Home • Statement By The President On First Step Agreement On Iran's Nuclear Program

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 25, 2013

Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform -- San Francisco, CA

Betty Ong Chinese Recreation Center
San Francisco, California

11:55 A.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) Well, hello, San Francisco! (Applause.) It is great to be back in California. It is great to be with all of you. I love San Francisco. (Applause.) You got great food. You got great people, beautiful scenery -- no more super villains because Batkid cleaned up the streets. (Applause.) Love Batkid. (Laughter.)

I want to start by thanking Geetha for the wonderful introduction and the great work that she’s doing. Give her a big round of applause. (Applause.) I want to thank your Mayor, Ed Lee. (Applause.) Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. (Applause.) I want to recognize some wonderful members of Congress who are fighting every day for the people of California -- Mike Honda -- (applause) -- Eric Swalwell, Judy Chu. They are all doing great work every single day. (Applause.)

We have a special guest, Janet Napolitano, who is now overseeing the entire UC system and going to be doing a great job. (Applause.) We miss her back in Washington, but she is going to be outstanding leading the University of California.

Now, before I begin, I want to say a few words about the news from the weekend. I'm here to talk about immigration reform, but I'm also here in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief, and this weekend, together with our allies and our partners, the United States reached an agreement with Iran -- (applause) -- on a first step towards resolving our concerns over its nuclear program.

Now, some of you may recall that when I first ran for President, I said it was time for a new era of American leadership in the world -- one that turned the page on a decade of war, and began a new era of our engagement with the world. And as President and as Commander-in-Chief, I’ve done what I said. We ended the war in Iraq; we brought our troops home. Osama bin Laden met justice; the war in Afghanistan will end next year.

And as the strongest, most powerful nation on the face of the Earth, we’ve engaged in clear-eyed and principled diplomacy -- even with our adversaries -- in order to begin to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons and to place the first real constraints in a decade on Iran’s nuclear program. Because I firmly believe in what President Kennedy once said: He said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” I believe that. And this diplomacy, backed by the unprecedented sanctions we brought on Iran, has brought us the progress that was achieved this weekend.

For the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program. Key parts of the program will be rolled back. (Applause.) International inspectors will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear-related facilities. So this will help Iran from building a nuclear weapon. And over the coming months, we’re going to continue our diplomacy, with the goal of achieving a comprehensive solution that deals with the threat of Iran’s nuclear program once and for all.

And if Iran seizes this opportunity and chooses to join the global community, then we can begin to chip away at the mistrust that’s existed for many, many years between our two nations.

None of that is going to be easy. Huge challenges remain. But we cannot close the door on diplomacy. And we cannot rule out peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. We cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. And tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security. It is not the right thing for our security. (Applause.)

Now, this progress, and the potential it offers, reminds us of what is possible when the United States has the courage to lead -- not just with the force of arms, but with the strength of our diplomacy and our commitment to peace. That’s what keeps us strong. That’s what makes us a beacon to the world. That’s how I’ll continue to lead so long as I’m President of the United States.

And that spirit -- not just what we can criticize or tear down or be against, but what we can build together -- that’s what brings me here today. Because it’s long past time to fix our broken immigration system. (Applause.) We need to make sure Washington finishes what so many Americans just like you started. We’ve got to finish the job.

And it’s fitting that we’re here in Chinatown, just a few miles away from Angel Island. In the early 1900s, about 300,000 people -- maybe some of your ancestors -- passed through on their way to a new life in America. And for many, it represented the end of a long and arduous journey -- they’d finally arrived in a place where they believed anything was possible.

And for some, it also represented the beginning of a new struggle against prejudice in a country that didn’t always treat its immigrants fairly or afford them the same rights as everybody else. Obviously, Asians faced this, but so did the Irish; so did Italians; so did Jews; and many groups still do today.

That didn’t stop those brave men and women from coming. They were drawn by a belief in the power of opportunity; in a belief that says, maybe I never had a chance at a good education, but this is a place where my daughter can go to college. Maybe I started out washing dishes, but this is a place where my son can become mayor of San Francisco. (Applause.) Maybe I have to make sacrifices today, but those sacrifices are worth it if it means a better life for my family.

And that’s a family story that will be shared by millions of Americans around the table on Thursday. It’s the story that drew my great-great-great-great-grandfather from a small village in Ireland, and drew my father from a small village in Kenya. It’s the story that drew so many of your ancestors here -- that America is a place where you can make it if you try.

And here’s something interesting: Today, more than one in four residents born outside the United States came here from Asian countries -- many through our family immigration system. They’re doctors and business owners, laborers, refugees. This rec center’s namesake, Betty Ong, was a hero on 9/11. (Applause.) But she was also the daughter of immigrants who grew up not far from here. And we’re honored to have her family with us here today. (Applause.)

But too often when we talk about immigration, the debate focuses on our southern border. The fact is we’re blessed with immigrants from all over the world who’ve put down roots in every corner of this country. Here in San Francisco, 35 percent of business owners are immigrants -- and your economy is among the fastest growing in the country. That’s not an accident. That’s the impact that our talented, hardworking immigrants can have. That’s the difference they can make. They’re hungry and they’re striving and they’re working hard and they’re creating things that weren’t there before.

And that’s why it is long past time to reform an immigration system that right now doesn’t serve America as well as it should. We could be doing so much more to unleash our potential if we just fix this aspect of our system.

And I know out here in California that you watch the news and you share the country’s not very sunny view of Washington these days. For the last few months, you’ve seen a lot of headlines about gridlock and partisan bickering, and too often one faction of one party in one house of Congress has chosen courses of action that ended up harming our businesses, or our economy, or our workers. Or they want to refight old political battles rather than create jobs and grow the economy and strengthen the middle class, or take 40 more votes to undermine or repeal the Affordable Care Act -- (laughter) -- instead of passing a single serious jobs bill, despite the fact that Americans want us to focus on jobs and business and growth. And, by the way, thousands of Californians are signing up every day for new health care plans all across this state. (Applause.)

So even as we’re getting this darn website up to speed -- (laughter) -- and it's getting better -- states like California are proving the law works. People want the financial security of health insurance.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thanks to you!

THE PRESIDENT: And even if you’re already insured, reach out to a friend or neighbor who’s not and help them get covered.

But when it comes to immigration reform, we have to have the confidence to believe we can get this done. And we should get it done. And, by the way, most Americans agree. The only thing standing in our way right now is the unwillingness of certain Republicans in Congress to catch up with the rest of the country.
I met the other day with the CEOs of some of America's biggest companies. And I'm positive not all of them voted for me. (Laughter.) I'm pretty sure. (Laughter.) Maybe some of them, but definitely not all of them. But the thing they wanted to talk about, their top priority was the fact that we invite the brightest minds from around the world to study here -- many of them enrolled in the University of California system -- and then we don't invite them to stay. We end up sending them home to create new jobs and start new businesses someplace else. So we're training our own competition, rather than invite those incredibly talented young people, like Geetha, to stay here and start businesses and create jobs here.

I hear from folks who’ve been separated from their families for years because of green card backlogs who desperately want their loved ones to be able to join them here in America. I hear from young DREAMers who are Americans through and through in every way but on paper, and they just want a chance to study and serve and contribute to the nation that they love. (Applause.)

I talk to business owners who play by the rules, but get frustrated because they end up being undercut by those who exploit workers in a shadow economy -- aren't getting paid overtime, aren't required to meet the same obligations. And so those companies end up losing out on business.

Right now, I'm seeing brave advocates who have been fasting for two weeks in the shadow of the Capitol, sacrificing themselves in an effort to get Congress to act. And I want to say to Eliseo Medina, my friend from SEIU, and the other fasters who are there as we speak, I want them to know we hear you. We're with you. The whole country hears you.

And there are plenty of leaders –- Democrat and Republican –- who don’t think it’s fair that we’ve got 11 million people in this country, including more than a million from Asia, with no real way to come forward and get on the right side of the law. It’s not smart. It’s not fair. It doesn’t make sense. And we have kicked this particular can down the road long enough. Everybody knows it.

Now, the good news is we know what the solutions are. There is bipartisan hope of getting it done. This year, the Senate passed an immigration reform bill by a wide, bipartisan majority, and it addresses the key issues that need to be addressed. It would strengthen our borders. It would level the playing field by holding employers accountable if they knowingly hire undocumented workers. It would modernize our legal immigration system so that we eliminate the backlog of family visas and make it easier to attract highly skilled entrepreneurs from beyond our borders. It would make sure that everybody plays by the same rules by providing a pathway to earned citizenship for those who are living in the shadows –- a path that includes passing a background check, and learning English, and paying taxes and a penalty, and getting in line behind everyone trying to come here the right way.

And each of these pieces would go a long way towards fixing our broken immigration system. Each of them has been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. There’s no reason we can’t come together and get it done.

And what's more, we know the immigration reform that we're proposing would boost our economy and shrink our deficits. Independent economists have said that if the Senate bill became law, over the next two decades, our economy would grow by $1.4 trillion more, and it would reduce our deficits by $850 billion more.

And you don’t have to be an economist to figure out that workers will be more productive if they’ve got their families here with them, they're not worried about deportation, they're not living halfway around the world. This isn’t just the right thing to do -– it’s the smart thing to do.

Of course, just because something is smart, fair, good for the economy, and supported by business, labor, law enforcement and faith leaders -- (laughter) -- Democratic and Republican governors, including the Governor of this state –- just because all that is in place doesn’t mean we'll actually get it done, because this is Washington, after all, that we’re talking about and everything is looked through a political prism. And, look, let's be honest, some folks automatically think, well, if Obama’s for it, then I've got to be against it even if I was, before that, I was for it.

But I want to remind everybody, to his great credit, my Republican predecessor, President Bush, was for reform. He proposed reform like this almost a decade ago. I was in the Senate. I joined 23 Senate Republicans back then supporting reform. It's worth remembering that the Senate bill that just passed won more than a dozen Republican votes this past summer. And some of them even forget that I'm -- sometimes people forget I'm not running for office again. Michelle doesn’t forget. (Laughter and applause.) So you don’t have to worry about this somehow being good for me. This is good for the country. It's the right thing to do for the American people.

And I believe, ultimately -- not always in the short term -- but ultimately, good policy is good politics. Look at the polls right now, because the American people support immigration reform by a clear majority. Everybody wins if we get this done. So there's no reason we shouldn’t get immigration reform done right now. None. If there is a good reason I haven't heard it.

And, by the way, if there's a better plan out there than the one that Democrats and Republicans have already advanced together, if there are additional ideas that would make it even better, I’m always willing to listen to new ideas. My door is always open. But right now it’s up to Republicans in the House to decide if we can move forward as a country on this bill. If they don’t want to see it happen, they’ve got to explain why.

The good news is, just this past week Speaker Boehner said that he is “hopeful we can make progress” on immigration reform. And that is good news. I believe the Speaker is sincere. I think he genuinely wants to get it done. And that’s something we should be thankful for this week. And I think there are a number of other House Republicans who also want to get this done. Some of them are hesitant to do it in one big bill, like the Senate did. That’s okay. They can -- it’s Thanksgiving; we can carve that bird into multiple pieces. (Laughter.) A drumstick here -- (laughter) -- breast meat there. But as long as all the pieces get done -- soon -- and we actually deliver on the core values we’ve been talking about for so long, I think everybody is fine with it. They're not worried about the procedures. They just want the result.

But it’s going to require some courage. There are some members of the Republican caucus who think this is bad politics for them back home. And they're free to vote their conscience, but what I’ve said to the Speaker and others is, don't let a minority of folks block something that the country desperately needs. And we can’t leave this problem for another generation to solve. If we don’t tackle this now, then we’re undercutting our own future.

