Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 8/25/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:31 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.

Q    Congratulations.

MR. EARNEST:  Thank you.  Appreciate that.

Q    Personnel announcements?

Q    Sleep deprived?

MR. EARNEST:  That’s probably true.  It’s been a couple weeks since we gathered in this room, so I’m glad to welcome you all back.  Some of you I know were covering the President in Martha’s Vineyard.  That was probably not particularly restful.  But those of you who weren’t, I hope you used that occasion to get away just a little bit and get a little time with your family.

So with that, let’s go ahead and get back started again.  Julie, do you want to start us off?

Q    Sure thing.  Welcome back.

MR. EARNEST:  Thank you.

Q    And congratulations to you and Natalie.

MR. EARNEST:  Thank you very much.

Q    A bit of housekeeping just off the top.  Last week, officials said that the President had not received any military options for striking Syria.  Is that still the case, following his meeting with Secretary Hagel today?

MR. EARNEST:  The President later this afternoon will be meeting with Secretary Hagel.  This is not a special meeting.  The President, as you know, on a weekly basis meets with the Secretary of Defense when he’s in town to talk about a range of issues.  We don’t traditionally read out those meetings.  I would anticipate that they will talk about some of the recent military actions that the President ordered in Iraq. 

In terms of our broader strategy, the President has been very clear about what he believes our priorities are in Iraq, why he believes it’s important for the United States to pursue a comprehensive approach to countering the threat that’s posed by ISIL, not just to Iraq, but also to Americans and American interests.  That strategy includes some of the military strikes that the President has ordered.  It also includes working closely with an effective, inclusive Iraqi government that can unite that country to meet the threat.  It also includes greater engagement with the Iraqi military to improve training and, if necessary, improving and increasing the supply of equipment that they have access to.  It also includes engaging Sunni tribes in western Iraq.  These are areas where these tribes have significant influence.  These also happen to be the areas where ISIL has made the most significant gains. 

So there’s an opportunity for us to leverage their support to try to confront this threat.  There also is the likelihood, or the ability of the United States, using our diplomatic abilities and relationships, to leverage the involvement of other countries in the region and other countries around the world to work with the Iraqis to confront the threat that’s posed by ISIL.

Q    But in terms of the component of that that could include military action in Syria, is it still accurate to say that the President has not received any options for such action?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not going to be in a position from here to talk about any sort of ongoing deliberations or consultations between the President and senior members of his national security team.

Q    I’m just asking because last time we were told specifically that he had not received those options yet.  So I just wanted to see if that is still an accurate statement.

MR. EARNEST:  I’m just not going to be in a position to talk about those specific conversations or planning.  It is the role of the Pentagon -- and they will tell you this themselves -- for them to develop a wide range of plans to confront a whole range of things, and that there are entire wings of that very large building that are dedicated to making sure the President has a range of plans and options that they can present to him if and when necessary.  They are very good at their jobs.  But I’m not going to be in a position to talk about the communication at this point between those military advisors and the advice they’re offering to the Commander-in-Chief.

Q    Okay.  And I wanted to ask about the release of Peter Theo Curtis by al Nusra.  The family and U.S. officials have said that there was no exchange of money that they know of.  So if there was no ransom paid, no money that exchanged hands, what’s your understanding of why he was released?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple of things about that.  The first is, as you know, Julie, it is the policy of the United States government not to provide ransoms to terrorists to secure the release of hostages, even American hostages.  This is a policy that the United States has pursued for a long time and has been in place for a long time.  That policy is in place because providing ransoms to terrorist organizations only gives those terrorist organizations access to more funds and resources.  It also makes American citizens more likely targets of terrorist organizations, knowing that they could eventually hold them for ransom.

So this is a policy that we have pursued, and that not only do we not pay ransoms, we tell other organizations and countries not to pay ransoms for American citizens for precisely those reasons. 

So what I can tell you is that the -- as you point out, the Curtis family said that the Qatari government told them that they did not pay a ransom for Mr. Curtis.  The United States government certainly did not ask the Qataris to pay a ransom.  In fact, we asked the Qataris, consistent with our longstanding policy, to not pay a ransom for Mr. Curtis.  That, all said, we are grateful in knowing that Mr. Curtis is coming home after so much time held in captivity in Syria.  And on behalf of the American people, we join Mr. Curtis’s family and his loved ones in welcoming his freedom.

Q    But it still leaves open the question then of why he was released, and so I’m trying to get a sense of what you think the reason was.  Was there something else that was promised to al Nusra?  Was there money that was paid by --

MR. EARNEST:  Certainly not.  Certainly not by the United States.

Q    There was nothing else promised to al Nusra?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, not by the United States.

Q    By the Qataris?

MR. EARNEST:  The role of the U.S. government in this situation was to facilitate a conversation between Mr. Curtis’s family and the Qatari government.  And from there, the Qatari government pursued, through their established relationships, a conversation with the individuals who were holding Mr. Curtis, and they secured his release.

Q    Is there something that they promised this group?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, you’d have to ask them.  They certainly didn’t -- they told Mr. Curtis’s family that they did not pay a ransom.  The United States made clear, and it is clear to the Qatari government, that we did not want them to pay a ransom.  In fact, we encouraged them not to pay a ransom.  But in terms of trying to get in the head of these individuals who were holding captive an American citizen is just not something I’m in a position to do.

Steve.

Q    The role of Qatar in this, is this something that you’re encouraging?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we certainly are pleased that Mr. Curtis has been released, and we certainly are and we welcome his return to his family and loved ones.  The Qataris played the role based on the existing relationships that they have in the region, and so we’re certainly pleased with the outcome, if that’s what you’re asking.  But maybe that’s not what you’re asking, because I guess that seems a little obvious.  We’re certainly --

Q    I was wondering if you’re going to rely on them going forward and trying to get more hostages out.

MR. EARNEST:  I see.  Well, let me go at it this way.  Mr. Curtis had been held in captivity for a couple of years, and the United States, as we have done with other Americans who were being held hostage around the world, has pursued a wide range of leads to try to secure that individual’s release.

So the United States, as it relates specifically to Mr. Curtis’s case, over the last two years had been in touch with more than two dozen countries to ask them for their assistance in securing Mr. Curtis’s release.  So the United States will continue to use all of the tools in our arsenal to try to secure the release of American citizens who are being held hostage around the world.  In this case, because of the kinds of conversations that we were able to facilitate between the Curtis family and the Qataris, we were able to eventually secure the release of Mr. Curtis.  We welcome his release.  And we will continue -- and when I say “we” I mean the United States government and the Obama administration will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of all Americans who are held overseas so that they, too, can be reunited with their families.

Q    And going back to the military options question, where do you see the process right now?  Has the President asked for options, or is he talking to the Pentagon, is the Pentagon going to talk to him?  Where does it stand?  It doesn’t sound like a decision is imminent.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I can tell you is that the President has not made a decision to pursue any sort of military action in Syria.  I can also tell you, as I mentioned earlier, that the Department of Defense has personnel who are responsible, as they can tell you, for ensuring that the Commander-in-Chief has access to the kinds of plans and contingencies that he may need if necessary.

But in terms of giving you an update on the status, I’m not in a position to do that beyond saying that the President has not made any decision to order military action in Syria.

Q    And one last thing -- sorry -- Burger King is planning to move its headquarters to Canada if it purchases this Tim Hortons chain.  Does this add pressure on you to issue executive orders about the issue of tax inversion?  And is something like that imminent?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Steve, I have read reports that this a specific financial transaction that’s being contemplated by a specific American company.  I’m not in a position to comment on the specific transactions. 

I will reiterate, though, what the Treasury Department has said, which is that they are considering a range of administrative options that are available to the administration to make those kinds of financial transactions less appealing to countries that -- or to companies that may be considering them; that there may be an opportunity for the Treasury Department to change some rules in a way that makes -- that removes or at least reduces the financial incentive for some American companies to consider those kinds of transactions.

The President -- again, speaking as a general matter, not as it relates to any specific transaction that’s being contemplated -- doesn’t believe that a company simply switching their citizenship, filling out a few papers to switch their citizenship to avoid paying their fair share in U.S. taxes is good policy.  It certainly isn’t fair, and it certainly isn’t fair to the millions of middle-class families in this country that don’t have that option.

The reason it’s not fair is because those companies -- again, not speaking about any specific transaction -- but the reason that it’s not fair is that companies that consider transactions like an inversion continue to benefit from all of the resources of the United States, the United States government and other assets that are funded by taxpayer dollars.  So companies that are based in the U.S. continue to benefit from the infrastructure that we have in this country.  Countries that are based in the United States continue to benefit from an access to -- from access to a supply of the most highly skilled, hardest-working employees in the world. 

So those are just two examples of how companies that are in the United States benefit from being in the United States.  And it's not fair for them to just fill out some paperwork that would allow them to renounce their citizenship and essentially renounce a portion of their tax bill.

Okay, let’s move around just a little bit.  Bill.

Q    If the President were to widen the air mission in the Syria-Iraq area, would he feel a need to go back to Congress?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm not going to speculate about what would be required if the President were to make a specific decision one way or the other.  The President thus far has not made a decision to order additional military action in Syria.  That said, the President remains committed, as he has throughout this situation, throughout the advance of ISIL in Iraq -- has remained committed to consulting regularly with members of Congress and congressional leaders.

You’ll recall that the President hosted a meeting here the last week that Congress was in town -- I believe it was the last week in July, maybe the first week in August -- where he invited members, Democrats and Republicans from both the House and the Senate, to talk through some of these issues.  There’s also consultation that can be done and has been done at the staff level from senior members of the President’s national security team to members of Congress.  Those kinds of consultations and conversations continue.  But in terms of what may be required if the President were to take or order a specific action, I'm just not in a position to speculate from here right now.

Q    Well, as you very well know, there are two ways this could be done.  It could be done with the actual consent of Congress or it could be done somewhat passively by attaching it to a bill that has to be passed.  But would the President want some kind of congressional approval?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I'm not going to speculate about what sort of congressional approval would be requested or required based on a military action that hasn’t been ordered at this point.  The administration remains committed to consulting with members of Congress. 

As you’ll recall, over the course of the last several weeks there have been a number of War Powers notifications that have been submitted to Congress as they relate to specific military actions that have been ordered by the President in Iraq.  So the President remains committed to this process.  He remains committed to consultations.  But I'm not going to speculate at this point about what may or may not be requested or required based on a decision that hasn’t been made.

