a criminal record and a gun getting inches away from the President enough to say somebody needs to be fired here?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, I can tell you that that incident that you’re referring to is something that the White House was made aware of only yesterday, less than 24 hours ago.  That occurred just minutes before that report was published for the public to review.
 
There is a -- as I believe those published reports referred to, there is a protocol for investigating security breaches along these lines, and that review is ongoing at the Department of Homeland Security.
 
Q    But I guess what seems confusing is for three days in a row you and other White House officials have seemed kind of calm about the idea that a man got into the East Room and that another man got inches away from the President with a gun.  I’m just -- where is the outrage?  Where is the “we can’t believe this happened”?  It’s just been, well, we’re going to let them investigate it and we have full confidence in them.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, it is true that the President and everyone here at the White House does have full confidence in the men and women of the United States Secret Service.  These are highly trained, highly skilled professionals who every day get out of bed prepared to put their life on the line at a moment’s notice to protect the White House and to protect the President.  And the President is appreciative of their work and their service to the country.  
 
Q    Two other quick subjects.  In a speech today -- you mentioned Jeh Johnson on another subject involving terror.  He gave a speech before all this happened in Canada and was talking about the terror threat.  And he mentioned -- 
 
MR. EARNEST:  This is Jeh Johnson?
 
Q    Jeh Johnson.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Who gave a speech?
 
Q    Yes, in Canada.
 
MR. EARNEST:  And said, “Today the terrorist threat is different from what it was in 2001.  It’s more decentralized and more complex.  Not only is there core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there’s al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula…”  And he listed all of the affiliates that you, the President, and others have said for a long time can still be a threat.  But when he mentioned that there is core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is the administration signaling that core al Qaeda is no longer decimated, that they are part of this threat matrix?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, we stand by what is demonstrably true -- that core al Qaeda, the network that previously existed along the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, has been decimated and destroyed because of the bravery and courage and service of our men and women in uniform, and our dedicated professionals in the intelligence agencies.
 
They were implementing a strategy at the direction of the President of the United States to decimate and destroy them.  That effort has been successful.  No longer is there a network that was previously presided over by Osama bin Laden that could plan and execute a global conspiracy that was years in the making to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States of America on our shores.  That network has been decimated.
 
Now, there continue to be threats that emanate from that region of the world and from other regions of the world.  But that threat, as the Secretary of Homeland Security said in his speech, is different than the threat that existed prior to 9/11.
 
Q    Last topic.  There was another important hearing today on Capitol Hill about Sergeant Tahmooressi, the U.S. Marine who has been in a Mexican jail.  The reason why it’s important, among other reasons, is that various lawmakers as well as various veterans came forward and said that he has PTSD, which the President has said is a very serious issue that he cares deeply about.  How concerned is this White House that he is still in a Mexican jail, has PTSD -- according to VA doctors -- and hasn’t gotten treatment in several months?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, I can tell you that my colleagues at the State Department are very focused on this issue, and so I’d refer you to them for their efforts to work with the Mexican government.  
 
Q    Republican Ed Royce today said that he asked Vice President Biden recently to ask President Obama to call the President of Mexico directly and get him out of jail.  And he said that didn’t happen.  Why not?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don’t believe it has, and that's because this is an issue that is being handled through the State Department and through the existing channels at the State Department.
 
Major.
 
Q    What is the President’s standing orders to the military as far as drone use in Syria and Iraq?  He had set very specific instructions about counterterrorism operations where civilians might become casualties.  Do those apply to Syria and Iraq?  And if not, why not?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, what I can tell you is that there are -- or that there is a very clear directive that has been given to the Department of Defense to take extreme measures to minimize civilian casualties as they are carrying out the military operations that the President ordered.  That is a priority of our national security.  That is a directive from the President of the United States.  And that is something that the Department of Defense follows through on.
 