So my message to Congress is rather than create problems, let’s prove Washington can get something done. This is something that has broad-based support. We’ve been working on it for a decade now. This reform comes as close as we’ve gotten to something that will benefit everybody, now and for decades to come. And it has the potential to enrich this country in ways that we can’t even imagine.

And I’ll just give you one example to wrap up. Andrew Ly is here today. Where’s Andrew? He’s around here somewhere. There he is. Now, Andrew has got an amazing story. Andrew grew up in Vietnam, and he and his four brothers tried three times to flee to the United States. Obviously, the country was going through all kinds of difficulties. So three times, they tried; three times, they failed. On the fourth try, their boat –- filled with 140 refugees -- is that right, Andrew -– was attacked by pirates.

But the Lys and their family eventually made it to Malaysia, and then they eventually made it here to San Francisco. And they learned English, and they worked as handymen, and they worked as seamstresses. And eventually, Andrew and his brothers earned enough money to buy a small bakery. And they started making donuts, and they started selling them to Chinese restaurants. And with a lot of hard work and a little luck, the Sugar Bowl Bakery today is a $60 million business. (Applause.)

So these humble and striving immigrants from Vietnam now employ more than 300 Americans. They’re supplying pastries to Costco and Safeway, and almost every hotel and hospital in San Francisco. And I don't know if Andrew brought me any samples, but -- (laughter) -- they must be pretty good. (Laughter.)

And Andrew says, “We came here as boat people, so we don’t take things for granted. We know this is the best country in the world if you work hard.” That’s what America is about. This is the place where you can reach for something better if you work hard. This is the country our parents and our grandparents and waves of immigrants before them built for us. And it falls on each new generation to keep it that way. The Statue of Liberty doesn’t have its back to the world. The Statue of Liberty faces the world and raises its light to the world.

When Chinese immigrants came to this city in search of “Gold Mountain,” they weren’t looking just for physical riches. They were looking for freedom and opportunity. They knew that what makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are -- because we look like the world. You got a President named Obama. (Laughter and applause.) What makes us American is our shared belief in certain enduring principles, our allegiance to a set of ideals, to a creed, to the enduring promise of this country.

And our shared responsibility is to leave this country more generous, more hopeful than we found it. And if we stay true to that history -- if we get immigration reform across the finish line -- and it is there just within our grasp, if we can just get folks in Washington to go ahead and do what needs to be done -- we’re going to grow our economy; we’re going to make our country more secure; we’ll strengthen our families; and most importantly, we will live --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Obama --

THE PRESIDENT: -- most importantly, we will live up --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- my family has been separated for 19 months now --

THE PRESIDENT: -- most importantly, we will live up to our character as a nation.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I’ve not seen my family. Our families are separated. I need your help. There are thousands of people --

THE PRESDIENT: That’s exactly what we’re talking about.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- are torn apart every single day.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s why we’re here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. President, please use your executive order to halt deportations for all 11.5 undocumented immigrants in this country right now.

THE PRESIDENT: What we’re trying --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Do you agree

AUDIENCE: Obama! Obama! Obama!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- that we need to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the same time we -- you have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually I don’t. And that’s why we’re here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, please, I need your help.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Stop deportations!

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. All right.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Stop deportations! Stop deportations!

THE PRESIDENT: What I’d like to do -- no, no, don’t worry about it, guys. Okay, let me finish.

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Stop deportations! Yes, we can! Stop deportations!

THE PRESIDENT: These guys don’t need to go. Let me finish. No, no, no, he can stay there. Hold on a second. (Applause.) Hold on a second.

So I respect the passion of these young people because they feel deeply about the concerns for their families. Now, what you need to know, when I’m speaking as President of the United States and I come to this community, is that if, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so.

But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. But it won’t be as easy as just shouting. It requires us lobbying and getting it done. (Applause.)

So for those of you who are committed to getting this done, I am going to march with you and fight with you every step of the way to make sure that we are welcoming every striving, hardworking immigrant who sees America the same way we do -- as a country where no matter who you are or what you look like or where you come from, you can make it if you try.

And if you’re serious about making that happen, then I’m ready to work with you. (Applause.) But it is going to require work. It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out. That’s always been the case in this country; that’s going to continue to be the case today. (Applause.)

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END
12:24 P.M. PST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 25, 2013

Readout of National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice's Meeting with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan

At the end of her three-day trip to Afghanistan to visit American troops and civilians and to assess conditions in the country, Ambassador Rice met with President Karzai, at his invitation, for a working dinner at the Palace.

Ambassador Rice conveyed to President Karzai that the United States welcomes the Loya Jirga's overwhelming endorsement of the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and is prepared to sign the agreement in the coming days. Ambassador Rice underscored the opportunity provided by the BSA to sustain the partnership between the United States and Afghanistan to support Afghans in achieving lasting peace, security and development. In response, President Karzai outlined new conditions for signing the agreement and indicated he is not prepared to sign the BSA promptly.

Ambassador Rice stressed that we have concluded negotiations and that deferring the signature of the agreement until after next year's elections is not viable, as it would not provide the United States and NATO allies the clarity necessary to plan for a potential post-2014 military presence. Nor would it provide Afghans with the certainty they deserve regarding their future, in the critical months preceding elections. Moreover, the lack of a signed BSA would jeopardize NATO and other nations’ pledges of assistance made at the Chicago and Tokyo conferences in 2012. Ambassador Rice reiterated that, without a prompt signature, the U.S. would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan. The United States will continue to work with Afghanistan to support a smooth security transition and to help ensure free and fair elections.

Ambassador Rice conveyed the overwhelming and moving support she found among all the Afghans with whom she met for an enduring U.S.-Afghan partnership and for the prompt signing of the BSA. In closing, Rice highlighted the American people’s friendship and support for the people of Afghanistan as embodied in the extraordinary sacrifices of our service-men and women and the unprecedented investment Americans have made in Afghanistan.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 25, 2013

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest Aboard Air Force One en route San Francisco, California

Aboard Air Force One
En Route San Francisco, California

9:32 A.M. PST

MR. EARNEST: I do have a brief opening statement here before we get to your questions. The United States welcomes the announcement by the United Nations today. The U.N. Secretary General Ban will convene the Geneva Conference on Syria in Geneva on Wednesday, January 22nd, bringing the Syrian government and opposition to a negotiating table for the first time since the start of the Syrian conflict. We thank Joint Representative Brahimi for his efforts.

The United States has long made clear that there is no military solution to the violence in Syria. The Geneva Conference is the best opportunity to implement the Geneva Communiqué and form a new, transitional governing body through mutual consent -- an important step toward ending the suffering of the Syrian people and the destabilizing impact of this conflict on the region. In order to end the bloodshed, the Syrian people need new leadership. As we work to convene the Geneva Conference, we remain focused on hastening humanitarian aid to Syrians in dire need. The Assad regime must immediately begin providing greater humanitarian access to besieged communities.

There are many challenges that lie ahead, and no one should underestimate the difficulties. In the coming weeks, the regime and the opposition will need to form their delegations. And we'll continue to work in concert with the U.N. and our partners on remaining issues, including which countries will be invited to attend and what the agenda will be to advance the Geneva Communiqué framework for political transition.

Q Josh, does the President still believe that Bashar Assad needs to go, cannot continue ruling the government of Syria?

THE PRESIDENT: The President does still believe that, and, more importantly, the Syrian people believe that. That is the goal of these talks that are scheduled for Geneva in January. There should be an opportunity here for a political transition. It's our view that that's the only way that we can resolve this conflict. And we're hopeful that by bringing both sides to the table, we can get started on that process.

But this has been a very difficult conflict to try to untangle, and has had severe consequences for millions of people in Syria. It's had severe consequences for countries in the region, many of whom work closely with the United States, as they've tried to take in significant flows of refugees. That's had a pretty destabilizing influence -- impact on the politics of the region. It's also had a destabilizing impact on the economies in the region.

So we are eager to get to work on what will prove to be a very difficult process of enacting a political transition in Syria so that the Syrian government can actually reflect the will of the people. We're also hopeful that we'll have a government there that will do more to respect basic human rights, that will respect the basic rights of minority populations in that country.

So there's a lot of work that needs to be done. It will start with this Geneva Conference, and will necessarily need to end with Assad leaving power.

Q Josh, broadly speaking, what's the next step on Iran?

MR. EARNEST: Well, there are a couple of next steps. As the President mentioned yesterday -- or as I mentioned yesterday about the President's conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President believes that we should begin consulting with our Israeli allies immediately as we prepare for the talks with the Iranians toward a comprehensive solution. So that’s a very important step that we're eager to get underway.

We're also ready to begin conversations with the Iranians, again, through the P5-plus-1, to talk about resolving our differences -- when I say "our," I mean the international community's differences with Iran as it relates to their nuclear program. The goal here is to make sure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. The goal for the Iranian regime is to have access to a nuclear program of some kind. There should be an opportunity for us to find some common ground there.

But whatever common ground we find will be part of an agreement that is mutually agreed to. And as we've said throughout this process, and as sure as I and others will say many more times, nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to. And what's critically important is that whatever is agreed to will satisfy the international community's concerns about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. We need to make sure that that doesn’t happen, and that we have in place an inspection regime that will verify that that’s not happening. That will be a key part of any agreement that’s struck.

But we do have before us over the course of the next six months a really important opportunity to resolve this situation through peaceful diplomatic means. That is the strong preference of the President for a couple of reasons. One is that that is what the American people prefer, is a peaceful resolution of this. Just as importantly, it's also the way to ensure the most enduring solution, and that if there is a mutual agreement between the P5-plus-1 and Iran about what the path is moving forward, and if there are mutually agreed upon verification measures through intrusive inspection, that’s the way that we can resolve this situation diplomatically and welcome the people of Iran back into the international community.

Q Is there a sense of urgency about when to start the next round of P5-plus-1 talks?

MR. EARNEST: I don’t have a date for you in terms of when those would begin, but we're obviously eager to seize the opportunity that’s been created here.

Q If I could ask one other foreign policy question. There's a brewing dispute between China and Japan about islands in the East China Sea. China is now demanding that airlines inform them when they're going into that airspace. Does the United States have a position on that, and is it advising U.S. airlines one way or the other?

MR. EARNEST: What we have said about this is that we believe that this announcement from the Chinese government was unnecessarily inflammatory. There are regional disputes in that part of the world, and those are disputes that should be resolved diplomatically. And there should be, in this case, plenty of overlapping common ground to reach a situation -- or reach a resolution that doesn’t involve inflammatory, escalating rhetoric or policy pronouncements by any side. And that’s how we hope that this situation will be resolved.

Q And the airlines?

MR. EARNEST: I’ll have to refer you to my colleagues at the State Department about that.

Q Josh, on the health care website -- you guys are now six days from the new November 30th deadline, which you all have said, at that point, you hope that the vast majority of people will still have access to enroll in healthcare.gov; you say that 50,000 -- the website will be able to accommodate up to 50,000 users, which is obviously a huge change. Six days away, are you still confident in that? And do you have a contingency plan if, once again, this is not the case?

MR. EARNEST: The last I heard from CMS is that we are -- we continue to be on track to meeting the goals that we established for ourselves and established for the website on November 30th. As you point out, they have been citing metrics to track their progress all along over the last several weeks. There’s been steady improvement in the speed of the website; the rate at which individual pages on the site load is now less than one second. That is down from six or eight seconds when the website was first rolled out. The error rate has also been driven down significantly to below 1 percent; again, when the website was rolled out, the error rate was up around 6 percent, a level that’s entirely unacceptable.

