The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Conference Call Briefing on the President's Trip to Africa

Via Conference Call

3:35 P.M. EDT

MR. RHODES:  Thanks, everybody, for joining the call here.  We wanted to give you an overview of the President’s upcoming trip to Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania.  We have on the call also Grant Harris, our Senior Director for African Affairs at the NSC, as well as Gayle Smith, our Senior Director for Development and Democracy issues.  I’ll just start by giving you guys an overview of the trip and the schedule. 

This is the President’s second trip to sub-Saharan Africa.  He previously went to Ghana in his first term.  And it’s a very important opportunity for him to advance U.S. interests in a range of areas -- in particular, U.S. engagement in Africa at the beginning of his second term.

Frankly, we see Africa as one of the most important emerging regions in the world, and a place for the U.S. to significantly increase our engagement in the years to come.  There are growing economic opportunities there for increased trade and investment and increased engagement by U.S. businesses. 

We, frankly, have heard a high demand signal from the U.S. private sector for us to play an active role in deepening our trade and investment partnerships in Africa.  And I think one of the things you’ll see on this trip is we’ll be incorporating events that bring in the private sector in each of the countries that we’re visiting.  And we’ll also be bringing a number of members of the President’s economic team from our new USTR, Mike Froman, to representatives from OPIC, from the Export-Import Bank, and including Raj Shah, our AID Director, who also plays a role in these issues.

So trade and investment and the economic opportunities on the continent are going to be an important part of the agenda; also democracy and democratic institution-building.  Each of the countries that we’re visiting are strong democracies, and the President has made it a priority to support the consolidation of democratic institutions in Africa so that Africans are focused not just on democratic elections, but institutions like parliaments, independent judiciaries, and strengthening of the rule of law -- both as necessary elements of a democratic government, but also as necessary elements of development.  Because when you have the assurance that comes with the rule of law, it is easier for companies to invest and for economies to take off.

I think you will also see a focus on young people.  Africa has an extraordinarily large youth population, and it’s important for the United States to signal our commitment to investing in the future of African youth.  And this, too, is a part of unleashing development on the continent because if you have young people who are able to access opportunity and able to shape the direction of their countries, that’s going to be in the interest of Africa and the United States as well.

And you’ll also see the President speaking to the key pillars of our development agenda, which has focused on economic growth and also on issues such as food security and global health, where we’ve really shifted to a focus on capacity-building on the continent.  So it’s not simply a model of assistance, it’s a model of capacity-building so that Africans are forging solutions to their own challenges. 

All of this, I think, adds up to a U.S. engagement and leadership on the continent that is focused on unleashing African economic growth, democratic progress, and ultimately that will have a positive impact on a range of issues, including peace and security issues -- because if we’re working and partnering with strong economies and strong democracies, we’re going to be better able to deal with the security challenges on the continent as well.

So just working through the schedule, the first stop will be Senegal.  We’ll be flying there on Wednesday, arriving Wednesday night in Senegal time.  It was important for us, we felt, to travel to West, South and East Africa.  So we’re beginning in West Africa, in Senegal, which is a strong democratic partner of the United States.  We recently hosted the President of Senegal at the White House -- a French-speaking country, which allows us to speak directly to the large French-speaking population within Africa. 

And the President will begin his program on Thursday with a bilateral meeting with the President of Senegal.  Following that, we’ll have a joint press conference.  Then, the President will attend an event that he’ll be hosting at the Supreme Court there with regional judicial leaders.  And this will be an opportunity for the President to speak to the importance of the rule of law and the role of the independent judiciary as a part of African democratic institution-building.  So the President will have a chance to have a dialogue with judicial leaders from the region.

Then he and the First Lady will take the trip to Goree Island, obviously a deeply important site both for Africans and African Americans.  This is the site of the “Door of No Return,” and the President will be visiting the House of Slaves museum there on Goree Island.  Then he will also visit with civil society leaders at the Goree Institute.  Goree Island has been a home for a very vibrant civil society, which is also a key part of the democratic development taking place in Senegal and across the continent, and so he’ll have a chance to hear directly from civil society leaders there.  Then, that night, there will be an official dinner that the President of Senegal will be hosting. 

I’d also add, for the First Lady, the First Lady, on June 27th in Dakar, will have tea with the First Lady of Senegal.  Then the First Lady will travel with Mrs. Sall to the Martin Luther King Middle School, which is an all-girls school in Senegal, where she’ll have a chance to see that school and speak to the girls.  And then, of course, the First Lady will join the President at Goree Island and for the dinner that night.

The second day, the President will begin in the morning by joining an event focused on food security.  Food security has been one of our key development priorities, in which we’ve brought together the international community as well as the private sector behind approaches that strengthen African capacity in developing agricultural sectors that better feed the populations and also allow products to get to market -- allows Africa to forge solutions to the challenges of feeding their population. 

And so the President will join an event that brings together private sector leaders and people from the agricultural sector in Senegal and across West Africa, and he will hear about the efforts that are being made to enhance food security and be able to join with them where there will be different expositions of technologies that are being applied to improve crops, improve the ability of agricultural sectors to meet the needs of the people.

Then the President will fly with his family to South Africa that day.  The next day, the President will be in Pretoria and Johannesburg.  And he’ll begin the day with a bilateral meeting with President Zuma of South Africa, clearly a key partner on a whole range of our issues on the African continent to include some of our significant development priorities but also a range of peace and security issues, from our efforts to deal with the situation in Sudan and South Sudan to some of the security challenges in Central Africa, and of course, to the promotion of democracy on the continent.  There will be a bilateral meeting and then the two Presidents will have a joint press conference. 

Then later that day, the President will host a town hall at the University of Johannesburg in Soweto.  This is going to be a continuation of the President’s Young African Leaders Initiative. You may recall that the President launched this initiative when he hosted African leaders from across the continent at his town hall meeting at the White House, with the idea being that we need to reach the next generation of African leaders in civil society, in entrepreneurship, in journalism.  And the State Department carried forward a program that connects African leaders across the continent to one another and to the United States.  And it’s been one of the more exciting initiatives that we've had in terms of people-to-people programs.  And this will carry that initiative forward.  And so he'll be speaking to young African leaders about the U.S. investment in deepening ties with young people not just in South Africa but across the continent.

Following the town hall meeting, the President will have a bilateral meeting with the Chairwoman of the African Union, again focused on strengthening mutual organizations across Africa, with the African Union, of course, being the most prominent one on the continent.  And so they’ll have the opportunity to discuss the agenda in the United States with the AU.

Then that night there will be an official dinner that President Zuma will host for President Obama.

I'll also add that the First Lady on this day -- she will have tea with the wife of the South African President, Mrs. Thobeka Madiba-Zuma.  Later in the afternoon, the First Lady will also hold remarks and participate in a discussion with youth, and this will be an opportunity for her to meet with high-school-age young people in South Africa.  I'd add that the First Lady in her last trip to South Africa met with young people.  And this continues her focus on education, youth, and women and girls around the world.

This event that the First Lady is participating in develops a theme organized in conjunction with MTV Base, which is an African youth and music television channel, as well as with (inaudible.)  And the First Lady will be joined at the Sci Bono Discovery Center by teenagers from across South Africa, as well as students who will be able to join virtually from cities across the United States via Google+ Hangout, including in Los Angeles, California, Kansas City, Missouri, New York City, and Houston, Texas.

And so this is an opportunity to connect young people in the United States with young people in Africa to discuss our shared future.  We'll also be covering this live not just on White House.gov, but on our Google+ page and MTV Base. 

And then that night, the First Lady will join the President for the official dinner.

The next day, the First Family will fly to Cape Town in the morning.  They will visit Robben Island and have the opportunity to take in the remarkable history there and pay tribute to the extraordinary sacrifices made by Nelson Mandela in his pursuit of freedom for the people of South Africa as well as so many other figures in the anti-apartheid movement.

Following the visit to Robben Island, the President will visit a community center with Archbishop Desmond Tutu -- a community center that focuses in part on health, and this will be an opportunity for the President to hear firsthand about the important efforts that are being made by the Archbishop, but also by people across South Africa that come up with community-oriented solutions to health care challenges, but also to discuss our own global health agenda, much of which has been focused on combating preventable diseases, HIV/AIDS, and carrying forward the very good work that's been done for many years to improve not just -- combat disease, but to improve public health systems in South Africa and across the continent.

Following the visit to the community center the President will give a speech at the University of Cape Town, which will be his main framing speech of the trip about our Africa policy, focusing on these different areas of trade and investment, development, democracy, partnerships on behalf of peace and security.

The University of Cape Town is an historic site -- one of the great universities on the continent; a place that has been host to very significant speeches, including the speeches Robert F. Kennedy gave -- the Day of Affirmation address where he spoke about "ripples of hope."  And so the President will be able to lay out a vision for U.S.-African relations going forward. 

Then that would conclude the program in Cape Town.  

The next day, the President will fly with the First Family to Tanzania, also a strong democratic partner of ours in East Africa.  He'll have a bilateral meeting there with the President and then they will host a joint press conference.  Following the joint press conference, the President will go to a roundtable with business leaders.  And then he'll speak to a group of business leaders and CEOs from the United States and across Africa. 

And this will be an opportunity for him to really focus on what we can do to increase trade and investment from the United States into Africa, what we can do to advance our trade relationships, dealing with AGOA and other opportunities that we have going forward, how do we improve the climate for economic growth in East Africa and Africa generally.

I should add that in addition to this event and the food security event with the private sector in Senegal, members of the President's economic team -- Valerie Jarrett, Mike Froman, Fred Hochberg, and Raj Shah -- will be participating in an event with the private sector in Cape Town as well, independent of the President.  And they'll be discussing these issues there as well. 
So the President will speak to business leaders and CEOs about these issues.  And then, that night he'll attend an official dinner hosted by the President of Tanzania.

For the First Lady, that day she'll have tea with Ms. Kikwete, the wife of the Tanzanian President.  And then, she will visit the memorial to the embassy bombing at our embassy.  Then the First Lady will attend a performance by the Baba wa Watoto troupe, which serves underprivileged boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 18 years old.  And then she will join the President for the dinner that night.

Then, finally, on our last day of the trip, the President will begin his day by going to the embassy and also laying a wreath at the sight of the memorial to the embassy bombings.  Then, he will visit the Ubungo power plant in Tanzania -- one of his focuses of not just our development policy, but also our support of economic growth on the continent is power, and the President will be able to speak to those issues as he visits the Ubungo power plant.  And then that will conclude the President's agenda on the trip.

I'll also add on July 2nd, the last day, in Dar es Salaam, the First Lady will participate in an African First Ladies' Summit, Investing in Women Strengthening Africa, which is going to be hosted by the George W. Bush Institute, including Laura Bush.  At the summit, first ladies from across the continent will gather to focus on the important role that first ladies play in promoting women's education, health and economic empowerment.  I think that this will also speak to the bipartisan support that exists in the United States for support for sub-Saharan Africa, for deeper relations between the United States in sub-Saharan African countries, and of course, for the empowerment of women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa and around the world.

So that concludes our very busy schedule on the trip.  Before we open it up for questions, I want to turn it over to my colleagues.  I'll start with Grant to see if he has any words you want to add.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Ben.  

As Ben already described, this trip is going to be highlighting America's longstanding investments in Africa's development and economic growth and people.  Africa is a new center of global growth, clearly, but today's challenge is making sure that those gains are expanded and that they're spread to benefit all of Africa's people. 

Ben mentioned a few issues in particular, the first being encouraging trade and investment.  And on that front, we're redoubling our efforts to create an environment that enables greater trade and investment.  This includes encouraging things like regional integration and legal reforms that break down barriers to the free flow of goods and services.  It gets at also the need for greater transparency in anti-corruption measures. 

Here, it's our strong belief that deepening these partnerships in Africa advance important American interests, particularly because Africa's economic growth is going to support increasing demand for U.S. exports, which in turn is going to help create jobs at home, and it's also going to provide valuable investment opportunities for U.S. businesses. 

Ben mentioned as well that we have ongoing and important work in helping to build and consolidate strong democracies.  We've been a longstanding partner with African states to help build and support vibrant democratic societies.  We've seen that African nations have made demonstrable progress here, particularly in instituting democratic reforms.  But political institutions in many countries are still fragile, so we have ongoing assistance that’s looking to strengthen these democratic institutions.  And we'll be able to highlight that, particularly how we're looking -- and we are engaged in building capacity for effective and responsive governance, for supporting civil society, independent media, and all the different institutions that it takes for a democracy to flourish.

Ben spoke also about the next generation of African leaders, which is another key element of what the President will be discussing.  In addition to what he said, I would just note that nearly one in three Africans are between the ages of 10 and 24, and so we see Africa's youth as already shaping the political and social and economic realities on the continent, and being key to the long-term growth and prosperity of the region.

The Young African Leaders Initiative that we've been talking about already has deep roots and has included more than 2,000 events on the continent in the formation of a lot of embassy youth advisory councils, but there’s more that we want to be doing in expanding that engagement.