Q    So let me just understand, because there was a published report this morning that what applies elsewhere doesn’t apply in Iraq and Syria -- that is there is more latitude because this is a theater of ongoing conflict and operations distinct from a more targeted counterterrorism mission against individuals upon which a lot of intelligence has been developed.  Is that true?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, it's difficult for me to get into sort of all of these intelligence assessments and how those apply to different countries.  What I can tell you is that there is a general principle that applies in the execution of all of these strategies.  We've talked a lot about how the counterterrorism strategy that is currently being applied in Iraq and Syria to apply continual pressure on these extremist organization is analogous to the strategy that we have successfully implemented in places like Somalia and Yemen.  In all of those cases, it's the responsibility of the Department of Defense to take extreme care to minimize the risk of civilian casualties in all of their actions.
 
Q    But the higher standard that the President applied I believe in his National Defense University speech does not apply in Iraq and Syria.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I can't speak to those kinds -- in that much detail.  What I can speak to is this principle that the President has laid out that applies to the application of our counterterrorism strategy in all of these countries, and that is to take extreme care to minimize the risk of civilian casualties in all our actions.
 
Q    Did the President call Joe Clancy?  Does he have any plans to meet with him personally?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don't know of any calls between the President and Mr. Clancy, but I can tell you that -- I can look into that for you.  I don't know if he’s called him or not.
 
Q    Now, what Ed was driving at is what sounds like a kind of squeamishness about doing anything or saying anything that would publicly apply a standard upon which the Secret Service cannot fall below.  And I just want to ask you directly, is it acceptable for someone with a gun, with a checkered criminal past, to be in an elevator with the President of the United States?  Yes or no?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, you're referring to this incident that we've seen public reports about, and I think one lesson that we have all learned over the last few days is it is important for an investigation to be conducted to determine the facts about what’s actually being reported.  So the Department of Homeland Security, consistent with their established protocol, has been for some time conducting a review of this specific incident.  So I'm not going to get in front of that investigation, but that is something that's being handled --
 
Q    Can you say theoretically if that's acceptable?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think common sense would indicate to you that it's not.  But I don't want anybody --
 
Q    Okay, well --
 
MR. EARNEST:  But here’s the thing, Major.  I don't want anybody to suggest that that is somehow an implicit confirmation of what’s been reported elsewhere.
 
Q    But the reason all of us are curious is because we were given an assessment of the September 19th fence-jumper that didn’t comport with the actual facts at all.  And plenty of people in this building knew within a matter of hours what actually happened, which the public didn’t learn about for a good number of days.  So all I'm trying to figure out is if you will publicly assert on behalf of the President of the United States what is or isn't acceptable when it comes to protecting him, this property, and his family.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I guess I don't -- what’s the question that you're asking?
 
Q    What is the standard that is acceptable for the Secret Service to not fall beneath?  Is it a fence-jumper getting in the East Room?  Is it a man with a gun next to the President in an elevator?  Is there any standard that you can apply in these various reports that seem to have a good deal of credibility that you can say publicly, you know what, that's unacceptable and the President doesn’t believe it's acceptable?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, I'm not really sure what you're driving at.  I think common sense -- I would readily concede to the common-sense principle that you're asserting that it is unwise and unacceptable for a situation like the one that you described to take place.  But that said, there is an ongoing investigation into this particular incident, and I'm not going to comment on the facts of that incident without knowing -- without having direct knowledge myself of that incident.
 
Let me just say as a broader -- in terms of principles that there are some principles at play here, that the United States Secret Service is comprised of highly trained, highly skilled professionals who are responsible for protecting the President, his family, and the White House, and that is very important work. At the same time -- and that is their top priority, as it should be.  At the same time, they have to balance that priority with the need to ensure that hundreds of people who work here, including all of you, have regular and at least as convenient as possible access to their workplace.  That requires a different set of security protocols to ensure that people can have relatively easy access to the place where they work.
 
In addition to that, there are thousands of people who entered the White House today to tour the People’s House.  And there are security protocols that need to be put in place to ensure that those individuals are screened, but again, without impeding their access to this building.  
 
So this is complicated work, but the challenge that is before the Secret Service is to balance all those equities in a way that protects public access, that protects the access of everybody who works here, but ultimately and most importantly, protects the safety and well-being of the President and the First Family.
 