They have made, recently, significant progress in terms of adding capacity to the website. And we do anticipate by the end of the month that the website should be able to handle 50,000 concurrent users. The other important development that’s gotten a little bit less attention is they have also put in place a queuing system so that if there are more than 50,000 people trying to use the website, individuals can choose to receive an email from CMS when the traffic on the website has been reduced, and that email will basically give them a link, and if you click on the link you can jump to the front of the line to access the website.

So that would be a way for us to better manage the flow of traffic to the website. It also will significantly enhance the consumer experience on the website. It had to be very frustrating for people who would go -- repeatedly go to the website and find that they couldn’t log on because the website was busy. Now there will be a way for people who go to the website, if the website is busy, they will get an email informing them when they can go back to the website and they can have some confidence that the website will actually work.

So that’s an important development, both because it will better manage the throughput of the website, which potentially could lead to more people being able to sign up. It also will enhance the customer experience that we’re looking for.

So there have been a lot of improvements that they have made. But I think the CMS -- the folks at CMS will be the first ones to tell you that this continues to be a work in progress; that there are additional improvements to the website that need to be made. They continue to work through a punch list. I know that there are several dozen items that they identified at the end of last week that they hope to try to address over the course of this week. I haven’t gotten an update about where they stand on that punch list, but suffice it to say there is no shortage of areas that need the attention of developers and other technology experts as they try to confront some of the challenges with the website.

But we are pleased with the progress that they’ve made and we are -- we believe that they are on track to meet the goal that we’ve set for the website on November 5th -- on November 30th.

Q Josh, a CNN poll out today showed that 53 percent of Americans thinks the President is not trustworthy. How does that lack of trust affect his ability to achieve his agenda, and what is he doing to regain that trust?

MR. EARNEST: Well, as you -- we don’t follow the ups and downs of individual polls. What we are looking at are the broader trends. And what the President is focused on -- and I think some of the public events the President will do on this trip is indicative of the President’s priorities. Those priorities and the top domestic priority is expanding economic opportunity for the middle class. That’s what the President is focused on. That is an important part of the Affordable Care Act, and some of the patient consumer protections that were put in place for the Affordable Care Act were designed to protect the economic interests of middle-class families.

The President is going to talk about immigration reform today. Putting in place common-sense bipartisan immigration reform would significantly strengthen the economy by estimates of upwards of $1.5 trillion in economic activity over the next couple of decades; it would also reduce the deficit. So there are significant economic benefits for immigration reform.

And then tomorrow, when the President is in Southern California, the President will talk -- will make an appearance at one of the engines of economic growth in Southern California, the entertainment industry, and talk about the President’s commitment and focus on creating jobs.

So to answer your question directly, the way that we take in news, like this individual poll that you've cited, is to go back to focusing on our priorities and making sure that the American people clearly understand what the President is fighting for every day. And we are confident that the vast majority of the American public shares the President's priorities. And the President is going to continue to talk about them. He’s going to continue to advocate for those policy priorities in Washington.

And in terms of the politics, we’re going to let the politics take care of themselves. We’re going to focus on what the best policy solutions are for the American public, and the politics will come around.

Q Josh, regarding that, though, and the President’s ratings, I wonder if in those portions of these fundraising sessions that we don't see, which is the exchange that the President has with donors, are donors raising concerns about his public standing and how that affects politics, and how that affects Democrats in general?

MR. EARNEST: I have not heard anybody raise that direct question in recent fundraisers.

My experience is that what the President is most frequently questioned about is the progress being made on a range of policy priorities. People are eager to know what kind of progress we’re making in improving the healthcare.gov website because they understand how important it is for people all across the country to have access to quality, affordable health insurance. People routinely ask about the state of common-sense, bipartisan immigration reform and what the prospects are for getting that through the House of Representatives. As you know, right now there is a compromise, bipartisan, common-sense immigration reform proposal that's passed the Senate that would pass the House if Speaker Boehner would allow the House to vote on it. And so far he has not.

People often will ask about what other domestic priorities related to the economy the President hopes to push for, and the President talks about increasing funding for research and development. He talks about increasing funding for early childhood education programs that would guarantee every child in the country would have access to a quality early childhood education program. The President talks about infrastructure and how there are about $2 trillion of infrastructure improvements that are ready to be made all across the country. All it takes is the will from Congress to make the kind of investment in those infrastructure projects that would create jobs right away, but also lay a foundation for our long-term economic strength.

Those are the kinds of questions that the President typically gets in fundraisers, and I think that actually is pretty indicative of where the vast majority of the American public is. They're looking to Washington, D.C. and their leaders in Washington, D.C. to focus on the priorities that are most important for the country. That's what the President is doing on a daily basis, and that's the message that he has and he carries with him as he speaks at events all across the country. And you'll hear more from the President on this today.

Q About tomorrow's event in DreamWorks, can you shed any light on why that studio was chosen? There are a lot of studios in the entertainment industry. Why DreamWorks specifically?

MR. EARNEST: I don't have that information in front of me right now, but we can get you something before the end of the day on that.

Q And does the White House have any response to people who might question why the President would do an official White House event at the business of one of his biggest campaign donors?

MR. EARNEST: Listen, as you've heard us say on other occasions, contributing to the President's campaign or being a political supporter of the President doesn't guarantee a presidential visit, but it shouldn't exclude you from one either.

The fact of the matter is when the President goes to New York to talk about the economy, it's not unusual for him -- for the President to speak on Wall Street. When the President goes to Detroit to talk about the economy, it's not unusual for the President to appear at an auto manufacturing facility. When the President goes to Northern California to talk about the economy, he'll often speak in a venue that highlights the importance of the technology industry to the regional economy of Northern California.

And in this case, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the President is going to talk about the economy and the important drivers of the economy in Southern California by appearing at an entertainment facility.

Q Right, but Mr. Katzenberg is singularly one of the largest campaign donors to the President's campaign and also to Priorities USA. The President could go to Warner Brothers; he could go to Walt Disney. There are a lot of studios he could go to, so why is he going to Mr. Katzenberg's business?

MR. EARNEST: I'll get you some more details about why we've chosen that business in particular. DreamWorks obviously is a thriving business and is creating lots of jobs in Southern California. And the fact of the matter is Mr. Katzenberg's support for the President's policies has no bearing on our decision to visit there; rather, it's an opportunity to highlight the success of one business and the success that they're having in creating jobs in California. But I'll get you some more granular details tonight.

Q Josh, was this trip, both the economic angle and the immigration angle, designed in any way to distract from the issues and the controversy over the health care law and the health care rollout?

MR. EARNEST: No. Based on the questions you guys asked me this morning, if that was our strategy, it would not be a successful one. The goal here has been to --

Q The President is not talking about it. And even last night, he listed several things that people in America are discouraged about and health care was not one of them.

MR. EARNEST: Well, listen, the goal of this trip, in addition to raising some money for the Democratic Party, is to highlight the breadth of the President's domestic agenda; that there are a range of things that we can do to look out for the economic interests of middle-class families.

The Affordable Care Act and it's -- smoothing out the kinks of the rollout of the Affordable Care Act is certainly a top priority of the President, and it's an important way for us to secure the economic benefits for middle-class families. But that's not the only thing. And we can't lose sight of the importance of moving on immigration reform. We can't lose sight of the importance of making critical investments in infrastructure, and research and development, and education that are so critical to creating jobs. We can’t lose sight of the fact that Congress shouldn't be inflicting additional wounds in the economy by threatening a government shutdown or risking the full faith and credit of the United States of America. Congress should be focused on putting in place policies that will actually support an economic recovery that has made a lot of progress in bouncing back from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

So there are a lot of things that we can be doing in addition to health care. We have no trouble getting you guys to write about health care these days, so let's spend some time talking about some of these other things that also deserve a lot of attention.

Q And what is the message on immigration reform? If House leadership says, no, we're not doing it, what is the President hoping to do with his speech today?

MR. EARNEST: I think part of it this is to -- I'll let the President's words speak for himself, so judge for yourself after you hear the President speak. But let me say two -- let me share with you two thoughts.

The first is it's important for people to understand that there is strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for common-sense immigration reform. The only thing that’s blocking that right now is not one party, it’s one faction of one party that’s blocking progress on that legislation right now.

And the second thing is it has significant consequences for our economy; that Republicans talk a lot about how they think that we should be putting in place policies that will strengthen the economy and reduce the deficit -- that’s exactly what immigration reform would do. It would strengthen our economy by -- as I mentioned, on the order of $1.5 trillion over a couple of decades, and reduce the deficit by $850 billion over that same timeframe.

So there is an opportunity for us to make some important progress on immigration reform. There are significant economic benefits to doing so. It’s just a matter of putting pressure on one faction of House Republicans to get them to move on this.

Q On Afghanistan, quickly -- Susan Rice is meeting with Karzai today. Can you tell us what the expectations are from that meeting, and a reaction to what Karzai said yesterday about wanting still to wait until next year for signing the agreement?

MR. EARNEST: A couple of things on this. The National Security Advisor’s trip to Afghanistan was long planned. The trip was an opportunity for Dr. Rice to visit with American troops who are making tremendous sacrifices on behalf of the American people. Those sacrifices feel all the more acute during the week of Thanksgiving, so it’s an opportunity for Dr. Rice to thank them for their service. It’s also an opportunity for Dr. Rice to get an update from American diplomats in the region and from others who are working in Afghanistan to build up civil society there.

So that was the original purpose of her trip. While she’s there, she also is going to meet with President Karzai. I don’t have a readout of her meeting at this point, but if that’s something that we can provide a little later today, it will probably come from my colleagues back at the White House.

In terms of President Karzai’s comments yesterday, our view on this has been pretty clear -- that in order to plan for a post-2014 military presence with our allies, we need to get this agreement signed, and we need to get this agreement signed before the end of the year. We were pleased to see that the agreement was approved with a lot of support in the loya jirga. That is a positive development. We’re also pleased to see that many leaders in the loya jirga were suggesting that this is an agreement that should be signed soon, even -- also before the end of the year.

So there is a lot of agreement that that’s what should happen. The reason for that is that the agreement that we have worked through over the course of the last year is in the best interests of the people of Afghanistan. The agreement importantly is also in the national security interests of the United States. There’s plenty of common ground here. Reaching this agreement was a painstaking task, and it's why now that we have reached agreement on this, both on our side and at the loya jirga in Afghanistan, that we should get the deal signed and set about the work of planning the presence of the United States and our allies after the war ends next year.

Anybody else? Okay. Thanks, everybody.

END
9:55 A.M. PST

President Obama Speaks on Immigration Reform

November 25, 2013 | 27:29 | Public Domain

President Obama says it’s long past time to fix our broken immigration system.

Download mp4 (1034MB) | mp3 (66MB)

Read the Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 25, 2013

Remarks by the President at DCCC Event -- Seattle, WA

Private Residence

Seattle, Washington

7:24 P.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! Thank you, guys. (Applause.) Sit down. You already did that. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Have a seat. Have a seat.

Well, first of all, let me just thank Jon for the second time for his incredible hospitality. And I think it’s fair to say that between Nancy and me and Steve Israel, we do a lot of events. I will say that this particular space is one of the more spectacular venues for an event. (Applause.) And we couldn’t have a more gracious host. The only problem when I come to Jon’s house is I want to just kind of roam around and check stuff out, and instead I’ve got to talk. (Laughter.) But Jon, thank you for your friendship. We’ve very grateful.