And then across the board, in each of these countries and in each of these relationships, we have a host of global issues that we partner on as we are turning to African states to help address a range of global issues that include nuclear proliferation, climate change, counterterrorism, and other transnational threats.  So all of that will be the basis for further discussion and deepening our partnerships to confront those transnational, and peace and security challenges.

MR. RHODES:  Great.  Why don’t we go to Gayle to do a bit of an overview of the development portion, and then we’ll take your questions.

MS. SMITH:  Thanks, Ben.  And hi, everybody.  I think the important piece of the development story on this trip is the huge gains that we’ve seen in Africa over the last 10 or 15 years.  A couple of these will be highlighted.  The first is on food security, as Ben mentioned.  This has been a priority of the President since shortly after he came into office in the first term. 

Importantly, what he’s been able to do on food security, which was lead in the G8 to mobilize the world to start reinvesting in agriculture -- the world was investing more in relief than in agricultural development -- was we modeled our own programs on what the African Union itself was doing.  African countries had agreed that they all needed to have comprehensive plans for food security for their countries.  These were vetted, serious, really solid plans, and so we mobilized other donors and invested in -- launched something called Feed the Future, which involved a number of agencies, as led by USAID, which has reinvigorated our own investments in agriculture, research, and science.

Last year, the President launched at Camp David with African leaders and other G8 leaders something called the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition.  That was launched with three African countries in the AU.  The model there is somewhat different.  It’s built on the premise that if we can combine some reforms on the African side with some really targeted, strategic assistance on our side, we can leverage private capital flows into agriculture. 

In the first year of that initiative, since it was launched last summer, it’s gone from three to nine countries and over $3.5 billion in letters of intent of private sector commitments to invest in the ag sector in those nine countries.  A 10th will join in September.  So that will be profiled. 

That is something that is about making the ag sector work, making markets work, bringing small farmers into the system, and really enabling Africa to build on one of its greatest strengths, which is agriculture.

Health, as Ben said, will also get a focus.  Here we’ve seen a similar change, where if you think about where we were on the HIV/AIDS epidemic a decade ago, it was daunting and I think the world feared for Africa’s future.  If you look at where we are today, there’s been over a one-third drop in AIDS-related deaths, a one-third drop in infections.  A number of countries are coming to what’s called the tipping point, where the number of new infections is smaller than the number of people being put on treatment.

What’s really interesting in this is that the game-changer is that more and more countries are putting skin in the game at the level of political leadership.  Civil society is becoming more and more capable and engaged and contributing a great deal more.  So we’re seeing the change on that side.

And I think what we’re seeing and what we’ll highlight on the development side is very much the foundation of what makes us so confident about the potential on the trade and investment side.  That's leadership.  That's the development of systems and markets that are really working and providing the foundation, and it’s results across the board.

I think that you’ll see on this trip, and there’s plenty of evidence to show that, as I said at the top, the greatest gains we’ve see in development anywhere in the world over the last decade have been in sub-Saharan Africa.  So that's kind of the foundation from them going from there to how do we really help build strong economies that can fuel and support those populations and continue Africa on the positive trajectory it’s on.

I’ll stop there, Ben.

Q    Thank you, Ben, for doing this.  Can you just clarify because, of all the reporting in The Washington Post -- and I know you’ve addressed this in prior calls or in the press room briefing -- but just what do you think the costs are, do you have any estimates of the trip, and why you think the costs are well justified given, in particular, President Xi’s visits and other visits by competing economic interests.  Thank you.

MR. RHODES:  Yes, thanks, Andrea, for the question.  First of all, we don't have the exact figure on costs.  Frankly, we don't own or control those numbers.  The security requirements which make up the bulk of the costs are determined by the Secret Service.  And they don't publicly release the breakdown of the costs for these types of trips.  But again, this is something that is determined not by White House planning, but rather by what the Secret Service and the White House Military Office determine is the appropriate support for presidential travel.

And as The Washington Post story indicated, that's been the case no matter who is President.  The costs for these types of trips, as well as any presidential trip depend on those determinations.

In terms of why it’s worth it, Africa is a rapidly growing region that is of increasing importance to the United States.  On the economics side, several of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa.  And if Africa does take off, economically, you’re going to have a rapidly growing middle class and market for U.S. goods.  And, again, what we hear from our businesses is that they want to get in the game in Africa.

In terms of democracy, it is an important front in our support for democratic institutions and democratic institution-building around the world.  There are some success stories but there are also some huge challenges on the continent -- from Zimbabwe to some of the peace and security challenges that we see in places like Congo and in South Sudan, where we continue to be deeply engaged in.  So we want to make sure we’re moving in the right direction there.

And there are peace and security challenges in a country like Mali that partners with the United States -- sorry -- a country like Senegal, for instance, that’s a partner with the United States in dealing with the situation in North Africa. 

And to your reference, there are other countries getting in the game in Africa -- China, Brazil, Turkey.  And if the U.S. is not leading in Africa, we’re going to fall behind in a very important region of the world.  And I don’t think it’s in the U.S. interest for the United States to step aside and cede many potential opportunities for our country because we don’t want to move forward with presidential travel. 

The fact is, the President has traveled to Asia; he’s traveled to Europe; he’s traveled to Latin America; he’s traveled to many regions of the world.  And, frankly, Africa is a place that we had not yet been able to devote significant presidential time and attention to.  And there’s nothing that can make an impact more in terms of our foreign policy and our economic and security interests than the President of the United States coming and demonstrating the importance of our commitment to this region.  And it would not be in our interest for the United States to pull back at precisely the time when we see other nations stepping into Africa and increasing their own investments. 

So this is a very important signal for the President to send -- that we take this region very seriously, that we have significant interest here, and that we see this as fundamental to maintaining our leadership in the 21st century.

Q    A couple things -- and I know you went through the schedule, it’s very involved.  But I wonder if you could just give us all a sense -- because it’s been on all of our newsroom mindsets in the last two weeks -- what priority the President has of trying to see President Mandela while he’s in Africa.  And second of all, I’m duty-bound because this came up at the briefing, the LA Times had a very specific story -- very specific, highly detailed -- about CIA training of rebel forces in neighboring countries.  And I wonder if you could give us any visibility on that whatsoever, because it’s not just a generic story, it’s a specific, so it requires some sort of comment, it seems to me.  Thanks.

Q    On the Mandela question, I should have added, we, of course, while we’re in South Africa, are going to be very deferential to the Mandela family in terms of any interaction that the President may have with the Mandela family or with Nelson Mandela.  Ultimately, we want whatever is in the best interest of his health and the peace of mind of the Mandela family.  And so we’ll be driven by their own determinations in that regard. 

We’ll be in touch with them.  The President wants to support them in any way.  He’s supporting them with his thoughts and prayers as it is.  And if he has an opportunity to see the family in some capacity, that’s certainly something that we may do.  And he’ll be going to Robben Island as well, which I think will be an important and powerful symbol at this time when the world has Nelson Mandela in their prayers.

I would just add that the President has always seen Nelson Mandela as one of his personal heroes.  And he was honored -- well, first of all, his first political activism, when he was in college, was driven by the Anti-Apartheid Movement and the inspiration of Nelson Mandela.  And carrying that forward, he was honored to meet him in Washington in 2005.  He was very moved that Nelson Mandela called him after the 2008 election and spoke to him several times in the years that followed.

So this is something that the President watches very closely.  And we are definitely going to be paying tribute to Nelson Mandela’s contribution to not just South Africa, but to Africa and the world during our stop in South Africa.  The President will speak to it, I’m sure, in his speeches.  And we will be closely monitoring the situation as it relates to Nelson Mandela’s health.

On your second question, Major, I’m just not going to be able to comment on CIA activities, as you I think can understand. Again, what we’ve said is we’ve been focused for some time now on how to strengthen the effectiveness and cohesion of the Syrian political and military opposition.  It’s something that we work with countries in the region on.  It’s something that has been a key national security priority for us.  But beyond that, I can’t get into reports of CIA activity.

We’ll take the next question.

Q    Hi, thank you for this briefing -- very useful.  I’m not sure if you’re aware, but in South Africa there’s a group of Muslim lawyers want a warrant to arrest to be handed President Obama when he arrives here on the strength of -- whatever -- drones, et cetera.  And a court has to rule whether this is acceptable after our national prosecuting authority rejected it. I’m just wondering if you have any comment on that.

MR. RHODES:  Yes, I’ve seen the -- well, I don’t know if it’s that specific report.  Obviously, we are aware of different opinions that have been expressed in South Africa and around the world about issues related to counterterrorism.  It’s something that obviously is a part of the ongoing debate about these issues.  I don’t anticipate that it will be a specific issue that is a focus of our trip to South Africa.

But I will say as a general matter, when it comes to security issues on the continent, counterterrorism is an important priority for the United States.  We’ve worked with each of these countries on counterterrorism-related issues in the various regions.  And our focus in Africa, frankly, has been on building Africa’s capacity.  It has not been on U.S. actions as much as it’s been on U.S. support for African actions in strengthening African security efforts and strengthening African collaboration like we’ve seen across the continent -- whether it’s AMISOM in Somalia; whether it’s support for the stabilization efforts in Mali; or whether it’s regional institutions.  So we understand the variety of opinions that have been expressed on drones-related issues, but we do not expect it to be a focal point of this visit. 

We’ll take the next question.

Q    Hi, guys, thanks for doing the call.  I have two quick questions -- One on South Africa.  Ben, if you could talk a little bit about what Obama’s message might be on kind of the politics there post-Mandela, given some of the problems that they’ve had there recently.  And then also you’re skipping Kenya, where Obama obviously has deep family ties, and I wanted to see how much of that is based on the results of the recent election and Kenyatta’s upcoming trial at the ICC.

MR. RHODES:  Sure.  Well, Julie, I’ll take your second question first.  The President has obviously deep personal and familial connections to Kenya.  He has visited there in the past as a private citizen and as a senator.  And the Kenyan people just hold a very special place in the President’s heart and in terms of his commitment to the future of sub-Saharan Africa.

We, as we expressed, in the aftermath of the Kenyan election, we fully respect the sovereign right of the Kenyan people to choose their own leader and we’ll certainly be focused on working with the new Kenyan government under President Kenyatta.

We also as a country have a commitment to accountability and justice as a baseline priniple.  And given the fact that Kenya is in the aftermath of their election and the new government has come into place and is going to be reviewing these issues with the ICC and the international community, it just wasn’t the best time for the President to travel to Kenya at this point. 

So Tanzania is an important partner for the United States, in the same region of East Africa.  Tanzania partners with us on a range of security issues across the region; in all of our major development initiatives is a partner; one of the significant U.S. foreign assistance partners, as well, as well as a strong democracy.  So we felt like Tanzania was an important stop in East Africa. 

But I would just add that the close partnership that the United States has had with Kenya for decades will certainly continue and we’ll be continuing our collaboration with Kenya on issues from economic development to security to also supporting Kenya’s democracy.  But again, the Kenyan government will be continuing to work through the issues that it has with the international community.

With respect to South Africa and their politics, and Mandela, I’d just say a couple of things, and then Grant may want to add something.  I guess what I’d say is so much of the democratic progress that we’ve seen in South Africa can be attributed to Nelson Mandela and the extraordinary example he set not just in standing up to apartheid, but also in standing up for reconciliation and the handover of power to a successor through a peaceful transition.  And we are heartened by the peaceful transitions of power that we’ve seen in other countries like Senegal, for instance.  And so much of the democratic progress that we see across the continent I think can be tied in some way to the inspiration that Nelson Mandela set. 

The point the President will be making is -- all across the continent -- that to continue that progress there needs to be strong democratic institutions; that it's not enough to have elections, it's not enough to have democratically elected leaders, that you need to have independent judiciaries; you need to have confidence in the rule of law; you need to have efforts to combat corruption.  Because, frankly, not only is that good for democracy and respect for human rights, but it's critical to Africa's economic growth, because where you have clear rules of the road and efforts to combat corruption, businesses will invest, and jobs will be created, and growth will take off.  And that's what we want to see.

But in terms of any further comment on the South African political dynamic, Grant, I don't know if you have anything you'd like to add.

MR. HARRIS:  I think you laid it out completely.  I don't think we here, nor would the President comment on South African politics, but the visit and the depth of the bilateral relationships and the relationship with the people of South Africa are going to give him the opportunity to highlight a lot of shared work both in addressing the scourge of HIV and AIDS, but also a shared commitment to the regional and international security issues that we've been talking about.

MR. RHODES:  And, Julie, just as I know it's of interest to you, a contrast to the example that has been set by many democratic leaders on the continent is how Robert Mugabe has not allowed for respect for human rights in Zimbabwe.  That's a type of issue I think that we'll be able to speak to in a place where we'd like to see enhanced progress in the years to come.

Q    Actually, most of my questions have been answered.  But if I can just amend a little bit -- obviously, you can't go to 54 countries, but Nigeria also was not on the list.  Can you talk about the decision not to go to Nigeria?  Can you answer critics who have said Africans are frustrated that it took Obama this long to get here?  And is there any chance that President Obama will see his grandmother even if he is not going to Kenya?  Any chance she'll come over to Tanzania?  Thanks.

