Remarks by the President in Town Hall with YSEALI Initiative Fellows

East Room

2:26 P.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, thank you so much, Zin Mar, for your introduction and for your example and your commitment to build a free and open press in Myanmar, and all the hope that you represent.  Please give her a big round of applause.  She did an outstanding job.  (Applause.)
 
Well, to all of you, welcome to Washington.  Welcome to the White House.  And while I know that you’ve been here a few weeks, let me just say again, on behalf of the American people, welcome to the United States of America.  We are thrilled to have you here. 
 
I’m not going to give a long speech because what I really want to do is have a conversation with you like the one that I had when I was in Myanmar.  So this is a town hall meeting; the less I speak the more questions you get to ask.  But I do want to take a few minutes to explain why I believe so strongly in the work that brings us together today and why your presence here is so important.
 
I think all of you know I have a special attachment to Southeast Asia.  As a boy, I lived in Jakarta.  My mother spent years working in villages to help women improve their lives.  So Southeast Asia helped shape who I am and how I see the world.  And as President, I’ve made it a pillar of my foreign policy to make sure that the United States is more deeply engaged in the Asia Pacific region, including Southeast Asia.  And I want to welcome the ambassadors from across ASEAN -— thank you for being here and for your partnership.  Give them a big round of (Applause.).
 
So I’ve deepened America’s ties with Southeast Asia because your region is critical to our shared future.  There are more than 600 million people who live in the ASEAN countries, and you reflect an incredible diversity of faiths and ethnic groups and backgrounds and cultures.  And that diversity has to be celebrated and it has to be protected.  We have incredible economic engines like Singapore.  We’ve got growing economies like the Philippines and Vietnam and Malaysia.  And we can see growth that is lifting people out of poverty and creating more jobs and trade and opportunity for all our countries. 
 
We’ve seen a historic democratic transition in Indonesia.  We’ve got elections coming later this year in Myanmar.  Communities in Laos and Brunei are working for development that’s sustainable and protecting the environment.  And we’re seeing new commitments to the education of young women and girls, as is true in Cambodia.  The people of Thailand played a critical role in the global response to the earthquake in Nepal.  And we are mindful of the King of Thailand’s health issues lately and we wish him the best, and our hopes and prayers are with him.  So Southeast Asia is stepping up.  It’s on the move. 
 
And today, America’s relationship with the region is stronger than ever.  I’m proud to be the first American President to meet regularly with all 10 ASEAN leaders.  I will continue to do so until I am no longer President.
 
We’ve strengthened our alliances, including with the Philippines.  We’ve forged new partnerships with Indonesia and Malaysia and Vietnam.  Our trade with ASEAN has been growing.  We’re pursuing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We’re working with ASEAN to bind the region more closely together and confront shared challenges, and uphold international rules and norms, including freedom of navigation, and to ensure that disputes are resolved peacefully.  At the moment, several of our nations are working to rescue desperate Rohingya migrants who are at sea, which reflects our commitment to the security and dignity and human rights of every human being.
   
But despite all the work I’ve been doing and the ambassadors have been doing, building these stronger ties is not just the work of government.  They have to be rooted in partnerships between our peoples -— and especially young people like you.
 
All across Southeast Asia, almost two-thirds of the population is under 35 years old.  So this is a young part of the world.  Technology is giving you more power to communicate and organize like never before.  In Vietnam, tens of millions of people are connected on Facebook.  Across the region, you are civil society leaders working for democracy and human rights and religious tolerance.  You are entrepreneurs who are turning your ideas into new businesses; activists fighting for the environment and against climate change.  And that’s the power that young people have, and the spirit of optimism and idealism that you represent.  So you're inspiring to me.  And I’ve made it clear that America wants to be your partner.  We want to help you succeed.
 
So two years ago, we launched the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative -— YSEALI -- to help empower young people like you, to give you more of the skills and resources and networks that you need to turn your ideas into action.  And since then, we’ve offered workshops, online networking, exchanges, professional development, hands-on training.  And today, the YSEALI network includes nearly 35,000 young people like you. 
 
Last year in Myanmar, at the town hall meeting that Zin Mar mentioned, I announced our fellowship program to bring young leaders from across the region to the United States to help develop their skills.  And for this first class of 75, more than 1,000 people applied.  The competition was intense.  Today, I’m proud to welcome you as the first class of YSEALI Fellows.  We’re very proud of you.  And I’ve had a chance to read about some of you and the amazing things that you’ve been doing.  And I suspect that Niema Remejoso, from the Philippines -- there she is right there -- (laughter) -- she spoke for a lot of you.  She said, “Am I dreaming, or is this really happening?”  So it’s really happening.  (Laughter.) 
 
You come from all 10 ASEAN nations, from capital cities and rural towns.  You represent different faiths and backgrounds, and different beliefs.  Obviously, there are men and women here -- in fact, the majority are women -- because one of the best measures of a country’s success is whether it empowers women and girls.  And you’re all bound together by a common belief that you have the talent and the drive and the power to improve the lives of your fellow human beings.
 
So for the last five weeks, you’ve been all across America. You’ve experienced state legislatures and city councils.  You’ve seen how our day-to-day democracy works.  You’ve worked at nonprofits, learning how to organize and advocate for change.  You’ve interned in some American companies, seeing how to build and manage a business.  And I want to thank all of our leaders and partners who are here -- we’ve got universities and academic institutions, we’ve got businesses -- all who have been very generous in their support of this overall process. 
 
So you’ve been experiencing America.  Some of you were very lucky and had a chance to go to my home state of Hawaii.  (Laughter.)  I heard that some of you tried to hula dance.  (Laughter.)  Some of you went to my hometown of Chicago, and you saw American ingenuity at its best, including -- I hear that you saw ATMs that give cupcakes.  (Laughter.) 
 
And I also know that Americans have learned from you as well.  You shared your culture and traditions and foods.  You discovered American foods like Jell-O.  I hear somebody had Jell-O, which -- I was very excited about that.  And the friendships and the understanding that you have forged will help to bring our countries together for a long time. 
 
And soon you’ll return home.  Each of you has developed a project, an action plan, and you’ll take what you’ve learned here and put it into practice.  And we’re going to be with you during this process as you build your ventures, expand your networks, and -- mentoring young people that are coming behind you.  We’re going to welcome 500 Fellows like you every single year.  So this may be the end of your visit to America, but you’ve really begun this process of building partnerships that will last a lifetime. 
And we want you to make sure that you are realizing your dreams.  I just want to take a couple of examples.  We’ve got Seth Suonvisal.  Where’s Seth?  Here’s Seth.  So in Cambodia, Seth works with parliament.  So in Tulsa, he witnessed city government at work, the legislative process in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  And, Seth, we’re proud to be your partner as you strive to ensure that governments deliver for all of the Cambodian people.
 
We have Muchamad Dafip.  Where’s Muchamad?  There he is.  He is an advocate for the environment in Indonesia.  Apa kabar?  And at the East-West Center -- there aren’t two of you, is there?  (Laughter.)  So at the East-West Center in Hawaii, he learned new ways to empower citizens and effect change.  So we’re proud to be your partner.  Together, we can promote sustainable development and help our -- help the next generation meet the urgent challenges of climate change.
 
We’ve got Khine Muang -- there’s Khine, and -- is a doctor in Myanmar where she offers free surgeries to children for cleft palates and lips, and gives them a new smile and new confidence.  So we’re very proud.  At the Oklahoma University School of Community Medicine, she focused on ways to expand outreach and free clinics.  And we are so proud to be your partner, working for the health and dignity of children across Myanmar.  Although, I have to say that you are the youngest doctor I’ve ever seen.  (Laughter.)  I mean, she looks like she’s 14.  It’s very impressive.  So thank you. 
 
And where is Pern Phansiri?  There’s Pern, from Thailand, a tireless fighter against human trafficking.  And at the city manager’s office in Lee’s Summit, Missouri, she saw how a community takes a comprehensive approach to social services.  So we’re proud to be your partner in standing up for the rights of women and children.  We have to end the outrage of human trafficking, and we so appreciate the work that you do.
 
So this just gives you an example of the incredible talent and commitment that these young people represent.  And I want to close with a quick story that captures the spirit of our work together. 
Thongvone Sosamphan is here from Laos.  Where’s -- please, stand up.  So she’s here from Laos.  In Atlanta, she visited the memorial and center honoring the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  And she was struck by one of Dr. King’s quotes, which says, “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’” 
 
And that prompted her to think about the true meaning of leadership.  And she wrote something very beautiful that I want everybody to hear.  “Leadership is inside you,” she said.  “Everyone can be a leader, because everybody can serve.  You don’t have to have a college degree to lead.  You don’t need to know more than the others.  All you need is a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love.”  That’s pretty good.  (Applause.)   
 
So that’s what I see in all of you.  That’s why I believe so strongly that you’re going to keep answering that question Dr. King asked:  What are you doing for others?  It’s why I’m confident that all of you will be extraordinary leaders.  Already you’re doing great work in your communities and your countries, with hearts full of grace and souls generated by love.  And you will continue to have a friend and partner in the United States of America. 
 
So we are very, very proud of you.  And with that, let’s -- I want to hear from you, both questions or you can tell me a story about the exciting food that you’ve had -- (laughter) -- all across the country. 
 
So we have some microphones in the audience, and what I’ll do is I’ll just call on people and I’m going to go boy, girl, boy, girl so that it’s very fair.  (Laughter.)  So we’ll start with this young lady here.  Please introduce yourself and tell us where you’re from.
 
