Statement by the President

When I took office, the American auto industry – the heartbeat of American manufacturing – was on the verge of collapse.  Two of the Big Three – GM and Chrysler – were on the brink of failure, threatening to take suppliers, distributors and entire communities down with them.  In the midst of what was already the worst recession since the Great Depression, another one million Americans were in danger of losing their jobs.

As President, I refused to let that happen.  I refused to walk away from American workers and an iconic American industry.  But in exchange for rescuing and retooling GM and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars, we demanded responsibility and results.  In 2011, we marked the end of an important chapter as Chrysler repaid every dime and more of what it owed the American taxpayers from the investment we made under my Administration’s watch.  Today, we’re closing the book by selling the remaining shares of the federal government’s investment in General Motors.  GM has now repaid every taxpayer dollar my Administration committed to its rescue, plus billions invested by the previous Administration. 

Less than five years later, each of the Big Three automakers is now strong enough to stand on its own.  They’re profitable for the first time in nearly a decade.  The industry has added more than 372,000 new jobs – its strongest growth since the 1990s.  Thanks to the workers on our assembly lines, some of the most high-tech, fuel-efficient cars in the world are once again designed, engineered, and built right here in America – and the rest of the world is buying more of them than ever before. 

When things looked darkest for our most iconic industry, we bet on what was true: the ingenuity and resilience of the proud, hardworking men and women who make this country strong.  Today, that bet has paid off.  The American auto industry is back. 

For our autoworkers and the communities that depend on them, the road we’ve taken these past five years has been a long and difficult one.  But it’s one we’ve traveled together.  And as long as there’s more work to do to restore opportunity and broad-based growth for all Americans, that’s what we’ll keep doing to reach the brighter days ahead.

Message to the Congress -- Swiss Social Security

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Pursuant to section 233(e)(1) of the Social Security Act, as amended by the Social Security Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-216, 42 U.S.C. 433(e)(1)), I transmit herewith an Agreement on Social Security between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation, signed at Bern on December 3, 2012, (the "U.S.-Swiss Agreement"). The Agreement consists of two instruments: a principal agreement and an administrative arrangement, and upon entry into force, will replace: the Agreement between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on Social Security with final protocol, signed July 18, 1979; the Administrative Agreement between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation for the Implementation of the Agreement on Social Security of July 18, 1979, signed December 20, 1979; and the Supplementary Agreement between the two Contracting States, signed June 1, 1988.

The U.S.-Swiss Agreement is similar in objective to the social security agreements already in force with most of the European Union member states, Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Norway, and the Republic of Korea. Such bilateral agreements provide for limited coordination between the United States and foreign social security systems to eliminate dual social security coverage and taxation and to help prevent the lost benefit protection that can occur when workers divide their careers between two countries. The principal updates encompassed in the Agreement include amendments to rules for entitlement to Swiss disability pensions paid to ensure equality of treatments between U.S. and Swiss nationals, updates to personal information confidentiality provisions, and modifications necessary to take into account changes in U.S. and Swiss laws since 1988.

The U.S.-Swiss Agreement contains all provisions mandated by section 233 of the Social Security Act and other provisions that I deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of section 233, pursuant to section 233(c)(4) of the Social Security Act.

I also transmit, for the information of the Congress, a report prepared by the Social Security Administration explaining the key points of the U.S.-Swiss Agreement, along with a paragraph-by-paragraph explanation of the provisions of the principal agreement and administrative arrangement. Annexed to this report is the report required by section 233(e)(1) of the Social Security Act on the number of individuals affected by the Agreement and the effect of the Agreement on the estimated income and expenditures of the U.S. Social Security program. The Department of State and the Social Security Administration have recommended the U.S.-Swiss Agreement and related documents to me.

I commend the U.S.-Swiss Agreement on Social Security and related documents.

BARACK OBAMA

Background Briefing By Senior Administration Officials on the Vice President’s Trip to Asia

Seoul Grand Hyatt
Seoul, Republic of Korea

9:30 A.M. KST

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just very briefly will cover the meetings yesterday that the Vice President had, particularly the meeting and lunch with President Park, and then take your questions, and then also maybe have a couple minutes off the record on two or three issues where we can add a little context.

The Vice President and President Park spent about two hours, two and a half hours together between a bilateral meeting and a small lunch, and covered a range of alliance issues and regional issues, including obviously North Korea and the recent Chinese announcement of the air defense identification zone, including issues related to the management of the alliance as we go forward, including issues related to nonproliferation more broadly.  They discussed the Iran nuclear deal and they discussed regional relations -- Korea-Japan, Korea-China, the role of the United States and the rebalance.  And the Vice President had the opportunity also to share with Park some of his impressions from the meetings in both Tokyo and Seoul on the issues of common concern.

