The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 01, 2014

On-the-Record Conference Call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit

ON-THE-RECORD CONFERENCE CALL
BY DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR FOR
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS BEN RHODES;
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS
LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD;
AND SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY
AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL GAYLE SMITH
ON THE U.S.-AFRICA LEADERS SUMMIT

Via Telephone

**Please see below for a clarification marked with an asterisk.

July 31, 2014, 6:09 P.M. EDT

MS. MEEHAN: Hi, everybody. This is Bernadette at the National Security Council. Thanks for joining us today for this press call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit taking place next week. We have with us today three senior administration officials who I’ll introduce in just a moment. I do want to announce a change to the ground rules for this call. It was advertised as background, but we will conduct this call on the record. So you should feel free to quote each of the administration officials by name. And again, this will be on the record.

Our three senior administration officials are: Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications; Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield; and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council Gayle Smith.

And with that, I will turn it over to Ben Rhodes.

MR. RHODES: Great. Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I'll just give an overview of the summit and the schedule for the summit, and then Linda and Gayle can make some additional comments. And then we'll take of your questions.

First of all, the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is truly an historic opportunity for the United States to strengthen our ties with the African continent and to underscore America’s commitment to investing in Africa’s development and future peace, prosperity and security.

This is by far the largest engagement by any American President with Africa. It will include nearly 50 African leaders, as well as the participation of a range of U.S. and African civil society and business leaders, young African leaders, and members of Congress.

We've just concluded a very successful three days with 500 Mandela Washington Fellows from our Young African Leaders Initiative. The President, the First Lady, Susan Rice and other senior officials, including Secretary Kerry, were able to engage with those young leaders and also to hear their views about what the agenda is for the United States and Africa.

We chose to do this summit to send a very clear signal that we are elevating our engagement with Africa. We see enormous opportunities in Africa as it continues to advance its own economic development and continues to develop its capabilities as African countries continue to develop their capabilities as security partners of the United States and as democratic partners of the United States.

The theme of the summit is “Investing in the Next Generation.” And I think that's a symbol of the forward-looking and future-oriented nature of our engagement with Africa.

One of the things that we thought about as we prepared the summit is what does the United States uniquely bring to the table in its partnership with African countries. Other nations hold summits with African leaders. We very much wanted this summit to be focused on the distinct and unique attributes of the U.S.-African partnership. And what we believe is unique about the American contribution is our focus on African capacity-building and integrating Africa into the global economy and security order.

What the United States has done in all of our signature development programs -- on food and power and health –- is not just provide assistance to Africa but build African capacity so that public health sectors are empowered to meet challenges on the continent; so that through our Power Africa initiative we are bringing electricity to the continent in a way that will foster development and integration with the global economy; and through our food security initiative we are building the capacity of the agricultural sector within Africa to feed populations and also to foster economic growth.

Now, these initiatives are making substantial progress. Power Africa aims to double access to electricity on the continent. Our food security efforts are combating famine and promoting sustainable agriculture. Our global AIDS efforts are dramatically reducing –- or our global health efforts, I should say, are dramatically reducing deaths from preventable diseases and have enabled the promise of an AIDS-free generation.

We also are very focused on trade and investment. And the summit will include a U.S.-Africa Business Forum that is dedicated to that purpose. This is an important interest to the United States. Africa has six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world, and insofar as we can promote trade and investment, that is going to create new markets for our goods; that’s going to create win-win outcomes that advance prosperity in both the United States and Africa, and ultimately create jobs in both the United States and Africa. So this is about seizing the opportunity of African growth and development in our mutual interests.

At the same time, there remains a significant amount of security challenges on the continent, and so we'll be talking about how we can work to build African capacity to counter transnational threats like terrorism, but also to support African peace and security operations in different parts of the continent. And of course, we're committed to supporting strong democratic institutions in Africa as well as the next generation of African leaders. And so we'll be able to discuss efforts to promote open and accountable governance and respect for human rights in Africa, which, of course, continue to be an abiding interest for the United States.

So with that, let me go through the schedule and make a few comments on why we structured the summit as we have.

First of all, tomorrow, there will be an event called Faith Works that will honor the contributions of the faith community to the U.S.-African relationship. As many of you know, many different religious and non-governmental organizations support development on the African continent, and tomorrow USAID will play a lead role in convening many of those faith leaders to not just pay tribute to their work, but to draw from that experience as we roll into the summit next week.

Then, on Monday, there’s a series of events that get at different aspects of our agenda with Africa. There’s a Civil Society Forum at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning, where we’ll discuss our efforts to support civil society in Africa -- both the very positive role that civil society plays in consolidating democratic progress, but also efforts to combat closing space for civil society in certain parts of the continent as well.