Q    Hi, Mr. President.  I am an elected representative from Malaysia.  My question to you is, what is your view on the democracy in Malaysia with the recent jailing of Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader, and the crackdown on opposition?  Thank you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Malaysia has a history of democracy that has to be preserved.  And I have a very good relationship with Prime Minister Najib and we are close partners and cooperating on a whole host of issues.
 
I think that Malaysia, like all our countries, not just ASEAN countries but countries here in the United States, have to recognize that democracy is not just elections but it’s how open and transparent and accountable government is between elections.  And it’s important that free speech, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, the right to assemble peacefully -- that all those rights are observed to make democracy work.  So as a general rule, I don’t comment on even individual cases in this country, much less another country, because I think it’s important for the legal system to work. 
 
But I do know that it is important if an opposition leader who is well known has been charged with a crime, that that process of how that is adjudicated and how open it is, and how clear the evidence is, that that is all subject to scrutiny.  Because what you don’t want is a situation in which the legitimacy of the process is questioned.  That has an adverse impact on democracy as a whole.  And I think we all have to guard against making sure that there’s not a chilling effect on potential opposition in government. 
 
So as I always point out, democracy is hard.  I mean, I think that many of the things that are said about me are terribly unfair.  But the reason American democracy has survived for so long is because people -- even if they’re wrong -- have a right to say what they think.  George Washington, our first President, he complained terribly about some of the foolishness that was said about him.  But part of the reason he is considered one of our greatest Presidents is because he set an example of recognizing that if democracy was to work then you had to respect the rights of even those people who you disagreed most with, because otherwise there’s no way that a democracy can flourish over the long term.
 
So these are things that I said publicly when I was in Myanmar -- when I was in Malaysia, rather.  I had an opportunity to meet with some community activists and civil society leaders there.  And this is something that I say everywhere we go.  And it’s important for America to recognize that we’re not perfect, either, and so we have to make sure that we are constantly seeing how do we improve our democracy.  I mean, the amounts of money, for example, that are involved in our elections these days is disturbing because it makes it seem as if a few people have more influence in the democracy than the many. 
 
And so I will continue to speak out about these issues, even with friends.  Maybe sometimes we are even more willing to say something when it’s friends because we know that they can do better.  Thank you.
 
Yes, sir.
 
Q    Hello, Mr. President.  I am from Indonesia.  I am working with the ministry of finance.  My YSEALI theme is economic empowerment.  My question is, what is your expectation about economic relationship between United States and ASEAN countries in the future?  Thank you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we already have a very strong economic relationship.  As I pointed out, this is a region that is growing fast.  It has a big population.  You have very hardworking people, entrepreneurial people.  I expect it will continue to grow.  And the United States wants to be a partner in all sorts of ways. 
 
Trade is the most obvious and important relationship, economically.  And so one of the reasons why I think the Trans-Pacific Partnership is so important is because it sets up a set of principles to ensure fair trade between countries.  It calls for higher labor standards for all countries, higher environmental standards for all countries.  It makes sure that countries are being treated -- companies are being treated fairly when they are operating in a foreign market. 
 
And there’s the potential, I think, if we get this right and completed in the next few months, to be able to ensure that the United States and ASEAN countries that already have a massive amount of trade, that that’s able to increase and that there’s more opportunity for everybody.  But it’s at a high standard rather than a low standard.
 
Part of the goal for ASEAN countries, most of them are now entering into a stage of development where they don’t want to just be sending raw materials to someplace else to have them developed, they want to be creating value starting their own businesses, making sure that they are part of the 21st century economy.  And that requires upgrading skills, education for their populations.  We think we can be helpful in those areas.
 
And we want to encourage high educational levels in ASEAN countries because then it’s less likely that workers are exploited.  And that means then that you’re competing with us because you have the best ideas and the best products, as opposed to just you have the cheapest labor.  And if all that ASEAN countries are offering are cheap labor, then what happens is U.S. workers get hurt and you don’t necessarily see an improvement in standards of living for those ASEAN countries.
 
If everybody is operating at a higher level then we’re all competing on an even playing field, and over time that will result in more growth and more development in ASEAN countries.   But I think skills training is the most important thing.  I think that the power of the Internet to access markets and ideas will be particularly important for ASEAN countries. 
 
Infrastructure is something that still needs to get done.  I think there is still under-investment of infrastructure in that region.  I know there was some controversy a while back because China wanted to start an Asia infrastructure bank; we haven’t yet signed on to participate. 
 
I want to be very clear -- we actually want China to invest in infrastructure in that region.  We want to make sure that the investments are actually good for the people in those countries, which means transparency in terms of how decisions are made at this new bank.  But we’ll continue with the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank and other institutions, and try to encourage not only investment in human capital, but also the infrastructure that’s needed. 
 
And finally, I think sustainability is going to be critical.  I worry about the great forests of Indonesia and Malaysia.  If those all just become palm oil plantations, and deforestation continues at the same pace it has, then the prospects of additional accelerated climate change are very powerful, not to mention the loss of species and biodiversity.  The oceans, if you get overfishing, that’s a problem; pollution.  Given how populated these areas are, it's very important that economic development ties in with sustainable development.  Otherwise, I think we’ll all have problems.
 
Okay.  (Laughter.)   That’s good.  So, young lady right here.
 
Q    Mabuhay.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Mabuhay.
 
Q    Mabuhay, Mr. President.  I'm a city council member of Davao City, the Philippines.  There are a handful -- or a there are a few elected officials, some are YSEALI fellows.  I really would like to know what is your word of advice for a young, budding political leader, young legislator, elected official like me in a developing democracy like the Philippines?  Thank you. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  That's great.  Well, I think -- my first advice is don't be shy, and obviously you're okay.  (Laughter.)  I think you're doing to do great. 
 
I think that when I think about my own political career, when I look at other political careers that I admire, I think the most important thing is to have a sense of principle and why you're in public service.  I think sometimes people want to be in public service just because they like seeing their name up in lights, they like being important.  And that's a bad reason to go into politics; you should be like an actress or a singer, or make a lot of money.
 
But if you're going into politics and public service, there’s only one good reason to do it, and that is because you want to help people.  And you should know what it is that you stand for and what you believe in.  It doesn't mean that you won’t have to compromise.  It doesn't mean that you might not change your mind about an issue as you go forward and you learn more and you have more experience.  But you should have something inside of you that says, these are the things that are really important to me that I will not compromise on, all right? 
 
So for me, throughout my political career, even before I was in politics and I was just working as a community organizer, I knew that I wanted to work to create more opportunity for all people; that my orientation was always how does this help the poor or the marginalized, or somebody who has less opportunity then me; how is this going to help them if they work hard to get ahead.
 
I know that one of the important principles for me has always been treating everybody fairly.  So whether that's women or people of different races or different religious faiths or different sexual orientations, that one of my core principles is that I will never engage in a politics in which I’m trying to divide people or make them less than me because they look different or have a different religion.  That's a core principle.  That's not something I would violate, right? 
 
So if you have a clear view of what you stand for, then as you move forward, you’ll have setbacks.  There will be times where you didn't succeed.  There will be times where you're frustrated.  There will be times you might even lose an election sometimes.  But at least you’ll know every morning when you wake up and you look at yourself in the mirror, I know who I am and why I’m doing what I’m doing.  And I think those are the people who eventually end up having successful careers because people sense that integrity and that leadership.  Even if they don't agree with you, at least they know you believe in something.
 
And unfortunately, too many politicians, they're just climbing the ladder but they don't know why.  And when they get there, then they're not very effective leaders.  Or they become much more subject to the temptations of corruption because all they're worried about is I want to hang on to my power, and I’m willing to give up anything in order to stay in power and do anything to stay in power.  And that's when you lose your way.
 
You have to be willing to lose something for your principles.  You have to be willing to lose an election because you think that there’s something that's more important than you just winning an election.  And if you do that now -- but you have to -- you should try to win.  I’m not saying you should try to lose.  (Laughter.)  But you have to stand for something.  That's my most important advice.
 
Gentleman in the gray suit right there.  Yes, you.
 
Q    Thank you.  I come from Vietnam.  Like many others, I look forward to seeing you and the First Lady visiting my country, Vietnam, in the near future.  I have a question.  Mr. President, what do you expect the young people in the Southeast Asian countries doing in dealing with the current challenges to the peace, stability, respect to international law like the (inaudible), while promoting the cooperation between the 10 countries with others, including especially with the United States?  Thank you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Especially with?  I’m sorry, the last part?
 
Q    Especially with the United States.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, with the United States.  Well, look, I think that -- I’ve seen already significant progress with ASEAN countries over the last six years that I’ve been attending the ASEAN meetings and the East Asia Summit.  And I think initially the meetings would oftentimes just be symbolic, and there would be a lot of pleasantries and a lot of meetings and cultural events.  But we didn’t always have an agenda.  And I think one of the things that you’ve started to see is people working much more concretely on what are we trying to accomplish here.  How do we develop more capacity, for example, in the region around disaster relief so that if, heaven forbid, there’s another typhoon of the sort that we saw in the Philippines, or if, in fact, that we see some other natural tragedy that all the countries assets can be brought to bear, and we’ve done the training ahead of time to know who can help and how they can help?
 
