FACT SHEET: U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy

Today, the Administration announced the update of the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy.  After a two-year comprehensive review, the President approved this update to ensure that our conventional arms transfer policies support 21^st century national security and foreign policy objectives.  The policy was last updated in 1995.

The New Policy

The Administration’s review concluded that the 1995 conventional arms transfer policy was effective but needed to be updated to address 21^st century national security and foreign policy objectives.

Our policy continues to be guided by two fundamental tenets:  to support transfers that meet the legitimate security requirements of our allies and partners in support of our national security and foreign policy interests; and to promote restraint, both by the United States and other suppliers, in transfers of weapon systems that may be destabilizing or dangerous to international peace and security.

The new policy provides greater clarity and transparency with respect to U.S. goals for arms transfers and on the criteria used to make arms transfer decisions.  More specifically, it highlights the importance the United States places on key factors such as respect for human rights, international stability, homeland security, counter-terrorism, combatting transnational organized crime, and supporting nonproliferation.

The scope of the policy has also broadened to include not only transfers of arms, but also the provision of related services and the transfer of technical data related to arms.  The 1995 policy had dealt with these issues in general terms; the new policy addresses them directly.

Today’s announcement and the release of the new U.S. policy highlight the President’s commitment to continued U.S. leadership in responsible and transparent conventional arms transfers. 

President Obama Announces New Public-Private Manufacturing Innovation Institute

North Carolina headquartered consortium of 18 companies and 6 universities partnering with the federal government to strengthen U.S. manufacturing

WASHINGTON, DC – The President today will announce new steps with the private sector to strengthen the manufacturing sector, boost advanced manufacturing, and attract the good paying jobs that a growing middle class requires. The President will announce the selection of a North Carolina headquartered consortium of businesses and universities, led by North Carolina State University, to lead a manufacturing innovation institute for next generation power electronics. 

President Obama has declared 2014 a year of action, and while he will continue to work with Congress on new measures to create jobs and grow the economy, he will also use his executive authority to get things done. After shedding jobs for a decade, our manufacturers have added 568,000 over the past nearly four years, including 80,000 over the past five months.  Manufacturing production has grown since the end of the recession at its fastest pace in over a decade. The President is committed to building on that progress. 

In last year’s State of the Union address, the President proposed a series of three new manufacturing institutes that the Administration can create using existing resources - this is the first of those institutes.  In May, President Obama launched a competition for these three new manufacturing innovation institutes with a Federal commitment of $200 million across five Federal agencies – Defense, Energy, Commerce, NASA, and the National Science Foundation, building off the success of a pilot institute headquartered in Youngstown, Ohio.  The additional two institutes led by the Department of Defense – focused on Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation and Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing – are still in the selection process and will be awarded in the coming weeks.

Each institute is designed to serve as a regional hub designed to bridge the gap between applied research and product development, bringing together companies, universities and other academic and training institutions, and Federal agencies to co-invest in technology areas that encourage investment and production in the U.S.  This type of “teaching factory” provides a unique opportunity for education and training of students and workers at all levels, while providing the shared assets to help companies, most importantly small manufacturers, access the cutting-edge capabilities and equipment to design, test, and pilot new products and manufacturing processes.

The new manufacturing innovation institute announced today in North Carolina is focused on enabling the next generation of energy-efficient, high-power electronic chips and devices by making wide bandgap semiconductor technologies cost-competitive with current silicon-based power electronics in the next five years.  These improvements will make power electronic devices like motors, consumer electronics, and devices that support our power grid faster, smaller, and more efficient.   The winning team, led by North Carolina State University, brings together a consortium of leading companies that included some of the world’s leading wide band gap semiconductor manufacturers, leading materials providers, and critical end-users like John Deere and Delphi with universities on the cutting edge of technology development and research, all in a vibrant and entrepreneurial region that can serve as the foundation for ongoing U.S leadership in this important technology.  The Department of Energy is awarding $70 million over five years, matched by at least $70 million in non-federal commitments by the winning team of businesses and universities, along with the state of North Carolina.

