The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

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

  • Matthew Butler - Nominee for Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission
  • Mark R. Rosekind - Nominee for Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

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

  • Darryl J. Madden – Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
  • Brigadier General Kent D. Savre, USA – Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
  • Robert M. Sussman – Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin

President Obama said, “I am pleased to announce that these experienced and committed individuals have decided to serve our country.  I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead.”

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

Matthew Butler, Nominee for Commissioner, Election Assistance Commission
Matthew Butler is a Principal at BCT Consulting Group LLC, a role he has held since 2013.  From 2009 to 2013, Mr. Butler worked with Media Matters for America, first as the Chief Financial Officer and Director of Progressive Talent Initiative from 2009 to 2011, and then as the Chief Executive Officer and President from 2011 to 2013.  From 2008 to 2011, Mr. Butler was the Principal Consultant with East Capitol Consulting, LLC, where he served as a senior level political advisor to various organizations.  From 2007 to 2008, he was the Deputy Campaign Manager for the Chris Dodd for President Campaign, and in 2006, he was the Campaign Manager for the Maria Cantwell for Senate campaign in Washington.  In 2004, Mr. Butler served as the Deputy Campaign Manager for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and from 2002 to 2004, he was the Chief Financial Officer for the John Kerry for President campaign.  He was an Associate Attorney at Haight, Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.  In 2000, he served as the General Election Comptroller for the Democratic National Committee, and he served as the Planning Manager for the Presidential Inaugural Gala following the 1996 Presidential election.  He began his professional career as the Deputy to the National Coordinated Campaign Director at the Democratic National Committee from 1995 to 1996.  Mr. Butler received a B.A. from American University and a J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law.

Dr. Mark R. Rosekind, Nominee for Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation
Dr. Mark R. Rosekind is a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), a position he has held since 2010.  Prior to his service on the NTSB, he was President and Chief Scientist of Alertness Solutions from 1997 to 2010.  From 1996 to 1997, Dr. Rosekind was Chief of the Aviation Operations Branch in the Flight Management and Human Factors Division with NASA Ames Research Center.  Dr. Rosekind also served as a Research Scientist at the Ames Research Center and Team Leader for the Fatigue Countermeasures Program in the Aviation Safety Research Branch of the Flight Management and Human Factors Division from 1990 to 1997.  From 1989 to 1990, he was a Research Associate in the Department of Psychiatry at Stanford University School of Medicine.  From 1987 to 1989, Dr. Rosekind was a postdoctoral fellow in Sleep and Chronobiology at Brown University Medical School.  Dr. Rosekind received an A.B. from Stanford University and an M.S., an M.Phil., and a Ph.D  from Yale University.   

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

Darryl J. Madden, Appointee for Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Darryl J. Madden is the Commodore of the Port of Washington Yacht Club, a position he has held since 2014.  He also currently serves as Executive Director of the Homeland Security and Public Safety Practice at IMRI, Federal Sector, a position he has held since 2014.  From 2010 to 2014, Mr. Madden was Director for the Ready Campaign on Emergency Preparedness and Deputy Director for Strategic Communications at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and previously held several other positions at FEMA starting in 2005.  Mr. Madden was Chief Operations Officer at The Trident Group from 2004 to 2006 and Managing Partner of the communications division from 2002 to 2006.  From 1998 to 2004, he worked as Director of Communications for the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety in the District of Columbia.  He also served as Special Assistant to the Mayor of Baltimore from 1995 to 1998.  Mr. Madden received a B.S. from the University of Baltimore and is a Senior Executive Fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.  

Brigadier General Kent D. Savre, USA, Appointee for Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Brigadier General Kent D. Savre serves as the Commanding General for the United States Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division, a position he has held since 2012.  Prior to this position, he was the Director of the Office of the Chief of Engineers from 2011 to 2012.  From 2008 to 2011, he served as U.S. Forces-Iraq Theater Engineer Brigade commander in Iraq and Commander of the 36th Engineer Brigade at Fort Hood, Texas.  Brigadier General Savre was Director of Counter Explosive Hazards Center at the U.S. Army Engineer School from 2005 to 2007.  From 2003 to 2005, Brigadier General Savre was Battalion Commander in Fort Lewis, Washington and Commander for “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in Iraq.  From 2002 to 2003, he was Assistant Corps Engineer for I Corps at Fort Lewis, Washington.  From 1998 to 2002, Brigadier General Savre served as an Executive Officer in Germany and for “Operation Joint Guardian” in Kosovo.  Brigadier General Savre received a B.S. from the University of Wisconsin-Stout, an M.S. from Arizona State University, and an M.S.S. from the United States Army War College.

Robert M. Sussman, Appointee for Member, Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Robert M. Sussman is Principal at Sussman and Associates and is an Adjunct Law Professor at Georgetown University School of Law.  From 2009 to 2013, he served as Senior Policy Counsel to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator.  Mr. Sussman was Co-Chair of the Obama Transition Team for EPA from 2008 to 2009.  Mr. Sussman was partner at Latham & Watkins from 1995 to 2007 as well as from 1987 to 1993.  From 1993 to 1994, he served as EPA Deputy Administrator.  Mr. Sussman was an Associate and Partner at Covington and Burling from 1974 to 1987.  He was a Judicial Clerk to Judge Stapleton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware from 1973 to 1974.  Mr. Sussman received a B.A. from Yale College and an L.L.D. from Yale Law School.  

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

Remarks by the President at ConnectED Superintendents Summit

East Room

11:24 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Everybody, have a seat.  Well, thank you, Alberto, for that introduction and, more importantly, for your outstanding leadership of the Miami-Dade public schools.  I thank all of you for joining us.  We are here to take another step toward making sure that all of our kids get the education that they need in the 21st century.

And it’s great to welcome so many committed educators to the White House.  If you need, by the way, a note to excuse your absence -- (laughter) -- let me know.  (Laughter.)  You're all kind playing hooky today.  (Laughter.)

We’ve got superintendents here from more than 100 school districts -- as close as just across the river in Arlington, to across the continent in Alaska.  And we are joining a lot of folks over the Internet, as well.  In a few minutes, all of you are going to sign a pledge to make sure that your districts are doing what it takes to be ready for the future.  And we’ve also got some people here who share your commitment to education, including members of Congress and our Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  Where is Arne Duncan?  Where is he?  He’s gone!  (Laughter.)  He’s playing hooky, too!  (Laughter.)  No, I'm sure he’s got some very important thing -- (laughter.)  Poor Arne, he’s being called out right now.  (Laughter.) 

Look, as President, every decision I make is aimed at one goal, and that is to restore opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard in our society.  Six years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes, our businesses have added over 10.6 million new jobs during the course of 56 months.  For the first time in more than six years, the unemployment rate is below 6 percent.  And we’ve made gains in education, thanks to the hard work of school leaders like you.  Dropout rates are down.  The graduation rate is the highest on record.  More young people are earning college degrees than ever before. 

But in a 21st century economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is knowledge -- and the capacity to learn new knowledge -- we’ve got to do more to offer our children a world-class education.  We’ve got to make high-quality pre-K available to every child, so that they get the benefit of early enrichment and they come to school prepared.  We have to encourage more young people -- especially young women and minority students -- to study in the fields of the future, like math, technology, engineering, science.  We need to keep working to redesign our high schools to offer more hands-on learning opportunities that can lead directly to jobs and careers -- and can engage students in different ways based on their interests and their learning styles. 

We need teachers who know how to make learning come alive, with personalized instruction and project-based learning. And we've got to do more to make sure that our teachers are supported and receive the kind of professional training and best practices -- and I personally think higher pay -- that's going to encourage the best and the brightest continue to be in the field.  We've got to make sure that no striving young person is priced out of a college education.

These are all critical ingredients to our effort at continuous improvement in education.  And one of the things that we also need to do is to yank our schools into the 21st century when it comes to technology, and providing the tools and training that teachers need to use that technology to prepare all of our students for the competition that they’re going to face globally.

Other countries are doing this.  They are trying to out-educate us today so that they can out-compete us tomorrow.  South Korea is replacing all of its textbooks with digital content, and training all of its teachers to use technology in the classroom. Singapore is equipping every school with broadband that’s over 40 times faster than the connection in the average American home.  So we're going to have to step up our game if we’re going to make sure that every child in America can go as far as their dreams and talents will take them. 

And that’s why, last year, I launched an initiative called ConnectED -- it’s a five-year plan to close the technology gap in our schools and connect 99 percent of America’s students to high-speed Internet.

And this is why it’s important.  Right now, fewer than 40 percent of public schools have high-speed Internet in their classrooms -- less than half.  That's not good, since we invented the Internet.  (Laughter.)  That's not good.  It means that in most American schools, teachers cannot use the cutting-edge software and programs that are available today.  They literally don’t have the bandwidth.  And even in schools where there is high-speed Internet, so often there aren’t enough computers to go around, so only a small percentage of our classrooms have the one-to-one ratio of students to computers or tablets.  And that means that, in too many schools, if a teacher wants to use the Internet for a lesson, then kids have to crowd around one desk to follow along, or they have to break up into groups and sequentially come in. 

I’ve said before, in a country where we expect free Wi-Fi with our coffee -- (laughter) -- the least we can do is expect that our schools are properly wired.  And when many of us can’t go even an hour -- my staff, it's like every two minutes -- (laughter) -- without reaching for a tablet or a smartphone, we’ve got to make sure these devices are within reach of our students.  Because outside of school they’re certainly understanding how to use technology.  That's where they’re living.  And if we aren't incorporating that into how they are learning in the classroom, then we're not doing our job.  We've got to bring the world to every child’s fingertips, because they’re already more technologically savvy than we are, but if they think that the school is 20, 30 years behind, then they’re going to lose interest in school.

So, earlier this year, I announced new steps toward making the vision of ConnectED a reality.  The FCC decided to double its investment in broadband for schools, investing an additional $2 billion over two years -- that’s a step that will connect more than 15,000 schools and 20 million students to high-speed Internet.  And that investment will help some of the school districts represented in this room.  Then, just this week, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler unveiled his plan to help us finish the job and reach our ultimate goal of connecting 99 percent of students within five years.

But as I’ve said from the day that we launched this initiative, this is not just a role for government, or the federal government.  We also asked some of America’s foremost tech companies to help bring our schools into the 21st century.  And their response have been inspiring.  So far, 10 companies have made commitments totaling more than $2 billion.  So Apple, for example, has pledged $100 million, which is going to 114 schools across 29 states.  Students will get iPads.  Teachers will get McBooks -- or MacBooks, depending on how you say it.  (Laughter.)  Classrooms will get Apple TV.

