The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Mickey D. Barnett, of New Mexico, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8, 2020.   (Reappointment)

Katherine Simonds Dhanani, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Amias Moore Gerety, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, vice Cyrus Amir-Mokri, resigned.

Sheila Gwaltney, of California, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kyrgyz Republic.

Willie E. May, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, vice Patrick Gallagher, resigned.

Cono R. Namorato, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Kathryn Keneally, resigned.

Monica C. Regalbuto, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Environmental Management), vice Ines R. Triay, resigned.

Anne Elizabeth Wall, of Illinois, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Alastair M. Fitzpayne, resigned.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of the President's Meeting with Immigration Advocacy Leaders

Today, President Obama met with Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), labor and immigration advocacy leaders to provide an update on the Administration’s immigration accountability executive actions. The meeting was also an opportunity to have a dialogue with the immigrant advocacy community on the Administration’s continued efforts to push Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to pass comprehensive immigration reform.  The President also highlighted that despite the Texas district court’s ruling, the Administration will continue to make progress on many components of the executive actions and is confident we will ultimately be able to implement the deferred action policies. Many of the participants have been involved in outreach efforts to inform and educate the immigrant community on the executive actions.  The advocates in attendance agreed to continue their outreach to the community, work with the Administration on its efforts to fully implement the executive actions that were not blocked by the district court, and to push for commonsense immigration reform as the only lasting and permanent solution to fixing our broken immigration system.

Participants included:

  • Deepak Bhargava, Center for Community Change
  • Gregory Cendana, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance
  • Marielena Hincapie, National Immigration Law Center
  • Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino
  • Eliseo Medina, Fast for Families
  • Benjamin Monterroso, Mi Familia Vota
  • Janet Murguía, NCLR
  • Ali Noorani, National Immigration Forum
  • Erin Oshiro, Immigration and Immigrant Rights Program for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC)
  • Lorella Praeli, United We Dream
  • Arturo Rodriguez, United Farm Workers of America
  • Simon Rosenberg, New Democrat Network
  • Rocio Sáenz, SEIU
  • Todd Schulte, FWD.us
  • Hector Sanchez, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement and the Chair of National Hispanic Leadership Agenda
  • Frank Sharry, America’s Voice
  • Neera Tanden, Center for American Progress

Putting the Power of Data to Work for America

There’s lots of talk these days in the tech community about organizations being data-driven.

If you look across all organizations out there, which one has made the biggest change in being data driven? My answer is the U.S. Government. As a data scientist, one thing I can guarantee is that this is the most data-driven President we’ve ever had. Need proof?

This is the President that established Data.gov -- a one stop shop for the data that is produced by the government. And that list of data sets is growing thanks to the President’s Executive Action that made open and machine-readable data the new default for government information. This Administration also created the first set of dashboards at the Federal level to monitor over $70 billion in IT investments. On top of that the President announced in the State of the Union his ambitious plan to bring together big data, data science, and medicine to make precision medicine a reality.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center

Today, the President directed the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to establish the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC).  The CTIIC will be a national intelligence center focused on “connecting the dots” regarding malicious foreign cyber threats to the nation and cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests, and on providing all-source analysis of threats to U.S. policymakers.  The CTIIC will also assist relevant departments and agencies in their efforts to identify, investigate, and mitigate those threats.

Purpose

Cyber threats are among the gravest national security dangers to the United States.  Our citizens, our private sector, and our government are increasingly confronted by a range of actors attempting to do us harm through identity theft, cyber-enabled economic espionage, politically motivated cyber attacks, and other malicious activity.  As with our counterterrorism efforts, the United States Government is taking a “whole-of-government” approach to defend against and respond to these threats.  In creating the CTIIC, the Administration is applying some of the hard-won lessons from our counterterrorism efforts to augment that “whole-of-government” approach by providing policymakers with a cross-agency view of foreign cyber threats, their severity, and potential attribution.

The CTIIC will provide integrated all-source intelligence analysis related to foreign cyber threats and cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests; support the U.S. government centers responsible for cybersecurity and network defense; and facilitate and support efforts by the government to counter foreign cyber threats.  Once established, the CTIIC will join the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), and U.S. Cyber Command as integral parts of the United States Government’s capability to protect our citizens, our companies, and our Nation from cyber threats.

Authority

The CTIIC is being established under authority granted to the DNI by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to create intelligence centers.  The creation of the CTIIC does not grant the Intelligence Community any additional authority to collect intelligence or conduct intelligence operations.  Nor will the CTIIC directly engage U.S. private sector entities to provide, receive, or obtain any information about cyber threats.

Relationship to Other Cybersecurity Centers

The CTIIC will not be an operational center.  It will not collect intelligence, manage incident response efforts, direct investigations, or replace other functions currently performed by existing departments, agencies, or government cyber centers.  Instead, the CTIIC will support the NCCIC in its network defense and incident response mission; the NCIJTF in its mission to coordinate, integrate, and share information related to domestic cyber threat investigations; and U.S. Cyber Command in its mission to defend the nation from significant attacks in cyberspace.  The CTIIC will provide these entities, as well as other departments and agencies, with intelligence needed to carry out their cybersecurity missions.   

Organizational Structure

The President has directed the DNI, in cooperation with other government agencies, to refine the CTIIC’s mission, roles, and responsibilities, ensuring that those roles and responsibilities are appropriately aligned with other presidential policies as well as existing policy coordination mechanisms.  For example, it is anticipated that the CTIIC will be a critical participant in the interagency Cyber Response Group, support the National Security Council in carrying out its cybersecurity responsibilities, and have a close partnership with all departments and agencies that perform cybersecurity functions in the government.

No decisions have been made regarding the CTIIC’s specific location, but the current plan is to locate the CTIIC in the Washington, DC metro area in an existing Intelligence Community facility.  The DNI is in the process of developing the CTIIC’s organizational structure; we expect that it will be small, consisting of approximately 50 government personnel drawn from relevant departments and agencies.

Privacy and Civil Liberties

The CTIIC will perform its functions consistent with applicable policy and legal frameworks and in a manner that protects privacy and civil liberties.  The CTIIC shall access, retain, use, and disseminate such information, in a manner that protects privacy and civil liberties and is consistent with applicable law, Executive Orders, Presidential directives, and guidelines, such as guidelines established under section 102A(b) of National Security Act of 1947, as amended, Executive Order 12333 of December 8, 1981 (United States Intelligence Activities), as amended, and Presidential Policy Directive-28; and that is consistent with the need to protect sources and methods.  Agencies providing information to the CTIIC shall ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are provided in the course of implementing the memorandum that the President issued today.   Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles or other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency’s activities.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Memorandum -- Establishment of the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center

 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
                                      THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                                      THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
                                      THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
                                      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                                      THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                                      THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
                                      THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
                                      THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
                                      THE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
                                           INVESTIGATION
                                      THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
 
 SUBJECT:  Establishment of the Cyber Threat Intelligence
                     Integration Center
 
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:
 
Section 1.  Establishment of the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center.  The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) shall establish a Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC).  Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall support the DNI's efforts to establish the CTIIC, including by providing, as appropriate, personnel and resources needed for the CTIIC to reach full operating capability by the end of fiscal year 2016.
 
Sec. 2.  Responsibilities of the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center.  The CTIIC shall:
 
(a) provide integrated all-source analysis of intelligence related to foreign cyber threats or related to cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests;
 
(b) support the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task
Force, U.S. Cyber Command, and other relevant United States Government entities by providing access to intelligence necessary to carry out their respective missions;
 
(c) oversee the development and implementation of intelligence sharing capabilities (including systems, programs, policies, and standards) to enhance shared situational awareness of intelligence related to foreign cyber threats or related to cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests among the organizations referenced in subsection (b) of this section;
  
(d) ensure that indicators of malicious cyber activity and, as appropriate, related threat reporting contained in intelligence channels are downgraded to the lowest classification possible for distribution to both United States Government and U.S. private sector entities through the mechanism described in section 4 of Executive Order 13636 of
February 12, 2013 (Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity); and
 
(e) facilitate and support interagency efforts to develop and implement coordinated plans to counter foreign cyber threats to U.S. national interests using all instruments of national power, including diplomatic, economic, military, intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement activities.
 
Sec. 3.  Implementation.  (a)  Agencies shall provide the CTIIC with all intelligence related to foreign cyber threats or related to cyber incidents affecting U.S. national interests, subject to applicable law and policy.  The CTIIC shall access, assess, use, retain, and disseminate such information, in a manner that protects privacy and civil liberties and is consistent with applicable law, Executive Orders, Presidential directives, and guidelines, such as guidelines established under section 102A(b) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, Executive Order 12333 of December 4, 1981 (United States Intelligence Activities), as amended, and Presidential Policy Directive-28; and that is consistent with the need to protect sources and methods.
 