MR. RHODES:  Sure, Margaret.  I'll take those.  On the last question, I'm not aware of any plans to see his grandmother.  I would note that his sister, Auma, was with us in Berlin and was able to attend the speech and the state dinner, and that's obviously a very close family member of the President's from that side of his family.

With respect to Nigeria, we certainly believe that Nigeria is a fundamentally important country to the future of Africa.  We've put a lot of investment in the relationship with Nigeria through their leadership of ECOWAS, through the significant U.S. business investment in Nigeria and through our security cooperation. 

Obviously, Nigeria is working through some very challenging security issues right now.  And in that process, they're going to be a partner of the United States.  We certainly believe we'll have an opportunity to further engage the Nigerian government through bilateral meetings going forward.  But at this point, we just were not able to make it to Nigeria on this particular itinerary. 

I will say that we purposefully designed the itineraries to be able to reach West Africa, South Africa and East Africa, and in West Africa, to visit Senegal, a French-speaking, Muslim-majority democracy that is an important partner of the United States and also provides a platform for the President to speak to the broader region. 

We are also looking at ways, at the President's town hall in South Africa with young African leaders, to draw in through technology young people in Nigeria and in Kenya, among other places, so that the President is using this trip to speak to the broader African audience.  We recognize we'd like to go to as many countries as possible.  Time only permits us to go to these three.  But we want to make sure that in each country we're speaking to the broader region.  And we're going to make use of technology and other means to do so. 

And to the middle question, the Africans who have been frustrated -- look, I think it points back to Andrea's first question.  This is a region that, frankly, has been underrepresented in our travel.  And for all these questions of why the President is going to Africa, I think the questions that we've been getting is why hasn't the President been in Africa more?  And, frankly, that tracks with our belief that there is extraordinary potential on the continent, and that when we look back 20 years from now, 30 years from now, we'll see this potentially as a pivotal moment when Africa took off in terms of economic growth, when you saw economic opportunities open up for the United States and when you saw democratic consolidation.

That's not to minimize the challenges.  But this is a place where the United States needs to be present.  And we're very pleased that early in the second term we can send a signal of increased U.S. engagement through this trip.  And it's going to be very important for us on this trip to signal that this isn't a one-off, that there's going to be follow-through.  And bringing the President's economic team with him on this trip I think sends that message.  Bringing business leaders from the United States sends that message.  And deepening our exchange programs with young people and some of the development priorities we’ll be able to speak to on the trip will send that message as well.

So we see this trip as a door that we're walking through towards a much deeper U.S. engagement in sub-Saharan Africa leading into the President's second term. 

Q    I just wanted to follow up on that last line that you were talking about there.  You talk about sort of underrepresented in travels.  In talking to folks both here in Washington and in Africa who are sort of policy analysts and others, they say it's not only just that the President hasn't traveled there, but that the U.S. just hasn't been investing enough -- as much as they thought that President Obama would because of his personal connections, and that if anything stands out on the continent, it's the U.S. increasing military engagement with the drone bases and so on, and that's what his legacy has become at least in the first four years.  And I'm curious what your thoughts -- how you would respond to that, concerns from Africans that have said -- and explain maybe why the President did choose to go to Asia, South Asia, Latin America before Africa, despite the fact that in the Ghana speech he said this would be a new moment of promise and really pledged at that time to do the same things you’re talking about now.

MR. RHODES:  Yes, well, I’d say a couple things, David, and then Grant and Gayle may have a perspective here, too.  Just on the very precise question at the end, before getting to the first part of your question, part of the reason is, frankly, that we have anchor summits in other parts of the world.  So as those of you who travel with the President know, a lot of his travel ends up being built around G20s, G8s, APECs, East Asia summits, and so that ends up driving a lot of the schedule. 

And we were able to make the trip to Ghana.  We’ve been able to bring groupings of democratic leaders into the Oval Office, as well as other African leaders to the Oval Office.  And we’ve been able to do a number of things in terms of our policies to signal an increased engagement and a ramping up in certain areas.

Now, to that, what I’d point to is -- you mentioned the security in AFRICOM, and it’s really true that AFRICOM has been a key partner to a number of African countries.  I will say that the focus of AFRICOM has been on building African capacity, not on bringing U.S.-based military solutions to African problems.  So whether it’s to do with Africa -- the situation in Mali, or whether it’s AMISOM, or whether it’s our efforts to capture Joseph Kony, all of those have been U.S. operations in support of African partners who are really in the lead for these efforts.

But as you look at this trip, I think this trip ultimately disproves the notion that we’re somehow securitizing the relationship with Africa, because this trip is expressly devoted to trade and investment, democratic institution-building, young people, and unleashing economic growth through some of our development priority.  So the trip itself I think speaks to the broader agenda and the fundamental interconnection between democracy, development, and security.  Because it’s our belief that stable democracies that are growing are ultimately going to be more secure, are not going to be exposed to conflict, and could even be strong partners in dealing with conflicts as Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania have been.

In terms of our engagement, I will make -- I believe there was one announcement that went out today that’s just worth flagging, which is Linda Thomas-Greenfield is going to be Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, a long-time senior foreign service officer, former ambassador to Liberia, so that’s an important member of the President’s Africa team for the second term who we put before today.

But then we have done a lot on the development and other aspects of our policy side that I want to give Grant and Gayle a chance to comment on. 

So, Grant, anything you’d like to add?

MR. HARRIS:  I would just add that, exactly as you said, I think it’s really important to push back on this false notion that we somehow have a securitized or militarized approach.  As we’ve been laying out even just on this call, advancing peace and security is a core objective for U.S. policy, but it’s part of a holistic approach of strengthening democratic institutions, spurring economic growth, trade and investment, and promoting opportunity and development. 

And as Ben mentioned as well, our activities on the continent are in partnership and help build capacity of African partners.  Some of the examples of the way that we’re doing that would include supporting Uganda and regional forces in countering the predatory Lord’s Resistance Army; supporting, helping to train and equip those African forces composed in the African Union mission in Somalia that are also trying to advance democracy and stabilize the situation in Mali and elsewhere.

So I think looking at the total range of where our investments are -- and I know Gayle will touch on this in terms of health and food security and others -- there’s a very strong record on which to draw, and it paints a very holistic picture.

MS. SMITH:  Yes, I think I would just add on to that, and I think “holistic” is the key word.  The U.S. has a security relationship with Africa like it does in many parts of the world. And as Grant points out, a lot of that is rooted very much in the leadership being shown by the African Union and by African countries -- but I think what some of those stories obscure has been the extensive cooperation, whether it’s, again, the preponderance of our effort on food security is based on, in, and with Africa on countries across the continent. 

Similarly, on health, we launched an effort about a year ago to end preventable child deaths.  That was co-hosted with Ethiopia as one of the leading countries in the world on that, and every African country was represented there.  So that’s been a huge effort.

The Open Government Partnership that President Obama launched with other leaders, including South Africa, at the U.N. a couple years ago -- Tanzania is now in the leadership, South Africa is a founding member of that.  So that’s had a huge level of involvement of Africa.

So I think sometimes these things are less visible than others, but I think that we all believe they’re foundational.  I would add to that -- think about OPEC, which has tripled its investment portfolio in Africa.  Those things, again, may be less visible, but we really think those are the foundations for the strong relationships that we’re going to build on, on this trip.

Q    Hi, thanks for taking the question.  I just wanted to return to the issue of the administration’s engagement in Africa.  Could you address sort of the criticism that’s been leveled that the United States has fallen behind China or other countries in Africa?  And also, the idea that, visits notwithstanding, that this administration has not followed up sort of the PEPFAR or the Millennium Challenge Corporation with similar broad, sweeping, new initiatives to engage with Africa?

MR. RHODES:  Yes, sure.  On your first question, I think the United States brings a unique type of engagement to Africa, and one that in the long run will serve not just U.S. interest but the interest of the people across Africa. 

It’s certainly true that China and other nations have increased their investments, and China has pursued a range of economic interests that have led to a significant investment in Africa.  When you look at what the United States is focused on, it’s support for African democratic institutions, for models of economic growth that will be broad-based and will bring opportunities to more people, and its investment in young people -- and that’s represented in this trip. 

So the type of leadership that the U.S. brings to the continent uniquely advances opportunities for more Africans, and frankly, we believe represents a better model of engagement not just for the United States, but for democratic development on the continent.

So because of our democratic values, because of our businesses, and because of our focus on capacity-building for African solutions, we believe U.S. leadership is ultimately going to be welcomed on the continent and going to be in the best interest of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa.  And I think that’s an important point, because this is an emerging region, just like any other region, and given Africa’s emergence, they’ll be making determinations about their own futures and about their own partners.  And we believe that what the United States brings to the table is a model of partnership that serves our interest but also the interest of people in Sub-Saharan Africa. 

And that’s represented in this trip, where you see us focusing on institution-building, the trade and investment environment, young people, human capital, and the various development priorities we pursue. 

That relates to the second question, and I know Gayle will want to say something about this, but I’ll just begin by saying that we have carried forward PEPFAR, which is an extraordinary initiative because of the work that has been done under two administrations.  And on the continent itself, we have within reach an AIDS-free generation.  And we have also broadened out our global health initiative so it’s focused on capacity building, public health sectors and long-term African solutions.

But as a general matter, the point is Africa doesn’t need handouts.  Africa needs trade.  Africa needs economic growth.  And this notion that the only way to make an impact is to announce a high-dollar assistance program doesn’t fit with the times as it relates to what Africans are looking for.  Because the things that are really going to unleash growth on the continent is not an assistance program, per se, but rather the types of partnerships that we’ve been pursuing in areas like food security, for instance, that enable economic growth; that enable a broader base of people coming out of poverty; that enhance trade between Africa and the United States, but also within African countries and within the continent. 

So that’s why we focus so much of our attention -- whether it’s development policy or our broader Africa policy -- not just on carrying forward these very important assistance programs, but on unleashing economic growth that ultimately is going to be in our interest as well as Africa’s.

But, Gayle, you may want to add to that.

MS. SMITH:  Sure, let me just add a couple things.  One of the things that’s interesting, if you look at what is fueling development now as opposed to 10 or 12 years ago, assistance is the smallest piece of the puzzle.  It is private capital and it’s domestic resources.  Because with a lot more countries that have growing economies, governments are investing more and more, so there’s a momentum going that we are tapping into.

With PEPFAR, for example, as Ben suggests, we didn’t turn off PEPFAR, nor did President Bush turn it off when he left the White House.  In fact, we inherited it.  It was a terrific foundation.  We’ve built on that substantially by shifting it a lot more in the direction of capacity-building, of strengthening systems in partner countries, in building on things like maternal/child health so that we could help to radically reduce the rate of the spread of the infection from mother to child.  And what we have seen over the last few years is a turning point where, as Ben says, we can now talk about the possibility of an AIDS-free generation.

Similarly, I would argue that on the food security side that is an issue that, when President Obama came into office in 2009, had fallen off the map.  The United States was once among the world’s leaders in supporting agricultural development around the world and, as I said at the top, the world was providing far more in relief aid than it was in investing in production, in getting small-holder farmers’ goods to market, and so on and so forth.

I think the President -- in cooperation with African partners, the G8, the G20 -- has really put this issue on the map.  There is tremendous momentum behind food security.  And as an example of how we’re using assistance to leverage, to have in one year well over $3.5 billion in commitments from the private sector to invest in African agriculture is a pretty good deal.  So that’s something we’re quite proud of and we think much more of that can happen. 

I would argue, as Ben suggests, the shift we’re seeing is one that is away from the kind of linear donors provide aid to compensate for the deficits in governance or in functional economies, and more that we are working with partners to figure out how we can accelerate the flow of private capital, accelerate the flow of domestic resources, strengthen systems, and make countries and economies actually work for their people.  So it’s a much different -- I’m not a big fan of the word “paradigm”, but it’s a much different paradigm than what we were looking at even 10 years ago.

MR. RHODES:  Great.  Well, thanks, everybody, for joining the call.  I think we’re going to  -- as you see, there’s quite a busy schedule.  We’ll keep you updated if there are any developments associated with the schedule.  And we’ll look forward to seeing everybody on the trip.  But we wanted to get you this information early because we know a lot of people are beginning to now preview the trip.  So we’ll look forward to being in touch and we’ll look forward to seeing you on our trip.

END
4:35 P.M. EDT

President Obama Makes a Personnel Announcement

June 21, 2013 | 12:06 | Public Domain

President Obama announces is he nominating James Comey as Director of the FBI.

Download mp4 (445MB) | mp3 (29MB)

Read the Transcript

Remarks by the President at Nomination of James Comey as Director of the FBI

Rose Garden

2:11 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat. 

For more than a century, we have counted on the dedicated men and women of the FBI to keep us safe.  In that time, the FBI has been led by six directors.  And the second-longest-serving director of the FBI -- for the last 12 years -- has been an exemplary public servant, Bob Mueller.