And that’s just one of many commitments.  Students are using software from Adobe to design new animal species, software from Autodesk to create fuel-efficient cars.  Teachers are using presentation software from Prezi to help kids understand how solar systems work.  Other companies are providing hundreds of millions of dollars in software, eBooks, teacher training.  And 100,000 high-need students will receive free wireless service.  For students who spend hours on the bus every day, that means that they’re going to be able to keep working while they’re commuting -- in between texting their friends, of course.  (Laughter.) 

Schools in all 50 states are already taking advantage of these commitments.  And you can find out how your school district could benefit at WhiteHouse.gov/ConnectED.

So, today, I’m proud to announce that two companies that provide online courses are getting on board.  EdX has already offered its Advanced Placement-level courses for free.  Now it’s making the certification for those courses free as well.  So if you’re a student who’s mastered the material, but can’t afford the certification that proves it, EdX will provide it.  They’re offering more than a dozen training courses to teachers nationwide for free. 

And for the next year, the company Coursera will offer free credentials for district-approved professional development courses to any teacher, anywhere in the country.  Because all the wireless devices and fancy software in the world won’t make a difference unless we have great teachers in the classroom.

And early on, when I was still in Chicago, as a senator, and I got interested in this issue -- sometimes you’d walk in the classroom, there would be brand new computers, but the students who were sitting at the computers, all they were doing were doing -- the same problem sets that they were getting on mimeograph or Xerox before now they were doing on the computer screen.  There was no sense of how to use the tool in a powerful way.  And that's why we very much appreciate the offerings by these companies, understanding that we want to make this as accessible as possible.  

So closing the technology gap is going to take more than fiber-optic cable, it's going to take more than portable hotspots and wireless projectors.  It will take more than policymakers in Washington or even Silicon Valley CEOs.  It’s going to take teachers, principals, superintendents who get it -- who understand the power of these tools when used creatively and who are willing to make changes and push reforms and test new ideas. And we want to help you do that. 

So today, we’re making two new tools available.  First, because we know a lot of school districts aren’t sure what digital infrastructure to invest in, or how to pay for it, or what they’ll get out of it, we’ve put together an infrastructure guide to help you make the best decisions based on your resources and needs. 

Second, we’ve created a “learning tool-kit” with goals and checklists for teachers and principals, so they can turn these tools into better outcomes for students.  And this is all based on best practices that have been collated from around the country.  And over the next year, my administration will convene 12 regional summits for superintendents and principals nationwide to help more districts get ready for the future. 

So you’ve got the resources.  We've got some of the money coming out of ConnectED.  We've got the companies participating.  Now we're going to work with you on a regional basis, state by state, so that we can start stitching all this together to actually deliver to kids in the classroom.  

Now, a lot of you are already doing this.  Karen Tarasevich -- where is Karen?  There she is.  I'm glad she wasn’t with Arne somewhere playing hooky.  (Laughter.)  Karen is the superintendent in the West Warwick Public Schools in Rhode Island.  It’s a city with higher than average unemployment, and a lot of students’ families don’t have computers at home.  So they came up with a “One-to-One” initiative to help solve both problems.  Every student gets a laptop to use at home and at school.  And parents are encouraged to use the laptops, too, to take online job training courses.  So there’s a booth set up at every parents’ night where moms and dads can sign up.

And then you’ve got Mary Wegner, superintendent of the Sitka, Alaska School District.  Where is Mary?  She came a long way.  There she is.  (Applause.)  Yes, give her a hand for coming from Alaska.  I was wondering why it was so cold today.  (Laughter.)  Now, this is a remote place.  You can only get to Sitka by plane or by boat.

So how many transfers did you have to make to finally get here?

MS. WEGNER:  Three.

THE PRESIDENT:  Three -- that's not bad.  (Laughter.) 

So six years ago, the technology in the schools was so outdated, only a few people could even print documents, and logging on to the Internet could take 20 minutes.  Today, with the help of the Recovery Act, the whole district has WiFi.  The ratio of computers to students is four-to-one and falling.  Kids are Skyping in class with experts from all over the world on a whole range of subjects.  And Sitka is now in the top tier of districts in the state.  It's been transformative.    

Darryl Adams is the superintendent of the Coachella Valley Unified School District in California.  Where is he?  There you go.  Good to see you.  One of the poorest districts in the country.  And a few years ago, Coachella started providing every student from pre-K to high school with a tablet of their own.  Is that one of them that you -- yeah?  (Laughter.)  You didn’t take that from a student, did you?  (Laughter.)     

They paid for it through a bond measure, which voters overwhelmingly approved.  So the whole community is committed to their children’s education.  Many students still don’t have Internet access at home, but the district found a solution for that, too.  They’re putting WiFi routers on school buses and parking them across the district every night.  This is really smart, right?  So you’ve got under-utilized resources; buses in the evening -- you put the routers on, disperse them, and suddenly everybody is connected.  Now it’s not just students who can get online -- it's their families, as well.

So I know a lot of superintendents have stories like these. You’ve found innovative ways to reach your students and improve your schools.  And today, the best news of all is you’re taking the next step -- along with 1,200 other superintendents nationwide -- by signing the “Future Ready District Pledge.”  Don't sign yet.  (Laughter.)  Because we're all going to do it together and it will be fun.  (Laughter.)  

It’s a vision for digital learning in classrooms across America -- helping schools and families make the leap to high-speed Internet; supporting teachers and principals who use technology in innovative ways; and helping every student gain access to digital devices and high-quality digital content.  And it’s a promise to help other school districts do the same -- that’s key.  This can’t stop with you.  Every kid need every superintendent in America to sign this pledge -- and then follow through on the pledge.  Our kids need every school district to make these commitments.  Every child -- whether they live in a big city, quiet suburb, the furthest reaches of rural America, poor districts, rich districts -- every child deserves a shot at a world-class education. 

That’s the promise we make as a nation great.  That's what makes our nation great -- this fundamental belief that no matter who you are, where you come from, what you look like, you can make it in this country if you work hard.  You have access to the tools to achieve.  If we keep working at this, that's a promise we can make real for this generation and generations to come.

All right.  So, with that, I think all the superintendents are ready to sign this pledge for our kids.  Everybody get your tablets out.  You ready?  All right, go at it.  (Laughter.)  You're being tested.  (Laughter.)  You’ve got 10 more seconds.  I see some people lagging behind.  (Laughter.)  All right, time.  (Laughter.)  Everybody get it?

AUDIENCE:  Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  If you didn’t, if you're still figuring it out -- (laughter) -- I won't tell. 

But let me just close by saying this.  We're so inundated, I think, with news of mayhem and mishap and war and disease.  I think sometimes we forget how much good work is just being done day in and day out by a lot of good people who just care about their kids, care about their communities.  In your districts, I know there are just extraordinary teachers and principals who are putting everything they’ve got into making sure our kids are getting a great education.  And you’ve got parents who are stepping up and volunteering and helping to make those schools work.  So as you disperse, one message I want you to deliver to all of them from the White House, from the President of the United States, is even if you're not getting a lot of attention, even if you're not making a lot of headlines, what you're doing every single day is making the biggest possible difference in the life of this country.  And I couldn't be prouder of you.

Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.) 

END
11:43 A.M. EST 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

Statement by National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on President Obama's Meeting with Prince Mitib bin Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud

President Obama met today at the White House with Prince Mitib bin Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, the Saudi Minister of the National Guard, to discuss our shared interests in regional developments. Affirming the strong and enduring partnership between our nations, the President expressed appreciation for Saudi Arabia’s contributions to the global coalition to counter ISIL and noted Saudi Arabia’s critical role in upholding regional peace and security, including through its recent engagement with the new Iraqi government. The President and Prince Mitib also discussed our efforts to promote stability in Yemen, the international response to counter the Ebola epidemic and strengthen global health and security, and the status of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

Remarks by the President at Bill Signing

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SIGNING OF REAUTHORIZATION OF
THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

Oval Office

11:58 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as many of you know, one of my top priorities is making sure that we’ve got affordable, high-quality child care and early childhood education for our young people across the country.  Today, I am pleased to sign a bill into law which is going to bring us closer to that goal -- that’s the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant program.  I want to thank bipartisan members of Congress who are here today. 

This law is going to do several important things.  It’s going to improve the quality of child care by requiring more training for caregivers and more enrichment for children.  It’s going to improve child safety by instituting background checks for staff and better inspection of facilities.  It’s going to give working parents a little more peace of mind -- if you receive subsidies to pay for your child care, you know that if you get a raise on your job or you find a job, your kids aren’t automatically losing their care because your status has changed midstream.

I first proposed legislation that accomplished some of these goals back in 2010.  When we couldn’t get it through Congress, we began a rulemaking process to try to do this through executive efforts -- and Sylvia Burwell, the HHS Secretary, is here.  Because the legislation has now passed, we are actually ending the rulemaking process because we’ve now got a law, and we’re going to be able to focus on implementing the law. 

And I want to thank all the legislators here.  It’s a good step forward.  It shows that Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to making sure our kids are getting the best possible education, are united.  And that’s good for our kids and that’s good for our country.

So with that, I’m going to make sure that I sign this properly, using all these pens.

(The bill is signed.)

END
12:01 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

Statement by the Press Secretary on S. 1086

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014, the President signed into law:

S. 1086, the "Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014," which reauthorizes and reforms the State block grant program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services for child care assistance for low income families.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2014

FACT SHEET: ConnectED to the Future

Today, President Obama hosts school leaders and educators from across the country at the White House for “ConnectED to the Future,” a day-long convening to explore the potential of education technology and the innovations needed to bring America’s schools into the digital age.  At the event, the President will launch his Administration’s effort to assist school leaders in their transition to digital learning, following his plan to connect 99 percent of America’s students high-speed broadband internet in their schools and libraries. The President will applaud superintendents across the country that will collaborate with students, educators, and parents to become “Future Ready.”  

More than 1,200 school superintendents will join the Obama Administration’sFuture Ready District Pledge to set a vision for digital learning across America.  These educational leaders will foster a culture of learning through technology across their schools; assist their students and families in the transition to high-speed connectivity; provide their learners greater access to high-quality digital devices and content; and provide teachers and principals the support needed to use technology in innovative ways.  Together, they will reach approximately 10 million students across more than 16,000 schools across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

Preparing America’s students with the skills they need to get good jobs and compete in the global economy demands an interactive, personalized learning experience.  According to the FCC, 68% of school districts report that not a single school in their district can meet high-speed connectivity goals. Too few American schools have the broadband connections necessary to support innovative teaching and learning and most lack the wireless connectivity to individualize instruction for students. 

In June 2013, President Obama visited Mooresville, NC to announce the ConnectED initiative, beginning with a call to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to enable the connectivity and high-speed broadband needed to spur 21st century learning for America’s students within five years.  Since that time, the FCC has taken steps to modernize the E-rate program to support high-speed connectivity for America’s schools and libraries, providing a $2 billion down payment toward the President’s ConnectED goals.  Additionally, private-sector companies have committed more than $2 billion to supplement federal actions and help support cutting-edge technologies across a greater number of schools and homes.