Q    Josh, one year ago this week, as you know, the President went right up to the line of ordering U.S. airstrikes in Syria.  He specifically went in the Rose Garden and said, I believe I have this power; I was going to give General Dempsey the green light, but I think it's better to go to Congress first, get a consensus.  Does he still believe that principle?  That's what he told the American people one year ago, that he would first go to Congress to get approval before going forward with airstrikes.  Those were his words. 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple of things about that.  The President does remain committed to coordinating and consulting with Congress as he exercises his responsibilities and authorities as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America.  The President recognizes that Congress has an important role to play.  He also recognizes that he has an important role to play as Commander-in-Chief and as the individual who’s ultimately responsible for the national security of the United States of America and the American people.

The President will not hesitate to use his authority, as he’s already demonstrated, to keep the American people safe.  But it also means he’s committed --

Q    Well, actually, he said he wanted a vote in Congress.  He said there would be a vote beforehand.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, that was a different situation, right?  And so we'll consider each of these situations differently.

Q    Why is it different?

MR. EARNEST:  The situation is different precisely because what the President was talking about in that scenario was ensuring that the Assad regime didn’t use chemical weapons or would pay a price for what the intel assessment -- for what the intel community had assessed was his use of chemical weapons.  What we're talking about now is not about the Assad regime, but about this threat that's posed by ISIL that's operating both in Iraq and in Syria.

So the President is serious, as he’s already demonstrated, about confronting the threat that's posed by ISIL.  That's, after all, why the President has already ordered airstrikes in Iraq.  And that said, it's important to remember -- certainly the President acknowledges this -- that the only -- that military force and military might is not the only tool in the toolbox here; that the sustainable solution to this situation will require the active involvement of an effective, inclusive Iraqi government.

Q    You’ve also made a distinction in recent weeks between Iraq and Syria, before the last couple weeks.  You said repeatedly at the podium that in the case of airstrikes in Iraq -- and I believe the President said this, too -- that you were invited in by the Iraqi government to deal with ISIS, and that there’s a big difference with airstrikes in Syria because the Syrian government had not invited you in to deliver airstrikes, to launch airstrikes.  Does that principle still apply?  Or would you go in without Assad’s approval?  Would you go in without a U.N. resolution?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the other thing that's important to remember here, Ed, is the President has also demonstrated -- and I thing the Deputy National Security Advisor mentioned this at the end of last week -- that the President has already demonstrated a willingness, where necessary, to protect the American people -- has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to protect the American people regardless of borders.  This is evident from the President ordering the mission to go in and get Osama bin Laden -–

Q    But you said you were invited in by the Iraqi government, that there was a difference.  I haven't heard Assad say, bring airstrikes in.

MR. EARNEST:  No.  But again, in the situation as it relates to the mission to go get Osama bin Laden, the United States was not invited in by the Pakistani government.  That was a decision that the President made to go and get Osama bin Laden because it was necessary to protect the American people.

So these are complicated situations and they always will be. But what’s not complicated is the President’s willingness to act decisively and authoritatively in ordering military strikes to protect the American people.  But each of these situations is different and it doesn’t eliminate the President’s commitment to the principle of the important and robust congressional consultations.

Q    Two other quick ones.  You say the President is meeting with Secretary Hagel today.  Last Thursday, Secretary Hagel called ISIS “an imminent threat to every interest we have. This is beyond anything that we've seen.”  Does the President agree with his Defense Secretary’s assessment?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what Secretary Hagel said -- and I believe you quoted him accurately.  You may have seen more of the news conference than I did.  But what is true is that there is a serious threat that’s posed by ISIL.  They have --

Q    He said an imminent threat, not serious.  He said imminent threat.  Is that an imminent threat to America?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it certainly is an imminent -- I think as you read there –- American interests.

Q    “To every interest we have.” 

MR. EARNEST:  So one of the concerns that the President has had about the situation in Iraq is that there are American personnel, both diplomatic and security personnel, in Baghdad and Erbil, specifically.  And there was a threat that was posed by ISIL as they were making gains in both of those cities.  That's why the President ordered military airstrikes against ISIL to stop their advance against those two cities to ensure that American personnel in those two cities would be protected.

But back to your original question, there is no question that ISIL has demonstrated a pretty significant military capability.  They rapidly made gains across western and northern Iraq in a way that overran what was previously believed to be a pretty effective Iraq security force.  Now, there are a variety of reasons for that.  Some of it is a testament to the military sophistication of ISIL.  Some of it was also due to the weakness of Iraq’s government -- it wasn’t particularly inclusive and they hadn’t built up a security force that was inclusive and committed to protecting the entire country.

So, again, this is a complicated situation but there is no question that there is a significant threat that’s posed by ISIL, in part because of their demonstrated military capacity; in part also because they have demonstrated access to significant financial resources.  They have a flow of financial resources that ensures that they can continue to be well-funded.

The other concern that we have -- and in some ways this is the most significant concern -- is that there are individuals with Western passports who have taken up arms alongside ISIL in this fight.  And the United States and other Western countries harbors a significant concern about those individuals returning to the West to carry out terrorist attacks.  These are individuals who have been radicalized, who have ostensibly gotten some military training, and in some cases may be even battle tested. 

So there are a range of reasons for this administration -- as the Secretary articulated -- for us to be concerned and to take very seriously the threat that is posed by ISIL.

Q    In that same news conference, General Dempsey said, “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria?  The answer is no.”  He suggested we have to go into Syria if we’re going to defeat ISIS.  Does the President agree with that assessment?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, what I would go back to is the President’s stated strategy for dealing with ISIL, which is to remember that there are more tools in the toolbox than just brute military force.

Q    He is saying you have to go into Syria to defeat them.  Does the President agree with that?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, what I think that he was saying is that there are a range of ways for us to confront this threat; that we need to confront this threat in a sustainable way -- it can’t just be through brute U.S. military force; that we need to build up an effective Iraqi government.  One of the things that we’ve been doing in Syria for some time now is trying to build up the moderate opposition in Syria.  They certainly can play an effective role in marginalizing the influence of some of these radical elements, like ISIL, in Syria.  There’s a role to be played for other regional governments who are threatened by the destabilizing actions of ISIL.

Q    But General Dempsey is not in charge of those other militaries; he’s in the charge of the U.S. military.  And he said, can you defeat ISIS without going into Syria?  The answer is no.  I’m not hearing it -- does the President agree with that?

MR. EARNEST:  But that doesn’t necessarily -- Ed, the point that I’m trying to make here is that --

Q    He was pretty direct.

MR. EARNEST:  I think he was direct in saying that right now ISIS is clearly, without any doubt, using a bit of a safe haven in Syria to supplement and support the gains that they’ve made across Iraq.  That is the source of some concern -- of significant concern.  The question is, how do you root that out?  How do you undermine that stability?  And the point that I’m trying to make here is that it doesn’t necessarily require just U.S. military action to do so; that there is a role to be played for the moderate opposition in Syria.  There’s a role to be played for other governments in the region that have a stake in this outcome.  There’s a role to be played by other countries in the international community that have a stake in this outcome.

So I think what the Chairman was saying is that, yes, obviously, you have to make gains against ISIL in Syria in order to defeat ISIL.  What you shouldn’t necessarily do is jump to the conclusion that that means robust American military action is required in Syria to further or accomplish that goal.

Peter.

Q    Josh, welcome back.

MR. EARNEST:  Thank you.

Q    Are there ISIS fighters inside Syria right now actively plotting attacks against the United States?

MR. EARNEST:  This is something that Chairman Dempsey himself talked about over the weekend.  And he indicated that according to intelligence assessments that there is no evidence of an active plot right now.  That said, we are well aware of the threat that is posed by ISIL, and that we’ve already -- ISIL has already demonstrated in rather violent fashion their willingness to perpetrate terrible acts against American citizens.

We are concerned, as I mentioned to Ed, about the role that so-called foreign fighters could play in undermining the security of Western nations.  Again, these are individuals with Western passports, citizens of Western countries who have traveled to this region, to Syria and Iraq, to fight alongside ISIL; that the risk that is posed by them, that they're getting back on a plane and flying back to the West to carry out terrorist attacks, that is why we are working cooperatively with our partners in the region and among our Western allies to monitor these individuals to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to mitigate the threat that's posed by them.

So we are concerned about the threat that is posed by ISIL.  But it is the assessment, as stated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by the intelligence community, that there currently is not an active plot underway to attack the U.S. homeland by ISIL.

Q    Help us to better understand how what’s happening in Syria right now is different than Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and perhaps Somalia where we’ve used drone strikes and individually have attacked those fighters in those regions.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that's an open-ended question.  I think, Peter, you could probably write a book in terms of answering that.  (Laughter.)

Q    Let’s be specific to extremist fighters that have aspirations, if not direct and active efforts underway right now to attack the U.S.  How is it different what’s happening in Syria in terms of their pursuit of attacks on the United States -- what’s happening in Syria versus what’s happening in those other nations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me attempt to answer that question.  It probably will be incomplete, but let me give it a shot here.  I think one important way in which they're different is that in some of the countries that you’ve named -- Pakistan, Yemen, even Iraq -- that there is a basis of coordination and cooperation that exists between U.S. counterterrorism officials and counterterrorism officials in each of those individual countries.

So in places like Yemen and Pakistan, we are able to work collaboratively with those host governments to try to eradicate or at least mitigate the threat that is posed by those violent extremists that may even harbor ambitions of carrying out terrorist attacks against Americans or American interests.  I think that is one important difference.

I think the other important difference is that we have seen -- and again, I alluded to this in my answer to Ed’s question -- we’ve demonstrated a pretty sophisticated military capability by ISIL.  Again, they made rapid gains across western and northern Iraq that a lot of people didn’t see coming.  So at least those are two sort of ways in which ISIL is distinguished from other extremist organizations around the globe.