I think the -- trying to work on coming up with standards around maritime law is a big challenge.  And obviously, there’s significant tension right now between many of the ASEAN countries and China, as well as the United States with China, around the South China Sea and how those issues are going to be resolved.  ASEAN has been very constructive in trying to put together a code of conduct that all countries should abide by so that disputes around maritime boundaries are resolved through law and an impartial process, rather than just based on who’s the biggest.  And that I think is going to be very important.  ASEAN can play an important role in those areas.
 
Environmental issues I’ve already mentioned.  This is a very fast-growing region, and it is important to make sure that there’s a lot of cooperation between countries because small fisheries, et cetera -- those don’t always observe national boundaries.  And so, working together, you can accomplish more.
 
And then human rights issues, and democracy issues, reinforcing good habits among the countries is very important.  I think it’s fair to say that the elections that will be taking place in Myanmar would not have happened if it hadn’t been for the good example that Indonesia set with its transition, and other ASEAN countries showing the path from military rule towards democracy, and how, through all the lessons that have been learned, that could be accomplished.  And that I think created more space within Myanmar to -- and President Thein Sein to feel that this is possible.
 
So part of the goal here is to make sure that each country is reinforcing the best habits and laws, and observing human rights, and being critical when one country slips but in a constructive way that allows for a path to improvement.  And I think ASEAN can do that uniquely. 
 
And the United States will be a partner.  We have, obviously, bilateral relationships with each of these countries, but we also want to be a partner with the group as a whole to encourage this cooperative model going forward. 
 
Okay.  Young lady right there, yes. 
 
Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President.  I’m from Indonesia.  I work as a data analyst in the World Bank Indonesia Country Office.  My YSEALI theme is civic engagement.  My question to you:  Now that your second term in the office is about to end, how do you want the world to remember you?  Thank you.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Fondly, I hope.  (Laughter.)  I still have 20 months in office so I’ve got a lot of work still to do before I can start thinking about looking backwards.  I’m still very much focused on what’s in front of me. 
 
But obviously there are things that I’ve been proud of.  When I came into office, the United States and the world was going through a terrible economic crisis -- the worst, really, since the 1930s.  And it was hard but we ended up avoiding a terrible depression.  And within a year, the economy was growing again.  Here in the United States now, we’re back to the pre-crisis employment levels.  Our auto industry was saved.  But also, internationally, we averted a much worse crisis because of, in part, the leadership the United States showed along with international institutions and central banks managing -- that was very important.  That’s an important legacy for me.
 
I think that the work that I’ve done to provide health insurance for people here in the United States and to provide more educational opportunity is consistent with the principles that I talked about, the reason I got into politics.
 
Internationally, we’ve reinvigorated diplomacy in a whole variety of ways.  People don’t remember -- when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia.  And today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on Earth.  And part of that, I think, is because of the work that we did to reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners with mutual interest and mutual respect.  It’s on that basis that we were able to end two wars while still focusing on the very real threat of terrorism and to try to work with our partners on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.  It’s the reason why we are moving in the direction of normalizing relations with Cuba.  The nuclear deal that we’re trying to negotiate with Iran.  Our efforts to help encourage democracy in Myanmar. 
 
I think the people of Myanmar deserve the credit for this new opening.  But my visit there didn’t hurt in trying to reinforce the possibilities of freedom for 40 million people.  And so that direct engagement, the work that we’ve done to build and strengthen international organizations -- including on issues like public health and the fight against Ebola is just the most recent example of that -- I think we’ve been able to put our international relationships on a very strong footing that allows us then to work more cooperatively with other countries moving forward to meet the important challenges ahead.
 
But I’ve still got a lot of work to do.  So maybe in 18 months, I’ll check back with you and I’ll let you know.  (Laughter.) 
 
All right.  Gentleman right here with the sash.
 
Q    Hello, Mr. President Obama.  I’m from Burma.  And firstly, I would like to say hello on behalf of my family.  And my question is, I work in tourism business in Burma, and my question is that -- what do you see critical areas in where the U.S. can contribute economic development in Burma?  Thank you so much.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Burma, Myanmar, it lost a lot of time over the last 40 years because of the very tight controls on the economy and the discouragement of entrepreneurship and new businesses.  Part of the reason why I was so struck when I traveled to Myanmar was it reminded me of when I first arrived in Indonesia back in 1967 -- whereas when I go to Jakarta now, or Singapore or Bangkok, it looks completely different.  This looked like the past.
 
So there’s a lot of catching up to do.  The good news is, though, countries that are still at those early stages of development, they can grow very fast because there’s so much pent-up energy and opportunity.  And I think the most important thing is going to be establishing rule of law and systems and practices where if you start a business, you can feel confident that you don’t have to pay 100 bribes and you don’t have to hire somebody’s son, and that you can make a profit; that if there’s a foreign investor, that they can invest and be treated fairly, and that their rights and their intellectual property and their property are protected. 
 
Those basic systems of law where those are established, those countries can do well because the natural talents of the people and the incredible resources and hard work of the people then pay off. 
 
I mean, look at Singapore.  Singapore is a tiny, little place.  It has really nothing -- no resources to speak of.  But today, when you travel to Singapore, it is as prosperous as any place in the world.  Why is that?  Well, part of it is that it’s set up a set of systems where if businesses were started or investors came in, they knew that they could find a very skilled workforce; they knew that the rules were international-standard rules in terms of operations. 
 
So it will take some time for I think Myanmar to move in that direction.  But you have your own models even in -- among the ASEAN countries.  You don’t have to look to the United States; you can look at just your -- some of your neighbors to see what is required for success.  And what the United States will try to do is to provide technical assistance, and we will also try to provide direct assistance, particularly around building skills and education.  Because one of the keys is to make sure that you have a workforce that can add value.
 
In the age of the Internet, when companies can locate anywhere, the most important thing is to find someplace where there is security -- so there’s no conflict -- where there’s rule of law, and the people are highly skilled.  And if you have those three things, then people will invest.
 
Yes, go ahead.
 
Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President.  I’m from Thailand.  And now I work on the anti-human-trafficking issue in Thailand and neighboring country.  So today, I would like to ask you if you were a Rohingya, which country would you prefer to live with and why?  (Laughter.)  Thank you so much. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  That’s an interesting question.  Let me speak more broadly, and then I’ll answer your question.  (Laughter.) 
 
We were talking earlier about what’s required for Myanmar to succeed.  I think one of the most important things is to put an end to discrimination against people because of what they look like or what their faith is.  And the Rohingya have been discriminated against significantly, and that’s part of the reason they’re fleeing.
 
I think if I were a Rohingya, I would want to stay where I was born.  I’d want to stay in the land where my parents had lived.  But I’d want to make sure that my government was protecting me, and that people were treating me fairly.  That’s what I’d want.  And that’s why it’s so important I think, as part of the democratic transition, to take very seriously this issue of how the Rohingya are treated. 
 
One of the things about discriminating against people or treating people differently is, by definition, that means that people will treat you differently, and you never know when you will find yourself in a situation in which you are a minority, where you are vulnerable, where you’re not being treated fairly.  And right now, obviously, our focus is on making sure that those who are being subject to human trafficking and are, in some cases right now, still in a very perilous situation out in the open sea, that they are relocated.  I want to commend Indonesia and Malaysia for their willingness to take on thousands of these displaced persons.  The United States, as part of our refugee process, will take some.  We put over $100 million over the last several years in Burma to make sure that minority groups, including the Rohingya, are protected against. 
 
But, ultimately, this is going to be a great test for the democracy of the future.  Not just in Burma and Myanmar, but in areas all throughout the country.  When I was -- and I know this directly because when I was young and I was living in Indonesia, there were times where there were anti-Chinese riots that were very violent and vicious.  And, in fact, sometimes the Chinese Indonesians were treated very similarly to how Jewish Europeans were treated in Europe, and subject to stereotypes and resentments. 
 
And the truth of the matter is, one of the reasons that Singapore, I mentioned earlier, has been successful, is that it has been able to bring together people who may look different but they all think of themselves as part of Singapore.  And that has to be a strength, not a weakness.  But that requires leadership and government being true to those principles. 
 
To their credit, the Indonesian government when I was growing up was very good about not discriminating on the base of religion despite the fact that it was 98 percent Muslim.  And I think that the tolerance towards other faiths historically in Indonesia has been part of what’s contributed to progress there.  You haven’t seen the same kind of sectarian animosity that you’ve seen in parts of the Middle East.
 
But the one thing I know is countries that divide themselves on racial or religious lines, they do not succeed.  They do not succeed.  That’s rule number one.  Rule number two is nations that suppress their women do not succeed.  They don’t succeed.  Not only is it bad because half of the country is not successful -- because they’re not getting education and opportunity -- but it’s women who teach children, which means the children are less educated, if you’re not teaching the moms.  So there are some -- each country is different, but there are some rules if you look at development patterns around the world that are pretty consistent.  And those are two pretty good rules. 
 
Don’t divide yourself on religious and ethnic lines and racial lines.  And don’t discriminate against women.  If you do those two things, you’re not guaranteed success but at least you’re not guaranteed failure.
 
I’ve got time for one more, two more.  I definitely don’t have time for 30 more.  (Laughter.)  Two more.  I’ve got time for two more.  It’s a gentleman’s turn. 
 
Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President.  I’m from Malaysia.  I work at Department of Irrigation and Drainage in Malaysia.  My YSEALI theme is environmental sustainability.  And my question for you is, what have you learned about leadership and life as being President in comparison to what you have might not learned if you were not a President?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  As President you -- I think probably what makes this job unique is that you are the ultimate decision-maker.  So there are other people who work as hard as I do.  My staff works very, very hard.  They're just as smart or smarter than I am.  They care just as much or more than I do.  They have wonderful qualities.
 