Q    One last question.  There are several protests -- well, there’s on large protest going on and has been for several days in Hong Kong.  Earlier today, the Secretary of State, John Kerry, said the United States is interested in that being resolved peacefully, that there be no conflict, and that Chinese authorities not use any oppressive means to change the direction of those protests.  The Chinese Foreign Minister said this is a matter of internal security and everyone else should basically butt out.  What does the White House think about what is happening and what should happen in Hong Kong?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, the United States is watching very closely the situation in Hong Kong.  Around the world, the United States supports internationally recognized fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression.  We urge the Hong Kong authorities to exercise restraint.  We also urge the protestors to express their views peacefully.  
 
But the bottom line is that the United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong, in accordance with the basic law, and we support the aspirations of the Hong Kong people.  We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity.  And indeed, this is what has made Hong Kong such a successful and truly global city.
 
We have consistently made known our position to Beijing and will continue to do that.
 
Jon.
 
Q    Just a clarification on the incident -- the elevator incident at the CDC.  Earlier you said that the White House learned of it shortly before it was reported.  And now in the last couple of exchanges you’ve referred to you’ve read about it in published reports.  So which is it?  Were you informed before it was reported publicly, or did you learn about it from these published reports?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Jon, what I was trying to explain is that the White House was informed of this incident shortly before it was publicly reported.  But I am reluctant to comment on it myself because my only knowledge of this incident is based on public reports.  
 
Q    So you weren't personally informed, it was somebody else at the White House?
 
MR. EARNEST:  That's correct.  But there is an ongoing investigation into that particular incident that's being conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.
 
Q    Okay.  And then, on Ebola, the President was informed of this Ebola case in the U.S., in Texas, before it was announced, correct?
 
MR. EARNEST:  That's correct.  Yesterday afternoon, the President received a phone call from Dr. Frieden, the Director of the CDC, who informed him of this patient’s diagnosis.
 
Q    So what’s the President’s reaction?  Is he alarmed at seeing an Ebola case here in the United States?
 
MR. EARNEST:  That's not how I would describe his reaction. I think what the President is eager to ensure is that the advice of medical professionals, particularly those experts at the CDC, are being followed.  
 
And early indications are that this individual is receiving the necessary medical treatment in a way that will protect the doctors and nurses who are providing that treatment.  The necessary protocols are in place to protect other patients who are at the hospital.  
 
There are currently a team of CDC professionals who are on the ground in north Texas who are doing what’s called contact tracing.  What they are doing is they are trying to make contact with any individual who may have had contact with this particular patient while he was exhibiting symptoms of Ebola.  Again, the only way that Ebola can be transmitted is through the bodily fluids of somebody who is already exhibiting symptoms. So what they are attempting to do is to locate those individuals, and they will monitor them over the course of the 21-day incubation period to see if they develop symptoms.  And if they do, those individuals who exhibit symptoms will then be quarantined and provided medical treatment, again, in order to prevent the spread of Ebola.
 
This is the medical protocol that requires a lot of elbow grease but doesn't require a lot of sophistication.  And that's why the President has confidence in what Dr. Frieden himself has asserted, which is that we have the ability to stop this Ebola virus in its tracks.
 
Q    So the odds -- the chances of an Ebola epidemic or anything even approaching an epidemic in the United States are quite low?
 
MR. EARNEST:  They're incredibly low.  And the reason for that simply that it is not possible to transmit Ebola through the air.  You can't catch it through the air.  You can't get Ebola by drinking water or eating food here in the United States.  The only way that an individual can contract Ebola is by coming into contact with the bodily fluids of an individual that is already exhibiting symptoms of Ebola.
 
Move around a bit.  Goyal.
 
Q    Thank you.  Quick question -- as far as this historical visit of Prime Minister Modi is concerned, what is the future of U.S.-India relations after this?
 
MR. EARNEST:  The President was very pleased with the opportunity that he had to visit with Prime Minister Modi.  It reflects that depth of the strong relationship between the United States and India that the two leaders were able to come together and discuss a broad array of topics.  Each of those topics represents an area of important cooperation between our two countries.  
 
