Remarks by the President on College Affordability -- Buffalo, NY

State University of New York Buffalo
Buffalo, New York

11:23 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, Buffalo!  (Applause.)  Hello, Bulls! (Applause.)  Well, it is good to be back in Buffalo, good to be back in the north.  (Applause.) 

I want to begin by making sure we all thank Silvana for the wonderful introduction.  Give her a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Her mom and dad are here somewhere.  Where are they? I know they’re pretty proud.  There they are right there.  Give mom and dad a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  

A number of other people I want to acknowledge here -- first of all, our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who’s doing a great job.  (Applause.)  One of the finest governors in the country, your Governor, Andrew Cuomo, is here.  (Applause.)  Your outstanding Mayor, Brian Higgins, is here.  Give him a big round of applause.

AUDIENCE:  Congressman!

THE PRESIDENT:  What?

AUDIENCE:  The Mayor is Byron Brown!

THE PRESIDENT:  Byron Brown.  That's -- I'm sorry, Byron.  (Applause.)  What I meant was -- your Congressman, Brian Higgins, is here.  (Applause.)  Your Mayor, Byron Brown, is here.  (Applause.)  This is what happens when you get to be 52 years old.  (Laughter.)  When I was 51 everything was smooth.  (Laughter.)  But your Congressman and your Mayor are doing outstanding work.  We just rode on the bus over from the airport, and they were telling me that Buffalo is on the move.  That was the story.  (Applause.)

A couple other people I want to acknowledge -- SUNY Chancellor Nancy Zimpher, is here, doing a great job.  (Applause.)  University president Satish Tripathi is here.  (Applause.)   And we've got all the students in the house.  Thank all the students for being here.  (Applause.)  

Now, today is a check-in day at the dorms.  So I want to thank all the students for taking a few minutes from setting up your futons and -- (laughter) -- your mini-fridges just to come out here.  I hear that the last sitting President to speak here was Millard Fillmore.  (Applause.)  And he was actually chancellor of the university at the same time -- which sounds fun, but I’ve got enough on my plate.  (Laughter.) 

This is our first stop on a two-day road trip through New York and Pennsylvania.  (Applause.)  And after this I head to Syracuse -- (applause) -- yay, Syracuse -- to speak with some high schoolers.  Tomorrow I'm going to visit SUNY Binghamton and Lackawanna College in Scranton.  But I wanted to start here at University at Buffalo.  (Applause.) 

And I wanted to do it for a couple reasons.  First, I know you’re focused on the future.  As I said, talking to the Mayor, he was describing a new medical school -- (applause) -- and new opportunities for the high-tech jobs of tomorrow.  So there’s great work being done at this institution.  I also know that everybody here must be fearless because the football team kicks off against Number 2, Ohio State, next weekend.  (Applause.)  Good luck, guys.  (Laughter.)  It’s going to be a great experience.  (Laughter.)  It’s going to be a great experience.  It could be an upset.  (Applause.)

And third, and most importantly, I know that the young people here are committed to earning your degree, to helping this university to make sure that every one of you “Finishes in Four” -- (applause) -- makes sure that you're prepared for whatever comes next.  And that’s what I want to talk about here today.

Over the last month, I’ve been visiting towns across the country, talking about -- yes, feel free to sit down.  Get comfortable.  (Laughter.) 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you!

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  I love you, too.  (Applause.)

Over the last month I've been out there talking about what we need to do as a country to make sure that we've got a better bargain for the middle class and everybody who’s working hard to get into the middle class -– a national strategy to make sure that everybody who works hard has a chance to succeed in this 21st century economy.  (Applause.) 

Now, I think all of us here know that for the past four and a half years, we’ve been fighting back from a brutal recession that cost millions of Americans their jobs and their homes and their savings.  But what the recession also did was it showed that for too long we've seen an erosion of middle-class security.
So, together, we saved the auto industry.  Together, we took on a broken health care system.  (Applause.)  We invested in new technologies.  We started reversing our addiction to foreign oil. We changed a tax code that was tilted to far in favor of the wealthy at the expense of working families.  (Applause.)

And add it all up, today our businesses have created 7.3 million new jobs over the last 41 months.  (Applause.)  We now generate more renewable energy than ever before.  We sell more goods made in America to the rest of the world than ever.  (Applause.)  Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.  Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.  (Applause.)  

Here in Buffalo, the Governor and the Mayor were describing over a billion dollars in investment, riverfront being changed, construction booming -- signs of progress.  (Applause.)

So thanks to the grit and the resilience of the American people, we’ve cleared away the rubble from the financial crisis. We’ve started to lay the foundation for a stronger, more durable economic growth. 

But as any middle-class family will tell you, as folks here in Buffalo will tell you, we’re not where we need to be yet.  Because even before the crisis hit -- and it sounds like Buffalo knows something about this -- we were living through a decade where a few at the top were doing better and better, most families were working harder and harder just to get by.  Manufacturing was leaving, jobs moving overseas, losing our competitive edge.  And it’s a struggle for a lot of folks.

So reversing this trend should be, must be, Washington’s highest priority.  It’s my highest priority.  (Applause.)  I’ve got to say it’s not always Washington’s highest priority.  Because rather than keeping focus on a growing economy that creates good middle-class jobs, we’ve seen a faction of Republicans in Congress suggest that maybe America shouldn’t pay its bills that have already been run up, that we shut down government if they can’t shut down Obamacare.

AUDIENCE:  Booo --

THE PRESIDENT:  That won’t grow our economy.  That won’t create jobs.  That won’t help our middle class.  We can’t afford in Washington the usual circus of distractions and political posturing.  We can't afford that right now.   

What we need is to build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America, focus on that -- a good job with good wages, a good education, a home of your own, affordable health care, a secure retirement.  (Applause.)  Bread-and-butter, pocketbook issues that you care about every single day; that you’re thinking about every single day.  And we’ve got to create more pathways into the middle class for folks who are willing to work for it.  That’s what’s always made America great.  It’s not just how many billionaires we produce, but our ability to give everybody who works hard the chance to pursue their own measure of happiness.  That's what America is all about.  (Applause.)

Now, there aren’t many things that are more important to that idea of economic mobility -– the idea that you can make it if you try –- than a good education.  All the students here know that.  That’s why you’re here.  (Applause.)  That’s why your families have made big sacrifices -– because we understand that in the face of greater and greater global competition, in a knowledge-based economy, a great education is more important than ever. 

A higher education is the single best investment you can make in your future.  And I’m proud of all the students who are making that investment.  (Applause.)  And that’s not just me saying it.  Look, right now, the unemployment rate for Americans with at least a college degree is about one-third lower than the national average.  The incomes of folks who have at least a college degree are more than twice those of Americans without a high school diploma.  So more than ever before, some form of higher education is the surest path into the middle class.

But what I want to talk about today is what’s become a barrier and a burden for too many American families -– and that is the soaring cost of higher education.  (Applause.) 

This is something that everybody knows you need -- a college education.  On the other hand, college has never been more expensive.  Over the past three decades, the average tuition at a public four-year college has gone up by more than 250 percent -- 250 percent.  Now, a typical family's income has only gone up 16 percent.  So think about that -- tuition has gone up 250 percent; income gone up 16 percent.  That’s a big gap. 

Now, it's true that a lot of universities have tried to provide financial aid and work-study programs.  And so not every student -- in fact, most students are probably not paying the sticker price of tuition.  We understand that.  But what we also understand is that if it's going up 250 [percent] and your incomes are only going up 16 [percent], at some point, families are having to make up some of the difference, or students are having to make up some of the difference with debt. 

And meanwhile, over the past few years, states have been cutting back on their higher education budgets.  New York has done better than a lot of states, but the fact is that we've been spending more money on prisons, less money on college.  (Applause.)  And meanwhile, not enough colleges have been working to figure out how do we control costs, how do we cut back on costs.  So all this sticks it to students, sticks it to families, but also, taxpayers end up paying a bigger price. 

The average student who borrows for college now graduates owing more than $26,000.  Some owe a lot more than that.  And I’ve heard from a lot of these young people who are frustrated that they’ve done everything they're supposed to do –- got good grades in high school, applied to college, did well in school -- but now they come out, they've got this crushing debt that’s crippling their sense of self-reliance and their dreams.  It becomes hard to start a family and buy a home if you're servicing $1,000 worth of debt every month.  It becomes harder to start a business if you are servicing $1,000 worth of debt every month, right?  (Applause.)  

And meanwhile, parents, you're having to make sacrifices, which means you may be dipping into savings that should be going to your retirement to pay for your son or daughter's -- or to help pay for your son or daughter's education. 

So at a time when a higher education has never been more important or more expensive, too many students are facing a choice that they should never have to make:  Either they say no to college and pay the price for not getting a degree -- and that's a price that lasts a lifetime -- or you do what it takes to go to college, but then you run the risk that you won’t be able to pay it off because you've got so much debt. 

Now, that's a choice we shouldn’t accept.  And, by the way, that's a choice that previous generations didn't have to accept. This is a country that early on made a commitment to put a good education within the reach of all who are willing to work for it. And we were ahead of the curve compared to other countries when it came to helping young people go to school.  (Applause.)  

The folks in Buffalo understand this.  Mayor Brown was talking about the city of Buffalo and the great work that is being done through the program called “Say Yes,” to make sure that no child in Buffalo has to miss out on a college education because they can’t pay for it.  (Applause.) 

But even though there's a great program in this city, in a lot of places that program doesn't exist.  But a generation ago, two generations ago, we made a bigger commitment.  This is the country that gave my grandfather the chance to go to college on the GI Bill after he came back from World War II.  (Applause.)  This is the country that helped my mother get through school while raising two kids.  (Applause.)  Michelle and I, we're only where we are today because scholarships and student loans gave us a shot at a great education.  (Applause.)  

And we know a little bit about trying to pay back student loans, too, because we didn’t come from a wealthy family.  So we each graduated from college and law school with a mountain of debt.  And even though we got good jobs, we barely finished paying it off just before I was elected to the U.S. Senate.

AUDIENCE:  Whew!

THE PRESIDENT:  Right?  I mean, I was in my 40s when we finished paying off our debt.  And we should have been saving for Malia and Sasha by that time.  But we were still paying off what we had gotten -- and we were luckier because most of the debt was from law school.  Our undergraduate debt was not as great because tuition had not started shooting up as high.

So the bottom line is this -- we've got a crisis in terms of college affordability and student debt.  And over the past four years, what we've tried to do is to take some steps to make college more affordable.  So we enacted historic reforms to the student loan system, so taxpayer dollars stop padding the pockets of big banks and instead help more kids afford college.  (Applause.) 

Because what was happening was the old system, the student loan programs were going through banks; they didn't have any risk because the federal government guaranteed the loans, but they were still taking billions of dollars out of the program.  We said, well, let's just give the loans directly to the students and we can put more money to helping students. 

Then we set up a consumer watchdog.  And that consumer watchdog is already helping students and families navigate the financial options that are out there to pay for college without getting ripped off by shady lenders.  (Applause.)  And we’re providing more tools and resources for students and families to try to finance college.  And if any of you are still trying to figure out how to finance college, check it out at StudentAid.gov.  StudentAid.gov.   

Then, we took action to cap loan repayments at 10 percent of monthly income for many borrowers who are trying to responsibly manage their federal student loan debt.  (Applause.)  So overall, we’ve made college more affordable for millions of students and families through tax credits and grants and student loans that go farther than they did before.  And then, just a few weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans worked together to keep student loan rates from doubling.  (Applause.)  And that saves typical undergraduates more than $1,500 for this year’s loans.

So that’s all a good start, but it’s not enough.  The problem is, is that even if the federal government keeps on putting more and more money in the system, if the cost is going up by 250 percent, tax revenues aren’t going up 250 percent -- and so some point, the government will run out of money, which means more and more costs are being loaded on to students and their families.

The system’s current trajectory is not sustainable.  And what that means is state legislatures are going to have to step up.  They can’t just keep cutting support for public colleges and universities.  (Applause.)  That's just the truth.  Colleges are not going to be able to just keep on increasing tuition year after year, and then passing it on to students and families and taxpayers.  (Applause.)   Our economy can’t afford the trillion dollars in outstanding student loan debt, much of which may not get repaid because students don't have the capacity to pay it.  We can’t price the middle class and everybody working to get into the middle class out of a college education.  We’re going to have to do things differently.  We can't go about business as usual.