But the one thing as President is that ultimately there’s nobody you can pass it on to.  Harry Truman, one of our best Presidents, once said, the buck stops here.  He meant at his desk.  And it’s true.
 
And usually by the time a decision comes to my desk, you know that it’s a very hard problem because if it was easy somebody else would have solved it.  And so probably the thing that I uniquely have had to learn in the presidency that is -- I hadn’t learned as well in other jobs is the ability to look at all the information that you have, listen to all the advice that's there, and the different viewpoints that may exist about an issue, to try to make a decision based not on what is easiest, but what I think is the best long-term solution; and then feel comfortable in the knowledge that I may be wrong, and that there will be significant consequences if I am wrong, to have to have the courage then maybe six months later or a year later to admit this didn't work, and then to try something new. 
 
But being willing to take responsibility for making hard decisions, not be paralyzed because you know there are big consequences to them, and then being able to adapt based on the evidence as to whether it worked or not I think is the most important lesson I’ve learned.  And that's not something that you have to -- is just unique to being President.
 
I think in whatever your job is you should be willing to take responsibility for getting the best information, to listening to everybody, but then you have to just -- you have to make a decision and understand then that you have to continue to evaluate it.  And I think that that's been very important.
 
The second lesson, which is something that you just learn more of as President, but all of you have already learned in some ways in your work is to surround yourself with the best people.  Your most important job is to create a team of people, some of whom have talents that you don't have, to make up for your weaknesses; and then to want to make them better, and make them successful.
 
Because if they're successful, then the team is successful.  So you're not a good leader if you don't want somebody who is smarter than you because you think, oh, well, maybe they’ll shine more than you do.  Then you're not a very good leader because your team won’t succeed.
 
So I’m always looking for -- who are people who are much smarter than me, or much more organized than I am, or much better analysts.  And my job then is just to be able to weave them together so they're all working together effectively.  And if you're doing that, then you're a good leader.  And you should be constantly thinking how can I help this person do their jobs even better.
 
And the good news is if you do that and people recognize that you care about them being successful, then they’ll work harder, and they’ll want to do even better.  And they’ll appreciate you because they know that you're helping them, instead of trying to keep them subordinate to you.
 
Last question.  And all the men should put down their hands because it’s a woman’s turn.  No, all the guys have to put their hands down.  This young lady in the yellow right here, right in the corner, right here.
 
Q    Thank you, President.  Good afternoon, sir.  I’m from Vietnam.  Currently, I’m working for the Da Nang Institute for Socio-Economic Development.  And first of all, I would like to say thank you to you for giving us this unique opportunity to come to the United States and to meet you today.  My question for you is, what is your opinion about disputes and China’s action in the East Sea or so-called the South China Sea?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I already mentioned, what has allowed all of Asia to prosper over the last two, three decades -- including China -- is there’s been relative peace and stability, freedom of navigation, freedom of commerce.  And all of that has been underwritten, all of that has been because there have been certain rules that everybody has followed.  Freedom of navigation requires that people observe basic conduct about, this far off, your territory is your territory; after that, it’s international waters.  If there’s a dispute, then there’s international mechanisms to adjudicate that dispute.
 
If you start losing that approach and suddenly conflicts arise and claims are made based on how big the country is or how powerful its navy is instead of based on law, then I think Asia will be less prosperous and the Pacific region will be less prosperous.  And that’s why we’ve said directly to China and to other claimant countries, we don’t have a claim to these areas.  We’re not parties in the dispute.  But we do have a stake in making sure that they are resolved peacefully, diplomatically, and in accordance with internationally established standards.
 
And for that reason, we think that land reclamation, aggressive actions by any party in that area are counterproductive.  And we will continue as an Asia Pacific power to support all countries who are prepared to work with us to establish and enforce norms and rules that can continue growth and prosperity in the region.  And the truth is, is that China is going to be successful.  It’s big, it’s powerful, its people are talented and they work hard.  And it may be that some of their claims are legitimate, but they shouldn’t just try to establish that based on throwing elbows and pushing people out of the way.  If, in fact, their claims are legitimate, people will recognize them. 
 
I will say this, though, that I am very confident -- much more confident in the future of Southeast Asia, the Asia Pacific and the world, because I’ve had the opportunity to spend time with you.  I think all of you are going to do outstanding work.  And I want to make sure that you know that not only will this administration and the United States government continue to support the work that you do, but I personally, even after I leave office, will continue to have a great interest in seeing not only you succeed but those coming behind you -- young people like yourself succeed.  And I think you should be interested in making sure to promote YSEALI and the network and try to provide similar opportunities to other young people as you become more important in whatever your fields are in the future.
 
Congratulations.  Good luck.  (Applause.)
 
END  
3:23 P.M. EDT

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 6/1/2015

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

*Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.

1:05 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Before we get started, let me just begin by saying, on behalf of the Biden family, how deeply appreciative they are of the outpouring of love and support that they’ve received since Beau Biden’s passing on Saturday evening.  There have been many kind words and gestures that have been offered not just all across the country, but all around the world.  And they have meant a great deal to the Vice President and to his family.

For those of you in this room, or for anybody watching who’s looking for a way to pay their respects to Beau and to those who loved him, I’d invite you to visit WhiteHouse.gov, where we have set up a virtual condolence book.  All of the entries in the book will be collected and shared with the Biden family.

So with that, Jim, let’s go to your questions.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  And sympathies to the family.  I wanted to talk a little about the action on Sunday, in the Senate.  I wondered if you could give us an assessment on how terror cases are being pursued any differently now that we’re 13 hours until the expiration of those FISA Patriot Act provisions.

MR. EARNEST:  Jim, the failure of the United States Senate to act to renew the authorities that were included in the Patriot Act has had an impact on the ability -- or on the authorities that our national security professionals can use to keep up safe.

Now, what the President had advocated, and what built strong bipartisan support in the House, and, I believe, has strong bipartisan support in the Senate is a piece of legislation that would both incorporate reforms that would protect our privacy and civil liberties -- and when I say “our,” I mean the privacy and civil liberties of the American people -- as well as renewing tools that our national security professionals use to keep us safe.  And the fact is those reforms have not been enacted into law, and the extension of those important tools have not been enacted into law.

As a practical matter, what that means is it means that our national security establishment is not using Section 215 authority to collect bulk telephony data.  That has been the source of some controversy, and that is what the President and his national security team proposed be reformed.  Those reforms, again, are included in the USA Freedom Act. 

There are also a set of other non-controversial authorities that are not currently available to our national security professionals.  That includes the authority to go and get a warrant, and use Section 215 to conduct investigations of individuals who are suspected of having links to terrorism.  It also means that our national security professionals do not have authorities that they need to go and get a warrant, and get a roving wiretap of individuals who are suspected of having links to terrorism.  And it also means that our national security professionals do not have the authority that they need to go and get a warrant. 

And under the “lone wolf” provision -- now, this is a provision that of course we have acknowledged has not been used previously, but this is a provision that, if it were needed today, could not be used by our national security professionals.  And what we have said for weeks now is that the Senate’s failure to act introduces unnecessary risk to the country and to our citizens.

Q    But in this period of time -- granted, it’s only 13 hours -- but has the President been notified by either the intelligence community or the Department of Justice?  Have there been instances where they are now not able to pursue a particular specific case, testing the lack of authorities?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t have any details to share about either ongoing or recently started national security investigations.  What we’ve also acknowledged is true is that our national security professionals have other tools that they can use to conduct investigations.  They don’t have tools that replace these critically -- these important authorities, but there are other tools that they can use to conduct investigations.

Q    And as we understand it, roving wiretaps that had already been approved, those can continue during this period?

MR. EARNEST:  There is what’s called a grandfather clause, which means that for the routine use of Section 215 -- so again, not the bulk data collection, but the routine use of 215 that would allow an individual suspected of having ties to terrorism, that would allow national security professionals to examine related business records.  Those authorities, as they relate to ongoing investigations, are not affected.  Those investigations continue.  But our law enforcement and our national security professionals do not have the authority to collect those kinds of records or to seek those kinds of warrants under a newly started investigation.

Q    Senator McConnell, this morning, issued a statement calling for passage of the USA Freedom Act with -- and endorsed several amendments.  One of them would extend the transition period on the bulk collection of phone data from the government to the phone companies to a year, rather than the six months provided in the USA Freedom Act.  Is that something that the administration would oppose, suppose, be agnostic about?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s something that the administration views as completely unnecessary.  The fact is, our national security professionals have explained that in order to implement the reforms that are included in the USA Freedom Act, that it would require a six-month time period for them to carry out the change that you’ve just described. 

We are confident that that six-month time period would give our national security professionals ample time to implement these reforms.  But if for some reason that amount of time is judged to be insufficient, the President has directed his national security team to go back to Congress and ask for additional time.  That’s why we believe that an amendment like this is not necessary.  We believe that six months is enough.  Again, if they conclude upon the beginning of the implementation period that six months is not enough time, then we’ll go back to Congress and ask for additional time.  And based on the comments of Senator McConnell and others, we feel confident that Congress would act quickly to give us additional time in the unlikely event that it’s needed.

Q    Bottom line, you’d rather not have any amendments done?

MR. EARNEST:  Bottom line, we would like to see the Senate pass this piece of legislation as soon as possible.  This is a bill, the USA Freedom, that collected 338 votes in the House of Representatives.  It got strong support from Democrats and Republicans.  The Senate should not get into a game where they start adding amendments to this piece of legislation that then requires House consideration again. 