Today’s announcement is another step forward toward fulfilling the President’s vision for a full national network of up to 45 manufacturing innovation institutes, which will also require legislation from Congress. In July 2013, Senators Brown (D-OH) and Blunt (R-MO) and Congressmen Reed (R-NY) and Kennedy (D-MA) co-sponsored bipartisan legislation in both the Senate and House that would create a network for manufacturing innovation led by the Department of Commerce consistent with the President’s vision, helping the United States to take advantage of this unique opportunity to accelerate growth and innovation in domestic production and create the foundation for well-paying jobs that strengthen the middle class.  The President will continue to support this bipartisan legislation and will work with Congress to get it passed, and will continue to make progress where he can through existing authority to boost these partnerships that are key to supporting high-quality manufacturing jobs.  

Additional Background on the Next Generation Power Electronics Innovation Institute:

The Next Generation Power Electronics Institute will provide the innovation infrastructure needed to support new product and process technologies, education, and training to become a global center of excellence for the development of wide bandgap semiconductor devices and industry-relevant processes.  The DOE-supported manufacturing innovation institute’s headquarters will be located on North Carolina State University’s Centennial Campus. The university will also host some of the institute’s shared research and development facilities and testing equipment, as well as workforce development and education programs.

In the last century, silicon semiconductors transformed computing, communication and energy industries, giving consumers and businesses more and more powerful devices that were once unimaginable. Today, as we reach the limits of silicon-based electronics for some critical applications, WBG semiconductors offer a new opportunity to jumpstart the next generation of smaller, faster, cheaper and more efficient power electronics for personal devices, electric vehicles, renewable power interconnection, industrial-scale variable speed drive motors and a smarter, more flexible grid.

The institute will provide shared facilities, equipment, and testing and modeling capabilities to companies across the power electronics supply chain, particularly small and medium-size manufacturers, to help invent, design and manufacture new semiconductor chips and devices. The institute will also pair chip designers and manufacturers with large power electronic manufacturers and suppliers, such as John Deere and Delphi, to bring these technologies to market faster and will offer training, higher education programs and hands-on internships that give American workers the skills for new job opportunities and meet the needs of this emerging and globally competitive industry.

Compared to silicon-based technologies, wide bandgap semiconductors can operate at higher temperatures and have greater durability and reliability at higher voltages and frequencies – ultimately achieving unprecedented performance while using less electricity. These technologies can reduce the size of consumer electronics like laptop adapters by 80% or the size of a power station to the size of a suitcase.  By supporting the foundation for a strong wide bandgap semiconductor manufacturing base, the United States can lead in some of the world’s largest and fastest growing markets from consumer appliances and industrial-scale equipment to telecommunications and clean energy technologies – creating the well-paying jobs that support a growing middle class.

The winning consortium, led by North Carolina State University and headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, includes the State of North Carolina and:

18 Companies: ABB, APEI, Avogy, Cree, Delphi, Delta Products, DfR Solutions, Gridbridge, Hesse Mechantronics, II-VI, IQE, John Deere, Monolith Semiconductor, RF Micro Devices, Toshiba International, Transphorm, USCi, Vacon

7 Universities and Labs: North Carolina State [Lead], Arizona State University, Florida State University, University of California at Santa Barbara, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory

Background on DOD-led Manufacturing Innovation Institutes:

Competitions continue for the two Department of Defense led manufacturing innovation institutes, which will be selected and awarded in the coming weeks.  Those institutes will focus on technologies critical to the Department’s needs that also have broad commercial applications across different manufacturing industries that will help to drive U.S. leadership in the technologies and skills needed to encourage job-creating investment in the U.S.  The two institutes are:

• Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation: Advanced design and manufacturing tools that are digitally integrated and networked with supply chains can lead to 'factories of the future' forming an agile U.S. industrial base with significant speed to market advantage. A national institute focusing on the development of novel model-based design methodologies, virtual manufacturing tools, and sensor and robotics based manufacturing networks will accelerate the innovation in digital manufacturing increasing U.S. competitiveness.
• Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing: Advanced lightweight metals possess mechanical and electrical properties comparable to traditional materials while enabling much lighter components and products. A national institute will make the U.S. more competitive by scaling-up research to accelerate market expansion for products such as wind turbines, medical devices, engines, armored combat vehicles, and airframes, and lead to significant reductions in manufacturing and energy costs.

