The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum

Mandarin Oriental Hotel
Washington, D.C.

3:20 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:   Thank you so much.  Thank you.  Please be seated.  Well, good afternoon, everybody.  To Mayor Bloomberg, thank you -- not only for the kind introduction, but to Bloomberg Philanthropies as our co-host, and for the great work that you’re doing across Africa to help create jobs, and promote public health, encourage entrepreneurship, especially women.  So thank you very much, Michael, for your leadership.  I want to thank our other co-host -- my great friend and tireless Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker.  (Applause.)  

I want to welcome all of our partners who are joining us from across Africa -- heads of state and government, and let me welcome the delegations from Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea, with whom we are working so urgently to control the Ebola outbreak and whose citizens are in our thoughts and prayers today.  I also want to welcome Madame Chairperson Dlamini-Zuma of the African Union Commission; President of the African Development Bank, Donald Kaberuka; as well as the President of the World Bank, Dr. Jim Kim.  Please give them all a round of applause.  (Applause.) 

And I want to acknowledge members of Congress who are here and who are such great champions of Africa’s engagement with -- America’s engagement with Africa.  In a city that does not always agree on much these days, there is broad bipartisan agreement that a secure, prosperous and self-reliant Africa is in the national interest of the United States.

And most of all, I want to thank all of you -- the business leaders, the entrepreneurs both from the United States and from across Africa who are creating jobs and opportunity for our people every day.  And I want to acknowledge leaders from across my administration who, like Penny, are your partners, including our U.S. Trade Representative, Mike Froman; USAID Administrator Raj Shah; and our new head of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Dana Hyde; President of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg; Director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, Lee Zak; and our President and CEO of OPIC, Elizabeth Littlefield. 

So we are here, of course, as part of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit -- the largest gathering any American President has ever hosted with African heads of state and government.  And this summit reflects a perspective that has guided my approach to Africa as President.  Even as Africa continues to face enormous challenges, even as too many Africans still endure poverty and conflict, hunger and disease, even as we work together to meet those challenges, we cannot lose sight of the new Africa that’s emerging.

We all know what makes Africa such an extraordinary opportunity.  Some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.  A growing middle class.  Expanding sectors like manufacturing and retail.  One of the fastest-growing telecommunications markets in the world.  More governments are reforming, attracting a record level of foreign investment.  It is the youngest and fastest-growing continent, with young people that are full of dreams and ambition. 

Last year in South Africa, in Soweto, I held a town hall with young men and women from across the continent, including some who joined us by video from Uganda.  And one young Ugandan woman spoke for many Africans when she said to me, “We are looking to the world for equal business partners and commitments, and not necessarily aid.  We want to do [business] at home and be the ones to own our own markets.”  That’s a sentiment we hear over and over again.  When I was traveling throughout Africa last year, what I heard was the desire of Africans not just for aid, but for trade and development that actually helps nations grow and empowers Africans for the long term.

As President, I’ve made it clear that the United States is determined to be a partner in Africa’s success -- a good partner, an equal partner, and a partner for the long term.  (Applause.)  We don’t look to Africa simply for its natural resources; we recognize Africa for its greatest resource, which is its people and its talents and their potential.  (Applause.)  We don’t simply want to extract minerals from the ground for our growth; we want to build genuine partnerships that create jobs and opportunity for all our peoples and that unleash the next era of African growth.  That’s the kind of partnership America offers.

And since I took office, we’ve stepped up our efforts across the board.  More investments in Africa; more trade missions, like the one Penny led this year; and more support for U.S. exports.  And I’m proud -- I’m proud that American exports to Africa have grown to record levels, supporting jobs in Africa and the United States, including a quarter of a million good American jobs.

But here’s the thing:  Our entire trade with all of Africa is still only about equal to our trade with Brazil -- one country.  Of all the goods we export to the world, only about one percent goes to Sub-Saharan Africa.  So we’ve got a lot of work to do.  We have to do better -- much better.  I want Africans buying more American products.  I want Americans buying more African products.  I know you do, too.  And that’s what you’re doing today.  (Applause.)

So I’m pleased that in conjunction with this forum, American companies are announcing major new deals in Africa.  Blackstone will invest in African energy projects.  Coca-Cola will partner with Africa to bring clean water to its communities.  GE will help build African infrastructure.  Marriott will build more hotels.  All told, American companies -- many with our trade assistance -- are announcing new deals in clean energy, aviation, banking, and construction worth more than $14 billion, spurring development across Africa and selling more goods stamped with that proud label, “Made in America.”

And I don’t want to just sustain this momentum, I want to up it.  I want to up our game.  So today I’m announcing a series of steps to take our trade with Africa to the next level.

First, we’re going to keep working to renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act -- and enhance it.  (Applause.)  We still do the vast majority of our trade with just three countries -- South Africa, Nigeria and Angola.  It’s still heavily weighted towards the energy sector.  We need more Africans, including women and small- and medium-sized businesses, getting their goods to market.  And leaders in Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- have said they want to move forward.  So I’m optimistic we can work with Congress to renew and modernize AGOA before it expires, renew it for the long term.  We need to get that done.  (Applause.)

Second, as part of our “Doing Business in Africa” campaign, we’re going to do even more to help American companies compete.  We’ll put even more of our teams on the ground, advocating on behalf of your companies.  We’re going to send even more trade missions.  Today, we’re announcing $7 billion in new financing to promote American exports to Africa.  Earlier today, I signed an executive order to create a new President’s advisory council of business leaders to help make sure we’re doing everything we can to help you do business in Africa.  (Applause.)

And I would be remiss if I did not add that House Republicans can help by reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank.  That is the right thing to do.  (Applause.)  I was trying to explain to somebody that if I’ve got a Ford dealership and the Toyota dealership is providing financing to anybody who walks in the dealership and I’m not, I’m going to lose business.  It’s pretty straightforward.  We need to get that reauthorized.  (Applause.)  And you business leaders can help make clear that it is critical to U.S. business. 

Number three, we want to partner with Africa to build the infrastructure that economies need to flourish.  And that starts with electricity, which most Africans still lack.  That’s why last year while traveling throughout the continent, I announced a bold initiative, Power Africa, to double access to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa and help bring electricity to more than 20 million African homes and businesses. 

Now, we’ve joined with African governments, the African Development Bank, and the private sector -- and I will tell you, the response has exceeded our projections.  It has been overwhelming.  Already, projects and negotiations are underway that, when completed, will put us nearly 80 percent of the way toward our goal.  On top of the significant resources we’ve already committed, I’m announcing that the United States will increase our pledge to $300 million a year for this effort. 

And as of today -- including an additional $12 billion in new commitments being announced this week by our private sector partners and the World Bank and the government of Sweden -- we’ve now mobilized a total of more than $26 billion to Power Africa just since we announced it -- $26 billion.  (Applause.)  So today we’re raising the bar.  We decided we’re meeting our goal too easily, Zuma, so we’ve got to go up.  So we’re tripling our goal, aiming to bring electricity to more than 60 million African homes and businesses that can spark growth for decades to come.  (Applause.)

Fourth, we’ll do more to help Africans trade with each other, because the markets with the greatest potential are often the countries right next door.  And it should not be harder to export your goods to your neighbor than it is to export those goods to Los Angeles or to Amsterdam.  (Applause.)  So through our Trade Africa initiative, we’ll increase our investments to help our African partners build their own capacity to trade, to strengthen regional markets, make borders more efficient, modernize the customs system.  We want to get African goods moving faster within Africa, as well as outside of Africa.

And finally, we’re doing more to empower the next generation of African entrepreneurs and business leaders -- it’s young men and women, like our extraordinary Mandela Washington Fellows that I met with last week.  And I have to say to the heads of state and government, you would have been extraordinarily proud to meet these young people who exhibit so much talent and so much energy and so much drive. 

With new Regional Leadership Centers and online courses, we’re going to offer training and networking for tens of thousands of young entrepreneurs across Africa. New grants will help them access the capital they need to grow.  Our annual Global Entrepreneurship Summit this year will be held in Morocco.  Next year, it will be held for the first time in Sub-Saharan Africa -- because we want to make sure that all that talent is tapped and they have access to the capital and the networks and the markets that they need to succeed.  Because if they succeed, then the countries in which they live will succeed.  They’ll create jobs.  They’ll create growth.  They’ll create opportunity.

So the bottom line is the United States is making a major and long-term investment in Africa’s progress.  And taken together, the new commitments I’ve described today -- across our government and by our many partners -- total some $33 billion.  And that will support development across Africa and jobs here in the United States.  Up to tens of thousands of American jobs are supported every time we expand trade with Africa. 

As critical as all these investments are, the key to unlocking the next era of African growth is not going to be here in the United States, it’s going to be in Africa.  And so, during this week’s summit, we’ll be discussing a whole range of areas where we’re going to have to work together -- areas that are important in their own right, but which are also essential to Africa’s growth. 

Capital is one thing.  Development programs and projects are one thing.  But rule of law, regulatory reform, good governance -- those things matter even more, because people should be able to start a business and ship their goods without having to pay a bribe or hire somebody’s cousin.

Agricultural development is critical because it’s the best way to boost incomes for the majority of Africans who are farmers, especially as they deal with the impacts of climate change. 

Rebuilding a strong health infrastructure, especially for mothers and children, is critical because no country can prosper unless its citizens are healthy and strong, and children are starting off with the advantages they need to grow to their full potential. 

And we’re going to have to talk about security and peace, because the future belongs to those who build, not those who destroy.  And it’s very hard to attract business investment, and it’s very hard to build infrastructure, and it’s very hard to sustain entrepreneurship in the midst of conflict.

So I just want to close with one example of what trade can help us build together.  Kusum Kavia was born in Kenya; her family was originally from India.  Eventually, she emigrated to the United States and along with her husband started a small business in California.  It started off as a small engineering firm.  Then it started manufacturing small power generators.  With the help of the Export-Import Bank -- including seminars and a line of credit and risk insurance -- they started exporting power generators to West Africa.  In Benin, they helped build a new electric power plant.

And it’s ended up being a win-win for everybody.  It’s been a win for their company, Combustion Associates, because exports to Africa have boosted their sales, which means they’ve been able to hire more workers here in the United States.  They partner with GE; GE is doing well.  Most of their revenues are from exports to Africa.  It’s been a win for their suppliers in Texas and Ohio and New York.  It’s been a win for Benin and its people, because more electricity for families and businesses, jobs for Africans at the power plant because the company hires locally and trains those workers.  And they hope to keep expanding as part of our Power Africa initiative. 

So this is an example of just one small business.  Imagine if we can replicate that success across our countries. 

Kusum says, “When our customers see the label, ‘Made in America,’ when they see our flag, it puts us above all the competition.”  And her vision for their company is the same vision that brings us all here today.  She says, “We really want to have a long-term partnership with Africa.”  So Kusum is here.  I had a chance to meet her backstage.  Where is she?  Right there.  Stand up, Kusum.  So she’s doing great work.  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)

But she’s an example of what’s possible -- a long-term partnership with Africa.  And that’s what America offers.  That’s what we’re building.  That’s the difference we can make when Africans and Americans work together.  So let’s follow Kusum’s lead.  Let’s do even more business together.  Let’s tear down barriers that slow us down and get in the way of trade.  Let’s build up the infrastructure -- the roads, the bridges, the ports, the electricity -- that connect our countries.  Let’s create more and sell more and buy more from each other.  I’m confident that we can.  And when we do, we won’t just propel the next era of African growth, we’ll create more jobs and opportunity for everybody -- for people here in the United States and for people around the world.  