The President believes that the Senate should act as quickly as possible to pass the USA Freedom so he can sign it into law.  And we can do two important things.  The first is begin to implement the reforms over a six-month period that are contemplated in the USA Freedom Act that will better protect our civil liberties, but also ensure that our national security professionals have the tools they need to keep us safe.

Q    But doesn’t the Senate have the right to exert its will on the legislation?  I mean, it’s part of the legislative process for them to change legislation.

MR. EARNEST:  Of course, they do, and that’s how the process works.  We’ll see.  I think that I would just observe that they have had a year and a half to exercise that prerogative.  And now that they have blown through the deadline, I think most reasonable people would assume that that is a privilege and a right that they, for the good of the country, should relinquish so that we can enact a piece of legislation that has the strong support of Democrats and Republicans.  It has the strong support of our national security professionals and, of course, it has the strong support of the President of the United States.  And rather than get into additional political gamesmanship, the Senate should pass the USA Freedom Act so the President can sign it into law.

Q    Can I ask you real quick about one of several Americans being held by Houthis in Yemen?  Apparently, he has been released following negotiations with Omani officials.  Can you confirm that and offer any details?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t offer any details about those reports because of privacy considerations.  But we are working to provide additional details at an appropriate time, which hopefully would be relatively soon.  But at this point, I’m not in a position to talk about the case.

Julia.

Q    Following on that, has there been any change in the way the U.S. has communicated with these families, considering the fact that there’s a review of the hostage policy?

MR. EARNEST:  When you say “these families” --

Q    Families of Americans who have been held by Houthis.

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware of any policy changes on that, no.  The individuals who are detained there are individuals that we are trying to secure their release.

Q    Okay.  And then after Secretary Kerry’s injury over the weekend, is the White House concerned that that injury may preclude him from participating in Iran nuclear talks?  And is there any consideration of sending someone to participate in his place?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I understand, Julia, that even now as we speak, that Secretary Kerry is en route back to Boston for treatment on his broken leg.  The Secretary’s doctor, Dr. Dennis Burke, is traveling with the Secretary to Boston to monitor his condition and to ensure that he remains comfortable in flight. 

The President and his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, each had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Kerry yesterday to wish him well on a speedy recovery.  The Secretary has made clear that he is going to pursue an aggressive but responsible recovery schedule, and there’s a range of recovery trajectories that are possible when we’re dealing with an injury like this.  And, obviously, his doctors and Secretary Kerry himself will have more to say about this relatively soon.

But the fact is that we do continue to believe that we have the time and resources necessary to pursue and, hopefully, complete the Iran negotiations.  And I’m confident that those negotiations will be affected by the Secretary’s injury.  But exactly how we move forward on this is something that we’ll have more details on later.

Q    So still unsure of whether or not he’ll be able to participate?  I mean, considering we’ve got a 30-day window here.

MR. EARNEST:  I’m confident that Secretary Kerry will continue to be an important part of this effort.  Whether he is going to spend every day over the next four weeks in Europe negotiating face to face with his counterpart, it seems unlikely that he’ll be able to do that given the injury that he has sustained.  But I’m confident that in whatever capacity he is able to participate, that Secretary Kerry will continue to play a critically important role in that effort.

Jim.

Q    Just first, on the security of Americans right now.  You weren’t able to comment about whether in these 13 hours there’s been any problems.  But let’s go back, if we can, in history here.  Can you point to anything in the past that would not have been successful under these current conditions?  Is there somebody we would not have caught?  Is there something that you could explain to Americans why this is so important, using history?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are -- probably not in as much detail as will satisfy you right at the top here, but I think I can offer up two compelling reasons why our national security professionals say that having these authorities is important to the national security of the country.

The first is that there are recent examples -- I can’t go into those examples -- but recent examples where our national security professionals say that information that they obtained using these authorities was information that they were not previously aware of.  And that’s an indication that these authorities have succeeded in eliciting information that’s been critical to ongoing investigations.

The second thing is that the way that our investigators talk about this information is that these pieces of information as they’re collected are critically important building blocks to an investigation.  And what that means is it means that a clearer picture is provided when you put a variety of pieces of information together; that as it fits together, you get a clearer sense of what it is that you’re investigating.

Now, in some cases, that could even be information or building blocks of information that can be used to exonerate somebody.  And that’s a useful thing too.  We have very limited law enforcement and national security resources, and if there are individuals who we conclude, based on available information, that they no longer are a subject of significant concern, that means that we can focus our resources in other areas.

Q    So I think what many in the public might want to really hear from the White House is, on a scale of one to ten, how much less safe are we today than we were on Saturday?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that is something that our national security professionals can speak more directly to.  I think the way that I would characterize it is simply this, Jim -- that we have these authorities that were included in the Patriot Act, the majority of which are not controversial and have been in place since 2001, and as our national security professionals tell us, have been used to elicit information that’s been valuable to ongoing national security investigations.

And so the question that you’ve heard me offer up a few times from the podium here over the last week or so is simply, why would we add unnecessary risk to the country and our national security because of Congress’s failure to act?  The fact is, we have these authorities; many of them have not been controversial -- though one controversial authority, the one that’s been the subject of extensive debate, is one that would be subject to extensive reforms if the Senate had just passed the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives.

And so I think that’s the argument, which is why would we incorporate this unnecessary risk?  Apparently, there are some members of Congress who look for an opportunity -- members of the United States Senate who look for an opportunity to build a political advantage, to gain a political advantage, and they apparently concluded that the risk was worth it.  The President doesn’t agree.

Q    And if I can just change subjects to Cuba for a moment.  In Panama, the President said directly that the United States is no longer in the business of regime change in Cuba.  And yet, the United States, including this administration, continues to fund both the State Department and USAID to the tune of some $264 million since ’94, with specific programs operating inside Cuba, some of which have been embarrassing, as reported by the Associated Press.  Why do we continue -- why does the United States continue to fund these programs?  And now, as relations are very close to being normalized, do you see those programs being ended? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, for specific programs that are being operated by either USAID or the State Department, I’d refer you to those two agencies.  But I will say that the U.S. government will continue to invest in efforts to strengthen the engagement between our two countries, between our two governments, and even between the citizens of our two countries.  And this is a critical component of the strategy that the President announced at the end of last year; that for more than five decades, the United States had pursued a strategy to try to isolate Cuba to compel them to better respect the basic universal human rights of their people.  And for more than five decades, we didn’t see much improvement in that regard.

So what the President has said is let’s try a different strategy; let’s try a strategy where we strengthen the ties between the United States and Cuba; let’s create opportunities for more commerce between our two countries; let’s give more Americans the opportunity to travel to Cuba, and give the Cuban people greater exposure to the kind of values and lifestyle that we so deeply value in this country; and that by promoting that kind of engagement, we can actually place additional pressure on the Cuban government to do a better job of living up to the values and the protection of basic universal human rights that we hold so dear in this country.

Q    But the USAID mission specifically says that we’ll use this money to -- with the goal of promoting a rapid, peaceful transition to democracy.  That sounds as though -- that sounds like a way of saying regime change.  Isn’t that exactly the opposite of what the President said is going on now?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, USAID can speak to the direct purpose of the programs that they carry out.  But certainly promoting democracy and promoting respect for basic universal human rights is part of our goal.

Q    But the word is transition, though.  That is problematic isn’t it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I don’t know whether it's problematic or not; you’d have to talk to USAID about their specific program.  But this idea that the United States is going to go and promote our values around the world is something that we’ve been engaged in for quite some time in a variety of countries.  And we’re certainly going to continue to do that in a place like Cuba that so frequently tramples those kinds of values.

Q    And just finally, the Radio Marti and TV Marti, do you see any changes with that agenda, what they’ll be used for, with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent there?  Now there’s a new era.  Are those two still valid?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, as it relates to reforms to those programs, I’d refer you to the State Department that operates there. 

Chip, nice to see you.

Q    Good to see you.  You didn’t answer Jim’s question about the 1 to 10 point scale.  But just to really put it bluntly, are the American people clearly less safe today than they were last week?  

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, that is a judgment that one of our national security professionals could make based on their own efforts to investigate this.

Q    Right, but you went through this whole list of things that are not available now.  It sounds that the implication of that is that we are less safe now than we were just a day or two ago.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I’ll let people draw whatever conclusion they would like.  But the one -- the fact that I can confirm for you is that there are specific tools that our national security professionals have previously used to conduct national security investigations that they can, as of today, no longer use because of the partisan dysfunction in the United States Senate.

Q    CIA Director Brennan said over the weekend that if the law lapsed, and of course it now has, the FBI would lose the ability to track people intent on carrying out attacks on the homeland.  Is that correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'm certainly not going to contradict the Director of the CIA --

Q    So we have lost the ability for -- the FBI has lost the ability to track people who are intent on carrying out attacks on the homeland?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are a variety of tools that are used by our national security professionals to conduct both law enforcement and national security investigations.  But what is clear is that there are tools that are critical to that effort that are no longer available -- or at least as of today are no available to our national security professionals. 

That’s exactly why we want the Senate to act on the USA Freedom Act.  Because if they will pass that piece of legislation that got such strong bipartisan support in the House, the President will immediately sign into law and we will codify greater reforms to that program -- those programs that will protect our civil liberties, while at the same time ensuring that the non-controversial authorities that have been used by national security professionals can continue to be used to protect the country.