Readout of the President’s Meeting with the National Governors Association Executive Committee

This afternoon, the President and Vice President met with governors from the National Governors Association Executive Committee in the Roosevelt Room. The President discussed the importance of his administration serving as an active partner with states to move the ball forward on a number of issues, including strengthening our economy, increasing economic mobility and tackling the challenge of the long-term unemployed. The President has said that he will use his executive authority- both his pen and his phone- to act on behalf of the American people, and he pledged to work closely with governors of both parties on our agenda for 2014. 2014 is a year of action, and the President and the governors discussed steps we can take to create jobs, expand economic opportunity for the middle class and those striving to get there, and ensure children in all states have the education and skills they need to compete successfully in a global economy.  Specifically, the President committed to working with governors on strategic investments in transportation and infrastructure to grow the economy, and to build on the important work that is underway in many states on expanding access to early education. 

The following governors were in attendance:

• Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin
• Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
• Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe
• Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton
• Utah Gov. Gary Herbert
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Background Briefing by a Senior Administration Official on the Vice President's Trip to Israel

Aboard Air Force Two

1:48 A.M. IST

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  All right.  Good evening, guys.  By my count, it’s 1:48 in the morning.  We’ve been up for 36 hours straight, so I reserve the right to revise and extend any remarks I make and to demure on any questions that are too complicated for me to answer.  But let me take a minute to just walk through the day and then come on to the main event of the evening, which was a four-plus-hour session between the Vice President and the Prime Minister, both in a one-on-one session and with broader teams.

So the day began with the service at the Knesset, which all of you guys attended, where the Vice President had the opportunity to speak to the respects he was seeking to pay for Prime Minister Sharon personally and the tribute that he was seeking to pay to the U.S.-Israel relationship.

And it was important to both President Obama and to the Vice President that a very senior American official come to Israel at this time to underscore the importance of that relationship, and also to have a chance to reflect on the life of Ariel Sharon, especially as it was intertwined with the life of Israel over the last 50 years.

He then had an opportunity to sit with Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Peres, the speaker of the Knesset, and assorted staff members for an informal discussion about Sharon, the founding generation, the dynamics in the region, current events and the like.  It was very informal, over lunch.

We then went out to the ranch, where Prime Minister Sharon was buried.  And as you guys saw, he participated in the burial service, including laying a wreath on behalf of the United States at the service.  He had a chance to say hello along the way and speak briefly with Israeli leaders and politicians, as well as some of the Americans who were there – Malcolm Hoenlein, Abe Foxman (ph), and others who made the trip to see the service.

We then came back to Jerusalem and he had a meeting with President Peres, which focused on two subjects:  the Israel-Palestinian peace process and the larger events in the region as they’ve been unfolding in the past few months, but also since the advent of the Arab Spring in 2011.  And so they spoke in a larger group format and then they spoke one on one, and in the one-on-one session they also touched on Iran.

Then we went to the Prime Minister’s residence for a dinner, which began with a one-on-one meal between the Vice President and the Prime Minister, and that lasted for about two hours.  And then we spent about two hours with three members of each side’s team present.  Correction, it was four members on the Israeli side and three members on our side.  The subjects that were covered in the Vice President’s session with the Prime Minister were the peace process, Iran, the threat of jihadism across the region, the threat of terrorism to Israel from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other sources, specific regional events and their impact and import, including the situations in Iraq and Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.

And because the dinner was so wide-ranging and because the Prime Minister and the Vice President have such a longstanding relationship, it was intertwined with personal anecdotes, conversation about family, conversation about recent trips that each of them have taken, including the President’s trip to Asia, where the Prime Minister was genuinely interested in hearing about his impressions on China, North Korea, other subjects.

Q    On what trip to Asia?

MS. BARKOFF:  The Vice President’s trip.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the peace process, the Vice President wasn’t there to negotiate.  Obviously Secretary Kerry is at a critical juncture in these negotiations, and there are important specific issues being worked between the parties with Secretary Kerry, with Martin Indyk, and the Vice President certainly didn’t want to get into the nitty-gritty of the negotiations.  He and the Prime Minister had much more of a strategic conversation about how the Prime Minister saw the future, both long-term future with a two-state solution and the immediate future in terms of how to get from here to a deal.