So thank you very much, everybody, for what so far has been an outstanding session.  And I’ve got the opportunity to speak to this young man.  (Applause.)

Q    So thank you very much, Mr. President for this opportunity.  I’ll start by wishing you a belated Happy Birthday.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 

Q    Thank you very much.  (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  Have you introduced yourself to everybody?

Q    I wanted to really jump into the issues.  (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, go ahead and introduce yourself. 

Q    All right.  I’m Takunda Chingonzo.  I’m a young entrepreneur.  I’m 21.  I’m from Zimbabwe.  And I’m working in the wireless technology space.  We’re essentially liberating the Internet for Zimbabweans.  (Applause.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  And let me just -- this is an example of our young African leaders; in fact, the youngest young African leader.  But one thing I will say, though, if you’re going to promote your business, you’ve got to make sure to let people know who you are.  (Laughter.)

Q    Definitely, definitely.

THE PRESIDENT:  Just a little tip. 

Q    Definitely.

THE PRESIDENT:  You can’t be shy, man.  (Laughter.)  Please, go ahead.

Q    That’s correct, Mr. President.  So I was really going to start by delving into a personal experience.  I was going to get to my business and how I got to where we are.

So as I was saying, we’re working in the technology space.  I’m working on my third startup -- it’s called Saisai.  We’re creating Zimbabwe’s first free Internet-access network, hence liberating the Internet.  So in our working, we came to a point in time where we needed to import a bit of technology from the United States, and so we were engaging in conversation with these U.S.-based businesses.  And the response that we got time and time again was that unfortunately we cannot do business with you because you are from Zimbabwe.  And I was shocked -- this doesn’t make sense.

And so this is the exact same experience that other entrepreneurs that are in Zimbabwe have gone through, even through the meetings that I’ve had here.  You know, you sit down with potential investors, you talk about the project, the outlook, the opportunity, the growth and all that -- and they’re excited, you can see.  All systems are firing, right?  And then I say I’m from Zimbabwe and they look at me and they say, young man, this is a good project, very good, very good, but unfortunately we cannot engage in business with you.

And I understand that the sanctions that we have -- that are imposed on entities in Zimbabwe, these are targeted sanctions, right?  But then we have come to a point in time where we as young Africans are failing to properly engage in business with U.S.-based entities because there hasn’t been that clarity.  These entities believe that Zimbabwe is under sanctions.  So what really can we do to do try and clarify this to make sure that we as the young entrepreneurs can effectively develop Africa and engage in business?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, obviously, the situation in Zimbabwe is somewhat unique.  The challenge for us in the United States has been how do we balance our desire to help the people of Zimbabwe with what has, frankly, been a repeated violation of basic democratic practices and human rights inside of Zimbabwe.

And we think it is very important to send clear signals about how we expect elections to be conducted, governments to be conducted -- because if we don’t, then all too often, with impunity, the people of those countries can suffer.  But you’re absolutely right that it also has to be balanced with making sure that whatever structures that we put in place with respect to sanctions don’t end up punishing the very people inside those countries. 

My immediate suggestion -- and this is a broader point to all the African businesses who are here, as well as the U.S. businesses -- is to make sure that we’re using the Department of Commerce and the other U.S. agencies where we can gather groups of entrepreneurs and find out exactly what can be done, what can’t be done, what resources are available.  It may be that you and a group of entrepreneurs in Zimbabwe are able to meet with us and propose certain projects that allow us to say this is something that will advance as opposed to retard the progress for the Zimbabwean people.

So what I’d suggest would be that we set up a meeting and we find out what kinds of things that the young entrepreneurs of Zimbabwe want to do, and see if there are ways that we can work with you consistent with the strong message that we send about good governance in Zimbabwe.

Q    I see.  Because really -- the point of emphasis really is that as young Africans we want to converse with other business entities here in the U.S., and if these sanctions are really targeted, then in honest truth, they aren’t supposed to hamper the business that we’re trying to engage in, the development that we’re talking about.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let’s see if we can refine them further based on some of the things you’re talking about.

Q    That’s all right.  Now, there have been a good number of investments that have been announced here -- multibillion-dollar investments in Africa -- and we’re really excited.  And there’s been a lot of talk about how the public and private partnerships are the vehicle through which this investment will come into Africa, but I really want to bring it to a point of clarity.  I believe that the private sector is stratified in itself.  We have the existing indigenous businesses in these countries that you’re hoping to invest in, and this is where usually the funding comes through -- the partnerships and all that.  That is well and fine.

But then, underneath that, we have these young, upcoming entrepreneurs -- the innovators, those that come up with products and services that disrupt the industry.  And this is the innovation that we want in Africa, to build products by Africans for Africans.  But in most cases, in what we have seen over the past years, is that, indeed, this investment comes through but it never cascades down to these young entrepreneurs, the emerging businesses.  And so the existing businesses then form a sort of ceiling which we cannot break through.

When it comes to investment, when you’re talking about solving unemployment, I believe that it’s more realistic to assume and understand that the probability of 10 startups employing 10 people in a given time period, it’s more realistic than one indigenous company employing 100 people. 

So what really has been -- or rather, has there been any consideration in these deals that have been structured in the investments that you announced to cater for the young entrepreneur who is trying to innovate to solve the problems in society?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I think for the business leaders who are here, both African and U.S., it’s hard being a startup everywhere.

Q    That’s true.

THE PRESIDENT:  Part of what you’re describing is typical of business around the world:  Folks who are already in, they don’t necessarily want to share.  They don’t want to be disrupted.  If there’s a good opportunity, they’d rather do it themselves.  If they see a small up-and-coming hotshot who might disrupt their business, they may initially try to block you or they may try to buy you out.  And getting financing for a startup is always going to be difficult.  You hear that from entrepreneurs here in the U.S. as well.

Having said that, what is absolutely true is that as we think about the billions of dollars that we’re mobilizing, we want to make sure that small businesses, medium-size businesses, women-owned businesses -- that they have opportunity.  And so my instructions to all of our agencies and hopefully the work that we're doing with all of our partners is how can we identify, target financing for the startup; how can we identify and link up U.S. companies with small and medium-size businesses and not just the large businesses?  And I think you are absolutely right that by us trying to spread investment, not narrowly through one or two companies but more broadly, that the opportunities for success in those countries are higher, and it also creates a healthy competition.

And that's true also in terms of how we're designing – for example, our Feed the Future program, which is working with almost 2 million small farmers inside of Africa.  When I was in Senegal, I met with a woman, maybe in her 30s; she had a small plot of land initially.  Through the Feed the Future program, she had been able to mechanize, double her productivity.  By doubling her productivity and, through a smartphone, getting better prices to the market, she was able to increase her profits.  Then she bought a tractor.  Then she doubled her productivity again.  And suddenly what had started off as just a program to increase her income had become capital for a growing business where she was now hiring people in her area and doing some of the process of the grain that she grew herself, so that she could move up the value chain.

There are entrepreneurs like that all across Africa.  Sometimes the capital they need is not very large.  Sometimes it's a fairly modest amount.  And so what I want to do is to make sure that we are constantly looking out for opportunities to disburse this capital not just narrowly, but broadly.  And one of the things that I hope happens with U.S. companies is that they’re constantly looking for opportunities to partner with young entrepreneurs, startups, and not just always going to the same well-established businesses.

Now, there are going to be some large-capital projects where you’ve got a good, solid, established company.  Hopefully they, themselves, have policies with respect to their suppliers that allow them to start encouraging and growing small businesses as well.

Q    Exactly.  And on that note, I'm glad that you acknowledged that and I hope that even in these deals, in the investments that you're talking about, that one of the conditions be that those large organizations that are getting investment have policies that cascade down to people at the grassroots.

You spoke about this lady who was using a smartphone to -- it is one key issue that is really propelling business and development in Africa, the ability to leverage technology.  And really it is all about the Internet of things.  And that is why I'm personally working in liberating the Internet to get more people connected. 

Now, this is a huge opportunity in Africa as well.  Now, there is this troubling issue that has been brought to our attention with entities and organizations that have come up and have said we want to control the Internet, we want to see who gets what traffic and from whom.  And policies and activities like that become challenges for startups that are trying to leverage the Internet, for this lady farmer that you talked about who is trying to leverage and get information from the Internet.

So I want to understand what is your stance on net neutrality and its effects on the global development in Africa?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, this is an important issue for all the heads of state and government not just in Africa but around the world.  The reason the Internet is so powerful is because it's open.  My daughters, 16 and 13, they can access information from anyplace in the world.  They can learn about a particular discipline instantaneously, in ways that when I was their age -- first of all, I wasn’t as motivated as they are.  I was lazier than them.  (Laughter.)  They do much better in school than I did.  But the world is at their fingertips. 

And what facilitates that, and what has facilitated the incredible value that's been built by companies like Google and Facebook and so many others, all the applications that you find on your smartphone, is that there are not restrictions, there are not barriers to entry for new companies who have a good idea to use this platform that is open to create value.  And it is very important I think that we maintain that.

Now, I know that there’s a tension in some countries -- their attitude is we don't necessarily want all this information flowing because it can end up also being used as a tool for political organizing, it can be used as a tool to criticize the government, and so maybe we’d prefer a system that is more closed.  I think that is a self-defeating attitude.  Over the long term, because of technology, information, knowledge, transparency is inevitable.  And that's true here in the United States; it's true everywhere.

And so what we should be doing is trying to maintain an open Internet, trying to keep a process whereby any talented person who has an idea can suddenly use the Internet to disperse information.  There are going to be occasional tensions involved in terms of us monitoring the use of the Internet for terrorist networks or criminal enterprises or human trafficking.  But we can do that in ways that are compatible with maintaining an open Internet.

And this raises the broader question that I mentioned earlier, which is Africa needs capital; in some cases, Africa needs technical assistance; Africa certainly needs access to markets.  But perhaps the biggest thing that Africa is going to need to unleash even more the potential that's already there and the growth that's already taking place is laws and regulations and structures that empower individuals and are not simply designed to control or empower those at the very top. 

And the Internet is one example.  You’ve got to have a system and sets of laws that encourage entrepreneurship, but that's also true when it comes to a whole host of issues.  It's true when it comes to how hard is it to get a business permit when a new startup like yours wants to establish itself.

When it comes to Power Africa, there are billions of dollars floating around the world that are interested in investing in power generation in Africa.  And the countries that are going to attract that investment are the ones where the investor knows that if a power plant is built, that there are rules in place that are transparent that ensure that they’re going to get a decent return, and that some of the revenue isn't siphoned off in certain ways so that the investor has political risks or risks with respect to corruption. 

The more that governments set up the right rules, understanding that in the 21st century the power that drives growth and development and the marketplace involves knowledge and that can't be controlled, the more successful countries are going to be.

Q    I see.  So just to clarify on the issue of net neutrality, you are advocating for an open and fair Internet --

THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.

Q    -- which would -- then it has structure to ensure that the platform itself isn't abused.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there are two issues -- net neutrality -- in the United States, one of the issues around net neutrality is whether you are creating different rates or charges for different content providers.  That's the big controversy here.  You have big, wealthy media companies who might be willing to pay more but then also charge more for more spectrum, more bandwidth on the Internet so they can stream movies faster or what have you.

And I personally -- the position of my administration, as well as I think a lot of companies here is you don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to various users.  You want to leave it open so that the next Google or the next Facebook can succeed. 

There’s another problem, though -- there are other countries -- and I think this is what you were alluding to -- that feel comfortable with the idea of controlling and censoring Internet content in their home countries, and setting up rules and laws about what can or cannot be on the Internet.  And I think that that not only is going to inhibit entrepreneurs who are creating value on the Internet; I think it’s also going to inhibit the growth of the country generally, because closed societies that are not open to new ideas, eventually they fall behind.  Eventually, they miss out on the future because they’re so locked into trying to maintain the past.