A few other people I want to acknowledge. First of all, our once Speaker and soon to be Speaker again, Nancy Pelosi. We are thrilled to be with her. (Applause.) Someone who has an incredibly thankless job, but does it with energy and wisdom -- and I was going to say joy, but I’m not, I don’t want to kind of overdo it -- (laughter) -- but is doing an outstanding job -- Steve Israel, who is heading up the DCCC. Thank you so much, Steve, for the great job that you’re doing. (Applause.)

We’ve got some outstanding members of Congress here. Congressman Rick Larsen is here. Where’s Rick? There he is.(Applause.) Congresswoman Suzan DelBene is here. (Applause.) Congressman Derek Kilmer is here. Where’s Derek? There he is -- (applause) -- who just informed me that his four-year-old at the Christmas party is going to sing me at least one patriotic song. (Laughter.) And I’m very excited about this. She has a repertoire of five songs, and we’re trying to hone in on what one song she is going to do.

And you’ve got a former outstanding member of Congress, who now is doing a great job as the Governor of this great state -- Governor Jay Inslee is here. (Applause.) And Trudi, who’s keeping him in line at all times. (Applause.) And I want to thank John Frank, who also spent a lot of time on this event. Thank you so much. (Applause.)

Now, the great thing about these kinds of events is I spend most of my time in a conversation with you, as opposed to just making a long speech. Let me make a couple of observations. Number one, Jay claims he arranged it, but when we landed, we were flying over Mt. Rainier -- pulled into the airport, came off the plane, and the sunset was lighting the mountain. And it was spectacular, and reminded me of why it is that I love the Pacific Northwest so much.

Now, part of it -- I was saying to somebody, part of it may also be that I always feel the spirit of my mom here, because I graduated from Mercer Island High. (Applause.) But you guys have got a good thing going here, and it’s not just the Seahawks. I just want to make that point. (Applause.)

Point number two, obviously, there are such enormous challenges that we face all across this country and internationally, and this year we’ve seen issues ranging from the tragedy of Sandy Hook to disclosures at the NSA to the shutdown and the potential of default to continuing issues surrounding the Middle East and peace there. And so it’s understandable, I think, that sometimes people feel discouraged or concerned about whether or not we can continue to make progress. And one thing that I always try to emphasize is that if you look at American history, there have been frequent occasions in which it looked like we had insoluble problems -- either economic, political, security -- and as long as there were those who stayed steady and clear-eyed and persistent, eventually we came up with an answer; eventually we were able to work through these challenges and come out better on the other end.

And that’s true today as well. After seeing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we’ve now seen 44 straight months of job growth. We’ve doubled our production of clean energy. We are actually importing less oil than ever before, producing more energy than ever before. We’ve reduced the pace of our carbon emissions in a way that is actually better than the vast majority of industrialized nations over the last five years.

We’ve been able to not only create the possibility of all people enjoying the security of health care, but we’ve also been driving down the cost of health care, which benefits people’s pocket books, their businesses. Our institutions of higher learning continue to be the best in the world. And you’re actually -- because of the productivity of our workers, we’re actually seeing manufacturing move back to America in ways that we haven’t seen in decades.

A lot of the reason that we’re making progress is because of the inherent resilience and strength of the American people, but a lot of it is because folks like Nancy Pelosi and some of the members of Congress, or even former members of Congress who are here made some tough decisions early on in my administration. And we’re starting to see those bear fruit and pay off.

And so I’m incredibly optimistic about our future. But I’m also mindful of the fact that we have some barriers, some impediments to change and progress. And the biggest barrier and impediment we have right now is a Congress -- and in particular, a House of Representatives -- that is not focused on getting the job done for the American people, but is a lot more focused on trying to position themselves for the next election or to defeat my agenda.

And that’s unfortunate, because that’s not what the American people are looking for right now. And the truth is, is that there are a lot of ideas -- things like early childhood education, or rebuilding our infrastructure, or investing in basic science and research -- there are a whole range of -- immigration reform -- a whole range of ideas that if you strip away the politics, there’s actually a pretty broad consensus in this country.

I’m not a particularly ideological person. There are some things, some values I feel passionately about. I feel passionate about making sure everybody in this country gets a fair shake. I feel passionate about everybody being treated with dignity and respect regardless of what they look like or what their last name is or who they love. I feel passionate about making sure that we’re leaving a planet that is as spectacular as the one we inherited from our parents and our grandparents. I feel passionate about working for peace even as we are making sure that our defenses are strong.

So there are values I care about. But I’m pretty pragmatic when it comes to how do we get there -- and so is Nancy, and so is Jay. And so more than anything, what we’re looking for is not the defeat of another party; what we’re looking for is the advancement of ideas that are going to vindicate those values that are tried and true, and that have led this country to the spectacular heights that we’ve seen in the past.

But to do that we’re going to need Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, because there’s just a lot of work to be done right now. Between now and next November, I’m going to do everything I can and look for every opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis to get stuff done. There will not be a point in time where I’ve got an opportunity to get something done where I don't do it simply because of politics. But those opportunity have been few and far between over the last several years, and the American people can’t afford to wait in perpetuity for us to grow faster, create more jobs, strengthen our middle class, clean our environment, fix our immigration system.

And so if we don't have partners on the other side, we’re going to have to go ahead and do it ourselves. And so the support that you’re providing today and the support that you’ve provided time and again is making all the difference in the world. And it’s part of what gives me confidence that we’re going to be successful over the long term.

So thank you. We appreciate it.

And with that, let me take some questions. (Applause.)

END

7:35 P.M. PST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 24, 2013

Readout of the President’s call with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

President Obama called Prime Minister Netanyahu today to discuss the P5+1’s first step agreement with Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The two leaders reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The President noted that the P5+1 will use the months ahead to pursue a lasting, peaceful, and comprehensive solution that would resolve the international community’s concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Consistent with our commitment to consult closely with our Israeli friends, the President told the Prime Minister that he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution. The President underscored that the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions. The President and Prime Minister agreed to stay in close contact on this issue as the P5+1 and Iran negotiate a long-term solution over the next six months.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 24, 2013

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest Aboard Air Force One en route Seattle, Washington

Aboard Air Force One

En Route Seattle, Washington

3:27 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome aboard Air Force One for our three-day trip out west. Before we get to your questions, I do have a quick -- at the top a little bit of news.

Prior to departing the White House this afternoon, the President called Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel today to discuss the P5-plus-1 first-step agreement with Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The two leaders reaffirmed their shared goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The President noted that the P5-plus-1 will use the months ahead to pursue a lasting, peaceful and comprehensive solution that would resolve the international community’s concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Consistent with our commitment to closely consult with our Israeli friends, the President told the Prime Minister that he wants the United States and Israel to begin consultations immediately regarding our efforts to negotiate a comprehensive solution. The President underscored the United States will remain firm in our commitment to Israel, which has good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.

The President and Prime Minister agreed to stay in close contact on this issue as the P5-plus-1 and Iran negotiate a long-term solution over the next six months.

Q Josh, has that readout been made public yet?

MR. EARNEST: It has not, or -- I guess it has now. (Laughter.)

Q What was the Prime Minister’s reaction? Can you tell us that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we traditionally don't read out their side of the calls. I can tell you that the call lasted about a half hour, and it was a useful discussion.

Q The Prime Minister has called it a “historic mistake” that the President specifically addressed those concerns.

MR. EARNEST: What the President was focused on was ensuring that the Prime Minister understood that the United States remains completely committed to closely consulting with Israel throughout this process. He also reiterated that the United States and Israel are committed to the same goal, which is ensuring that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon. That is, for rather obvious reasons, in the clear national security interests of the nation of Israel. That’s why the Prime Minister -- that’s why Prime Minister Netanyahu has made his views on this topic so clearly known.

It’s also the President’s view that ensuring that Iran doesn't obtain a nuclear weapon is also in the national security interests of the United States, not just because of our enduring security alliance with the nation of Israel, but because of all -- but also because of the significant destabilizing consequences for an already volatile region of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. So our position on these topics has been clear for some time.

The one other thing that I'll note is something that has also been noted publicly, which is that some of the aspects of this interim phased agreement that was announced late last night directly address many of the concerns that both the United States and Israel share about Iran’s path to obtaining a nuclear weapon; that there are three clear paths that the United States and Israel have been concerned about. And each of them is addressed in this agreement.

The first is, there is the obvious concern about the plutonium heavy water reactor that Iran is constructing at Arak. Under this agreement all activities at that -- to build that reactor have stopped. The second is the obvious concern about Iran’s stockpile. And Iran has agreed to neutralize an important portion of that stockpile.

The third concern that’s been harbored, again both by the United States and the Israelis, is that Iran would use the cover of talks to continue to make progress on their nuclear program. But under this agreement, that progress has been halted, and in some cases, as I pointed out with respect to the stockpile, has been rolled back.

So there is an opportunity in this six-month window for diplomacy to work toward achieving the goal that the United States and Israel share, which is ensuring that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

Q Josh, is there a timetable for the next round of talks? The Iranians have said they’ll be ready to start right away.

MR. EARNEST: I don't have a date to announce at this point, but based on what I said about the President’s desire to immediately begin consultation with the Israelis, that should be an indication to you that the President -- or that the United States, in coordination with our P5-plus-1 allies, are eager to get to work in this six-month window that is before us right now.

Q And can you talk at all about some of the main White House players in this negotiation and in this dialogue over the last several months?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I know that there has been some reporting on this overnight about some of the bilateral communications that have occurred between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime. I don't have a lot of details to fill in. Suffice it to say that there was a robust debate during the President’s first run for this office back in 2007 about the wisdom of bilateral communications between the U.S. and Iran.

So this is something -- I only raise that to remind you that these kinds of conversations are something -- is something that the President has long advocated. The other thing that I would reiterate is that those conversations -- or those communications between the U.S. and Iran were useful in informing the P5-plus-1 process. They were useful in generating some ideas that could contribute constructively to that process. But they were in no way a replacement or a substitute for what we believe is the proper venue for this agreement -- for an agreement to be reached, which is the P5-plus-1 talks.

But we have been pretty candid about the letters that the President has exchanged with Iranian leaders. We have talked about some of the bilateral communications that have occurred in the context of U.N. meetings. And I know there’s been some reporting on some other aspects of that communication, but there’s nothing that I can get to -- into detail from here.

Q Can you say who’s been advising the President the most on this particular issue?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the President -- a number of the President’s national security team have been very involved in this. The most public aspects -- or those who have been most publicly involved in this process have obviously been the Secretary of State and the Undersecretary of State, Wendy Sherman, who has been our point person for a lot of the P5-plus-1 talks.

But obviously, Susan Rice and Ambassador Power, in their roles at the United Nations, have been instrumental to all of this. But there are a number of members of the President’s national security team at the White House that have been involved, as well. And they will continue to be involved in that process moving forward.

Q Any examples?

MR. EARNEST: Nothing that I can share at this point.

Q Josh, what kind of outreach has the President and other members of the White House been making to Capitol Hill since last night? Have there been calls this morning? Are they reaching out the senators and House members? How is that working?

MR. EARNEST: I can’t go into any detail about those specific conversations, but given the late hour in which the agreement was struck yesterday, some of those conversations didn't happen as promptly as we would otherwise plan for them to occur.

But last night, and certainly over the course of today, there have been a number of conversations between senior White House officials and members of Congress. These discussions in the context of the P5-plus-1 have attracted a lot of attention on Capitol Hill for very good reason. And we have worked very closely with Congress throughout this process to keep them informed about those conversations.