Because if we do, that will put our younger generation, our workers, our country at a competitive disadvantage for years.  Higher education is still the best ticket to upward mobility in America, and if we don’t do something about keeping it within reach, it will create problems for economic mobility for generations to come.  And that's not acceptable.  (Applause.)

  So whether we’re talking about a two-year program, a four-year program, a technical certificate, bottom line is higher education cannot be a luxury.  It’s an economic imperative:  Every family in America should be able to afford to get it.  (Applause.)  

So that's the problem.  Now, what are we going to do about it?  Today, I’m proposing major new reforms that will shake up the current system, create better incentives for colleges to do more with less, and deliver better value for students and their families.  (Applause.)

And some of these reforms will require action from Congress, so we’re going to have to work on that.  (Laughter.)  Some of these changes I can make on my own.  (Applause.)  We are going to have to -- we’re going to be partnering with colleges to do more to keep costs down, and we’re going to work with states to make higher education a higher priority in their budgets.  (Applause.)

And one last thing -- we’re going to have to ask more of students who are receiving federal aid, as well.  And I’ve got to tell you ahead of time, these reforms won’t be popular with everybody, especially those who are making out just fine under the current system.  But my main concern is not with those institutions; my main concern is the students those institutions are there to serve -– because this country is only going to be as strong as our next generation.  (Applause.) 

And I have confidence that our country’s colleges and universities will step up -- just like Chancellor Zimpher and the folks at SUNY are trying to step up -- and lead the way to do the right thing for students.

So let me be specific.  My plan comes down to three main goals.  First, we’re going to start rating colleges not just by which college is the most selective, not just by which college is the most expensive, not just by which college has the nicest facilities -- you can get all of that on the existing rating systems.  What we want to do is rate them on who's offering the best value so students and taxpayers get a bigger bang for their buck.  (Applause.) 

Number two, we’re going to jumpstart new competition between colleges –- not just on the field or on the court, but in terms of innovation that encourages affordability, and encourages student success, and doesn’t sacrifice educational quality.  (Applause.)  That’s going to be the second component of it. 

And the third is, we’re going to make sure that if you have to take on debt to earn your college degree that you have ways to manage and afford it.  (Applause.) 

So let me just talk about each of these briefly. 

Our first priority is aimed at providing better value for students -- making sure that families and taxpayers are getting what we pay for.  Today, I’m directing Arne Duncan, our Secretary of Education, to lead an effort to develop a new rating system for America’s colleges before the 2015 college year.  Right now, private rankings like U.S. News and World Report puts out each year their rankings, and it encourages a lot of colleges to focus on ways to -- how do we game the numbers, and it actually rewards them, in some cases, for raising costs.  I think we should rate colleges based on opportunity.  Are they helping students from all kinds of backgrounds succeed -- (applause) -- and on outcomes, on their value to students and parents. 

So that means metrics like:  How much debt does the average student leave with?  How easy it is to pay off?  How many students graduate on time?  How well do those graduates do in the workforce?  Because the answers will help parents and students figure out how much value a college truly offers. 

There are schools out there who are terrific values.  But there are also schools out there that have higher default rates than graduation rates.  And taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing students to go to schools where the kids aren't graduating.  That doesn’t do anybody any good.  (Applause.) 

And our ratings will also measure how successful colleges are at enrolling and graduating students who are on Pell grants. And it will be my firm principle that our ratings have to be carefully designed to increase, not decrease, the opportunities for higher education for students who face economic or other disadvantages.  (Applause.) 

So this is going to take a little time, but we think this can empower students and families to make good choices.  And it will give any college the chance to show that it’s making serious and consistent improvement.  So a college may not be where it needs to be right now on value, but they’ll have time to try to get better.

And we want all the stakeholders in higher education -- students, parents, businesses, college administrators, professors -- to work with Secretary Duncan on this process.  And over the next few months, he’s going to host a series of public forums around the country to make sure we get these measures right.  And then, over the next few years, we’re going to work with Congress to use those ratings to change how we allocate federal aid for colleges.  (Applause.)

We are going to deliver on a promise we made last year, which is colleges that keep their tuition down and are providing high-quality education are the ones that are going to see their taxpayer funding go up.  It is time to stop subsidizing schools that are not producing good results, and reward schools that deliver for American students and our future.  (Applause.)

And we’re also going to encourage states to follow the same principle.  Right now, most states fund colleges based on how many students they enroll, not based on how well those students do or even if they graduate.  Now, some states are trying a better approach.  You got Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio -- they’re offering more funding to colleges that do a better job of preparing students for graduation and a job.  Michigan is rewarding schools that keep tuition increases low.  So they’re changing the incentive structure. 

And I’m challenging all states to come up with new and innovative ways to fund their colleges in a way that drives better results.  (Applause.)

Now, for the young people here, I just want to say that just as we’re expecting more from our schools that get funding from taxpayers, we’re going to have to expect more from students who get subsidies and grants from taxpayers.  (Applause.)  So we’re going to make sure students who receive federal financial aid complete their courses before receiving grants for the next semester.  (Applause.) 

We’ll make sure to build in flexibility so we’re not penalizing disadvantaged students, or students who are holding down jobs to pay for school.  Things happen.  But the bottom line is we need to make sure that if you’re getting financial aid you’re doing your part to make progress towards a degree.  And, by the way, that’s good for you, too, because if you take out debt and you don’t get that degree, you are not going to be able to pay off that debt and you’ll be in a bind.  (Applause.)   

All right, second goal:  We want to encourage more --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Obama! 

THE PRESIDENT:  (Laughter.)  Thank you. 

The second thing we want to do is to encourage more colleges to embrace innovative new ways to prepare our students for a 21st century economy and maintain a high level of quality without breaking the bank. 

So let me talk about some alternatives that are already out there.  Southern New Hampshire University gives course credit based on how well students master the material, not just on how many hours they spend in the classroom.  So the idea would be if you’re learning the material faster, you can finish faster, which means you pay less and you save money.  (Applause.)  The University of Wisconsin is getting ready to do the same thing.

You’ve got Central Missouri University -- I went there, and they’ve partnered with local high schools and community colleges so that their students can show up at college and graduate in half the time because they’re already starting to get college credits while they’re in high school or while they’re in a two-year college, so by the time they get to a four-year college they’re saving money.  (Applause.)  

Universities like Carnegie Mellon, Arizona State, they’re starting to show that online learning can help students master the same material in less time and often at lower cost.  Georgia Tech, which is a national leader in computer science, just announced it will begin offering an online master’s degree in computer science at a fraction of the cost of a traditional class, but it’s just as rigorous and it’s producing engineers who are just as good. 

So a lot of other schools are experimenting with these ideas to keep tuition down.  They’ve got other ways to help students graduate in less time, at less cost, while still maintaining high quality.  The point is it’s possible.  And it’s time for more colleges to step up with even better ways to do it.  And we’re going to provide additional assistance to states and universities that are coming up with good ideas. 

Third thing, even as we work to bring down costs for current and future students, we’ve got to offer students who already have debt the chance to actually repay it.  (Applause.)  Nobody wants to take on debt -- especially after what we’ve seen and families have gone through during this financial crisis.  But taking on debt in order to earn a college education has always been viewed as something that will pay off over time.  We’ve got to make sure, though, that it’s manageable. 

As I said before, even with good jobs, it took Michelle and me a long time to pay off our student loans -- while we should have been saving for Malia and Sasha’s college educations, we were still paying off our own.  So we know how important it is to make sure debt is manageable, so that it doesn't keep you from taking a job that you really care about, or getting married, or buying that first home.

There are some folks who have been talking out there recently about whether the federal student loan program should make or cost the government money.  Here’s the bottom line -- government shouldn’t see student loans as a way to make money; it should be a way to help students.  (Applause.)

So we need to ask ourselves:  How much does a federal student loan cost students?  How can we help students manage those costs better?  Our national mission is not to profit off student loans; our national mission must be to profit off having the best-educated workforce in the world.  That should be our focus.  (Applause.) 

So, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, two years ago, I capped loan repayments at 10 percent of a student’s post-college income.  We called it Pay-As-You-Earn.  And it, along with some other income-driven repayment plans, have helped more than 2.5 million students so far.
 
But there are two obstacles that are preventing more students from taking advantage of it.  One is that too many current and former students aren’t eligible, which means we’ve got to get Congress to open up the program for more students.  (Applause.)  And we’re going to be pushing them to do that. 

The other obstacle is that a lot of students don't even know they're eligible for the program.  So starting this year, we’re going to launch a campaign to help more borrowers learn about their repayment options and we’ll help more student borrowers enroll in Pay-As-You-Earn.  So if you went to college, you took out debt, you want to be a teacher, and starting salary for a teacher is, let’s say, $35,000, well, only 10 percent of that amount is what your loan repayment is.  Now, if you're making more money, you should be paying more back.  But that way, everybody has a chance to go to college; everybody has a chance to pursue their dreams. 

And that program is already in place.  We want more students to take advantage of it.  We're really going to be advertising it heavily. 

Now, if we move forward on these three fronts –- increasing value, encouraging innovation, helping people responsibly manage their debt –- I guarantee you we will help more students afford college.  We’ll help more students graduate from college.  We’ll help more students get rid of that debt so they can a good start in their careers.  (Applause.)  

But it’s going to take a lot of hard work.  The good news is, from what I hear, folks in Buffalo know something about hard work.  (Applause.)  Folks in America know something about hard work.  And we've come a long way together these past four years. We're going to keep moving forward on this issue and on every other issue that’s going to help make sure that we continue to have the strongest, most thriving middle class in the world.  We're going to keep pushing to build a better bargain for everybody in this country who works hard, and everybody who's trying to get into that middle class.  (Applause.) 

And we're going to keep fighting to make sure that this remains a country where, if you work hard and study hard and are responsible, you are rewarded, so that no matter what you look like and where you come from, what your last name is, here in America you can make it if you try.  (Applause.) 

Thank you very much, everybody.  God bless you.  God bless America.  (Applause.) 
   
END
11:54 A.M. EDT

FACT SHEET on the President’s Plan to Make College More Affordable: A Better Bargain for the Middle Class

A higher education is the single most important investment students can make in their own futures. At the same time, it has never been more expensive. That’s why since taking office, President Obama has made historic investments in college affordability, increasing the maximum Pell Grant award for working and middle class families by more than $900, creating the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and enacting effective student loan reforms eliminating bank subsidies and making college more affordable.  

However, despite these measures, college tuition keeps rising. The average tuition at a public four-year college has increased by more than 250 percent over the past three decades, while incomes for typical families grew by only 16 percent, according to College Board and Census data.  Declining state funding has forced students to shoulder a bigger proportion of college costs; tuition has almost doubled as a share of public college revenues over the past 25 years from 25 percent to 47 percent.  While a college education remains a worthwhile investment overall, the average borrower now graduates with over $26,000 in debt. Only 58 percent of full-time students who began college in 2004 earned a four-year degree within six years. Loan default rates are rising, and too many young adults are burdened with debt as they seek to start a family, buy a home, launch a business, or save for retirement.

Today, President Obama outlined an ambitious new agenda to combat rising college costs and make college affordable for American families. His plan will measure college performance through a new ratings system so students and families have the information to select schools that provide the best value. And after this ratings system is well established, Congress can tie federal student aid to college performance so that students maximize their federal aid at institutions providing the best value. The President’s plan will also take down barriers that stand in the way of competition and innovation, particularly in the use of new technology, and shine a light on the most cutting-edge college practices for providing high value at low costs.  And to help student borrowers struggling with their existing debt, the President is committed to ensuring that all borrowers who need it can have access to the Pay As You Earn plan that caps loan payments at 10 percent of income and is directing the Department of Education to ramp up its efforts to reach out to students struggling with their loans to make sure they know and understand all their repayment options. 

 

 

Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 8/21/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:13 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I apologize for keeping you waiting.  I made a rookie mistake and almost forgot my glass of water.  (Laughter.)  So, my apologies.

I do have a quick announcement at the top before we get going.  The President -- it’s actually about the President’s schedule today.  The President and other senior administration officials today will hold a video teleconference with directors of state-based marketplaces.  The President will thank them for working on the front lines every day and hear about the progress they have made in setting up the new marketplaces where Americans will be able to shop for quality, affordable coverage that will be there for them when they need it most.

There are a couple other pieces of relevant health care news I thought I’d raise while we’re on the topic.

Q    When is that?

MR. EARNEST:  That’s this afternoon.  I’m not sure the exact time.