By law, FBI directors only serve for 10 years.  But back in 2011, when Bob’s term was up, I asked Congress to give him two more years.  It wasn’t a request I made lightly, and I know Congress didn’t grant it lightly.  But at a time when transitions were underway at the CIA and the Pentagon, and given the threats facing our nation, we felt it was critical to have Bob’s steady hand and strong leadership at the Bureau. 

Twelve years is a long time to do anything -- and I guarantee you that Bob’s wife, Ann, agrees.  So, in addition to asking Congress, I think we needed approval from Ann as well for those extra two years.  Today, as Bob prepares to complete his service, this is a wonderful opportunity for all of us as a nation to say thank you to Bob and Ann, but also it gives me a chance to announce my choice to be the next director of the FBI, Jim Comey.

Every day, our FBI special agents, analysts and professional staff devote -- and often risk -- their lives keeping us secure, from the streets of our cities to the battlefield of Afghanistan. They embody the core principles of fidelity, bravery and integrity. 

Bob Mueller has embodied those values through decades of public service -- and lived them every day as FBI director during an extraordinary period in our nation’s history.  Bob, some of you will recall, was sworn in just days before 9/11, and Bob not only played a key role in our response to those attacks, he began one of the biggest transformations of the FBI in history to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Like the Marine that he’s always been, Bob never took his eyes off his mission.  Under his watch, the FBI joined forces with our intelligence, military and homeland security professionals to break up al Qaeda cells, disrupt their activities and thwart their plots.  I’ll say it as clearly as I can -- countless Americans are alive today, and our country is more secure, because of the FBI’s outstanding work under the leadership of Bob Mueller. 

All the while, Bob and the FBI have been tireless against a whole range of challenges, from preventing violent crime and reducing gang activity, including along our border, to cracking down on white-collar criminals.   

Today there are many in the FBI who’ve never known the Bureau without Bob at the helm.  And like us, they’ve admired his tenacity, but also his calm under pressure, his devotion to our security and his fidelity to the values that make us who we are. It’s a trademark -- a tribute to Bob’s trademark humility that most Americans probably wouldn’t recognize him on the street, but all of us are better because of his service. 

And, Bob, I can't tell you how personally grateful I am to you and to Ann for your service.  I know that everyone here joins me in saying that you will be remembered as one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, and one of the most admired public servants of our time.  And I have to say just personally not only has it been a pleasure to work with Bob, but I know very few people in public life who have shown more integrity more consistently under more pressure than Bob Mueller.  (Applause.)

I think Bob will agree with me when I say that we have the perfect person to carry on this work in Jim Comey -- a man who stands very tall for justice and the rule of law.  I was saying while we were taking pictures with his gorgeous family here that they are all what Michelle calls “normal height.”  (Laughter.) 

The grandson of a patrolman who worked his way up to lead the Yonkers Police Department, Jim has law enforcement in his blood.  As a young prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, he helped bring down the Gambino crime family.  As a federal prosecutor in Virginia, he led an aggressive effort to combat gun violence that reduced homicide rates and saved lives. He has been relentless, whether it’s standing up for consumers against corporate fraud or bringing terrorists to justice. 

And as deputy attorney general, he helped lead the Justice Department with skill and wisdom -- meeting the threats we know about and staying perpetually prepared for the ones that can emerge suddenly.  So Jim is exceptionally qualified to handle the full range of challenges faced by today’s FBI -- from traditional threats like violent and organized crime, to protecting civil rights and children from exploitation, to meeting transnational challenges like terrorism and cyber threats.

Just as important as Jim’s extraordinary experience is his character.  He’s talked about how, as a young boy, he and his brother nearly lost their lives.  They were at home and an intruder broke in and held them at gunpoint.  So Jim understands, deeply, in his core, the anguish of victims of crime, what they go through, and he’s made it his life’s work to spare others that pain.  

To know Jim Comey is also to know his fierce independence and his deep integrity.  Like Bob, he’s that rarity in Washington sometimes -– he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done.  At key moments, when it's mattered most, he joined Bob in standing up for what he believed was right.  He was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong.  As Jim has said, “We know that the rule of law sets this nation apart and is its foundation.” 

Jim understands that in time of crisis, we aren’t judged solely by how many plots we disrupt or how many criminals we bring to justice -- we’re also judged by our commitment to the Constitution that we’ve sworn to defend, and to the values and civil liberties that we’ve pledged to protect.  And as we’ve seen in recent days, this work of striking a balance between our security, but also making sure we are maintaining fidelity to those values that we cherish is a constant mission.  That’s who we are. 

And it is in large part because of my confidence not only in his experience and his skill but his integrity that I'm confident that Jim will be a leader who understands how to keep America safe and stay true to our founding ideals, no matter what the future may bring.

So, to Bob and Ann, I want to thank you again for your incredible service.  I want to thank Jim, his wife Patrice, and their five children who are here today -- Maurene, Katherine, Brien, Claire and Abby -- for supporting Jim as he takes on this important role.  I know he couldn’t do this without you.  And he is extraordinarily proud of all of you, and I can see why. 

This is a 10-year assignment.  I make this nomination confident that long after I've left office, our nation’s security will be in good hands with public servants like Jim Comey.  And so I urge, as usual, for the Senate to act promptly with hearings and to confirm our next FBI director right away.

I'd like now to give both of them a chance to say a few words, starting with Bob. 

DIRECTOR MUELLER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Let me start by thanking you, Mr. President, for those kind words.  And I also want to express my gratitude to both President Bush and President Obama for giving me the honor and the privilege of serving as the FBI director during these last few years.

I particularly want to take the opportunity, though, to thank the men and women of the FBI.  It's through their hard work, their dedication, their adaptability, that the FBI is better able to predict and to prevent terrorism and crime both here and abroad. 

Of course, I want to thank my wife, Ann, my family, for their support and their patience over the last 12 years. 

And, finally, I want to commend the President for the choice of Jim Comey as the next Director of the FBI. 

I have had the opportunity to work with Jim for a number of years in the Department of Justice, and I have found him to be a man of honesty, dedication and integrity.  His experience, his judgment, and his strong sense of duty will benefit not only the Bureau, but the country as a whole. 

Again, Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to serve.  (Applause.)

MR. COMEY:  Thank you, Mr. President, for this honor and this opportunity.  I'm not sure I have the words to describe how excited I am to return to the Department of Justice, and especially to get to work again with the people of the FBI.  They are men and women who have devoted their lives to serving and protecting others, and I simply can't wait to be their colleague again.

Nearly everything I am and have done in my adult life is due to the great good fortune of marrying up.  (Laughter.)  Thanks to the love and support, and occasional constructive criticism -- (laughter) -- of my beloved troops, of my amazing wife, Patrice, and Abby, Claire, Brien, Kate and Maurene, I am a much better person that I would have been without you.  I love you guys.  I have a debt.  I cannot repay you, but thank you for that. 

I must be out of my mind to be following Bob Mueller.  (Laughter.)  I don't know whether I can fill those shoes.  But I know that however I do, I will be standing truly on the shoulders of a giant, someone who has made a remarkable difference in the life of this country.  I can promise you, Mr. President and Mr. Director, that I will do my very best to honor and protect that legacy. 

And I thank you again, Mr. President, for this chance to serve.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Can we give Bob Mueller and Ann one more big round of applause?  (Applause.)

END   
2:22 P.M. EDT

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to North Korea

NOTICE
- - - - - - -
CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA

On June 26, 2008, by Executive Order 13466, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula. The President also found that it was necessary to maintain certain restrictions with respect to North Korea that would otherwise have been lifted pursuant to Proclamation 8271 of June 26, 2008, which terminated the exercise of authorities under the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1-44) with respect to North Korea.

On August 30, 2010, I signed Executive Order 13551, which expanded the scope of the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by the continued actions and policies of the Government of North Korea, manifested by its unprovoked attack that resulted in the sinking of the Republic of Korea Navy ship Cheonan and the deaths of 46 sailors in March 2010; its announced test of a nuclear device and its missile launches in 2009; its actions in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1718 and 1874, including the procurement of luxury goods; and its illicit and deceptive activities in international markets through which it obtains financial and other support, including money laundering, the counterfeiting of goods and currency, bulk cash smuggling, and narcotics trafficking, which destabilize the Korean Peninsula and imperil U.S. Armed Forces, allies, and trading partners in the region.

On April 18, 2011, I signed Executive Order 13570 to take additional steps to address the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 and expanded in Executive Order 13551 that will ensure the implementation of the import restrictions contained in UNSCRs 1718 and 1874 and complement the import restrictions provided for in the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).

Because the existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466, expanded in scope in Executive Order 13551, and addressed further in Executive Order 13570, and the measures taken to deal with that national emergency, must continue in effect beyond June 26, 2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Message -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to North Korea

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13466 of June 26, 2008, expanded in scope in Executive Order 13551 of August 30, 2010, and addressed further in Executive Order 13570 of April 18, 2011, is to continue in effect beyond June 26, 2013.

The existence and risk of proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the Korean Peninsula, and the actions and policies of the Government of North Korea that destabilize the Korean Peninsula and imperil U.S. Armed Forces, allies, and trading partners in the region continue to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to these threats and maintain in force the measures taken to deal with that national emergency.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 6/21/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:02 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Hello, everyone.  Good afternoon.  Thanks for being here.  I wanted to mention at the top, because the President will be speaking, as you know, in the Rose Garden, that we’ll try for a 1:50 hard-out end to this briefing, in your interest -- I hope you agree.

And with that, I’ll take your questions.  No announcements.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Two questions -- one on immigration.  Senator Lindsey Graham said that the agreement that they reached in the Senate that guarantees some extra Republican votes, virtually militarizes the border and it adds 20,000 new agents, 18 drones -- surveillance drones, and 350 miles of new fencing that will cost them more than $30 billion.  The President supports this?  The President endorses this idea?

MR. CARNEY:  Jim, what we’ve seen is continued progress in the Senate towards the goal of legislation that would comprehensively reform our immigration system.  And as I understand it, they’re still working through the details of this border security amendment and haven’t filed it yet, but we’re certainly pleased that Republicans and Democrats continue to work together towards common-sense immigration reform. 

And this agreement would constitute a breakthrough on the bipartisan effort, and we applaud the tireless work that has gone into it and the broad effort.

I don’t have specifics; the amendment hasn’t been filed.  But remember that the President insisted, now two years ago, when he put forward his principles for comprehensive immigration reform, that border security, enhanced border security, be part of it.  His commitment to border security has been demonstrated by his record on this issue since he took office, by the increase already in the -- substantial increase in the number of border security guards; the increase in technology; and the reduction in crossings and increase in apprehension.

So the President is committed to border security.  He has made clear that he insists that all his principles be met, and that includes, obviously, a clear path to earned citizenship.  But we’ll await the details, but it would certainly constitute a breakthrough in this process.

Q    I wanted to ask you about the meeting today with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.  I think that’s been essentially dormant for many years.  What are the President’s goals?  He’s talked about maybe releasing more information.  And does he want to give this board a particular deadline to operate on?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you a few things.  First of all, as you noted, the President will meet for the first time with the recently constituted Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.  PCLOB -- a somewhat unfortunate acronym -- (laughter) -- is an independent -- we got to work on that, right?  But the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is an independent agency comprised of five individuals, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  The chair, David Medine, was confirmed just last month.

The President looks forward to hearing from members of the board about their areas of focus and discussing recent developments, including the disclosure of classified information.  The President believes that PCLOB can be an important part of the national conversation on these issues.  But in the coming weeks, the President and members of his administration will begin meeting with a range of stakeholders on the subject of protecting privacy in the digital era.

As you know, the purpose of the board is twofold:  to analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties; and to ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of law regulations and policies related to efforts to protect the nation against terrorism.

The board is required to report -- I think this goes to part of your question -- it’s required to report to Congress not less than semiannually. 

So the President looks forward to this meeting.  And we have seen, in the wake of these unauthorized disclosures of classified information, a developing debate about these issues.  The President, as you know, believes that this is an important and worthy debate.  He has made clear his views on the tradeoffs involved in finding the balance between our need to protect our citizens, protect our country, and our need to retain our values and privacy.  But he believes that that’s a discussion that we should engage in.  And he has taken efforts, as you know, to declassify information related to these disclosures, and he has made clear that he wants to continue to have this conversation because he thinks it’s very important.

Q    So he says he welcomes a debate, but he also says he feels like he’s struck the right balance.  Isn’t that a little bit like saying, I welcome the NBA playoffs but this is the outcome I want?

MR. CARNEY:  No, because the President understands that he is not the only important voice in this debate and that these are issues that are extremely important and they go beyond the kinds of disclosures that we’ve had recently, but go to the age that we live in and the digital era that we live in, and the balance we need to find between our security and the protection of our privacy.

Q    Last, any reaction to Senator McConnell’s speech today on the First Amendment?

MR. CARNEY:  Be a little bit more specific?

Q    He gave a speech on the First Amendment and claimed that the President is out to punish anybody who opposes him.  He says that the IRS is simply one example of the various efforts that this administration has taken to undermine First Amendment rights of Americans.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as I’m sure the Minority Leader in the Senate is aware, the independent inspector general has testified and has made clear in his report that he has found no evidence that anyone outside of the IRS had any involvement in the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status.  So I would say that that charge is demonstrably bogus.