Q    I see.  Thank you for the clarity.  I think we’re out of a bit of time.  I’ll ask my final question.  When we began this conversation, we were alluding to the fact that -- the need to separate the political function and economic function.  In other words, politics should not get in the way of business.  And I’ve gone to quite a good number of -- I know it’s difficult -- so I’ve gone to a good number of conferences where the end deliverable of the entire summit, or whatever it is, is that we need to lobby government to create policies that are conducive, and this and that.  And that’s usually what you get -- either you’re trying to lobby somebody to do something, right?  And, in turn, governments come up and say, yes, we promise to come up with this and that, and this and that.  And that’s a whole political sphere of things.  My question is, apart from that, what can we as business leaders, as the private sector, what can we do sort of independently to -- what can we do to create this economic environment that fosters for the growth and development of Africa as a continent?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, although this isn’t always a popular position here in Washington these days, the truth is, is that government really can help set the conditions and the framework for markets to function effectively -- in part because governments are able to initiate projects like roads and bridges and airports that any individual business would find cost prohibitive.  It wouldn’t make sense to invest in what is a collective good; it’s not going to help your bottom line if everybody else is using it.  So that’s part of the function of government.

Part of the function of government is to educate a population so that you got a well-trained workforce.  It’s hard for companies to invest in doing that by themselves.  There are certain common goods, like maintaining clean air and clean water, and making sure that if you have capital markets, that they’re well-regulated so that they’re trust-worthy, and small investors and large investors know that if they invest in a stock that they’re not being cheated. 

So there are a whole host of functions that government has to play.  But in the end, what drives innovation typically is not what happens in government, it’s what’s happening in companies.  And what we found in the United States is, is that companies, once they’ve got the basic rules and they’ve got the basic platform, they are able to create value and innovation and cultures that encourage growth.  And I think that African entrepreneurs are going to be the trendsetters for determining how societies think about themselves and, ultimately, how governments think about these issues.

The truth of the matter is, is that if you have big, successful companies or you’ve got widespread entrepreneurship, and you have a growing middle class and practices have been established in terms of fair dealing, and treating your workers properly, and extending opportunity to smaller contractors, and promoting women and making sure women are paid like men -- suddenly, what happens is businesses create new norms and new sensibilities.  And governments oftentimes will respond. 

And so I think in Africa what I’d like to see more and more of is partnerships between American businesses, between African businesses.  Some of the incredible cultures of some of our U.S. businesses that do a really good job promoting people and maintaining a meritocracy, and treating women equally, and treating people of different races and faiths and sexual orientations fairly and equally, and making sure that there are typical norms of how you deal with people in contracts and respect legal constraints -- all those things I think can then take root in a country like Zimbabwe or any other country.  Hopefully, governments are encouraging that, not inhibiting that.  They recognize that that’s how the world as a whole is increasingly moving in that direction.  And over time, you will see an Africa that is driven by individual entrepreneurs and private organizations, and governments will be responsive to their demands. 

So I think the one thing I want to make sure people understand, though, is it’s not an either/or issue.  Government has a critical role to play.  The marketplace has a critical role to play.  Nonprofit organizations have a critical role to play.  But the goal and the orientation constantly should be how do we empower individuals to work together.  And if we are empowering young people like you all across Africa, if we’ve got a 21-year-old who has already started three businesses, we’ve got to figure out how to invest in him, how to make it easier for him to succeed.  If you succeed, you’re going to then be hiring a whole bunch of people, and they, in turn, will succeed.  And that’s been the recipe for growth in the 20th century and the 21st century. 

And I’m confident that Africa is well on its way.  America just wants to make sure that we’re helpful in that process.  And I know that all the U.S. companies who are here, that’s their goal as well.  We are interested in Africa, because we know that if Africa thrives and succeeds, and if you’ve got a bunch of entrepreneurs, they’re going to need supplies from us maybe, or they may supply us with outstanding products; they’re going to have a growing middle class that wants to buy iPhones or applications from us.  In turn, they may provide us new services and we can be the distributor for something that’s invented in Africa, and all of us grow at the same time. 

That’s our goal, and I’m confident that we can make it happen.  And this summit has been a great start.  So I want to thank you for doing a great job moderating.  I want to thank all the leaders here not only of government, but also business for participating.  There’s been great energy, great enthusiasm.  I know a lot of business has gotten done.  If any of you are interested in investing in this young man, let him know.  (Laughter.) 

All right, thank you, guys. 

END
4:05 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Signs Iowa Disaster Declaration

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Iowa and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local recovery efforts in the area affected by severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of June 26 to July 7, 2014. 

Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by the severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding in the counties of Audubon, Black Hawk, Butler, Cedar, Des Moines, Grundy, Hamilton, Hardin, Ida, Iowa, Jackson, Jasper, Johnson, Jones, Keokuk, Lee, Linn, Mahaska, Muscatine, Poweshiek, Tama, and Washington.

Federal funding is also available on a cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide. 

W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, named Michael L. Parker as the Federal Coordinating Officer for federal recovery operations in the affected area. 

FEMA said additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION MEDIA SHOULD CONTACT:  FEMA NEWS DESK AT (202) 646-3272 OR FEMA-NEWS-DESK@DHS.GOV

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: Powering Africa: Increasing Access to Power in Sub-Saharan Africa

On June 30, 2013, President Obama launched Power Africa, an innovative private sector-led initiative aimed at doubling electricity access in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 600 million people currently lack access to electricity.  Power Africa set an ambitious initial goal of adding more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new, cleaner electricity generation capacity and increasing electricity access by at least 20 million household and business connections. 

Today, the President announced a renewed commitment to this initiative, and pledged a new level of $300 million in assistance per year to expand the reach of Power Africa across the continent in pursuit of a new, aggregate goal of 30,000 MW of additional capacity to Africa and increasing electricity access by at least 60 million household and business connections.  The President also announced $6 billion in new private sector commitments, bringing the total private sector commitments under Power Africa to date to more than $20 billion.  This includes additional commitments under Beyond the Grid, a new sub-initiative, announced at the June 2014 U.S-Africa Energy Ministerial, for fostering private investment in off-grid and small-scale energy solutions that seek to expand access to remote areas across sub-Saharan Africa.

Power Africa: Progress to Date

The U.S. Embassy teams have worked closely with their host governments and private sector partners to facilitate the financial closure of transactions that are expected to generate almost 2,800 megawatts (MW) of electricity, and Power Africa is actively supporting transactions expected to generate an additional 5,000 MW.  Once completed, these transactions will represent 78 percent of Power Africa’s initial 10,000 MW goal. 

Twelve U.S. government agencies, whose combined capabilities form the backbone of Power Africa, are working closely with African governments to prioritize and address key legal, regulatory and policy constraints to investment, and to implement measures that will sustain growth and enable successful governance of a growing power sector throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

Growing Private Sector Commitments in Support of Power Africa

Private sector commitments to date are on track to meet Power Africa’s initial 10,000 MW goal and leading the path towards achieving the goal of doubling access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa through private sector-led investments.

Notable transactions undertaken in the first year of the initiative include the ongoing negotiation of Corbetti Geothermal, the first phase of a potential 1,000 MW geothermal generation project and Ethiopia’s first independent power project; advancing nearly 500 MW of wind projects in Kenya; financial support for a 10 MW mini-hydro and a 5 MW solar project in Tanzania; and supporting power sector-wide privatization efforts in Nigeria.  Additional efforts include the U.S. African Development Foundation’s (USADF) Off-Grid Challenge. 

Leveraging Strategic Partnerships to Maximize Impact

Over the past year, Power Africa has forged strategic partnerships with African governments, multilateral institutions, donors, and the private sector.  These partnerships seek to align resources and capabilities, and coordinate our interventions to maximize our impact and accelerate private sector investment in renewable energy.

  •          Although the goals set out by Power Africa are continent wide, the U.S. government signed memoranda of understanding (MOU) with the initial six focus countries, which reflect the strong commitment of African governments to engage in policy and regulatory reform. 
  •          The World Bank Group will support Power Africa by committing $5 billion in new technical and financial support, including loans and guarantees, for energy projects in the six initial Power Africa focus countries.  This commitment builds on the World Bank's existing $3.3 billion commitment in the six focus countries and its broader commitment to developing the energy sector in sub-Saharan Africa.
  •          The African Development Bank (AfDB) already announced its support to advance Power Africa as an anchor partner, with an initial commitment of $3 billion.  The AfDB has already approved approximately $670 million in support for energy sector operations in the six initial Power Africa countries, and expects to commit an additional $2 billion in support across sub-Saharan Africa over the coming year. 
  •          President Obama welcomed the announcement that the Government of Sweden has committed $1 billion to advance Power Africa, including support for transmission and distribution upgrades, and the development of energy projects in sub-Saharan Africa. 

Power Africa Transaction–based Model at Work

During the U.S.-Africa Business Forum, a number of new Power Africa transactions and energy sector initiatives were highlighted: 

  •          The U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy led the African Leaders’ Visit: Energy to Houston, Texas, where African decision makers met with government and industry leaders who highlighted their experience fostering economic growth through strategic investments energy infrastructure development.
  •          The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) approved up to $250 million in financing to support the development, construction, and operation of a 310 MW wind power project near Lake Turkana, Kenya.
  •          OPIC also approved up to $50 million in financing for the Azura-Edo power plant, the first independent power producer in Nigeria in 10 years following recent power sector reforms.  This project is expected to provide up to 459 MW of much-needed power for Nigeria. 
  •          Under the US-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative (ACEF), OPIC is supporting the Participatory Microfinance Group for Africa (“PAMIGA”), a network of 15 rural microfinance institutions to expand micro-lending for solar energy and clean water investments for agricultural and household use. 
  •          Under ACEF, USTDA funded a study for Amahoro Energy to develop a new run-of-the-river hydropower plant and capacity upgrades at five existing plants, to create 11.45 MW of new generation capacity in Rwanda.
  •          The USADF announced the selection of three awardees through the Liberia Off-Grid Challenge.  Each awardee will receive a $100,000 grant for Liberia off-grid projects jointly funded by USADF, GE, and USAID.
  •          The Department of Commerce led an Energy Trade Mission including 19 U.S. companies to Ghana and Nigeria in May 2014, which resulted in the signing of $175 million in energy sector deals.
  •       Ex-Im Bank approved a $17 million loan guarantee for BOAD, the West African Development Bank, to support long-term financing for the expansion of the Azito Power project in Cote d’Ivoire which will increase the plant’s installed capacity by 130 MW, from 290 MW to 420 MW, while reducing the carbon intensity per MW. 

Beyond the Grid Initiative

Recognizing that Power Africa cannot achieve energy access goals through the use of large grid extension projects alone, the U.S. government launched Beyond the Grid, a new Power Africa sub-initiative focused exclusively on unlocking investment and growth for off-grid and small-scale energy solutions on the African continent. Beyond the Grid will partner with more than 35 investors and practitioners that have committed to invest more than $1 billion into off-grid and small-scale solutions over the next five years.

Millennium Challenge Corporation Ghana Compact Signing

Secretary Kerry and the President Mahama of Ghana presided over the signing of a Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Compact through which MCC will invest up to $498 million over the next five years to support the turnaround of Ghana’s electricity sector.  This compact represents an example of the catalytic impact of Power Africa interventions, which help create the enabling environment and stimulate private investment in order to meet the current and future needs of households and business while also ensuring inclusive access to power by its citizens, with up to $4 billion in potential commitments already in the pipeline.