Q    Did the President follow Senator Paul’s actions over the weekend?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t believe that he did.  I suspect that he did like many of us did, which is read some news accounts.  But we are not following this minute-by-minute like some of you had to. 

Q    Last question.  Senator Graham today, saying -- in announcing for the presidency, said, “Sad to admit Barack Obama has made us less safe.  Simply put, radical Islam is running wild.  They have more safe havens, more money, more weapons, and more capability to strike our homeland than any time since 9/11.”  Comment?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there have been a number of pronouncements and accusations that have been lobbed by those who aspire to occupy the Oval Office in early 2017.  And I'm not going to get into a -- I’ve done my best to try to avoid getting into a back and forth with any of them on a specific issue.  So while I obviously disagree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Graham, I don’t have an interest in getting into a back and forth with him at this point.

Q    So we’re not less safe today? 

MR. EARNEST:  I obviously don’t agree with what Senator Graham had to say today in kicking off his campaign.

Cheryl.

Q    Thanks.  Well, one of the things that Senator Paul said this weekend was that this situation is really the President’s fault because he could have ended the bulk collection of phone records at any time.  He didn’t need congressional approval.  Do you believe that you needed congressional approval to do that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Cheryl, we have made this argument in a variety of areas.  This is true when it comes to a variety of economic priorities that the President has articulated.  It's even true when it comes to immigration -- that the kinds of changes that we would like to see codified into law are more effectively changed when Congress passes a law to do it.

And the good news is that the President, demonstrating some leadership on this issue, actually called for specific reforms to be put in place more than a year a half ago -- or about a year and a half ago.  He directed his national security team to travel to Capitol Hill to spend time in a large number of meetings with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, working through the policy questions at stake here.  And they succeeded in working effectively in bipartisan fashion to reform these programs, and specifically reform the program that Senator Paul has complained about. 

And so it's ironic, to say the least, that Senator Paul blocked a piece of legislation that would have actually solved the problem that he was talking about.  So that may have been an effective campaign tactic, but it certainly wasn’t in the best interest of the country. 

Jen. 

Q    Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  Nice to see you. 

Q    You, too.  At what point, legally, does the President think that he or a future President can no longer rely on the 2001 AUMF to go after ISIS?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that’s -- the 2001 AUMF obviously is related to countering the threat that is posed by al Qaeda.  And the conditions for making that kind of assessment will obviously be determined based on what kind of activity we see from al Qaeda around the world, and what sort of national security threat is facing the United States. 

I will say the President has already given a speech in which he called for -- years ago -- called for Congress to act to refine the 2001 AUMF in a way that would narrow the scope of that authorization to use military force.  There continues to be a threat that is posed by al Qaeda, and the President believes that our national security agencies, and the President himself, should have the authority that they need to counter that threat.  But the President has been clear that he believes that improvements and even additional limitations on the 2001 AUMF can be put in place.

Q    Does he believe there’s a point when this AUMF from 14 years ago will be stretched beyond what you’re legally allowed to use it for?  If we send 10,000 U.S. military personnel overseas, if this stretched out for another five to ten years, does the President believe, legally, that the 2001 AUMF can still be used through all of this?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are a lot of hypotheticals that were floated in there.  Let me just illustrate -- let me try to illustrate the President’s point of view by talking a little about the authorization to use military force against ISIL that the administration submitted to Congress several months ago now.

Included in that authorization to use military force was essentially a provision that would place a time limit on that AUMF.  That proposal included a three-year time limit for that authorization to use military force.  Of course, the 2001 AUMF is one that is open-ended.  And some of the reforms that the President has suggested do contemplate imposing a time limit on those authorities. 

And the reason for that -- and this was true in the AUMF-against-ISIL language that the President put forward -- even if the authority -- or even if the threat that prompted that authority to be enacted still exists, by placing a time limit on the AUMF you would force Congress to come back and reconsider that AUMF.  And that means that after three years, Congress could just essentially approve an extension or they could consider whether or not there are certain authorities that could be curtailed, and the AUMF could be refined in a way that would start to put in place some additional limitations.

But, again, all of this should be driven based on -- or driven by the assessment of the ongoing threat.  And the President does believe that the threat from al Qaeda has changed significantly since 2001.  It has changed in a variety of ways.  Obviously, we’ve made significant progress in decimating core al Qaeda.  There continues to be a more disaggregated threat from al Qaeda affiliates in other terrorist organizations that are or were previously affiliated with al Qaeda.  We have to be very cognizant and vigilant about meeting those threats, and that’s why the President believes that refining the 2001 AUMF is something that Congress should do. 

But I think even I would acknowledge -- and the President would acknowledge this, too -- that that’s more difficult work than doing something as simple as passing an 2001* AUMF against ISIL.  Everybody acknowledges that we have -- or just about everybody acknowledges that we have a threat from ISIL that we need to mitigate.  And the President believes that it would be wise and appropriate, and even necessary, for Congress to pass an AUMF that reflects that specific threat. 

But we’ve seen very little movement in Congress, despite the fact that the administration has convened a large number of meetings with Democrats and Republicans to discuss this issue, despite the fact that the administration actually submitted draft language to Congress, despite the fact that senior national security officials like the Department of Defense -- or the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have participated in congressional hearings on this matter.  We haven’t seen any movement in Congress, and that’s been a source of some frustration.

I guess the point is, that’s why unfortunately I’m not particularly optimistic that we’re going to see the kind of refinements to the 2001 AUMF that the President advocated several years ago.

Francesca.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  I have a second question about the Patriot Act, but first I wanted to get clarification on your response to Cheryl’s question.  When I asked you a similar question last week -- and, again, perhaps I’m misunderstanding -- it seemed to me that you said that the President couldn’t just change the way that the NSA program was running; he couldn’t just issue an executive order to address that because only Congress could make those changes.  But in response to Cheryl, I thought that you said that Congress would be more effective at doing that.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think there’s a difference between -- there’s a lot to unpack here.  In terms of making some changes that the President believes are important, and as it relates to the carrying out of these programs, there is only so much the President can do using his executive authority.

So, for example, many people had suggested that even if Congress did allow these authorities to expire, that the President should just use his executive authority to try to extend those programs or extend those tools.  That, of course, is something that the President can’t do just using his executive authority.  What Senator Paul has advocated is essentially not using those programs anymore.  And what the President has advocated is essentially reforming those programs.  And many of the reforms that we’re talking about are reforms that require congressional action. 

Q    And my second question related to that is also about Senator Paul, and you said that the President didn’t have a specific response to the comments that he made.  But I’m specifically wondering if the White House generally has a reaction to him saying that, “People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake.  Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”  Any White House reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what Chip was talking about was Senator Graham and his campaign announcement, so you’re talking about something different.

Q    I’ll repeat it so that we’re clear.  This is comments that Senator Paul specifically made.  He said, “People here in town think I’m making a huge mistake,” in relation to the Patriot Act, and said, “Some of them, I think, secretly” --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, he’s got the first part right.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Well, I don’t know if you’ll agree with the second part.  “Some of them, I think, secretly want there to be an attack on the United States so they can blame it on me.”

MR. EARNEST:  Well, obviously the President and his national security team go to great lengths to be vigilant to protect the country from any sort of terrorist attack.  And what we have advocated, and what the President himself has directly advocated is ensuring that the United States Senate do the bare minimum that’s required to ensure that our national security professionals, some of whom put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe, have all the tools they need to do their job.  And that’s why we have urged the United States Senate to do what the United States House of Representatives has already done, which is to pass the USA Freedom Act, which includes critically important civil liberties reforms, and extend the ability of our national security professionals to use all the tools available to keep us safe.

Justin.

Q    I wanted to kind of circle back to what Jim was asking, about amendments.  I’m stipulating that you guys don’t want amendments because you want USA Freedom to go through as quickly as possible.  It still seems like the Senate is going to vote on them.  And I’m wondering if you guys have perceived any poison pills in the amendments that have been floated already, things that can possible sort of torpedo this whole bill.  I know one that Senator McConnell said today would be a tweak that would essentially keep the FISA Court decision secret, and it’s something that would have come out into the light under the House version of the bill.  Are there areas of concern that you think blow up sort of the greater negotiation?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven't looked through each of the specific amendments.  The reason I was able to talk about the amendment that Jim mentioned is that that’s a proposal that we’ve talked about in here a few times.  I think you even asked me about it before -- this idea of extending the implementation period.  But I haven't considered those -- all of the amendments that may be voted on by the Senate.  But as it becomes clear which amendments are actually going to be voted on, we may be able to get you some more information in terms of our position on that.

Q    And more broadly, I mean, in conversations that you guys have had with the House, Leader McCarthy today was a little unclear about whether or not they would be willing to even take up an amended version of this bill.  Is that a concern that you guys have, that this wouldn’t pass the House bill --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the concern that we have is that it will, in any event, take additional time if the Senate passes an amended version of the USA Freedom Act, because then it will have to be put back on the House to consider that amended piece of legislation.  And that typically takes time; sometimes it takes a long time.  Hopefully, in this case, it wouldn’t, but that remains to be seen.

I think the other thing that we have expressed some concern about is that Democrats and Republicans in the House did work in rather painstaking fashion to build this common-sense, bipartisan reform proposal.  And for the Senate, again, after they’ve already blown through the deadline, to start tinkering with that bipartisan agreement does put that agreement at some risk; that you may have an eventuality where the bipartisan agreement that was, again, painstakingly built in the House of Representatives, falls apart.  And that would prevent the specific reforms from going into effect, and it would prevent our national security professionals from getting the tools that they say are important to keeping us safe.