Q    Does the White House believe that the chief goal of ISIS is regional power and authority?  Or is it to attack the West?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that they themselves have stated that their goal right now is to create this Islamic caliphate in this area that overlaps Syria and Iraq.  That’s their stated goal.  And I take them at their --

Q    And our view of what they’re trying to accomplish will impact ultimately whether we view it as a threat to the U.S. and view the need to root it out within Syria.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the point is that is their stated goal.  That said, there are ways in which they pose a threat to American interests.  And again, they demonstrated just last week a willingness to perpetuate -- or to perpetrate a terrible act of violence against an innocent American citizen.  They have demonstrated significant military capability.  They’ve demonstrated that they have access to significant financial resources.  They have demonstrated an ability to recruit Westerners to their cause.  And that does mean that we continue to be concerned about those so-called foreign fighters returning to the West and carrying out acts of violence or acts of terror here in the United States or among our Western allies.

That is why the United States has been focused on this for some time.  And I think that’s, I guess, another point that I should make here.  This is not something -- this is something that the United States and the Obama administration has been focused on for a number of months now; that there have been conversations that have taken place between law enforcement officials and counterterrorism officials in the United States with our partners to counteract this threat for months; that Lisa Monaco, the President’s top counterterrorism advisor has traveled to the region several times over the last several months to talk to her counterparts about making sure that we are coordinating with our allies around the globe to mitigate this threat.

Q    Just to complete this thought, then -- did the President underestimate ISIS when he referred to them in an interview only a couple of months ago as a JV squad, in making a reference to National Basketball Association teams like the Lakers?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I thought somebody might ask this question today, so I wanted to pull -- (laughter) -- I wanted to pull the transcript of the interview, because it’s important to understand the context in which this was delivered.  So let me just read the full quote and then we can talk about it just a little bit.

The President said, “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland, versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”  So the President was not singling out ISIL.  He was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe.  Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States, and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing al Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden.

Thanks to the efforts of this President, and because of the heroic efforts of our men and women in uniform and the intelligence community, that al Qaeda core network led by Osama bin Laden has been decimated and defeated.  But there is a different threat that exists and that continues to pose a threat to American national security, and that is this wider range of extremist organizations, some of whom do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the American homeland.  Many of them -- and I would say this is probably true -- well, let me say it this way:  Not only do they not have designs, the vast majority of them do not have designs on attacking the West, they certainly don’t have the capability of attacking the West.  What Osama bin Laden presided over was an international network of highly trained, sophisticated, well-funded terrorists that were capable of carrying out a terrible, heinous attack on the U.S. homeland. 

Q    Isn’t ISIS international?

MR. EARNEST:  The capability that has been exhibited by what the President described as jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes is quite different than that.  And that is the point that the President was making.  So it’s important that we don’t sort of shorthand the analogy that the President was trying to draw here. 

Roger.

Q    Thank you.  What is the administration’s reaction to Syria’s offer today to coordinate airstrikes against Islamic militants?  And he speaks to the American Legion tomorrow.  Will he be addressing some of these topics?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen the reports about that offer from Syria, Roger, so we’ll have to take the question and get you an answer to that.

As it relates to the President’s speech tomorrow at the American Legion, the President is looking forward to traveling to Charlotte to address the annual convention of the American Legion.  This will be an opportunity for the President to talk about the important sacrifices that have been made by our men and women in uniform over the generations to ensure the safety and security of the American people.

Principally, what he’ll be focused on is what the administration has been doing and will be working to do to make sure that we live up to our commitment to those veterans to take care of them when they come home.  And we’ll have more details on that speech later today.

Q    Is there nothing about the Mideast or Syria, or anything like that?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t anticipate a detailed policy speech as it relates to our policy in Iraq and Syria tomorrow.

Q    How about just an update of his thinking?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t anticipate anything like that.  Again, I wouldn’t rule out a mention of the situation there, because certainly there are men and women in uniform who are sacrificing for the security of this country right there.  But what the speech will be focused on will be making sure that we’re doing everything that we promised to keep our commitment to America’s veterans.

Q    Okay, and one more quickie.  Back to Burger King.  The administration has made several comments, statements, even speeches against inversions, but there hasn’t been any action taken.  Is that the intent, or is that the strategy to produce some sort of chilling effect among the corporate boardrooms?

MR. EARNEST:  That is not the -- no, the goal here is to change the law and get Congress to pass legislation that would prevent the ability of American corporations to renounce their citizenship all in pursuit of trying to get out of paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. 

Now, there are a couple of different ways we can tackle this problem.  The first is, the President does believe and has had on the table for quite some time a proposal for reforming the business tax code in a way that would lower the tax rate for all American businesses, close some loopholes, and use some of that revenue to invest in things like infrastructure and job-training programs.  This would also have the goal of making our tax code, and therefore American businesses, more competitive in the international community.  So there are a whole bunch of reasons why Congress should take action on corporate tax reform.

I’ll acknowledge here right at the top that that’s a significant endeavor and a complicated one, one that’s going to take some time to succeed.

Q    Well, it’s almost impossible.  They have only about 10 legislative days before they go home for the elections.  So are you waiting for that to pass and then issue an executive order?

MR. EARNEST:  No.  So what we have said is that we certainly believe that dealing with broader corporate tax reform is an important goal.  It’s something the President has been pushing for for quite some time, for a variety of reasons -- both to enhance Americans competitiveness, but also to generate the kind of revenue that could be used to strengthen the U.S. economy.

Separately, we do believe, because of the complicated nature of corporate tax reform, that’s going to take some time, as you point out.  What the U.S. Congress could do in the short term is just pass a piece of standalone legislation that would essentially close the inversions loophole that would prevent companies from pursuing this kind of financial tactic.  They could do that retroactively -- we believe that they should -- to ensure that there are companies that can’t sort of slip in under the wire here and take advantage of -- or rather, slow-moving Congress. 

I would remind you and your readers that this is consistent with previous congressional action.  Back in 2004, there was a similar loophole that Congress took action to close that passed with strong bipartisan support through the House -- passed with bipartisan support through the Senate.  It was signed into law by a Republican President of the United States.  And all that took place in the run-up to a national election.  So there’s no reason that we shouldn’t see Congress act in similar bipartisan fashion this year, have it be signed into law by a Democratic President, and for all that to take place in a month or two before the national election.  That wouldn’t be unprecedented.  In fact, it would be very consistent with steps that Congress took just a decade ago.

Jim.

Q    Just a little bit bigger picture on the quagmire that is Syria.  What assurances -- or has the United States tried to get any assurances from the moderates that the United States support in Syria that they would control, or are working against, ISIS who are battling against the same person that the moderates are?  What type of dialogue is there with the United States to make sure that if the moderates we support actually eventually win, that ISIS does not become in control?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, I think there is no doubt that the moderate opposition in Syria has a very different vision for the future of their country than the radical extremists in ISIL; that the people -- that the moderate opposition in Syria is moderate because they envision a country that reflects the diversity of the people of Syria.  And one of the reasons that this resistance emerged to the Assad regime in the first place is because President Assad was not pursuing the kind of inclusive government that those people would like for their country.  That ultimately, it should be -- the Syrian people should have the ability to determine the future of their country.  That is certainly not what ISIL contemplates.  And that’s why --

Q    But aren’t they allies?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m sorry?

Q    I mean, it’s very confusing.  Aren’t they allies, though, the moderates and ISIL?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t think ISIL considers the moderate opposition to be allies, and I don’t think the moderate opposition considers ISIL to be allies.  And the reason for that is simply because they have very different visions for the future of their country.  That is why the United States has invested heavily in supporting the moderate Syrian opposition to be victorious.

Q    So is it difficult now for the United States to choose right now?  And is it difficult for the American people to understand who they should be supporting right now.  When you’re talking about ISIS versus Assad, is there a lesser of two evils here?

MR. EARNEST:  In the judgment of this administration, no.  In the judgment of this administration, the people of Syria should have the opportunity to determine the future of their country; that they should have the opportunity to exercise some influence over what kind of country they want to live in.  That is a basic fundamental human right, a basic fundamental value that this administration supports.  It’s why we have weighed in heavily in support of the moderate opposition in Syria.  It’s why we urged President Assad to leave power.  And it is why we do not believe that ISIL would be acting in the best interest of the people of Syria if they were to take over leadership of that country.

But, again, that doesn’t seem to be part of their aspirations.  What they’re looking to do -- again, based on their stated intentions -- is to create their own Islamist caliphate that includes some territory in Syria and some territory in Iraq.  So they have a pretty different goal than the moderate Syrian opposition.

Q    But if the White House is considering bombing ISIS in Syria, are you not then helping Assad?  And isn’t that a problem?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the answer to that is no.  We’re not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.  In fact, we have been calling for a number of years now for the Assad regime to step down.

Q    But isn’t that the unintended consequence of bombing ISIS?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are a lot of cross-pressures here in this situation, there is no doubt about that.  But our policy, as it relates to pursuing American interests in this region of the world, are actually really clear -- that we want to make sure that we are safeguarding American personnel.  And that's why the President has ordered military strikes against ISIL in Iraq, is to make sure that American personnel in Baghdad and Erbil, in particular, would not be in the path of the ISIL advance.

The President has already demonstrated a willingness to order military attacks to prevent a genocide that ISIL said that they were preparing to carry out against some ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq.  And the President has already demonstrated a willingness to use some authority, some executive -- or to order military action in furtherance of some counterterrorism goals.  That is also a priority, and that is true not just in Iraq and not just in Syria, but also in countries around the world.

So there are a lot of cross-pressures as it relates to the complicated situation in Iraq and Syria.  But those cross-pressures don't complicate the clearly stated goals of the United States foreign policy.

Mr. Acosta.

Q    Speaking of cross-pressures, the Syrian foreign minister -- and I know Roger brought him up -- the Syrian foreign minister said that anything outside of being consulted on airstrikes in Syria by the United States would be considered “aggression”.  Would the White House try to get a green light from Damascus before conducting airstrikes in Syria?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, Jim, I think this is what Roger was asking me about as well.  I haven’t seen those comments out of the Assad regime.  Let me just say though --

Q    Take his comment out of the equation.

MR. EARNEST:  Right.

Q    Would you seek a green light from Damascus?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, the President has demonstrated a willingness on a number of occasions to take the action that's necessary, to order the military action that's necessary to protect American citizens.  And that is true without regard to international boundaries.

Certainly it is the preference of this administration to build up partners to confront these kinds of threats.  In fact, that's the stated policy of this administration is to build up partners around the globe who can assist the United States and the U.S. government and the U.S. military in confronting some of these terrorist threats.  This is part of the West Point speech that the President gave at the West Point commencement earlier this year.  It is why we have been so focused on building training relationships with both Kurdish and Iraqi security forces.  It’s why this administration has been strongly supportive of the formation of an inclusive government in Iraq so that the political leaders in Iraq can unite that country to meet the threat that's posed by ISIL.  And this is true of our actions not just in this region of the world, but in other regions of the world, as well.