Q    Jay, any specific recommendation from this meeting today?  Or is this just a “get to know you” sort of session?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s certainly more than a “get to know you” session.  It is part of a process.  It’s the first meeting the President will have with this newly constituted board.  There will be a number of issues discussed.  It will be held in the Situation Room to allow for the discussion of classified matters, but it will be part of a process. 

And the board is obviously an independent agency.  Its membership, I think, is known and represents some real expertise in the areas that a board like this considers.  And the President believes that this meeting is part of a process that is not limited to this discussion with the board, but that this meeting is part of that process that is already underway and he believes needs to involve all types of stakeholders.

Q    There’s some anticipation that the President is going to have an announcement about climate change next week -- limiting carbon emissions from power plants.  Is that something he’d like to do, impose limits on carbon emissions on power plants?

MR. CARNEY:  Steve, as you know from the President’s inaugural address and his State of the Union address, this is an issue -- climate change -- the President cares deeply about.  That's why he and his administration made significant progress in his first time to reduce carbon emissions, which are currently at a 20-year low, by doubling our use of renewable energy; establishing the toughest fuel economy standards in our history; and promoting efficiency in our homes and businesses.  And those steps are already making a lasting impact and bringing benefits to the American people today.

The President has committed himself to continuing to work on these issues.  He also made clear in his State of the Union speech that if Congress wasn’t going to act to protect future generations, he would take action.  He explicitly announced that he was directing his Cabinet to come up with executive actions that he can take to reduce pollution and prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and to speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy. 

So this is -- the President has telegraphed very clearly that he intends to continue progress on this issue.  He will continue to address this issue in the future.  He committed to that in the State of the Union address, in his inaugural address, and you can expect that you will hear from him on this issue in the future.

Q    Next week?

MR. CARNEY:  No, I don't have an announcement for you about when the President will next address this issue, but he certainly intends to keep his commitment.

Dan.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Yesterday on CNN, Senator John McCain reiterated that he didn’t think the administration was doing enough to help the dire situation in Syria.  And referring to the recent announcement by the administration to further assist the rebels, he said, "Light weapons do not do well against Scud missiles and tanks, and it's just shameful."  Any reaction from this -- strong reaction from Senator McCain?

MR. CARNEY:  Under the President's leadership, the United States of America is the leader in the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, and we have stepped up that assistance consistently over recent months.  We have also significantly increased our assistance to the Syrian opposition, direct assistance, as well as to the Syrian Supreme -- the opposition's Supreme Military Council.  And as you know, the President has authorized the expansion of our assistance to the opposition, including to the Supreme Military Council, and we will be consulting with Congress -- including, I'm sure, with Senator McCain -- on these matters in the coming weeks.

The approach the President takes to these issues is to evaluate policy options, including options in the provision of assistance to the Syrian opposition, based on whether they would hasten the achievement of our goal here, which is to bring about a political transition in Syria.  And the President is fully aware -- you've heard him address this recently -- of the circumstances in Syria, the fact that Assad continues to slaughter his own people, and aware of the fact that we need to work with our partners and allies and the opposition to strengthen the opposition.

But the ultimate goal here is to bring about a political transition -- one that results in a governing authority that respects the rights of all Syrians; that maintains the state that combats terrorism and that reflects the will of the Syrian people -- all of the Syrian people.  And we are working with our partners and allies and the opposition to help bring that about.  And the President will continue to assess the options available to him, even as he, as you know, has authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council.

Q    But he believes that the assistance so far, or what will be coming soon, is enough to deal with the current situation?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, Dan, I'm not going to -- I can't inventory to you the kinds of assistance that we are providing, or we will be providing.  I can tell you that it reflects the assessment of the President and his team about what are the necessary steps now to be taken in terms of the assistance that we can provide to help the opposition.  And we will obviously continue to assess our options when it comes to the provision of different kinds of assistance. 

But again, all of these decisions are made through a filter here that is designed to ensure that we are making choices and policy decisions that help move us closer to our goal here, which is a transition in Syria to a post-Assad governing authority.

Q    Just to follow on Jim's question about the balance between privacy and security.  So the President believes that the right balance currently exists, but will PCLOB, if they come back with additional guidance, advice, could all of this be rebalanced?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that, yes, that the President wants to have this debate.  He wants to hear the opinions and concerns of all stakeholders, because this is an important issue that affects our lives in the 21st century profoundly.  And you've heard the President speak about this on a number of occasions recently, and know where he stands. 

He has -- having come into office and assessed the programs that exist, and taken steps to enhance the oversight of those programs -- come to the conclusion that the proper balance, in his view, is being struck; that these programs are subject to substantial review -- both oversight by Congress and review by the courts, authorization by the courts.  But he certainly believes that we need to evaluate them consistently and debate them and make judgments about how we're striking that balance. 

But it's important to note that the programs as they exist now do have within them, by law and regulation, substantial oversight -- congressional and judicial review.  And those kinds of restrictions help bring about the balance that the President believes we need to seek.

Q    Did the President watch the game last night?

MR. CARNEY:  He did.

Q    What did he think about the results?

MR. CARNEY:  He said not long ago in the Oval Office that he was simply sad that it was over, that it was a great series -- two great teams, very dramatic outcome of so many of the games.  So he certainly congratulates the Miami Heat, but both teams for playing such a remarkable finals.

Q    Back on immigration, Jay.  So the cost of this grand compromise is some $30 billion total over the next 10 years.  Isn't this an expensive overkill, as Dick Durbin has said it is?  Does the White House believe that it's overkill?  And is it necessary?  Is a border surge really necessary since you've -- the administration has been saying that the border is secure?  Why would we spend $30 billion more?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me just be clear that the President has overseen substantial improvements in our border security, and that has been testified to by independent observers, as well as Republicans in Congress.  And there's data to back that up, incontrovertible data, including the substantial increase already in the border security presence, the Border Patrol agents who have been put on the ground. 

It is also true, when it comes to cost, that the independent Congressional Budget Office released their score of the Senate's bipartisan immigration reform bill prior to this amendment, and found that the bill would reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by $197 billion and about $700 billion over the following decade.  That's $900 billion.  So I think that is an important thing to note when we're talking about what additional costs might be incurred if this amendment emerges and is included in the bill and passed by the Senate, and hopefully ultimately in a form that meets the President's principles, passed through Congress and onto his desk. 

So there is no question that we have done a great deal to improve our border security.  The President made clear when he outlined his principles for comprehensive immigration reform that enhanced border security needed to be a central element to this process and to any comprehensive immigration reform legislation.  So that has been a priority of his from the beginning.  So we welcome the progress on this issue by the Senate.  We await the details as they work on them of this amendment.  But we certainly support improved border security.

Q    But does improved border security mean one agent every thousand feet?  Is there a point where this is -- as Senator Durbin said -- this is overkill and that as the old saying goes, “a billion here, a billion here, pretty soon you're talking about some real money”?  $30 billion is still a lot of money.

MR. CARNEY:  There's no question.  And I would simply say that to evaluate the specifics of this amendment before it's been filed would be premature.  I would simply say that it does represent substantial bipartisan progress that reflects the bipartisan progress we've seen overall in the Senate -- beginning with the Gang of Eight's work and the proposal that passed through committee -- continuing as we've seen the debate on the floor.  And we commend Democrats and Republicans for the work they've done thus far, and we look forward to the final submission of this amendment and consideration of the full bill and passage in the Senate.

Q    Can I get your reaction to the failure of the Farm Bill in the House and if you think that portends anything particularly unnerving for this White House as it deals with immigration, a budget cycle that's still unresolved, and a debt ceiling vote later on this year?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would say that there's no question that the House has had a difficult time passing legislation in general.  But we believe when it comes to immigration reform that the kind of bipartisan progress we've seen in the Senate and the bipartisan work that we've seen in the House will, in the end, carry the day because it is the right thing to do for our businesses, for the middle class, for the economy at large, for deficit reduction -- as the CBO has shown -- and because as outside commentators, maybe even you yourself have noted, it's ultimately in the interest of the Republican Party to do it. 

So we certainly hope that the progress we've seen thus far on immigration reform will continue, and it will continue through the Senate and the House, and ultimately result in passage of a bill that meets the President's principles that he can sign into law. 
 
Everybody obviously that is difficult or requires bipartisan support is contentious and encounters obstacles along the way.  That has been true for as long as we’ve been here, and I’m sure will continue to be true going forward.

Q    Where do things stand on farm policy?  There are things that need to be done to maintain food stamps and other elements of this farm policy that's now derailed because the House didn't pass this bill.  Where are things, as far as the administration is dealing with Congress on that?

MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to -- Major, I just confess that I haven’t spent enough time on that issue today, but we can take the question and get back to you.

Q    Shifting back -- shifting, rather, to something the President addressed in Berlin, but there’s been some intervening elements since then.  Yesterday, there was scheduled to be the first direct meeting between U.S. representatives and the Taliban in Doha.  Is there anything that you can tell us what came from that?  And did that in fact happen?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not sure.  I would refer you to the State Department, which has the lead on this.  But I’m not sure that was the case in terms of a meeting yesterday.  I know that we have made clear that we believe that reconciliation is essential ultimately to the resolution of more than 30 years of conflict in Afghanistan. 

We’ve also made clear that this is going to be hard.  The Taliban and Afghan security forces and coalition forces remain at war.  And any process that would result in negotiations and efforts towards reconciliation is going to be fraught and difficult, and that is obviously going to be the case and is the case with the developments we’ve seen, which is the opening of an office in Qatar by the Taliban.

So we’ll continue to watch this process.  We’ll continue to work with the Afghan government and pursue reconciliation, but  --

Q    Has there been any attempt to get more clarity from President Karzai since his separation from the U.S. was announced?

MR. CARNEY:  On the Taliban talks?

Q    Yes.

MR. CARNEY:  Look, both President Obama and President Karzai have long agreed that a peace process is the best way to ensure the lasting stability of Afghanistan.  And we also know that, as I was just saying, that there are years -- decades, in fact, of mistrust to overcome here.  So President Karzai knows that reconciliation is essential for the future stability of Afghanistan.  We certainly believe that.

We also understand that this has been and will continue to be difficult.  And we will continue to work with Afghan security forces as we engage in a military effort, even as we pursue this diplomatic --

Q    But nothing that's gone on in the last couple of days to try to get a better sense of where he is on this?

MR. CARNEY:  Where --

Q    Karzai is.

MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say that he believes that reconciliation has to be part of a process that leads to long-term civility in Afghanistan.  We do as well.  And we continue to work with him and with the Afghan government to help bring that about. 

Q    Jay, following on immigration, you at this podium and the President many times publicly have said that border security is at its highest level ever; apprehensions are at the highest level, et cetera.  If all of that is true, why then do we need thousands more Border Patrol agents, as Jim was suggesting a moment ago, if, in fact, we're at the highest level of border security ever? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as I was saying, the President included as one of his essential priorities that had to be part of comprehensive immigration reform for him to sign it, would be measures that enhance further our border security.  A lot of work has been done.  The improvements that you mentioned have occurred, but more work needs to be done.  And so we certainly expected border security to be part of comprehensive immigration reform as it emerged from the Senate -- in fact, we insisted that enhanced border security be part of it.

What we have been clear about is that immigration reform had to be comprehensive; that it had to include not just border security, but measures that held businesses accountable, businesses who hired illegal immigrants; it had to reform our immigration -- our legal immigration system; and it had to provide a clear path to earned citizenship for the 11 million illegals living in this country.

So those components all had to be part of it.  And border security was one of those priorities.

Q    I wanted to ask you about the economy.  After the President's news conference Wednesday, as I recall, a few hours later Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke made comments that, as you know, have been interpreted all around the world.  On the one hand, he said that the economy is doing pretty well, it's getting better, and yet there seems to be this odd reaction where the markets are saying, uh oh, that means the Fed is going to stop buying all these bonds and that interest rates are going up and the economy is going to be in bad shape.  How does the White House sort all of this out as people around the country are nervous about how this is affecting their 401(k), how this is affecting their take-home pay?  How is the White House sorting out what he said?

MR. CARNEY:  Here's what I have to say about the markets and the Fed Chairman and Fed policy. 

Q    I thought you might.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the economy is continuing to recover.  We have had sustained economic growth.  We have had sustained private sector job creation.  But we are not where we need to be yet. 

We have seen improvements in the housing market -- substantial improvements of late -- and that is vitally important as a part of the recovery that we've been undergoing now, from the worst recession since the Great Depression.  We continue to focus on the things that are the responsibility of the administration, and the things that we can work with Congress on to keep this economy moving forward.  And that includes investments in innovation and infrastructure and education.  It includes deficit reduction done in a way that’s balanced, that ensures that we continue to grow and create jobs.  And we focus on the things that, as an administration, we should be focusing on, and we don’t comment on areas that are independent of us.