On Monday, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced plans to dramatically expand investments in the E-rate program, increasing the program by $1.5 billion annually. This proposal – scheduled for consideration by the FCC in December – constitutes an essential step to provide the resources needed to meet the goals the President outlined last June

Today’s White House “ConnectED to the Future” convening will feature new commitments from private and non-profit partners and from the U.S. Department of Education to support educators as they transition to digital learning, including:

  • Support for State and Local Educational Leaders:   In partnership with the Alliance for Excellent Education, the U.S. Department of Education will host 12 regional summits for Future Ready school districts, to assist local educational leaders as they develop and implement action plans to use technology to personalize learning across their school districts. Secretary Duncan will also issue guidance to state and local superintendents, to support technology and digital learning as an allowable use of more than $27 billion in federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.   
  • Access to Virtual Learning for Teachers and Students:  EdX has committed to provide free online coursework from top universities, including free course certificates to teachers and high-school students in high-need schools.  All students will have free access to all Advanced Placement-level courses offered through EdX.  In addition, Coursera will provide no-cost online professional development at every school district over the next two years, including opportunities for teachers to earn Coursera’s completion certificates which may be used for continuing education credits. The company is partnering with leading schools of education to further expand its teacher professional learning offerings.
  • Future Ready Technology Infrastructure Guide: The U.S. Department of Education will issue a new technical assistance guide that outlines specific and tangible examples that will help schools improve their technological infrastructure by getting high-speed broadband Internet connectivity to and throughout schools, choosing devices for learning and establishing policy and procedures for their use.
  • Future Ready Professional Learning Toolkit:  The U.S. Department of Education will issue a new technical assistance toolkit that provides rubrics, checklists and examples to assist district teams as they develop, refine, and evaluate professional learning plans that align with their capacity, learning goals, and standards of professional learning. In particular, the toolkit focuses on how districts can use technology to connect educators and provide tailored professional learning experiences.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 18, 2014

Press Briefing by the Press Secretary, 11/18/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:00 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Nice to see you all.  I don't see too many faces that toured Asia with me last week.  (Laughter.)

Q    How’s your jetlag?

MR. EARNEST:  We're still fighting it off, Steve, to be honest with you.  It's nice to see you all.  I don't have any announcements at the top, so we'll go straight to questions.  So do you want to get us started?

Q    Thanks, Josh.   Can you talk a little bit about this review on hostages taken overseas?

MR. EARNEST:  I can.  This is something that the President ordered back over the summer, that given sort of the extraordinary nature of some of the hostage-takings that we've seen this year, the President felt it was warranted to direct the relevant departments and agencies who have traditionally been involved in assisting families as they try to recover the safe return of their family members.  So this is something that the Department of Defense, State, the FBI and the intelligence community have been reviewing.

The one thing that I do want to make clear, though, is this review does not include a reconsideration of a longstanding policy of the United States government that ransoms should not be paid to terrorist organizations that are holding hostages.  But this is obviously an issue that the President takes very seriously.  We have long said and we continue to take the view that significant resources have in the past been dedicated to trying to ensure the safe return of American citizens who are being held hostage overseas.

And there was an incident earlier this summer where the President did order a rather remarkable military effort, principally military effort, to recover some American citizens who were being held hostage in Syria.  That was a mission that was successfully executed, but it did not successfully result in the safe return of the hostages.

But this is a review that's ongoing among the relevant agencies that are principally responsible for working on this issue.

Q    So if it's a comprehensive review why would the paying of a ransom not be included in that?  And even if you're not doing -- on the question of the U.S. policy on that, are you looking at the policy of how family members who might want to pay ransom are treated, whether they’re possibly subject to prosecution?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice for how the law is specifically applied in those matters. The reason that we're not reviewing the policy as it relates to not paying ransom is that our views on this are clear, and the President continues to believe, as previous Presidents have concluded, that it's not in the best interests of American citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization, that is holding an American hostage.  And the reason for that is simple:  We don't want to put other American citizens at even greater risk when they’re around the globe, and that knowing that terrorist organizations can extract a ransom from the United States if they take a hostage only puts American citizens at greater risk.

Q    And do you have a timeline for when this might be wrapped up?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have a sense of when this review would be concluded.  But when it has been, I'm sure we'll let you know about it.

Q    The other question I had was about immigration.  Any sense of when the President would make his announcement?  There’s some talk on the Hill that it might be this week.

MR. EARNEST:  There is a lot of speculation both on the Hill and across town about this.  I don't have any additional updates as it relates to timing.  I mentioned in a briefing that we conducted in Burma last week, of all places, that the President was nearing a final decision on the executive actions that he would take to fix our broken immigration system, but I don't have an update beyond that.

Q    Thanks.

MR. EARNEST:  Steve.

Q    Josh, has he received the DHS recommendations on this?

MR. EARNEST:  Steve, as I mentioned -- last week, we did talk about the fact that the President was nearing a final decision, and beyond that, I just don't have an update.

Q    Any meetings today about this?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any meetings to tell you about.  The President was obviously pretty busy over the course of the Asia trip; did not have the opportunity to spend much, if any, time on this issue, but did plan to work on it when he got back. So I don't know if there are any meetings that are on the books, but I know that's something that -- this is something that's on his agenda this week.

Q    And what about this Republican strategy we're hearing about that they would try to sort of cut off funding for various aspects of carrying out the order?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I know that there’s been some talk about this, but I haven't seen any specific proposals.  Obviously this is not something that we would view very favorably.

Q    And are you hoping that by going ahead and acting that it will somehow spur the House into some legislative action in the near term?  Or what’s the strategy?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that possibility certainly does exist.  I've said this before that there is a trump card that Republicans hold right now, and that is the President has indicated that if the House of Representatives does pass the Senate bill that already passed in bipartisan fashion more than a year ago that the President would not actually follow through with his intent to use his executive authority to fix our broken immigration system.  The reason for that is simply that the legislation that's already passed through the Senate would do more to fix the broken immigration system than the President is able to given the confines of the law.

So Republicans can certainly prevent the President from taking this executive action if they pass the Senate bill.  And I will say that if the President does take action sooner than that and House Republicans decide before the end of the year, before this Congress adjourns, that they do want to take up the Senate bill, the President has indicated that he would happily throw away any executive actions that he did enact in favor of bipartisan legislation that would have significant benefits for our economy in terms of economic growth and job creation, would reduce the deficit, would strengthen border security.

There are a whole range of things that are included in this common-sense, bipartisan Senate bill that would be good for the economy and good for the country.  I think that's why we had 14 Republicans join with almost every Democrat in the Senate to support this legislation.  There’s a lot of common sense in there.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen the House Republicans be persuaded by that common sense to actually take it up.

Michelle.

Q    Just to clarify what you said on -- Steve asked if he’s received the recommendations.  You're not saying whether this is in the review stage at this point, or whether he’s still waiting for the full recommendations?

MR. EARNEST:  That's right, I don't have any update beyond what I said last week, which is that the President is nearing a final decision on this.

Q    Okay.  So why don't you want to say whether he’s received those recommendations or not?  I'm just curious.

MR. EARNEST:  Only because I don't want to be in a position of doing sort of the regular daily or even hourly play-by-play of all this.  The President has indicated that he’s going to act before the end of the year, and that timeline hasn’t changed.

Q    Okay.  And meantime, this rhetoric has been building out there, with now threats of everything from impeachment, lawsuits, and now shutting down the government.  Does the White House have a response to that kind of pretty fierce rhetoric at times?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it's certainly not unprecedented rhetoric from Republicans, unfortunately, that even with a common-sense piece of legislation that has bipartisan support Republicans have been vociferously critical of that bill -- for reasons that I'm not entirely clear on.

The question that the President has before him is a pretty simple one, which is, given that Congress, and in this case House Republicans, have refused to act on legislation that would be good for the economy, good for the deficit, good for border security, and given that the Speaker of the House convened a news conference shortly after the elections in which he refused to commit to even take up this legislation again, the question before the President of the United States is, is he going to use his authority to actually do something good for the country, that would be helpful when it comes to our border security in terms of strengthening our border security.  Is he going to take steps that would be good for the economy?

And the answer to that question is, yes, the President is determined to take the kinds of steps that are in the best interests of the country.  He would prefer for Congress to actually fulfill their responsibilities in this regard.  And that's why the President has indicated that if Congress does pass this legislation the President is happy to have common-sense, comprehensive bipartisan legislation that supersedes his executive action.  But if they don't, the President is not going to use that as an excuse to not act himself.

Q    The suspense is killing everyone.  (Laughter.)  But will the President veto the Keystone bill?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President has been very clear about what our views are as it relates to the Keystone bill.  Consistent with past practice, the State Department has a method of reviewing these kinds of projects that span our international borders, and that means that the State Department can conduct a review that includes a wide range of considerations, including, at the President’s direction, the consideration about whether or not this particular project would substantially contribute to carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change.

So there is a process that's underway that is currently going through its regular course.  This is complicated at least a little by ongoing court proceedings in the state of Nebraska as it relates to the route of the pipeline in Nebraska.

But there is a process underway, and the President is confident that that process will carefully evaluate the consequences of this specific proposal and that that's the proper way for a decision like this to be made.

Q    So that's a yes?

MR. EARNEST:  It is an answer to the President’s view that the State Department is the proper venue for reaching this determination.

Justin.

Q    I just wanted to go back to something you said first about the possibility that Republicans would attach something to a spending bill that would defund whatever the President’s executive actions on immigration were.  You said that's not something that you would view very favorably.  Is that in the same way you’d not view the Keystone pipeline legislation favorably, on a scale of veto or not veto?  (Laughter.)  I'm just trying to understand what you mean by that.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it's hard to render a particularly definitive judgment on those kinds of proposals because they haven't been put forward yet.  But I think as a general matter as it relates to the immigration reform decision that rests on the President’s desk, that the President is confident that whatever action he will take will be within the confines of the law.  So he'll be taking a lawful action that is not inconsistent with executive actions that previous Presidents, including Republican Presidents, have taken on this specific issue of immigration reform.

So I think that's why, in our view, we would consider it to be unwarranted for Republicans in Congress to try to undo that executive action using the budget process.

Q    On the timing issue that's come up a few times, will you concede that part of your calculation is kind of the political consideration of if you bring this out before a spending bill is brought up it would give Republicans an opportunity, through the budget process that has to happen by December 11th?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I mean, I guess the question you're asking is, what about the legislative strategy, right, about whether the President should make this decision before Congress has acted on either a CR or an omnibus, with the thinking being that if the President waits until after they pass the CR or the omnibus that Republicans are less likely to attach some kind of rider that would defund any of the President’s actions.