Then there will be an all-day African Growth and Opportunity Act Forum hosted at the World Bank. AGOA has been a critical piece of our trade relationship with Africa for the last decade. It is up for reauthorization next year. The President has made very clear that we’re committed to renewal of AGOA. We want to do what we can to work with Congress and with African countries to build on the progress of the last several years, but also to improve AGOA. And so this will be an all-day opportunity for trade ministers to discuss our priorities as we work toward the reauthorization of AGOA going forward.

Then there will be several events focused on different parts of our agenda, including investing in women and peace -- investing in women for peace and prosperity, given our focus on supporting gender equality in Africa, and the fundamental notion that the President spoke about to the Young African Leaders that the empowerment of women is good for all of our priorities on Africa.

There will be an event on investing in health. And the global health program that we have continues to be our largest development program in Africa. That builds not just on the success of PEPFAR, but on what we’ve done to combat preventable deaths and to reduce instances of diseases like malaria that are preventable, but also to build the capacity of African public health sectors.

There will be an event on resilience and food security in a changing climate. And we have done a significant amount under this administration to ensure that as we pursue development programs we are factoring in climate resilience. And a key part of our international climate agenda is supporting developing countries as they aim to skip the dirtier phases of development so that the world can meet ambitious emissions reductions targets.

There will be an event on combatting wildlife trafficking. And the administration recently released a landmark strategy on working with Africans to combat the scourge of wildlife trafficking, which denies a critical natural resource of the world but also a critical tourism resource within Africa.

Then, there will also be a congressional reception for the African leaders on Monday evening. Congress has played an enormous role on a bipartisan basis in supporting Africa policy. It is important to note that in an environment in Washington where there’s not a lot of bipartisan agreement, Africa has been a true exception. When you look at programs like PEPFAR, when you look at bipartisan support for Power Africa through the Electrify Africa bills that are making their way through Congress, and when you just look broadly at the support on the Hill for peacekeeping operations and development initiatives, we want to make sure members of Congress are fully integrated into the summit, and the reception will be an important part of that.

Then, Tuesday is the U.S.-Africa Business Forum that Bloomberg Bloomberg Philanthropies* is co-hosting with the Department of Commerce. And throughout the day there will be several panel discussions. One is focused on expanding opportunities for business to invest in Africa. Another on opening markets, so that we can help finance the Africa of tomorrow. Another on Power Africa and leading developments in infrastructure. And then one on shaping the future of a fast-growing continent.

Just to step back here, part of what the United States brings to the table in Africa is not simply our governmental resources, but the huge demand in Africa for trade and investment and partnership with American businesses. And that leads to commercial deals that have a specific benefit both for the United States and for the African countries that are partners in those fields, but also to the broader trade and investment environment that we’re seeking to foster so that African growth creates broader prosperity on the continent but also new markets for U.S. businesses.

President Obama will then close the U.S.-Africa Business Forum by making remarks and then answering some questions about our agenda as it relates to trade and investment.

Then, that night, Tuesday night, the President and Mrs. Obama will host here at the White House a dinner with all of the African leaders to pay tribute to this historic event.

On Wednesday, the summit sessions themselves will take place at the State Department. The first session is on investing in Africa’s future. The second session is on peace and regional stability. And then the third session is on governing for the next generation.

And these three different sessions will allow us to build on the discussions of the previous two days to focus on issues like how we’re supporting development on areas like food, health and power that have been priorities for us, but also the continued growth and economic development of Africa; on regional peace and security, what we’re doing as a partner to facilitate African solutions to peacekeeping challenging; what we’re doing to consolidate democratic progress in Africa and strengthen democratic institutions around issues like the rule of law; and, of course, what we’re doing to support the next generation of African leaders -- something that is so demonstrated by our Young African Leaders Initiative.

The President will then, at the conclusion of the summit, have a press conference. I’d also note that the First Lady will be hosting a spousal program along with Laura Bush, on Wednesday, where she’ll focus on a number of issues, including her commitment to girls’ education and the empowerment of women in Africa.

So we’re very excited about this opportunity. We believe it can be a game-changer in the U.S.-Africa relationship, that it will advance our work on all the areas that the U.S. is focused on, from the food, power and health development agenda; to the trade and investment partnerships we’re building; to the peace and security initiatives that we have across the continent; to the strengthening and consolidation of democratic progress.

We engage Africa and African countries as equals, and that’s the spirit in which the President will receive the leaders.