As we pointed out a couple of times, Congress has played a really important role in this broader process. It was Congress that passed the important sanctions that took effect a couple of years ago that have had a decimating impact on the Iranian economy. We’ve seen the Iranian currency plummet as a result of some of the steps that Congress has passed. So we are committed to working closely with Congress to ensure -- well, let me back up. Because of those sanctions, Iran has taken advantage of a diplomatic opportunity. Those sanctions are what brought the Iranian regime to the table.

So we want to continue to work closely and strategically with Congress as we pursue the opportunity that’s been presented by this diplomatic window to actually achieve our ultimate goal here, and that’s to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Q And some Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of the deal, including Senator Cornyn, last night, who said it was a distraction, or -- I don't know if he used exactly that word, but some variation of that in a tweet from the health care rollout. And I’m wondering if the White House has any response to that.

MR. EARNEST: I don’t have any direct response to that. I know that there are many people who took a rather dim view of that perspective, both for its plausibility and for its -- what it says about our foreign policy priorities in this country. So I’ll leave it to others to make that assessment.

Q If Congress passes new sanctions, will the President veto them?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think what you have -- what we’ve seen from Senator Reid, Majority Leader Reid and others is that -- I think even Senator Corker made this comment after meeting with the President earlier this week -- that the Congress had agreed to hold off on passing additional sanctions because of the need to act strategically. And so there is a sense that we want to work closely with Congress, and I think despite the impertinent tweets of some members of the Senate Republican conference, that most senators recognize that there is a constructive and important role for congress to play as we move forward. And we will certainly be consulting closely with them as they do that.

Q What is the final goal of the final round of this agreement? Is it full dismantlement of the centrifuges or is it something less?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think we’ve been crystal clear from the beginning about what the goal is, and that is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That goal hasn’t changed. That is a goal that is shared by all of the P5-plus-1 partners. That is a goal that is shared by the Israelis. That is a goal that is shared by the Saudis.

So we’ve been pretty clear about what exactly we are seeking to achieve here. And that’s what so valuable about this first phase of this agreement, which is that it does for the first time in nearly a decade halt any progress that Iran has made on its nuclear program and rolls back some key aspects of it that were of particular concern to the U.S., our P5-plus-1 partners and our Israeli allies, and that was the plutonium reactor, the stockpile of -- some of their uranium stockpiles, as well as this idea that Iran would use diplomatic talks as cover to continue to make progress on its nuclear program.

So while this phased agreement is only a first step, it’s a really important first step because we are achieving something that we haven’t achieved in nearly a decade.

Q Josh, back to sanctions. Senator Schumer today said that this agreement more likely will bring Democrats and Republicans together in December to pass more sanctions. So how damaging to this agreement would congressional action on further sanctions be, even if the President were to veto them?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the goal -- sanctions have always been a means to an end. And the first -- the sanctions that have been passed by Congress thus far have been instrumental, as I pointed out, to achieving the end, which is opening up a diplomatic window, bringing Iran to the table so that we could try to resolve our differences with Iran -- and when I say our differences with Iran, I mean the international community’s differences with Iran -- that we could resolve those differences peacefully. That has been -- that is, in the President’s view, as the Commander-in-Chief, it’s his view that that’s the most enduring way for us to achieve our ultimate goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

What’s important about that is that these sanctions were successful not just because they imposed severe limits on commerce between Iran and the United States, but rather that these were sanctions that were implemented in coordination with countries all around the world that, frankly, because of the President’s leadership on the international community, that we went out and have worked closely with the Russians and the Chinese on implementing these sanctions. We’ve worked closely with India and South Korea, who have strong commercial relationships with Iran to enforce these sanctions.

And the concern is that rather than capitalizing on the diplomatic window that’s opened up, doubling down on sanctions at this point would actually undermine the international coalition that we built. And that is why we have urged Congress to act strategically, as they have thus far, to bring pressure on the Iranian regime to reach a diplomatic solution, but do that in a way that it doesn’t actually undermine the broad international pressure that’s been brought to bear that’s been so critical to getting us to this place.

Q Josh, you mentioned that the President talked about this in 2007 and 2008. What role has he played in these talks and in this issue over the last several months? And at what point did the White House see the possibility for an agreement like the one that was signed this morning?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I mean, you’ll remember, Jeff, that there is a -- that this has been a theme -- that the President’s desire to extend an open hand to the Iranian regime to try to resolve our differences diplomatically and peacefully has been a theme of the President’s foreign policy since the first day he took office. The President’s commitment to trying to achieve a diplomatic solution to achieve our goals was a prominent theme of the President’ first inaugural address, and has been ever since.

So this has been a priority for some time. In terms of the turning point, I think that a lot of observers rightly point to the election of President Rouhani in June, that he was somebody who was elected with what many people assessed to be a clear mandate to try to relieve the economic pressure that Iran was feeling as a result of the sanctions that the United States had put in place, and as a result of the close international coordination and implementation of those sanctions. So there’s no doubt that that was an important marker in the road to progress.

But, again, what we have achieved so far is only a first step. It’s an important first step in that it does halt and roll back some of the Iranian nuclear program for the first time in a decade, but over the course of six months. This is a really important period here to try to resolve our differences with Iran peacefully. That is certainly something that the American people strongly support. It reflects the view of the international community that this is something that we should try to resolve peacefully. It’s also the view of the President that the agreement would be more enduring and would provide greater security to Israel, to our allies and partners in the region, and to the international community if we can resolve our differences on this issue peacefully. So that’s why --

Q Does he feel vindicated at all by this, given the context of the campaign?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don’t know if he feels vindicated, but I think any impartial observer would acknowledge that the strategy that the President has been talking about for more than six years has yielded some important, if preliminary, results.

Q Josh, Foreign Minister Zarif said that if there are any new sanctions, the deal is off. So is it also the administration’s understanding that if sanctions are passed in Congress, by Congress, even if they don’t kick in for another six months, that this deal falls apart?

MR. EARNEST: The President has been very clear that he does not believe that Congress should pass additional sanctions at this time. And that’s something that we’ve been pretty clear on for some time. That’s why we were pleased to see the comments of Senator Corker and Senator Reid and other influential senators who have been following this closely who recognize that taking a strategic approach to applying our sanctions regime is the best way to for us to make progress and ultimately achieve success in this endeavor.

Q I also have a question on Obamacare.

Q -- just one more.

MR. EARNEST: We’ll come back to your question.

Q Six months puts you kind of at the heart of next year’s midterm elections, and I’m wondering if the President has considered what the consequences of failure would be to the politics of this country, what it would do to Democrats if there were to be a failure in negotiations coming at that particular time.

MR. EARNEST: I haven’t asked the President this specific question, but I feel confident in saying that the President is concerned about the consequences of reaching a final agreement on a whole host of things that are more important than politics. The stakes here are high, which I think is -- I think you guys all recognize that. That's why we're spending so much time talking about this on a Sunday afternoon.

The stakes are high insofar as the consequences of failing to make progress and reach an agreement are much bigger than politics; that the enduring threat posed by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon does pose a significant threat to the national security of Israel, who is our closest ally in the region. It does pose a significant national security threat to other allies and partners that the United States has in the region. It could have a destabilizing impact on what is a volatile part of the world that would be bad for our own national security interests.

So we have to walk quite a ways through the priority list before we get to the political implications of these conversations.

Q I just have one technical question. The sanctions relief has been numbered around $7 billion, I think $6-7 billion. How much of that are U.S. sanctions, and how much of that are the other -- world sanctions from other allies, if you know?

MR. EARNEST: I don't think that I do. I actually would refer you to the Treasury Department. David Cohen is somebody else who has been intricately involved -- to go to your earlier question -- somebody who has been intricately involved in putting the sanctions regime in place. He's something of an expert on the subject. And so you might try to track him down either today or tomorrow. He can answer some of the more technical questions about the impact of the sanctions relief that has been under -- the subject of so much discussion.

Any other Iran questions that we want to cover?

Q Any other calls planned?

MR. CARNEY: Not that I know of right now. But if we're in a position to read out additional calls I'll definitely let you know.

Q So on the announcement that the January 1st enrollment deadline has been pushed from December 15th to -- by another eight days. Some insurance companies say they're not certain they can meet that deadline and it’s going to depend on how many people sign up in those final days. So the question I have is, first, did the administration consult with the insurance companies to make sure they could meet the deadline? And then, secondly, is there a contingency plan if these enrollments aren’t processed in time?

MR. EARNEST: Throughout this process as we've worked to implement the Affordable care Act, we have been closely consulting with insurance commissioners in individual states as well as insurance companies themselves. Over the last couple of weeks you've seen the President himself meet with the leaders of -- or executives of some of the largest insurance companies in the country, and the President met with some of the representatives of insurance commissioners all across the country.

That is only one example of the extensive ongoing coordination between the administration and people who have a significant stake in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. So, yes, we have been in close communication with insurance companies about the best way to implement some of these aspects of the law.

I hadn’t seen the comments that you're referencing, but I can assure you that we'll be in close coordination with those who have made those comments to try to work with them to ease this transition period. That ultimately is what we're talking about here -- that implementing the Affordable Care Act over the course of the next six months, this is essentially a transition period for a lot of Americans and for a lot of companies. We're building on top of and trying to reform the private health insurance market, and so we anticipated all along that there would be some glitches and some problems that we had to iron out. And that's what we're working to do.

And the whole reason for extending the enrollment period for eight days was to try to make that transition period a little bit easier, both for insurance companies and providers, but also for customers who want to take action and who want to buy insurance policies so that there's not a lapse in their health insurance coverage. And we'll be continuing to work with insurance companies and insurance commissioners to make that transition as smooth as possible.

Q The President, on this trip, is going to be raising money for the various campaign committees. And I'm wondering now, given the problems with the health care rollout, if he's confident that Democrats can win back control of the House of Representatives in 2014.

MR. EARNEST: The President is very confident that can happen, and the President thinks there's good reason for that -- specifically, Democrats have laid out a very clear agenda for what they hope to achieve in the next Congress. Democrats have been very clear about putting the interest of middle-class families at the top of the agenda, and that expanding economic opportunity should be a top priority of the United States Congress.

And what we've seen, unfortunately, with this current Congress are steps taken by Republicans in Congress to undermine our economic recovery and our ability to bounce back from the worst recession since the Great Depression. And what we've seen is a pretty coherent plan from Democrats who believe that rather than trying to play political games that undermine the recovery, that we should be -- that Congress and the administration should be working together to put in place policies that will actually support the recovery and help the private sector move forward in creating jobs and bouncing back from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

So that is the platform on which Democrats all across the country will be running. That is the platform of which the President is very strongly supportive. And the President is committed to working with members of either party, frankly, who share that goal. Unfortunately, what we've seen is, we've seen that it's almost exclusively Democrats who are articulating that as their priority. And that is, in my view, to the detriment of Republicans who are running for reelection and hoping to enter the Congress.

But, look, we'll have the opportunity to have a pretty robust debate about this next year. But the President feels good about the chances that Democratic candidates all across the country will have to win elections on a platform that puts the interests of middle-class families and their economic well-being first.

Q Should Democrats not be running on health care then, given that the new health care law is being implemented now? Should that not be a focus of their campaigns?

MR. EARNEST: I think one reason that for generations we've seen that middle-class families have been worried about their economic well-being is because of our broken health care system; that for too long, middle-class families went to bed at night worried that they were just one illness away from having to declare bankruptcy.

And there was an interesting story in your newspaper today about families in Kentucky who were overjoyed about the prospect of having health care coverage that would allow them to go to the doctor, and the impact that would have on the pocketbook and the budget of their family. So running on health care and talking about the consumer protections that are in place thanks to the Affordable Care Act is certainly an important part of the kind of economic stability that's so critical to so many middle-class families, and I'm sure will be the subject of intense debate in the next election.