I think the fact is you could probably argue this both ways. Republicans, as they should be, are well aware of the President’s intent to act before the end of the year.  And my sense is that even if the President doesn’t announce anything until late in December that will not prevent Republicans from preemptively trying to attach to the CR or an omnibus bill a proposal to make the implementation of that executive action harder.

So there are a variety of views on this topic, and while I guess I would concede, based on the long explanation I've given, that this is something that's been discussed at the White House, that I'm not sure -- that given you could argue it either way, I don't think that this strategic decision that you’ve raised here will determine the outcome at all.

Q    Last one.  Do you expect the Keystone bill to pass today?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not nearly as keen an observer of the legislative process as all of you.  I know that some supporters of the proposal say that they have the votes necessary to pass the bill.  But they’ll put the bill on the floor tonight, and I guess we'll all find out.

Cheryl.

Q    I'm going to try.  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  There will be a lot of that today.

Q    Senator McConnell has asked for a formal statement of administration policy to find out what the administration’s position is, whether he’d veto the bill or not, heading into that vote.  Do you plan on sending a statement of administration policy on the Keystone bill today?

MR. EARNEST:  I have not heard any discussion of doing that. But if our decision on that changes, we'll make sure that all of you get it.

Laura.

Q    What’s the White House reaction regarding the attack in Israel today?  And does the President plan to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Laura, I don't have any phone calls to preview for you here.  You’ve seen that the White House has put out a written statement from the President, and I believe he had the opportunity to address this senseless act of violence at the beginning of a meeting that he convened earlier today.

So we obviously are deeply concerned about the -- specifically about this terrorist act.  We're talking about attackers senselessly and brutally killing innocent worshipers at a synagogue.  Those who were killed include three American citizens.  The fact is there can be no justification for an attack like this against innocent civilians.  And the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the victims and families of those who were killed and injured in this horrific attack, and in other recent violence.

At this sensitive moment in Jerusalem, it is all the more important for Israeli and Palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and seek a path forward toward peace.

Angela.

Q    There’s been a growing chorus of business leaders asking the White House to step in on the brewing West Coast port strike -- right now a slowdown, but threatening a strike out there right as the holiday season approaches and shipping volume is high.  Is that something that the President is considering?  Is it being discussed at various levels?  Obviously President Bush did step in, in 2002, in a similar situation.

MR. EARNEST:  Angela, to be honest with you, I don't know if there have been discussions about this at the White House.  There are none that I'm aware of, but we can certainly look into that for you.

Q    Is there a threshold at which the White House would intervene?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, presumably, that's one of the things that would be discussed if discussions like that were ongoing.  And I just don't know the answer to that.  We'll have to look into that for you.

Jon.

Q    Going back to the immigration executive order that's coming, does the President still stand by what he said last year when he said, “I am not the emperor of the United States.  My job is to execute laws that are passed.”  Is that still operative?

MR. EARNEST:  Absolutely.

Q    Not a king, either.

MR. EARNEST:  That's right.

Q    Because he was asked very specifically about the idea of expanding the deferred action executive order for the DREAMers to their parents.  And he said, September 17th of last year, to Telemundo, very clearly, “if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that would make it very difficult to defend legally, so that is not an option.”  Is that still operative, when the President said specifically that expanding the DACA executive order is not an option because it would be ignoring the law.  Does he still believe that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jon, I don't want to get ahead of any sort of announcements that the President may make before the end of the year about executive actions that he may take to fix our broken immigration system.  Since this interview aired, the President did direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a review of the law to determine what, if any, authority he could use to try to fix some of the problems that House Republicans have refused to address.

So this is something that has been under consideration for some time by the Attorney General of the United States and by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Q    So just to be clear, so you're saying that this is no longer operative because we've had a review.  So when the President said that expanding DACA to apply to the parents of the DREAMers, for instance, would be broadening and essentially ignoring the law in a way that would be difficult to defend legally, that it's not an option -- that that statement is no longer operative?

MR. EARNEST:  What I'm saying is we'll have an opportunity to evaluate the actions that the President has chosen to take after he’s announced them.

Q    I'm not asking about the options.  I'm just saying, does the President still stand by what he said in that interview in September of last year?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jon, obviously there are some things --

Q    Sounds like a no.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it's not.  Obviously there have been some things that have changed, right?  We have been in a situation where the President has ordered a broader, in-depth review of the existing law to determine what sort of executive authority does rest with the presidency to determine what kinds of steps he could take on his own.  The other thing that we've seen is we've seen House Republicans refuse to act even on common-sense legislation that would fix so many of the problems of our broken immigration system in a way that would strengthen border security, reduce the deficit, and be good for the economy.

Q    They had already refused to act at this point.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess it's fair to say they’ve been refusing to act for quite some time.  At that point, it had only been a few months that they’d been refusing to act.  Now it's been almost a year and a half.

Q    But why are you not using -- to switch back to Keystone -- why are you not using the word “veto”?  Why are you not saying -- previously when this issue had come up, you said -- you issued a statement of administration policy that the President’s advisor would recommend a veto.  It seems substantively what you're saying is it hasn’t changed, but you're not saying it again.  Is there a reason you're leaving options open to not veto it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess -- I don't want to leave you that impression.  It certainly is a piece of legislation that the President doesn’t support because the President believes that this is something that should be determined through the State Department and the regular process that is in place to evaluate projects like this.

But again, I'm not in a position to issue veto threats from here, but as you rightly point out, there are similar pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this Congress where the President’s senior advisors have recommended a veto.

Q    Okay.  And just one other subject.  The videos of Jonathan Gruber have now become kind of -- almost a hit series -- I guess there’s like seven of them out now.  They’re talking about the stupidity of the American voter, of the ways that -- the process of passing the health care law, the ways in which people were duped as to what was actually going on.  I'm wondering what your reaction to this -- obviously he was a very important figure in the crafting of the health care law, so what is your view of what he’s had to say?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the President, when he answered a question on this at the news conference in Brisbane over the weekend, was pretty clear about the fact that the sentiments that were expressed by Dr. Gruber are not sentiments that the President agrees with, and frankly, don't actually reflect what actually happened in the process of passing and implementing this law.

The fact of the matter is I do think that people are understandably pretty tired of relitigating all the political fights from 2009 and 2010 as it relates to the Affordable Care Act.  And there are some Republicans, however, who do seek to sort of fan the flames of those old political arguments because they think it is politically advantageous for them to do so.

My suspicion is that they do so because it's easier to talk about six and eight-year-old videos than it is to talk about how smoothly the opening of the second open enrollment period has gone so far, or to talk about the millions of people that have gotten health care as a result of the Affordable Care Act, or to talk about how the growth in health care costs is the lowest in recorded history, again, in the aftermath of the passing of the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act guarantees a bunch of patient protections, including that people can't be discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition.  All that stuff is pretty inconvenient for people who oppose the law to talk about. So it's easier for them to talk about these kinds of videos.  And they’re certainly welcome to do that.  I don't think that there’s a particularly large audience of the American people that's eager to have this discussion.

Q    But you would acknowledge he was an important figure in the crafting of this law.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the President acknowledged in the news conference that he did over the weekend when I believe Ed asked about this that Mr. Gruber was an advisor.

Q    Would he welcome more government contracts?  He’s made more than $2 million from the federal government, $400,000 specifically regarding the health care law, and of course, a lot more money from the states as well.  Is he now kind of persona non grata, no more government contracts for Jonathan Gruber?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I assume that those kinds of decisions are made on a -- based on merit.  But certainly the comments that he has now famously expressed are not views that are shared by anybody at the White House.

Q    Can I follow that, Josh?

MR. EARNEST:  I'll come right back to you, Wendell.

April.

Q    Josh, I have several subjects, different subjects.  I want to ask you first about something the President said about Ebola.  He said, we're not out of the woods yet.  Is it an assumption that you're hoping for the best, but expanding possibly another case scenario that you may have Ebola coming into this country, or that someone could contract it from someone with Ebola?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, April, I think the reason that the President said that we're not out of the woods yet is that we continue to see Ebola cases being reported in West Africa and there is new concern about the nation of Mali, about the potential spread of the disease in that country.  We've been pretty candid about the fact that the risk of a widespread Ebola outbreak in the United States remains exceedingly low, but that that risk to the American people is not eliminated until this disease has been stopped in its tracks in West Africa.

And so that's why you're seeing the significant commitment of resources from the federal government to try to stop this outbreak in West Africa.  And that's why the administration has asked Congress to pass some additional funding to increase readiness in this country to respond to Ebola patients if there should be others that materialize in this country, but also, and just as importantly, and in some ways even more importantly, to make sure that we're mobilizing the necessary resources to stop this outbreak in West Africa.

Q    On my second subject, is this White House gearing up for a major fight come January?

MR. EARNEST:  About anything specific?  (Laughter.)

Q    January, both Houses are red, and this is a very blue White House.  Are you gearing up for a big fight?

MR. EARNEST:  I guess I don't really understand the question.

Q    Okay.  Well, you’ve got a Congress that doesn’t like health care reform that this President put through.

MR. EARNEST:  That's been true for four years, right?

Q    They are now in control and looking at doing things to change it.  Immigration reform -- the President is talking about pushing immigration reform through now, and in January when they’re here they’re going to push back.  Are you concerned about a big fight?

MR. EARNEST:  April, I think the President has been pretty clear about what he believes he can do with the next Congress,  and that is specifically that we should be able to find some areas of common ground where we can make progress for the American people.  That said, we're going to have plenty of disagreements over probably lots of things.  And I think the key here is to recognize that we don't want to be in a position where we prevent those disagreements, some of them significant, from allowing us to identify some common ground and make progress for the American people using that common ground.

So whether it is tax reform, or even making it easier for American goods and services to be sold overseas, there may be an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together.  And we’d welcome those opportunities.

Q    Well, since you're looking for common ground, Congresswoman Marsha Fudge said that you should have talked to Harry Reid to put on the schedule to have Ms. Lynch, Loretta Lynch, have a confirmation hearings before January because nothing will go through come January.  That's what she said.  What do you say to people like that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, all I would say is that Ms. Lynch is an exceedingly highly qualified nominee.  She is somebody with a stellar legal track record and somebody who deserves prompt and bipartisan confirmation in the United States Senate.  We've seen some early indications from Republicans that they are going to give her a fair and prompt hearing.  We would expect nothing less.  And the President is confident that she’ll get the bipartisan confirmation that she deserves.

Q    And lastly, on Ferguson.  Has this administration or this President -- does he know anything about the potentials of a verdict on this -- or the possible indictment or not indictment on this officer who shot and killed Michael Brown?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think it's been pretty broadly, widely reported that there are ongoing grand jury proceedings in Ferguson related to this specific case, but nobody at the White House has any special knowledge of those proceedings.