(b)  Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the National Security Agency shall provide a status report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on the establishment of the CTIIC.  This report shall further refine the CTIIC's mission, roles, and responsibilities, consistent with this memorandum, ensuring that those roles and responsibilities are appropriately aligned with other Presidential policies as well as existing policy coordination mechanisms.
 
Sec. 4.  Privacy and Civil Liberties Protections.  Agencies providing information to the CTIIC shall ensure that privacy and civil liberties protections are provided in the course of implementing this memorandum.  Such protections shall be based upon the Fair Information Practice Principles or other privacy and civil liberties policies, principles, and frameworks as they apply to each agency's activities.
 
Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
 
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
 
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
  
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
 
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
 
(d) The DNI is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 2/24/15

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:13 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  It’s nice to see you all.  You just got the readout of the President’s meeting with the Amir of Qatar.  They had an opportunity to speak for themselves to readout that meeting.

Other than noting that, I don’t have anything at the top here so we can go straight to questions.  Jim, do you want to get us started?

Q    Sure.  Thank you.  First of all, the Keystone bill is arriving at the White House today, or already has.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s what I hear.

Q    Can you tell us when the President intends to veto it, as he promised?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as I mentioned yesterday, the President does intend to veto this piece of legislation and we intend to do it without any drama or fanfare or delay.  So I would anticipate that we’ll have an update on this later on today.

Q    So you expect it today?  We can expect it today?

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, you can count on that today.

Q    Coverage or paper statement?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll have a statement through the usual channels.

Q    No photo spray or anything?

MR. EARNEST:  No.

Q    It’s in the pipeline.  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  Wouldn’t want that news to leak out some other way.  (Laughter.)

Q    You physically have the bill now?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s my understanding that Congress did send the text of the bill to the White House this morning.

Q    On DHS funding, as you know, the Senate Majority Leader has offered to split the bill so that there’s a separate vote on the immigration policies of the President and another one on the funding itself.  Senator Reid has objected to the sequencing of that.  He wants to vote on the clean funding bill first before you go on to immigration.  Does the President have a preference on that?  Does the President want to at least just get this issue off the table and it doesn’t matter on sequencing?  What’s the White House’s position?

MR. EARNEST:  The official White House position is that the President served in the United States Senate for a period between 2004 and 2008, in which he readily weighed in on legislative maneuvers and strategies related to the complicated procedures that essentially guide the legislative process.  At this point, it’s the responsibility of Congress to figure out how to perform among their most basic functions, which is to ensure that the budget for the Department of Homeland Security gets passed in a timely fashion.

Q    But, Josh, this is his party and it could essentially end up closing one of his executive agencies.

MR. EARNEST:  The President has -- well, Republicans spent a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of effort going around the country about making the case why they should be put in charge of the United States Congress.  They succeeded in that effort, and they persuaded the American people to hand them the responsibility of the majority of both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.  And the question now facing Republicans is how they’re going to use that authority and whether or not they’re going to do it responsibly, in a way that’s in the best interest of the country and whether or not it’s in the best interest of our national security. 

And the fact of the matter is I can’t find anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to shut down the Department of Homeland Security, which means that congressional Republicans should simply do their job.  And they should pass legislation that would fully fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this year.

Q    And Senator McConnell is offering a clean bill like you demanded, so why not get behind this bill?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I haven’t seen the particulars in terms of exactly what he’s put forward, but ultimately it will be up to the individual members of Congress to make their own decision.  But, again, congressional Republicans are in charge.  They’re in the majority.  And this is something that they sought, and these are exactly the kinds of problems that they hoped to have the opportunity to solve, and we look forward to them doing it.

Q    Next question on Iran.  The contours of the deal that are being discussed would allow Iran to potentially consider moving toward a nuclear device after 10 years.  And I’m wondering if that’s a period of time -- I know that parts of the discussion have been about a 20-year period before -- that seems to be the compromise number.  Is that a number that we can trust the Iranians to stick by and not to begin producing a nuclear device after that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, I'm loathe to get into the negotiating details of the position that is adopted by the United States and our international partners when they are sitting across the table from the Iranians.  However, I will say that there was a report today indicating that we were negotiating for essentially a 10-year deal.  Those reports are not correct.  That does not reflect the accurate negotiating position of the United States and our international partners. 

But the second part of your question is important as well.  It goes to whether or not the United States and the international community is prepared to start trusting the Iranians.  I think the point, Jim, of these negotiations is to not just reach an agreement with the Iranians, but reach an agreement with the Iranians that we can verify on a continuing, ongoing basis; that there is ample reason for the international community to not put a lot of faith in the claims of the Iranians when it comes to their nuclear program.  It was just a few years ago that there was this covert nuclear facility in Iran that had previously been undeclared that did yield some evidence indicating that Iran was trying to secretly develop a nuclear weapon. 

So what we need is a clear agreement from the international community and the Iranians and an agreement that is verifiable.  And any part of an agreement will include ready access by the international community to ensure that Iran is living up to their end of the bargain.

Q    But you're saying that reports that the deal would clamp down on Tehran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years and then slowly ease those restrictions, that isn't correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I'm not willing to get into the specific details of our negotiating position.  But there are some who are making the case publicly that we are in favor of a deal that would just be 10 years in duration, and that is not accurate.

Roberta.

Q    On Keystone, the veto is one thing, but I'm wondering, how long is it going to take the administration to finish its review of whether the project is in the national interest?  Is that something that’s going to happen today as well?

MR. EARNEST:  This is a review that is being conducted by the State Department, and so you can contact the State Department for an update on the timing of that review.

Q    The President isn't going to announce something on that as well today?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, the review is being conducted by the State Department, so you can get an update from them about their timing.

Q    Secondly, there are reports that the DOJ is not going to press charges against George Zimmerman for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.  Can you confirm that?

MR. EARNEST:  I can't confirm that.  So you should check with the Department of Justice about any announcement they may or may not be planning to make at this point.

Q    Okay.  Lastly, on Ukraine, Prime Minister David Cameron said he would deploy military personnel in the next month to Ukraine to help with training, and I'm wondering if that's something that the U.S. is considering -- any measures to help Ukraine with military training?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple things about this.  The first is that the United States continues to be concerned by ongoing violations of the Minsk Implementation Plan by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine.  We have seen repeatedly that these Russian-backed separatists have continued to violate the terms of the agreement despite the fact that they made firm commitments in the context of an immediate and comprehensive cease-fire.

In addition to that, we have seen Russian military vehicles -- I'm sorry -- we have seen Russian military personnel have participated in the recent attacks on Vuhlehirsk and Debaltseve. And the Russian military has put in place a robust command structure in eastern Ukraine.  We know this because separatist fighters have also previously acknowledged that they are operating under instructions from Moscow.

Russia and the separatists it backs have acted in direct contravention of the Minsk Implementation Plan that they agreed to.  And we continue to call on all signatories to carry out the commitments undertaken in the plan in the September Minsk Agreements fully and without delay.

The other thing that we're concerned about is that there are reports that Russian-backed separatists have prevented members of the OSCE special monitoring mission from getting full access to the conflict areas.  There are even some reports that indicate that those separatists have made grave threats against members of the OSCE monitoring team.  So we have seen continued behavior that is in direct violation of the agreement that Russia and the other parties signed just a couple of weeks ago. 

So we continue to be concerned about the situation in Ukraine.  I don't have any updates in terms of assistance that we will provide to the Ukrainians at this point other than to remind you that we have already provided substantial assistance to the Ukrainian military and we have already provided substantial economic assistance to the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people.  And there was additional assistance the administration believes we should provide and that is why we have called on the United States Congress to pass legislation that would offer additional loan guarantees to the Ukrainians to strengthen their economy while they try to deal with this continuing instability in the eastern part of the nation.

Cheryl.

Q    Thanks.  Back on DHS, if I may.  Senator McConnell is apparently shopping a compromise on the Hill right now to try to move forward on that.  Is the White House looking to find a compromise, or are you still certain you’ve got to have a clean bill?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Cheryl, the administration has been clear that we stand ready to compromise with members of Congress, including Republicans, when it comes to trying to address the many problems caused by our broken immigration system.  In fact, we spent a lot of time over the last couple of years trying to reach that compromise, and in the United States Senate, we succeeded in doing so, that we got more than a dozen Republican senators to sign on to a compromise bipartisan immigration reform proposal.  That was a proposal that was blocked by House Republicans, even though we knew that had the House Republican leadership allowed it to come to the floor, it would have passed with bipartisan support.