Q    Great.  But if the markets are basically saying that if the Fed pulls out, then they're not confident in the long-term economy, my question then would be -- so that you don’t have to comment on Mr. Bernanke directly -- what does that say about the recovery that the President has ushered in?  On the one hand, you want to trumpet the fact that the economy is recovering; but on the other hand, if it's such a shallow recovery that people are nervous that if the Fed pulls back, things are going to fall backwards, doesn’t that suggest this is not a strong recovery? 

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm just not going to get into markets and market psychology.  I will get into policy and the steps that we can take to ensure that the economy continues to grow.

The President doesn’t believe that -- the President is focused on job creation, economic growth, ensuring that the middle class is secure and that jobs are being created that allow Americans to maintain a middle class lifestyle.  And how markets react to that, we pay less attention to than what we can do to keep the economy growing and keep it creating jobs.  So I’m just not going to get into the way the market moves.

Q    I get it.  So last question then -- so that the President could focus on the middle class, as you say, focus on the economy, how can he do that right now when he’s trying to get the immigration bill; when he’s going to be talking about climate change at some point soon, with a pretty big plan, whether it’s next week or future?  The NSA -- he’s having the meetings today; this is an important issue.  Syria.  He’s juggling a lot right now.  How do you focus on the economy, like a laser, when you have all this other stuff?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’re right, there are a whole host of important issues that the President, the administration, the Congress are dealing with, and that continues to be the case.  But the President’s number-one priority, in addition to making sure that he’s doing everything he can to protect the American people and our national security interests, is the economy and economic growth, and the middle class and its security and its expansion. 

You have seen, amidst all the various things that you mentioned, the President travel several times on the Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour.  That will continue.  He will continue to discuss the measures that we need to be taking here in Washington to promote economic growth and investment, to promote the middle class and job creation, even as we deal with these other very important issues.

But, I mean, I think that your question reflects the fact that there is a lot of work to be done here, and we are engaged in that work.

Kristen.

Q    Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.  Is this something that the administration is considering?  Is this something that the President would agree to?

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans -- between the Taliban and the Afghan government.  However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long.

We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release.  We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue -- using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools -- the effort to return him home safely.  And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family.

With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made -- the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.

Q    So you haven’t ruled it out?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m simply saying that -- first of all, you have to separate the two issues.  We are focused on the return  -- the safe and immediate return of Sergeant Bergdahl, and we continue to use the tools at our disposal to help bring that about.

We also expect the Taliban to raise the issue of their detainees in discussions that we have with them if those discussions take place.  And at this time we’ve made no decisions about the transfer of detainees.  And in accordance with law, we would be consulting with Congress should we make any decisions about that.  So we remain committed to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as you know.  But separate from that on these specific issues about individual detainees, that would be a process that is done in accordance with law.

Q    So when do you expect those discussions to take place?  Could they take place as early as Saturday?  Secretary Kerry --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously, there have been some developments in that, and they're fairly fluid.  I would simply say that this process is going to be hard.  We’ve made clear, I think in the background that we provided to you, that this would be difficult, but that we continue to pursue this because we believe and the Afghan government believes and President Karzai believes and understands that, ultimately, lasting stability in Afghanistan can only come through a reconciliation process, a political process.

That's how conflicts like these -- like this one come to an end, and that's been true throughout history.  But this process has been difficult.  It will probably continue to be difficult and run into obstacles, but we’ll continue to press it.  There are other avenues to press for reconciliation beyond the office in Qatar.  But we will continue to pursue that avenue, as well as others, even as we pursue the military effort with Afghan security forces.

Q    And I want to ask you about the Black Forest fire.  It’s destroyed at least 509 homes in Colorado.  The government helps to contain wildfires through the Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program.  But in the President’s 2014 budget, there are about -- it’s cut -- that program is cut by at least 30 percent.  So is this really the best way to save, given that you have more wildfires, really, than in past years?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’ll have to take the question.  I’m not familiar with the budget issues here.  I know that in response to fires like this, we have provided an enormous amount of assistance and resources in general.  I would have to get you specifics with regards to this particular wildfire.  But on the issue of budgets, I’ll have to take the question.

Q    Okay, and will you get back to me on that question?  And one more just about Danny Werfel.  He started his job on May 22nd.  You said at that point that the President had instructed him to conduct a review of the IRS and to get back to the White House in 30 days.  Tomorrow marks about a month.  So is there an update on that?

MR. CARNEY:  I think that Mr. Werfel has indicated that he would complete that review by the end of June, and we look forward to that completion.

Peter.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  Senator McConnell in his speech said that “there’s been a coordinated campaign to use the levers of government to target conservatives and stifle speech.  It’s been in full swing and open view for years.”  Does the White House believe that the IRS controversy and the targeting of reporters in leak investigations has impinged on democracy?

MR. CARNEY:  I think you’re conflating a few things there.  I’d ask you if in his speech was there a shred of evidence to back up his assertions -- because, as you know and I just said, the independent IG, inspector general, has made clear and testified that he had found no evidence that anyone outside of the IRS had any involvement in the inappropriate targeting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status, and I’m just curious if there was any other evidence to back up that assertion.

Q    So do you believe that there is no evidence?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I just am not sure what he’s talking about.

Stephen.

Q    Was the White House disappointed with Russia’s response to the President’s call for nuclear weapons cuts?  And if an agreement was able to be reached, would the President try to do this in a treaty?  Or is there a way he could do it without doing so that would not need Senate ratification?

MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to get ahead of the process in terms of that.  I can say that we had very -- the President had very constructive talks with President Putin on a whole range of issues, including the announcement that he made in his speech in Berlin.

The fact of the matter is we will continue to work with the Russians and continue to pursue this as something that's in the interest of American -- United States national security.  The processes and procedures that we follow, we’ll have to evaluate and provide more information about as we move along.

But I think that amid all the other things that have been going on, it’s easy to lose sight of the progress we’ve made on these issues with the Russians and the significance of what the President announced in Berlin.

Yes, Mark.

Q    Jay, where do things stand on the student loan bill?  Speaker Boehner yesterday said the President hasn’t lifted a finger to get a student loan bill passed. 

MR. CARNEY:  Here’s what I can tell you, Mark.  Congress needs to act to prevent student loan rates from doubling on July 1st, and spare 7 million students an average of $1,000 in additional interest over the life of loans that they borrow next year.  The President's budget includes a proposal to guarantee students a low rate in July.  Democrats in the House and Senate have also put forward strong solutions that would accomplish our most important goal, which is to make sure that those rates don't double in 10 days. 

And while we have significant concerns about the specific approach Republicans in the House and Senate have taken, we at least welcome that they have acknowledged that this is an important issue to address, something they did not do when it came up last year. 

So we will continue to work with Congress on this matter.  And, as I think has been reported, just yesterday, Denis McDonough, the White House Chief of Staff, and other members of the President's senior staff were on the Hill working to find a compromise that can get broad bipartisan support.  And in those discussions, we expressed our willingness to make changes to our own proposal, like adding an interest rate cap to try to help break the impasse. 

We are encouraged by the bipartisan talks taking place in the Senate this week, and are confident that an agreement that is good for students is within reach.  Again, I think while we have real concerns with the approach taken by Republicans, it is certainly a new and welcome development that they've recognized that this is an important issue.  As you remember from the debate we had about this last year, there was not the same level of concern.

Roger.

Q    Back to the privacy board for a bit.  You mentioned that the board was going to be meeting with stakeholders in the coming weeks or months. 

MR. CARNEY:  No, I said the President and members of his administration would be.  The board is independent.  I would refer you to the board for what their schedule of meetings is.

Q    Okay.  Regarding these meetings then, would some of the meetings involve, what, civil rights groups or Google people?

MR. CARNEY:  Google people?  (Laughter.)

Q    Yes.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that such people might be considered stakeholders, but I don't have a list of attendees of meetings in the future.  But I think there's a broad array of stakeholders and groups that are interested in matters of privacy, as well as institutions and groups that are interested in making sure that we're taking steps necessary within our laws and in keeping with our values to protect the United States and American citizens.

Q    And is there any chance that some of these meetings might be public?

MR. CARNEY:  All I can tell you is the President will be meeting with stakeholders.  We don't have a schedule of meetings or anything to announce to you today.  The meeting today is with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.  It will be held in the Situation Room to allow for the opportunity to discuss classified information.  So there's that. 

But obviously, this is a debate that the President believes we need to have.  To allow for that debate to involve the public, he has taken steps, as you know, to ensure that as much information as possible be made public while being mindful of the need to protect resources -- sources rather, sources and methods and national security.  In the last few weeks, we have provided enhanced transparency on it, and engaged in a robust public discussion about U.S. surveillance practices under Sections 215 and 702. 

And yesterday, at the request of the President, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, Lisa Monaco, directed the DNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, to review Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and filings relevant to these programs, and to determine what additional information the government can responsibly share about the sensitive and necessarily classified activities undertaken to keep the public safe. 

So the President's interest is very much in ensuring that as much information that can be provided and declassified as possible is provided, as long as we're doing so in a way that's responsible and keeping with our national security interests.  So that will be part of the process that he hopes will help continue to foster this debate.

Q    I'd like to ask about climate.  A couple of months ago, Gina McCarthy, the President's EPA nominee, told a senator in response to written questions that there was no consideration of a rule to limit emissions from existing power plants.  This week, the President's Climate and Energy Advisor suggested that there is such consideration.  So does the administration still stand by McCarthy's statement?  Does it need to be revised?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, you said she "suggested."  What is a fact is that there's an effort underway involving new power plants.

Q    Right, I'm talking about something else.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I know you are.  But I think it's important for everyone else to understand the distinction here.  And I don't have any new policy announcements or executive actions to make today.  But the President made clear in his State of the Union address, he made clear generally in his Inaugural Address, that he believes this is an important issue and that where Congress won't act, he will take the actions available to him to make sure that we're doing what's necessary to address these very important matters. 

Q    But McCarthy said under oath that there was no such rule under consideration.  I'm just asking whether that statement is still true. 

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm not going to get into policy discussions.  Certainly, we fully support Gina McCarthy and --

Q    -- she’s been on the record.

MR. CARNEY:  -- yes, and that she testified truthfully in her hearings. 

Yes, Phil.

Q    Back to the Farm Bill for a minute.  Does the President believe there are any consequence for farmers in the agriculture sector for the House's failure to pass the bill?  Like, what does he think those are, and what does he want Congress to do now?

MR. CARNEY:  As I said earlier, I just haven’t -- I don’t have a lot of detail for you on steps forward now on the Farm Bill.  The President obviously believes that Congress needs to act to pass legislation, and we've made that clear in the past.  We'll have to get back to you on next steps now that the House has failed to pass a Farm Bill.

Q    Does he think the failure to pass it is the fault of House Republicans?  Or does he reserve some blame for Democrats --

MR. CARNEY:  I think the numbers explain that story pretty clearly.

Jon-Christopher.

Q    Jay, a simple question:  Why Africa?  Why now?

MR. CARNEY:  First of all, as you know, the President hasn't made a trip -- this is now his second term -- to this very important part of the world where we have --

Q    He went to Ghana.

MR. CARNEY:  What's that?

Q    Except for Ghana. 

MR. CARNEY:  Yes, except I said a sustained trip; he made a brief stop in Ghana early on.  In keeping with the trips that President Bush took in his time in office; in making clear the importance of Africa in a variety of ways -- the President will make a trip next week to engage in three countries with leaders in the region.  This is a part of the world that’s seeing substantial economic growth, where there are substantial opportunities, and substantial national security and other national interests for the United States and our allies.

So it's an important trip.  We'll have more for you on that.  We'll be providing preview information of the trip for the press very soon, but it's a kind of trip that is essential to promoting U.S. national security and economic interests globally.

Q    Might the President be visiting with Mr. Mandela while he's there?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any specific schedule announcements to make today.  Obviously, we're very mindful of President Mandela, former President Mandela's health conditions and the reports about them.  But we'll have more details about the trip for you as we get closer to it.

Q    On Afghanistan, we were told that there was close coordination with President Karzai about the talks in Doha, Qatar, yet he sounded very surprised about the conditions and the formalities for these meetings.  Is that -- he actually accused the United States of contradicting statements with acts.  Is that President Karzai being President Karzai again?  Or there was something that was overlooked in the preparation for this meeting actually?  I want to ask you if the United States approved raising the Taliban flag over the office and having a sign that calls it the “Mission of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”.

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that there is obviously a great deal of mistrust, as you would expect, between the Afghan government and the Taliban.  This is a conflict that’s been going on for 30 years, and an active war that’s been going on for a decade.  That mistrust continues and it will continue, and it will be difficult to bring the parties together to pursue a reconciliation process.  But that process is essential to the long-term stability of Afghanistan.  And President Karzai has stated that he believes that and understands that. 

It is certainly our policy and our position here in the United States that that’s an important element here and an important step that has to be taken.  There are obviously -- that mistrust has been manifested in the way the opening of this office has played out.  We hope that the issues that have caused concern here can be resolved, and that the office will be opened and that talks can be engaged in.  But whether it's through this process or another, we will continue to pursue reconciliation, and so will the Afghan government because that is ultimately the only course to pursue for the long-term stability of the country. 