Q    Is there a concern then from this White House that the National Guard is getting called up and there’s a presence there to quell potential violence in that town if the verdict does come out that he is found not guilty?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President did have the opportunity to speak on the telephone with Governor Jay Nixon from the state of Missouri --

Q    When was this?

MR. EARNEST:  I believe it was November 7th.  We put out a readout of that call, so I can send that to you after the briefing.  The President spent some time talking about work that the Governor has been focused on in terms of ensuring that the community is -- or that steps are taken to protect the community if necessary.  And that does include, in this case, the mobilization of some National Guard units.

The President has also been in touch with civil rights leaders over the last few weeks to talk to them about the important work that they’re doing in communities across the country to try to prevent any other violence associated with this particular circumstance.

That said, I think the President is pretty mindful of the advice from Mr. Brown’s parents, who urged people to pay tribute to their son’s memory by expressing their views peacefully.  The President is mindful of that and hopes other people will be, too.

Q    The verdict has not come out -- or we don't know if they’re nearing a decision or if they’re going to go up to the last day of the window.  Do you think it might be overkill right now to put the National Guard troops out until a verdict comes out?  Because right now they’re there and the people are just using their rights to speak out about what they feel.

MR. EARNEST:  Again, for any sort of tactical decisions about where and when to deploy National Guard personnel, I'd refer you to the Governor’s office.  Obviously they’re making those decisions.  The White House isn't.

Wendell.

Q    Back on Jonathan Gruber.  In Brisbane, the President really downplayed his significance, I think, and you say that his views are not shared -- his views about the voters are not shared at the White House.  But Steve Ratner of MSNBC, the President’s former car czar, says Gruber was “the man” on Obamacare when he was here.

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not sure the car czar would have a lot of insight into this.

Q    He was here.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes.  So was I.  (Laughter.)

Q    Okay.

MR. EARNEST:  So was the President.  And Mr. Gruber was an advisor, as the President himself said.

Q    He was the czar.

MR. EARNEST:  You mean he outranks me?  (Laughter.)  That could be.  That could be.

Q    Are you downplaying his significance in crafting the Affordable Care Act?

MR. EARNEST:  He obviously is somebody who knows his profession as it relates to being a health care economist very well.  He’s somebody who has offered advice to Democrats and Republicans as they’ve implemented health care policy.  Dr. Gruber was obviously involved with then-Governor Romney’s efforts to implement health care reform in the state of Massachusetts.  That principally is why he was involved with this effort because so many aspects of the Affordable Care Act borrowed from the successes of that law as well.

So he certainly is somebody who is well-versed in understanding how economics will have an impact on health care policy.  But I think it's pretty evident from these videos that he doesn’t have nearly as much insight as it relates to politics or communications or legislative strategy.

Q    Republicans say his comments show a lack of transparency in selling the Affordable Care Act -- for example, not calling a tax a tax.  And they say that they’re going to, based on that, challenge the President’s veracity in selling Obamacare.  How much of a political problem is Gruber now?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think I would quibble with that critique for a couple of reasons.  When the Affordable Care Act was something that was debated over the course of 14 months, there were 79 bipartisan hearings that were convened in the House of Representatives.  There were about a hundred hours of hearings on health care reform in the House including from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle.  Over in the Senate, there were 53 additional hearings on this matter.

Q    I'll stipulate that.

MR. EARNEST:  Right.  So I guess -- but the suggestion by some that this was something that had not been carefully worked through or was not transparent -- I assume that all these hearings were open.  So I guess it's why I just wanted to raise this because I do think it significantly undermines the charge that there wasn’t a lot of transparency as it relates to the debate around the health care law.  It was debated in -- I'm just going to do the math here off the top of my head -- 132 different congressional hearings.

Q    But when you’ve got one of the principal authors saying, look, you can't call a tax a tax because politically it won't go through, that's a problem.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, it wasn’t his responsibility to figure out how to get this bill through.  We have people who were responsible for making those kinds of legislative decisions at the White House.  His expertise was focused on the economics of health care.  This was expertise that he lent to Governor Romney’s administration in Massachusetts as they worked on health care reform there.  And that was the role that he played here.

It also, I think, is why it's pretty clear that the views that he’s articulated don't reflect what actually happened when it comes to the passing or implementation of this law.

Chris.

Q    Let me ask you a few more questions about the review of the hostages and the policy here.  And I want to start with -- I know that there’s been a lot of talk about how much people who actually do pay ransom, particularly European countries, whether directly or more likely through a third party or through a company actually do pay ransoms.  How concerning is that?  And where is the effort on putting pressure on governments not to pay ransoms?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we've made the views of this country very clear.  And again, the reasons for that are that paying ransoms or making it clear to other organizations that we’re willing to pay ransoms only puts American citizens at greater risk.  And that's something that obviously the President and his team are very focused on, is trying to protect American citizens.

The other thing that we know, based on our insight into the way that ISIL works is that they rely on these sort of ransom payments as a very important source of their financing.  So shutting off that source of financing is an important part of our strategy for defeating them.

So that's why -- and again, this isn't a new policy.  This is actually a policy that predates this President.

Q    But is there any progress on putting pressure -- on having any success in getting other countries, other organizations to back off on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we've certainly impressed upon other countries and other organizations the wisdom of this view.  But ultimately, they’re going to make that decision for themselves.

Q    Also, at the time, James Foley’s parents were very critical of the relationship -- we've talked about it here, you’ve talked about it from the podium.  Have there been any changes since that time in the way this administration deals with the families of people who are being held hostage, and is that also part of this review?

MR. EARNEST:  That's part of the review.

Q    But no changes at this point?

MR. EARNEST:  Not that I'm aware of.  But again, once this review is completed, I'm sure we'll have more that we can say about this.

Q    And just a quick question on immigration, because today -- well, actually, on a number of occasions, the President has talked about that he’s tired of waiting, including at that post-press conference he suggested that.  You’ve also said here today that this isn't going to make a difference in terms of the budget, that the Republicans will go ahead anyway, you think they’re going to do some sort of attachment.  And Harry Reid --

MR. EARNEST:  I think the point I was making is just I think you can argue it both ways.

Q    Yes.

MR. EARNEST:  So which is why a decision about that doesn’t necessarily determine the outcome.

Q    Well, Harry Reid said today, “I think it should be done now.”  Is there any real reason for the President to wait beyond this week?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think Justin floated sort of the reason that you might consider doing that.  I don't have any updates in terms of the timing.  The President has been waiting a long time -- more importantly, the American people have been waiting a long time -- for congressional Republicans to stop blocking a common-sense proposal that would actually do a lot to solve so many aspects of our broken immigration system in a way that would be good for the economy, would be good for the deficit, and would strengthen our security at the border.

So there are some steps that the President can take using his own authority that he’s going to pursue to try to mitigate some of those concerns.  But the fact is the President is not going to be able to do as much as this legislation would do.  And that's why, even after the President does take action before the end of this year, he’s going to continue to press Congress to take the kinds of steps that he believes are necessary.

The President pointed this out in the news conference that he did in Brisbane last week -- or over the weekend, I guess -- that it's not just the President who believes that the common-sense, bipartisan proposal in the Senate would be good for the country.  The business community, the labor community, the evangelical community, even law enforcement believes that that legislation would be in the best interests of the country.

I think it makes it very difficult for Republicans to explain why they continue to block this proposal, because the other thing we know about this bill is that if House Republicans were just to allow it to come up for a vote that it would surely pass the House of Representatives also in bipartisan fashion.

So, again, we'll have plenty of opportunity to evaluate whatever steps the President takes, and we can sort of at that point have a discussion about the wisdom of the actual timing that he chooses.  But at this point, I think the case is pretty clear for why the President should act, and eventually, sometime relatively soon, I think we'll have the opportunity to have a discussion about what steps the President has actually taken.

Lesley.

Q    Thanks.  To go back to Keystone, the Times had a -- mentioned in a story today that the President’s thinking was to veto now and go for some sort of a trade, maybe, after the State Department review comes out.  Can you speak a little bit to his  -- is that his thinking, to wait on Keystone and use it for some sort of --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that presupposes that it’s going to pass in the Senate.  So I think we'll probably wait and see what happens in the Senate and see whether or not this comes to the President’s desk before we sort of make decisions about the next steps.

Q    But Congress is already thinking about the next steps.

MR. EARNEST:  I think that's probably fair to say.

Q    Do you have --

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not at this point.  Maybe sometime soon as we advance further in the process.

Mr. Plante.

Q    What would be the advantage to waiting?  If the President is so determined to do this, why doesn't he just do it this week?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, maybe he will.  Who knows?  (Laughter.)

Q    But you didn't really answer Chris’s question.  Why would he wait?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, maybe he won’t.

Q    Who knows?

MR. EARNEST:  Who knows?

Q    What could the strategy --

Q    Could be.

MR. EARNEST:  I don't know -- I’ll let you guys sort of weigh the pros and cons here.  When the President has made a decision, we will definitely let you -- we’ll make sure you're among the first to know.

Q    Right.  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  And we’ll have a chance to sort of walk through at that point what the President has decided, and why he decided to take the action he took, and at what timing.

Q    And perhaps you’ll also explain how he could walk back his comments that he made, which Jonathan referred to, in September of 2013, about the limits of his legal powers.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what we’ll be confidently able to do is to explain to you what legal authority the President is using to take these actions.  That's exactly right.

All right, J.C.

Q    Josh, in light of the deteriorating situation in Syria, especially the latest attacks by ISIL, has the President discussed this since Brisbane with U.S. allies?  And are they willing to put together some sort of concerted effort to deal with President Assad, who is actually giving them safe haven?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don't have any additional phone calls to world leaders to read out at this point.  I don't know of any calls the President has made.

Q    Was it discussed at G20?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it was.  There was an effort to talk about the threat that ISIL poses to the broader international order here.  And the President does remain very concerned about these reckless acts of violence that we see there.  And obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the Kassig family today, who is mourning the loss of their son.

And the President has worked very hard to build a broader international coalition to take the fight to ISIL.  We're very pleased with the kind of international cooperation that we’ve gotten in this endeavor, and it’s precisely because of the threat that ISIL poses to the broader international community if they can establish a safe haven inside of Syria.  And you're right, it’s the failed leadership of the Assad regime that has created a power vacuum that has allowed extremist organizations like ISIL to try to gain a foothold and try to establish a safe haven in that area of the world.  And that's why you’ve seen such a strong reaction from the United States and members of our international coalition to go after ISIL and to prevent that safe haven from being established.

Q    Has this raised Assad’s profile at all with this administration in terms of what needs to be done?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we’ve been saying for some time, J.C., that Assad has lost the legitimacy to lead that country.  And that's not based on a particularly unique conclusion that the United States has drawn.  That's based on what I think is pretty clear evidence that the people of Syria don't support him being in power.  And that's not a coincidence.  This is somebody who has perpetrated terrible acts of violence using his nation’s military against the nation’s citizens.  There’s no place for world leaders like that, and that's why this administration and this President believes that he’s lost the legitimacy to lead.