One item that is now coming into the press that I wanted to take a minute to describe in a little bit more detail is related to the air defense identification zone.  The Vice President and President Park discussed the Chinese announcement.  They agreed that this was a destabilizing act that increased tensions.  They reaffirmed that we don’t recognize the zone and that it won’t affect either of our operations.  And they also discussed implications for the Korean air defense identification zone.  The Vice President expressed understanding for Korea’s approach to China’s announcement, including potential adjustments to its zone, and both of them talked at some length about the importance of freedom of overflight and the lowering of tensions. 

In this context, the Vice President also strongly reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to the Republic of Korea’s security.  Now, obviously we’re going to leave it to Korea to discuss the specifics of their proposals.  But let me say that we’re closely coordinating with them as they consider next steps, and we’re on the same page in terms of the importance of consultations with neighbors, in terms of taking actions that are consistent with international practice, and in terms of ensuring that any measures don’t escalate tensions in the region.

So beyond that, sort of obviously we leave it to the Koreans to lay out how they plan to proceed, but we will remain, following on the Vice President’s conversation with President Park, closely coordinated with the Koreans as we move forward.

I think I will leave it at that, unless I missed any significant issues that -- oh, I did, yes.  My apologies.  The Vice President and President Park also had the opportunity to spend some time on both Korea’s expression of interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the implementation of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.  And that set of trade and economic issues was obviously important to mention on this stop, and it occupied the bulk of the time that the Vice President spent with the prime minister and also a considerable amount of time that he spent with the president.  And as he said publicly in his remarks, the United States welcomes Korea’s interest in joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We think that their entry will add more momentum to not just that agreement, but to an overall effort led by the United States to produce new rules of the road for the 21st century in terms of trade and commerce.

So the -- yes, go ahead.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  They also discussed bilateral issues, including security cooperation in implementing the Strategic Alliance 2015, noting this is the 60th anniversary of the U.S.-ROK alliance, and touched on the ongoing program of work between us on security cooperation leading up to the expected Security Consultative Meeting to be held in the fall of 2014.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Let me close with just one sort of bit of texture.  The U.S.-Korea -- U.S.-ROK alliance is really at a high-water mark.  And these meetings reflected the common approach that the United States and Korea have on a number of critical issues, and the commitment of the leadership on both sides as we implement the framework and vision of the alliance going forward to make sure that, as potentially cheesy as it sounds, that the next 60 years are as effective as the last 60 years have been and that we have modernized the alliance to take account of the challenges and opportunities of the first half of the 21st century. 

So there was a real warmth and intensity to the conversations in terms of our shared interests and trying to move the ball forward on some pretty substantial items.  So with that, we’ll take a couple of questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Did you mention North Korea?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I did.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Okay, sorry.

Q    Can I just ask on the question of South Korea and Japan, how the Vice President did frame the issue of that relationship and what sort of a response he got from the president?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll ask my colleagues to jump in, but the Vice President had one-on-one conversations with both Prime Minister Abe in Japan and with President Park in Korea -- private conversations on this subject.  He indicated to both leaders the strong U.S. interest in two of the region’s leading democracies, Japan and Korea, having improved relations with one another, that that is in our interest.  And further, that trilateral cooperation, especially trilateral security cooperation, among Japan, Korea and the United States is of crucial importance as well.

They were able to have discussions -- by “they” I mean the Vice President and Prime Minister Abe and the Vice President and President Park -- about the future, and given the sensitivity of these issues, I’m not going to go into any more detail about what exactly that entailed.  But I will say that we will continue to follow up as a result of the Vice President’s conversations with each leader.

Q    By “private conversations,” do you mean separately from the sort of --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  One on one.

Q    Okay.  And on the South Korean ADIZ, understanding you don’t want to read out their side of the conversation, but can you say, was the Vice President’s message to them, “We really don’t think that you should be expanding this, it’s just going to throw another log on the fire”?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think, as I’d laid out in my comments before, they had an extensive discussion on this.  The Vice President expressed understanding for Korea’s approach, including with respect to potential adjustments to its zone.  And as a result, not just in the conversation we had with President Park, but consultations that we’ve had with the Koreans over the course of the past two weeks, 10 days, he walked away from that conversation feeling like we were on the same page with respect to the key issues at play here, which include some pretty important elements -- consultations with neighbors; taking actions consistent with international practice; ensuring that any measures don’t escalate tensions.

So it is obviously up to the Koreans to both lay out and execute any steps it plans to take in response to China’s announcement, but we had a very good set of conversations about this yesterday and we’re on -- we’re in extremely close communication and coordination on it.

I don’t know if you guys want to add to this?