Q    And you said that there’s no evidence of an active plot right now against the United States by ISIL.

MR. EARNEST:  That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

Q    And that's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said as well.  But that seems to be a different question, though, than does ISIS pose a national security threat to the United States.

MR. EARNEST:  That's correct.

Q    And the answer is what?

MR. EARNEST:  The answer to that is we are concerned about the threat that's posed by ISIL, principally because of this situation as it relates to foreign fighters.  Again, these are individuals who have Western passports, citizens of Western countries who have traveled to this region of the world to take up arms alongside ISIL fighters.  And the risk that’s posed is that these individuals who have been radicalized, who have gotten military training and are now battle tested, could return to the U.S. or to other Western countries and carry out terrorist attacks.

Q    So they pose a 9/11-style threat, in that sense?  In that you could have cells penetrate the homeland and conduct terror attacks?  Or is that going too far?

MR. EARNEST:  I think when you describe a 9/11-style threat, you’re referring to something a little bit differently -- a little bit different, at least as I interpret it.  I think what we’re concerned about is these individuals returning to Western countries and carrying out terrorist attacks.

Now, could it be on the scale of a broad conspiracy like we saw on 9/11 where extremists hijacked multiple commercial aircraft and simultaneously -- or nearly simultaneously crashed them into significant American landmarks, killing thousands of American citizens?  That is an attack on a scale unlike any we have seen in this country’s history. 

Q    And you don’t think that they pose that kind of threat?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the threat is different at this point.  At this point it is different.  And I think one of the concerns is, is that we want to make sure that we confront this threat before it gets worse, before they’re able to establish a safe haven in which they could build a large international network and conceive of a broader conspiracy that would allow them to carry out a more -- a broader, more violent, catastrophic attack like that.

That said, they do pose a significant threat that we are closely monitoring and we are actively coordinating with our allies around the globe to mitigate.

Q    And did I catch this right?  Did you say earlier that the President was not singling out ISIS in that New Yorker interview?  Because last week Ben Rhodes said that the reason why the President made that comment and the reason why things are different now is because they’ve made gains since then.  Ben Rhodes seemed to indicate that that’s what the President was talking about in that New Yorker interview.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll just read you that -- I can read the quote again.

Q    I’m just -- because you read it earlier and it’s in the transcript now.  But that is what you’re saying now?  You’re saying now --

MR. EARNEST:  What I’m saying is the President was making a much more general reference to jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.  So is that an apt description of what ISIL has been carrying out?   I think that is a rather apt description of ISIL.  It’s also an apt description of a large number of other organizations around the globe that are perpetrating acts of violence that are not --  again, that are not being carried out in a particularly sophisticated way and are not directed towards the United States or other Western interests.

Q    And just finally, over the weekend the British ambassador to the U.S. said that they are close to identifying James Foley’s murderers.  Does the U.S. have that same sense, that the investigation is close?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not in a position to characterize the status of that investigation.  I think for reasons that are rather obvious we have a significant vested interest in tracking down the individual who is responsible for that heinous terrorist act against Mr. Foley.  And the United States is working closely with our partners around the globe, including the British, to identify that individual, and that effort is underway.  I’m not in a position to characterize the status of that ongoing investigation.

April.

Q    Josh, I want to ask you a couple of questions as it relates to Ferguson.  Congressmen Clay and Cleaver met with Secretary Hagel Friday about the militarization of local law enforcement, and they object to it.  They object to the program, the Surplus 1033 program, and they’re asking him to review it.  In this meeting the President is having with Hagel, is the President expected to talk about that?  Are they going to talk about it?  And where does the President stand on the militarization of local police?

MR. EARNEST:  April, I believe that the President spoke about this when he made an appearance in the briefing room last week.  And the President himself is the one who has ordered a review of these programs that send surplus military equipment to local law enforcement organizations across the country.

As the President pointed out in his remarks, the goal of those programs is ostensibly a good one; that it was recognized after 9/11 that there were some local law enforcement organizations that didn’t have the kind of equipment that they might need in the event of an emergency.  One situation -- or one good example that got a lot of attention in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 were police radios that did not have interoperability, they did not have the ability to talk on the same channel to law enforcement organizations in neighboring communities, or with fire and EMS personnel -- that upgrading their communications equipment was a laudable goal that many of these local law enforcement organizations were pursuing.  And in some cases, it made good financial sense to turn to the military to take advantage of their equipment and their training to upgrade the ability and capability of local law enforcement organizations.

So the goal is a laudable one.  The question, though, is, is the program operating as was intended?  Are there situations in which local law enforcement organizations are getting equipment that they don’t actually need?  Are they using government funds to acquire equipment and use it in a way that’s consistent with the way that equipment was intended to be used?  Are the individuals at these local law enforcement organizations who are responsible for operating the equipment getting the necessary training to operate that equipment correctly and safely?

So these are legitimate questions that are worthy of answering.  And the President himself has asked his staff here at the White House, under the leadership of the Director of the Office Management and Budget, Shaun Donovan, to consider to review these programs and to ask these kinds of questions and ensure that ultimately these local law enforcement organizations and the Department of Defense are being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. 

Q    So do you think that will come up in that meeting?  That issue?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know if it will come up in that meeting, but, again, that’s not a review that’s being conducted by the Department of Defense, it’s a review that’s being conducted here at the White House.

Q    All right.  And two other questions.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, ma’am.

Q    What’s the next phase -- since Michael Brown has been laid to rest today, what’s the next phase with the government as it relates to what’s happening in Ferguson?

MR. EARNEST:  The next phase as it relates to the federal government, April, is this ongoing investigation.  As you know, the Department of Justice has conducted -- or is conducting an investigation into what exactly happened in the middle of that street and to determine -- and to get to the bottom -- to get an accurate assessment of what actually occurred.  That is different and running alongside the local investigation that also is underway into Mr. Brown’s death.  And ensuring that that investigation is conducted in a way that is professional, in a way that is unbiased and impartial, and ultimately gets to the facts of what actually occurred is the primary goal of that investigation, and that will be the focal point of the federal government’s activities in Ferguson in the weeks ahead.

Q    And one last question.  The President has talked at least twice about passions as it pertains to young African American males who have died in situations like this, by gun violence -- Trayvon Martin, the outcome -- he talked about passions during the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial.  And the President talked about passions recently when it came to the death of Michael Brown.  Is this country ready -- as we understand those passions -- is this country ready for a grand jury’s decision either way when it comes to the death of Michael Brown and this police officer who shot him to death?

MR. EARNEST:  It is in the interests of citizens across the country for this investigation to be conducted, both the federal investigation and the local investigation, to be conducted in a fair, professional and impartial manner, and for people across the country to have confidence in the justice system.  And that is ultimately the goal that we're working toward.  And I don't want to say anything that might inadvertently interfere with the ability of federal or local law enforcement investigators from completing that task in an expeditious manner.

So in terms of whether the country is ready, it's hard to -- I do think that the country is ready and has an interest in ensuring that we get the facts about what happened and that justice is served.

Q    Do you think it's time for a conversation on race -- not necessarily the way that Bill Clinton had it, but because there are so many different sides and so many different ways, and we saw not just in Ferguson, but other places around the nation, large protests on both sides -- do you think it’s time for a discussion?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, April, yes, I think that's a good question, and I think that there’s no doubt, anybody who’s picked up a newspaper in the last two or three weeks has seen that that conversation is underway.  And that is why -- I think that's one of the reasons why it's so important for a thorough, professional investigation -- or that a thorough and professional investigation is conducted to get to the bottom of what happened, to get the facts out, because that will inform this conversation, these important conversations that are happening not just in Ferguson, as you point out, but in communities all across the country.

Kathleen.

Q    Josh, do you have any comment on The New York Times report that Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have been conducting strikes in Libya without the U.S. knowing?

MR. EARNEST:  I saw that report right before I walked out here.  I'm not in a position to comment on it, but I'd refer you to my colleagues at the NSC.  They may be able to get you something.

Q    Can you give us an update on where the President is in his decision-making process on immigration?  Has he received the report from Jeh Johnson yet?  Is that happening quickly?  Where is he?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't really have an update in terms of this process.  As you know, we said at the end of the summer, and while the President has returned from Martha’s Vineyard and it is a beautiful, 80-degree day here in Washington, it actually still is technically the summer, so we're not at the end of it yet.  But when we get there we'll probably have some news to make on immigration.

Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  You mentioned this threat from ISIS -- ISIS is predominantly the foreign fighters who have Western passports who could leave Syria and Iraq and come here to potentially commit acts of terrorism on U.S. soil.  Is there a figure you have of how many of these fighters are there?  How many are Americans?  How many are you tracking?  Are we talking about a handful, or hundreds, or thousands even?  How would you quantify this threat?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen an assessment from the U.S. government about that.  I’m sure there is one.  I just don't know that there’s one that we’ve talked about publicly.  I think I’d refer you to the State Department.  They may be in the best position to answer a question like that.  But that's not something that at least to my knowledge that we’ve discussed publicly.  But it is something that we’ve been monitoring not just in the last couple of weeks that this has been in the news, but it’s something that counterterrorism officials here in the Obama administration have been focused on for a number of months now.

Q    And lastly, with the press conference at the Pentagon and your comments earlier today, it seems that you’re trying to convince the American people that there is a real threat here potentially, if there’s going to be any sort of military action in the next couple of -- further military action in the next couple of weeks.  What are you trying to tell the American people about the nature of this threat?  Should they be concerned today about ISIS in Iraq?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I do want to be clear about something.  I’m not trying to convince anybody of anything other than making sure that you and the American people understand that these kinds of terror threats are threats that this administration takes very seriously; that that there are people inside this administration who are working around the clock to protect the American people from terror threats, some of which are publicly reported and debated in the most public fashion possible, some of the threats that we’re working to counter are threats that haven’t been reported publicly and that are not widely known, but yet still are a danger to the American people.