Peter.

Q    Josh, can we circle back a little bit to Jon’s question?

MR. EARNEST:  Sure.

Q    You said the circumstances have changed.  The President hadn’t waited as long then as he’s waited now for Republicans to act in the House and so forth.  And I can see why that might affect his policy choices or his strategic calculation.  I don't see how that changes that law he is referring to in September of 2013.  So the question is Does he have a different view today of what the legal authority was?  Has he been educated?  Has he amended his view of what the law is, not what the calculation is in Congress?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me go back to the first part of your question first.  Then I’ll get to the second, which is -- and I probably could have been clearer when I was answering Jon’s question on this, which is, it’s not just that the President and the country have been waiting a long time for House Republicans to act -- we have.  But it’s also now Republicans have indicated that they're not going to be able to pass -- or not willing to bring that bill up for a vote in the House of Representatives, and not willing to commit to bringing it up in the next session of Congress.

So it’s no longer a situation where at that point, House Republicans were saying, well, this is something that we may get around to.  Now House Republicans are being pretty clear about the fact that they're not ever going to get around to it.  And that's what has caused the President -- or prompted the President to consider some alternatives.  And this goes to the second part of your question.  And what the President has done since the interview is to ask for a detailed, in-depth, professional review of what kind of authority can be wielded by the President of the United States -- any President -- to address some of these problems that Congress is unwilling to confront.

And there’s a pretty well-established pattern of Presidents in both parties taking steps to reform the broken immigration system.  I had a list here before.  Even somebody like President George H.W. Bush took steps to expand the Family Fairness Program to cover more than 1.5 million unauthorized spouses and children. This represented 40 percent of the undocumented population of roughly 3.5 million undocumented immigrants in the country at that time.   So that's just one example -- President Reagan took a couple of steps -- that were also significant in terms of using their executive authority to take actions related to our immigration system that would have a substantial impact on a large number of people.

Q    The question then is, did the President -- President Obama -- not know about those examples a year ago when he said he didn't have that authority?  Has he been educated in a way that has changed the understanding of what that law is?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't know whether or not he was aware of these specific examples.  What I can tell you is that the President has directed his team to conduct the review of the law, and what they have attempted to do is to try to determine what exactly can the President do within the confines of the law to try to address some of these problems.

Q    Would you agree that his comments from a year ago lend themselves to the critics who say he is expanding what his definition of the law really is, given that a year ago he seemed to suggest the opposite?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what the President and his team are focused on is trying to figure out what exactly the law says and what that means for the President’s ability to wield some authority here to try to solve problems, that ultimately is what this goes back to, is what capacity does the President have within the confines of the law to address some of these problems that Republicans in Congress just won’t address.

Q    He seemed pretty certain about what the law was when he was talking with immigration activists in the interview.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, in a lot of these interviews that the President has done, the President was repeatedly challenged to end all deportations.  And that is what most often prompted the President to say that “I’m not a king.  I’m not an emperor.  I do have to enforce these laws.”  The question is to what extent, using his authority, can he have an impact on those laws?  And the fact is it’s not within his authority to end all deportations.

Q    Well, those weren’t the only times he was saying that, though.  He was also asked very specifically, can you expand --

MR. EARNEST:  I know.  I know.  I know.

Q    -- which is now what he’s talking about doing.

MR. EARNEST:  Right.  But you made a reference to a large number of cases in which the President has said I’m not an emperor, I’m not a king, and I can't change the law.  In the vast majority of situations, the President was talking -- was responding to those who suggested that he could stop all deportations.  And that's the context in which the President most often delivered this answer.

Q    Not always.

MR. EARNEST:  No, not always.

Q    So I asked about the ones he --

MR. EARNEST:  And that's what Jon pointed out, is that there were other situations in which he was asked specifically about the deferred action program.  In this case, the President has ordered a review to determine what exactly is contained within the law that would allow him to take some steps that would address some of the problems that exist.

Q    Last question.  Is it fair to say that he ordered this review because he was no longer certain that his statements in the past were correct?

MR. EARNEST:  I think he ordered this review because he wanted to basically find out what authority he did have and to ensure that we were sort of leaving no stone unturned in examining what sort of authority the President of the United States could wield to try to address some of these problems that Congress has been unwilling to confront.

Q    Josh, can I just follow up?

MR. EARNEST:  Okay, go ahead.

Q    In the past, the President seemed to be explaining, as you say, to those people who were calling for him to take these actions that he’s not a king, that he’s not an emperor.  Is the President at all concerned about the message that it does send, particularly to young people who are calling for him to take these steps, that, in fact, he does have some powers that the general understanding is that he doesn't have?  Is there concern about the message it sends even overseas?

MR. EARNEST:  No, because I remain confident, and the President remains confident, that whatever he announces will be entirely consistent with what the law is.

Q    What about the response from the Hill, though -- I mean, the Republicans here in Congress who are suggesting that the President is acting unlawfully?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, once the President has made a decision and it’s a decision that's been announced, we’ll all -- Republicans and Democrats and even some reporters -- all have the opportunity to evaluate whether or not those actions are consistent with the law.  I’m confident we’ll have a very strong case to make about how those actions are consistent with the law, as currently described.  But I don't know if Republicans will find that entirely convincing.  Given their pretty staunch opposition to immigration reform in general, I’m confident they’ll look for any excuse they can come up with to try to explain why they're against these actions.

I think we’ll have a strong case to make that what the President has done will be good for the economy, will be good for the country, will be good for border security.  But what we also know is that it won’t be as substantial as what Congress could do if House Republicans stopped blocking a common-sense piece of legislation that passed through the Senate and allowed it to come up for a vote in the House.

Q    Thanks, Josh.

Q    Follow on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Go ahead, Kathleen.

Q    As part of explaining the legal justification, will the White House release the AG’s legal opinion on this later then?

MR. EARNEST:  We will have some material that we can release to you related to the legal foundation of some of these decisions, but we’ll get to that when we have some announcements to make.

Jared, I’ll give you the last one.

Q    Josh, a week and a half ago, before the trip, you came out and, in an answer to Darlene’s question, you said that you didn't have an answer, the President didn't have a decision on Loretta Lynch.  Like six hours later, a statement -- a paper statement under your name came out.  Did you know when you were answering the Associated Press’s question that you were going to be issuing that statement later in the day?

MR. EARNEST:  I did not because a decision hadn’t been made. But given the extensive reports that had sort of pushed this issue, a decision was sort of forced.  And in reaction to that, a decision was made.

Q    So it was reporting and not any other consideration about legislation or anything else that forced the hand of the White House at that point?

MR. EARNEST:  That's correct.

All right, thanks, guys.  Have a good afternoon.

END
1:50 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 18, 2014

FACT SHEET: Growing the United States Electric Vehicle Market

The White House and U.S. Department of Energy Announce Private Sector Commitments to Cut Carbon Pollution and Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Oil

The Obama Administration is committed to taking responsible steps to combat climate change and reduce our dependence on oil. That is why today, the White House and the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned electric utilities, are announcing new commitments by more than 120 businesses, non-profits, and schools, including more than 70 Edison Electric Institute utility companies, to purchase electric vehicles and technologies and to install workplace charging stations.

Today’s commitments demonstrate that businesses across the U.S. are investing in the technology that will enhance our energy security by reducing our dependence on oil, promoting measures to cut fuel costs for American families and businesses, and helping the U.S. continue to cut carbon pollution. In fact, electric vehicles can actually get cleaner as they get older, because the grid they are plugged into can be powered by cleaner energy over time. Today’s announcements include:

  • Commitments from more than 70 electric utility companies to devote at least 5 percent of their annual fleet acquisition budgets to purchasing plug-in electric vehicles and technologies, totaling investments of approximately $50 million per year.
  • 61 new businesses, schools, and non-profits committing to install workplace charging stations for their employees.
  • A new action by the U.S. Department of Energy to support new, competitively-awarded projects to enable aggregated purchases of EVs and other advanced technology vehicles.

The commitments made today will create new demand, bringing the U.S. one step further to achieving the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge President Obama launched in March 2012. The goal of the challenge is to become the first nation in the world to produce plug-in electric vehicles that are as affordable for the average American family as gasoline-powered vehicles. Since 2009, the cost of battery technology has already come down by more than 60 percent.  As costs have fallen and vehicle choice has grown, plug-in electric vehicle sales continue to grow rapidly.  Sales in the first ten months of 2014 were nearly 25 percent higher than during the same period in 2013. Today, 13 manufacturers offer 19 electric vehicle models, presenting consumers with real choices as they look to adopt new technology, enhancing the competitive position of U.S. industry, and driving job creation through American innovation.

Electric Utilities Leading By Example: More than 70 electric utility companies today announced a commitment to devote at least 5 percent of their annual fleet acquisition budgets to purchasing plug-in electric vehicles and technologies, totaling investments of approximately $50 million per year. The companies will meet the 5 percent commitment by purchasing a variety of technologies, from electric passenger cars to medium- and heavy-duty work trucks with electric Power Take Off (ePTO) systems that power the trucks at worksites without the need to run the engine. Deploying plug-in vehicles in utility fleets carries a powerful message to the community about the capabilities of plug-in technology. By adopting plug-in technologies in their own fleets, utilities will be better equipped to enable their customers – including commercial fleets – to follow suit. This is an unprecedented effort by the electric utility industry to lead by example, and drive the electric vehicle market. Examples of companies making the commitment today include:

  • Dayton Power & Light
  • Indianapolis Power & Light
  • Minnesota Power
  • Superior Water, Light and Power Co
  • Ameren Illinois
  • Ameren Missouri
  • AEP Ohio
  • AEP Texas
  • Appalachian Power
  • Indiana Michigan Power
  • Kentucky Power
  • Public Service Company of Oklahoma
  • Southwestern Electric Power Company
  • Avista Utilities
  • MidAmerican Energy Company
  • NV Energy
  • Pacific Power
  • Rocky Mountain Power
  • CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
  • Consumers Energy
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York
  • Pike County Light & Power Company
  • Rockland Electric Company
  • DTE Electric
  • Duke Energy Carolinas
  • Duke Energy Florida
  • Duke Energy Indiana
  • Duke Energy Kentucky
  • Duke Energy Ohio
  • Duke Energy Progress
  • Southern California Edison
  • Empire District Electric Company
  • Baltimore Gas and Electric Company
  • Commonwealth Edison Co.
  • PECO Energy
  • Florida Public Utilities
  • Kansas City Power & Light Company
  • Green Mountain Power Corporation
  • Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc.
  • Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.
  • Maui Electric Company, Ltd.
  • Central Maine Power
  • New York State Electric & Gas
  • Rochester Gas & Electric
  • Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
  • National Grid
  • Florida Power & Light Company
  • Connecticut Light and Power
  • NSTAR
  • Public Service of New Hampshire
  • Western Massachusetts Electric Co.
  • Atlantic City Electric
  • Delmarva Power
  • Pepco
  • Pacific Gas & Electric Company
  • Arizona Public Service Company
  • Public Service Co. of New Mexico
  • Texas-New Mexico Power Company
  • Portland General Electric
  • Kentucky Utilities
  • Louisville Gas & Electric
  • PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
  • PSEG Long Island
  • Public Service Electric and Gas Company
  • Puget Sound Energy
  • Alabama Power Company
  • Georgia Power Company
  • Gulf Power Company
  • Mississippi Power Company
  • Tampa Electric Company
  • Westar Energy
  • We Energies