So we do stand ready to have those kinds of conversations with members of Congress.  But we shouldn’t compromise our homeland security just because Republicans want to pick a political fight.  That certainly is not responsible.  It’s not consistent with the Senate Majority Leader’s aspirations to send a signal to the American people that Republican leadership shouldn’t be “scary -- that’s his word, not mine. 

So we’re hopeful that Republicans will do the responsible thing, that they’ll join with Democrats to support a full-year extension of funding for the Department of Homeland Security prior to the deadline.  And then if there are Republicans that want to have a legitimate conversation with the administration about how to solve the problems that are created by our broken immigration system, then we stand ready to do that.  We’d even host those meetings right here at the White House if they would like.

Fred.

Q    Thanks.  As far as the meeting today with the leader of Qatar, there are reports that Qatar has lent support to Hamas in the past.  Do you think there’s an issue with the President meeting with the leader of Qatar while not meeting with the leader of Israel?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Fred, I can tell you that -- let me say a couple things about that.  As it relates to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as we’ve said this many times, there is no foreign leader with whom the President has spent more time than Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And that is a testament to the deep and ongoing security relationship that exists between the United States and Israel.  Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has said that the level of security coordination between the United States and Israel under the leadership of President Obama is unprecedented, and we certainly would share that assessment.

As it relates to the leader of Qatar, I can tell you that there are a number of important interests that we share with Qatar.  Like all partnerships, especially in this region of the world, the United States does not necessarily agree with the Qatari government on every issue, but we have the kind of relationship that allows us to be frank and open about where we disagree and why.  But the bottom line is that our interests with Qatar converge somewhat more often than they actually diverge; that Qatar has been a significant help on a range of regional issues, including Afghanistan, Iran.  As you know, the Qataris have even agreed to host a regional training site for the moderate Syrian opposition.  So we certainly welcome the efforts of the Qataris to participate in this broad international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. 

We also know that the Qataris have indicated a willingness to work closely with us in other aspects of our strategy against ISIL, too, particularly as it relates to terror financing.  And this is a focal point of the administration’s efforts to shut down terrorism across the globe, but it certainly is an important part of our strategy for degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL -- that if we can shut off the financing of their operations, we’re going to add even further strain to their ability to carry out the terrible things that we’ve seen them do.  So we’re working closely with the Qataris on that aspect of our strategy, too.  And I think that is precisely why the President convened the meeting with him in the Oval Office today.

Michelle.

Q    On the same subject, do you acknowledge that Qatar has been a significant source of especially private donations to ISIS and other terrorist groups?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, what we acknowledge is that there are areas where we disagree with the Qataris, but more often we find that our interests overlap, that our interests with the Qataris are consistent.  And whether it’s our work with the international community to try to ease the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, to dealing with the situation in Afghanistan, or even the ongoing campaign against ISIL, that there are a variety of ways in which the United States has been able to work effectively with the Qataris to protect and advance our national security interests in the region and around the globe.

Q    And for a long time, the Qataris have been accused of trying to play it both ways -- of welcoming hate preachers, as we might call them, to their biggest mosque, of continuing the financing, and only really trying to stop it when pressure is put on.  So can you say whether pressure is on them now to stop that financing and whether there has been any progress either in that area or with supporting these people that come in and preach against Jews and other faiths?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, I can tell you that the administration does continue to work closely with the Qataris to try to improve our efforts to shut down the financing for terror operations.  And the Qataris have been an effective partner in that endeavor so far, but we do believe that there is more that they can do and more that we can do together to shut down the financing of terror operations around the globe.

Q    And was that made clear today to them, that they can do more?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t have a detailed readout of the meeting.  It just ended.  But you can check with my NSC colleagues to see if you can get a better sense of how this issue was discussed in the meeting.

Q    And shortly after the video came out of the burning of the Jordanian pilot, it was said that this could be a way to bring in more of the Arab participation.  Do you anticipate that happening?  Because really it’s only been about 3 percent of the airstrikes have come from Arab partners and other countries.  Do you see that growing?  It just seems like it hasn’t changed for the duration of this.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, I think there are a lot of different ways to evaluate this, and certainly the easiest way to evaluate this is to take a close look at the way in which Arab countries have participated in our military operations against ISIL.  And as we pointed out on a number of occasions, there are important Arab partners who are taking action alongside American military pilots to strike ISIL targets in Syria.  And we certainly welcome that contribution and it is making a tangible contribution to our ongoing effort and to our broader strategy. 

There also was an important role for them, for our partners in the region, to play when it comes to shutting down ISIL financing; that there is a lot of money that’s moving through that region -- whether it’s the black market for oil to other sources of illicit financing for their operations.

We’re also working with the Qataris and other regional partners to combat ISIL’s efforts to move foreign fighters into that region.  You’ll recall that the President convened a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss this important issue last fall.  We continue to work with our partners around the globe and in the region on those efforts.  And we also work with Muslim leaders in the region to try to counter the extremist ideology that ISIL propagated on social media; that there is an important role for more moderate voices in the Muslim world to stand up and to use their influence to try to counter that messaging.  And we certainly welcome the influence of political leaders in that effort as well.

Q    And really quickly, on Bob McDonald misstating his past service -- does that bother the President or the administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, I can tell you that, obviously, as you know, Secretary McDonald went to West Point.  He served in the 82nd Airborne.  He is somebody who, when he was in the military, completed jungle, arctic, and desert warfare training.  So he is somebody who understands firsthand the sacrifice that our men and women in uniform make on a regular basis. 

He is also somebody who understands firsthand about why what he said about his service was wrong, and that certainly is why it was appropriate for him to apologize.  But there is no reason to think that the mistake that he made should interfere with his ability to continue to lead the fight for our veterans and to continue to implement the kinds of reforms at the VA that are so critical to making sure that our veterans are getting the benefits that they deserve.

Jon.

Q    A couple of quick follow-ups.  First, yesterday I asked you about whether or not the President would be calling congressional leaders to the White House to try to work out some agreement to prevent the Homeland Security shutdown from happening.  Is that going to happen?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't know of any meeting like that that's planned at this point.  But like I said, I believe that members of Congress are still returning from their week-long recess last week and once they’re all back in town, if it's necessary for the President to bring some of them down to the White House and have a conversation about this, then we'll do that.

Q    Do you think it would be productive given what you just said about how the President has been out of the Senate for a number of years, doesn’t want to get engaged in these questions of procedural --

MR. EARNEST:  I think the point is that it's their responsibility to work this through.  And again, Republicans spent a lot of time trying to persuade the American people that they should be entrusted with the reins of the United States Congress and be entrusted with the power of the purse.  And we need to see if they’re going to step up and assume responsibility.

Again, there are probably going to be some times over the course of this year where Republicans in Congress are going to have to make some really tough decisions and take some really difficult votes.  I'm not really sure why funding the Department of Homeland Security and making sure that that funding doesn’t lapse is considered a difficult task.   But again, this is a challenge for Republican leaders to decide if they can demonstrate to the American public that they’re going to continue to act in the country’s best interests.

Q    On the Iran nuclear talks, you said that the White House is not negotiating for a 10-year sunset, basically, a 10-year -- a point where Iran would be able to become effectively a nuclear power.  Is the administration, is the White House, the President opposed to a timeline that is so short?  You said you're not pushing for it, you're not arguing for it, you're not negotiating for it.  But is that a non-starter?  Is that something you would not agree to?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, Jon, I've used this analogy on other occasions, or on other topics.  It's not something that you and I can negotiate from here, that ultimately we're going to have a conversation with the Iranians about the way that they can resolve the international community’s concerns with their nuclear program.

At this point, there’s not more detail that I can share about the negotiating position of the United States other than to say that those reports from earlier today were not accurate and did not accurately reflect our negotiating.

Q    I understand why you wouldn’t want to negotiate it here, obviously, but this seems to be a pretty fundamental question.  The report that you now said was inaccurate, but I'm trying to get how much of -- I don't want to use the word red line, but how much of an absolute non-starter that is.  The report suggested a deal taking place with the Iranians after a period of just 10 years, where it would basically have no restrictions on their ability to enrich uranium.  And I'm just asking if that’s -- I know that's not the position you're trying to get, but is that simply unacceptable?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what is unacceptable is the idea that Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon.  And that has been our policy for quite some time.  And the whole purpose of these negotiations is to make sure that Iran doesn’t obtain a nuclear weapon.  And the reason for that is that it would be terribly destabilizing for the region.  It could precipitate, and I think we could even say is likely to precipitate a nuclear arms race in what is already a very volatile region of the world.  That would not be in the best interests of American national security, and it certainly would not be in the best interest of our closest ally in the region, Israel. 

So that's why we're engaged in these negotiations.  And once we have -- the President has indicated that the time for conducting these kinds of negotiations is running short, and so once we've sort of reached the other end of these things, we can have a more detailed conversation about what that deal is.