U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative 

Secretary Kerry announced a second round of funding for ACEF, an innovative partnership launched two years ago among the State Department, OPIC, and USTDA that provides a small amount of early-stage funding to catalyze much larger private sector investment in clean energy projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.  To date, ACEF has supported more than 25 projects that have the potential to create hundreds of megawatts of new power generation capacity across ten African countries.  The new round of funding will allow this innovative effort to continue to leverage significant clean energy investment in Africa.

Commercial Law Development Program

The Department of Commerce’s Commercial Law Development Program, through funding from USAID, is supporting the development of model legal frameworks, including annotated power purchase agreements, which accelerate the negotiation of renewable energy projects.

Clean Energy Solutions Center

The Department of Energy supported Clean Energy Solutions Center is connecting policymakers in Africa with a global clean energy experts through a web-based platform which aims to help African governments design and adopt policies and programs that support the deployment of clean energy technologies. 

Focus on Regional Initiatives to Support Power Trade and Geothermal Development

Through USAID, Power Africa is deploying Regional Transaction Advisors to address issues that cross national borders, including the development of regional power pools and advancing development of East Africa’s 15,000 MW in geothermal potential. 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FACT SHEET: The Doing Business in Africa Campaign

Through the Doing Business in Africa (DBIA) Campaign, the U.S. government is strengthening its commercial relationship with the continent of Africa, a diverse region that offers substantial trade and investment opportunities across national and regional markets.  With a 5.4 percent growth rate predicted for 2014, Africa is outpacing global growth.  U.S. goods and services exports to Africa reached a record high of $50.2 billion in 2013, up 40 percent since 2009.  These exports supported 250,000 U.S. jobs. 

New Commitments to Significantly Expand the DBIA Campaign

At today’s U.S.-Africa Business Forum, President Obama announced $7 billion in new financing to promote U.S. exports to and investments in Africa under the DBIA Campaign.  U.S. companies announced new deals in clean energy, aviation, banking, and construction worth more than $14 billion, in addition to $12 billion in new commitments under the President’s Power Africa initiative from private sector partners, the World Bank, and the government of Sweden.  Taken together, these new commitments amount to more than $33 billion, supporting economic growth across Africa and tens of thousands of U.S. jobs.

The DBIA Campaign encourages U.S. commercial engagement in Africa by harnessing the resources of the U.S. government to assist businesses in identifying and seizing opportunities and to engage with members of the African Diaspora in the United States.  The DBIA Campaign, which was launched in November 2012, has four main objectives:

  • Connect American Businesses with African Partners
  • Support Existing and New American Investment in Africa
  • Expand Access for American Businesses to Finance Their Exports to Africa
  • Reduce Barriers to Trade and Investment in Africa

The U.S. government’s newly announced two-year commitments to support the DBIA Campaign are provided below. 

An Executive Order to Create a President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa

Today the President signed an Executive Order (E.O.) to promote broad-based economic growth in the United States and in Africa by encouraging U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa. 

The E.O. directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish a President’s Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa that will be comprised of not more than 15 members from the private sector, including small business.  The Advisory Council will provide information, analysis, and recommendations to the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, including on developing strategies for creating jobs in the United States and Africa through trade and investment; developing strategies by which the U.S. private sector can identify and take advantage of trade and investment opportunities in Africa; and building lasting commercial partnerships between the U.S. and African private sectors.

New U.S. Government Resources to Support U.S. Exports and Investment in Africa

Interagency Initiatives

  • The Principals of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) will mobilize private capital for Africa’s infrastructure through a series of at least three outcome-oriented roundtables in Africa that will advance project- and sector-specific investment opportunities and needed regulatory reforms.  These agencies will implement the initiative in coordination with DBIA Campaign agencies, African governments, and the U.S. and African private sectors.
  • The U.S. Department of Commerce and USTDA launched the 20x20 Initiative to support a total of 20 trade and reverse trade missions by 2020, to promote U.S. industry engagement in Africa.  Working with federal, state, and local government partners, these missions will foster U.S. business partnerships with key African stakeholders.
  • The Small Business Administration (SBA) and Ex-Im Bank will collectively support 50 DBIA Campaign-themed activities and outreach sessions over the next two years to facilitate U.S. trade finance, provide counseling and training on their programs, and conduct business development to support U.S. exporters, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises.

U.S. Export-Import Bank

  • Ex-Im Bank will commit up to $3 billion in financing to support U.S. exports to Africa over the next two years.  This is in addition to Ex-Im Bank’s existing commitments of $5 billion for Power Africa and a planned commitment of $1 billion to support U.S. exports in connection with new and ongoing Angolan infrastructure projects (through the Angolan Ministry of Finance).
  • Ex-Im Bank will commit $563 million in financing to support the sale of General Electric locomotives to Transnet, South Africa’s largest integrated freight transport company. Major components of the locomotives will be manufactured at GE’s facilities in Erie, PA and Grove City, PA supporting an estimated 2,500 American jobs.

Millennium Challenge Corporation

  • MCC will commit up to $2 billion in funding for new compacts in Africa that facilitate private sector-led economic growth and poverty reduction, creating potential opportunities for U.S. companies.  This commitment includes $498 million over the next five years to support the turnaround of Ghana’s electricity sector and stimulate private investment.  This Compact represents an example of the catalytic impact of Power Africa interventions which will help create the enabling environment to catalyze billions of dollars of private investment in Ghana.
  • MCC will also lead its first ever investment mission to Africa to introduce U.S. businesses to the opportunities for investing in and around its Compacts.  In addition, MCC will hold at least eight Procurement Promotion sessions with U.S. companies to promote Compact contracting opportunities and developing five Trade and Investment Prospectuses, one for each new Compact in Africa, that outline the specific business opportunities that are expected to arise from MCC’s investments. 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation

  • OPIC will commit up to $1 billion in financing and insurance support to catalyze private sector investments in Africa.  This is in addition to OPIC’s existing $1.5 billion Power Africa commitment.  OPIC reaffirmed its plan to place personnel on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa to help facilitate increased U.S. trade and investment and will support an investment mission to the region, with a focus on the power sector.
  • OPIC will coordinate approximately a dozen U.S. government meetings on August 6, 2014, for U.S. and African private sector investors and project developers to discuss discrete transactions for financing support consideration to OPIC, as well as other DBIA investment agencies.

U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)

  • USTDA, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Transportation, hosted two African Leaders Visits in association with the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.  These reverse trade missions highlighted the United States’ experience fostering economic growth through strategic infrastructure investments in the energy and transportation sectors
  • USTDA announced it will partner with the Air Traffic and Navigation Services Company of South Africa to evaluate satellite-based automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast across the African continent, the implementation of which will improve air traffic safety and create over $100 million in U.S. export opportunities.
  • USTDA reaffirmed its plan to have local representation in Nigeria for the first time.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

  • USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation will make available up to $1 billion in financing guarantees available for agricultural exports to Africa over the next two years.  USDA also will conduct outreach seminars to Africa in 2015 to promote the use of its credit guarantee program for the export of U.S. agricultural products.

U.S. Department of State

  • The U.S. Department of State intends to commit $10 million toward the expansion of the U.S.-Africa Clean Energy Finance Initiative (US-ACEF), which aligns USTDA’s project planning expertise and OPIC’s financing and risk mitigation tools in new ways, to support private sector investment and increase support for U.S. businesses and exports in sub-Saharan Africa’s clean energy sector.
  • The U.S. Department of State will sponsor a medical technology trade mission to sub-Saharan Africa led by a senior State Department official.

U.S. Department of Commerce

  • The U.S. Department of Commerce reiterated its commitment to double its presence in sub-Saharan Africa by opening new offices in Angola, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Mozambique, while expanding its operations in Ghana, and re-establishing a position at the African Development Bank. 
  • The U.S. Department of Commerce will host its next Trade Winds Conference and Mission in Africa in 2015.  The Trade Winds program brings hundreds of U.S. companies to a region to hear about opportunities, meet one-on-one with Africa businesses, and get counseling from U.S. Commercial Service officers.  Past Trade Winds have been held in Asia and Latin America and resulted in over $100 million in deals at each event.
  • The U.S. Department of Commerce launched a One-Stop-Shop website (www.trade.gov/DBIA) to offer American businesses and entrepreneurs a convenient instant access to critical African market information, financing tools available to them, projects to consider, key contacts, and much more.
  • To celebrate the second anniversary of the DBIA Campaign, the U.S. Department of Commerce will host a “Discover Sub-Saharan Africa” conference in Atlanta on November 4-6, 2014.  Its Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) will join the Constituency for Africa in hosting a “Doing Business in Africa” workshop in October to promote business and trade opportunities in Africa and resources for reaching the African marketplace.  MBDA also committed to host a U.S.-Africa Investors Forum on August 6, 2014, in association with the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit.
  • Through its Global City Teams Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in partnership with the U.S. private sector, will target at least 25 African metropolitan areas to join their counterparts worldwide in an interactive platform to accelerate smart city and smart grid goals.

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

  • USAID will commit to a bond guarantee through its Development Credit Authority that will allow Dakar, Senegal, to issue the first ever non-sovereign backed municipal bond in sub-Saharan Africa outside of South Africa (with technical assistance support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).  The guarantee will enable the city to raise $41.8 million on the regional stock exchange.  In addition, USAID guaranteed transactions are expected to mobilize $381 million in new private sector lending to small and medium enterprises across the continent
  • USAID will launch the Africa Private Capital Group – a platform in South Africa to mobilize U.S., South African, and international private sector investment in key sectors to development, including agriculture, energy, trade, infrastructure, and health.
  • USAID will upgrade its existing African Trade Hubs into “U.S.-African Trade and Investment Hubs” that will now create new opportunities for U.S. investment in and exports to Africa.  These hubs are located in Accra, Ghana, Nairobi, Kenya, and Gabarone, Botswana, and cover the West Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa regions, respectively. 
  • USAID will roll out its Benchmarking the Business of Agriculture (BBA) project this fall, to assesses the ease of doing business and investing in Africa’s agriculture. The BBA provides businesses worldwide with objective information on a country’s ease of doing business in agriculture.

U.S. Department of Transportation

  • The U.S. Department of Transportation announced that Secretary Anthony Foxx will lead a transportation mission to Africa in early 2015, to discuss opportunities for improving regional connectivity, promoting safety and efficiency, and sharing best practices on increasing investment in transportation infrastructure.
  • The U.S. Department of Transportation launched its Tomorrow’s Transportation Leaders initiative, which will include up to five workshops over the next two years to engage 100 young African transportation professionals on adopting U.S. best practices.  The workshops will address transportation policies and regulatory framework, transportation investment planning, and the efficient management of transportation systems.
  • The U.S. Department of Transportation intends to direct $1 million toward strengthening civil aviation safety through the Safe Skies for Africa program.

U.S. Department of Energy

  • The U.S. Department of Energy will support the “Clean Energy Solutions Center,” a multilateral initiative of the Clean Energy Ministerial to connect policymakers in Africa with clean energy experts and best practice resources.  The Clean Energy Solutions Center is a web-based resource that draws on knowledge from global experts to help governments design and adopt policies and programs that support the deployment of clean energy technologies.  Through the partnership, the Solutions Center will provide expert policy consultations free of charge to Power Africa countries in response to requests received.