The President certainly values the opportunity that he had to visit personally with Prime Minister Modi.  It was the first opportunity that the two men had had to meet in person.  I know the President enjoyed the visit with Prime Minister Modi to the Martin Luther King Junior Memorial.  And I’m confident that as the relationship between our countries progresses, so will those areas of cooperation.
 
Q    I just want to say Prime Minister Modi was very thankful to the President for all the hospitality, and he told the audience in India from the airport.
 
MR. EARNEST:  That's good.  The President enjoyed it, too.
 
Chris.
 
Q    Thanks, Josh.  I just want to go back for a minute to the elevator incident.  And I understand that there is an ongoing investigation, but I’m wondering about standard operating procedure or protocol.  If there is an incident where it’s clear that the President was in some danger, or that Secret Service protocols were broken, would the White House expect to be notified?  Because clearly it doesn't take an investigation to know they knew right after that the guy had a gun.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, for the details related to those protocols, I’d refer you to the Secret Service.  They have a --
 
Q    But would the White House expect to be notified?  Is that something that would normally happen?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think if there’s a serious breach of the President’s security that we would anticipate that at a minimum that White House officials would be informed in a timely fashion.  But again for the specifics as it relates to the policies that are already in place at the Secret Service, I’d refer you to either them or to the Department of Homeland Security. 
 
Q    So in just the last couple of weeks there were two incidents in a matter of three days -- of course, September 16th, September 19th.  Has the President been briefed beyond that meeting that he had with the now former head of the Secret Service about changes that have been made that make him confident, given that there were two breaches just within the last couple of weeks?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Chris, the President was briefed by Director Pierson just last week, and that was after the reports of the individual who scaled the fence on the North Lawn.  In the immediate aftermath of that particular incident, there were changes that were made two White House security to strengthen the perimeter and to strengthen the security around the White House. The President was informed of those specific security changes.
 
But this is also the subject of a broader review.  And it certainly seems possible that Deputy Secretary Mayorkas, at the Department of Homeland Security, could conclude that additional security reforms are necessary.  And they will be evaluated by this independent panel of outside experts.  And we continue to have confidence that the necessary changes will be properly implemented to ensure the safety and security of the President, the First Family and the White House. 
 
Q    So the senior staff of the President have been briefed on any changes, particularly that might involve the President’s security while traveling? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, the other thing that the Secret Service has said on a number of occasions is that the security posture of the White House and of the security team around the President is something that is constantly being reviewed and updated.  And those are the kinds of changes that are consistent with the assessment of the threat environment.  They're also consistent with the need for an organization like the Secret Service to continually adapt to that changing environment.  So some of those changes in security may be obvious to the public and many of them aren’t.
 
But as I’ve said a couple of times now, the President and everyone here at the White House continues to have full confidence in the highly trained and highly skilled professionals of the Secret Service who are responsible for protecting the President of the United States. 
 
Q    Let me ask you finally, understanding that Julia Pierson offered her resignation, was any political pressure brought to bear over concerns that these controversies -- which were described by Democrats as everything from “outrageous” to “completely unacceptable,” -- any political pressure over concerns on the effect it might have on the midterms?
 
MR. EARNEST:  No, I don't think this has anything to do with politics.  
 
Jeff.
 
Q    Did anyone in the administration tell Director Pierson it was time to go?  Or did she come to that conclusion on her own?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Director Pierson offered her resignation today because she believed it was in the best interests of the agency. The President and the Secretary of Homeland Security agreed with that assessment.  There had been important questions that had been raised about the accumulating reports of shortcomings at the agency and the President and the Secretary concluded that new leadership was required.
 
Q    And one other one, just switching topics.  Earlier today in the Oval Office, Prime Minister Netanyahu said, “Israel fully supports your efforts and your leadership to defeat ISIS.  We think everybody should support this.  And even more critical is our shared goal of preventing Iran from becoming a military nuclear power.”  Does the President agree with that, that it’s even more critical to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, obviously, the threats from both of those things are different, and the implications that they have for American national security are different.  But the President certainly believes that both of them are key national security priorities.
 