Q    And can you confirm --there was some confusion about the deadline.  Is the deadline for these talks March 24th, as White House officials have suggested in the past, or is it March 31st?

MR. EARNEST:  You mean March 24th or 31st?  I know that it’s  -- I've always heard people say it's the end of the month.  So let me see if I can get back to you with a specific -- if there’s a date certain.

Q    And just one quick thing.  The Republican leaders have said that the President vetoing Keystone would be a political move to please environmental extremists.  What is your response to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the reason the President will veto this legislation that has passed the Congress is that it circumvents a longstanding administrative process for evaluating whether or not infrastructure projects like this are in the best interest of the country.  And it does not represent a specific position on the pipeline itself.  It just merely says that the benefits, the consequences of building that pipeline should be thoroughly evaluated by experts and through this administrative process that has existed for decades and has been used by previous Presidents of both parties to evaluate similar infrastructure projects.  And that's the proper path moving forward, but does not represent a final disposition of the Keystone project.

John.

Q    I know the Vice President and the Secretary of State will be out of town next week during the start of -- actually during the whole AIPAC conference.  Will an administration official be addressing the AIPAC conference at all?

MR. EARNEST:  We'll have more information on that soon.  Obviously we've received an invitation from AIPAC and we'll get back to them.

Q    So we should expect just a name -- it's not whether you're going to have an administration official attend the conference.  It's just a matter of figuring out which administration official actually addresses AIPAC?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I think -- we have received the invitation from AIPAC.  We're considering the invitation.  And once we've made a decision we'll get back to AIPAC about who the speakers will be, and then we'll be in a position to talk about it.

Alexis.

Q    The President has expressed more optimism about bipartisan -- (inaudible.)  Can you explain whether it's just Democrats coming?  Who’s been invited and what the President’s hopes are for that legislation?

MR. EARNEST:  Alexis, I would anticipate that we'll have a list of lawmakers who participate in that meeting.  Both Democrats and Republicans were invited, and I would anticipate that there will be a bipartisan group of members at the meeting. The President, as you point out, does view this as an opportunity for us to find some common ground to move the country forward; that there are some Republicans who have raised similar concerns that the President himself has discussed about our criminal justice system, about reforms that could make our system more consistent with our values of fairness and justice and equality that certainly the President believes are really important, and I know that many of the members -- that all the members who are participating in the meeting also believe are important.

So this is an area that's worthy of careful consideration and consultation because there might be an opportunity for Congress to act in bipartisan fashion with the strong support of the President to put in place reforms to our system that would make our nation more just.  So the President is looking forward to that discussion.  I would anticipate that we'll have, like I said, a list of the members who participate and at least a general overview of that meeting once it concludes.

Q    Josh, yesterday, Governor Fallin, after she met with the National Governors Association, with the President, reported that the President said he was “open to crude exports from the U.S.”  Is that an accurate characterization of what the President told the governors?  And is that sort of a shift in position from what he has previously said?

MR. EARNEST:  I was not in the room when that exchange occurred, so it's hard for me to accurately reflect the way the question was asked and the way it was answered.  What I can do, though, is assure you that the policy of the administration has not changed, that crude oil export regulations are administered by the Department of Commerce.  That’s where these kinds of regulations are considered.  And I don’t have sort of change to announce at this point.

Major.

Q    Following up on Iran, is it the administration’s position that you would want a permanent agreement, one that has no timeline whatsoever, to meet the goal that you said repeatedly, which is to ensure there’s never a development of a nuclear weapon?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what we want is we want an agreement that’s verifiable and we certainly want one that all parties live up to.  And again, in terms of what kind of time constraints are placed in the context of the negotiations and how long people would be signing up, that’s not something I’m going to prejudge or be in a position to talk about from here.  Obviously, this is the subject of ongoing --

Q    -- answer suggests that the administration is open to a timeline of some kind.  It has to be one or the other.

MR. EARNEST:  I recognize that.  I guess what I’m trying to say is I’m just not going to be in a position to talk about the details of our negotiating position with the Iranians.  And the reason for that is simply that we have agreed on the front end with our international partners who are joining us at the table and with the Iranians that we can have an open, candid dialogue in the context of these negotiations with the goal of trying to reach an agreement.  And attempts to try to influence those negotiations by talking about them outside of the context of the negotiations are not going to be helpful to that process.

But my point is, we will have an opportunity at some point, -- on or around the end of March, we’ll have an opportunity to discuss either the framework for an agreement that’s been reached, or we’ll be able to discuss why we were not able to reach an agreement despite the common-sense, reasonable proposal that’s been put forward by the international community.  And your interest in understanding exactly what was put forward is a reasonable one, but one that I can’t discuss right now.

Q    Well, let me just ask you this:  Have you reconciled in your own mind how you could describe to the country an agreement that had a timeline that also met the standard of Iran never obtaining a nuclear weapon?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, once --

Q    They’re almost irreconcilable.  Can both be true?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, the most important thing is to figure out what exactly Iran will agree to, and understand whether or not --

Q    -- whether or not Iran can obtain a nuclear weapon.

MR. EARNEST:  -- and whether or not it will resolve the international community’s concerns about their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.

So that is the focal point of these negotiations.  And again, once we are in a position to evaluate either an agreement that has been reached, or an offer that was made an then rejected by the Iranians, we can talk in more detail about the negotiating position that was assumed by the United States and our international partners, and how it was possible to reconcile that with the policy goals that we have stated, the most important of which you’ve reiterated here, which is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

Q    On Secretary McDonald -- a couple of veterans groups have said they accept his apology, but said it raises questions in their minds about his trustworthiness.  And they don’t talk just about this, but they’ve also made mention of misstatements that the Secretary may have intentionally or unintentionally made about how many people have been fired and held accountable in some of the implementation of reforms.  Is the President satisfied that Secretary McDonald is trustworthy and is, in fact, implementing all of the reforms and legislation he recently signed?

MR. EARNEST:  The President believes that Secretary McDonald has a very difficult task in front of him to try to bring much-needed reforms to the VA.  And this is a task that generations of VA secretaries have tried to accomplish.  Many of them have made progress, and the President is pleased with the progress that Secretary McDonald has made so far.

But again, this is a very difficult challenge.  And the reason that Secretary McDonald has been successful so far is that not only does he bring with him some private sector management experience that I do think is useful when trying to get his arms around a large government agency like this and manage it efficiently, or at least as efficiently as possible, this task also reflects his own personal commitment to these issues that starts with his own military service to our country.  But even after he left military service, Secretary McDonald was committed, even using his free time, to try to support military families, our veterans and their families.  And that’s a testament to his character.  It’s a testament to what drives him, and it’s why he’s well suited for this job.

But I don’t think there’s anybody who sits around -- who wakes up in the morning thinking, boy, my job is really hard today, I wish I could just go walk in Bob McDonald’s shoes because that sure would be a weight off my shoulders.  I think everybody recognizes that he’s a got a very difficult task in front of him.  And that’s why his skill and personal commitment to these issues are so important to his success.

Q    When the VA was in a lot of trouble, the President tasked Rob Nabors to go over and assist.  Is he still there?  Is he still working in carrying out essentially a conduit role from the White House to the VA, and serving as that sort of presidential intermediary or liaison with this new Secretary?

MR. EARNEST:  Rob is still working at the VA and is still providing the Secretary and other members of the senior leadership at the VA the kind of advice and expertise that they continue to benefit from.  So we certainly are pleased to have Rob still serving his country and our veterans over at the VA.

Q    Last question.  Senator McCain raised his concerns about the Choice Card, which is part of the legislation the President signed.  We had a couple of questions at the budget briefing, but it doesn’t appear that every member of Congress is satisfied that this Choice Card is going to be implemented in the budget and the financial flexibility is going to be there for veterans to obtain care outside of the system if they meet the criteria.  Can you assure veterans, from this podium, that, in fact, financing will be there and the Choice Card will be implemented fully as written by Congress?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not intimately familiar with this issue, so let me take this question for the VA and see if we can provide you some data to help you understand our position on this. 

Q    Josh, thanks.  I want to take you back to Keystone for a moment.  Is there any way in your mind, if the process plays out -- you’ve made the point that this has sort of circumvented longstanding processes -- if they were to play out, in your mind, is there any way the President signs off on the Keystone XL?

MR. EARNEST:  That possibility still does exist.  This is an ongoing review that’s being conducted by the State Department.  They’re going to evaluate the impact that this project would have on the country.  They’re going to have the opportunity to evaluate the impact that this project would have on contributing to climate change.  And it certainly is possible; the President will keep an open mind as the State Department considers the wide range of impacts that this pipeline could have on the country, both positive and negative.  And so we’ll see what happens once the State Department has completed their - what’s called the national interest determination - what essentially is a report evaluating whether or not the completion of this infrastructure project would be in the best interest of the United States of America.