But a couple other pieces of news.  Yesterday we learned that the growth in health care premiums for employer-based coverage has slowed significantly under the Affordable Care Act.  The growth rate in 2013 was about one-third the size of the increases we saw a decade ago. 

Also, this week, Montana became just the latest state to announce health care premiums for plans in the states that were lower than expected.  The premiums announced by states so far have been nearly 20 percent below the CBO’s projections, and tax credits will make that coverage even more affordable for many Americans.

Finally, there are a couple of reports today about an ADP study that indicated that job creation at small companies has almost doubled in the last six months.  This is another signal that economists say undercuts claims that the Affordable Care Act is having a negative impact on job growth, particularly among smaller businesses.  In fact, some might even say that this is evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having a positive impact on small businesses, their bottom line, and of course their employees who will have access to health care coverage.

So, with all of that, Julie, I’ll let you take us away.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask about the situation in Syria.  We obviously got the statement earlier today asking for the U.N. to investigate this latest incident.  The President has said for, I think it’s been about a year now, that chemical weapons use crosses his red line, and yet we have at least the one confirmed use, we have this new report.  Is there any indication that that policy is actually working, given that the deaths in Syria continue and given that Assad allegedly has used chemical weapons again?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what we think is most important for right now is there actually happens to be a United Nations chemical weapons investigative team on the ground in Syria.  They were just granted access to the country yesterday, I believe.  So given the reports that we’ve seen overnight about what may or may not have taken place in Syria, we think it’s important for that investigative team to be given access to that area.

Now, the Assad regime, when presented with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in their country, has said that they are interested in a credible investigation to get to the bottom of what exactly has happened.  Well, it’s time for them to live up to that claim.  And if they actually are interested in getting to the bottom of the use of chemical weapons and whether or not that’s occurred in Syria, then they will allow the U.N. investigative team that’s already in Syria to access the site where chemical weapons may have been used.  It will allow them unfettered access to eyewitnesses or even those who were affected by the weapons.  It will allow them to collect physical samples without manipulation.  And it will also ensure the security of that team as they do their work.

So the United States will be consulting with our allies and our partners on the United Nations Security Council about this, because this is and should be a top priority of the United Nations.

Q    But what about the U.S. policy should make Assad feel threatened in any way, feel like he shouldn’t do this again?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is not just a U.S. policy, but there is broad international agreement.

Q    But the broad international community’s response, I mean, what about that is threatening to him at this point?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I can’t speak to what he may or may not find threatening.  There is no doubt that we condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons.  And you're right, we even said before there was an intelligence community assessment that chemical weapons had been used, that those individuals who were responsible for safeguarding chemical weapons would be held accountable for the way that those chemical weapons are handled.

So there are a range of consequences for the actions that have possibly taken place.

Q    But that’s what I don’t understand.  I mean, what are the consequences?  How have they been held accountable for this first incident?  And given that we're having a hard time figuring that out, why should they feel threatened and feel like they shouldn’t take this action again, as they may have already done?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, it's hard for me to speak to whether or not they feel threatened.  But there is a broad international view that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable.  Even some people who may disagree with us on some aspects of our policy related to Syria should be able to agree that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable, and should be able to support a robust and impartial, credible investigation into reports that chemical weapons may have been used.

Again, how this is going to affect our policy as it relates to the Assad regime, we'll continue to involve our consultations with our international partners.  We are providing some assistance to the opposition and even to the Syrian military council.  The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to try to meet the humanitarian needs of those refugee populations that have been forced to flee the violence; in some cases, we're talking about women and children that are living in terrible conditions just trying to avoid the violence.

So what's happening there is a terrible situation.  There is work that can be done with our international partners to try to continue to pressure the Assad regime.  We've seen evidence and indications that the Assad regime is feeling that pressure, but you're right that we have not -- that it has not resulted in the outcome that we would like to see, which is Assad being completely removed from power.  That’s not just the preference of the United States of America, that’s the will of the Syrian people and that’s why it's important. 

Jeff.

Q    Josh, does the United States have any independent verification about this alleged attack? 

MR. EARNEST:  We do not.  We have seen these reports.  We've consulted with some of our partners in the region about these reports.  But that is why we are calling for this U.N. investigation to be conducted. 

There is an investigation team that’s on the ground in Syria right now, and we are hopeful that the Assad regime will follow through on what they have claimed previously:  that they are interested in a credible investigation that gets to the bottom of reports that chemical weapons have been used.

So, again, it's time for the Assad regime to live up to their rhetoric in this regard and give the investigators access to the sites, the opportunity to interview witnesses, the opportunity to collect physical samples and other things that would help them reach a credible determination about what exactly occurred there.

Q    Has this triggered any diplomatic efforts?  For example, is Ambassador Rice speaking to her Russian counterpart?  Is Secretary Kerry putting any pressure on Russia over this particular incident in Syria? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t have any specific calls to read out to you.  There are a number of conversations that have occurred at a couple of different levels between the United States and our partners and allies who have a vested stake in the outcome.  And there is the request that was made for a consultation at the United National Security Council.  Ambassador Power’s office may be able to provide additional insight into what kinds of conversations are occurring in New York.

Q    And is there any concern, as you look at this, that it might have been staged by rebels for international attention?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t want to speculate on what may or may not have happened.  Fortunately, we have credible, professional investigators with the United Nations on the ground in Syria right now.  Let's give them the opportunity to take a look at what happened.  Let's give them the opportunity to interview witnesses.  Let's give them the opportunity to collect some physical evidence.  And then we can reach a conclusion about what exactly happened there.

But suffice it to say, though, that the use of chemical weapons is something that the United States finds totally deplorable and completely unacceptable.  And those who are responsible for the use of chemical weapons, if it's determined that that's what happened, will be held accountable. 

Let's move to the back a little bit.  Olivier. 

Q    Josh, you said there were indications that Assad is feeling the pressure, I think it was your term.  What specifically leads you to conclude that he is feeling the pressure?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, certainly the public statements that we've seen from world leaders across the globe is an indication that he not only doesn't have their support, but has their active opposition.  We have seen the toll that this conflict has taken on the relationships that the Assad regime has with other countries in the region that they had previously had at least a working relationship with.  There's also clear indication that the Syrian economy has taken a pretty tough hit in the midst of all this turmoil as well.

So there are a range of ways I think that they could have felt this pressure.  But as I acknowledged to Julie earlier, we have not attained our goal yet here, which is the removal of Assad from power.  And, again, we are seeking that removal not just because it's our preference, but because it's the will of the Syrian people.

Jared.

Q    Josh, you said that if the Syrian government, if Assad's government prohibits or inhibits the investigators in any way, will that be taken as a sign of guilt in this?  And will that cross the red line for the administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, they certainly have an opportunity to live up to the rhetoric that they've articulated previously, which is when confronted with reports of previous use of chemical weapons, the Assad regime says that they welcome a credible and fair investigation to get to the bottom of what exactly occurred.  So, conveniently -- there are reports of widespread use of chemical weapons, at least in one location overnight that affected a large number of people, it's unclear how many -- and there is today, as we speak, on the ground in Syria a United Nations team with a specialty in investigating the use of chemical weapons. So let's give this team the opportunity to investigate what exactly occurred and get to the bottom of this so that we can hold accountable those who are responsible.

Q    Right, but what I'm asking is you said that it will cross the red line if their chemical weapons were used or distributed because of the Assad regime.  What I'm asking is will a prevention or inhibition of the investigators also be some kind of trigger for the administration, because what other incentive does Assad have to let them investigate?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, he has previously stated, or at least indicated -- his regime has -- that it's in the interest of the regime to get a full investigation of what's happening.  So even if he wants to continue to ignore the strong urgings of the international community, he has already articulated that it's in the best interest of his regime for an investigation to be conducted. 

So even if he doesn't want to listen to the rest of the global community, he can follow through on his own rhetoric.

Q    So if he impedes the actions of the investigators, will that cross any line for the administration?

MR. EARNEST:  We certainly would like to see this cooperation -- well, look, it’s not even a matter of cooperation.  What we would like to see is the Assad regime not interfere with this investigation.  The Assad regime does have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the team as they're doing their -- as they're conducting the investigation.  But really what we’re looking for is unfettered access to the witnesses, the opportunity to visit the site where this allegedly occurred, the opportunity to collect some physical evidence without manipulation from the Assad regime.  And let’s let the investigation move forward, and we’ll judge the results accordingly.

Jim.

Q    On the big picture of foreign policy right now, you have Russia ignoring our request for Snowden, ignoring our request for cooperation with Syria and putting pressure on Syria.  You have Egypt ignoring requests to stop the violence.  And you have Syria ignoring requests to stop using chemical weapons or killing their own people.  These are all greeted with -- or responded to by the Obama administration with some harsh condemnations, we’re greatly disappointed.  But there is a perception among some that this is weakness on the part of the Obama administration.  Can you address that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I would say a couple of things about that.  You are referring to some very difficult and in some cases intractable problems that in some cases are bearing some very severe consequences for the people who live in these countries.  There’s no doubt about that.

The United States has a responsibility to be a part of the international effort to address those problems for a variety of reasons.  One of them is that it is the desire of the United States of America to have good relationships with these countries.

And what we are trying to do is, in many of these cases, is to marshal some international support and to work with our friends and allies, to work with our partners in the region.  And we have done that with some success and with some progress that's notable in a variety of circumstances.

And what we would like to see moving forward is a continued effort on the part of the international community to work together to address some of these problems.  But we would also like to see in a lot of these situations the leaders of these countries to respect the basic human rights of the people that they govern, the people that they lead.  That's true of the Assad regime in Syria, and that's certainly true of the interim government in Egypt -- sort of the two most intractable problems that we’ve been dealing with lately.

Q    But there are people who are wondering when the United States -- and is Mr. Obama, President Obama willing to use the stick along with the rhetoric that's coming from this platform and also from President Obama himself.  Is there a real stick?  Should these countries fear the United States and fear when the United States says we condemn what you’re doing?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, you’re asking a philosophical question that I think is an entirely legitimate one.  It might be one that's better posed to the Commander-in-Chief himself.

Q    Bring him out.

MR. EARNEST:  But let me say this, I think the President’s willingness to use force to protect the interests of the American people has been well documented by a lot of people in this room.  I think that's particularly true when you consider the effort that this administration has implemented to go after the core leadership of al Qaeda that previously was at least intact along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That’s no longer the case.  Osama bin Laden is no longer there plotting against the United States and our allies.  That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a continuing threat that’s posed by other elements of al Qaeda, but that threat has changed because of this President’s willingness to use some force.

There also are plenty of other ways in which we have worked with the international community to accomplish some objectives and to make some progress on things.  The President took a trip to Africa where he highlighted some of the strong relationships the United States has with some countries there.  And this is some of the work that the President vowed to do when he took office, which is to rebuild some of the relationships that were in tatters when this President entered the Oval Office.  That strengthens the position of the United States on the international scene.  It’s good for our broader national security interests, but it is something the President and senior members of his team have to work on every single day.

Peter.

Q    Josh, so far, in Syria, more than 100,000 people have been killed.  That’s effectively like wiping out the whole city of South Bend, Indiana.  How many more people in Syria need to die before the U.S. does employ some use of force beyond the humanitarian aid that we’re providing or the provisions of small arms before there is a U.S. military use of force?

MR. EARNEST:  Peter, what the President does as he is evaluating difficult foreign policy problems like this is assess the national security interests of the United States of America.  And that’s exactly what the President has done in this circumstance.  And he has assessed that the best way for us to tackle this problem is to work closely with our international allies to present a united front to the Assad regime. 

It has involved working with our partners to try to pressure Bashar al-Assad to respect basic human rights and to leave power.  It has involved providing assistance to the Syrian Opposition Council and to the Syrian military council to aid them as they fight against elements of the Assad regime troops who are waging war against them.  It also means providing humanitarian assistance -- as I mentioned earlier, the United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance -- to try to meet the needs of those people in Syria who are bearing the brunt of the violence in Syria.

Q    Does this change the calculation?  If this, in fact, is the case, does this change the calculation for the President?  You had said before that boots on the ground was not an option.  Does this change that?

MR. EARNEST:  Before we suggest what may or may not happen as a result of the investigation’s findings being revealed, let’s start with making sure that this investigation actually gets conducted in a manner that is credible.