So again, that highlights yet another reason why we believe that the Congress should act quickly to pass the USA Freedom Act in its current form so the President can sign it into law as soon as possible.

Q    Can I ask a last one on Greece?  Obviously, we’re getting closer to a potential for default, and I’m wondering if the administration has taken any new steps to protect the U.S. financial system in case of a default, and if you can maybe discuss just how -- generally, how much of a risk that poses to the U.S. economy.

MR. EARNEST:  Justin, I don’t know of any specific steps that I can share with you, but I’d refer you to the Treasury Department.  They may have some more information on this.

I would note that Secretary Lew last week spoke at the G7 finance minister’s meeting in Dresden, and again urged all parties to find common ground and reach an agreement quickly.  While he was there, Secretary Lew also spoke with Prime Minister Tsipras from Greece and emphasized that we remain engaged with all parties involved, including Greece, its European partners and the IMF.

It is our view that these parties should continue to do the important work of trying to resolve their differences as soon as possible to try to prevent some instability and turbulence from being injected into the global financial markets.

Q    Is there a worry that that instability would have a kind of substantial impact on the U.S.?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we certainly do operate in an interconnected global economy.  And instability, in one aspect of the global economy, typically does have an impact on the United States.  I think in this case it’s unclear how significant that would be, or how significant an impact would be on the United States.  But I guess to pick up on a theme of this briefing, that seems like an unnecessary risk.  And that’s why Secretary Lew in particular has done a lot of really important work behind the scenes to try to bring -- or facilitate the efforts of those who are sitting at the table to reach an agreement.

Michelle.

Q    People who are opposed to certain parts of the Patriot Act have been pretty explicit in outlining these ways that they didn’t really help certain cases, or that there are other methods to get the same information.  But conversely, you and the administration, you can’t list or won’t list any concrete examples of how it did help; you won’t say whether the American public is less safe now.  If this is so important, doesn’t your argument seem to be weaker than those in opposition?  And isn’t that contributing to the controversy that’s out there?

MR. EARNEST:  That certainly is not the conclusion of 338 Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives who came together around a common-sense bipartisan proposal that would implement reforms, that would strengthen civil liberties protections while also reauthorizing tools that our national security professionals say are important to keeping us safe.

I think the other thing that’s true is that we’ve heard a lot of claims on the other side of this argument that haven’t borne out to be true.  And there has been an effort on the part of the administration, even given the constraints that we have about talking about classified or highly sensitive national security programs, to be as honest and forthright and candid about these programs and about the impact that they have on our national security. 

Q    And you’ve mentioned campaign tactics, you’ve mentioned that some people want to be in the Oval Office.  So are you saying that these are just -- that some of the arguments out there are just political posturing?  Are you just flat-out saying that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what we’ve seen -- again, in the United States Senate, prior to the expiration of this specific -- I guess a week before the expiration of the Patriot Act, you saw every single Democrat in the United States Senate line up behind the bipartisan proposal that was passed by the House of Representatives.  And unfortunately, what we’ve seen is a whole lot of posturing within the Republican Party on this issue in the United States Senate. 

And again, that’s been the source of a lot of disappointment, given that you had a piece of legislation that accomplished all of the objectives of the vast majority of people involved in this dispute.  You had some people in the Republican Party who are saying we need to reform these programs.  Well, reforms were exactly what’s included in the USA Freedom Act.  And you had others in the Republican Party who are saying these are critically important tools that our national security professionals need to keep us safe.  Well, they could
protect those tools by passing the USA Freedom Act. 

And that’s why it was a source of such disappointment that you saw so many Republicans who didn’t support this proposal when it first came up 10 days ago.  And I think that’s why -- at least speaking for myself -- I was not at all surprised that we saw 19 or 20 additional Republicans essentially flip-flop on this and, after spending a week on Memorial Day recess up against the deadline, decide that they’re going to support a proposal that just a week earlier they’d filibustered. 

And that’s -- in terms of -- to go back to the strength of arguments, I think that’s why I have a pretty strong argument when I say that there’s a lot of politics being played on this.  And, unfortunately, it’s coming at the expense of the national security and civil liberties of the American people.

Q    But when we keep talking about national security, you use the word “safe” almost every other word in some of your statements.  So if you feel so strongly about some of these programs without being able to give any concrete examples of them working, why can’t you at least say that the American public is less safe without them?  It almost seems like you’re going just up to that point.  Do you feel that way or don’t you feel that way?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I would encourage you to ask some of our national security professionals.  You’ve heard the FBI Director, Jim Comey, talk about how important these tools are to their work.  I saw that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, was on Chip’s network over the weekend, talking about how these programs and these authorities were integral to the efforts of the intelligence community.  So I would defer to those professionals.  They can give you the best assessment. 

All I can say is -- make the simple, fact-based observation that there are tools that our national security professionals say are important to their work that today they don’t have because of a bunch of Republican senators who played politics with these issue over the last couple of weeks.

Q    Okay.  And last question.  Rand Paul has his own plan to hire a thousand more FBI agents to do some of the work that would take the -- I guess substitute for bulk phone data collection.  So what does the White House think of that plan to just hire more people to do the digging instead of bulk collection?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen the specifics of that proposal. 

Mike.

Q    So given the President’s early queasiness with some of these programs, some of the national security programs that were left to him by the previous President, is he comfortable that if and when this gets re-upped again in the next few days, that history judges that this is now his program?  That he now owns the bulk collection program by virtue of the fact that you guys have been out there arguing for it so vociferously, and that he’s comfortable with that being -- kind of taking ownership of it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, to be clear, Mike, what the reforms that the President’s national security team have negotiated with Democrats and Republicans in the House are reforms that would actually end the government’s use of these authorities to collect bulk data.  That’s what the reforms did.  So to the extent that we’re talking about the President’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians that the President ended some of these programs that did raise concerns about those who prioritized the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. 

This is consistent with reforms that the President advocated a year and a half ago, and these are reforms that required the President and his team to expend significant amounts of political capital to achieve, over the objection of Republicans.

So I do feel confident that, based on the President’s record, that the kinds of reforms and changes that he promised to bring into office in 2007 and 2008 are reforms that he has succeeded, over the objection of Republicans, of implementing.

Q    But to be clear, he’s not ending the government’s use of the information.  He’s changing the way that it’s held and collected, and where -- who holds the data.  But the government is still using the information under the USA Freedom Act, and it becomes now -- this sort of becomes the first time that he gets to -- that he puts his imprimatur on that bulk collection, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I’m not sure that’s -- it may be worth us having somebody from the national security agencies talk to you about this, because this information that private-sector companies are already collecting; they’re doing it on their customers.  When you get your bill every month, you see the detailed list of phone calls and phone numbers and the length of the phone calls that you placed over the course of that month. 

And, yes, the federal government would continue to have access to that information if they obtain a warrant from a judge, based on authority that is given to the administration by Congress, and subject to oversight not just by Congress, but by inspectors general and other national security attorneys in the executive branch.  This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the President does believe is important.  And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.

Kristen.

Q    Josh, thank you.  Has the President spoken to Leaders McConnell or Reid today?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any telephone calls from the President to read out at this point.

Q    How does he see his role in making sure that this does, in fact, get done over the next few days?  It looks like that is what is likely going to happen.  But what does he perceive his role to be?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President, over the last couple of weeks, has spent a lot of time publicly advocating Senate action.  But the President’s efforts in this regard started more than a year and a half ago, where he contemplated and then delivered a speech laying out the kinds of reforms that he would like to see to these programs.  He directed his national security team to go to Capitol Hill and engage in bipartisan discussions about how to institute these reforms in a way that would add protections to our civil liberties while making sure that our national security professionals had access to all the tools that they need to do their work.  And he has worked in bipartisan fashion to build support for this in the House and to build support for it in the Senate. 

So the President continues to be an advocate of the USA Freedom Act.  And again, I don’t have any specific calls or anything to preview, but the President’s feelings on this I think are quite well know, both publicly and in private.

Q    But I guess what I’m saying is, given that these programs -- which are now so integral to national security -- which you’re arguing have expired, does the President need to more than just publicly advocate?  Does he need to go to Capitol Hill, for example?  Does he need to be picking up the phone on a regular basis and making sure that something does, in fact, get passed in the next few days?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the fact is that the President has been engaged in this; you’ve heard him talk about it publicly.  There have been conversations that the President and senior White House officials have had privately on this over the last week or so.  And again, the President’s efforts and the administration’s efforts in this regard go back a year and a half.

Q    Josh, I want to ask you about the Taliban Five.  The travel ban has been extended.  Why did it take so long?  Why did it take coming right up against the deadline to make that happen?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the priority that the administration has placed on this particular situation is ensuring that steps are implemented to ensure that we’re mitigating the risk to our national security from these individuals.  And there are restrictions that have been in place for a year that continue to be in place today, and we continue to be in touch with our partners in Qatar who have imposed some of those restrictions about what our path forward will be.  Those restrictions, under the agreement that was initially reached, would be put in place for a year.  And the path forward is something that we’re discussing now with the Qataris.

Q    But it has been extended, correct?  The travel ban?

MR. EARNEST:  It is still in place.  But for the longer-term path forward, that’s something that’s still under discussion.