Q    You said as far as Israel was concerned there’s a deep, longstanding security relationship between our country and theirs.  I’m curious, as it relates to the Iranian talks, is it fair to characterize a level of frustration on behalf of the administration to this notion that some people are cherry-picking bits and pieces and maybe as an outside actor attempting to influence the negotiations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, I think you asked about this last week, I believe, where I did express some frustration that we have seen some people take information that they had obtained about the U.S. negotiating position and cherry-pick information to try to distort the public impression of exactly what that negotiating position was.  So that is why, at least, even in the context of the questions that I’ve taken today, that I’ve been loathe to get into the details of the U.S. negotiating position. Everybody will have an opportunity to evaluate that soon enough.

Q    But as the details come out, albeit you’re saying they’re not accurate, you can understand why many perhaps in Israel might say, you see, this is exactly what we were talking about to begin with.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what people around the globe can be confident of is that the United States is negotiating with one clear goal in mind, which is to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.  And we are working closely with the international community to achieve that goal.  That was the goal of the sanctions regime that Congress passed and this administration implemented in close coordination with our allies around the globe, to compel the Iranians to come to the negotiating table and try to resolve the international community’s concerns with their nuclear program. 

And those talks are underway, and we certainly wouldn’t want anything that I say from here or any other efforts to try to distort our negotiating position to negatively impact our ability to try to bring those negotiations to conclusion in a way that yields a strong and verifiable agreement that’s clearly in the best interest of not just the United States and not just Israel and not just our international negotiating partners, but is clearly in the best interest of the whole country -- or of the whole globe.

Q    Quick housekeeping.  As far as AIPAC is concerned, there is zero chance that someone won’t be going to AIPAC, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, they have extended an invitation to the administration; once we have decided how we’re going to respond to the invitation, we will let them know.  And then once we let them know, we’ll let all of you know.

Q    But you will accept it, someone is going, right?

Q    Somebody is going, right?

MR. EARNEST:  I hear you.  It does seem just as a matter of common courtesy, it seems like we should respond to their invitation first and then we can talk about it publicly.

Chris.

Q    So you’re not suggesting that no one is going?

MR. EARNEST:  I certainly didn’t come close to saying that.

Q    Yes, you did.  (Laughter.)

Q    I want to ask a question a different way.  Given the President is going to make obviously the final call on XL, is there no communication between the White House and State Department about when you might expect their report?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t know -- I can’t account for every single conversation that occurs between the White House and the State Department.  I think it’s certainly possible that somebody in the White House has gotten an update in terms of how much longer it would take the State Department to compete their review, but I’m not aware of those conversations.  But even if I were, I’m not sure I’d be in a position to announce for the State Department what their timeline is going to be.  If they’re prepared to announce a timeline then they’ll announce it.

Q    As you know, there are a lot of people anxious about this.  They waited six years and there are others who are concerned about a political implication for 2016 depending on when the President does make his decision.  Is the expectation that once the State Department report comes out, the President will make a decision fairly quickly?  Does he feel like he needs to do that quickly?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I wouldn’t want to prejudge the outcome here, but I would anticipate that once the review has been completed that there would not be a significant delay in announcing the results of that review and ultimately making a decision on this project.

Q    But on DHS, as you know, there are critics who have suggested that the White House has overstated the potential impact if there’s a delay in funding, saying that because everyone who is essential will still be working that it won’t make a significant difference to national security.  The White House’s -- you and others have said that obviously an impact would occur.  And we heard from some people, including the FEMA Director yesterday, about what that would be.  So given that, what kind of preparations are underway for a possible shutdown? And is the White House confident that DHS is ready, should that occur?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, I can tell you that it’s not just the administration who is making the case that shutting down the Department of Homeland Security would have a bad impact on national security.  I know that Congressman Peter King was on television today making exactly that case.  So he doesn’t often agree with the administration, but at least in this case he’s making the same case that we are.  He’s not the only one who’s making that case.

I do know that the Department of Homeland Security has been engaged in a planning process to ensure they are prepared and can take the steps necessary to try to mitigate the impact of a shutdown of that department.  But as I’ve mentioned before, the impact of that shutdown will include tens of thousands of Homeland Security personnel being furloughed.  It will include many Homeland Security officers showing up for work to protect their country but not getting a paycheck on time.  And that doesn’t seem particularly fair, and I’m not sure why anybody thinks that would be a good outcome for the country.

So we’ve been clear that this is not a good thing.  But DHS is doing the responsible thing, which is, even as they try to talk to members of Congress and encourage them to fulfill their responsibility and pass a budget, they’re also engaged in the planning to try to mitigate the potential impact of shutting down their agency.

Q    Can you give us a sense of what’s involved in that planning?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t, but they probably can.

Yes, sir.

Q    A couple questions, Josh.  A few days ago, a Mexican citizen was killed by two police officers in Pasco, Washington.  Is the President aware of the incident?  Or the White House?  What’s his reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Can you say it one more time?

Q    A Mexican citizen was killed in Pasco, Washington, the state of Washington.  My question was, was the President aware of the incident, or the White House, and what is the reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ve certainly seen the news reports.  I haven’t talked to the President about it.  I don’t know if he is aware, although knowing he’s an avid consumer of news, I assume that he is.  But I don’t know a lot of the details of the case beyond what I’ve read in news reports.  So for questions about sort of where that investigation stands, I’d refer you to the local authorities there.

Mara.

Q    I have a question about Ukraine.  You said earlier that you continue to be concerned by these violations.  And the President said when Merkel was visiting that if Russia continued to do this he would seriously consider sending arms to the Ukrainian government and also possibly increasing the sanctions. So you’re seeing these violations.  Now what are you going to do?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what we’re doing right now is we’re continuing to support the ongoing efforts to try to implement this agreement.  And I know that there was a call that was scheduled among the foreign ministerial level of the four groups that have been involved in these negotiations -- the Russians, the Ukrainians, the French and the Germans --

Q    Today?

MR. EARNEST:  I believe that was yesterday -- I don’t know if it was yesterday or today, but I know that those efforts are ongoing and we continue to support them.  And the consequences that you cited of failing to live up to those kinds of commitments continue to be on the table.  So we’re going to continue to closely watch the situation with the President, the Vice President, and other senior members of the team, continue to be in close touch with our partners who are working this situation and we’re going to monitor it closely.  But certainly there is the potential of offering additional assistance to the Ukrainian military or ramping up our sanctions regime against the Russians.

Q    Look, right now they’re violating it.  How long will they go on violating it until you do something?  I’m just wondering, how long do you give this process?  I mean, they’re not living up to it now.  You’re monitoring it.  How long are you going to monitor the violations before you do something?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll we’re going to continue to try to work diplomatically to resolve this situation.  And that has been our approach from the beginning, which is that it is our view that the only way we’re going to resolve this is not with a military solution but with a diplomatic solution.  And that is why we’re continuing to press that option.

But, you’re right, at some point you have to start considering some other alternatives, which is why the United States has already provided substantial military assistance to the Ukrainian military.  It’s why we’ve already worked with our partners in Europe to put in place a sanctions regime and isolate President Putin and -- or Russian political leadership.  And that was a response to their earlier violations of generally accepted international norms.

But, yes, the potential of increasing our assistance to Ukraine and increasing the costs that are sustained by Russia has the potential to be implemented.  But we’re going to continue to watch this and make decisions accordingly.

Q    Well, is it also possible that these violations could continue and you decide to do nothing else?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think our level of pessimism is not quite that high, but we’ll --

Q    You say there’s the potential that you might do something else. 

MR. EARNEST:  That’s right.

Q    I’m just wondering, if the violations continue, might you also decide that it’s not worth doing anything else on sanctions?

MR. EARNEST:  Based on our past response to Russia’s provocations and failure to live up to generally accepted international principles, I think you could rightly conclude that it’s unlikely that that is the outcome.  But as we see Russia continue to destabilize eastern Ukraine and continue to take steps that are clearly in violation of agreements that they’ve signed, that the risk of further sanctions only increases.

Mark.

Q    Josh, I want to come back to Iran one more time.  I just want to be clear about what you’re denying.  You’re denying that the United States has proposed a 10-year agreement, is that right?

MR. EARNEST:  My understanding of the reports -- that I will confess that I have not seen firsthand -- but my understanding of the reports indicate that -- they wrongly indicate that the agreement that’s being negotiated right now will be 10 years in length, and that’s not our negotiating position at all.

Q    But you’re not denying that there is some substantially longer agreement of which there is a 10-year opening phase to it, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I’m reluctant to do is to sort of wade in on a detailed assessment of where the negotiations currently stand.