Office of the United States Trade Representative

  • On August 5, USTR signed at its headquarters a new Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to provide a coordinated mechanism for engaging on trade and investment issues with the 15 West African countries that are part of ECOWAS.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Executive Order --Establishing the President's Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ESTABLISHING THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL

ON DOING BUSINESS IN AFRICA

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote broad-based economic growth and job creation in the United States and Africa by encouraging U.S. companies to trade with and invest in Africa, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. The United States recognizes that Africa is a region of growing economic opportunity and innovation and aims to expand a trade and investment partnership that is grounded in shared interests and mutual responsibility. Africa offers a diverse and broad range of trade and investment opportunities in national and regional markets. The U.S. Government will encourage U.S. companies to seize the trade and investment opportunities offered by Africa's national and regional markets and help drive inclusive and sustained economic growth and the region's economic expansion, while also creating jobs here in the United States.

Sec. 2. Establishment. Not later than 180 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce shall establish the President's Advisory Council on Doing Business in Africa (Advisory Council).

Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Advisory Council shall consist of not more than 15 private sector corporate members, including small businesses and representatives from infrastructure, agriculture, consumer goods, banking, services, and other industries. The Advisory Council shall be broadly representative of the key industries with business interests in the functions of the Advisory Council as set forth in section 4 of this order. Appointments to the Advisory Council shall be made without regard to political affiliation.

(b) Members of the Advisory Council shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), which was authorized by statute in 1992 (15 U.S.C. 4727) and established by Executive Order 12870 of September 30, 1993.

Sec. 4. Functions. (a) The Advisory Council shall advise the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, on strengthening commercial engagement between the United States and Africa, with a focus on advancing the President's Doing Business in Africa Campaign as described in the U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa of June 14, 2012.

 

(b) In providing the advice described in subsection (a) of this section, the Advisory Council shall provide information, analysis, and recommendations to the President that address the following, in addition to other topics deemed relevant by the President, the Secretary of Commerce, or the Advisory Council:

(i) creating jobs in the United States and Africa through trade and investment;

(ii) developing strategies by which the U.S. private sector can identify and take advantage of trade and investment opportunities in Africa;

(iii) building lasting commercial partnerships between the U.S. and African private sectors;

(iv) facilitating U.S. business participation in Africa's infrastructure development;

(v) contributing to the growth and improvement of Africa's agricultural sector by encouraging partnerships between U.S. and African companies to bring innovative agricultural technologies to Africa;

(vi) making available to the U.S. private sector an accurate understanding of the opportunities presented for increasing trade with and investment in Africa;

(vii) developing and strengthening partnerships and other mechanisms to increase U.S. public and private sector financing of trade with and investment in Africa;

(viii) analyzing the effect of policies in the United States and Africa on U.S. trade and investment interests in Africa;

(ix) identifying other means to expand commercial ties between the United States and Africa; and

(x) building the capacity of Africa's young entrepreneurs to develop trade and investment ties with U.S. partners.

Sec. 5. Administration. (a) The Department of Commerce shall provide funding and administrative support for the Advisory Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

(b) Members of the Advisory Council shall serve without either compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

(c) The Secretary of Commerce shall designate a senior officer or employee of the Department of Commerce to serve as the Executive Director for the Advisory Council.

(d) The Secretary of Commerce shall consult with the TPCC on matters and activities pertaining to the Advisory Council, including on activities related to implementation of the advice of the Advisory Council. The Secretary of Commerce shall invite representatives of TPCC agencies to attend meetings of the Advisory Council when issues relevant to their responsibilities are to be considered.

Sec. 6. Termination. The Advisory Council shall function for such period as may be necessary but shall terminate 2 years after the date of this order, unless extended by the President.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act") may apply to the Advisory Council, any functions of the President under the Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the Secretary of Commerce in accordance with the guidelines that have been issued by the Administrator of General Services.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Jorge Luis Alonso, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, vice Ronald A. Guzman, retiring.

John Robert Blakey, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, vice James Holderman, retired.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the United States District Courts

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, President Obama nominated Judge Jorge Luis Alonso and John Robert Blakey to serve on the United States District Courts.

“Throughout their careers, these distinguished individuals have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to public service,” said President Obama. “I am confident they will serve the American people with distinction from the District Court bench.”

Judge Jorge Luis Alonso:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Judge Jorge Luis Alonso has served since 2003 as an Associate Judge for the Cook County Judicial Circuit, a state trial court of general jurisdiction.  Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Alonso served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Office of the Cook County Public Defender from 1991 to 2003, where he represented indigent individuals in both civil and criminal proceedings.  He received his J.D. in 1991 from the George Washington University Law School and his B.A. in 1988 from the University of Miami.

John Robert Blakey:  Nominee for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

John Robert Blakey has served since 2009 as both the Chief of the Special Prosecutions Bureau for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office and as a Special Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of Illinois.  Previously, he served as an Assistant United States Attorney—first in the Southern District of Florida from 2000 to 2004, and subsequently in the Northern District of Illinois from 2004 to 2009.  From 1996 to 2000, Blakey served as an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.  He worked at Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, P.C., from 1995 to 1996 and as a law clerk for Judge William J. Zloch of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from 1992 to 1994.  Blakey received his J.D. in 1992 from Notre Dame Law School, his C.F.A. in 1989 from the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, and his B.A. in 1988 from the University of Notre Dame.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice's Meeting with Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam of Mauritius

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met on Monday with Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam of the Republic of Mauritius at the White House. Ambassador Rice and Prime Minister Ramgoolam discussed our strong bilateral relationship, rooted in democratic values and a commitment to advancing broad economic growth. In the context of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the two discussed opportunities, including through the U.S.-Africa Business Forum, for deepening U.S. trade with and investment in Mauritius. Additionally, the two underscored the need to combat illicit finance and to partner to promote transparency and fight corruption. Both also recognized the importance of countering piracy in the Indian Ocean.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 8/4/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:55 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Nice to see you all.  Happy Monday.  Let me do two quick things at the top, Julie, and then we'll get to the questions.

First, we are pleased that the VA’s new Secretary, Bob McDonald, was confirmed unanimously by the Senate last week, and we all look forward to him bringing his expertise, pragmatism and integrity to the VA. 

No veteran should have to wait to receive the benefits they have earned.  And in recent months, the VA has taken aggressive steps to address the systemic issues found in the VA’s health care system.  I know the President and Secretary McDonald want to build on this progress.  That's why the President will travel to Fort Belvoir, Virginia on Thursday, where he will emphasize our commitment to our veterans, including the work that has been done and the work left to do, by signing HR 3230, the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014.  This new legislation that passed Congress with strong bipartisan support will put in place reforms and needed additional resources to meet the high standard of service that our veterans have earned. 

We'll have more logistical details in the next day or two about Thursday’s event.

And then I have one other thing I want to do here before we move on -- just to say that the President and his entire administration are pleased to welcome 51 leaders from across the African continent to our nation’s capital for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, which officially starts today. 

The three-day summit constitutes the largest engagement by any U.S. President with Africa.  We see this as an historic opportunity to strengthen ties with our African partners and highlight America’s longstanding commitment to investing in Africa’s development and its people.  The summit theme, “Investing in the Next Generation,” reflects the common ambition to leave our nations better for future generations by making concrete gains in peace and security, good governance, and economic development. 

This gathering follows our Young African Leaders Summit last week.  There’s long been bipartisan support for U.S. engagement with Africa, and this summit will build on that record.  You’ll hear more from the President and members of his Cabinet as the summit events unfold over the course of this week.

So, with that, Julie, do you want to kick us off with some questions?

Q    Thanks, Josh.  The State Department put out a statement over the weekend on the latest Israeli attack on a U.N. facility, and it was about as tough as this administration gets publicly with the Israelis.  I'm wondering if you can give us a sense of the administration’s and the President’s, in particular, level of frustration with the Israelis and the amount of civilian casualties we're seeing.  And at this point, do you see the U.S. being involved in any future cease-fire negotiations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Julie, we do continue to believe that the violence in Gaza should end as soon as possible.  And we do continue our work with the Israelis and Palestinians and other parties in the region to try to bring both sides to the table to bring this violence to an end immediately.  And as we've said many times, it is not in the interest of either side for this violence to continue.  The tragic loss of life that we've seen on both sides of this conflict needs to come to an end.  That tragic loss of life includes the many innocent Palestinian civilians who have been killed.  It also includes the Israeli civilians who have been killed by Hamas rockets that have been aimed squarely at them. 

So there is a need for both sides to come together to come to the negotiating table to end the violence and have a discussion and try to resolve diplomatically some of the very firmly entrenched differences that exist and have precipitated this conflict.

Q    But do you see a cease-fire as being a realistic short-term goal right now?  Because it seems like the Israeli position now is to continue this offensive until they feel that they’ve reached whatever their goal is there.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Julie, ultimately the parties themselves will have to decide --

Q    But the U.S. has obviously been involved in these efforts over the last couple of weeks.

MR. EARNEST:  Sure, and we continue to be.  And what we are pushing for is a cease-fire, because we believe it is not in the interests of parties on either side of this conflict for this violence to continue.  And we do continue our efforts to encourage both sides to bring all the current violence to an end immediately, and come to the negotiating table so we can try to resolve some of these longstanding differences.

Q    Can we go back to the State Department’s statement over the weekend?  As I said, it was as tough as this administration gets when publicly discussing Israel.  What went into that decision-making?  Did you feel like it was necessary to take that tougher line publicly?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple things about that.  There have been a number of reports of the shelling of U.N. facilities in Gaza.  I think that there have been seven or so reports of that taking place.  And we have, over the course of time, expressed our concerns about the necessity of the Israeli military to live up to their own standards when it comes to protecting the lives of innocent civilians, even Palestinian civilians who are caught in the middle of this conflict.  What that statement from the State Department made clear is that the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.

Now, as you know, Julie, there have been reports of Hamas using innocent civilians as cover to protect their weapon stockpiles or even to protect Hamas fighters.  That is a deplorable technique or strategy, and it is one that we have strongly condemned and continue to condemn.  What we have also been clear about, and as that statement laid out in very plain terms, that suspicion that Hamas fighters are operating in the vicinity of innocent civilians does not justify taking strikes that put the lives of those innocent civilians at risk.

Q    And if I could just ask on one other topic.  Some colleagues of mine have a report out about the administration using young people -- dispatching young people to Cuba under the cover of public health or civic programs, basically with the goal of ginning up a rebellion there.  And I’m wondering if the administration thinks it’s appropriate to use public health programs in particular as cover for political goals.

MR. EARNEST:  Julie, I have seen that the USAID has put out a statement on this correcting some of the things that were included in that report.  So I know that many -- that the subject of that report was related to some ongoing USAID programs, so I’d refer you USAID to walk you through the details of those programs.

Q    Was the White House aware that USAID would have been using both health and civic programs for these political goals?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as I mentioned, I’m not sure -- I’m not in a position to confirm every aspect of those reports, because I believe that there are some aspects of those reports that are not quite accurate.  So in terms of sussing out the true aims of these programs, I’d refer you to the agency that runs them -- in this case, that’s USAID.

Mark.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Talking about immigration for a second. In the debate over the President’s executive action and his unilateral actions, the White House has defended them, saying that he’s taken fewer actions than his predecessors.  But I wonder if you would address the issue of scope for a second.  Would the President be at all deterred from taking action that could have as widespread consequences as providing work permits to as many as 5 million people who don’t have them?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Mark, to answer that question it’s important to understand the context in which we’re having this discussion.  More than a year ago, the United States Senate, working closely with this administration, working closely with the law enforcement community, the business community, the evangelical community, cobbled together a compromise piece of legislation that would bring about a wide range of common-sense reforms of our broken immigration system.  That is a compromise proposal that was passed through the Senate more than one year ago.  Since then, we have seen House Republicans engage in a legislative strategy to prevent that bill from coming to the floor of the House of Representatives.