Q    Fair enough.  So last time, during the investigation, several months passed before the U.S. took any form of action.  In this case there’s no reason to believe that the U.N. will be granted access to that location given the fact that the terms of the negotiation between the regime and the U.N. inspectors --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think I might quibble with that just a little bit because there actually is an investigations team that is in Syria right now.  So I think that makes it slightly more likely, but we’ll see -- it certainly makes it easier for the Assad regime to facilitate their access to these sites.  There is a bunch -- the access of this team to the country represents at least one negotiating step that doesn’t have to occur.

So, again, we’re going to see -- and this is a test for the Assad regime about whether or not they’re going to live up to their rhetoric here.  But I’m not sure that this is exactly the same situation that we were facing before.

Q    And what’s also unique here is that the terms have already been negotiated between the U.N. inspectors and the regime in advance of their arrival, suggesting they could only go to those communities, which is why --

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, that suggests that there might be a framework in place that could be applied in this circumstance.

Q    So if they do not get access -- which appears to be the case right now -- the Syrians have said they will not grant them access to those specific locations.  Last time around when the White House spoke about the use of chemical weapons, they referred to it as having taken place on a small scale.  Does this qualify as a large scale, as a more significant scale?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, you’re referring to an intelligence community assessment about the previous use of chemical weapons.  I don’t have an assessment about this particular circumstance to share with you at this point.  But this is certainly one of the things that could be determined by a legitimate, credible investigation.  And it’s among the many reasons why the Assad regime should facilitate the investigators' access to that site. 

Q    Two more quick things.  One, Jeffrey Goldberg today writes, “Why would the Assad regime launch its biggest chemical attack on rebels and civilians precisely at the moment when a U.N. inspection team” -- as you noted – “was parked in Damascus?  The answer” -- he suggests – “to that question is easy: Because Assad believes that no one -- not the U.N., not President Obama, not other Western powers…will do a damn thing to stop him.  There is a good chance that he is correct."  Is the U.S. going to do anything to stop him beyond what it's done?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are a number of steps that we have taken, and I've walked through what those steps are.  Those involve humanitarian aid.  That involves close coordination with our allies. 

Q    It hasn't stopped.

MR. EARNEST:  It involves important conversations with regional partners.  And it involves some assistance to the Syrian military council.  So there are a range of things that we've done already.  In terms of additional assistance that could be provided, I certainly wouldn't rule that out.  But that's something that we are considering on a pretty regular basis.  And the conduct of this investigation, the results of this investigation or the efforts by the Assad regime to inhibit this investigation will certainly impact that calculation about possible additional aid.

Q    My last question is on Bradley Manning.  His attorneys are saying that they're going to apply for a presidential pardon.  Will the President grant Bradley Manning a presidential pardon?

MR. EARNEST:  There's a process for pardon applications or clemency applications, I believe they're called.  And I'm not going to get ahead of that process.  If there is an application that's filed by Mr. Manning or his attorneys, that application will be considered in that process like any other application.

Ed.

Q    Josh, when you were talking on Syria here about tough statements coming from this government, other governments around the world, I think Julie noted earlier it was one year ago this month the President said at that podium in a news conference that if chemical weapons were used or spread in Syria, that would be a red line.  But his next sentence was -- “and there would be enormous consequences.”  So Julie got at this and I didn't hear an answer.  What have the consequences been?  Where are the consequences?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are a number of them.  We've talked about the steady escalation of aid that has been provided to the Syrian opposition, and that is an effort to try to help the opposition weather the war that's being waged against them by the Assad regime.  We have also talked about our insistence that those who are responsible for the handling of chemical weapons will be personally held accountable for the responsibility that they have in the handling of those weapons.

Q    But it's been a year since the President made that statement.  So you're saying they’ll be held accountable.  It's been a year.

MR. EARNEST:  It has been.  And we are in a circumstance where the Assad regime is still in power.  But you have a large segment of the international community aligned against them.  You have the United States of America providing assistance to the opposition.  You have the United States of America trying to meet the humanitarian needs or assist in the meeting of the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people.  And this is a situation that is ongoing.  And our efforts to work with the international community and to work with the Syrian opposition, to remove Assad from power are ongoing. 

And, again, we're working in that effort not just because it's the preference of the United States, but because it's the will of the Syrian people.  And that, ultimately, is what we would like to be the outcome here -- a government that reflects the will of the Syrian people and that respects the basic human rights that the Syrian people deserve to have protected by their government.

Q    So applying the same -- and Jim got at this a bit about the rhetoric in many of these cases -- be shifted to Egypt with people being killed, Christians in particular being targeted, churches being destroyed.  What's the President's red line in Egypt?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I didn't bring my red pen out with me today.  But I can tell you that we have condemned in unambiguous terms all the violence that's been perpetrated there in Egypt.  We have been concerned and condemn the violence that was perpetrated by the government against peaceful protestors.  And we're just as outraged and just as concerned about reports that Christian churches have been targeted.

The violence in Egypt should come to an end.  It needs to stop.  And that is the way that we're going to facilitate the kind of reconciliation that will allow the interim government to make good on their promise to transition back to a democratically elected, civilian government.  We need to see an inclusive process get started there, and that’s something that we are encouraging the interim government to undertake.

Q    Last topic.  Do you have any reaction to the Christopher Lane case?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not familiar with it, actually.

Q    In Oklahoma, this 22-year-old Australian -- 22 or 23, I've seen different reports -- baseball player, came from Australia, was targeted apparently by three African American young men who -- the Australian was out on a jog and these young men apparently told the police they were bored and they thought it would just be fun to kill him.  Any reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, just that this sounds like a pretty tragic case.  I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the legal process here.  And it's clear that law enforcement officials are involved as they’re investigating.

But these -- any act of violence is something that -- the President, I think, himself has spoken pretty eloquently about violence in our communities, and he stood at this podium a few weeks ago where he talked about his concern about the impact that violence is having on, in particular, young people in this country.

Q    Yes, we heard him on Trayvon Martin here and in the Rose Garden.  Why hasn't he spoken out on this, in this case?  You said there was a judicial proceeding; there was one in the Trayvon Martin case.  He spoke out extensively on that one.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm not sure that -- there are some people in this room I don’t think who would agree with you that the President spoke out extensively on it.  I think that he answered a --

Q    It was in the Rose Garden, he spoke on it, got a question. 

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, and he got asked a question about it.

Q    And he didn’t have to answer but he did, and then he came out here himself --

MR. EARNEST:  At the conclusion of the legal process and shared some thoughts --

Q    Sure, for several minutes.

MR. EARNEST:  -- that are, I think -- where he expressed his concerns about the impact of violence in communities all across the country, and he talked about the number of things that the government can do but also a number of things we can do in our communities, whether it's parents, churches and communities can do to try to address the impact of violence, and whether there is more that we can do to try to protect our children.

Major.

Q    Hi Josh, can you talk about the meeting yesterday with the National Security Council and the President?  How long did it last?  What is the decision point the President is at going forward with Egypt?  Is it, as you suggested yesterday, more likely if there are not concrete steps taken by the transitional government -- things like Apache helicopters, M1-A1 tanks --things that are pending in the next three or four weeks will be delayed or cancelled entirely?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, the President did meet with his national security team in the Situation Room yesterday.  They met for more than an hour.  They had an opportunity to talk about the consultation that senior members of his team have been having with their counterparts in Egypt.  You've heard me say this a number of times in the last few days that Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, other senior members of the Obama administration have been in touch with their counterparts in recent days and weeks as the situation in Egypt has evolved.  This is an opportunity for the President to hear directly from them about those conversations. 

As you've also heard me say in recent weeks, the President in early July ordered his team to conduct a review of our aid and assistance program to Egypt.  And this was an opportunity for the President to hear from senior members of his team about that ongoing review.  There has been no -- that review today continues to be conducted.  So there’s no change to report at this time as it relates to our aid and assistance program in relationship with Egypt.

There also was an opportunity for the President to hear from some senior members of his team about the security situation in Cairo.  We still have personnel and facilities in Cairo in particular, but in other places in Egypt.  And the President was briefed on that.

And then finally, we’ve also been in regular touch with our allies and partners in the region who have a stake in the outcome in Egypt and have been engaged in trying to find a solution.  And the President was given the opportunity to hear from them about the conversations they’ve had with our allies and partners as well.

Q    Based on that briefing, does the President believe there are extra security precautions that can or should be taken for Americans in Egypt?

MR. EARNEST:  Nothing that I’m prepared to announce right now.

Q    On the NSA story that was in The Wall Street Journal today, is it really credible now for this White House to continue to say, as the President said on Jay Leno, there is not a domestic surveillance program going on in this country?

MR. EARNEST:  Of course.

Q    Even though as these disclosures continue to show up, there is ample evidence and confirmation, in some cases, that surveillance activities that the public was not aware of do go on on a rather ordinary basis and feel and look as if there is a sort of a constant net out there that, if not in every way, according to the President’s point of view on surveillance, would strike many Americans as sort of an ongoing domestic surveillance program?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think even the report in The Wall Street Journal was pretty clear about the fact that what we’re talking about here is a narrowly focused program that's aimed specifically at foreign intelligence, and that the goal here is to implement these programs in a way --

Q    Aims and goals.  But as the report indicated and other reports have, there are more than one or two instances where emails or conversations that don't fit into those particular identified legally established surveillance guidelines do get surveilled.

MR. EARNEST:  And the reason that we know about that, the reason that you read about it in The Wall Street Journal, and the reason that we’re talking about it right now is because there are very strict compliance standards in place at the NSA that monitor for compliance issues, that tabulate them, that document them, and that put in place measures to correct them when they occur.  So I’d actually refer you back to --

Q    So there’s a tabulation of the domestic surveillance?

MR. EARNEST:  So there’s a tabulation of compliance issues.  This is a program that is related specifically to foreign intelligence and foreign surveillance for our national security purposes.  So I think The Wall Street Journal in that respect was pretty specific about the aims of that program and how some of those aims were achieved.

Now, at the same time, when this President took office, he acknowledged in a news conference with all of you that when he took office, he had some inherent skepticism about these programs and about whether they did properly strike the balance between protecting our national security and protecting the privacy rights that all Americans enjoy.

So, as a result of that skepticism, he ordered a review of these programs, and as a result of that review, some steps were taken to put in place stricter compliance standards, greater transparency measures, and additional responsibilities for the intelligence community to report to Congress, who has oversight responsibility.  So the President has taken some steps to address these concerns. 

The last thing I’ll say about this is, as we’ve talked about this in recent months, one thing that has become clear is that these programs are operated by national security professionals, and that the conduct of these programs is critical to our national security.  There are documented cases where these programs have contributed to the disruption of terror plots.  There are documented cases where these programs have strengthened not just our homeland security, but also the security of our assets and our allies around the globe.  So we’re talking about very important programs, but the President feels just as strongly about the need to make sure that we’re striking the right balance between our national security and privacy.

I actually do want to add one more thing, which is that we have heard in recent weeks suggestions from members of Congress that there are additional things that we can do to strengthen the oversight of these programs and to make sure that these strict compliance standards are met.  So if there are individual members of Congress that have suggestions for additional changes that they would like to enact into law, the President and other senior members of his administration are willing to sit down at the table with them to put in place greater transparency measures.

The reason for that is simply the President believes that these programs will work better if there is public confidence in them.  So if we can inspire greater public confidence in these programs by being slightly more transparent or by putting in place additional oversight measures, then we’re certainly willing to work with Congress to implement those changes.

Q    Let me just follow up on Jim’s question about weakness.  Maybe that's maybe not the way the administration looks at it, but does it at times feel, particularly in Syria in and in Egypt, powerless to affect events the way they would like to?

MR. EARNEST:  Of course not.  And the reason for that is very simple, which is that the President believes that there is a role for the international community to play in those both of these instances.  And this President and this country have taken a leadership role in the international community.

Q    And the result of that international community pressure in Syria are -- you would concede extremely hard to find, would you not?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I would say is that -- I acknowledged a couple of times that we have not, to this point, achieved our ultimate goal, which is removing Bashar al-Assad from power.  And again, that is something that we seek to do not just because it’s our preference, but because it’s the will of the Syrian people. 

And there is international -- broad international support for that.  And there is also broad international support in Egypt in terms of asking the interim government to follow through on their promise to transition back to a democratically elected, civilian government.  And there is a role for the international community to play, and there is a leadership role for the United States to play in the international community. 