Q    I’m not asking for details.  Just are you denying something longer?

MR. EARNEST:  That’s certainly more detail than we’ve talked about so far.  But again, we will have an opportunity in the coming weeks to consider either to evaluate an agreement that’s been reached, or to evaluate an agreement that the Iranians walked away from.  But suffice it to say the United States continues to negotiate from the position that there should be an opportunity for the Iranians to ease the international community’s concerns about their nuclear program to, in a verifiable way, make clear to the international community that they will not acquire a nuclear weapon. 

The Iranians have said many times that that is consistent with their view and with their national policy.  It’s the view of the international community that they just need to be able to verify that for the international community.  And ultimately, if we can come to an agreement around those outlines that would be a good outcome for not just the United States and Israel, but it would be good for the world.

Q    Can we follow on this?

MR. EARNEST:  Go ahead, Connie.

Q    At this point, would you still call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel the speech before the Congress?  And if so, would the President meet with Netanyahu?

MR. EARNEST:  Connie, we have not called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to cancel his speech.  And we’ve indicated the reason that the President will not meet with him during this visit to the United States is that it comes just two weeks before his election.  And in order to avoid even the appearance of interfering with a democratic election in another country, the President will not meet with the Prime Minister.  But I would anticipate that at some point after the elections, regardless of who wins, that the President will convene a meeting with the leader of Israel and will continue the very close coordination on security issues that has characterized his relationship thus far with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

JC.

Q    As the United States and her allies try to come to an agreement with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, what is this administration doing -- how is it engaged to reduce nuclear weapons in nations that actually do have these weapons, like China and North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, et cetera?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, JC, the President -- I think each of those situations is a little bit different.  But we certainly have even worked closely with Russia to reduce our nuclear stockpile, and this is something that the President did early in his tenure.  And that, he believes, is in the best interest of not just U.S. national security, but also the safety of citizens and people around the globe.  But, certainly, we continue to be focused on these issues.

Q    Last Friday, a federal judge appointed by President Obama issued an injunction on a separate immigration executive action, specifically stopping the detention of migrants coming across the border in Texas.  Is the Department of Justice going to seek a stay of this injunction in the same way they are seeking a stay --

MR. EARNEST:  I’d encourage you to check with DOJ about sort of the next step in that legal process.  I do know that the issue in question in that legal proceeding was related to our efforts to address what at the time was a rather urgent situation that we saw a substantial number of unaccompanied minors at the southern border attempting to illegally enter the United States of America.  And one of our efforts to try to respond to that situation was to detain recent border-crossers near the border, and to try to find an environment in which families could be detained together, and to try to make sure that we’re doing that in the most humane way possible.

So I know that there are some who raised concerns about that policy, but that is what the administration believed was an appropriate way to respond to that urgent situation.

Since that time, we have seen the numbers of undocumented immigrants, particularly unaccompanied minors, in that sector of the border decline substantially.  And that’s thanks to the comprehensive strategy that this administration has put in place, working with Central American countries, working with our partners in Mexico, and stepping up some of our law enforcement capabilities on the border to try to address the situation.  And that situation has -- or at least the urgency of the situation down there has subsided dramatically.

Q    -- your administration argued that this detention served as a deterrent to make sure that wasn’t another ongoing flood of migrants.  That’s part of the comprehensive strategy you just mentioned.  Is the administration at all concerned now that this deterrent is gone, that you’ll see another wave of migrants?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it certainly wasn’t the only deterrent. I think the most effective deterrent that we have is to have the President of the United States making very clear that people in Central America should not send their kids on this very dangerous journey; that too often, we saw reports of kids who didn’t complete the journey safely, that they were killed.  This is a very dangerous trek.  In some cases, we saw the kids were actually funneled into human trafficking rings. 

So we’ve continued to make the case very clearly and very publicly that parents should not even contemplate to putting their kids in the hands of human traffickers in trying to move them into the United States illegally.  So we’ve been really clear about that, and that is probably the most effective deterrent that we have.  But to the extent that other things can also deter and reinforce that message, we obviously want to support them.

Q    The Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Thad Cochran, scoring the President’s executive actions for DACA and DAPA, and it found that his executive actions would actually increase budget deficits by $8.8 billion over the next 10 years. I was wondering if you could square that CBO finding with the President’s budget, which claims immigration reform and executive actions would reduce the budget.

MR. EARNEST:  We may have to follow up with you on this,  because my reading of that report was actually that removing the executive actions would actually add $8 billion to the deficit.

Q    Off-budget, you're right.  That's if we don't consider -- that's if the payroll taxes from the DAPA and DACA recipients didn't go to the Social Security trust fund.  But if the Social Security trust fund exists, if those payroll taxes are going to the Social Security trust fund, then that CBO letter found that the immigration actions do add to the deficit by $8.8 billion over the next 10 years.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I may have somebody who is more steeped in the budgetary details.  My understanding is that this would have a positive impact on our deficit precisely because for the first time what we’d be doing is we’d be bringing people out of the shadows and actually making them pay taxes.  That would be a good thing for the life of Social Security.  It would be a good thing for our economy.  And ultimately, it would be a good thing for the deficit.  But we can have somebody follow up with you on your -- on what may be a more detailed question.

Q    Thank you very much.

MR. EARNEST:  Mark.

Q    Josh, back on Keystone, does President Obama believe that 2,300 days is a reasonable length of time for the State Department to conduct an evaluation?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think it’s certainly fair to suggest that the State Department is conducting an in-depth review.  (Laughter.)  The other thing that is also true is that there have been some legal proceedings that have interfered with the completion of this review.  There was this long-running court case in Nebraska about the proper route of the pipeline.  And that certainly did impact the State Department’s ability to evaluate the route of the pipeline since it wasn’t finalized and was subject to this ultimate court ruling.

But within just the last few weeks the Nebraska court has issued a decision that has finalized the proposal, and now that final proposal can be evaluated by the State Department.  That's what they're doing right now.

Q    Can you imagine what he would say if he gave you an assignment and you said, I’ll get back to you in 2,300 days?  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  I can't.  (Laughter.)  I can't.

Goyal.

Q    Thank you.

MR. EARNEST:  I’ll give you the last one, Goyal.

Q    Two questions here.  One, when last year Prime Minister Modi came to the United States, late last year -- and including at the United Nations and at the White House, at the U.N. he announced that India should be a member of the U.N. Security Council, and which President in India also announced and endorsed.  What is happening with that membership?

And also Prime Minister Modi addressed in Washington the U.S.-India Business Council and calling on the Fortune 500 companies make in India, which will create thousands of jobs in the U.S. and thousands of jobs in India.  So what’s happening with that issue?  And the two leaders also set up a hotline.  The two have spoken ever since his visit to the White House?

MR. EARNEST:  Goyal, I can tell you as it relates to India’s membership on the Security Council, I know the President endorsed them acceding to the Security Council in the context of a variety of other important reforms to the operations of the United Nations.  I don't have an update for you on the status of those ongoing reforms, or at least efforts to try to bring about some of those reforms.  But I’m sure my colleagues in Ambassador Power’s office can give you some additional information on this.

Goyal, the President often discusses his view that we need to have more products that are stamped with Made in America and that that would be good for the U.S. economy.  It would be good for job creation.  The President also does believe that, as Indian consumers have the opportunity to buy American goods, that it could be good for the Indian economy, as well. 

So the President did have the opportunity to discuss some of these economic issues and our trade relationship with India.  In the context of his visit to India just last month, the President spent a lot of time with Prime Minister Modi and they spent a lot of time talking about some of these economic issues.

You’ll recall that there was a CEO summit in the context of those meeting, and that there were American and Indian business leaders that spent some time talking through some of these issues.  And the President himself had the opportunity to sit down at a roundtable with a couple dozen of them and talk about some of the challenges that they face as they try to do more business together in a way that benefits the economies and job creation in both countries.

So there is an opportunity for us to try to advance the interests of both our countries by working together and by coordinating our efforts.  And the President is certainly committed to that, again, in part, because the substantial economic benefits that could be enjoyed by the American people.  And that ultimately is his goal.

I know that Prime Minister Modi has a similar interest.  And I don't know of any recent conversations that they have had, but that continues to be a priority of both the President and his administration.

Q    Second, Josh, as far as the immigration is concerned, when President issued executive order millions of people were happy in that they will come out of the shadow.  Now they're confused.  What message you think President has for them?  They are waiting to come out of the shadow and apply for their status.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Goyal, this is something that we are concerned about.  The President does believe and we have said on many occasions that we believe that there is a very clear precedent for the executive actions the President announced at the end of last year; that taking executive action to try to address some elements of our broken immigration system is consistent with the way that Presidents of both parties for several decades have used their executive authority.