We know that if that bill were allowed to be considered by the House of Representatives that it would pass with a bipartisan majority of votes.  But the House Republican leadership and some of the more extreme elements of the House Republican conference have prevented that from happening.  So again, they’re not just opposing this compromise; they’re not just willing to vote no on a common-sense piece of legislation; they’re actually preventing all of their colleagues from casting a vote on this common-sense piece of legislation.

What the President has done is he has worked with Republicans in the House over the course of the last year to try to convince them to drop their opposition -- and again, not necessarily to try to convince them to vote yes, but rather just to allow them and allow their colleagues in the House of Representatives to render their judgment on this compromise.  The President also indicated a willingness to work with Republicans if they could identify some of their own priorities that they would prefer to include.  But despite the President’s openness to having these kinds of conversations over the course of the last 12 or 13 months, we’ve seen absolutely no movement on this issue among House Republicans.

So what the President has said and what he has concluded is that he is no longer willing to stand idly by while the House Republicans block common-sense reforms to our broken immigration system.  And so what the President has done is he has directed his Secretary of Homeland Security and his Attorney General to consider what kinds of options are available to the President in the context of the current law to try to mitigate some of the problems that are caused by a broken immigration system. 

At this point, because that review is still ongoing, I’m not in a position to speculate about what that review might ultimately conclude.  The time frame for that review is the end of the summer, and the President expects to carefully consider their review and act on it relatively quickly.

Q    Jumping to an international topic with regard to the Ebola virus outbreak in Africa, does the United States plan to provide any funding to help address that issue, as international financial institutions have announced this morning?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Mark, when this outbreak initially occurred back in March, the Centers for Disease Control was in close -- was acting in close coordination with the World Health Organization and other multilateral organizations that were trying to confront this outbreak to address the problem where it had occurred.  That coordination continues.

I know that the CDC announced earlier today the deployment of additional resources to the region to try to stem this outbreak.  This is, as the CDC has assessed, probably the most damaging and dangerous outbreak of Ebola that we have seen so far, and that is why it requires a significant international response.  And that is why you’ve seen these actions taken by the CDC, the World Health Organization, and others to try to bring additional resources to address this problem in this region in Africa where it has occurred.

Michelle.

Q    On the same subject, there have been some calls kind of rattling around out there for the U.S. to block flights from countries that have been affected by Ebola.  Is that something that the U.S. is at all considering at this point, or would consider if it gets worse?  And can you be a little bit more specific about any additional actions DHS is taking at American airports to try to stop it from getting in here?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me give you a -- try to give you a better sense of how we’re confronting this problem and ensuring that the homeland remains safe.

First of all, it’s important to understand that there is a screening process that individuals have to go through when they board aircraft departing the countries where this outbreak has been reported.  There is additional screening that occurs when individuals who started in that region of the world arrive in this country.  To bolster that screening effort, the CDC has been involved in training CBP officers who are on the front lines of this to make sure they understand and that they have been trained on the symptoms of this illness. 

It’s important for the public to understand that the reason that it’s important to identify the symptoms is you’re not contagious unless you exhibit the symptoms of this disease.  That’s what differentiates [it] from a common cold or the flu, where, of course, individuals can be contagious before they start exhibiting the symptoms.  It’s also important for people to understand that this disease is not transmitted through the air, it’s not transmitted through the water, and it would not be transmitted through food here in the United States. 

That’s why the CDC has assessed that there’s no significant risk to the United States from this current Ebola outbreak.  But because there are CBP officers who are carefully monitoring passengers who are arriving from these countries, we are in a position to ensure that public health is protected.  If CBP officers do recognize an individual who appears to be exhibiting some of these symptoms, there are facilities at these ports of entry, at these airports, where individuals can be quarantined and evaluated by medical personnel.

I’ve also heard some raise questions about the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit that’s being hosted here in Washington.  There are some individuals from these countries where this outbreak has occurred who are participating in the summit.  The United States Secret Service and the State Department have ensured that their officers are properly trained to identify individuals who are exhibiting these symptoms.  There have been briefings that have been held with public health officials and with medical professionals and facilities here in the national capital region to make sure that if, again if, an individual is starting to exhibit these symptoms, that individual can be quarantined and get the kind of health care that they need.

The experts tell us at the CDC -- tell us that if health care workers are meticulous about meeting basic guidelines for protecting themselves from bodily fluids and other things that could lead to a transmission of the virus, then even those health care professionals will be safe as well.

So there are in place a lot of precautions to ensure the safety of the American public and of the traveling public, in this case.

Q    So no need to consider at this point stopping flights coming in from those three countries or so?

MR. EARNEST:  No, not at this point.  At this point, there are screenings that are in place both before individuals board flights in their home countries or where these flights originate, but also after these individuals arrive here in the United States they’re screened once again.  And there are facilities available that if an individual is detected exhibiting these symptoms, that they can be quarantined and promptly evaluated by a medical professional.

Q    I think Julie brought it up, on just the U.S.-Israel relationship right now -- I mean, there’s a lot of analysis out there about the difficulty in the relationship.  There’s been some tough talk even on Israel.  But I think it just seems like as tough as the talk can be, there’s very little that the U.S. can do.  So again, would you describe this situation and this relationship as frustrating right now?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think right now the way that I would describe the violence that we see in this region, Michelle, [is] as tragic; that we have seen extraordinary loss of life on both sides of this conflict.  And that is something that people I think around the world right now recognize is terrible and something that needs to come to an end quickly.  That is why you’ve seen U.S. diplomats and others working so intensively to try to bring both sides together and put in place a cease-fire.

As it relates to the relationship between the United States and Israel, Israel continues to be one of this country’s strongest allies.  And you saw that sentiment reciprocated in the remarks delivered by Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend, where he praised the United States for the level of support that United States is providing to our ally.  He mentioned our strong statements condemning acts of terror and condemning the tactics of Hamas to fire rockets at innocent Israeli civilians.  He discussed the strong military-to-military relationship that exists between the United States and Israel.  He talked about our frequent expression of support for Israel’s right to defend itself and their citizens.  And you heard the Prime Minister mention the United States’ close coordination with Israeli Defense Forces in operating the Iron Dome System that has shot down scores of Hamas rockets that were aimed squarely at Israeli civilians, thereby protecting the lives of countless Israeli civilians. 

So the nature of our relationship is strong and unchanged.

Let’s move around.  Cheryl.

Q    Thanks.  Can I ask about the border supplemental now and next steps?  Will you try to negotiate that as a separate bill in September, or part of the CR maybe, the ongoing appropriations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple things about that.  The first is, you may have noticed late on Friday that DHS did make an announcement about the need to reprogram some of their funds to ensure that necessary resources could be focused on addressing this problem at the border. 

We do continue to be pretty disappointed in the failure of House Republicans, principally, to act on a piece of legislation that would provide the government the resources that are necessary to deal with a problem that many Republicans themselves describe as a crisis.  Instead, we saw House Republicans take what I thought was a pretty remarkable step to pass a piece of legislation that would not just tie the hands of the President moving forward but actually would attempt to undo some of the things that the President has already done to address one of the most significant problems with our broken immigration system.

The consequence of the measure that was passed by House Republicans would actually take law enforcement resources that are currently directed to prioritize individuals who pose a threat to or could pose a threat to public safety and divert them away from that task and focus them on deporting young people who are American in every way except in their papers.  These are individuals who would be deported back to a country that many of them don't even remember.

And the fact that House Republicans support diverting law enforcement resources away from possible threats to our public safety and targeting them at young people I think is an indication of just how wrong their priorities are for the country.  This is not just my view, I’d point out.  I noticed over the weekend that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops put out what I think is a pretty strong statement on this measure.  The said -- I’m quoting the bishops here -- they said, “It is a sad day for our country.  A chamber of Congress is poised to send vulnerable children back to danger and possible death.  It violates our commitment to human rights and due process of law, and lessens us as a nation.  I pray that this legislation never sees the light of day.”

So I think that is a pretty strong statement from a non-partisan group -- a group that this administration has not always agreed with, but in this case, I would certainly associate myself with this statement.

Q    What do you do now?  How are you going to get these funds?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Cheryl, it’s now been, I believe, four or five weeks since we put forward a very detailed proposal about what it is we thought was necessary to deal with this problem.  We certainly would like to see Congress take action on our proposal.  We laid out in very clear detail what exactly was necessary, and Republicans in the House didn’t act on it. Instead, they passed a different piece of legislation.  In the Senate, we saw Republicans do everything that they could do to block a Democratic proposal that was patterned on the proposal that this administration had put forward.  That’s a piece of legislation, I’d point out, that got 50 votes in the United States Senate, but because of the rules of the Senate and the efforts by Senate Republicans to block that legislation, won’t actually pass.

So we’re pretty disappointed about that.  But what it does is it adds even more conviction to the President’s view that if Congress is not going to take steps to try to address these problems, then he is going to consider whatever steps he can take within the confines of the law to address this problem on his own.  And if Congress decides to return from their August recess after Labor Day and to take action to address some of these challenges that everybody acknowledges exists, then we would welcome that action.  But the President is not going to sit around waiting for Congress -- or congressional Republicans in this case -- to act.

Justin.

Q    I wanted to kind of follow on border and immigration.  And I guess my question was, do you guys see a political advantage in differentiating yourself from House Republicans on this issue?  Do you think that voters are going to punish House Republicans for their -- for what they’ve done on border and immigration in either the midterms or 2016?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I can tell you that what we’re focused on here at the White House are the -- is frankly, to put it bluntly, solving problems.  And this is a problem that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill acknowledge exists but that has not changed the posture of congressional Republicans from trying to block every step that can be taken to address this problem.

I know that there are some Republicans who are concerned about the political impact of this.  I don’t often read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but I happened to read a little bit of it this weekend.  They said that the Republicans, again, “gave the country the impression that its highest priority is to deport as many children as rapidly as possible back from wherever they came.”  They continued to say, “A party whose preoccupation is deporting children is going to alienate many conservatives, never mind minority voters.”

So I think that the Wall Street Journal is concerned about the political impact that this could have for Republicans, and I think that they do so acknowledging that this is not just a move and a policy that is going to be unpopular with minority voters, it's actually a policy that's going to be unpopular and even alienate -- to use their word -- many conservation voters.

Q    Well, yes, I mean, so you guys maybe are concerned about policy, but also obviously about politics.  The President goes and fund-raises all the time.  So I guess my question is, is that an accomplishment for the President -- if what the Wall Street Journal editorial page said is true -- to sort of consolidate the Hispanic vote, or voters who are concerned about this issue within the Democratic Party?  Is that something that you guys are actively interested in, or working on, or is it part of the consideration as you go through this process of drafting a possible executive order?

MR. EARNEST:  No.  What we're focused on solving the problem.  And I know that there are many Republicans who are suspicious of the President’s political motives.  I think that that applies to just about any policy issue that the President considers.  They’re certainly entitled to that point of view, but the fact of the matter is that's why it's so significant that the proposal that the President has championed, the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that passed through the Senate, is legislation that was supported by 14 Republicans in the United States Senate.  It’s legislation that’s supported by even evangelicals all across the country.  I suspect that they don't share the same political goals as the President, but they share the President’s support for that compromise piece of legislation. 

The same could be said of the business community and even the law enforcement community.  These are not communities that are packed necessarily with progressive or even Democratic voters, but yet they support the proposal that the President supports.

So I think the President alluded to this in his comments on Friday when he said that the dispute right now or the debate right now is not between congressional Republicans and the President of the United States; it is a dispute between congressional Republicans on one side and the President on the same side as Senate Republicans -- or at least more than a dozen Senate Republicans -- leaders in the law enforcement community, leaders in the evangelical community, leaders in the business community.  And that is an indication that, again, the President is not interested in playing politics on this issue, he’s interested in solving problems.