But Democrats who make the case that these important reforms to our health care system are good for middle-class families, are good for small businesses, are good for reducing the deficit have a really strong case to make and a strong platform from which to run.

Q The President is going to two states that have had some success with health care enrollment, but he's going to be talking about immigration and the economy instead. Is he trying to kind of stay away from the subject now and highlight two other issues that probably play more to his base?

MR. EARNEST: No. I wouldn't rule out that the President might say something about health care in either of these places. I thing the value of the two events that the President has planned for Monday and Tuesday that aren’t related to campaigning are an opportunity to remind all of you and the American public that the economy is the President's top domestic priority, and specifically, strengthening the economy and expanding economic opportunity for middle-class families.

He'll do that on Monday where he'll talk about reforming our broken immigration system. There are significant economic benefits of finally passing the compromise bipartisan measure through the House that's already passed through the Senate. It would significantly add to economic growth I think over the next 20 years -- something like $1.5 trillion would be added to the economic growth. And we would actually see the deficit decline by about $850 billion over that same period.

So there's significant economic benefits for passing common-sense immigration reform. The President will talk about that on Monday.

And then on Tuesday, the President is going to visit one of the most powerful engines of economic growth in Southern California, the entertainment industry, on Tuesday. And in his visit to DreamWorks, he'll talk about how some of the policies that the President has put in place and has urged Congress to pass stand to do more to support our economic recovery. And so that should be an opportunity for the President to focus on that priority at that event.

But each of those things is related to the economic well-being of middle-class families in the same way that ensuring that every middle-class family has access to quality, affordable health insurance is critical to their economic well-being as well.

Q Do you have a sense that the President is planning to do quite a bit more for the 2014 elections than he did for 2010? Just looking at the fundraising schedule alone, it seems like there's a stepped-up effort on his part.

MR. EARNEST: At the beginning of this year, the President did make a commitment to the party committees that he would participate in a set number of events to benefit their committees' fundraising efforts, and that is a commit that the President has lived up to.

In an off-year -- in the year before an election like this, I think the most tangible way that an incumbent President of either party, frankly, can benefit his party's prospects in congressional races is to try to help them raise money. And that's something that the President has been very committed to over the course of this year, certainly in the last several weeks, as anybody who has been paying attention to the President's travel schedule has surely noticed. And I would anticipate that the President's efforts on that front will continue into next year.

But I don't have anything off the top of my head to announce about our plans for next year, but suffice it to say I anticipate the President will maintain a pretty busy travel schedule as he advocates for the election of Democrats in the midterm elections.

All right. Thanks, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your flight.

END

3:59 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 24, 2013

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on First Step Agreement on Iran's Nuclear Program

Via Conference Call

11:34 P.M. EST, November 23

MS. HAYDEN: Hi, everyone. Thanks for joining us tonight. We really appreciate your patience. I know this is starting a little later than we had hoped, but hopefully everyone got a chance to see Secretary Kerry speaking in Geneva. That’s what we were waiting on.

Tonight’s call is on background with senior officials. So there’s no embargo on this call. Again, the call is on background. These are senior administration officials. And with that, I'll hand it over to senior administration official number one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. And again, thanks again for waiting. We were letting, of course, Secretary Kerry complete his remarks in Geneva.

I'll just make a few opening comments here. I know you have the fact sheet, but I think it’s still worth running through some of the key elements of the agreement. And then my colleague will speak to the sanctions piece of our policy, as well as the limited relief in the agreement.

First of all, it’s important to understand that this builds on a several-year effort, one of the leading priorities for President Obama, which is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And the P5-plus-1 is the forum through which we negotiate with the Iranians, and this, as the President said, is the most meaningful agreement we’ve reached with the Iranians since we took office.

We have described this as a first step towards a comprehensive agreement, and it’s a first step in that it halts the progress of the Iranian program, rolls it back in some important respects, but then provides a six-month window for us to test whether we can reach a comprehensive agreement.

Why a first step agreement? We believe it’s very important that Iran not be able to make progress with its nuclear program during the course of the negotiation. One of the concerns in the past has been that Iran would use the cover of a negotiation to advance its program, and indeed were we not to reach this type of agreement, six months from now Iran could make significant progress in increasing its stockpiles and selling advanced centrifuges, moving towards bringing their reactor in Arak online. That is the outcome that we prevent with this agreement, by halting the progress of the program and rolling it back.

I'll now just go through the elements of the first step. Then my colleague can speak to the relief. Then I'll say a few words about the comprehensive solution that we’re seeking. Then we’ll take your questions.

First of all, Iran has committed to halt all enrichment above 5 percent and dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5 percent. Iran has committed to neutralize its stockpile of near 20 percent uranium, and this is, of course, what has been of principal concern to us in terms of their stockpile. It will dilute below 5 percent, or convert to a form that is not suitable for further enrichment, its entire stockpile of near 20-percent enriched uranium before the conclusion of this six-month phase.

So just to go through those elements specifically: Iran will also not install additional centrifuges of any type. Iran will not install or use any next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium. Iran will leave inoperable roughly half of all centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of installed centrifuges at Fordo so they cannot be used to enrich uranium. Iran will limit its centrifuge production to those needed to replace damaged machines so that Iran cannot use the six months to stockpile additional centrifuges. And Iran will not construct additional enrichment facilities.

Iran will also commit to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5 percent stockpile. And this is an important point, because not only are they neutralizing the 20-percent stockpile, they, at the end of the six months, cannot have increased their stockpile of 3.5 percent. So that allows for the rollback on the 20 percent and the halting of any increase in the 3.5 percent stockpile.

Furthermore, Iran has committed to no further advances of its activities at Arak, and to halt progress on its plutonium track. Specifically, Iran will not commission the Arak reactor. Iran will not fuel the Arak reactor. Iran will halt the production of fuel for the Arak reactor. There will be no additional testing of fuel for the Arak reactor. Iran will not install any additional reactor components at Arak. Iran will not transfer fuel and heavy-water to the reactor site. Iran will not construct a facility capable of reprocessing. And without reprocessing, Iran cannot separate plutonium from spent fuel.

So just to pause here, there are essentially three different pathways towards a bomb that have been of concern to us. One is the 20 percent enrichment stockpile -- the 20 percent stockpile of enriched uranium. That goes away with this agreement at the end of the six months. The other is the combination of the 3.5 percent stockpile together with the advanced centrifuges that Iran has developed should they install them and move to break out. That is halted with this agreement, because they can’t grow the 3.5 percent stockpile or install those advanced centrifuges.

And then the third track that we were concerned about was the Arak reactor. And this would give them a new pathway to having a heavy-water reactor, a plutonium track towards a weapon. That is halted.

So these are very important concessions and the most significant progress that has been made in halting the progress of the uranium program in a decade.

Along with those agreements come an unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of the Iranian program. Iran has committed to daily access by IAEA inspectors at Natanz and Fordo. This daily access will permit inspectors to review surveillance camera footage to ensure comprehensive monitoring. This access will provide even greater transparency into enrichment at these sites and, of course, shorten the detection time for any noncompliance, so, therefore, also, getting eyes into those facilities in a way that would immediately detect any effort to break out or, of course, violate the agreement.

The IAEA will also have access to centrifuge assembly facilities, also, to centrifuge rotor component production and storage facilities, and also access to uranium mines and mills. So, importantly, these are not just inspections and access to the nuclear facilities; we also have access to the production facilities, whether it’s a centrifuge production facility or even the raw materials at the uranium mines and mills. This is much more extensive monitoring than we have today, and it is a significant portion of this agreement.

Furthermore, Iran has agreed to provide design information for the Arak reactor that we have sought for a long time. This will give us insight into the reactor that that has not been previously available. They will also provide more frequent inspector access to the Arak reactor, and they will provide certain key data and information that is called for in the additional protocol to Iran’s IAEA safeguard agreement and, in modified code, 3.1.

So, again, taken together these verification steps will allow us, of course, to detect any Iranian noncompliance with the agreement, will allow us to have unprecedented access to their facilities, and frankly, will allow us to learn a lot more about the Iranian program and its various elements.

The IAEA will perform many of these verification steps consistent with their role in Iran, but in addition, the P5-plus-1 in Iran have committed to establishing a joint commission that will work with the IAEA to monitor implementation and address issues that may arise. So this joint commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present concerns with respect to Iran’s nuclear program, including the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s activities at Parchin. So, importantly, over this course of several months, we will be getting together those questions that we have about any potential military dimension associated with Iran’s activities.

So, taken together, again, a halt of activities across the Iranian program, a rollback in certain important elements, and extensive and intrusive monitoring.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague to walk through the relief piece.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. And good evening, everybody. I want to describe the contours of the limited relief in this deal, which we assess is worth at most about $6-7 billion.

The components are as follows: We will pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales. This means Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day, which is down 60 percent since our oil sanctions took effect in late 2011. And with one exception, the revenue that Iran earns from these sales over the next six months will continue to be restricted by our sanctions, meaning that those funds will not be available to Iran for repatriation or cross-border transfer.

The one exception is that we will allow Iran to transfer $4.2 billion in revenue from these sales in installments over the six-month period.

We will suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s petrochemical exports. This could allow Iran to generate some revenue, which we estimate to be a maximum of a billion dollars in new revenue over the six-month period. We will suspend U.S. sanctions on Iran’s trade in gold and precious metals. There is no economic value to Iran from this provision because Iran will have to spend its limited unrestricted foreign currency for any gold purchases. Iran cannot use restricted oil earnings to buy gold.

We will suspend U.S. sanctions on exports to Iran’s auto industry. This could provide Iran some marginal benefit on the order of about $500 million if Iran is able to resume its prior levels of production and revitalizes its auto exports. However, Iran’s auto industry suffers from many problems beyond sanctions, many of which would have to be solved for Iran to benefit from this provision. Moreover, Iran would need to use some of its limited foreign currency to pay for car kits it would import from abroad.

We will allow $400 million in governmental tuition assistance to be transferred from restricted Iranian funds overseas directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students. We will license safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines, and we will establish a financial channel to facilitate humanitarian trade in food, agricultural commodities, medicines, and medical devices for Iran’s domestic needs. Humanitarian transactions have been explicitly exempted from sanctions by Congress, so this channel will not provide Iran access to any new source of funds.

Finally, to the extent permissible within our political system, we have committed to refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions. That does not prevent us from implementing and enforcing our existing nuclear-related sanctions, which, of course, we will do, or from imposing new sanctions targeting Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism or its abysmal human rights record.

Let me just make a few additional comments. First and most importantly, this relief is limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible. It is designed so that the core of our sanctions, the sanctions that have had a tremendous bite -- the oil, banking and financial sanctions -- all remain in place. So in that very important respect, this deal is limited.

It is temporary in that the relief automatically expires at the end of six months. It is targeted in that it allows Iran access to a set amount of funds in a controlled and controllable manner, and to permit specific additional commercial activity with quite limited upsides to the Iranians. It does not allow any open-ended financial or economic activity.

And it is reversible. If Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, the financial component, which is doled out in increments, can be turned off, and the sanctions that have been suspended can be put right back in place.

Second, the relief that Iran gets under this agreement is insignificant economically. The total maximum value of this deal, as I said, is about $6 billion to $7 billion. Compare that to the economic distress that Iran currently faces. Over the past year, Iran’s economy has contracted by more than 5 percent. It’s currency, the rial, has lost around 60 percent of its value against the dollar since 2011. Inflation is about 40 percent. Iran is in a deep recession. Because of our banking sanctions most of Iran’s major banks, including its central bank, are unable to transact internationally. And because of our financial sanctions, the vast majority of Iran’s $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings are restricted or inaccessible.