It is difficult -- friends don’t negotiate with each other, enemies do.  And it is hard to do this, and I think conflicts throughout history demonstrate that.  But in the end, it is the only way to ensure the peace and stability of Afghanistan in the future.

Q    Did you sign off on the sign on the name for the office and the flag?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would refer you to the Qataris, where the office was opened.  There is no question that there's been some mistrust and misunderstandings here.  That, as I understand it -- and the State Department would have more for you on it -- is being worked on.  But I’m not going to predict an outcome to that process except to say that the difficulties and obstacles that we’ve seen reflect decades of conflict and mistrust that has to be -- if not overcome -- dealt with so that a reconciliation process can move forward.

All the way in the back.  Yes.

Q    Thank you, Jay.  On Google people, the President actually just chose Google people -- the White House first privacy officer, Nicole Wong.  How will she address the public concern on privacy?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the fact that this position exists reflects the importance we attach to the issue.  I would point you to everything I just said about the President’s views on the balance that we need to strike between our national security interests and protecting the American people, as well as protecting our values and our privacy. 

He obviously sets the policy of the administration.  So we’ll have more for you on that debate and our participation in it as we move forward.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Could I ask you one --

MR. CARNEY:  Oh, I got a week ahead, too.

Q    -- something that's developing right now.

MR. CARNEY:  You going to break some news on me?

Q    Well, the LA Times is reporting that the U.S. has been training Syrian rebels in bases in Jordan and Turkey.  I wondered if you had any comment on that specifically.  And more, in general, do you know whether the U.S. has, indeed, been training -- not boots on the ground, not supplying weapons -- but certainly training Syrian rebels?

MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you, Jim, is that we have stepped up our assistance.  But I cannot inventory for you all the elements of that assistance.  And as the President said, I cannot and will not get into some specifics about the assistance that we provide.

Q    But this story says that the training has preceded this decision by the President.

MR. CARNEY:  No, I understand that.  But we can't comment on the specifics of -- around our programs, all of them related to the Syrian opposition.  So I just -- we can tell you that we have provided and will continue to provide substantial assistance to the Syrian opposition, as well as the Supreme Military Council.  And we will work with our allies, as well as the opposition, to make policy decisions that help bring about the ultimate goal that we seek, which is a transition there to a governing authority -- to an end of the violence and to a governing authority that reflects the will of all the Syrian people, that respects the civil liberties of all the Syrian people, and that maintains a functioning state in Syria because of the importance of ensuring that the conflict that we’ve seen there does not continue to spill into the rest of the region.

Q    So you don't feel a need to call that story inaccurate?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m just not going to comment on the specifics of the kinds of assistance that we provide.

Q    Jay, it’s a very specific story and talks about the two-week courses with Russian-designed 14.5-millimeter anti-tank rifles and 23-millimeter anti-aircraft weapons at bases along the border, including one base -- a new base run by the United States.  Are you denying the story --

MR. CARNEY:  I’m simply saying that given the nature of the assistance that we provide, and the way in which we implement our assistance programs, I can't give you an itemized list or be specific about every single aspect of what we are doing.

The important point here is that because of the actions we have seen the Assad regime take, we have decided to increase both the scope and scale of our assistance to the opposition, and we’ve been very clear about that over the last weeks and months.

But I can't -- because of the nature of the programs and the way we implement them, I can't comment or inventory on a specifics of all of them.  I think I’ve given the answer that I can give.

Q    Week ahead.

MR. CARNEY:  Now I’m going to give the week ahead.  Schedule for the week of June 24th, 2013.

On Monday, the President will host a meeting at the White House with business leaders to discuss the importance of common-sense immigration reform, including the Congressional Budget Office analysis that concludes that immigration reform would promote economic growth and reduce the deficit.

On Tuesday, the President will attend meetings here at the White House.

On Wednesday morning, the President and the First Family will depart for their trip to Africa.  There will be a call previewing that trip later this afternoon -- Jon-Christopher.  So anyone interested in more details can dial in.

The trip will continue through the weekend, and the President and the First Lady will return July 2nd. 

Thank you all very much.  Have a great weekend.

Q    Do you know who the business leaders will be, Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m sorry?

Q    Do you know who the business leaders will be?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ll have, I’m sure, more information for you about that later.

Thanks.

END
1:52 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Letter from the President -- Regarding the War Powers Resolution

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Certain U.S. forces recently deployed to Jordan solely to participate in a training exercise. This exercise ended on June 20, 2013. At the request of the Government of Jordan, a combat-equipped detachment of approximately 700 of these forces remained in Jordan after the conclusion of the exercise to join other U.S. forces already in Jordan.

This detachment that participated in the exercise and remained in Jordan includes Patriot missile systems, fighter aircraft, and related support, command, control, and communications personnel and systems. The detachment will remain in Jordan, in full coordination with the Government of Jordan, until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.

The deployment of this detachment has been directed in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, including the important national interests in supporting the security of Jordan and promoting regional stability, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in these actions.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at Nomination of James Comey as Director of the FBI

Rose Garden

2:11 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat. 

For more than a century, we have counted on the dedicated men and women of the FBI to keep us safe.  In that time, the FBI has been led by six directors.  And the second-longest-serving director of the FBI -- for the last 12 years -- has been an exemplary public servant, Bob Mueller.

By law, FBI directors only serve for 10 years.  But back in 2011, when Bob’s term was up, I asked Congress to give him two more years.  It wasn’t a request I made lightly, and I know Congress didn’t grant it lightly.  But at a time when transitions were underway at the CIA and the Pentagon, and given the threats facing our nation, we felt it was critical to have Bob’s steady hand and strong leadership at the Bureau. 

Twelve years is a long time to do anything -- and I guarantee you that Bob’s wife, Ann, agrees.  So, in addition to asking Congress, I think we needed approval from Ann as well for those extra two years.  Today, as Bob prepares to complete his service, this is a wonderful opportunity for all of us as a nation to say thank you to Bob and Ann, but also it gives me a chance to announce my choice to be the next director of the FBI, Jim Comey.

Every day, our FBI special agents, analysts and professional staff devote -- and often risk -- their lives keeping us secure, from the streets of our cities to the battlefield of Afghanistan. They embody the core principles of fidelity, bravery and integrity. 

Bob Mueller has embodied those values through decades of public service -- and lived them every day as FBI director during an extraordinary period in our nation’s history.  Bob, some of you will recall, was sworn in just days before 9/11, and Bob not only played a key role in our response to those attacks, he began one of the biggest transformations of the FBI in history to make sure that nothing like that ever happens again.

Like the Marine that he’s always been, Bob never took his eyes off his mission.  Under his watch, the FBI joined forces with our intelligence, military and homeland security professionals to break up al Qaeda cells, disrupt their activities and thwart their plots.  I’ll say it as clearly as I can -- countless Americans are alive today, and our country is more secure, because of the FBI’s outstanding work under the leadership of Bob Mueller. 

All the while, Bob and the FBI have been tireless against a whole range of challenges, from preventing violent crime and reducing gang activity, including along our border, to cracking down on white-collar criminals.   

Today there are many in the FBI who’ve never known the Bureau without Bob at the helm.  And like us, they’ve admired his tenacity, but also his calm under pressure, his devotion to our security and his fidelity to the values that make us who we are. It’s a trademark -- a tribute to Bob’s trademark humility that most Americans probably wouldn’t recognize him on the street, but all of us are better because of his service. 

And, Bob, I can't tell you how personally grateful I am to you and to Ann for your service.  I know that everyone here joins me in saying that you will be remembered as one of the finest directors in the history of the FBI, and one of the most admired public servants of our time.  And I have to say just personally not only has it been a pleasure to work with Bob, but I know very few people in public life who have shown more integrity more consistently under more pressure than Bob Mueller.  (Applause.)

I think Bob will agree with me when I say that we have the perfect person to carry on this work in Jim Comey -- a man who stands very tall for justice and the rule of law.  I was saying while we were taking pictures with his gorgeous family here that they are all what Michelle calls “normal height.”  (Laughter.) 

The grandson of a patrolman who worked his way up to lead the Yonkers Police Department, Jim has law enforcement in his blood.  As a young prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, he helped bring down the Gambino crime family.  As a federal prosecutor in Virginia, he led an aggressive effort to combat gun violence that reduced homicide rates and saved lives. He has been relentless, whether it’s standing up for consumers against corporate fraud or bringing terrorists to justice. 

And as deputy attorney general, he helped lead the Justice Department with skill and wisdom -- meeting the threats we know about and staying perpetually prepared for the ones that can emerge suddenly.  So Jim is exceptionally qualified to handle the full range of challenges faced by today’s FBI -- from traditional threats like violent and organized crime, to protecting civil rights and children from exploitation, to meeting transnational challenges like terrorism and cyber threats.

Just as important as Jim’s extraordinary experience is his character.  He’s talked about how, as a young boy, he and his brother nearly lost their lives.  They were at home and an intruder broke in and held them at gunpoint.  So Jim understands, deeply, in his core, the anguish of victims of crime, what they go through, and he’s made it his life’s work to spare others that pain.  

To know Jim Comey is also to know his fierce independence and his deep integrity.  Like Bob, he’s that rarity in Washington sometimes -– he doesn’t care about politics, he only cares about getting the job done.  At key moments, when it's mattered most, he joined Bob in standing up for what he believed was right.  He was prepared to give up a job he loved rather than be part of something he felt was fundamentally wrong.  As Jim has said, “We know that the rule of law sets this nation apart and is its foundation.” 

Jim understands that in time of crisis, we aren’t judged solely by how many plots we disrupt or how many criminals we bring to justice -- we’re also judged by our commitment to the Constitution that we’ve sworn to defend, and to the values and civil liberties that we’ve pledged to protect.  And as we’ve seen in recent days, this work of striking a balance between our security, but also making sure we are maintaining fidelity to those values that we cherish is a constant mission.  That’s who we are. 

And it is in large part because of my confidence not only in his experience and his skill but his integrity that I'm confident that Jim will be a leader who understands how to keep America safe and stay true to our founding ideals, no matter what the future may bring.

So, to Bob and Ann, I want to thank you again for your incredible service.  I want to thank Jim, his wife Patrice, and their five children who are here today -- Maurene, Katherine, Brien, Claire and Abby -- for supporting Jim as he takes on this important role.  I know he couldn’t do this without you.  And he is extraordinarily proud of all of you, and I can see why. 

This is a 10-year assignment.  I make this nomination confident that long after I've left office, our nation’s security will be in good hands with public servants like Jim Comey.  And so I urge, as usual, for the Senate to act promptly with hearings and to confirm our next FBI director right away.

I'd like now to give both of them a chance to say a few words, starting with Bob. 

DIRECTOR MUELLER:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Let me start by thanking you, Mr. President, for those kind words.  And I also want to express my gratitude to both President Bush and President Obama for giving me the honor and the privilege of serving as the FBI director during these last few years.

I particularly want to take the opportunity, though, to thank the men and women of the FBI.  It's through their hard work, their dedication, their adaptability, that the FBI is better able to predict and to prevent terrorism and crime both here and abroad. 

Of course, I want to thank my wife, Ann, my family, for their support and their patience over the last 12 years. 

And, finally, I want to commend the President for the choice of Jim Comey as the next Director of the FBI. 

I have had the opportunity to work with Jim for a number of years in the Department of Justice, and I have found him to be a man of honesty, dedication and integrity.  His experience, his judgment, and his strong sense of duty will benefit not only the Bureau, but the country as a whole. 

Again, Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity to serve.  (Applause.)

MR. COMEY:  Thank you, Mr. President, for this honor and this opportunity.  I'm not sure I have the words to describe how excited I am to return to the Department of Justice, and especially to get to work again with the people of the FBI.  They are men and women who have devoted their lives to serving and protecting others, and I simply can't wait to be their colleague again.

Nearly everything I am and have done in my adult life is due to the great good fortune of marrying up.  (Laughter.)  Thanks to the love and support, and occasional constructive criticism -- (laughter) -- of my beloved troops, of my amazing wife, Patrice, and Abby, Claire, Brien, Kate and Maurene, I am a much better person that I would have been without you.  I love you guys.  I have a debt.  I cannot repay you, but thank you for that. 

I must be out of my mind to be following Bob Mueller.  (Laughter.)  I don't know whether I can fill those shoes.  But I know that however I do, I will be standing truly on the shoulders of a giant, someone who has made a remarkable difference in the life of this country.  I can promise you, Mr. President and Mr. Director, that I will do my very best to honor and protect that legacy. 

And I thank you again, Mr. President, for this chance to serve.  Thank you.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Can we give Bob Mueller and Ann one more big round of applause?  (Applause.)