And you’re right, in both instances we have not attained our ultimate goal.  But that is something that we --

Q    Maybe some of your incremental goals --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that's harder to assess.  What I can tell you is that there are -- that we’ve got some work to do in both of these areas, and this is something that we’re actively working on, whether it’s a national security meeting that the President convenes in the Situation Room, whether it is meetings and consultations at the United Nations that are conducted by Ambassador Power, whether it is conversations with Cabinet officials here.  Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel and others are working in coordinated fashion to try to address some of these challenges.

Jessica.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  As you said yesterday, many people have Beau Biden in their thoughts and prayers.  There have been some reports that he may have a potentially worrisome medical condition.  Can you tell us anything about his condition and the President’s latest contact with the Vice President?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not in the position to offer any new details about the medical condition of Mr. Biden.  When additional details are available, they will likely be communicated to you through the Delaware Attorney General’s Office. 

I don't have any update in terms of conversations between the President and Vice President.  And it’s the Vice President’s Office who is maintaining the Vice President’s schedule, so I don't have any updates on the schedule.  As you know, he is in Houston today.  At this point, he is still scheduled to join the President in Scranton on Friday, but we’ll see.  And if there are any changes to the schedule to announce, we’ll get them to you.

Q    Okay.  Following up on a question you said you would take yesterday, the U.S. government currently classifies marijuana in the category of most dangerous drugs with no medical benefit, the same category as heroin and more harmful than cocaine or meth.  Sanjay Gupta, as you may know, has just  --

MR. EARNEST:  Who is your distinguished colleague.

Q    Yes, my distinguished colleague, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, has just called for a reconsideration by the government.  So given the reported medical benefits of marijuana, does the President believe the government should reconsider this classification?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jessica, I can tell you that the administration’s position on this has been clear and consistent for some time now, that while the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the President and the administration believe that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers, is not the best allocation of federal law enforcement resources.

I looked it up -- I think the President last talked about this in an interview he did with Barbara Walters back in December, where she asked him a similar question.  And the President acknowledged that the priority here -- the priority in terms of the dedication of law enforcement resources should be targeted toward drug kingpins, drug traffickers and others who perpetrate violence in the conduct of the drug trade; that that is the best use of our law enforcement resources.  But at the same time, the President does not at this point advocate a change in the law.

Q    Is he willing to take steps to make it easier to conduct research on marijuana's medical benefits?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not exactly sure what steps are required or what changes could be implemented into the law to have an impact on marijuana research.

Q    Okay.  Maybe you could let us know. 

MR. EARNEST:  For some reason I have the sneaking suspicion that this is going to draw me all kinds of traffic on Twitter.  (Laughter.)  I'm just -- I'm predicting that now.  And maybe I'll have an update for you later about that.

Q    Maybe I'll bring you some Doritos later.  (Laughter.) 

There are fires burning in 11 states across the nation impacting tens of thousands of acres.  Has the President considered stepping up federal involvement in fighting the fires, and has he considered visiting any of these states?

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, that’s a good question, because there actually has been quite a bit of federal involvement here.  The President was briefed on the situation -- the President got a briefing yesterday on the efforts to fight the firefighters -- fire -- there's a lot of Fs involved in this.  The President was briefed yesterday on the wildfire situation that's occurred throughout the West, and the efforts that are currently underway to fight those fires.  I got it right that time.

One thing that has been announced recently -- and I think this was also just yesterday -- by the National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group -- they elevated the national preparedness level from four to five at 6:00 a.m. yesterday.  Now, what that does is it allows greater state and federal resources to be applied to confront this situation.  The assessment of the preparedness level is based on fire conditions, fire activity, and resource availability. 

There are more than 40 uncontained large wildfires all across the West, including in states like Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.  There are more than 19,000 federal, state, and local personnel who are fighting those fires, including 1,700 who have responded to the Beaver Creek fire in Idaho that has gotten a lot of attention in the last couple of days.

Since the start of the wildfire season, FEMA has approved 26 fire management assistance grants, including a fire management assistance grant that was provided on August 15th to fight the Beaver Creek fire in Idaho.  These fire management assistance grants, what they do is they provide resources, both monetary and otherwise, to state and local officials who are responsible for fighting these fires.  So there is a robust effort underway at the federal level to support the ongoing efforts. 

I should have started this comment by saying something that I think is true of everybody in this room, which is that our thoughts and prayers are with those families and those communities that have been affected by these fires.  And our thoughts and prayers in particular are with those who are risking their lives right now to fight these fires. 

April.

Q    Josh, can you talk to me about Cory Booker and the President's endorsement of Cory Booker, and particularly his comments that came out talking about how Cory Booker would help him in the fight -- the gun issue that he's trying to win?

MR. EARNEST:  You just want me to talk about it?  I'm not sure that I have a whole lot more to add than what the President has said about this.  I know that Mayor Booker has been a leading advocate of steps that can be taken to reduce gun violence in communities all across the country.  The President certainly shares that goal.  And you've heard the President talk quite a bit about steps that he believes that Congress should take to reduce gun violence in this country.  That's everything from passing laws that make it harder for criminals and others who shouldn't have guns, make it harder for those individuals to obtain firearms.  There are also a range of things that we can do on areas like mental health and education that also stand to reduce gun violence in communities all across the country.

But I know that Mayor Booker has also made middle-class families a priority in trying to fight for expanded economic access for -- expand economic opportunity for middle-class families.  And that is also a priority that the President has been loudly advocating.  And that would be another thing that the President would look forward to the opportunity to work with Mr. Booker to make progress on.

Q    So along those lines -- I’m going to branch off of this but still on the same line -- so has the President still been, in the midst of all of this, everything else that's going, he is still trying to galvanize his group to help him push this gun legislation through as he is talking about bringing Cory Booker into this?

MR. EARNEST:  The steps that we can put in place to reduce gun violence remains a domestic policy priority of this administration.  And we are willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to make progress on it.  And there was a high-profile vote in the spring that left the President pretty disappointed -- might be characterizing it mildly.  And we look forward to an opportunity to revisit not just a vote on that one specific issue related to closing loopholes in the background check system, but on a variety of measures that would address the scourge of gun violence in our communities. 

Q    So is Cory Booker somewhat -- a more interesting person to help them with this, as New Jersey was one of the first states who came out with this anti-assault weapon ban in the '90s?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that the words that the President had about Mayor Booker today were concentrated mostly on Mayor Booker's record on these issues and his advocacy on these issues, and had less to do with the state in which he resides.

We’ll do a couple more here.  Roger.

Q    Can you talk a little bit about the plans for tomorrow, the education plans?  And, specifically, is there anything aimed at for-profit higher education institutions?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not in a position right now to talk about any of the policy details the President is going to roll out tomorrow, beyond just characterizing for you that the President's comments will be focused on reducing the cost of a college education for families all across the country, because it's so important for middle-class families and those families trying to get to the middle class to have access to programs like that.

Q    Plans for a briefing?

MR. EARNEST:  Not that I can share with you at this point, but we're working on it.

Ari.

Q    You've talked about meetings the President has had in the last few days with regulators, with health care officials, on Egypt.  And I wonder with so many crises brewing domestically and around the world, if you could explain the decision to only have the President appear in a very lighthearted event with the 1972 Dolphins.  I wonder if you think there's a disconnect between events in the world and the way the President presents himself here.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I would say a couple of things about that.  The event with the Dolphins was something that was long scheduled and long planned, and it was something that the President did enjoy.  But I don't think that anybody has reason to question the seriousness with which the President confronts these challenges that we're facing.  The President delivered some very sober and serious remarks last Thursday, where he talked about the need of the interim Egyptian government to live up to their promise to transition back to a democratically elected, civilian government.  He called on them to end the violence there.

So I'm not sure what the President will -- well, I think that is an indication that the President is focused on these issues.  And I think the fact that he had a meeting with his national security team yesterday that Major and I talked about a little bit is an indication this is something that he is focused on.  And that will continue. 

We're going to -- as Roger alluded to -- spend some time on a bus in New York and Pennsylvania at the end of this week talking about another priority of the President's, which is reducing the cost of a college education.  But that doesn't mean that there's any less attention being paid to the ongoing violence in Egypt or reports of chemical weapons use in Syria or any of the other range of serious things that are happening all across the globe.

Q    So you don't think the American people expect to see or hear from the President on some of those crushing issues of the moment in a given week?

MR. EARNEST:  I think they expect their President to be focused on the important priorities.  And I think based on what we've communicated to you about his national security meetings, about the public statement that he delivered last Thursday and about the focus of the bus tour this week, I think there's ample evidence to indicate that the President is focused on the right things. 

Alexis, I'm going to give you the last one.

Q    Josh, can I follow up on what Roger was asking about the bus tour? 

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.

Q    There are so many Americans who are packing their kids off this week or next week and writing these enormous checks for college.  And they're going to be wondering if the President has anything to propose that might actually affect the cost that they're incurring now.  Can you add anything about whether they should expect to hear from the President in a way that would help them with the expenses now in this academic year?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't want to get ahead of any of the policy announcements for tomorrow.  So just stay tuned. 

Q    Can you also expand on just why New York and Pennsylvania?  He could have gone to many other campuses.  Can you give us a hint?

MR. EARNEST:  That will be something that will be a little bit clearer after we've talked a little bit more about the policy proposals the President will unveil.

Q    So there are going to be examples.  He is going to use them as good examples?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, wait and see tomorrow, and we'll see what happens.

Q    I wanted to follow up also on what you were talking about with the front row.  The President at his news conference talked about trying to put together a task force on surveillance to offer him some expertise from the private sector and other expertise.  Maybe I missed it, but what's the update on when we might see that group of people put together?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have an update on the specific timing in which that will be announced, but I know that's something that is being actively worked on since the President announced it.  But I think it would be another example of the President's desire to work with members of Congress and others who have an expertise to inspire greater confidence in these programs -- that if there are steps related to advancements in technology that would allow us to strengthen these programs but also strengthen the oversight, then we want to hear those ideas. 

And so putting together an outside group like this to examine some of these issues and to examine their impact on the programs is an example of the President's efforts to further refine these programs in a way that will strengthen public confidence in them, and therefore strengthen the programs altogether. 

Thanks, everybody.  Have a good Wednesday.

Q    Can I ask you about Bradley Manning real fast?

MR. EARNEST:  No, not today.  Thank you.

END
2:01 P.M. EDT

Press Briefing by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 8/20/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:12 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  I actually have a little announcement at the top to review with you.  I wanted to talk to you a little bit more this afternoon about the President’s upcoming bus tour through New York and Pennsylvania where he is going to talk about his vision for ensuring a better bargain for the middle class.

He’s given some speeches already to talk about creating jobs, about improving the housing market.  He’s going to talk a little bit this week about college affordability.  As I mentioned yesterday never before has getting a college education been more important to ensuring that middle-class families have access to economic opportunity. 

So there are some pretty compelling statistics that you can see behind me about what a problem this is.  Average tuition at a public, four-year college has more than tripled -- tripled -- over the last three decades, while family incomes have barely increased.  The average student today graduates with more than $26,000 in student debt.

Now what we do know is that Americans who are able to get a college education, those who graduate from college, have the power and capacity to earn more, and they have a lower unemployment rate.  So the kind of investment that you make in a college education pays off in real economic terms.

Now, there was also a study that was published today that shows that the federal government is doing more than ever to open up the door to a college education to middle-class families, that the federal government is providing more assistance than ever before.  But government assistance can't keep up with skyrocketing costs.  So what the President believes that we need to do is we need to fundamentally rethink and reshape the college -- the higher education system, and we need to find a way to build on innovation.

So the President on this bus tour will lay out some fundamental reforms that would bring real change to the way that we pay for college education in this country.  

Now, the proposals that the President is going to lay out are not going to be popular with everybody, but they are going to be in the best interest of middle-class families.  And the President is looking forward to having that discussion over the course of Thursday and Friday in addition riding on a bus.

So with that -- 

Q    So can you tell us what the reforms are?

MR. EARNEST:  I -- you’ll have to wait to Thursday.  I don't want to give away the secret now.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Please.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Josh, are you going to have a backgrounder sometime before Thursday?

MR. EARNEST:  There’s a possibility we may do that.  So we’ll keep you posted.

Q    Can you give a sense if they are things Congress will have to do, or if they're executive decisions?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll have more on that this week.  Stay tuned.  All right.

Julie, I’ll give you the first one.

Q    Thank you.  Turning to Egypt.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes.