Leading U.S. Organizations Stepping Up To The Workplace Charging Challenge: The Energy Department’s Workplace Charging Challenge encourages America’s employers to commit to providing EV charging access for their workforce.  After the home, the workplace is the most likely place a vehicle will spend time parked – a significant opportunity to expand our nation’s charging infrastructure. In fact, the ability to charge at work can potentially double a PEV driver's all-electric daily commuting range. The Workplace Charging Challenge has grown to 150 members since its launch in January 2013 with 13 founding members.  Today, 61 new businesses, non-profits, and universities are joining the challenge:

  • Advocate Health Care
  • AeroVironment, Inc.
  • Arkansas Power Electronics
  • Atlanta Regional Commission
  • Avista Utilities
  • BECO South
  • BMW North America
  • City of Palm Springs
  • College of Lake County
  • Conrad N Hilton Foundation
  • Consumers Energy
  • Duro-Last
  • El Camino Real Charter High School
  • Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI)
  • EMD Serono
  • EV Grid
  • Evolution Marketing
  • Great River Energy (GRE)
  • Green Cab VT
  • Green Mountain Power
  • Green Wheels
  • Hannah Solar
  • Harvard University
  • Heartland Community College
  • IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Kankakee Community College
  • Kaskaskia College
  • KEMET
  • Kohl's
  • Legrand
  • Leviton
  • Lewis and Clark Community College
  • Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)
  • Melink Corp
  • Mitsubishi
  • Northern Illinois University
  • Pacific Gas & Electric
  • Pat's Garage
  • Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.
  • PJM Interconnection
  • Pomona College
  • PPL Electric Utilities
  • Prairie State College
  • Rockwood Lithium
  • SAS Institute
  • SemaConnect
  • State of Illinois
  • Telefonix Inc.
  • Township High School District 214
  • UL LLC
  • University of California Los Angeles - Smart Grid Energy Research Center
  • University of Louisville
  • University of Maine
  • University of North Carolina at Pembroke
  • University of Vermont
  • Vermont Energy Investment Corp
  • Volkswagen Group of America
  • Westar Energy
  • Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
  • Zero Motorcycles Inc.

Enhancing Aggregated Purchasing To Simplify EV Adoption: The U.S. Department of Energy is also announcing a Notice of Intent to support new, competitively-awarded projects of up to $2 million, to enable aggregated purchases of EVs and other advanced technology vehicles. Aggregated purchasing maximizes customers’ collective buying power by taking advantage of volume pricing and helps provide manufacturers with an assured sales base. Often when attempting to assemble themselves into groups to aggregate purchasing power, companies run into hurdles that inhibit their ability to coordinate—for example the lack of innovative financing mechanisms that allow a diverse group of companies to participate. This funding would help pay for that coordination function and create additional models of successful aggregate purchases that could be applied by other groups. Aggregated purchasing provides an opportunity for manufacturers and suppliers to lower costs through assured purchases and for fleet operators and other customers to benefit from more favorable pricing. 

Today’s actions build on substantial progress.  Since President Obama took office, the number of Federal fleet EVs in operation has grown significantly from only 57 in FY 2009 to nearly 4,000 in FY 2013, and the number of hybrid electric vehicles in the Federal fleet has grown significantly from fewer than 1,800 in FY 2008 to nearly 16,000 in FY 2013.  Just last week, the Los Angeles Air Force Base became the first Federal facility to replace 100 percent of its general purpose vehicle fleet with plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). With 42 vehicles and charging stations, LA Air Force Base represents the largest PEV vehicle fleet on a federal facility -- and the largest Vehicle to Grid (V2G) demonstration in the world. Eight states have also committed to putting 3.3 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025, in part by including them in their own public fleets.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 18, 2014

Remarks by Senior Administration Officials in a Conference Call on the Vice President's Trip to Morocco, Ukraine and Turkey

Via Teleconference

12:15 P.M. EST

MR. SPECTOR:Hey, everyone.Thanks for joining us on today’s background call to preview the Vice President and Dr. Biden’s trip to Morocco, Ukraine and Turkey.We are joined by senior administration officials who can go through the schedule and answer some questions at the end.So with that, I’m going to turn it over to a senior administration official.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:Thanks, Stephen.And thanks, everybody, for joining the call.As Stephen mentioned, Dr. Biden will be accompanying the Vice President on all three stops of the trip -- Morocco, Ukraine and Turkey.More information about her itinerary and agenda will be released later today, so I’m really going to focus on the Vice President’s agenda for the trip.

We leave tonight.We arrive tomorrow in Morocco.The Vice President will have an opportunity to meet with the king, His Majesty King Mohammed VI.And then the following day, which will be the morning of the 20th, the Vice President will deliver the keynote address at the fifth Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Marrakesh.

The Vice President and His Majesty the King will discuss the range of issues in the strategic partnership between the United States and Morocco.Morocco is a very important partner in the anti-ISIL coalition.And the Vice President will discuss with the King the ongoing mission of the coalition in Iraq and Syria.

The Vice President will also be eager to hear the King’s thoughts on the broader efforts to counter violent extremism, an area where Morocco has a lot of experience.

The Vice President will also underscore U.S. support for Morocco’s efforts to achieve progress and stability through political and economic reform.And one of the interesting things about Morocco is since the beginning of the Arab Spring, they’ve really been kind of at the leading edge of getting out in front of regional unrest through political reform efforts.

The Vice President, as I said, will then deliver the keynote address at the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Marrakesh on the 20th.This is the fifth Global Entrepreneurship Summit since President Obama first announced the program in his Cairo speech in 2009.It’s the Vice President’s second summit.His first one was in Istanbul in 2011.We feel that at a time when there’s a lot of attention that's rightly focused on terrorists that America and over 60 partners are fighting in Iraq and Syria, this speech is really an opportunity to remind the region and the world of some of the values that America stands for, above all the political and economic openness that fuel our -- fuel innovation.I think we see this -- part of our articulating our affirmative agenda in this part of the world even as the military campaign against ISIL continues.

On the evening of the 20th, the Vice President will depart Morocco and fly to Kyiv, Ukraine.And then the following day, the 21st, he’ll have an opportunity to have extensive conversations with President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk.And he will also chair a roundtable on anti-corruption and rule of law reforms.

In his meetings with Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, the Vice President will convey his congratulations for Ukraine’s successful democratic elections on October 26th, in spite of all the challenges that are facing the country, particularly the separatist challenge in the east.

With the Prime Minister and the President, the Vice President will also note the need to quickly move ahead with forming a new government to get on with the business of implementing important reforms.The Vice President will discuss, I’m sure at length, concerns that all of us have regarding Russia’s ongoing violations of the September 5th Minsk agreement with Ukraine.As I’m sure you all know, Russia is not taking -- has not taken meaningful steps to implement its obligations under Minsk, such as removing all of its troops, stopping the flow of mercenaries, weapons and equipment across the border and allowing an international observer mission to monitor the international border between Russia and Ukraine.

Finally, the anti-corruption roundtable that the Vice President will chair will be an opportunity to discuss the challenges of fighting corruption in Ukraine with a number of new members in the Rada, which is their parliament, and ways that we can help Ukraine build upon the laws that they passed in the previous Rada -- combat corruption.

That evening, we’ll fly to Istanbul and the first thing on the Vice President’s agenda is a working dinner with Prime Minister Davutoğlu.The following day, which is the 22nd, he’ll address an economic and energy summit hosted by the Atlantic Council.And then he will meet with President Erdoğan for an extended meeting.And then finally, he’ll meet with a group funded by the National Democratic Institute, called the Checks and Balances Network.

And then on Sunday, the 23rd, the Vice President will meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch, His All Holiness Bartholomew in Istanbul, and then we will come home.

The agenda for the Vice President’s discussions with Prime Minister Davutoğlu and President Erdoğan will include our cooperation in fighting ISIL in Syria and Iraq; coping with the humanitarian crisis caused by the conflicts on the other side of Turkey’s southern border; countering the threat posed by foreign fighters; promoting the Cyprus settlement process and various other regional issues.

At the Atlantic Council Economic and Energy Summit, the Vice President will speak about some of the challenges to our strategic vision of a Europe that's whole, free and at peace -- including security, political, economic -- and in this context, energy security -- challenges.

With the group of nongovernmental leaders, the Vice President will speak -- that's the Checks and Balances event, the Vice President will speak about how to sustain institutional and political reform that promotes the separation of powers among government institutions.

And then finally, the meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch is a private call to discuss issues of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue.So I think it’s a pretty jam-packed trip.We're really looking forward to it.And with that, why don't we open it up to you all for questions?

Q Two quick questions.One is typically we’re told at the beginning of these things who our senior officials are, even if we're not recording it or putting it in the transcript.That's just a good courtesy.So I hope we can do that.

Secondly, I wonder if you can talk a little bit about where you all think the Europeans are with regard to actual further action on -- against Russia with regard to Ukraine.Is there any actual movement toward this long-stated “Russia will pay if they don't do this kind of stuff” language that we hear again and again?Or are we pretty much in a holding pattern with the level of sanctions we’ve got right now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:As it relates to the European sanctions, I think you probably saw the news today that the Europeans look like they're moving forward on some designations for a number of separatist leaders.We continue to have conversations with them on the sanctions front.I think -- it’s our judgment that the sanctions we’ve already imposed collectively, the United States, Europe and others on Russia are having a pretty significant impact on the Russian economy.And we’ve made it clear to the Russians that those sanctions are going to stay on until there’s full compliance with the Minsk agreement, which at the moment we feel like there’s terrible noncompliance.But maybe I’ll hand it over to my colleague, senior official number two, to give you a little bit more color.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:I would say that the question of an intensification of the sanctions is under discussion at this point.When the President was in Australia over the weekend, he met on the margins of the G20 with the leaders of the European Union that were present -- both member states and representatives of the EU -- and began a conversation about next steps to increase the pressure on Russia, as well as next steps to provide additional financial support to Ukraine.