Q    To ask sort of a nuanced question, because Mark asked the -- I was going to ask about Japan.  But the Vice President in his comments yesterday spoke about the United States not leaving the region, and made reference to the fact that we’ve been here for so many years.  And that kind of statement used to be very controversial in Korea because it created this notion of permanent basing, and there were enormous protests at places like Yonsei about U.S. bases, the behavior of servicemen.  And I’m interested to know whether in the dynamic between the president and the Vice President, there was any expression of sensitivity about how one maintains a forward base presence of the United States but yet doesn’t seem to undermine the sovereignty of the Korean people, and whether that was sort of managed at that level and what our general policies are on that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Fascinating question, and in effect you’ve answered it yourself by referencing the fact that whereas 20 years ago, you would have been seeing Molotov cocktails garlanding the perimeter of Yonsei University during the visit of a Vice President, instead what you saw were throngs of cheering crowds.  And that’s indicative of the extremely strong support both for the U.S.-ROK alliance, but also for relations with the United States that’s manifest in polling and more broadly in public attitudes.

So the issue of U.S. bases, whether it’s a question of the legitimacy or the burden, was not discussed between the president and the Vice President precisely because it’s not a point of friction.  There are, of course, always discussions about the ongoing process of U.S.-ROK cooperation on a range of security alliance-related programs, of which basing is one element.  But I think you’re pointing to a very good news story, that the presence of the 28,500 U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula is no longer seen as an infringement of sovereignty.  Instead, it’s seen as a core element of the U.S.-ROK partnership.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I want to make sure we have time to do a few minutes off the record, so we can do it now.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I understand.

Q    That’s great.  One thing if I would ask real quickly while we’re still on background: Given the many differences between the situations in North Korean and Iran that you’re all familiar with, what was the nature of discussing those two things in relation to each other?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think here, we discussed this a bit with respect to the conversation with -- between the Vice President and President Xi.  Here, I didn’t mean to suggest in my opening that these were directly linked.  They discussed both issues on their own terms.  There are obviously some overlaps and some connections that came up, but the North Korea conversation really sort of stood on its own and was an opportunity for the Vice President and President Park to compare notes on our approaches, and those approaches are entirely 100 percent aligned.  We both have the same view that the only way that we get back to dialogue is if the North Koreans take steps to show that they are serious about -- concrete steps to show they are serious about it and that it won’t just be talks for the sake of talking. 

And in a sense, in both the meeting and the lunch, the Vice President and President Park were finishing each other’s sentences on North Korea.  That’s how sort of aligned the two of them saw it.  And when the Vice President spoke with the prime minister, the Vice President made his presentation on our policy towards North Korea, and the prime minister said, “You just read the points I was going to make, so I have nothing more to say.”

So on North Korea there was a real alignment.  The Iran piece was an opportunity for the Vice President to talk to them about our impressions of where that is headed, and also to underscore the point that it was pressure that brought the Iranians to the table in the first instance, and continued pressure is going to be crucial to setting the stage for a final agreement, and Korea is an important part of that.

So yes, we can go off the record.

END
9:44 A.M. KST

Remarks to the Press by Vice President Joe Biden at the War Memorial of Korea

The War Memorial of Korea
Seoul, Republic of Korea

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  It’s a great honor to be here.  I was thanking the director for keeping alive the memory of some of these brave Americans who gave their lives for the freedom of the Korean people.  And I was surprisingly moved by looking down at the -- as I laid the wreath -- the names of Delawareans.  Two family members I know -- not my family members.  A fellow -- a great athlete I played ball with through high school, his dad’s name is on there, and others.  And so it brings home how real and how necessary our continued presence here is.

There is a piece of good news.  The DPRK today released someone they should never have had in the first place, Mr. Newman.  I’m told -- tried to get in contact with him -- he’s on his way or in China now.
I offered him a ride home on Air Force Two, but as he pointed out, there’s a direct flight to San Francisco, his home.  So I don't blame him.  I’d be on that flight too.

And it’s a positive thing they’ve done, but they have Mr. Bae, who is
-- has no reason being held in the North; should be released immediately.  And we demand his release as well.

So -- but this is one bright piece of sunshine today that Mr. Newman will be returned and reunited with his family.

Q    Have you talked with him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  No, we were trying -- we tried to get a hold of him.  We communicated the offer of a ride back on Air Force Two, but it was pointed out I guess by State Department.  I’m not sure who Mr. Sullivan talked to, but he said, look, there’s a direct flight in three hours directly to his home in San Francisco.

Q    Did you play any role in securing his release, Mr. Vice President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  No, I played no direct role.  Thank you very much.

Q    Mr. Vice President, do you have word about why, why he was released?

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  No.

END