Q    Senator Leahy’s office told the AP earlier today that the administration informed the subcommittee on foreign operations that the U.S. has stopped military aid to Egypt.  The Daily Beast had a similar report.  Is this what the administration has told lawmakers?

MR. EARNEST:  Julie, what I said to you yesterday and what I -- let me start over, what I said yesterday is true today, which is that in early July, the President of the United States directed his national security team to conduct a review of the assistance and aid that we provide to Egypt.  This is part of the complex and broad relationship that we have the Egyptians -- with the Egyptians. 

That review that the President ordered in early July has not concluded, and reports to the contrary that -- published reports to the contrary that suggest that assistance to Egypt has been cut off are not accurate.

Q    But while you’re conducting this review, has the aid that’s in the pipeline stopped? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let’s back up and do two things here.  The first is there are some things that we have announced that affect the aid and assistance relationship that we have with Egypt.  For example, the administration about a month ago announced that the scheduled delivery of F-16s had been delayed.  The President announced in a statement last week that the joint military operation known as Bright Star had been canceled.  So there have been some steps that this administration has taken.

But it’s important for you and your readers to understand that providing foreign assistance is not like a spigot.  You don't turn it off and on, or turn it up or down like a faucet.  Assistance is provided episodically, that it’s provided in specific tranches.

Q    Yes, I get that.  I get that.  But --

MR. EARNEST:  And so those tranches are under an ongoing review.

Q    But while you’re undergoing this review, we do know that there is about a half a billion dollars in military aid that's scheduled to go to the Egyptians by September 30th that hasn’t gone to them yet.  Is the policy of the administration that while the aid is under review, you're going to be holding that back, stopping it and waiting until this review finishes before deciding to send it?

MR. EARNEST:  There is an ongoing review of our aid and assistance relationship with Egypt.  

Q    So you're not saying what Senator Leahy is saying is wrong?  He is saying that the aid has stopped.  And he also said -- one of his aides told us that this is current practice.  This is not necessarily official policy.  I'm just trying to understand, is what Senator Leahy said correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I haven't seen the entirety of Senator Leahy's remarks. 

Q    It's what I’m sitting here and telling you, that he said that U.S. military aid to Egypt has stopped.  It's current practice, not necessarily official policy.  And there is no indication of how long it will last.  

MR. EARNEST:  The aid -- our aid and assistance relationship with Egypt is under a review, but it has not been cut off.  A decision to cut off aid --

Q    Yes --

MR. EARNEST:  A decision to cut off aid would be announced, if it were to be announced, after that review had been completed.  And that review is being -- 

Q    But he's not saying it's been cut off.  He's just saying that it's currently stopped.  

MR. EARNEST:  Right.  Well, I think if I were trying to make the same case people are making here, you would be suggesting that I was engaged in a game of semantics here.  I’m trying to be --

Q    It feels like we are kind of engaged in a game of semantics though. 

MR. EARNEST:  And I'm trying to be as candid as possible with you about what exactly our policy has been.  We have been pretty forthcoming about what our policy is here.  We announced publicly the delay in the F-16s.  We -- the President himself announced publicly the cancelation of the joint military exercises.  The President himself publicly directed his administration to conduct a broader review of our aid and assistance to Egypt.  And that aid and assistance is ongoing, and no determination or conclusion of that review has been reached at this point. 

Q    So the aid and assistance is ongoing.  It's being sent.  It has not stopped. 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, it’s not like -- this is not a faucet in which you just turn the spigot and assistance continues to flow.  Assistance is provided episodically.  Assistance is provided in tranches.  And that is the way that this works.  So this is not a matter of turning the dial one way or the other.  This is a matter of taking a close and careful look at the assistance that the United States provides to our partners in Egypt.

And that evaluation is based on a few things.  It's based on ensuring that we're in compliance with the law.  It's based on an analysis of the national security interests of the United States of America.  That's the focal point of every foreign policy decision that the President makes.  It's certainly an important part of his calculation.  

But it's also affected by the actions taken by the interim Egyptian government.  This interim Egyptian government has made promises to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government.  The violence that they perpetrated last week, and has continued at least into the weekend and the early parts of this week, are contrary to that promise.  And that factors into our review of this aid and assistance relationship.  But to suggest that a decision has been made about that aid and assistance is just not accurate. 

Q    Well, that's not what Leahy is suggesting.  

MR. EARNEST:  Maybe it's not.  I haven't seen the statements.  But if you're asking me what our policy is, I think I've just tried to explain it to you. 

Q    Just quickly then, speaking of the Egyptian military and their actions, they've detained the Supreme Leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Is there any U.S. reaction to that development?

MR. EARNEST:  We've spoken out a couple of times pretty forcefully and directly about politically motivated detentions.  That is not in line with the standard that we expect other governments to uphold in terms of respecting human rights.  It's certainly not the standard that the Egyptian people expect of their government in terms of upholding basic human rights.  So this is just the latest in a series of actions the Egyptian government has taken that doesn't reflect their commitment to an inclusive political process, to a respect for basic human rights like the right to protest peacefully.  And it certainly is an act that's contrary to a legal system that's insulated from politics.

Thank you, Julie.  Roberta. 

Q    In Mali, a place where the United States was able to make the determination to turn off the spigot of aid, the President made a statement today about the elections and the outcome.  

MR. EARNEST:  He did. 

Q    I'm wondering I guess how close the United States is to resuming aid there, to making the decisions/determinations to go forward, to resume aid?

MR. EARNEST:  I know this is something that's currently being evaluated by the State Department, and I think at the Department of Defense.  So in terms of the logistics that are required there, I'd encourage you to check with them. 

Q    So the White House has no comment on whether the President or the White House would like to see aid resume?

MR. EARNEST:  Just that this is something that's being reviewed by the State Department and the Department of Defense.  So if you have questions about the details, I'd encourage you to check with them. 

Q    And the other question I have is, as you know, this fall the President faces the challenge of finding a way to work with Congress to keep the government running and make sure the United States can continue to repay its debt.  So I'm just curious about why he’s using his time leading up to that debate to focus on issues like higher education and jobs and infrastructure, rather than using it to find a way to move forward on those immediate fiscal issues, those immediate economic issues.

MR. EARNEST:  When I say that I genuinely appreciate the question, I genuinely do appreciate this question, because I do think that it will provide some insight into you about how the President -- provide some insight for you about the President considers these broader issues that will be the subject of some debate in the fall about how are we going to make sure that Congress takes the kinds of steps they should take and put in place the kinds of policies they should put in place to support our economic recovery that's gaining traction.

Too often we see Congress put in place policies that actually undermine that economic recovery.  And threatening a government shutdown or threatening to default on the full faith and credit of the United States of America would undermine the economic recovery that's starting to gain some traction.  

The way that the President considers these policy questions is through the prism of what's in the best interests of middle-class families all across the country.  And he believes that we need to offer up a better bargain for middle-class families.  And that means expanding economic opportunity for middle-class families, by looking for policies that will create jobs -- but also making sure that we put in place policies that will open up the doors to a high-quality college education for more middle-class families.  That should be a domestic priority.  That is a domestic priority of the President's. 

And our ability to make progress on expanding economic opportunity for the middle class is the President's top domestic priority.  And so when we're dealing with these larger budget and economic issues that are related to the fiscal year 2014 budget and the debt ceiling, the President is going to evaluate agreements that we can reach with Congress on those things by what impact they have on the middle class.  So I think it is entirely appropriate that in the lead-up to those debates that the President make clear to the American public, and make the case to the American public, about why the priorities that he has identified for the middle-class are also going to be the priorities that he uses to evaluate policy decisions that are contemplated by Congress. 

Jessica. 

Q    Josh, in an effort to clarify the state of U.S. assistance to Egypt, would you -- 

MR. EARNEST:  That's why I'm here.  

Q    Great.  (Laughter.)  Would you dispute the following statement:  Aid is not currently flowing to Egypt, so there is no aid to turn off?

MR. EARNEST:  I would dispute that statement.  It's my understanding -- I'm not steeped in all the details here, but it is my understanding that there are -- 

Q    Military aid. 

MR. EARNEST:  -- that there are tranches of assistance that have gone to Egypt.  So again this is not part of -- there are also some that have been stopped.  The biggest ones have been stopped.  This is the delay in the delivery of the F-16s and the cancelation of the joint military exercise known as Bright Star.  

I think the Department of Defense talked about this a little bit today that there have been some -- 

Q    Military aid.  

MR. EARNEST:  -- in comparison relatively small packages of assistance that have gone to Egypt. 

Q    Military aid?

MR. EARNEST:  You'd have to talk to the Department of Defense about the nature of that assistance.  But we're talking about assistance to Egypt and whether or not it stopped.  And while you're right it's not like a faucet -- you can't just twist the dial off and on, or turn it up or down, or hotter or warmer or colder -- but it is evaluated in tranches.  And while that broader package of assistance is under review, there are some smaller packages that have moved forward. 

Q    And would you dispute the assertion that aid has been reprogrammed while this review is underway so that it's in a position to be turned off officially if the -- if administration officials decide that's where the U.S. should be?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not sure I understand every word of your question, but let me take a couple of pieces of this.  It's my understanding that the use of the word "reprogram" is not accurate.  I know that's been some of the reporting, but I don't think that's accurate.

I think there are others who have suggested that one of the things the administration is doing is trying to preserve some flexibility, so that the outcome of that review can present the President with a range of options.  I think that would probably be maybe a more accurate way of describing this than what you have posed in your question. 

Q    So it would be accurate to say that the U.S., as we speak, continues to flow military aid to Egypt?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again you use the word "flow," and I've said that several times now that that's not appropriate. 

Q    Okay, the U.S. continues to provide military aid to Egypt as we speak?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that's the same thing of saying that we haven't cut off -- it's inaccurate to suggest that we've cut off aid to Egypt.  We can go around and around on this.  I'm trying to be as clear and candid as I can. 

Q    But there's a reason you're not confirming that we are currently providing military aid to Egypt. 

MR. EARNEST:  Again, because it's not like the faucet is turned on.  Right?

Q    But we understand that. 

MR. EARNEST:  It's not.  The faucet is not turned on, because it's not a faucet.  What we are doing on a regular basis is we are considering individual tranches of assistance. 

Q    And I just asked if it's currently going there, if there's currently aid being provided and you said yes.  

MR. EARNEST:  No, no, no.  

Q    And now you’re clarifying. 

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I said -- well, we can go to the transcript a little later.  

What I’m trying to suggest to you is that there is a broader review that's underway of our assistance and aid relationship with Egypt.  And that aid and assistance is not a faucet that's turned on or turned off.  

What it is, is a package of tranches, a series of tranches.  And each of those things -- each of those things is evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on the criteria that I laid out -- for our national interest, our compliance with the law, and the actions of the Egyptian government.  So this is a review that is ongoing, and it is done on a case-by-case basis as we need to evaluate each of these tranches.  So it’s hard for me to say whether or not --

Q    But bottom line, you’re not disputing that aid is -- you’re not stating that aid is currently going to Egypt.  You won’t -- you will not affirmatively state that?

MR. EARNEST:  What -- the reason -- the reason I will -- the reason I think that is the wrong way to describe our position is because it’s not a situation, it’s a not a question of whether or not it’s happening right now, right?  The question is --

Q    It’s not happening now?  (Laughter.) 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, maybe that's the question for Wolf Blitzer.  It’s not the question for me.  The question for me is:  Is the United States reviewing our aid to Egypt?  We are.  Is that assistance -- does that mean that you are no longer going to provide assistance to the Egyptians?  It does not mean that. 

Q    Officially.

MR. EARNEST:  Officially?  What do you mean?  

Q    Okay.

MR. EARNEST:  I don't understand your question.

Q    You’re saying that there will be an ultimate determination made.

MR. EARNEST:  There will.

Q    Right.  We’re asking what’s happening in the interim period. 

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.  And I think that's a legitimate question.  The fact that we are in an interim period should make -- that you’re acknowledging that we’re in an interim period should make you skeptical of reports that we’ve cut off aid to Egypt.  That's what the reports indicate right now, and I would encourage you to be skeptical about it.

Q    But that's a straw man, Josh.  Nobody -- 

MR. EARNEST:  No, it’s not.

Q    Nobody has asked you --

MR. EARNEST:  That's exactly what the reports say.  They say that they’ve been cut off to Egypt.  

Q    Well, okay, but nobody in this --

MR. EARNEST:  And that's not -- and that's not an accurate representation of our -- the posture is.