So this is very difficult work, and it’s work that consumes a significant period of time.  And our success in mitigating so many of the threats that are directed toward the United States and our interests around the globe is a testament to the hard work and courage and perseverance of our men and women in uniform, of our men and women in law enforcement, of our intelligence community, of our diplomats.  This is a whole of government approach that is being brought to bear to keep the American people safe.

A lot of times, particularly when we’re in environments like this, we spend a lot of time talking about those efforts.  But the fact of the matter is that these dedicated professionals are focused on this task even when the news media isn’t. 

Dave.

Q    Josh, thanks.  Back to the President’s review that he ordered about the police equipment -- will part of that review look into the possibility that some of that equipment should be recalled by the government?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't want to jump ahead to what the conclusions might show.  I don't know if recalling that equipment is even an option that's on the table.  But let’s let the review be conducted, and then we can have a discussion about possible steps that could be taken to correct any problems that may exist in that system.

Q    But if the President is concerned about the amount of hardware that's out there, wouldn’t that be a logical step, is to recall some of it back?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it could be.  But I think each situation is different.  And that is why we’ve got the folks at OMB and the Domestic Policy Council and other places who are taking a careful look at this to determine the proper course of action, and to take any corrective steps that may be necessary.

Justin.

Q    I have two quick ones, the first one on Iraq.  I know when Ed kind of pressed you about whether the Congress would vote if you decided that strikes were necessary, you said you’d consult but didn’t commit to a vote.  I’m wondering if you anticipate an appropriations request coming.  I know we talked about this a couple weeks ago, but there’s been some grumbling up on Capitol Hill that you guys might be preparing a long-term supplemental appropriations act, and so I’m wondering if -- whether it’s Iraq or Syria, if that’s something that you guys kind of have on the burner right now.

MR. EARNEST:  Anytime we’re talking about some military actions like the ones that the President ordered a couple of weeks ago, that’s going to require some resources.  The question that I don’t have an answer to is whether or not that will require additional resources beyond the ones that have already been budgeted for military activities around the globe.  So I’m not in a position to give you additional insight into that, but if additional resources are requested or needed, we’ll make that request.  And we hope that we’ll see the kind of bipartisan support we’ve traditionally seen from Congress for our men and women -- to ensure that our men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line to protect the country is adequately and consistently funded.

Q    And then I wanted to ask an optics question.  I know Eric kind of -- over the weekend --

MR. EARNEST:  You don't think he did a good job of handling it?  (Laughter.) 

Q    Well, there were big stories I guess in the Times and the Post over the weekend about how --

MR. EARNEST:  The Times and the Post. 

Q    I know.  (Laughter.)  The President seems disconnected and in these stories were Democrats on Capitol Hill fretting about how that could hurt Democrats in the midterms.  So I’m wondering if this is something that you guys are concerned about and will address in some concrete way headed towards the midterms, showing the President to be more connected or worrying about the optics of going to play golf right after kind of a big foreign policy speech.  Or is there -- or do you perceive any sort of risk of Democratic success or the President’s agenda by having those kind of harsh contrasts?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll say a couple of things about that. The first is, I think understandably, people look at a lot of things that happen in this town through a political lens.  That’s an understandable pursuit.  That’s just not the way that we look at them.  That when the President is out making these kinds of decisions about which foreign leaders to call, what sort of military actions to order up, balancing the pros and cons of the specific strategy or an intervention, the President is not worried about politics.  He’s worried about the safety and security of the American people.  And that’s what he’s focused on.  It’s okay for other people to be focused on those things; we’re just not. 

Q    I mean, in the decision to going to play golf, like, that’s not a military mission, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is the second point that I was trying to make.  I think Eric had it right when he said that anybody who is trying to get a sense of what the President was focused on last week got that sense by watching the statement that he delivered to express his condolences to the Foley family and to discuss his commitment to making sure that those who carried out that terrible act would be brought to justice.

Anybody who is wondering what the President was focused on last week could just read the whole raft of written readouts of calls to foreign leaders that the President placed over the last couple of weeks from Martha’s Vineyard.  We often talk about the fact that when the President is traveling or even when he is on summer vacation with his family, he still is bearing the responsibility of being the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief.  And he takes with him all the necessary resources to make sure that he can do his job.  And he took with him a telephone that was used on many occasions to confer with international leaders about American interests around the globe and emerging situations in Ukraine and Iraq, and other places.  So that’s what the President was focused on.

But in addition to that, the President did, like many other Americans this time of year, did enjoy some downtime with his family.  And balancing those two things is something that is a challenge for every single President of the United States.  But there is no questioning the fact that this President was focused and attentive to his responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief, even while he was trying to enjoy some downtime with his family.

Q    Really quickly.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s all right.  Take your time.

Q    There were a bunch of questions about why the President came back for a couple days.  I know that you guys have said meetings at the White House, but Attorney General Holder was up in Martha’s Vineyard with him.  Obviously, as you just said, he had the capability to talk to his defense team and anybody else. So I’m just wondering if -- I mean, certainly it was a costly trip to come back and forth.  We didn’t really see any reason why the President did it, and so I’m just wondering if you could shine any light on why that happened.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President did want to convene -- the President convened several meetings while he was here with his team on a range of national security issues, on these issues related to the terrible situation in Ferguson, Missouri.  The President wanted to convene these in-person meetings and he was able to do that here at the White House.  There were some individuals who participated in those meetings because they had to dial in.  They were able to participate in a robust fashion by doing so.  So their telephones worked, too.

But ultimately the President wanted to be in his office for a couple of days to knock out some items on his to-do list and he convened some important meetings.  And after those meetings were concluded, the President did return to Martha’s Vineyard.  And when he returned to Martha’s Vineyard, there was still important work for him to attend to, but he was able to do it in a more comfortable place -- at least for another couple of days before he had to return.

Alexis, I’ll give you the last one.

Q    Josh, Justin wanted to ask but he was being too nice -- did the President come back for his daughter’s schedule?

MR. EARNEST:  I have no idea what his daughter’s schedule was last week.

Q    But you can’t rule out that Malia’s schedule was the reason the President returned?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, I don’t know what the President’s daughters’ schedules were last week.  All I can tell you is that the reason the President returned to the White House was because he had a couple of meetings that he wanted to convene in person when he got here.

Q    Secondly, you were just talking about the President’s conversation with James Foley’s family and his promise to seek and get justice.  Can you elaborate on whether the President has issued any kind of directive or order to kill or capture, if identified, James Foley’s murderer?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t know of any order like that.  What I can tell you is that the United States has been working very closely with the British government through intelligence channels and through law enforcement channels to try to determine the identity of the individual who appeared in that gruesome video.  And that is part of this administration and this country’s commitment to bring to justice those individuals who perpetrated that terrible act against an innocent American civilian.

Q    And lastly, the North Carolina trip.  Is Senator Hagan going to be present for the President’s speech or the delegation that’s been invited?  Can you elaborate?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s my understanding that Senator Hagan is at some point tomorrow also addressing the American Legion, but I don’t know the exact tick-tock of her schedule.  I don’t know if she’ll be there at the same time as the President, but I’m sure her office does, if you want to give them a call.

Thanks, everybody.

Q    Any plans for them to be together?

MR. EARNEST:  I just don’t know what her schedule is.  Thank you, guys.

END 
2:35 P.M. EDT

Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, 8/22/2014

Press Filing Center
Edgartown, Massachusetts

1:58 P.M. EDT

MR. SCHULTZ:  Good afternoon.  I’m going to let Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes lead us off here for about 10, 15 minutes, take your foreign policy/national security-focused questions.  And then I will pull up the rear.

MR. RHODES:  Great.  Thanks, everyone.  We’ll just get to it.  Jim.

Q    Thanks.  I wondered if could comment on two recent international developments.  One is, NATO says that Russian artillery has moved into Ukraine and is firing on government positions.  And the other one is this Chinese jet intercept of a Navy plane in international waters.  And if I could follow up later on Islamic State. 

MR. RHODES:  Sure.  Well, first of all, with respect to the Chinese jet, I know the Pentagon spoke to this earlier today.  It’s obviously a deeply concerning provocation, and we’ve communicated directly to the Chinese government our objection to this type of action.  In terms of the additional details, I think the Pentagon spoke to those.  But again, what we’ve encouraged is constructive military-to-military ties with China, and this type of action clearly violates the spirit of that engagement.  And we’ve made our concerns known directly to Beijing.

With respect to the developments in Ukraine, we very much condemn the violation -- flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty that we saw today with the movement of this Russian convoy into Ukraine.  There had been negotiations during which it was made clear that Ukraine would have to accept the delivery of any humanitarian convoy into the country.  It was made clear that the ICRC would have to participate in the delivery of any humanitarian assistance.  That has not taken place.  The ICRC is not part of this delivery.  The government of Ukraine did not give agreement for this convoy to move within their borders.

I think this is part of a pattern that we’ve seen in recent weeks and that we’ve highlighted of Russian support to armed separatists in eastern Ukraine that violates Ukraine’s sovereignty and destabilizes the situation.  So we are deeply concerned about this.  We’re in touch with the Ukrainian government.  We will be in touch today with our partners at the U.N. Security Council to discuss next steps.  Russia should take the opportunity to remove this convoy from within Ukraine.  If they don’t, they will face additional costs and consequences from the United States and our partners in the international community.

Q    Can you confirm that apparently NATO is saying that there are Russian artillery in Ukraine as well?

MR. RHODES:  We have seen the use of Russian artillery in Ukraine in the past days.  I wouldn’t want to speak to an individual instance today.  But it certainly has been a pattern whereby we’ve seen firing from within Russia into Ukraine, and we’ve seen a disturbing movement of Russian artillery and military equipment into Ukraine as well.

I’d say that this takes place in the context of the separatists dramatically losing support within eastern Ukraine, and the Ukrainian military making gains in places like Luhansk and Donetsk.  The way, however, to respond to that situation and the humanitarian needs, the legitimate humanitarian needs, in eastern Ukraine is to pursue a path of de-escalation, not to move forward with further violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which has only alienated Russia from the people of eastern Ukraine and isolated Russia in the international community. 

Q    On Islamic State, yesterday General Dempsey said that Islamic State can only be defeated if the fight is taken to them in Syria.  I wondered, is that -- does the President agree with that?  And if so, how does he intend to undertake it?  And would it mean a significant change in the mission against Islamic State?