April.

Q    Josh, I want to go back to the Africa summit somewhat and security.  Can you talk to us about what you know with the efforts with, I guess, Nigeria and Cameroon when it comes to trying to defeat Boko Haram and deal with finding the girls, as well as finding the wife of the vice prime minister who was taken by Boko Haram as well from Cameroon?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, April, you’ll note that in the opening remarks that I delivered, one of the focal points of the leaders summit will be on security.  The United States has many deep security ties with countries across Africa, and there are steps that we have announced to deal with -- or at least coordinate with African countries who have the lead in dealing with some of these challenges. 

As you know, Boko Haram does pose a significant threat to security in many of these countries in Africa.  That's why the United States -- after the high-profile abduction of some 300 girls from a school in Africa led the United States to commit additional resources, including some military resources, to assist the Nigerian government in search for those girls.

So we remain engaged and working with local governments in Africa to confront this significant challenge.  And again, one of the goals of this conference is to discuss security issues.  And I don't have any specific meetings or anything to read out to you in advance, but a thorough discussion of security is on the agenda for this week.

Q    Let me ask you this.  When it comes to security, broader, beyond -- well, when it comes to security in Africa, beyond this summit, is this country working with Israel when it comes to dealing with terrorism?  I’ve heard from several countries in the last couple of days that they are working closely with Israel because they have more of a sense of -- they’ve dealt with a lot of terrorism for a very long time.  And African countries are really looking to them and listening to them.  Is America working with Israel when it comes to the African situation with Boko Haram and terrorism there on the continent?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware of any specific programs or conversations like that, but I do think that I can say as a general matter that we are interested in working with African countries to help them bring greater security to their countries and to individual communities in their countries.

We recognize here in the United States the significant threat to security that Boko Haram poses.  And we are interested in working with the leadership of these countries to professionalize their security operations and do a better job of ensuring the safety and security of their people as they confront the threats of these terrorists.

Q    And lastly, is it believed that the girls are still alive?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have an update on their status or what our latest assessment is of their status.  I think I’d refer you to the State Department who may be able to give you an update on that.

Jon.

Q    Just back to the immigration question.  You’ve made a case here -- and we’ve heard it before -- that the American public supports immigration reform, that there’s support enough in Congress to pass it; if only a bill would come up for a vote, it would pass and would be signed into law.  I’m wondering if it’s the White House’s assessment, if it’s the President’s assessment that that set of facts as you see them affects the President’s view of what he is able to do and what he is permitted to do to act on his own.  In other words, does that change the calculus given that your assessment -- again, popular support, more than enough support to pass it in Congress, if only it weren’t being unfairly blocked -- does that therefore give the President some broader powers to act on his own?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the assessment of what powers the President can wield on his own to address this problem is something that will be determined by legal experts, in this case under the leadership of the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

But I do think that as a practical matter, the President’s desire to act where Congress has failed is strengthened by the fact that there is such broad support all across the country for trying to impose common-sense solutions to a problem or a set of problems that everybody acknowledges exists.  But the scope of possible -- or potential executive actions that could be taken to address some of these problems is something that will be determined by the legal review that is still ongoing.

Q    Let me ask you this way.  The President several times

-- and from this podium, your predecessor several times -- when asked by advocacy groups for immigration reform why doesn't the President act alone, why doesn't he do what he did under DACA for the whole spectrum, the whole population of those who are in country illegally -- does the President still stand by those statements?  Does he still think that, I’ve done what I can -- as he’s said in the past, I’ve done what I can on my own; I can’t do further.  What needs to happen now is legislative action -- or has that view changed? 

MR. EARNEST:  The President’s view has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is that for a period of time that extended more than a year, there was an opportunity for Congress to take action to address these problems.  And the fact is that all of the -- well, I’d say it this way:  Any of the problems -- or any of the potential actions that the President could take would not be as enduring or robust as policies that can be put in place by Congress.  That's just the way that our system is structured.

And legislation in this area would have a more far-lasting impact on these problems than any sort of executive action that the President would be able to take.  That is why the President has been pretty transparent about saying, look, by the end of the summer I’m going to consider a review that's been conducted by the AG and the Secretary of Homeland Security, and I’m going to take what steps are within the confines of the law for me to mitigate some of problems that are posed by the broken immigration system. 

If, however, Congress returns from their August recess, comes to their senses and decides that they actually should consider a common-sense set of reforms for our broken immigration system, the President would be happy for that piece of legislation to supersede the executive actions that he’s taken to address this problem. 

So this doesn't eliminate the need for Congress to act.  It just reflects the President’s commitment to acting where Congress has refused.

Q    Let me just get very specific.  What he said one of the times he was heckled by a pro-immigration reform group, he said that if he could solve this problem on his own, he would; “…but we’re also a nation of laws.  That's part of our tradition.  And so the easy way out is to try and yell and pretend like I could do something by violating our laws.  But what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal you want to achieve.”  Has that view changed?  I mean, he was pretty forthright saying, look, I can't do it.  It would be violating the law if I did it on my own.  Congress has to act.  But now that you’ve made a case that Congress is not going to act, does the President’s view on that change?

MR. EARNEST:  No, it has not changed.   And the reason is simply this, Jon -- that Congress has a greater capacity to solve this problem than the President does through executive actions.  There is more that Congress can do.  And I think -- I remember that event.  I believe that was -- are you reading from the transcript of the President’s event in San Francisco?  I believe that’s what that is, from last fall.  And the President did have a very -- I think it was a pretty emotional exchange.  There was a pretty emotional outburst from somebody in the audience.  And what the President observed -- and that was a time frame in which there was still an opportunity and Republicans were still signaling a willingness to consider the common-sense proposal that had already passed through the Senate.

Anything that the President is able to do using his executive action will not be as powerful and as long-lasting as the reforms that are contemplated by this bipartisan proposal that’s already passed through the Senate.  But what the President has said is, even if I can’t do all of that because I can’t, because the law will not allow me, I’m going to ask my team, the experts -- the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General -- to review the law and figure out what is it the President can do within the confines of the current law. 

And the President is going to encourage them to cast a wide net, consider a wide range of ideas.  And the President looks forward to that review and looks forward to acting on it quickly after he receives it.

Major.

Q    Josh, when people heard the President say, I can’t do it, what he was really saying is, I’d rather not do it.  He’s always believed he could do this and could go down this road and use executive power.  His preference and what he stated was really a preference, not a limitation.

MR. EARNEST:  No, there are limitations that are under -- within the confines of the current law.  Congress can do more to address this problem than the President can. 

So what the President has said is, I’m going to direct my Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to consider what I’m able to do under the current law.  What that will be is maybe some options to mitigate some of the problems that we see with our broken immigration system, but not as much as Congress can do.

Q    Getting back to Mark’s question, you talked about 4.5 or 5 million people receiving a temporary work permit that never existed before that isn’t part of the legislative process, that is executive fiat.  That is a scope of executive power never before seen on an issue like this.  And what I think people thought they heard the President saying is, I can’t do that.  What he was actually saying is, I’d rather not.

MR. EARNEST:  I think what he was saying -- and I think this is -- I’m going to try this one more time.  I think what the President was saying is, I can’t do what Congress is talking about doing right now; I do not have the authority under the current law to take the kinds of steps that Congress is debating right now.  The steps that Congress was debating at that time were steps that would have a far-reaching impact on our broken immigration system; that it would repair very serious problems that exist with our immigration system.

Q    Wouldn’t you agree that 4.5 to 5 million work permits would also be far-reaching in its impact?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t want to talk about specific proposals because, again, the review about what the President is able to do is still ongoing.  So it remains an open question whether these proposals that are floated by a wide variety of advocates on this issue is something that falls within the President’s authority to act on.  So I’m going to let the legal experts render a judgment on that and consider what options are available to the President. 

The only thing I know now is that the options that will be presented to the President will not be as enduring and will not be as successful at reforming our broken immigration system as the law that was passed in bipartisan fashion by the Congress -- or by the Senate, but is currently being blocked by Republicans in the House.

Q    On the statement released by the State Department yesterday, does the administration interpret that as a new signal to Israel about tactical limitations the United States believes it now must follow; that is to say, suspicion is no longer justification for any shelling?  Not something I believe I heard the administration ever say as specifically as it said in that statement yesterday.  Is there a rhetorical limit now you are trying to impose on the tactical flexibility Israel has to prosecute this war?

MR. EARNEST:  The limits that are imposed on Israel’s ability to tactically execute this war are the standards that the Israeli military themselves have put in place.  And what we are encouraging them to do is to live up to those standards and in some cases do ever more to live up to those standards.

So we resolutely defend Israel’s right to defend themselves and to take the kinds of military steps that they assess are necessary to protect their citizens.  They have a responsibility to do that.  But in terms of the tactical execution, they have put in place very serious standards for the protection of civilians, and the United States has been steadfast in encouraging them to live up those standards and in some cases do more to ensure that they’re living up to those standards.

Q    In the course of this conflict, has Israel in any respect lived up to those standards?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that we’ve seen, and I think that we’ve said before, that it is evident that Israel can and should do more to live up to those standards.

Q    So it has not?

MR. EARNEST:  So what we believe is that Israel can and should do more to live up to the standards that they themselves have set for the safety and security of innocent Palestinian civilians.

Ed.

Q    Hey, Josh.  I wanted to follow up on executive action, because on Friday the President seemed to suggest the barometer for this is how many executive orders you issue, as you’ve suggested as well.  He said, “…despite the fact that I’ve taken fewer executive actions than my Republican predecessor or my Democratic predecessor before that…”  Isn’t the real issue the scope, as was suggested earlier, and whether or not you’re going around current law rather than just simply numbers?

MR. EARNEST:  What this President believes -- well, I guess the other way that we can measure this, Ed, is by evaluating the record of Congress.  And there was a lot of commentary over the weekend that indicated that this Republican Congress fell far short of the standard that was set, even by the do-nothing Congress of the last century. 

So what the President is dealing with is a Congress that is refusing to act on a whole range of priorities that are shared by Democrats and Republicans.  So what the President has said is that the President will not allow congressional inaction to stymie that progress of this nation.  And the President has widely considered, on a range of policy issues, steps that he can take within the confines of the law and within the confines of his executive authority to try to make progress on behalf of the American people -- mostly in those situations, middle-class families all across the country.  That’s what the President has prioritized, and that’s why you’ve seen the President take a number of steps to advance their interests.

Q    So it’s fair to say then that the trigger for executive action likely this fall, end of the summer on immigration reform, like on other issues, is that the House Republicans fail to act?

MR. EARNEST:  That is the trigger.  Because House Republicans are blocking common-sense reforms that have already been passed through the Senate, the President is not going to stand by and not allow any solutions to be put in place.  The President is going to consider what solutions he can put in place within the confines of the law.

As I mentioned to Major, the solutions will not be as far-reaching as legislation would allow, but they may be in a position to mitigate some of the problems of our broken immigration system.  And the President is no longer going to wait for Congress to act.

Q    So if the trigger is congressional inaction, why didn’t the President take executive action on immigration back in 2009 or 2010 when House Democrats failed to act?

MR. EARNEST:  Because the President was committed to trying to work through Congress.  I think this is evidence that the President has been very patient.

Q    But they had two years.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- they were running the House and Senate.  The first two years of this administration the President vowed back in 2008, by the end of my first year in office we’ll pass comprehensive immigration reform.  That was his promise.  So they failed to act for two years.  Why didn’t he do anything then?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I will say a couple things about that, Ed.  The first is that at the time -- you’ll recall back in 2009 there were many things on the President’s plate --

Q    As there are now.  Israel, Gaza, Syria, the economy -- he has a lot going on now, right?