And there is no doubt that these kinds of changes would be good for our economy, would be good for job creation, and would be good for bringing about greater accountability to our immigration system.  And that ultimately is what the President believes is the benefit here -- that we can bring millions of people out of the shadows, that we can make them submit to a background check, that they will pay taxes, and that they can also get a work permit and they can start contributing to this country in a way that doesn't require them to live in fear of being deported at a moment’s notice and separated from their families.

Now, this, of course, does not apply to people who have recently crossed the border.  In fact, we want to focus our enforcement efforts on people who have recently crossed the border and on others who may pose a threat to community safety or national security.  But that is the crux of this debate, and we're going to continue to move this through the legal process because we're confident that the strongest legal arguments around on our side.

Thanks, everybody.

END
2:13 P.M. EST

President Obama Meets with The Amir of Qatar

February 24, 2015 | 6:43 | Public Domain

On February 24, 2015, President Obama delivered remarks after a bilateral meeting with The Amir of Qatar, His Highness Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani.

Download mp4 (246MB) | mp3 (16MB)

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

  • Katherine Simonds Dhanani – Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Somalia, Department of State
  • Amias Gerety – Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, Department of the Treasury
  • Cono R. Namorato – Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, Department of Justice
  • Anne Elizabeth Wall – Deputy Under Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, upon appointment to be designated Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs

President Obama also announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts:

  • Laura DeBonis – Member, Public Interest Declassification Board
  • Solomon B. Watson IV – Member, Public Interest Declassification Board
  • John W. Keker – Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust
  • Joan Ellyn Silber – Member, Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

President Obama said, “I am honored that these talented individuals have decided to serve our country.  They bring their years of experience and expertise to this Administration, and I look forward to working with them.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Katherine Simonds Dhanani, Nominee for Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Somalia, Department of State
Katherine Simonds Dhanani, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Counselor, currently serves as Director of the Office of Regional and Security Affairs in the Bureau of African Affairs in the Department of State, a position she has held since 2013.  Previously, Ms. Dhanani served as Consul General at the U.S. Consulate in Hyderabad, India from 2010 to 2013 and was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe from 2007 to 2010 as well as at the U.S. Embassy in Libreville, Gabon from 2005 to 2007.  Additionally, she was the Political and Economic Section Chief at the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka, Zambia from 2002 to 2005 and Economic Section Chief at the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1999 to 2002.  She was an Economic Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, Mexico from 1998 to 1999 as well as in the Office of Mexican Affairs at the Department of State from 1996 to 1998.  Prior to this, she served as Staff Assistant in the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs at the Department of State, as Consular Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo and as Economic Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Georgetown, Guyana.  She was also Assistant Planner for the City of Sacramento in California and a Lecturer at Grinnell College in Iowa.  Ms. Dhanani received a B.A. from Kenyon College and an M.A. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

Amias Gerety, Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, Department of the Treasury
Amias Gerety serves as Counselor in the Office of Domestic Finance at the Department of the Treasury, a position he has held since June 2014.  He also served as the Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions at Treasury from April 2014 to November 2014.  From 2011 to 2014, he was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Oversight Council at Treasury.  Prior to this, he served as Senior Advisor in the Office of Financial Institutions at Treasury from 2009 to 2010.  From 2005 to 2009, Mr. Gerety was an Associate at Oliver Wyman.  Additionally, he worked with Gene Sperling as a researcher for The Pro-Growth Progressive from 2004 to 2005.  Mr. Gerety received an A.B. from Harvard University.

Cono R. Namorato, Nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, Department of Justice
Cono R. Namorato is currently a Member of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale, a position he has held since 2006 and previously from 1978 to 2004.  From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Namorato served as Acting Deputy Commissioner for certain designated matters and as Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the Department of the Treasury.  Before beginning his career at Caplin & Drysdale, Mr. Namorato held various positions within the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 1977 to 1978, Assistant Chief and then Chief of the Criminal Section from 1973 to 1977, and Supervisory Trial Attorney and Trial Attorney from 1968 to 1973.  Mr. Namorato began his career in 1963 as a Special Agent for the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS in the Brooklyn District.  He is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and a fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel.  Mr. Namorato has headed various tax-related committees and subcommittees for the American Bar Association, serving as Chair of the Tax Section’s Subcommittee on Criminal Tax Policy, Chair of the Committee on Tax Litigation, and Co-Chair of the Committee on Complex Criminal Litigation of the Litigation Section.  Mr. Namorato received a B.B.A. from Iona College and a J.D. from Brooklyn Law School.

Anne Elizabeth Wall, Nominee for Deputy Under Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, upon appointment to be designated Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs
Anne Elizabeth Wall is currently a Counselor to Secretary Lew at the Department of the Treasury, a position she has held since January 2015.  From 2011 through 2014, Ms. Wall served in the White House, most recently as the Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs and Senate Liaison from 2013 to 2014 and previously as Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs from 2011 to 2013.  Prior to joining the White House, Ms. Wall served in the office of United States Senator and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) from 2006 to 2011 holding various positions, including Floor Director and Office Counsel.  From 2004 to 2006, she was a litigation associate at Pretzel & Stouffer in Chicago.  She also served as a Law Clerk for Cook County Circuit Court Judges Allen Goldberg and Lynn Egan.  Ms. Wall received a B.A. from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio and a J.D. from DePaul University in Chicago, Illinois, where she was a member of the Law Review.

President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to key Administration posts:

Laura DeBonis, Appointee for Member, Public Interest Declassification Board
Laura DeBonis has been a consultant to EF Education First since 2013.  Previously, she was Co-Chair of the Steering Committee for the Juliette Kayyem Campaign for Massachusetts Governor from 2013 to 2014.  Ms. DeBonis was a Team Member with the Internet Safety Technical Task Force at the Berkman Center, Harvard University, from 2008 to 2009.  Ms. DeBonis served in various roles at Google from 2002 to 2008, including Director for Book Search Library Partnerships from 2004 to 2008 and Director of AdSense Online in 2004.  She worked for Alter Ego Networks from 2000 to 2001, Organic Online from 1999 to 2000, and Chedd-Angier Production Company from 1993 to 1997.  Ms. DeBonis is a Founding Board Member of the Digital Public Library of America, and a member of the Board of Trustees of WGBH Boston and the Boston Public Library.  She received a B.A. from Harvard College and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School.

Solomon B. Watson IV, Appointee for  Member, Public Interest Declassification Board
Solomon B. Watson IV was Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of The New York Times Company, positions he held from 2005 to 2006.  He began his career at The New York Times Company in 1974 and held various positions including Senior Vice President and General Counsel from 1996 to 2005, Vice President and General Counsel from 1990 to 1996, General Counsel from 1989 to 1990, Corporate Secretary from 1979 to 1989 and 2000 to 2002, and Corporate Counsel from 1974 to 1979.  Mr. Watson has been a Special Master in the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, and is a member of the American Bar Association, the National Bar Association, and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.  From 1966 to 1968 he served in the U.S. Army as a lieutenant in the Military Police Corps.  Mr. Watson received a B.A. from Howard University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

John W. Keker, Appointee for Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust
John W. Keker is a co-founder and partner at Keker & Van Nest LLP, a firm he co-founded in 1978.  Before entering private practice, he worked as an Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Francisco from 1971 to 1973.  He served as a law clerk to Retired Chief Justice Earl Warren from 1970 to 1971.  Mr. Keker was an infantry platoon leader in the U.S. Marine Corps in Vietnam from 1965 until his retirement for wounds in 1967.  He was President of the San Francisco Police Commission from 1996 to 1997 and 1991 to 1992, and past Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board from 1981 to 1983.  Mr. Keker received a B.A. from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Dr. Joan Ellyn Silber, Appointee for Member, Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
Dr. Joan Ellyn Silber is a philanthropist and active member of several educational and cultural foundations.  She was first appointed to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad in 2011.  Dr. Silber serves on the Board of Directors of the St. Louis Chapter of the American Jewish Committee, the Scholarship Foundation, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater St. Louis.  She serves on the Advisory Board of Directors of the Webster University College of Arts and Sciences and the Michael and Barbara Newmark Institute for Human Relations at the Jewish Community Relations Council.  Previously, Dr. Silber served on the Board of Directors of Aish HaTorah St. Louis, the Epstein Hebrew Academy, Ayecha, and HateBrakers.  Additionally, she has been an office manager and consultant for Dr. Sherman Silber’s medical practice since 1976.  She received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor in 2012.  Dr. Silber received a B.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Proclamation -- Establishment of the Honouliuli National Monument

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HONOULIULI NATIONAL MONUMENT
 
- - - - - - -
 
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 
A PROCLAMATION

The Honouliuli Internment Camp (Honouliuli) serves as a powerful reminder of the need to protect civil liberties in times of conflict, and the effects of martial law on civil society.  Honouliuli is nationally significant for its central role during World War II as an internment site for a population that included American citizens, resident immigrants, other civilians, enemy soldiers, and labor conscripts co-located by the U.S. military for internment or detention.  While the treatment of Japanese Americans in Hawai'i differed from the treatment of Japanese Americans on the U.S. mainland in ways that are detailed below, the legacy of racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and failure of political leadership during this period is common to the history of both Hawai'i and the mainland United States.