MR. RHODES:  Well, we certainly agree that any strategy to deal with the ISIL organization has to deal with both sides of the border, Iraq and Syria.  The strategy that we are already undertaking does address that in the sense that we are providing training and equipping and assistance to the Iraqi security forces and Kurdish security forces who are fighting them on the ground in Iraq.  We are also providing support and military assistance to the moderate Syrian opposition.  What we would like to see is those efforts squeeze the space where ISIL operates. 

But there are other elements to our strategy.  One is to enlist the support of partners in the region and the international community, because this poses a significant threat not just to the United States and to the Iraqi and Syrian people, but to the entire region.  And there are things that we can do with partners to mobilize communities in places like Iraq to work to expel ISIL. 

Then there’s the question of U.S. military action.  And the President has already authorized U.S. military action on the very specific missions of protecting our people and personnel and our facilities in Baghdad and Erbil.  He’s also authorized military action to deal with the humanitarian crisis on Mount Sinjar.  Again, as we look ahead and look forward, we are going to do what is necessary to protect Americans.  And so if we see plotting against Americans, we see a threat to the United States emanating from anywhere, we stand ready to take action against that threat. 

We’ve made very clear time and again that if you come after Americans, we’re going to come after you wherever you are.  And that’s what’s going to guide our planning in the days to come.

Steve.

Q    Has the President signed off on airstrikes against ISIL in Syria?

MR. RHODES:  Well, again, I don’t want to get ahead of decisions the President hasn’t been presented with, specific military options outside of those carrying out the current missions in Iraq.  But we would certainly look at what is necessary in the long term to make sure we’re protecting Americans.  Again, the long-term strategy is going to have to involve people on the ground taking the fight to ISIL, and that is Iraqi and Kurdish forces; that is Syrians who we are supporting on the ground.  But if we have a need to protect Americans and to take action when we see plotting against the United States and our interests, we’ll reserve the right to do so.  But I’m not going to get ahead of those decisions.

Q    So you are -- it’s fair to say you’re actively considering airstrikes against ISIL targets in Syria?

MR. RHODES:  Well, again, you heard the President say we will be relentless against ISIL, and we will do what’s necessary to protect Americans and see that justice is done for what we saw with the barbaric killing of Jim Foley.  So we’re actively considering what’s going to be necessary to deal with that threat, and we’re not going to be restricted by borders.  We’ve shown time and again that if there’s a counterterrorism threat we’ll take direct action against that threat if necessary.

Q    And last thing -- on Ukraine, the Russian convoy, do you see that as a direct invasion of Ukraine?

MR. RHODES:  Well, at this point, again, we see this as part of a pattern of a flagrant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty; a direct incursion into their territory.  They continue to have masses of military forces on the border, too, that would be a further escalation were they to move into Ukraine. 

We’re giving the Russians a clear message that they need to remove this convoy from inside of Ukraine’s borders.  If they don’t, we will be making determinations with our international partners about how to ratchet up the costs and consequences on them.  Clearly, again, this is not something that has started today.  From the arming and training of Russia-backed separatists, to the shoot-down of MH17, we’ve seen escalation.  And this adds to that escalation in a dangerous way.  The Russians should take a path to de-escalation.  If they don’t, they’re just going to find themselves further isolated, not just from the people of eastern Ukraine, but from the entire world.

Yes, Michelle.

Q    From the way the administration, including yourself, is talking about ISIS today, it seems like a big jump from what the President himself said in January, calling ISIS a JV player.  So would you still agree with his assessment just a few months ago?

MR. RHODES:  I think what the President was speaking to a few months ago was, the fact of the matter is you have many different groups operating across the Middle East and North Africa.  As we shift from a situation in which the counterterrorism threat, principally emanating from al Qaeda core, we are going to need to evaluate which of these groups pose a threat to the United States, which of these groups pose a threat to our personnel in the region, and which of these groups are more localized, militia-type forces that are potentially dangerous but can be handled by local security forces. 

Clearly, ISIL, which has a long history and an origin dating back to AQI, al Qaeda in Iraq, has gained capacity in the last several months as the fighting in Syria has given them some safe haven there, and as they’ve advanced across Iraq and gained heavy weaponry, and as they’ve become better funded through various funding streams, including what they’re able to sell in terms of oil and gas, the ransoms that they’ve been able to obtain.  And that has developed their capacity in a way that has increased the threat.  And they pose a greater threat today than they did six months ago, and we’re taking it very seriously.  That includes the direct military action we’re taking in Iraq; that includes the increased support that we’ve provided to the Iraqi and Kurdish forces and to the Syrian opposition.  And we’re going to do what’s necessary to deal with this counterterrorism challenge.

Kristen.

Q    Ben, thanks.  Former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell said of James Foley’s death, “This is ISIS’s first terrorist attack against the United States.”  Do you agree with that assessment?  Was that a terrorist attack against the United States?

MR. RHODES:  Well, absolutely when you see somebody killed in such a horrific way that represents a terrorist attack; that represents a terrorist attack against our country and against an American citizen.  And I think all of us have the Foley family in our thoughts and prayers.

The fact of the matter is that we’ve actually seen ISIL seek to advance too close to our facilities certainly for our own comfort.  And so the President’s decision to take military action a number of weeks ago was out of direct concern that if they were able to get into Erbil, that they could pose a threat to our personnel and our consulate there.  So we have seen them pose a threat to our interests in the region, to our personnel and facilities in the region.  And clearly, the brutal execution of Jim Foley represented an affront, an attack not just on him, but he is an American, and we see that as an attack on our country when one of our own is killed like that.

Q    And how would you assess the threat that they pose to Americans living in the United States?  Do you take their threats seriously?

MR. RHODES:  Well, Kristen, we have to take their threats seriously.  To date, they have operated much like an insurgency in Syria and Iraq.  And again, they're deeply rooted in the insurgency that we faced in Iraq for many years as the legacy organization of al Qaeda in Iraq.  And they, of course, pose a huge threat to the people in that region.  And it’s important to underscore, as the President did the other day, that it’s not simply the threat they pose to the United States; it’s the threat that they pose to the entire world.

And they’ve killed thousands of civilians, and they’ve killed Muslims more than any other faith.  So whatever pretense they have to establish themselves as speaking for the Muslim world I think is completely disproven by their actions in that part of the world. 

For Americans in the homeland, I think what we’d say is we monitor very closely whether or not ISIL will seek to develop plots that are aimed at the West, aimed at beyond this geographic area where they’ve been operating.  We are doing that.  We’re actively consulting with European partners about how to watch the threat that they could pose to the West.  We take their threats seriously, because we have to take every threat that's made against the United States seriously.  And we’re going to deal with that through, again, the action and the strategy we have in the region to squeeze them. 

We’re also dealing with it through homeland security.  And the President is going to convene at the head-of-state level a U.N. Security Council meeting in September to deal with the issue of foreign fighters who are heading to Syria, because we’re concerned about the ability of foreign fighters to come from Western countries and seek to come back.

Q    And could they pull off a 9/11-size attack?  Are they capable of that?

MR. RHODES:  Look, to date, we have not seen them focus on that type of planning.  But that doesn't mean we’re not going to be very mindful that they could quickly aim to pivot to attacks against Western targets outside of the region.  And so, again, this is something we’re going to monitor very closely, because we certainly take seriously the fact that this is an organization that has a cadre of fighters who are clearly willing to do horrific things, as we saw in that video and as we’ve seen as they massacre innocent civilians in Iraq. 

They have a significant stream of funding that they’ve acquired over the last year or two.  And again, if they show the intent, or they show plotting against the United States, we’ll be prepared to deal with that as necessary.

Jon.

Q    Yes, the bigger picture on what we’re doing in Iraq.  Is the United States now engaged in a broad counterterrorism effort to defeat ISIL?

MR. RHODES:  The Iraqi government is certainly at the front of an effort to defeat ISIL inside of Iraq, and we’re providing them with support in order to do that.  I think the strategy is one that we want to evict ISIL from their safe havens and squeeze the space that they're operating in, and ultimately push them out of that space.

Our contribution to that will come in many ways.  It comes in the form of the airstrikes that are protecting Baghdad and Erbil that have given space for Iraqi forces to push forward against ISIL.  It comes in the form of military assistance and advice and intelligence-sharing that we have with Iraqi and Kurdish forces on the ground.  It comes with our political support in service of a new and inclusive Iraqi government, which should be able to broaden the coalition against ISIL so that we see more of Iraq’s neighbors working with, for instance, Sunni communities to evict ISIL.  So this is going to have to be a team effort.

But we have very unique capabilities that we can bring to bear in supporting those on the ground who are working to fight against ISIL on the frontlines.

Q    But just a basic question:  Is it the objective of U.S. efforts here to defeat ISIL?  Is that a U.S. objective -- to defeat this terrorist -- 

MR. RHODES:  Absolutely, in the long term our objective would be to see an organization like ISIL defeated.  Our military objectives -- and so I’m just separating out the fact that we have military objectives that the President has articulated that aim to protect our facilities in Iraq and prevent this humanitarian catastrophe.  In that long-term strategy of working for the defeat of ISIL, we will participate not just through our military actions, but through our training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, Kurdish security forces on the ground -- because ultimately they are the ones who are going to have to work to evict ISIL from their communities.

And again, their efforts to form an inclusive government in Iraq I think will go a long way towards enlisting the support of those communities who have been somewhat disaffected from the government in recent years.

Q    And I’d like to get you to respond to Michael Foley, Jim Foley’s brother, pretty emotional comments.  He said -- and I quote -- “The United States could have done more on behalf of the Western and American hostages over there.”

MR. RHODES:  Well, first of all, our hearts go out to Mr. Foley and the entire Foley family.  I cannot imagine how it must feel to lose a loved one, and to lose a loved one in such a horrible way.  And I certainly understand that any family would want to make sure that we are moving heaven and Earth to find and bring home American hostages.

I can assure you that we have done everything that we can possibly do to try to bring home our hostages.  It’s an incredibly difficult circumstance in a place like Syria, again, where you have such a violent conflict raging.  But we’ve used all of our military, intelligence, diplomatic resources that we can bring to bear to try to pull a thread to find out where our hostages are; to try to rescue them when we saw an opportunity; to try to work with any country that might have any means of locating them.  And tragically, we weren’t able to rescue Mr. Foley.  But we’re going to keep trying for all of our hostages, not just in Syria, but around the world.