And we see both of these initiatives as important.One because Russia has not been complying with the Minsk agreement, and as a consequence we're looking at the need for additional steps.And two, the situation in Ukraine economically is relatively fragile.And as a consequence, we're working with our European partners and with the IMF to look at what the needs may be moving forward.

Q Thank you, gentlemen, for doing the call.My question obviously is also about Ukraine.Will you try to prevail upon the Ukrainian leaders -- the President and the Prime Minister -- the need to stick to the peaceful solutions of the crisis?Because I think you have made it clear that you want Russia to push who you call rebels, the insurgents in the east to stop fighting.But if the government does not stop fighting, the fighting will not stop.So are you prepared to pressure the Ukrainian government to stop the fighting in the east?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:Thank you for that.Look, we believe that there should be a peaceful solution to the conflict.We don't think there’s a military solution to the conflict.But honestly, it looks like the Russians and the separatists are trying to impose a military solution to the conflict.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen reports of significant transfers of heavy weapons from the Russian side of the border to separatists.We’ve seen the separatists engage in offensives against the airport in Donetsk.And I think we're all very concerned that in the aftermath of the illegitimate elections that happened in separatist-controlled territory recently that things in the east are intensifying.So it’s our view that there’s no military solution, but that applies to both sides.And at the moment the biggest challenge is -- the separatists and the Russians are really kind of pushing the boundaries.So the Vice President will be in Kyiv and will reaffirm our support for the Minsk agreement and the need for all parties to comply with it, but also stand firm on Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Q I have a couple questions regarding Biden’s trip into Turkey.And the first, (inaudible) around the coalition more or less, but the first thing I wanted to ask was about Incirlik, how much of an issue that was going to be; and whether or not the Vice President is going to push for increased assets there -- or not assets but use of the facility; and whether or not the no-fly zone is going to be on the list of his discussion points.And lastly, how much of this trip is going to be focused on reconciling relations between the Vice President and Erdoğan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:Let me take actually those questions in reverse order.It’s our view that there’s no need for reconciliation.The relationship between the Vice President and Erdoğan is in a good place; they have a very close relationship, a good professional relationship.They interact all of the time.They talk on the phone.The Vice President met with Erdoğan up in New York during the U.N. General Assembly meeting.So there’s nothing to reconcile.The relationship is in a good place.

As it relates to the coalition, Turkey is already an active member in the anti-ISIL coalition.They do provide some base access now.They have agreed to host one of the facilities, the training facilities for the training program for the moderate Syrian opposition.And they’ve also taken steps to crack down on oil smuggling and the flow of foreign fighters.So undoubtedly we -- the Vice President and Prime Minister Davutoğlu and President Erdoğan will all discuss ways in which the United States and Turkey deepen their cooperation on ISIL.But I think we feel like cooperation is good at the moment.And it’s not -- look, it’s our view that when it comes to combating ISIL and stabilizing the situation in Iraq, and standing up the moderate opposition in Syria, these are all areas in which we and the Turks have a considerable overlap in our strategic view.So I think we're in a good place, and I expect those to be fruitful discussions.

Q As a follow-up question to actually the previous one.You were asked about the no-fly zone and the position of the U.S. administration on this.You know that the Turkish government raised several times the issue (inaudible) Ankara is asking to establish a no-fly zone or safe zone northern Syria.So what is your position on this?What will be the Vice President saying to President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Davutoğlu on this?

And secondly, the Cyprus issue will be on the table probably because in Harvard the Vice President talked that he will be discussing Cyprus with the Prime Minister in his next visit to Istanbul, to Turkey.But negotiations were (inaudible) because of the (inaudible) Mediterranean Sea.So can you please elaborate on this too?What will be the position of the Vice President, how he will encourage the Turkish government to pursue this negotiation?So a few details will be great, thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:So if I understood you right, we have a no-fly zone question and then a question about the position on Cyprus.

On the no-fly zone issue, and I apologize for not answering that question earlier, as well, look, we're in constant discussion with our Turkish partners about the full range of possible ways that Turkey can contribute to the anti-ISIL coalition.As you know, the Turkish government has been raising the concept of a no-fly zone and associated buffer zones for a long time now.This is not a new idea.We continue to have conversations with Turkey about how best to bolster security in the region, including along the Turkey-Syria border to take the fight to ISIL.But at the moment, we’re not considering a no-fly zone or a buffer zone.

As it relates to Cyprus, I think that our major position will be the importance of getting the peace process back on track and making sure that all the actors who are involved avoid steps that are provocative so that we can get the peace process back on track.

I don't know if senior administration official number two wants to add anything?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:I would just add that I think at the macro level Turkish interest and American interests in Iraq and Syria are quite similar, overlapping as I think the word that my colleague (inaudible) and they involve degrading ISIL.They involve ultimately getting to a point where Assad leaves power.

And as a consequence, we’re engaging with the Turks in an ongoing strategic dialogue, and the Vice President will be pushing this forward, where we are not really talking about our ends, but really means -- different ways of achieving our common end.And in that respect, the conversation about our strategy in Syria and Iraq is one in which we're sounding each other out and discussing options moving forward.

Q Can I just follow up on the no-fly zone question?The Turkish Foreign Minister again calling today for a no-fly zone, so can we take that now that Vice President Biden will be communicating directly that the no-fly zone and the buffer zone is not on the table now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:Look, I don't think that anybody has taken anything off the table as it relates to the Turks.But what I said before stands, which is we’ve had repeated conversations at all levels on the no-fly zone and buffer zone concept.As the concept gets refined, I imagine those conversations will continue.

But what I said before, stands -- which is at the moment, we are not contemplating putting in place a no-fly zone.But we continue to have conversations with them.

MR. SPECTOR:Great.And at that point, I think we’ll wrap up the call.We appreciate everyone’s time and we look forward to hearing from you soon.Thanks.

END
12:35 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 18, 2014

Remarks by the President Before Meeting with National Security and Public Health Teams on Ebola

Roosevelt Room

11:05 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’ve got my team here to talk about Ebola.  But before I do, I want to just make mention of the horrific attacks that took place in Jerusalem. 

We know that two attackers senselessly and brutally attacked innocent worshippers in a synagogue during their morning prayers. Obviously, we condemn in the strongest terms these attacks.  A number of people were wounded, and four people were killed, including three American citizens.  So this is a tragedy for both nations, Israel as well as the United States.  And our hearts go out to the families who obviously are undergoing enormous grief right now.

Secretary Kerry has spoken to Prime Minister Netanyahu.  President Abbas has strongly condemned the attacks.  Tragically, this is not the first loss of life that we have seen in recent months.  Too many Israelis have died.  Too many Palestinians have died.  And at this difficult time, I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and to reject violence.

The murderers for today’s outrageous acts represent the kind of extremism that threatens to bring all of the Middle East into the kind of spiral from which it’s very difficult to emerge.  And we know how this violence can get worse over time.  But we have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace and to be able to raise their families knowing they’re safe and secure.  The United States wants to work with all parties involved to make that a reality, and to isolate the kind of extremists that are bringing about this terrible carnage.

I now want to turn to the topic of this meeting, the Ebola situation.  Obviously, some of the attention on the crisis has ebbed over the last several weeks, but the challenges remain.  We have seen most recently Dr. Martin Salia, a surgeon who contracted Ebola in Sierra Leone -- he was flown back to the United States, to the Nebraska facility, to try to get treated.  Unfortunately, he was already in critical condition, and, sadly, passed away early Monday morning.  So our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Beyond this tragedy, though, we’ve established that when Ebola is promptly diagnosed and treated, then we have a great chance of curing it.  Of the eight patients who were treated promptly in the United States, all eight have recovered.  They are Ebola free and they are back with their families.

And after the first incident of Ebola in Dallas, and the unfortunate passing of Mr. Duncan, we promptly acted based on some of the lessons that were learned from Dallas.  We’ve put in place new protocols for protective gear for our health workers.  We ramped up our training and outreach for health workers.  We’ve added screening for travelers to the United States.  We’re funneling all these passengers into five airports.  And we put in place rules for public health workers to monitor travelers for 21 days after they arrive here.

As we saw in New York with Dr. Craig Spencer -- one of the courageous health workers who has voluntarily traveled to the region to try to fight this disease -- our efforts to identify, isolate, and then treat Ebola patients can work.  America has proven that it can handle the isolated cases that may occur here.

But as long as the outbreak continues to rage in the three countries in West Africa -- Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea -- this is still going to be a major -- not just for America, but for the entire world. 

We are nowhere near out of the woods yet in West Africa.  The good news is, in parts of Liberia, our efforts, both civilian and military, are really paying dividends, and we are seeing the curve bending so that we are on track, with diligence, dealing with the hotspots that may still reemerge, to actually get a handle on that disease. 

We’re still seeing an increase of cases in Sierra Leone, although our British counterparts are doing an excellent job working with us and the international community to coordinate the situation there.  In Guinea, the numbers are lower than in Sierra Leone or Liberia, but they’re often in very remote areas that are hard to reach, and some of the international coordination still needs to improve.

The bottom line, though, is that we know how to treat this disease given that it has emerged as such a large, significant outbreak in these areas, and we recently saw some cases in Mali. It underscores how important it is to continue to push forward until we stamp out this disease entirely in that region.  Until we do, there are threats of additional outbreaks.  And given the nature of international travel, it means that everybody has some measure of risk.

Here at home, we’ve made great progress in preparing our health care system to deal with any possible threat.  Our scientists continue to make progress with vaccines and treatments, but we’ve got plenty of work to do.

So all of this means that, although we should feel optimistic about our capacity to solve the Ebola crisis, we cannot be complacent simply because the news attention on it has waned.  We have to stay with it.  And that’s why I’m calling on Congress to make sure that it approves before it leaves the emergency funding request that we put forward to respond to Ebola, both domestically and internationally. 

The funding is going to help us strengthen our domestic health systems so that we can respond to any future cases that may arise in the United States wherever they might happen.  It’s going to devote much-needed resources to sustain our efforts in West Africa.  It will accelerate the testing and approval of Ebola vaccines and treatments.  And it’s going to help vulnerable countries to, in the future, prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks of various communicable diseases before they become epidemics. 

And that, ultimately, is good for our public health.  The more we can catch these things early where they begin, the less risks we have over the long term.  And as I’ve said before, in some ways, we are lucky Ebola is a very difficult disease to transmit.  If we have a comparably lethal disease that is airborne, we have much bigger problems.  So this gives us an opportunity to start putting in place the kind of public health detection infrastructure around the globe that is necessary should additional pandemics or epidemics or outbreaks arise. 

All this makes it necessary for Congress to act.  This is not a Democratic issue; it is not a Republican issue -- this is a basic issue of the health and safety of the American people.  And so I hope that Congress is on the case on this issue before they leave.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END
11:13 A.M. EST