Q    Understood.  But nobody in this room has posed the question that way.  I think the question that most people are trying to ask is:  Have there been instances in this interim period, during the period of review, have there been instances and will there be instances in which tranches of aid that would have gone out without a review are now not going to go out or being held back or delayed --

Q    Paused.

Q    -- or put on pause or whatever phrase you want to put so that it doesn't rob the President of whatever flexibility he may want?  I mean is that kind of thing happening?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me see if I can take a run at saying this more precisely.

Q    Sorry, guys.  I didn't mean to jump in.

Q    No, no, please. 

MR. EARNEST:  That's all right.  I think you’re being a helpful contributor to the conversation here.  (Laughter.)  So we welcome it.

Q    -- speaking in tranches again.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Turn the spigot on. 

MR. EARNEST:  The comment box will be available after the briefing.  (Laughter.)  You can deposit them there.

What I would say to you is this, as I mentioned in the answer to Jessica’s question, whether tranches of aid have gone out since the announcement of this review, the Department of Defense announced earlier today that the answer to that question is yes.  I don't know the nature of that assistance.  You should ask them about that.

So if you want to know what’s happening in this interim period while there’s an ongoing review, at least some assistance has gone out.  The other thing I can confirm for you is that because we have not made a decision to cut off aid to Egypt, it is possible that additional tranches of aid could go out.  But that's something that's being evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

And again, it’s hard for me to say that we’re switching it on and switching it off because again, it’s not like a faucet.  But it is an ongoing review of specific tranches of aid.  And that’s where we -- that's where we stand.

Is that clarifying?  At least a little.

Q    But can you answer -- Josh, can you answer Senator Leahy though -- to try it this way.  Senator Leahy’s aid says, “the transfer of military aid was stopped.”  True?

MR. EARNEST:  And I’ve said that that's not true.

Q    That's not true.

MR. EARNEST:  That we’ve not -- 

Q    So Senator Leahy is wrong?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s under -- it’s under our review.  Well, again, I haven’t seen his whole statement, so I’m not going to make a declaration like that.  

What I’ll tell you is that our aid is -- continues to be under review and to suggest that that aid has been cut off is inaccurate because that review has not concluded.

Q    And why -- why won’t the administration say that it was a coup?  Since there was a democratically elected person, he was running it, people were not happy with what he’s doing, but he had been elected.  The military came in.  It knocked him out of office and put him in prison.  Why is that not a coup?

MR. EARNEST:  What we have said, Ed, is that we -- it is the view of this administration that a determination about a coup, about whether it occurred or not, is not a determination that is in the best interests of the United States; that what we are going to do is we’re going to set aside this decision about whether or not a coup occurred and evaluate our ongoing relationship with Egypt in a way that maximizes the national security interests of the United States of America.

Q    And since this is an administration that prides itself on transparency, why not be --

MR. EARNEST:  I’m being transparent with you, Ed.

Q    You are now perhaps.  But --

MR. EARNEST:  And I have been for a week.  I answered this question six days ago.

Q    But I’m not suggesting that you have not.

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.

Q    But why won’t the administration writ large be transparent with the American people and the world when the entire world can see, the military came in, took out a democratically elected President.  So --

MR. EARNEST:  And what I’m saying to you is available to anybody who seeks answers to this question which is that we have made the determination that making a decision about whether or not a coup occurred is not in the best interests of the United States.  We’ve been very candid about that.  We’ve been candid about our posture related to aid and assistance.  We delayed the delivery of F-16s.  That is a decision that was announced publicly.  We canceled a joint military exercise known as Bright Star.  That is an announcement that the President himself made in Martha’s Vineyard last week.  

At the beginning of July, the President announced publicly that our review and that our aid and assistance relationship with Egypt was under review.  We have made these announcements and these decisions public.  And we’ve explained to them -- explained to you and to your viewers why these decisions were made and why these actions were taken.

Q    A couple of other quick ones.  What do you say to our allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia that are saying that they're backing the military government, and that the U.S. should be backing the military government in Egypt because they're going to bring stability?  Not today but in the long run, they're bringing stability.  What do you say to our allies?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I would say to anybody who asks is that we have expressed our strong concerns -- in fact, our condemnation -- about the failure of the interim government in Egypt, the one that you were referring to, to respect basic human rights.  In fact, they went beyond just disrespecting those rights and actually perpetrating terrible violence against many peaceful protestors.  That is something that this administration is -- and the President himself is deeply concerned by. 

There are a range of reasons why we're deeply concerned about that.  One of them is this is a government that took power promising a prompt transition back to a democratically elected civilian government through an inclusive political process.  The killing of peaceful protestors is not in line with a promise to transition back to a democratically elected civilian government.  So our concerns are that this interim government is not living up to the promises that they made just six or eight weeks ago.

Q    A last one on the NSA -- The Guardian newspaper, following on everything that was discussed yesterday -- The Guardian is saying that British authorities destroyed several hard drives, because they wanted to keep secrets that Edward Snowden had leaked from actually getting out.  They were stored in The Guardian's -- they had some hard drives there at their offices.  British authorities went in there and destroyed these hard drives.  Did the American government get a heads up about that the way you did about the person being detained?

MR. EARNEST:  I've seen the published reports of those accusations, but I don't have any information for you on that.

Q    And does the U.S. government think it's appropriate for a government, especially one of our allies, to go in and destroy hard drives?  Is that something this administration would do?

MR. EARNEST:  The only thing I know about this are the public reports about this, so it's hard for me to evaluate the propriety of what they did based on incomplete knowledge of what happened.  

Q    But this administration would not do that, would not go into an American media company and destroy hard drives, even if it meant trying to protect national security, you don't think?

MR. EARNEST:  It's very difficult to imagine a scenario in which that would be appropriate.  

Major.  I am going to get back to the back row there, so stay on your toes back there. 

Q    We're nearing the end of a fiscal year.  Is the administration also reviewing, because this is a longstanding relationship with Egypt -- 

MR. EARNEST:  It is. 

Q    -- which has a dollar amount that's been relatively stable for many, many years -- about $1.5 billion.  As it puts together and looks toward any foreign operations appropriations bill for the next fiscal year, do you want less money to go to Egypt?  And is that something that's also under review, not just what's in existing law, but what may come to the President for his signature in the next three to four months?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I can tell you that part of this review involves careful and close consultation with leaders in Congress.  We've heard a variety of opinions expressed by members of Congress about how best to manage the ongoing situation in Egypt.  And we certainly -- some of those opinions have been communicated pretty forcefully.  But certainly it's appropriate for them to do so given the role that Congress has to play here.  So part of this review --   

Q    Isn't that the bigger question really going forward, because there's a lot more money in the out-months as opposed to what little remains in this fiscal year?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, our ongoing aid and assistance relationship with Egypt is absolutely a question.  And it's something that is under careful review.  And that review, as you rightly point out, it includes consultation with leaders in Congress.  

Q    On future assistance?

MR. EARNEST:  Yes.  Well, also on future assistance.  

Q    The President can also exert some influence on International Monetary Fund lending.  And the general question of financial investment in Egypt, on those points what is the President's current posture?  Is this a good investment climate?  Is this a place that ought to receive IMF loans -- which the United States is a significant player?  

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the United States is the largest donor to the IMF.  And I believe that we actually exercise some veto authority over some decisions that are made at the IMF, because of that status.  I know that -- you'd have to talk to the IMF about their evaluation of the political climate there and what impact that would have on assistance they may provide to Egypt.  But even a novice like me I think would observe that what's happening there right now is probably not good for that evaluation that's ongoing.  

I think the same would be true of foreign investment.  That is a critical part of the strength of the Egypt economy.  And they depend on foreign companies making a decision to invest in that country.  I'm the last person to give investment advice.  But again, companies are going to evaluate the political climate of a country when they're making these investment decisions.  And the impact that those investment decisions could have on the Egyptian economy are significant.  

Q    Because I'm going to take the bait on the student loan thing -- 

MR. EARNEST:  Thank you. 

Q    -- the President made some references to that in the State of the Union.  Will he go beyond the statements he made in the State of the Union?  And will this require additional spending?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t want to get too far ahead of his announcements.  And we will have, at some point, some of our policy experts who can brief you on the detailed proposals.  

Q    That's why I asked you to compare and contrast with the State of the Union. 

MR. EARNEST:  So what I will tell you is that there will be proposals beyond what the President rolled out in the State of the Union that will be included in the President's remarks this week.  

Q    Does the President believe that one of the reasons college tuition is going up is because there is a sort of arms race in federal assistance?  That is to say there is more federal assistance, therefore, tuition goes up?  There's more federal assistance to compensate for that and for parents who are trying to keep up -- they continuously fall behind?

MR. EARNEST:  You are identifying something that the President has talked about a little bit before publicly, which is this idea that we need to rearrange the incentives a little bit, that maybe there's a way for us to align the incentives with colleges focusing on reducing costs for students or at least limiting the rapid growth in those costs.  

So the President has some ideas about how we can better align federal assistance with a commitment on behalf of colleges to keep costs low for students.  And that will be part of something that the President will talk about this this week. 

Q    Will this also address some recent audit evaluations that the federal government has now replaced the banks as a collector of a lot of interest and profits, if you will, from student loan operations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I know one of the chief accomplishments of the President's first term was finally eliminating subsidies that were paid to big banks so that they would provide student loans.  And what that did was that freed up a lot additional money to expand educational assistance to students all across the country.  That is a significant accomplishment of this President, and something that he campaigned on and delivered in his first term.  I don't know if -- well, I'll encourage you to stay tuned about whether or not the President has more to say about that later this week.  

I'm going to move around just a little bit.  Let's see here, Steve. 

Q    Before going to Martha's Vineyard, Sanjay Gupta had an interesting column in CNN about marijuana -- changed his mind.  He had been at one point considered by the President to be the surgeon general pick a number of years ago.  I'm wondering if the White House has any reaction to that column and also if the President has been personally looking at that issue, given that the country -- the polls on marijuana have changed quite a bit since he took office in favor of legalization.  Is there any change in his sort of outlook on it?  

MR. EARNEST:  Steve, when I called on you I don't think I could ever have predicted that this was the question you were going to ask me.  (Laughter.)  So I really was into the potpourri category of questions for this one.  I have to confess I did not see the Sanjay Gupta column that you're referring to, so it's hard for me to comment on it at this point.  So I'll have to take the question. 

Peter. 

Q    Josh, if I can quickly, the Egyptian Prime Minister today, Josh, says that he doesn’t fear civil war in Egypt.  Does the President fear civil war in Egypt?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President is very concerned about the violence that we've seen in Egypt; and it seems to be particularly the violence that is emanating from government sources, from government soldiers and government security officials.  That is something that the President is very concerned about.  And he talked about in his statement on Thursday about the responsibility that the government has to protect its citizens and to protect the basic human rights of the citizens that they are there to govern.  

So that is the violence that the President is concerned about.  And he certainly -- he and other senior administration officials here are concerned about that violence spreading and the destabilizing impact it could have not just within Egypt, but within the region. 

Q    I hope this will conclude the conversation about tranches, but one final thought about that topic, which is that we know we've discussed Bright Star.  We know we've discussed the F-16s, and the cancelation or the delay in terms of the F-16s and that delivery.  Are there any tranches -- had nothing like what's presently taking place in Egypt taken place, would anything have happened differently?  Is anything absent those examples you've given us happen differently in terms of the tranches either being delayed or held for some period of time beyond what would otherwise occur?

MR. EARNEST:  I hesitate to evaluate the counterfactual that you've set up there, only because my detailed knowledge of these tranches is limited.  So I guess I would encourage you to check with the State Department and the Defense Department on that, because they'll have a little bit more detailed knowledge of what kinds of tranches are under consideration right now. 

Q    Fine.  In Syria, 30,000 refugees have flooded into Iraq -- described by humanitarian aid workers on the ground there it's one of the biggest waves.  This is all over the course of the last five days.  They joined about I think it's like approaching 2 million Syrians who have fled.  Is the U.S. getting any closer to its goal of removing Assad from power there?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple of things about this.  The first is the President himself has talked about his concern about the refugee situation in countries that neighbor Syria.  So he has talked about the humanitarian conditions.  Some of these refugees are living in very difficult conditions there.  These are often women and children that we're talking about.  We have provided -- the United States government has provided to other countries in the region significant financial assistance to try to meet some of those humanitarian medical needs that those refugees may need.  The President talked about this when he was standing next to the King of Jordan earlier in the spring when we were in Amman.  So that's something that the President has spoken out about. 