Early on December 7, 1941, Japanese air and naval forces attacked Pearl Harbor and other military installations on O'ahu.  Before martial law was invoked, government officials began selectively rounding up Hawai'i residents on suspicion of disloyalty.  They were confined at local jails, courthouses, and other facilities on six of the main Hawaiian Islands before being transported to the U.S. Immigration Station and Sand Island Detention Camp on O'ahu.  Nearly all of the internees were of Japanese descent, including leaders in the Japanese American community who were educated, were teachers or priests, or were distinguished by virtue of their access to means of communication with Japan or to transportation from Hawai'i.  Most would be sent to the mainland to be held for the duration of the war in Department of Justice and War Relocation Authority camps.  Despite the government's allegations of disloyalty, none of the Japanese American internees from Hawai'i was ever found guilty of sabotage, espionage, or overt acts against the United States, and all later received formal apologies and many received redress compensation from the United States.
 
On the Island of O'ahu, the U.S. War Department sought a place removed from the active combat areas of Pearl Harbor for internment of individuals.  The War Department chose Honouliuli Gulch, the bottom of which was hidden from view by the gulch's steep walls.  The Honouliuli Internment Camp opened on March 2, 1943, with the transfer of internees from Sand Island and rapidly swelled in population with the influx of prisoners of war.  Managed by the U.S. Army, it was the largest and longest used confinement site in Hawai'i.
  
Honouliuli is significant for having been used as both a civilian internment camp and a prisoner of war camp, with a population of approximately 400 civilian internees and 4,000 prisoners of war over the course of its use.  Honouliuli was divided into seven compounds:  one compound for administration and guards, one for civilian internees, and eventually five compounds for prisoners of war.  The civilian compound was further divided into sections for male civilian internees of Japanese ancestry, female civilian internees of Japanese ancestry, and civilian internees of European ancestry.  Historic documents indicate there were 175 buildings, 14 guard towers, and over 400 tents among the 7 compounds on 160 acres.  Many internees referred to Honouliuli as Jigoku-Dani (Hell Valley) because its secluded location at the bottom of a deep gulch trapped heat and moisture and reinforced the internees' sense of isolation and unjust confinement.
 
The majority of Honouliuli's civilian internees were American citizens or permanent resident aliens -- predominantly Japanese Americans who were citizens by birth -- interned on suspicion of disloyalty.  The remaining group comprised predominantly German Americans, though there were also Americans and aliens of Italian, Irish, Russian, and Scandinavian descent.  Honouliuli also held women and children who were Japanese civilians displaced from the Pacific.
 
The 4,000 prisoners of war in Honouliuli included enemy soldiers and labor conscripts from Japan, Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan, and Italy.  The prisoner of war compounds were guarded by an African American infantry unit as well as units of Japanese Americans from the mainland.

Honouliuli closed in 1945 for civilian internees and in 1946 for prisoners of war.  With the closing of the camp, fast-growing vegetation quickly took over the site.  Honouliuli was forgotten as Americans celebrated the victories of World War II and focused attention on the valor displayed by Americans at Pearl Harbor and abroad.
 
While both mainland and Hawaiian internment camps are sobering examples of wartime prejudice and injustice, Honouliuli reminds us of the differences in the way that forced removal was approached in Hawai'i and on the mainland.
 
The primary difference between the Japanese American experience on the mainland and on Hawai'i is that the internment in Hawai'i targeted a relatively small percentage of the ethnic Japanese population on the islands.  Less than one percent of Hawai'i's ethnic Japanese population was interned in Hawai'i.  This contrasts with the mass exclusion of all 120,000 Japanese Americans on the West Coast of the mainland.  In Hawai'i, the Japanese American citizenry and immigrant population were over one third of the territory's total population.  Without their participation in the labor force, the economy of the territory could not have been sustained and the war effort in the islands would have been crippled.  Both the policies in Hawai'i and those on the mainland devastated Japanese Americans and their families and created a social stigma that was borne by Japanese Americans during and after the war.  The selective nature of the internment in Hawai'i also sowed division within the Japanese American community in Hawai'i, leading to ostracism and other  backlash against the targeted individuals and their families that would last their lifetimes.
 
The declaration of martial law served as the basis to authorize internment in Hawai'i, as opposed to the mainland where mass exclusion was authorized by Executive Order 9066.  During the period of martial law from December 7, 1941, to October 24, 1944, the U.S. Army issued hundreds of military orders, some of which were applicable only to persons of Japanese ancestry and enemy aliens.  For example, people of Japanese ancestry were restricted from residing in certain areas of O'ahu and were forcibly removed from their properties.  These types of discriminatory policies created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion.
 
Finally, Honouliuli is significant because of the comparatively lower level of public understanding and awareness of the history of internment of civilians in Hawai'i during World War II.  On the mainland during World War II, mass exclusion was well known.  In contrast, the internment in Hawai'i was largely kept secret during World War II, and has only recently become the subject of scholarship and awareness campaigns.  It was not until 1998 that information about Honouliuli resurfaced.  After 4 years of research and exploration, the site was uncovered in 2002.  In 2008, an archeological research survey was conducted at the site. Honouliuli remains an object of archeological interest.
 
Honouliuli serves to remind every American about the critical importance of safeguarding civil liberties and maintaining our values during times of crisis.  It is important to recognize Honouliuli as a part of our shared national heritage and national consciousness.  It is a place to reflect on wartime experiences and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of freedom and justice.
 
WHEREAS section 320301 of title 54, United States Code (known as the "Antiquities Act"), authorizes the President, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be national monuments, and to reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected;
 
WHEREAS Honouliuli's objects of historic interest were listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 2012 as nationally significant for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
 
WHEREAS, for the purpose of establishing a national monument to be administered by the National Park Service, the Monsanto Company has donated certain lands at Honouliuli to the United States, and the University of Hawai'i-West O'ahu has agreed to provide access across its property to those lands;

WHEREAS it is in the public interest to preserve and protect the historic objects at Honouliuli;  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, hereby proclaim the objects identified above that are situated upon lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government to be the Honouliuli National Monument (monument) and, for the purpose of protecting those objects, reserve as a part thereof all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Federal Government within the boundaries described on the accompanying map entitled, "Honouliuli National Monument," which is attached to and forms a part of this proclamation.  The reserved Federal lands and interests in lands encompass approximately 123.0 acres, together with appurtenant easements for all necessary purposes.  The boundaries described on the accompanying map are confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.
 
All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries described on the accompanying map are hereby appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, leasing or other disposition under the public land laws, from location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing.
 
The establishment of the monument is subject to valid existing rights.  Lands and interests in lands not owned or controlled by the Federal Government within the boundaries described on the accompanying map shall be reserved as a part of the monument, and objects identified above that are situated upon those lands and interests in lands shall be part of the monument, upon acquisition of ownership or control by the
Federal Government.
 
The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall manage the monument through the National Park Service, pursuant to applicable legal authorities, consistent with the purposes and provisions of this proclamation.  The Secretary shall prepare a management plan for the monument, with full public involvement, within 3 years of the date of this proclamation.  The management plan shall ensure that the monument fulfills the following purposes for the benefit of present and future generations:  (1) to preserve and protect the objects of historic interest associated with Honouliuli Internment Camp, and (2) to study and interpret the history of World War II internment and detention in Hawai'i.  The management plan shall set forth the desired relationship of the monument to other related resources, programs, and organizations associated with World War II internment, detention, and exclusion.
 
The National Park Service shall use available authorities, as appropriate, to enter into agreements to provide for access to the monument.  The National Park Service shall also use available authorities, as appropriate, to enter into agreements with governmental and nongovernmental organizations to provide for research, preservation, interpretation, and education at Honouliuli and additional sites associated with World War II internment in Hawai'i and exclusion elsewhere.  The National Park Service shall also coordinate management with World War II Valor in the Pacific National Monument, which commemorates the  broader story of the war in the Pacific and its impacts on
Hawai'i.
 
Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or appropriation; however, the monument shall be the dominant reservation.
 
Warning is hereby given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this monument and not to locate or settle upon any of the lands thereof.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, 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

Veto Message to the Senate: S. 1, Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I am returning herewith without my approval S. 1, the "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act."  Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest.

The Presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously.  But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people.  And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest -- including our security, safety, and environment -- it has earned my veto.

BARACK OBAMA