Iran’s oil exports currently average only around 1 million barrels per day. That, as I’ve noted before, is down 60 percent, from an average of about 2.5 million per day in 2011, and is costing Iran today about $5 billion per month in lost sales. In fact, over the past two years, Iran has lost about $100 billion in oil revenue due to sales it has not been able to make. That is lost revenue that Iran will never recoup.

None of this changes with this deal. In fact, looking ahead during the six-month duration of this first step deal, our oil sanctions alone will cost Iran around $30 billion in lost revenues, or close to $5 billion per month. And as for the oil revenue that Iran will earn during this time, those funds will continue to be restricted in overseas accounts due to our existing sanctions.

So just looking at oil revenue alone, Iran will actually be worse off at the end of this six-month deal than it is today. Its restricted foreign reserves will continue to grow and its budget gap -- estimated to be about $36 billion -- will not be closed. What’s more, the relief I just described is the sum total of the relief. All the rest of our sanctions remain in place and will be zealously enforced.

So, in addition to the sanctions that limit how much oil Iran can sell, our sanctions against the central bank of Iran and approximately two dozen other major Iranian banks and financial actors remain in place. Those banks will continue to be de-SWIFTED -- that is unable to access the SWIFT international financial messaging service.

Our key secondary sanctions that threaten to cut off from the U.S. any bank that does business with designated banks, individuals and entities in Iran remains in place. Sanctions on the over 600 individuals and entities targeted for supporting Iran’s nuclear or ballistic missile program remain in effect. Sanctions on several sectors of Iran’s economy, including shipping and shipbuilding, remain in effect. Sanctions on long-term investments in or providing technical services to Iran’s energy sector remain in effect.

The longstanding and broad U.S. restrictions on trade with Iran remain in effect, depriving Iran of access to virtually all dealings with the world’s biggest economy. All U.N. Security Council and EU sanctions remain in effect. And all of our targeted sanctions related to Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilizing role in the Syrian conflict, and its abysmal human rights record, among other concerns, remain in effect.

And one final point. We will in utmost good faith work to deliver our commitment under this agreement. If Iran lives up to its obligations and commitments, it will get the benefit of its bargain. But at the same time, we will not turn a blind eye to sanctions evasion, circumvention, or any other attempts to take advantage of this situation by anyone or any person or any entity anywhere.

As I just described, the vast bulk of our sanctions remain in place. And as the President said just this evening, you can be sure that we will enforce those sanctions vigorously.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Great. I’ll just say a couple of comments quickly about the comprehensive piece, and then I know we’ll want to get to questions.

So, first of all, essentially what happens now is we have with this framework in place six months to see if we can negotiate a comprehensive resolution. It’s an important point that this is an agreement that will have a duration of six months, and it would only be continued if it was mutually agreed upon. So there is an expiration date as it relates to the terms of the first step, unless there is either a comprehensive resolution agreed to or there is a mutually agreed decision to continue.

In terms of the end state, we do not recognize a right for Iran to enrich uranium. That is a specific issue that has, of course, at stake in the negotiation. What we are going to explore with the Iranians and our P5-plus-1 partners over the next six months is whether there can be an agreed upon comprehensive solution that assures us that the Iranian program is peaceful.

And with respect to that end state, there are many issues that will have to be addressed. I would note that in the agreement it is made clear that Iran will have to address the outstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions in which they have previously claimed to be illegal throughout the course of that negotiation. So there is not an end state that can be arrived at unless we address those U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Moreover, nothing is agreed to with respect to the end state until everything is agreed to. So when it comes to the various components of an end state, including those alluded to in the document today, which we can discuss, those are not agreed to unless we actually reach an comprehensive resolution that, again, gives us that assurance that the Iranian program is peaceful.

However, we have an opportunity here, as the President said -- our goal has always been to resolve this issue peacefully through a diplomatic resolution, both because we believe that that is the more durable way of solving the problem, because diplomacy allows you the assurance that you have an agreement that is verifiable and puts limits and constraints on the Iranian program that can be checked over time; and similarly, because, of course, the enormous costs and consequences that would come with any potential military action were it to come to conflict.

So this is an opportunity that we aim to seize, but we have no illusions that it will be easy to do. These are going to be tough negotiations, but we're going to give it our very best shot.

And with that, we'll move to questions.

Q Thanks very much. How real is the danger that the sanctions regime would have unraveled if this agreement had not been reached?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Scott, I'll say one thing and then my colleague may want to add. The purpose of sanctions were not to just have sanctions in place. They were to change the calculus of the Iranian government. We began to see that with the election of a new President who ran on a mandate to achieve sanctions relief through a more moderate foreign policy towards the West. And we had an opportunity, the best opportunity we've had in five years, to test whether we could get an agreement through diplomacy.

We achieved that agreement in this third round of talks in Geneva. It’s important to note that it isn't simply the unilateral sanctions that have had a bite on the Iranian economy. What’s made a difference is countries around the world cooperating with the sanctions regime reducing their purchases of Iranian oil, for instance. And that depended upon a great amount of political will from those countries. But the reason that those countries cooperated with us is because they wanted to support a diplomatic resolution and because it was pretty clear to the world that Iran had been the recalcitrant party in previous negotiations.

Our point has been that were we to walk away from the table here, were we to move to additional U.S. unilateral sanctions before we had tested diplomacy, that the political will on behalf of our partners would have been tested in severe ways, and essentially, you could have seen an unraveling of the sanctions regime from those countries that felt like we were not negotiating in good faith.

And so the risk was that in refusing to test diplomacy, which was the purpose of the sanctions in the first place, the U.S. would have been alienated not just from our P5-plus-1 partners but from other countries around the world. And that could have put at risk our ability to have the type of coalition we've had during enforced sanctions.

I don't know if you have anything to add to that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I think that's exactly right. The effectiveness of the sanctions regime that's in place is not dependent solely on the force of our sanctions and the sort of coercive impact of our enforcement -- although that's obviously an important aspect of it -- it’s also that we have galvanized the international community to join us in this effort, and so we have a great deal of voluntary cooperation and collaboration with others around the world. And that depends in very great extent on the recognition that we are approaching this in a sensible way and not applying sanctions for sanctions’ sake.

And I think that there was obviously a danger -- it’s hard to quantify, but obviously a danger if we discarded this opportunity and just moved to layering on additional sanctions unilaterally, that that important international coalition would not hold together.

Q Thank you both very much for doing this. What is your response to the arguments from the Israelis -- and you’ll hear from the Prime Minister tomorrow, I’m sure -- that this actually weakens our leverage because the sanctions were working, were getting Iran to be so serious, and now Iran knows and other countries know, and businesses around the world will know that Iran is going to be back in business and that they can start finding ways around the sanctions that have been so successful, that you’ll see this -- you’ll see a big change in rial and you’ll see a lot more flexibility for Iran.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Andrea, to your question, I’ll say a couple of things, and I’m sure my colleague will want to add.

First of all, just to step back, we believe that this agreement aims to address a number of concerns that Israel has expressed over the years. First of all, Israel has expressed concern that Iran could use the cover of negotiations to advance their program. We are halting their program in its tracks and rolling back elements of the program while we test whether we can reach an agreement.

The Prime Minister has raised concerns in the past about the growing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium. This would neutralize that stockpile, eliminating one of the most important paths that Iran could have towards a breakout to a bomb.

We and the Israelis were concerned about the Arak reactor coming online or a variety of reasons, including the fact that it would give them a plutonium track towards a weapon. And we believe that this halts Arak in its tracks for the first time while we have the space to negotiate.

We had a tactical difference on this question of a first step or an end state agreement. We, frankly, again, just believe that you weren’t going to get to an end state from a standing start, so we needed to put this in place to halt the progress of the Iranians while we negotiate that final step. And we’ll consult with the Israelis. And after every one of these negotiations, we brief our Israeli friends and I can tell you that Israel has been briefed by the United States on the elements of this agreement.

I’ll just say one comment on the sanctions before going to my colleague. My quick comment would simply be I don't think that this limited and reversible agreement suddenly makes Iran a good bet for businesses to invest. The sanctions are still in place and the sanctions are still going to be enforced. And even in the categories where there are these limited suspensions for a time-bound period of six months, that's not exactly a fruitful climate for investment.

But I’ll turn to my colleague on that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’d make two points, picking up on the last one there. Iran is not back in business and anyone who makes the mistake of thinking so I think will be met with some serious consequences.

The deal that was struck is very limited in terms of the additional business that Iran can engage in. It’s able to sell petrochemicals and able to sell/export automobiles. That's it; full stop. There’s no other business activity that is permitted under this first step deal with Iran. And anyone who thinks they can now go in to develop Iran’s oil fields, go into shipbuilding, shipping with Iran, any of the other sectors that are subject to sanctions will I think swiftly come to realize that we are quite serious about maintaining -- and robustly maintaining -- the sanctions that are in place.

Secondly, with respect to the impact of this deal on Iran’s economy, as I noted before, we do not judge this to be economically significant. The $6 billion to $7 billion maximum value of this deal -- which I think probably overstates its actual commercial value -- will be realized over the course of six months. And in comparison to the hole that Iran’s in, its foreign exchange needs, which are more than 10 times that amount, its budget deficit, which is in the order of about $35 billion, this very limited package of relief will not move the needle economically for Iran.

Q Just a question. I want to clarify the right to enrich piece. The Secretary said earlier that there is no right to enrich in the document. But we’ve heard that some of the Iranian officials are claiming there is if not an explicit right to enrich, then an implicit right to enrich. Can you tell me exactly what the document says or doesn't say? And is it an issue for the next round of negotiations if the P5 is claiming there isn’t a right to enrich and the Iranians are claiming there is a right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, that's a good question, Mark. The Iranians have asserted this, as you know, for some time. And it is just the fact that as a matter of policy, the United States has not recognized a right to enrich for the Iranian government, nor do we intend to. The document does not say anything about recognizing a right to enrich uranium.

In terms of the end state, what essentially the next six months will determine is whether there can be an agreement that deals with the Iranian program and gives us an assurance that the Iranian program is peaceful; an agreement that puts limits and constraints on the Iranian program and that has strict verification measures so that we have a certainty that Iran cannot use that program to develop a nuclear weapon.

We would have to negotiate over the course of those six months whether that can be achieved with some type of limited enrichment capability for the Iranians. But the point is that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. So there is nothing in this agreement that gives Iran something in terms of the end state that they can hold onto unless all of our concerns are met, with Arak, with Fordo, with Natanz, with strict limitations and constraints on the type of program that the Iranians have and with verification measures.

So that's what the next six months are going to be about: Can we define what an end state is that is mutually agreeable to the P5-plus-1 and the Iranian government. That won’t involve a recognition of a right to enrich from us because we just simply do not recognize that there is a right to enrich for Iran under the NPT.

So that's what will have to be explored over the next six months of negotiations. We’ve also -- just to make a couple of points I referenced earlier -- made clear that the U.N. Security Council resolutions must still be addressed and that is something that Iran will have to deal with over the course of the next six months; and similarly, that Iran must come into compliance with its obligations under the NPT and its obligations to the IAEA. So those aspects of Iran’s commitments to the international community hold and will have to be addressed.

But we’ll see whether we can achieve an end state agreement that allows for Iran to have peaceful nuclear energy, an access to peaceful nuclear energy and clearly some domestic component of a nuclear program that provides for that peaceful nuclear energy with constraints and limitations and verification measures that are acceptable to us so that we have the certainty their program is peaceful.