The Vice President conveyed the President’s and his very strong support for what Secretary Kerry is doing, and made clear that the United States places extremely high value on reaching an agreement that produces two states living side by side in peace and security, but also underscoring just how important Israel’s security requirements are to us and that we would be looking out for those in any final agreement.

With respect to Iran, the Vice President had the opportunity to update the Prime Minister on the impending implementation of the Joint Plan of Action, to discuss our ongoing efforts to ensure that the sanctions architecture remains intact, and to talk about what a comprehensive solution would look like and elicit the Prime Minister’s views on a comprehensive solution. 

The subject of Iran was not limited, of course, to the nuclear file.  They spoke about Iran’s actions in the region -- its destabilizing activities, its support for terror, as well as the important implications of the election of President Rouhani and the activities of other actors in the Iranian system, and how the United States and Israel need to cooperate together to confront the variety of threats posed by Iran in the region.

I think I’ll leave it at that in terms of the laydown, and open it up for questions.

Q    Can you give us a sense of whether Iran took up more of the time or whether the peace process took up more of the time?  And then, what did the -- what was the role of all the staff coming together afterwards?  If it wasn’t really like a negotiation or a substantive type of thing -- what was the staff trying to do when you all got together afterwards?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  This is a fairly typical format for the Prime Minister where he likes to have -- and I shouldn’t just say the Prime Minister; it’s a typical format for the Prime Minister with all of the close colleagues and interlocutors like the Vice President.  He likes to have dinner where the two of them can have intensive personal conversation about substantive issues, about their lives, about their outlooks, about the state of play, about politics, about everything.  But then they also like to have conversations covering many of the same subjects but with the contributions of their close advisors and people who are experts on particular issues or people who have been very close to them.

But I don't want to characterize this in any way as a negotiation or as a linear trajectory through a four-hour conversation where they got to a point after two hours, having called people in to lead them to the next step.  It was more a mix of some one-on-one time where it could be Bibi Netanyahu and Joe Biden talking to one another, mano-o-mano, and then some time for a substantive, textured conversation among a variety of informed people on the same range of subjects.

Q    Did Iran take up more of the time or did the peace process take up more time?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think it’s really hard to judge.  They both were covered in depth and the bulk of the four hours was devoted to those two subjects.

Q    I know he wasn’t there to negotiate, but was there any sort of development that we can report in terms of something new,  Netanyahu is less comfortable, Netanyahu is more comfortable, Netanyahu is nervous because of the January 20th partial -- I mean, was there anything new?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would leave it to the Prime Minister -- recognizing it’s difficult for you to elicit his reaction sitting here -- to characterize his positions on both Iran and the process.  The purpose of this session was not to try to produce any particular reaction from the Prime Minister or move him to any particular position.  It was rather to, number one, come into to convey the fundamental strategic convergence between the United States and Israel on both the objective of a two-state solution and on the objective of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon; second, to talk in specifics about where we are now and where we are going with respect to the Iranian nuclear negotiations; and third, to have a strategic conversation about how we can close the gaps and get to an end game on the peace process without in any way stepping into the middle of the negotiation that Secretary Kerry is ably carrying out.

So it’s better to think of this as a high-level strategic conversation that can help provide more context and texture and understanding for each side on these issues to inform the work that lies ahead.  And that immediate work will be carried forward by Secretary Kerry on the peace process, and then will be carried forward by experts on both sides on the Iranian nuclear program as we try to work with the Israelis on the elements of a comprehensive solution and also as we try to work with the Israelis in the Iran context on ensuring that we are enforcing and carrying forward the Joint Plan of Action as effectively as conceivably possible.  And getting their cooperation on that is important.