He has also talked about the destabilizing impact that these refugee populations could have on these other countries.  This is and has been in recent years a pretty volatile region.  And adding this broader shift in refugee populations to that mix only makes the situation more complicated and maybe even more volatile.  So we're certainly concerned about the impact of these refugee populations.  And it is a direct result of the violence that the Assad regime has perpetrated against the Syrian people.  

Q    Are we closer to the goal of getting Assad out of power? 

MR. EARNEST:  That is a goal -- first and foremost, that is the goal of the Syrian people to have a government that reflects their will. 

Q    But we're assisting?

MR. EARNEST:  We are providing assistance.  That is also the goal of our allies around the world and other countries within the region.  And that is -- that remains the goal.  And we continue to provide assistance trying to reach it.  In terms of evaluating sort of where we are on that scale --

Q    Have we made progress?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that there is no doubt that there is pretty broad international consensus about Mr. Assad and his regime and his need to leave power, and the way in which he’s -- and how the way in which he has conducted himself has delegitimized his authority.  So I think on that front, yes, some progress has been made.  But there's no doubt that what's ongoing there continues to be a terrible situation. 

Q    Let me ask you on other topic domestically, if I can.  In the eighth largest city in the United States, San Diego, the mayor there is facing a recall effort.  There's mediation that we have heard through a series of reports right now.  Even Bob Filner himself, the mayor of the city, has conceded that what he did was "inappropriate and wrong."  Does the President have any opinion about whether Bob Filner should remain mayor of San Diego? 

MR. EARNEST:  The President hasn't weighed in on this issue and I haven't talked to him about it. 

Q    As the leader of the Democratic Party though, why wouldn't the President choose to weigh in on this issue as many other leading Democrats have, as he is a leading Democrat in a major American city, committing acts that he concedes to that the President has spoken out against in a series of other forums?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven't spoken to the President about it, Peter.  

Emel.

Q    Josh, I want to go back to the Prime Minister's remarks on Egypt.  Erdogan claims that Turkish government has proof that Israel was behind military coup in Egypt.  Do you have any --

MR. EARNEST:  We strongly condemn the statements that were made by Prime Minister Erdogan today.  Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong.  

Statements like these only distract from the urgent need for all countries in the region, and frankly many leading countries around the world to work together through constructive dialogue to address the fluid and dangerous situation in Egypt.

Jim.

Q    Also on Egypt, in an interview with the Prime Minister, he said that the goal of the authorities in Egypt remained to return Egypt to a true democratic government, that they’re keen to end this transitional period.  And they're putting a timetable between six and nine months when they will have elections.  Is that a timetable the United States supports -- six and nine months?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not -- I haven’t see the full text of the interview, so it’s hard for me to weigh in other than to observe that the actions that we saw from the interim government at the end of last week and over the weekend are entirely inconsistent with any democratically elected government.  You would expect a democratically elected government to be -- to respect the basic human rights of the people that they're elected to govern.  And this interim government egregiously and grievously violated the human rights of innocent protesters, peaceful protesters in Egypt.  And that's something that the President himself has personally condemned and is something that continues to be a subject of concern here at the White House and across the administration.

Q    Understanding that that is your position in the violence, is there any encouragement in these words -- again, the Egyptian government saying that they intend to hold elections within six to nine months?  Is that an encouraging sign for the administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think at this point we’re going to evaluate the position of the interim government when it comes to democracy based on their actions, not on their words.  And that would include as a very first preliminary step beginning to respect the basic human rights of the Egyptian people and to at least signal a transition to an inclusive political process.

Q    Does that mean releasing prisoners?

MR. EARNEST:  And that would include ending the politically motivated detention of individuals in Egypt.

Q    And then --

MR. EARNEST:  Go ahead, Jim.

Q    Another statement that he made which seemed to be on the other end of encouraging is that he said that the Egyptian army would survive without United States support and reminded the world that at one point, the Egyptian people went with the Russian military.  What is the response of the American government on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I did see part of that interview -- that section of the interview.  I think he made reference to the impact of canceling U.S. aid being bad for the military.  I’d say a couple of things about this, our relationship -- the United States -- the relationship between the United States and Egypt is a deep and multifaceted one.  They have been allies with the United States for quite some time.  And there are deep ties between the American people and the Egyptian people; that there are Egyptian Americans in this country today who are concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their family members in Egypt.  So there is a lot at stake that the United States has in this situation, particularly because we are genuinely interested in the success of Egypt.

That's one of the reasons that we have this deep aid and assistance relationship that we’ve talked about so much today.  The United States seeks a thriving, growing, stable Egypt.  And some of the actions that we’ve seen from the interim government do not contribute to that stability and to a nation that's thriving.

So I think the other point that I would want to make here is that the relationship between the U.S. and Egypt goes beyond just the aid and assistance that we’re providing, that our actions here in the U.S. will have an impact on the foreign investment decisions that are made by countries around the globe that are looking to -- at least that are considering an investment in Egypt.

The relationship between the United States and Egypt is going to have some bearing on those investment decisions.  The same can be said of the IMF decision and the decision of the IMF to support the Egyptian economy.  The relationship between the United States and Egypt is going to have some bearing on the outcome of that decision. 

Tourism is a key component of the Egypt economy.  The relationship between the United States and Egypt is going to have some bearing on the decision of thousands of people who are considering whether or not to travel to Egypt to view the antiquities there.

So there are a whole range of ways in which the relationship between the United States and Egypt will have an impact on the success of Egypt, and what we are oriented toward is a set of policies and a relationship that will solidify the relationship between the United States and Egypt and the broader success of the nation and the people of Egypt.

Q    Just one final thing on Beau Biden.  The White House put out kind of a rare statement on Beau Biden yesterday I presume because the Vice President had traveled to Houston. 

MR. EARNEST:  That's right. 

Q    Is the Vice President -- has the Vice President had to change any schedule?  Do you expect him back in Washington today?  What is -- what can you give us about that now?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any updates about the Vice President’s schedule.  I know that the -- that his staff is committed to keeping all of you updated on his travel arrangements and on his schedule for the remainder of the week.  For example, I know that the Vice President is currently scheduled to join the President in Scranton, Pennsylvania for an event on the college tour.

There’s one other thing that I can tell you about this which is that the President had the opportunity to speak on the telephone with the Vice President over the weekend on this topic.  In that telephone call, the President offered his good wishes to Beau and told the Vice President that Beau and the rest of the Biden family would be in his thoughts and prayers.

I can also tell you that a lot of people all across the country woke up with Beau Biden on their mind and in their prayers, and I can tell you that that's true of just about everybody that I spoke to at the White House today too.  

Roger.

Q    Yes, thanks.  Switch to the Miami Dolphins.  You took a question yesterday about how this came about, whose idea was it.  What did you find out?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I have to admit, Roger, that I’m not the only person who is not exactly sure how this event came to be.  I talked to a couple of other folks and didn't get an answer on this, but I’ll do some more digging and see what I can come up with for you.

Q    Did it come -- did the request come from the Dolphins?  The NFL?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, I don't know exactly how this -- how this exactly started, but we’re certainly excited about the event this afternoon.

April.

Q    Josh, since you’re talking about the President and the college tour, well, the tour that he’s having and college is one of the issues, and how college makes many persons middle class, within the middle-class status, there is an issue right now where HBCUs are very concerned and have petitioned the President for a meeting and petitioned the Department of Education about something called the Parent PLUS Loan.  It’s a federal loan that has -- now has strict requirements where parents are now being rejected.  And many schools are losing money.  Apparently if you have a blemish on your credit report over the last five years, you are not getting that loan.  What is the President saying about this?  Is he planning on meeting with these university presidents?  And what is the Education Department going to do about this?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not aware of the specific meeting request, but I can certainly take a look into it.

The President and this administration have been strong supporters of historically black colleges and universities all across the country.  Funding for those colleges and universities has increased under President Obama.  And the President was pleased to have the opportunity earlier this spring to speak at the commencement at Moorehouse College down in Atlanta.  So the record -- the President’s record on these issues -- he has a bias in favor of historically black colleges and universities because of the service they provide and because of the quality education that they provide to their students.

In terms of this issue with the Parent PLUS Loan, I’m not familiar with this specific policy issue.  But we can try to find somebody here at the White House who is a little more conversant in the issue who can talk to you about it.

Q    Let me clarify something.  It’s not just HBCUs as well.  We understand a million students from mainstream colleges are not able to go back to school because their parents have blemishes on their credit report, and they're not getting this loan.  And it’s a couple hundred thousand kids from HBCUs.  So this is an across-the-board issue.  HBCUs are really being hurt by it.

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.  Well, let’s -- let me have somebody in DPC get in touch with you, and we can walk through where we are on that issue.

Q    Josh, the AP is crossing that there’s going to be a Cabinet-level meeting this afternoon here at the White House to discuss this Egyptian aid issue.  Is that true?

MR. EARNEST:  The President will convene a National Security Council meeting with principals on his national security team to talk about this issue.  So the President convenes these kinds of meetings on a regular basis, but that will be the topic of --

Q    So how pivotal -- in the range so as not to overplay or underplay it, you said this has been under review for some time, for the President to be involved with Cabinet-level officials suggests that we’re getting closer to a decision.  Where would you categorize this?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I would say is that these kinds of national security meetings are not uncommon.  The President does chair them on a pretty regular basis, and I’m sure that it’s not even the first one that they’ve had on this topic.  At this point I wouldn’t anticipate any major announcements related our aid and assistance in the immediate aftermath of this meeting. 

Q    What time is the NSC meeting? 

MR. EARNEST:  I believe it’s at 2:30 p.m.  We can double check on that for you.

Q    Just switching topics a little to the looming fiscal issues of next month.  Before Congress left, they were some meetings between the Chief of Staff, a series of behind-the-scenes meetings with some Republican senators.  The President I think Jay had told us spoke briefly to the Speaker before he left.  But where are we?  Has there been progress?  Are those meetings still ongoing?  And sort of where are we when they come back in three weeks?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don't know that there are any meetings I have to read out to you.  Members of Congress are scattered across the country in their home districts.  So I don't have any specific meetings to read out to you. 

I know that our position on this is something that we’ve articulated to you in a variety of forums.  I think I would -- it would suffice it to say that threatening to shut down the government would have a terrible impact on our economy.  And the President is focused in putting in place policies that would be good for the middle class and be good for our economy.  

And like I said threats to under -- threats to shut down the government would only undermine the economic recovery that's starting to gain some traction.

Q    Thanks, Josh.

Q    Has the Chief of Staff though continued talking to those senators that he was speaking to or talking to --

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any specific calls to read out to you, but the lines of communication remain open.

Zeke, I’m going to give you the last one.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  You said before that the biggest tranches of aid have been stopped, including the aircraft sales, as well as the military exercise.  Is it safe to say that any other large tranches of aid will be stopped going forward as they have been over the past five, six weeks?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what’s safe to say is that we’re evaluating these tranches based on -- on a case-by-case basis.  So we’ll evaluate each one.

I know that it’s been publicly reported that there is at some point a scheduled delivery of Apache helicopters coming up.  That's something that the Department of Defense knows more about than I do, but that is an example of the kind of aid that is currently under the review.  A decision about the delivery of those helicopters has not been made at this point.  But when it is, we’ll make an announcement about that in the same that we announced the decision on the delay and the delivery of F-16s.

Q    What would have to change on the ground for those helicopters to be sold?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is something that we’re like I said evaluating on a case-by-case basis, and there’s an ongoing review.

Q    What’s the criteria?

MR. EARNEST:  And the context of that review includes actions taken by the Egyptian government.  It’s hard for me to lay out like specific criteria:  if this, then this.  But I can observe for you generally that continued violations of basic human rights don't make the transfer of that aid more likely.

Q    Josh, one quick question.

MR. EARNEST:  All right, Alexis.  Last one.

Q    Could you please, just to follow up to Martha -- has the President made any calls since he got back from vacation to either lawmakers or other heads of state to discuss Egypt and aid?

MR. EARNEST:  Not that I’m prepared to read out at this time.

Q    But that's possible.

MR. EARNEST:  Of course, it’s possible.  But nothing that I’m prepared to announce at this time.

Thanks, everybody.  Have a good afternoon.  Enjoy the Dolphins.

END
2:00 P.M. EDT