END   
2:22 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

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

  • Denise Bauer – Ambassador to Belgium, Department of State
  • John Berry – Ambassador to Australia, Department of State
  • Reuben E. Brigety, II – Representative of the United States of America to the African Union, with rank of Ambassador, Department of State
  • James “Wally” Brewster, Jr. – Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Department of State
  • Dan Clune – Ambassador to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Department of State
  • Linda Thomas-Greenfield – Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Department of State
  • David Hale – Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon, Department of State
  • Michael A. Hammer – Ambassador to the Republic of Chile, Department of State
  • Terence McCulley – Ambassador to the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, Department of State
  • Terrell McSweeny – Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
  • Brian A. Nichols – Ambassador to the Republic of Peru, Department of State 
  • David D. Pearce – Ambassador to Greece, Department of State
  • Lori Gilbert – Member, Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
  • Ann Ravel – Commissioner, Federal Election Commission
  • Jon T. Rymer – Inspector General, Department of Defense

President Obama said, “These men and women have demonstrated knowledge and dedication throughout their careers. I am grateful they have chosen to take on these important roles, and I look forward to working with them in the months and years to come.”

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

Denise Bauer, Nominee for Ambassador to Belgium, Department of State

Denise Bauer is Vice President of the Board of Directors for the Belvedere Community Foundation in Belvedere, California.  Ms. Bauer was Finance Chair for Women for Obama from 2011 to 2012, and served on the Obama for America National Finance Committee from 2011 to 2012 and from 2007 to 2008.  From 2008 to 2012, she served on the Democratic National Committee, serving as Chair and Co-chair of the Women’s Leadership Forum and as Co-chair of the National Issues Conference.  Prior to this, Ms. Bauer worked in television news and public affairs.  From 1993 to 1994, she was a Public Affairs Officer for the American Red Cross Bay Area in San Francisco.  From 1990 to 1992, she was a freelance film and video producer in Los Angeles, and from 1988 to 1990, she was the News Producer for the North American Bureau of Nine Network Australia in Los Angeles.  She began her career in television in 1985 as a Field Producer and Researcher for KCBS-TV News in Los Angeles.  Ms. Bauer received a B.A. from Occidental College.

John Berry, Nominee for Ambassador to Australia, Department of State

John Berry served as the Director of the Office of Personnel Management from April 2009 to April 2013.  Previously, he was the Director of the Smithsonian National Zoological Park from 2005 to 2009, and the Executive Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation from 2000 to 2005.  From 1997 to 2000, Mr. Berry served as Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget at the Department of the Interior.  From 1995 to 1997, he was Director of Government Relations and Senior Policy Advisor at the Smithsonian Institution.  He joined the federal government in 1994 as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement at the Department of Treasury.  Before joining the Department of Treasury, Mr. Berry was the Legislative Director for U.S. Representative Steny Hoyer.  Mr. Berry received a B.A. from the University of Maryland, College Park and an M.P.A. from Syracuse University.

Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II, Nominee for Representative of the United States of America to the African Union, with rank of Ambassador, Department of State

Dr. Reuben E. Brigety, II, is a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs at the Department of State.  Prior to his current role, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.  From 2008 to 2009, he was Director of the Sustainable Security Program at the Center for American Progress.  During this time, he also served as a senior advisor for Development and Security to the U.S. Central Command Assessment Team.  From 2007 to 2008, he was Special Assistant to the Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  Dr. Brigety was an Assistant Professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University from 2004 to 2009, and an Assistant Professor of International Relations at American University from 2003 to 2004.  From 2001 to 2003, he was a researcher for Human Rights Watch.  Dr. Brigety served as an officer in the U.S. Navy from 1995 to 2000.  He received a B.S. from the U.S. Naval Academy and an M.Phil. and a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England.

James “Wally” Brewster, Jr., Nominee for Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, Department of State

James “Wally” Brewster, Jr. is the Senior Managing Partner for SB&K Global, a brand strategy and consumer dynamics consulting firm based in Chicago, Illinois.  Before starting SB&K Global in 2010, he was an Officer and Senior Vice President of Marketing and Corporate Communications with General Growth Properties (GGP), a real estate investment trust headquartered in Chicago.  Prior to joining GGP in 1996, Mr. Brewster worked in management at several real estate companies in Texas, including The Rouse Company and the DeBartolo Corporation.  Earlier in his career, he held marketing and management positions with Carla Francis, Inc. and the Jim Collins Company in Dallas, Texas.  Mr. Brewster is a National LGBT Co-Chair for the Democratic National Committee and currently serves on the Board of the Human Rights Campaign. 

Dan Clune, Nominee for Ambassador to the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Department of State

Dan Clune, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is an Assessor on the Board of Examiners in the Bureau of Human Resources at the Department of State.  From 2010 to 2012, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.  From 2007 to 2010, he was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Canberra, Australia.  From 2005 to 2007, he was the Director of the Department of State Office of Monetary Affairs, and from 2002 to 2005, he was Director of the Department of State Office of Economic Policy and Public Diplomacy.  Mr. Clune served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, The Bahamas from 2000 to 2002.  Previously, he was the Trade Advisor at the U.S. Mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation Development from 1998 to 2000.  In Washington, his earlier assignments include Director for Middle East in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative from 1997 to 1998, and Economic Officer in the European Affairs Bureau from 1990 to 1992.  He has also served overseas at the U.S. Embassies in Lima, Peru and Jakarta, Indonesia.  Mr. Clune received a B.A. from Boston College and a J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Nominee for Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Department of State

Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, with the rank of Minister-Counselor, is Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources.  She is also Chairman of the Board of Foreign Service.  Previously, from 2008 to 2012, she was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Liberia.  From 2006 to 2008, she was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau for African Affairs, and from 2004 to 2006, she was a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.  Other assignments have included overseas postings in Nigeria, The Gambia, Kenya, Jamaica, Pakistan, and Switzerland.  From 1991 to 1993, she served as a Staff Assistant in the Office of the Director General of the Foreign Service.  Prior to joining the Department of State in 1982, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield taught Political Science at Bucknell University.  Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield received a B.A. from Louisiana State University and an M.A. from the University of Wisconsin.

Ambassador David Hale, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Lebanon, Department of State

Ambassador David Hale, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career-Minister, is Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.  He previously served as Deputy Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.  From 2008 to 2009, he was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.  Prior to that, Ambassador Hale served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan from 2005 to 2008.  Previously, he served at the U.S. Embassy in Jordan as Charge d’Affaires from 2004 to 2005 and as Deputy Chief of Mission from 2003 to 2004.  He served in Lebanon as Deputy Chief of Mission from 1998 to 2001, and as a Political Officer from 1992 to 1994.  He also served overseas in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.  In Washington, he served as Director of the Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs from 2001 to 2003, and Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State from 1999 to 1998.  Ambassador Hale joined the Foreign Service in 1984.  He received a B.S.F.S. from the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Michael A. Hammer, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Chile, Department of State

Michael A. Hammer, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of State.  Previously, he was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of State.  From 2009 to 2011, he was Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director for Press and Communications, and National Security Council Spokesman at the White House.  Previous assignments at the National Security Council include Director of Andean Affairs from 2000 to 2001 and Deputy Spokesman from 1999 to 2000.  Since joining the Foreign Service in 1988, Mr. Hammer has served abroad in Bolivia, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark.  He has also served in the Department of State’s Operations Center and as Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.  Mr. Hammer received a B.S.F.S. from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, an M.A.L.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and an M.S. from the National War College at the National Defense University.

Ambassador Terence McCulley, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, Department of State

Ambassador Terence McCulley, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is the U.S. Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  Previously, from 2008 to 2010, he was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark.  From 2005 to 2008, he was the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Mali.  He served as Deputy Coordinator for Iraq Assistance at the Department of State from 2004 to 2005.  He previously served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassies in Tunisia from 2001 to 2004, Senegal from 1998 to 2001, and Togo from 1995 to 1998.  He has also served overseas in Niger, South Africa, Chad, and India.  In Washington, he was Desk Officer for Zaire in the Office of Central African Affairs from 1993 to 1995.  He received a B.A. from the University of Oregon.

Terrell McSweeny, Nominee for Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

Terrell McSweeny is Senior Counsel (Competition Policy) in the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, a position she has held since 2012.  Prior to this role, Ms. McSweeny served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor to the Vice President at the White House from 2009 to 2012.  In 2008, she served as the Issues Director for the Vice President on the Obama for America campaign.  Previously, from 2005 to 2008, Ms. McSweeny worked in the Senate for Vice President Biden, serving as his Deputy Chief of Staff and as Counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  She was an Associate in 2005 and Law Clerk from 2001 to 2003 with O’Melveny & Myers.  From 2003 to 2004, she was the Deputy Director of Policy for Clark for President.  In 2000, she served as Assistant to the National Spokesman on the Gore/Lieberman 2000 Campaign.  She worked as a News Director with the Allegheny Mountain Radio Network from 1998 to 2000, and began her career as a Director of Development and Instructor with the High Rocks Education Corporation, where she worked from 1997 to 2000.  Ms. McSweeny received an A.B. from Harvard University and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law School.

Brian A. Nichols, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Peru, Department of State

Brian A. Nichols, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs at the Department of State.  He previously served in this bureau as a Deputy Assistant Secretary from 2010 to 2011.  From 2007 to 2010, Mr. Nichols was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia.  From 2004 to 2007, he was Director of the Office of Caribbean Affairs in the Department of State Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.  From 2001 to 2004, he was a Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia.  Mr. Nichols joined the Foreign Service in 1989 and his first assignment was Consular Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru.  He has also served overseas in Mexico and El Salvador.  He received a B.S. from Tufts University.

Ambassador David D. Pearce, Nominee for Ambassador to Greece, Department of State

Ambassador David D. Pearce, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career-Minister, is Senior Deputy Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the Department of State.  Prior to his current role, he was Assistant Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan from 2011 to 2012.  From 2008 to 2011, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Algeria.  From 2005 to 2008, he was the Minister Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, during which time he served on two excursion tours to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 to serve as a Senior Advisor to Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  From 2003 to 2005, Ambassador Pearce was Chief of Mission and Consul General at the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem.  Additional overseas posts include: Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria and Consul General at the U.S. Consulate General in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.  Prior to joining the Foreign Service in 1982, Ambassador Pearce worked for nearly a decade as a reporter and foreign correspondent.  He was a writer and editor for The National Geographic Society, The Washington Post, United Press International, The Rome Daily American, and the Associated Press in Ohio.  He received an A.B. from Bowdoin College and an M.A. from The Ohio State University.

Lori Gilbert, Nominee for Member, Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Lori Gilbert is the News Director for the Elko Broadcasting Company (KELK AM/KLKO FM).  She is also the News Director of KENV Television in Elko, Nevada.  Ms. Gilbert served on the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting from 2008 to 2012, where she was Chair of the Community Engagement and Diversity Committee in 2012 and Chair of the Public Awareness initiative from 2010 to 2011.  From 1998 to 2010, Ms. Gilbert was an adjunct instructor of Journalism at Great Basin College in Elko, Nevada.  She served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Associated Press Television and Radio Association.  In 2007, she was inducted into the Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame. 

Ann Ravel, Nominee for Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Ann Ravel is Chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, a position she has held since March 2011.  Prior to this, she served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Torts and Consumer Litigation in the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 2009 to 2011.  Previously, she served in a number of positions in the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office, most recently as the County Counsel from 1998 to 2009.  Ms. Ravel served as an elected member on the Board of Governors of the State Bar of California.  She was a member of the Judicial Council of the State of California and Chair of the State Bar of California’s Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation.  Ms. Ravel received a B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley and a J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. 

Jon T. Rymer, Nominee for Inspector General, Department of Defense

Jon T. Rymer is the Inspector General (IG) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a position he has held since 2006.  From May 2012 to January 2013, he was also the interim IG of the Securities and Exchange Commission.  From 1997 to 2004, he was a Director at the accounting firm KPMG LLP.  He was Executive Vice President at Boatman's Bank of Arkansas from 1992 to 1997, and Executive Vice President at First American National Bank of Tennessee from 1981 to 1992.  Mr. Rymer is a 33-year veteran of the active and reserve components of the U.S. Army.  He is a Command Sergeant Major in the U.S. Army Reserve.  He serves on the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency as a Member of the Executive Council and as Audit Committee Chairman.  Mr. Rymer received a B.A. from the University of Tennessee and an M.B.A. from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Announces Another Key Administration Post

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:

  • Lee E. Goodman – Commissioner, Federal Election Commission 

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:

Lee E. Goodman, Nominee for Commissioner, Federal Election Commission

Lee E. Goodman is a Partner with LeClairRyan, a position he has held since 2005.  Previously, he worked as Counsel at the law firm Wiley Rein LLP (formerly Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP) from 2002 to 2005 and as an Associate from 1990 to 1995.  Mr. Goodman worked for the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia as Deputy Counselor to the Governor and Deputy Director of Policy from 1999 to 2002, and as Special Counselor to the Governor from 1998 to 1999.  In 1997, Mr. Goodman served as Counsel to the Attorney General of Virginia.  From 1995 to 1996, he was a Special Assistant Attorney General and Associate General Counsel at the University of Virginia.  Mr. Goodman received a B.A. from the University of Virginia and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

James B. Comey, Jr., of Connecticut, to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a term of ten years, vice Robert S. Mueller, III, term expiring.

James C. Miller, III, of Virginia, to be a Governor of the United States Postal Service for the term expiring December 8, 2017. (Reappointment)

Anne J. Udall, of Oregon, to be a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation for a term expiring October 6, 2016.  (Reappointment)