Q    How many are there?  If I can just ask -- how many American hostages are being held by ISIL?

MR. RHODES:  Jon, we don't want to put out a specific number, again, out of respect for the fact that there are sensitivities involved with that.  But this is a small number of hostages who are held within Syria.  And we’re going to continue to do whatever we can to try to bring them home.  Every day that they're in custody there is a day that they're at risk.

Major.

Q    At the White House, the President said the goal was to contain ISIL.  The Secretary of State two days later said the goal was to destroy ISIL.  Which is it?  And how far and how long are we prepared to carry out whichever campaign it is?

MR. RHODES:  Well, Major, I think the President has spoken to the fact that our military objectives in Iraq right now are limited to protecting our personnel and facilities and addressing this humanitarian crisis.

We have to be clear that this is a deeply rooted organization.  They have been there for 10 years, when you go back to AQI.  It is going to take time, a long time, to fully evict them from the communities where they operate.  We can do things, though, in the immediate term to address the threat to the United States and our people and to push them back, and to give space for these security forces who are taking the fight to them.  We can create a coalition that can support Iraqis and the moderate Syrian opposition in their efforts to squeeze ISIL.  And that's what we're doing.

But it's going to take time.  When you talk about an objective like the ultimate defeat of ISIL, it's going to take time to dislodge a group that has been operating in this part of the world for the better part of a decade in an insurgency.  But what we can do is address the threat to the United States, give these security forces the space that they need, go on the offense, push them out of the communities that they’re in, and then work towards that ultimate goal of defeating ISIL.

And as the President said the other day, Major, this is a cancer that has to be eradicated, and that’s how we look at this.  We have to have our near-term goals that put the safety of Americans front and center.  And then in the long term, we'll be working with our partners to defeat this organization.

Q    Are you saying first contain, then destroy?

MR. RHODES:  Well, I think, obviously, by definition, Major, you need an immediate term to contain a threat -- so, yes.  But as you're doing that, you need to make sure that if there’s a threat to the American people that we have the ability to take action.  And that's what the President did, for instance, when they were bearing down on our facilities in Erbil.

But we are already pushing them back.  You saw after we began our airstrikes, for instance, the Kurdish forces, with our support, were able to make advances and to retake a big piece of critical infrastructure in Iraq, the Mosul Dam.  So that's the dynamic that we're seeking to foster, one that doesn’t just contain, but that allows those forces on the ground to go on the offense.

Q    Ben, one other issue -- and I don't know how much the President has been briefed on it the last couple of weeks, but obviously the Ebola crisis continues to mount in severity.  To what degree has the President been briefed on that?  And is there any serious consideration or dialogue going on with the administration of sending additional assets to the region, such as the USS Mercy or USS Comfort, which are platform naval vessel hospitals that might be able to provide some assistance to some number of people affected in those countries by this virus disease?

MR. RHODES:  So we always look at whatever resource is necessary to deal with an outbreak like Ebola that we've seen.  We have prioritized getting people and resources on the ground in places like Liberia and Sierra Leone, so that we're working to strengthen their public health architecture.

There are clear steps that we believe they can take to contain the outbreak and to make sure that people are getting appropriate care.  That's what we focused on with the CDC and other U.S. agencies.  And if there are opportunities for us to do additional things, we'll review those.  But the best solution in our mind is to put the public health infrastructure in place in those countries to contain this outbreak, treat those who are suffering from it, and ensure that it doesn’t spread beyond their borders.

Q    (Inaudible) right now as an option?

MR. RHODES:  I don't have any updates for you on additional military resources.  We’ve focused on public health resources to date.

Last one I'll take -- Mike.

Q    When the President announced the airstrikes in Iraq, he came to the American people and made a statement and he laid out a sort of specific case for what was happening, what was going to happen and what was not going to happen.  Do you all believe that that case that he made then covers what you might do in Syria as well, both from a kind of public relations perspective, what he needs to tell the American people?  And then on the legal side, are there things that he would -- if you all decide to take military action in Syria along the lines that you just talked about to protect American interests, would he have to come to Congress?  Would there be additional legal -- either here in the United States or international legal authority that he would have to seek to do that?

MR. RHODES:  Well, on your first question, Mike, look, the President always keeps the American people updated about the status of any military action and major foreign policy and national security actions.  Even since he announced those airstrikes earlier this month, I'd note that he’s spoken a number of times to developments in Iraq and developments associated with our efforts against ISIL.  So, clearly, I think any additional action that he would take is one that he would explain to the American people, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else.  And we will keep the American people fully informed. 

And I think the American people understand that this President is very deliberate about the use of force.  He doesn’t rush towards a military option.  He takes very seriously when we put U.S. military action on the table, when we have our pilots flying missions like the airstrikes we’re undertaking in Iraq.

However, I think the American people also understand that there are some threats that have to be dealt with, and we're dealing with the threat from ISIL in Iraq by protecting our people there.  And as we've done against al Qaeda around the world, we'll take whatever action is necessary to protect our people.  And President Obama has shown that he’d do that, whether it's in Pakistan with the bin Laden operation, in Yemen, in Somalia.  We will take direct action against terrorists who threaten the United States even as we develop long-term solutions that empower partners on the ground.

With respect to legal matters, I wouldn't want to prejudge an action that we haven't taken.  I would say that the actions we're taking in Iraq are obviously at the invitation of the Iraqi government and consistent with the President’s constitutional authority.  The action that we took to try to rescue hostages in Syria was entirely legal, of course, because we were seeking to save Americans from imminent danger.  And that is at the core of justification for military action.

I think that any additional actions that we take we would want to consult with Congress.

Q    But, I mean, the things that you had drawn about Iraq was that you were invited in, what you just mentioned.  In Syria, that obviously wouldn't be the case.  So isn't there a distinction?  And wouldn't you have to --

MR. RHODES:  I don't want to speak hypothetically about an action we haven't taken.  But to take the example of what we did, you don't need to be invited in if you're trying to rescue your people from imminent danger.  And so that was the basis for the action that we took to try to rescue our hostages.

Going forward, we would obviously have a legal justification for any action we take.  And I do want to be clear -- we would consult with Congress.  This is, again, a problem that we have to deal with as a nation, and so whether it's our ongoing operations in Iraq or additional steps that may need to be taken against ISIL, we would carry those out in very close consultation with Congress about their support and their role in providing support for our efforts.

Q    Can I just follow?  Does the U.S. need to rethink its policy of not paying ransom for hostages?

MR. RHODES:  We obviously understand that Americans who have loved ones who are in harm’s way want to do anything to try to bring them home, and we provide support in any way we can with our military, our diplomacy, our intelligence resources, our law enforcement resources.  But as a matter of policy, we do not provide ransom or any funding for terrorist organizations.  We feel very strongly that it is not the right policy for governments to support the payment of ransom to terrorist organizations.  In the long run, what that does is it provides additional funding to these terrorist organizations, which allows them to expand their operations.  It incentivizes the kidnapping of foreigners in ways that we've seen, frankly, with organizations like ISIL and some al Qaeda affiliates.

So, again, as a matter of policy, I think the U.S. government remains absolutely committed to the notion that we will not provide funding for terrorist organizations that we believe that only creates perverse incentives for those terrorist organizations going forward, and a source of funding.  And we want to cut off and choke off their sources of funding.  What we will do is use all the resources of the U.S. government to try to find and, if possible, bring home those Americans who are missing.  And as I said, that will include our military, our intelligence, our law enforcement and our diplomacy.

Thanks.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Before we get started, just a quick note mostly of appreciation as we wind down our past few weeks here on the Vineyard.  It’s been a busy few weeks, and I appreciate your patience and flexibility as we move through a lot of breaking news and a lot of developments both up here, in Washington, and around the world.  So I appreciate you working with us.  I appreciate your flexibility and also your feedback as we try to make sure we’re getting you the best and accurate and quickest information we could.

With that, I will open it up to your questions.

Q    The President has taken a lot of flak for going golfing this week during some of these tumultuous times.  Could you just explain why he does this?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure.  I am not going to get into the President’s mindset on that.  I will say that, generally, I think that sports and leisure activities are a good way for release and clearing of the mind for a lot of us.

Jon.

Q    Given the gravity of the events that he’s had to struggle with while he’s been up here, has there been any consideration, any internal discussion of saying, hey, maybe a day off from golf might not be a bad idea?  I mean, particularly yesterday, when you’re -- or particularly dealing with, in the wake of what happened with James Foley, and the President comes out and gives a very powerful statement on that murder, and then he goes right from here to a golf course.  Is there any discussion of maybe, in a circumstance like that, it’s best to stay off the links for a little while?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Jon, you are right the President did give a powerful statement in this auditorium Wednesday afternoon.  I think that anyone wondering his views on both the situation with ISIL, that video, or his concern for the Foley family should go back and review that statement.  It was delivered from the heart.  It was candid.  It was honest and it was open.  And I think anyone trying to assess how seriously he takes the gravity of that situation should go back and watch that, or read it, or listen to it again.

Q    I have no doubt about that.  What I’m asking is, is the optics in what people see.  And you saw the kind of split-screen photos that we’ve seen in newspapers yesterday -- the President making that statement, the terrible tragedy that the Foley family is dealing with, and then the shots of the President kind of laughing it up at the golf course right afterwards.

MR. SCHULTZ:  I understand you’re asking about the optics.  But let me just take a minute to explain how we approach this.  First and foremost, the President is focused on doing his job.  And to us, that’s paramount.  And what I think you’ve seen is that just because the President is in a different location doesn’t mean he’s not doing his job.  And I don’t think anyone in this room who’s been covering this or following the President for the past few weeks could deny that the President has been deeply engaged on issues both domestic and abroad.

It’s important for us to understand, and I think that’s been evident, is that the issues the country is facing both on the international stage and back here at home have absolutely captured the President’s attention while we’ve been here.

Q    And can I just ask a quick follow-up to what Michelle was asking Ben about, about the President’s comments last January, saying that these al Qaeda affiliates, like ISIL, are the “JV team.”  And Ben said, well, in the last six months they have certainly grown in power and scope.  So is it fair to say now, based on what Ben just told us, that the President’s comments, when he called groups like ISIL the “JV team” of al Qaeda, are no longer operative?  Is that no longer the President’s view?