Tejinder.
 
Q    Yes.  It’s about again -- about the visit.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Sure.
 
Q    Do you have anything concrete beyond the statements and beyond the intro which can be showcased to the Indian public, that the new Indian Prime Minister went and there was something that was delivered?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  I’d say a couple things about that.  I’d, first of all, refer you to the factsheet that we did put out.  It does have a pretty detailed list of the agreements that were reached between the President and the Prime Minister.  Again, they're indicative of the wide range of areas where the United States and India have a strong, cooperative partnership.  The President certainly values that aspect of the relationship between our two countries.
 
I also think that the Indian people saw some important images.  They saw the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of India sitting down, side by side in the Oval Office, discussing shared interests and priorities between our two countries.  The people of India also saw the President travel with Prime Minister Modi to the Martin Luther King Junior Memorial on the National Mall, and I think that sends a pretty clear signal about the shared values of our two countries and our two democracies.  It also demonstrates a shared commitment to the success of our two democracies. 
 
And like I said, the President really enjoyed the visit and I think it’s indicative of the kind of strong partnership that exists between the two leaders and between our two countries.
 
Q    Thanks, Josh.
 
Q    Are you disappointed that India didn't join the fight against ISIL?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Tejinder, we certainly value the strong security partnership that we have with India, that we do have a shared commitment to combating terrorism.  Both countries, both India and the United States are dealing with threats.  And we value the strong relationship that we have so that we can cooperate to meet those threats, to confront those threats, and to mitigate the risk that they pose to our citizens both at home and around the world.
 
John, I’ll give you the last one.
 
Q    Thank you, very much, Josh.  You mentioned earlier in discussing the independent panel the possibility that the next director could come from outside the Secret Service, correct?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, that is a possibility.
 
Q    I would wonder if you consider that this would be the first time since 1932 that a director has been a non-Secret Service agent, the last -- that one being Frank Wilson, who was an IRS agent -- and it would represent an 80-year, seismic change from the culture of the Secret Service.  Is this something the panel is considering, or that's been discussed at the White House?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  The panel hasn’t been formed yet.  But what they will do once they are formed is they will consider the review that's already been done by Deputy Secretary Mayorkas.  What they will also do is they will consider possible candidates for the position of Director of Secret Service and they will consider candidates both inside the agency, as well as potential candidates outside the agency, as well.
 
Thanks, very much, everybody.  
 
END    
4:29 P.M. EDT
 

President Obama Welcomes 2013 MLS Champs Sporting KC to the White House

Watch on YouTube

This afternoon, President Obama welcomed Major League Soccer team Sporting Kansas City to the White House in honor of the team's 2013 MLS Cup championship win.

In his remarks, the President noted the success that Kansas City sports teams are having as of late -- with the Royals advancing to the playoffs, as well as the Chiefs' blowout win over the New England Patriots this past Monday -- but gave credit to Sporting KC for being "the ones who got it all started."

"It's a pretty good day to be from Kansas City," he said.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met today with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China at the White House.  Ambassador Rice underscored the U.S. interest in closer coordination and cooperation between the U.S. and China on regional and global issues, including Afghanistan, global health security, the Middle East, and the risks posed by North Korea’s nuclear program.  In discussing the preparations for President Obama’s November 10-12 visit to Beijing, Ambassador Rice emphasized that this visit is an opportunity for in-depth discussions about the future potential of the U.S.-China relationship.

President Obama joined the meeting to underscore his commitment to building a stable and constructive U.S.-China relationship, including by strengthening cooperation on shared challenges, such as climate change, the Ebola epidemic, and countering the threat posed by terrorists, particularly ISIL.  President Obama affirmed that he is looking forward to his visit to China.  The President and Ambassador Rice also noted that the United States is following developments in Hong Kong closely and expressed their hope that differences between Hong Kong authorities and protestors will be addressed peacefully.  The United States has consistently supported the open system that is essential to Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, universal suffrage, and the aspirations of the Hong Kong people.