Q    Because now that they know that -- his discomfort with the interim deal as it has been developing since November, now does the Vice President feel that they have in any way eased his concerns?  Forget -- do you guys feel there was any easing of that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I know it’s your job to ask that question.  It is my job to repeat that the Prime Minister has really got to speak for himself on this.  I just can't characterize his position on this.  I can characterize the conversation as candid, intensive, extensive, and very much in keeping with the way that the Vice President and the Prime Minister deal with one another -- forthright, honest, in good faith.  The two of them I think understand each other, understand where they're coming from, their perspectives and I think in that regard, it was a productive conversation.

But in terms of where the Prime Minister stands at the end of it that's for him to say.

Q    Did the Vice President go into this meeting with the intent of trying to ease his concerns?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  His primary interest in the conversation was practical in two regards:  Number one, advance the conversation on the elements of the comprehensive solution, what it should look like, how we should approach the negotiations, how we and the Israelis look at a long-term resolution to the Iranian nuclear problem; and number two, to talk about specific implementation issues and how we can work together on those issues, including things like ensuring that the sanctions architecture remains in place.

Q    When President Obama was here a year ago, or not quite a year ago, with the Prime Minister, they famously went to a trailer on the tarmac and called Erdogan.  Were there any Biden-Netanyahu calls to foreign leaders, to Abu Mazen?  Did they call the President together today?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Shakes head no.)

Q    So it was just the two of them, no other foreign leaders involved?
  
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  (Shakes head no.)  One more.  Three more.

Q    Sorry, can you, on the Israeli-Palestinian side of things --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  That was one.  I’m just kidding. 

Q    Comma.  (Laughter.)  Comma.  We’re coming off of a period in which in which -- several days after the Israelis did announce some settlement expansion plans.  Did the Vice President speak to him about the U.S. opposition to this kind of activity, make clear in any way, receive any kind of response from the Prime Minister on the subject of settlements?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The Vice President has reiterated, as Secretary Kerry does every time he sees the Prime Minister, the U.S.’s position on settlements.  We don't think their announcements of new settlements, continuing settlement activity is constructive to bringing about a positive result in this negotiation. 

It’s not a central focus of the discussion, though, in that the substantive issues with respect to a final status agreement are really where the rubber is going to hit the road in terms of getting this resolved.

Q    -- the fact that the U.S. position is that it’s not constructive?  Is that what you said?  I couldn’t quite hear it.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  When I put it in those terms, it sounds like some formal diplomatic demarche.  That's not the way that the Vice President and the Prime Minister speak to one another.  But the Vice President made clear that from our perspective the best way to bring about a comprehensive solution to this is to get the focus squarely on these final status issues and find a way to resolve them as quickly as possible.

Q    Just to follow up on that, and the response of Netanyahu to that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The issue of prisoner exchanges and settlements as they relate to the negotiations is very well trod ground at this point, six months into this period.  So there wasn’t anything new tonight in terms of either side’s views on that subject.  I think I’ll leave it at that.

Q    I wanted to ask about Congress’s role in the Iran talks and whether that was something that came up tonight.  To what extent is the administration concerned about the level of support, particularly in the Senate for the Menendez resolution?  And what role has that been playing in the development of the framework and the talks --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll leave it to the congressional experts to speak about levels of support and vote counts and things like that.  Let me just reiterate what the President has said personally and what we’ve said repeatedly from the podium, which is that we don't believe that new sanctions at this time are helpful.  We’ve sent that message very clearly both publicly and privately.  And our goal is to convince the Congress to be a partner with us in ensuring the effective implementation of this deal, and then if it turns out that the Iranians either cheat or don't negotiate in good faith, we will want to work very closely with them to increase sanctions at the end of the six months, or during the six months if there’s noncompliance.

Q    -- talk about Congress tonight?  Did you talk about -- tonight?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The subject of the possibility of new sanctions came up.  It was not a substantial topic of conversation.

Q    He did not express his concerns that the sanctions regime is -- that cracks are forming, that they might be forming as a result of this?  That's his main point.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m pausing here because I don't like characterizing what the Prime Minister said and didn't say.  But I think it is safe to say that the issue of ensuring the continued enforcement of the sanctions architecture is an important priority for us.  It’s an important priority for Israel.  And it was the subject of conversation tonight.

MS. BARKOFF:  Okay, guys, I’m cutting it off.  That was a senior administration official, just to clarify on background what that means.

END