MR. EARNEST:  He does.  But I think that the crisis that we faced in 2009 as it related to our financial system and our economy hemorrhaging jobs, that that was understandably the focal point of congressional activity but also a lot of activity here at the White House.  There’s no doubt that we would have liked to have seen immigration reform get done years ago.  I think that is -- again, that is also something that is shared by Democrats and Republicans.  All the more reason it is completely unreasonable for House Republicans to continue to block common-sense reforms that have strong bipartisan support all across the country.

Q    But you said several times here we’re focused on solving problems, when you were ask about it. 

MR. EARNEST:  We are.

Q    So you had a chance -- you had the House, Senate and White House in 2009, 2010.  Why didn’t you focus on solving immigration problems then?

MR. EARNEST:  And my point is, Ed, that there were a lot of other crises that the President was focused on at that point.  And what we’re focused on now is trying to find common-sense solution, bipartisan solutions to a problem that a wide variety, a wide majority of Americans acknowledge exist at this point.

Roger.

Q    You used the phrase “end of summer” earlier.  Is that when the President is going to announce a decision?  Or is that when all of the recommendations from Cabinet members are coming to him?

MR. EARNEST:  What we have said is that is when we anticipate this review that’s being conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General will be received by the President. 

Q    That would be about when probably?

MR. EARNEST:  Roughly the end of the summer.

Q    And that is September 20?

MR. EARNEST:  There are -- I’ll leave -- I acknowledge that that time frame is open to some interpretation.

Q    I’ll grant you that.  I’m just trying to get a little bit more specific.

MR. EARNEST:  Sure.  I’m not in a position to be much more specific about that from here. 

But let me say this that I think will do a little bit more to answer your question:  We do anticipate that we will receive the review around the end of the summer, and I do anticipate that the President will act on those recommendations shortly after receiving them. 

Q    And a follow up.  He’s going to consult the Attorney General on what legally he can do through the executive orders.  To what extent is he limited in his actions by lack of money?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that’s a good question.  Once the President is able to evaluate -- based on the recommendations of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General -- the options that are available to him, I’m sure there will be a discussion of resources and whether or not there are sufficient resources to take some of these steps.

Q    You can only reprogram so much.  I mean, that’s all there is.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s correct.  I think that sort of highlights the point that Jon and Major were highlighting, which is that congressional action to addressing this problem would be -- is vastly preferable.  Congress has the power of the purse.  They could ensure that the necessary resources are devoted to solving so many of the problems that are created by our broken immigration system.

The other thing I’d point out is that there are obvious economic benefits to taking the kinds of steps that were contemplated by the Congress that would reduce the deficit, it would create jobs, that it would expand economic opportunity.   These are all good things.  These are the reasons that you see groups -- particularly the business community -- be so strongly supportive of immigration reform.  But again, for reasons that are not clear to me, many Republicans have not found that to be particularly persuasive. 

Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  In the many conversations between U.S. government officials and Israeli officials over the past couple of days, has the American -- has the White House or any American official received any assurances from the Israelis that they will work -- that they will try to live up to those standards that you’ve repeatedly cited?

MR. EARNEST:  Zeke, I’m not in a position to read out any private conversations between U.S. officials and their Israeli counterparts.  I did hear in the remarks that the Prime Minister delivered over the weekend a commitment to ensuring that the Israeli military lives up to those standards and is doing the kinds of things that protect the lives of innocent civilians on the Palestinian side.  That stands in pretty stark contrast to the tactics that are employed by Hamas and other affiliated groups that are using their rockets and aiming them squarely at Israeli civilians in the hopes of provoking a wide range of casualties among the civilian population there.

So their tactics are clearly different.  But the Israeli Prime Minister in his remarks indicated not just a willingness but a desire to live up to those standards that we’ve been talking about here today.

Q    It’s been a couple of days now since the latest round of sanctions on Russia, wanting to effect those sectoral sanctions that you said would be so painful for the Russian economy.  Have you seen any indications yet that the Russian government is pushing back or pulling back its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, or any concrete economic impacts on the Russian regime in the past -- since these sanctions have been put in place?

MR. EARNEST:  I would refer you to the Treasury Department, who is more closely watching the economic impact of these sanctions.  We have over the longer term seen a range of data to indicate that there is an economic impact that’s being felt by the Russian economy.  We’ve seen the Central Bank of Russia spend billions of dollars to try to shore up the strength of their currency.  We’ve seen a pretty large increase in capital flight from Russia.  There are concerns about whether or not that is -- among the investor community about whether or not that’s a safe place to try to invest some money.  We have seen a lot of the impartial international evaluators of the health of the Russian economy revise down their projections for economic growth in Russia. 

So there are a range of indications that highlight the impact that this sanctions regime has had on the economy.  In terms of its impact on the calculus of the Putin regime, as it relates to their activities in Ukraine, we have not seen the kinds of actions that we would like to see.  Again, we would like to see Russia not engage in the kind of destabilizing activities along the Ukraine border that have led to that escalating conflict.  And we would like to see them use their influence with the Russian separatists to abide by a cease-fire agreement and pursue a diplomatic resolution.  We’d like to see the Russians take the necessary steps to close their border to the transfer of heavy weapons.  But we haven’t seen the kinds of concrete steps that we’d like to see.

But again, this is not the kind of thing that -- this is not the kind of policy that can be evaluated on 24 or 48 hours’ notice, but rather the kind of thing that can be evaluated over the course of weeks and months.

Chris.

Q    Let me just ask you a quick question about the Africa summit and anything you might have on any added meetings or sideline meetings that might be going on to address the crisis, the Ebola crisis.

MR. EARNEST:  I don't know of any specific meetings that are dedicated to that topic.  But I’d refer you to the State Department.  They may be able to shed some more light on those kinds of activities.

Q    And just a little more on the timing of any possible executive orders, particularly as they relate to the border and your comment that maybe Congress will come back from the August recess and come to its senses.  Is there any implication that the President is unlikely to move before Congress returns?  Or is that timing very fluid?

MR. EARNEST:  I would describe that timing as fluid.  And again, the reason that I worded it that way is that even if the President does take some executive action prior to Congress’s return, the President would be happy to have those executive actions superseded by passing the common-sense Senate reform -- Senate immigration reform bill that passed more than a year ago. 

Again, any steps the President could take would not be as far-reaching as that Senate bill.  And if congressional Republicans come back from the recess, even just come to their senses enough, not necessarily to even support the bill, but just allow the bill to come up for a vote, the President would be happy to sign that bill into law and allow it to supersede any of the policy consequences of the executive actions that he takes.

Q    And just a real quick one on the redactions on the upcoming report on the enhanced interrogation techniques, and the criticism from some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee who say that these redactions, which are about 15 percent, make the report virtually unreadable.  Your comment on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say a couple of things.  The first is it’s important to remember the President’s perspective here.  This is his administration that we’re talking about.  Prior to assuming the office of the presidency, the President -- then Senator Obama -- was pretty forward-leaning in his criticism of some of the tactics that were reportedly used during that era.

Upon taking office, within a week or so, the President took executive action to ensure that those techniques would never again be used.  And he was -- he has long advocated the declassification and release of this report because it would send a clear signal to the American people and to the international community that we’re willing to own up -- as a country -- that we’re willing to own up to what occurred so that we can ensure that even in very difficult times that it doesn't happen again.

So that is the President’s view here.  He’s been very forward-leaning in terms of trying to be as transparent as possible with the American public about what exactly occurred and with the international community about what exactly occurred so that we can prevent it from happening again.

Now, there are some necessary -- we’re talking about very sensitive information here.  And it is important that a declassification process be carried out that protects sources and methods and other information that is critical to our national security.  And that is why the intelligence community has worked through a very rigorous process to ensure that those pieces of information are protected.

I would --

Q    But the criticism, and again from Democrats, is that this isn’t about protecting sources and methods; it’s redacting material -- basic source material that makes it impossible to understand the report.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, more than 85 percent of the report was un-redacted, and half of the redactions that occurred were actually just in the footnotes.  So this is an indication that there was a good-faith effort that was made by the administration and by national security professionals to evaluate this information and to make redactions that are consistent with the need to protect national security, but also consistent with the President’s clearly stated desire to be as transparent as possible about this.

That all being said, this administration and the relevant national security agencies have indicated a willingness to sit down with those who have spoken out about this just in the last couple of days to try to find some common ground here and satisfy their concerns so that we can get this report released as quickly as possible.

Q    Do we know when that might take place?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't.  I’d refer you to the intelligence community about that.

Q    Josh, do you have any comment on -- Jim Brady’s family has put out a statement saying the former press secretary has passed away.  And I wonder if you have any reflections, given how new you are to the job.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, I had not seen that.  That may have just happened.  I was aware that Mr. Brady was in failing health in recent days, and I was saddened when I first learned of that. He is somebody who I think really revolutionized this job.  And even after he was wounded in that attack on the President, was somebody who showed his patriotism and commitment to the country by being very outspoken on an issue that was important to him and that he felt very strongly about.

So he is -- he leaves the kind of legacy that I think -- that certainly this press secretary and all future press secretaries will aspire to live up to. 

I anticipate we’ll have a little bit more to say about this on paper later today.

Q    Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  I’ll give you the last one. 

Q    Yes, thank you, Josh.  On the Afghan elections, it continues to have a bumpy process as far as the counting of votes are concerned.  Is it concerning to you?  Or what’s the problem? How do you think about it?

MR. EARNEST:  In terms of the auditing of the election results?

Q    Yes, counting of the election results.  It hasn’t got it, yet.  They just started.

MR. EARNEST:  It did just start.  After a break for the Eid holiday, the election audit has resumed.  And both candidates are participating with candidate agents observing the process.  The audit continues to be conducted by the Afghan Independent Elections Commission under the close supervision of the United Nations.

Over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry telephoned both Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani to express continued support for the Afghan electoral process and the framework for a government of national unity as agreed to on his last visit to that country.  He stressed the urgency of accelerating the post-election audit and implementing the political framework agreement. 

What we have said many times is that we believe it’s important for the Afghan people to have confidence in their electoral institutions.  And by conducting this audit, which both candidates have agreed to -- this is an audit of every ballot that was cast in that presidential election, so no small undertaking -- that will only enhance confidence in the political system in Afghanistan, and thereby will enhance confidence in that country’s next leader.

So we’re pleased that both candidates remain engaged in this process and are going to be supportive of both candidates and of that process in general as it works its way to completion.

Q    Has the President spoken to these two candidates or President Karzai of late?

MR. EARNEST:  Not in the last couple of days.  There have been a couple of conversations between the President and both candidates in the election to encourage them to remain engaged in the process.  But I don’t have any recent telephone calls to read out to you other than the call that was placed by the Secretary of State over the weekend.

Thanks.

END
1:56 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of National Security Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni of Libya

Today, National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met with Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thinni of Libya at the White House.  The Prime Minister thanked Ambassador Rice for U.S. support to the Libyan people during the uprising against Muammar Qadhafi’s rule and during this transitional period as Libya emerges from 42 years of dictatorship. Ambassador Rice and Prime Minister al-Thinni discussed the need for strong international support of Libya during this difficult time and agreed on the importance of an immediate ceasefire in Tripoli, full respect for the authority of the elected Council of Representatives, and the participation of all parties in a national dialogue to promote reconciliation.  They also agreed that all of Libya’s international partners should use their influence with different Libyan factions to stop the fighting in Tripoli as quickly as possible.