MR. SCHULTZ:  That would not be my take.  I’m not going to do too much --

Q    So he still thinks this group is the JV team?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, I think the President spoke about ISIL about 48 hours ago, and the brutality they committed, the barbaric acts, and everything the President is going to instruct the United States government -- both military, diplomatic and intelligence -- in order to see justice served.  So I don’t think there’s any dispute right now, discrepancy right now about how the President views ISIL, because he spoke to you a few days ago about that.

Michelle.

Q    So would the President agree with what Secretary Hagel said yesterday then, that this is beyond anything we’ve seen?  I mean, there seems to be these big differences of the way the administration words it, depending on who you’re talking to.  So can you sort of iron this out, and what is the view of what the Secretary said yesterday?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure, I’m happy to iron this out, but I am going to, again, refer to what the President said a few days ago in which he said that ISIL has “rampaged across cities and villages -- killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence.  They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture, [and] rape and slavery.  They have murdered Muslims -- both Sunni and Shia -- by the thousands.  They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no [other] reason.”   And they have “declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.”

So I don’t think we are equivocating or parsing our approach on this. 

Q    So in those terms, is that beyond anything we’ve seen?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think that, A, Ben addressed this a little bit ago; B, the President has addressed this a little bit ago.  I’m not going to be here to sort of parse the differences between al Qaeda and ISIL.  Both are clearly terrorist organizations.  Both want to do harm to innocent people.  And I think the President’s record on counterterrorism speaks for itself.

Q    Does he agree with Secretary Hagel’s assessment, though?

MR. SCHULTZ:  That what?

Q    That this is beyond -- a threat beyond anything we’ve seen, or that ISIS is a force beyond anything we’ve seen.

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think how the President views ISIL has been articulated a couple times now.

Major.

Q    On domestic policy, could you give us the White House take on new accommodations made for those who had opposed legally and through other means the birth control requirements for some religious-affiliated groups, or private businesses that have registered objections?  I understand there’s some new developments on that.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes.  Thank you, Major.  As you point out, today the administration took several steps to ensure women, whose coverage is threated, receive coverage for recommended contraceptive services through their health care plans at no additional cost, as they should be entitled to under the Affordable Care Act, while continuing the administration’s goal of respecting religious beliefs.  The rules, which I believe you’re referencing, are in response to recent court actions and balance our commitment to helping ensure women have continued access to coverage for preventative services important to their health, while respecting the administration’s goal of respecting religious beliefs.

Q    So non-profits?  And some of these companies that object can now opt out of paying directly for these birth control services?  Is that correct?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, I actually think that what these rules do are help ensure that women have access to contraceptive coverage.  The administration believes the accommodation is legally sound.  But in light of the Supreme Court order regarding Wheaton College, the departments are augmenting their regulations to provide an alternative for objecting non-profit religious organizations to provide notification, while ensuring that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate coverage of contraceptive services without cost-sharing. 

Q    And can you help me understand who pays?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I know there’s two separate rules -- one for the non-profits and one for the closely held profits.  I’m going to refer you to HHS on how those are implemented.

Q    And do you think this will be the end of this?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Do I think this will be the end of it?  I’m not sure.  I know that -- well, we, first and foremost, want Congress to act.  That’s going to be our sort of bedrock principle on this.  We believe that Congress can and should act to ensure that any women affected by recent Supreme Court actions get the same coverage options that everyone else has offered.  Legislative action is the quickest and best way to ensure that women get access to the services they need, and we call on Congress to act quickly.

Q    But until then, this is your final regulatory move in this sphere?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I’m not sure.  I know that this particular step will have a few steps along the way, so I’m happy to get back to you on that.

Wendell.

Q    The GAO has ruled that the administration broke the law in the Bergdahl swap by not notifying Congress and by using federal funds inappropriately.  What’s your reaction to that?  Are you going to challenge that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Wendell, it’s not going to surprise you to know that we strongly disagree with GAO’s conclusion, and we reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully.  The President has the constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of Americans abroad, and specifically to protect U.S. servicemembers. 

It’s important for everyone here to understand that the GAO report expressly does not address the lawfulness of the administration’s actions as a matter of constitutional law.

Q    So what’s going to be your reaction to it then?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think I just read one.

Q    Will you just -- is there recourse on the part of Congress?  Is there recourse -- the GAO has issued a finding that you disagreed with.  Are you simply going to ignore it?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, I could tell you that the administration’s actions occurred only after the Secretary of Defense determined that the risk posed by the detainees to the United States or U.S. persons of interest was substantially mitigated and that the transfer was in the national security interests of the United States, as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014. 

At the time, Wendell, you’ll recall, the President was very clear that our commitment to men and women serving overseas to leave none of them behind is a bedrock principle for him, one that doesn't come with caveats.  And that's why he acted in that manner.

Q    So help me understand the impact of the GAO ruling.  Is there any?

MR. SCHULTZ:  You’ve asked for the White House’s reaction.  I’ve given that to you.  In terms of the impact of the GAO, you might want to check with the GAO.

Peter.

Q    Eric, has the President spoken to Attorney General Holder since Holder was in Ferguson?  And what does the President think of the current status there and what should happen going forward?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Thanks, Peter.  The President has been in touch with the Attorney General since the Attorney General was in Missouri.  I think it’s fair to say that we’ve been encouraged by what we’ve seen in the past few days.  The President, last week and then on Monday, I believe, called for a de-escalation in the tensions.  That was paramount for him.  And so far we’ve seen the developments of the past few days.

To answer your question, the President has been in touch with the Attorney General.  The President and many of us at the White House are closely monitoring and receiving regular briefings on the situation in Ferguson. 

As you know, the Department of Justice opened an investigation -- an independent, federal civil rights investigation into the death of Michael Brown.  And both the President and Attorney General have committed to a fair, thorough and independent investigation.

Q    What did the Attorney General tell him?  What were his impressions that he shared with the President?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I’m not going to get into their sort of internal communications.  I think the Department of Justice has put out a lot of readouts of that trip.  And I know it’s well covered by your colleagues.

I can tell you that the President felt that the Attorney General had a very good and worthwhile trip to Ferguson.  He met with members of the community, the congressional delegation, local officials, along with FBI agents and DOJ personnel conducting the federal criminal investigation, and he received an update on each of their progress.  He also met with the parents of Michael Brown.

Q    If I could just ask a question that we’ve been asked by media in St. Louis.  Do you foresee the President ever going there to personally address what happened?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don't have any scheduling announcements at this time.  I do think you’ve seen the President speak about this again so very openly and candidly over the past few days, speak at length about how he views the situation in Ferguson.  The Attorney General went out there earlier this week.  And so he’s continuing to monitor this, and his first and foremost priority is with the safety of those in Ferguson.

Kristen.

Q    Eric, thanks.  Can you update us on where the President stands in terms of his decision-making process for announcing a potential executive order on immigration?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure.  As I think you’ll recall, on June 30th, the President spoke to you all in the Rose Garden, and that was on the heels of being informed by Speaker Boehner that the House Republicans were not going to bring up immigration reform for a vote.  As you may also recall, we believe that that bipartisan bill passed by Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate should be brought up for a vote.  We are not even asking House Republicans -- or the House leadership to vote for it; we’re just asking for them to bring it up for a vote -- because I’d bet you a good deal that that would pass with both Democrats and Republicans in the House.

That said, Speaker Boehner did inform the President -- we were fairly forthcoming in that.  And on the heels of that, the President announced in the Rose Garden that he was directing the Director of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to identify additional actions the administration can take on its own within the President’s existing legal authority to do what Congress refuses to do, and fix the broken immigration system that's been plaguing our country for many years now.  If Congress is not going to do their job, the least we can do is ours.  And the President expects their recommendations by the end of the summer.

I don't have any additional updates for me to read out at this time.

Q    So he hasn’t gotten any of the recommendations yet?  He hasn’t sort of begun his own decision-making process yet?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I believe -- I’m not sure the status of the recommendations incoming to the White House.  I can tell you the President has put a great deal of thought into this already, as you’ve heard many times.  And as soon as we have anything definitive, any announcements, we’ll make sure you get those.

Q    And just given that this number of 5 million people potentially being able to stay in the United States has been floated around -- I know that's a number that has come from some of the advocacy groups -- but is the President open to going that far, allowing 5 million of the 11 million illegal immigrants who are currently here to stay here?

MR. SCHULTZ:  As you point out, those numbers are in the newspaper.  They were not put out by us in the administration.  We are preserving the sort of integrity of this process to allow the President to receive those recommendations from the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  We’re going to review those.  And as the President said, he wants to act by the end of the summer.

Jim.

Q    I have one final question, following up on Wendell, on Bergdahl.  We heard Ben describe the U.S. policy as paying no ransom for hostages, yet the U.S. released Taliban operatives in order to get Bergdahl back.  Why does one policy lead to more kidnappings but the other one does not?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think, again, what the President made clear at the time of the Guantanamo transfer was that his commitment to the men and women that serve overseas is a bedrock one that we will leave no man or woman behind.  That's what he was keeping faith with, and that's something that's unshakeable for him. 

As we’ve made previously clear, the administration determined that it was lawful to proceed with the transfer in order to protect the life of a U.S. servicemember held captive and in danger for almost five years, notwithstanding that Congress did not receive the 30 days’ notice. 

Again, we disagree with GAO’s conclusion and reject the implication that the administration acted unlawfully. 

Q    Week ahead?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Steve, it is with great regret that I do not have a week ahead for you -- despite my best efforts.  But we will have that on paper later today.

Q    Thank you.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Michelle.

Q    The growth of ISIS that you guys have talked about, rapidly, even in the last six months, how much of that would you attribute to the payment of ransoms by other countries?  And how much will the administration be working with other countries or pressuring them not to keep paying these enormous ransoms?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I will reiterate what Ben said, which is our policy is clear:  The United States government, as a matter of longstanding policy, does not grant concessions to hostage-takers.  Doing so would put more Americans at risk of being captive and would be a funding stream for these terrorist organizations. 

But let’s be clear that this isn’t just U.S. policy; this is a growing international norm.  In January of this year, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2133, an unprecedented resolution which identifies kidnapping for ransom as a source of terrorist financing, expresses the Council’s determination to secure the safe release of hostages without ransom payments or political concessions, and calls upon all member states to prevent terrorists from benefitting directly or indirectly from such concessions.

Thank you, guys.

END
2:41 P.M. EDT