Q    Can you say specifically how long it will be in place under the current plan?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think it certainly will be in place until an additional agreement can be reached about steps that we believe are necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

Q    There are reports that three of them have tried to reach out to their terror network.  So what type of safeguards are being put in place?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we have a variety of safeguards, but very few, if any, of which we can talk about publicly I think for reasons that should be fairly obvious.

Q    Are you confident that the safeguards will prevent them from taking action?  I mean, given the fact that there are these reports that they have, in fact, reached out to terror networks?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, most importantly, before these individuals were transferred from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, the Secretary of Defense had to certify that there was a strategy for mitigating the risk that these individuals posed to the United States and our national security.  That strategy has been implemented by our partners in Qatar, and we continue to be in touch with them about what strategy -- what system will be in place moving forward.

Q    But isn’t there some concern if, in fact, they have reached out to their terror networks?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, these are individuals that, yes, that we are concerned about.  That, in fact, is why we have put restrictive measures in place to prevent them from --

Q    Are the measures working, though, if they’re able to contact these people?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, Kristen, these are individuals who we have been working with our partners in Qatar to restrict their movements and to restrict the impact that they could possibly have on our national security.

Q    Just one about Secretary Kerry.  Is the President concerned at all that the nuclear talks will be hampered because he will be absent for a period of time?

MR. EARNEST:  Obviously, as Secretary Kerry is treated for his injuries from over the weekend, it is likely to have an impact on the manner in which he participates in those discussions over the course of this month.  But as I mentioned earlier, I do anticipate that Secretary Kerry will continue to play a critically important and leading role in conducting and hopefully completing those negotiations by the end of the month.

Kevin.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to add to that and get your thoughts on Ambassador Rice.  Can you sort of outline her role and how that might change, given the injury to Secretary Kerry?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, at this point it’s too early to tell exactly what sort of change we’ll have to incorporate into Secretary Kerry’s role.  He has played a leading role in this previously, and I would anticipate that he is going to continue to play a leading role.  His injuries may prevent him from having the kind of aggressive travel schedule that you all are accustomed to him having, but I have no doubt that he will continue to play an important role in this effort.

Q    And Ambassador Rice’s role?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t anticipate any change at this point.  But if something changes, we’ll let you know.

Q    How engaged was the President in the conversations about the Taliban Five up until the extension that you mentioned moments ago?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President has directed his national security team.  There are established channels for having these conversations and for reaching these kinds of agreements with our partners around the world -- in this case, in Qatar.  There were a set of restrictive conditions that were placed on these individuals when they were transferred to the custody of the government of Qatar.  Our partners in Qatar have lived up to the commitments that they made in the context of those negotiations.  And as we continue to talk to them about the path forward, those restrictive conditions remain in place. 

Q    I want to just follow up on something Michelle asked you.  I’ve seen you be very forceful about a number of issues, but I also can tell when you’re being careful.  It seems to me when you won’t just come out and say “we are less safe,” there’s a reason behind it.  And I’m just wondering, is it because, frankly, we’re not less safe because the Patriot Act provisions have elapsed?  Are we basically the same because there are plenty of other tools available already?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, all I can do is I can illustrate to you very clearly that there are tools that had previously been available to our national security professionals that are not available today because the Senate didn’t do their job, because we saw Republicans in the Senate engage in a lot of political back and forth as opposed to engaging in the critically important work of the country.

And as a result, there are programs and tools that our national security professionals themselves say are important to their work that are not available to them right now as we speak.  And that’s why we urge the Senate to set aside the politicking and actually focus on their basic responsibility.  And we’re hopeful that they will vote in favor of the common-sense, bipartisan reform proposal that’s already passed the House of Representatives.

Sarah.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  You’ve referred to the non-controversial programs that have expired as an “unnecessary risk.”  The framers of the original Patriot Act have said that they designed it the way they did because that’s the way that it works best.  So by changing the controversial programs in the USA Freedom Act, does that mean that there are certain necessary risks?

MR. EARNEST:  I guess I don’t quite understand the question.

Q    Well, we’re taking away a tool that our national security professionals have had in terms of having this bulk data in government hands.  There are some questions about to what extent the service providers would be forced to provide the data to government.

MR. EARNEST:  I see.

Q    Is that a necessary risk to protect civil liberties?
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t think it’s a significant risk, and here’s why.  This is data that, once the USA Freedom Act is implemented, that the U.S. government would no longer collect under these authorities.  But they would still have access to the data because it’s information that’s being preserved and collected by the telecoms companies.  And again, this is the information that you get on your monthly cell phone bill. 

Our national security professionals would still have the authority to review that information after obtaining a court order to review that information.  And that’s consistent with what our national security professionals say that they need to conduct these investigations.  So that’s why I don’t think I would be in a position to say that this is a significant, unnecessary risk, or even a necessary risk.  This is a policy solution that addresses the concerns that have been raised by some about protecting the civil liberties of the American people while ensuring that our national security professionals have the tools that they need to keep us safe.

And so that’s why I feel confident in making the case to you that we can both put in place significant reforms and address concerns that have been raised by some, rather aggressively, while also making sure that our national security professionals can do the important work of protecting the country.

Q    And so you’re 100 percent confident that, under the USA Freedom Act, that national security professionals would actually have the access to that data from any telephone company that they need?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is what our national security professionals say, so you don’t have to take my word for it.  The people that are working for this -- who are working on this on a daily basis have said that the reforms that are included in the USA Freedom Act are reforms that would both bolster civil liberties protections while also giving them the access to the information that they need to do their work.

Yes, ma’am.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  It’s been a long time.

MR. EARNEST:  Nice to see you.

Q    Nice to see you.  Do you have any details scheduled about the upcoming visit of South Korean President Park Geun-hye to the United States?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m sorry, can you speak up just a little bit?

Q    Do you have any details scheduled about upcoming visit of --

MR. EARNEST:  Of President Park?

Q    Yes, President Park to --

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have a schedule yet, but I would expect in the coming days that we will have a more detailed schedule about that visit.  I know that the President is looking forward to meeting with President Park and discussing so many of the important issues that we coordinate closely with our allies in South Korea. 

Q    Okay.  And is this office related, or a state visit?

MR. EARNEST:  That’s a good question.  As we collect more details on this, we’ll get back to you on that.

Q    All right.  Thank you. 

MR. EARNEST:  Victoria. 

Q    French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is saying that it’s essential that international inspectors have access to military sites and also to the military as part of any kind of Iran nuclear deal.  Does the U.S. agree with that?

MR. EARNEST:  Victoria, this is something that we discussed at some length with Iran and our P5+1 partners in the context of the political agreement that was reached the first week in April.  And that political agreement would impose the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country’s nuclear program. 

There are also another set of inspections and requirements that would be imposed on Iran that a bunch of other countries are subject to, as well.  What I'm speaking of are what are described as the additional protocols.  And these are essentially a set of rules and regulations that govern the inspection of countries’ nuclear programs.  And those additional protocols that are in place against other countries, in addition to being in place against Iran if they sign on to the agreement, do include inspections of military facilities under a whole set of specific circumstances. 

And so there are still some details to be worked out.  But the point of all this is that the President is only going to sign on to an agreement at the end of June whose details reflect the kinds of political commitments that were made by Iran in the first week in April.  And that is the principle that we have in place here.

There are additional details obviously that need to be negotiated and pinned down -- a lot of I’s to dot and T’s to cross -- because the devil is in the details here.  And so we’re very focused on those details as we get into the last month of negotiations.

Q    The Ayatollah Khamenei said just recently as last week that international inspectors would not get access to military sites.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, this is something that we’re going to continue to have a conversation about.  But the fact is that there is a political agreement that was reached in the first week in April in which Iran agreed to cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country’s nuclear program.  And the point is that there are other countries whose nuclear program requires some inspections that are conducted at military facilities. 

And we have been clear in the context of that political agreement that the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program are questions that will have to be resolved in the context of these negotiations.

So we’ve got another month or so to work through these details.  But the President will not sign an agreement that doesn’t reflect the agreements -- commitments that were made in the context of the political agreement that was announced the first week in April.

In the back, I’ll give you the last one.

Q    Thank you.  I had a question about Edward Snowden.  Now that all three branches of government have rejected the use of the Patriot Act to justify bulk collection by the NSA -- as you said, first the White House and then the appeal court the other week, and now Congress -- is it time to reassess the persecution of the man who revealed the existence of this program to the American people? 

MR. EARNEST:  It’s not.  The fact is that Mr. Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the U.S. government and Department of Justice believe that he should face them.  And that’s why we believe that Mr. Snowden should return to the United States where he will face due process, and he’ll have the opportunity -- if he returned to the United States -- to make that case in a court of law.  But obviously our view on this is that he committed and is accused of very serious crimes. 

Q    Quick follow.  The wrinkle, as you may know, is that he says he would be willing to come back if he can use a whistle blow defense in court.  And the Department of Justice has said it doesn’t want to consider that, and the charges that he’s charged with wouldn’t allow that.  Would you be willing to at least talk to him about the circumstances in which you’ve said you would give him a fair trial?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I wouldn’t get into those negotiations.  Obviously this is something that the Department of Justice would handle in conversations with him, if they’re having them.

The thing I would point out that I think is factually relevant to that argument is that there exists mechanisms for whistleblowers to raise concerns about sensitive national security programs.  Releasing details of sensitive national security programs on the Internet for everyone, including our adversaries, to see is inconsistent with those protocols that are established for protecting whistleblowers. 

Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you tomorrow.

END
2:09 P.M. EDT