And so again, that's precisely what the negotiation will be about over the next six months. But it does not enshrine any right for the Iranian government to enrich.

The other thing I’d just reiterate that I said earlier is that this first step agreement is not a permanent state. This has a six-month expiration date on it unless we get a comprehensive resolution, or unless there is a mutually agreed upon decision to continue the negotiation with this first step in place beyond that timeline.

So again what that means is Iran cannot point to anything in this first step agreement as some type of permanent acknowledgement of their current nuclear capability. It is not a new status quo. It is a first step that is giving us the time and space to negotiate that entity.

Q Thanks for doing this call at this late hour. There is an Associated Press story that has just come out in the last several minutes that said there were some high-level talks going on in the months preceding this agreement and obviously the months preceding what took place in Geneva. I was just curious if you can provide some details to the rest of us about that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure, Jim. I was just made aware of that story. I’d just make a couple of comments. Number one, when President Rouhani was elected and indicated a new direction, we decided to take that seriously and to test it. And that effort commenced with President Obama writing a letter to President Rouhani, which, of course, we have made public. And that letter I think was delivered in early August.

The second point I’d make is the United States has always been crystal-clear that the P5-plus-1 is the venue for negotiations with Iran towards an agreement on the nuclear issue. At the same time, we’ve also made clear that we were open to having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to supplement and feed into those P5-plus-1 negotiations. So, again, any discussions we had with the Iranians on a bilateral basis were meant to reinforce and ultimately be a part of the P5-plus-1 negotiations.

And some of this has been quite public. President Obama spoke to President Rouhani. Secretary Kerry has had bilateral meetings with Foreign Minister Zarif, Wendy Sherman has had bilateral meetings on the margins of these P5-plus-1 talks. In addition to that, we’ve also had a small number of bilateral discussions with the Iranians since President Rouhani’s election, again, with the aim of discussing ideas that could then be merged into the P5-plus-1 negotiations.

So over the course of the last several months of very intensive diplomacy in September, October and November of this year, we had some limited bilateral discussions with the Iranians in addition to the P5-plus-1 discussions that, again, were aimed at developing ideas that we could provide in the P5-plus-1 negotiations. And then the text itself, importantly, was negotiated in these Geneva rounds with the P5-plus-1.

I'd also just add that our bilateral discussions with the Iranians insofar as they deal with substance -- we brief our P5-plus-1 partners on it so that they have an understanding of any discussions we’re having, just as our P5-plus-1 partners can brief us on their discussions that they may be having with the Iranians. We also keep our Israeli friends informed of our substantive discussions with the Iranians. This is something that we brief them on just as we brief them on the content of the P5-plus-1 talks.

Q I just wanted to be clear on the sanctions relief, I just wanted to hear your explanation for why you don't believe that this requires any congressional authorization. Can you just outline that a little and get, if I could, maybe your sort of outlook on the Hill, how you think this will be received and what sort of diplomacy the President needs to prevent sort of further sanctions in the coming months?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A few points on that. First of all, the sanctions that have been passed by Congress continue to be enforced, so it is not as if we need to unwind the legislative architecture of sanctions. Again, this limited relief, as my colleague described, is very limited, reversible, and doesn't dismantle in any way the architecture of sanctions we have in place.

With respect to new sanctions, the introduction of new sanctions would, we believe, derail the agreement, and we believe that people in Congress understand the importance of testing whether we can get to a comprehensive solution over the next six months. And we have been having this discussion with members of Congress for several weeks now. They’re fully briefed on what we’ve been discussing with the Iranians. We’ve been making calls to the Hill tonight and will continue to do so in the coming days.

I'd just make a couple points about that. First of all, if the Iranians violate the agreement, or if we can’t reach a comprehensive resolution, we have said that we will move to additional sanctions. So we are open to working with Congress in the event that this agreement is violated, or that we get to the conclusion of this six months and we don't have a deal and we don't believe that we should continue negotiations. So that will be an ongoing discussion with Congress.

But I'll let members of Congress speak for themselves. What I would say is I think most members of Congress have been clear that they do believe that this issue should be resolved peacefully through diplomacy, and that they have been key partners with us in providing the sanctions regime that brought us to where we are today. And as the President said, we wouldn’t be here without these sanctions. They helped bring Iran to the table. But I think members of Congress also understand that a peaceful outcome to this is far preferable to the alternative, and that’s why we’re going to continue to test this over the course of the next six months.

And we’ll have to continue to make our case to Congress, but, again, I think the broad majority of members of Congress would agree that a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear program is in the U.S. interest, and that using the sanctions as leverage in those negotiations rather than doing anything that would derail the negotiations is similarly in the U.S. interest.

We have time for one more question.

Q Hi, gentlemen. Thanks for doing the call. I wanted to just clarify, on Israel, has the President spoken with Netanyahu one-on-one about this tonight, and do you have any assurances from the Israelis that they’re not going to do anything within the next six months?

And then I have a technical question. Can you give us any detail on the EU lifting insurance and shipping sanctions on oil spills? We know a little bit about that from the Farsi version of the deal, but it’s not in your fact sheet, so if you could help with that that would be appreciated.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'll take the first question, and then my colleague can take the second one.

With respect to Israel, you can be sure that President Obama will speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and in fact, we have every expectation that he will do so tomorrow -- or maybe I should say today, since it is already Sunday. We brief the Israelis after every one of these rounds of discussions. And the President has had basically five years of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu on this subject.

And let me just say this. We understand that there have been some differences, but we share the same objective here, which is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That’s in America’s interest; that’s in Israel’s interest; that’s in the world’s interest. That’s what this is about. And we work through these issues in a spirit of great candor and we have dialogue at every level -- from the President to the Secretary to our negotiator, and also in our security establishments, military and intelligence -- a very regularized dialogue with the Israeli government. And we will continue to do so.

And again, ultimately, we understand and appreciate why Israel is particularly skeptical about Iran, given the threats that have been made about Israel from Tehran. We understand why Israel would want to make sure that this is the best deal possible, and make sure that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. One point we’d make is this is not simply about trusting the Iranian government. There are strict verification measures through these intrusive inspections involved in making sure that Iran is meeting its commitments under this agreement.

I would say that what we have now is a six-month period to test whether the new leadership in Iran continues to follow through on their commitment to move Iran in a new path. The Iranian President has said they will not develop a nuclear weapon. The Supreme Leader of Iran has said that there is a fatwa to development of a nuclear weapon. What we will know after six months is whether there can be a solution that is enshrined in an agreement that gives us assurance that their program is peaceful. That would be good for the United States; that would be good for the world; and we believe that would be good for the security of Israel, for our Gulf partners and for the region.

And we’ll just conclude with my colleague taking your second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, and just very briefly, the relief provisions in here, to the extent that there is additional business activity, also cover associated services. So I assume that the -- I haven’t seen the Farsi version myself -- that it was referring to that, to the associated service.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. Something tells me this won’t be the last time we’ll be talking to you about Iran over the course of the next six months. I just want to say, I know that this won’t be news to you that I think this, but I hope that we all at the very least appreciate the negotiators for the United States -- John Kerry, Wendy Sherman, and the whole crew out there in Geneva who have been -- who are up at 6:00 a.m., still working, and have been literally working harder than anybody that I’ve seen over the course of my time in government -- of course, with the exception of our servicemen and women who are deployed.

But they have done extraordinary work. They’ve been tireless. And they have the personal -- the President is personally grateful for what they’ve done, and holds them in tremendous esteem for their efforts on behalf of this agreement for the United States.

Thanks everybody.

END

12:16 A.M. EST, November 24

President Obama Makes a Statement on Iran

November 23, 2013 | 6:54 | Public Domain

President Obama says that the United States – together with close allies and partners – has taken an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.

Download mp4 (252MB) | mp3 (17MB)

Read the Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

November 23, 2013

Statement By The President On First Step Agreement On Iran's Nuclear Program

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Today, the United States -- together with our close allies and partners -- took an important first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses our concerns with the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program.

Since I took office, I’ve made clear my determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. As I’ve said many times, my strong preference is to resolve this issue peacefully, and we’ve extended the hand of diplomacy. Yet for many years, Iran has been unwilling to meet its obligations to the international community. So my administration worked with Congress, the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world to impose unprecedented sanctions on the Iranian government.

These sanctions have had a substantial impact on the Iranian economy, and with the election of a new Iranian President earlier this year, an opening for diplomacy emerged. I spoke personally with President Rouhani of Iran earlier this fall. Secretary Kerry has met multiple times with Iran’s Foreign Minister. And we have pursued intensive diplomacy -- bilaterally with the Iranians, and together with our P5-plus-1 partners -- the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the European Union.

Today, that diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure -- a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.

While today’s announcement is just a first step, it achieves a great deal. For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back. Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. Iran cannot use its next-generation centrifuges, which are used for enriching uranium. Iran cannot install or start up new centrifuges, and its production of centrifuges will be limited. Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor. And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran’s nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments.

These are substantial limitations which will help prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Simply put, they cut off Iran’s most likely paths to a bomb. Meanwhile, this first step will create time and space over the next six months for more negotiations to fully address our comprehensive concerns about the Iranian program. And because of this agreement, Iran cannot use negotiations as cover to advance its program.

On our side, the United States and our friends and allies have agreed to provide Iran with modest relief, while continuing to apply our toughest sanctions. We will refrain from imposing new sanctions, and we will allow the Iranian government access to a portion of the revenue that they have been denied through sanctions. But the broader architecture of sanctions will remain in place and we will continue to enforce them vigorously. And if Iran does not fully meet its commitments during this six-month phase, we will turn off the relief and ratchet up the pressure.

Over the next six months, we will work to negotiate a comprehensive solution. We approach these negotiations with a basic understanding: Iran, like any nation, should be able to access peaceful nuclear energy. But because of its record of violating its obligations, Iran must accept strict limitations on its nuclear program that make it impossible to develop a nuclear weapon.

In these negotiations, nothing will be agreed to unless everything is agreed to. The burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear program will be exclusively for peaceful purposes.

If Iran seizes this opportunity, the Iranian people will benefit from rejoining the international community, and we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations. This would provide Iran with a dignified path to forge a new beginning with the wider world based on mutual respect. If, on the other hand, Iran refuses, it will face growing pressure and isolation.

Over the last few years, Congress has been a key partner in imposing sanctions on the Iranian government, and that bipartisan effort made possible the progress that was achieved today. Going forward, we will continue to work closely with Congress. However, now is not the time to move forward on new sanctions -– because doing so would derail this promising first step, alienate us from our allies and risk unraveling the coalition that enabled our sanctions to be enforced in the first place.

That international unity is on display today. The world is united in support of our determination to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Iran must know that security and prosperity will never come through the pursuit of nuclear weapons -- it must be reached through fully verifiable agreements that make Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons impossible.

As we go forward, the resolve of the United States will remain firm, as will our commitments to our friends and allies –- particularly Israel and our Gulf partners, who have good reason to be skeptical about Iran’s intentions.

Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program. As President and Commander-in-Chief, I will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush towards conflict. Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.

The first step that we’ve taken today marks the most significant and tangible progress that we’ve made with Iran since I took office. And now we must use the months ahead to pursue a lasting and comprehensive settlement that would resolve an issue that has threatened our security -- and the security of our allies -- for decades. It won’t be easy, and huge challenges remain ahead. But through strong and principled diplomacy, the United States of America will do our part on behalf of a world of greater peace, security, and cooperation among nations.

Thank you very much.