With that, Linda, why don’t you provide some perspective from State, and then Gayle can close us out before questions.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: Okay. I’ll be brief. But what I’d like to talk about is the engagement that we’ve had with African governments on putting together this fantastic agenda. We started engaging about eight months ago, working with ambassadors here in Washington as well as going out through our ambassadors to various posts to confer with governments about the agenda. Also, in all of our official travel to the continent, we talked about those areas that countries were interested in seeing on the agenda.

Gayle Smith, Grant Harris and I were in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea in late June and we met with a record 30 African delegations where, again, we went through the agenda for the summit, heard from them additional ideas that they wanted us to take into account in the agenda. And I can tell you that everyone was excited. They were -- the response was enthusiastic. And I think that we have come up with an agenda that is going to provide for a very productive meeting.

I also want to note -- Ben didn’t mention that we have about 80 unofficial side events that have developed as a result of the summit. The summit has really galvanized the African community around Washington. And the NGO community, the local universities, think tanks, business organizations have all put together an interesting set of side meetings that I think will keep everyone in Washington busy for the entire week -- that the heads of state and other members of the delegation will be during the time they will be here in Washington.

So I will end there and turn it over to Gayle.

MS. SMITH: Hi, everybody. And I’ll be brief, I’ll just add a couple of things. I think a few things that are unique about this summit have to do with both the style and the frame. Ben laid out the sequence of events. The YALI Summit has been this week; we have the faith event tomorrow. Civil Society Forum, AGOA Ministerial, Business Forum and Conference -- all these things will flow into the actual discussion on Wednesday, and we think set up a conversation that will be quite unique, including because the frame of this is about the next generation. So rather than an exclusive focus on the challenges or opportunities of today, the questions on the table in each of these three sessions are what do we need to be thinking about and doing now so that we are at a place in 10 or 15 years where the gains we’ve seen in Africa are consolidated, where the growth we are seeing is inclusive, and where some of the ongoing challenges are more systematically and strategically addressed.

It will also be informal. There are an awful lot of summits that are comprised by a huge number of speeches and a great deal of formality. This summit will be one where there will be an active exchange of views, and this is something -- again, it’s not the usual case. I think the Assistant Secretary described our consultation process. We have had a lot of positive feedback from leaders directly that they are looking forward to being able to have the opportunity to talk with the President and each other in a way that it is less rather than more formal.

We’re focused on outcomes that are tangible. In other words, this is not the culmination of anything. This is a very big step in the long evolution of our Africa policy, but we do intend and will be coming out of this summit with some tangible outcomes that we’re going to want to move forward on together.

If I can just flag a few things that I think may be of interest to many of you covering this that stand out I think in ways consistent with the kind of broad principles that Ben laid out. On the Monday when there will be a great focus on development, the changes we have seen in Africa on development are quite phenomenal -- a real shift from a dependence on assistance to the investment of their own dollars. Some of the greatest gains we’ve seen on the planet in HIV and AIDS, maternal and child health, agricultural development are in Africa.

Food security, which Ben mentioned -- President Obama called for a worldwide food security initiative in February of 2009, very shortly after coming into office, at a time when worldwide investments in agricultural development were down very, very, very sharply and where the world was spending much more on relief than agricultural development. We were able to build those initiatives to Feed the Future and the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition based on what Africa has done.

African leaders agreed some years ago to increase their investments in agriculture, that every country should have a plan. They have since, in the last couple of months, committed themselves to tripling agricultural trade, further reducing hunger. This is an area where we have been hugely successful but in large measure because we’ve got a huge number of leaders putting skin in the game.

We’ve also seen that with Power Africa, which launched only a year ago, which has gotten enormous traction. We will have some things to say about how far that has come and where it is going. So those are just a couple of things on the Monday.

On the Tuesday at the business forum, I think by virtue of the fact of who is in attendance, what kinds of things will be announced, and the general buzz around it, I think there is now a solid recognition that what we are talking about is a very fast-growing and dynamic emerging market where we have mutual interests in increasing U.S. investment. There will also be significantly there a number of prominent African CEOs. Among the business leaders in attendance, we will have a huge diversity of companies from very large and well-known companies to a lot of smaller companies. And, again, both American and international, but also significantly African corporate leaders.

So I think -- I would say we’ll leave it at that, Ben, and turn it back to you. We’ve spoken a lot and maybe take your questions.

MR. RHODES: Yes, happy to take questions.

Q Hi there, thanks so much for doing this call. I wanted to begin by asking you about the competition for U.S. investment in Africa. There is a lot of it. As you mentioned, because there is this recognition that it’s such a (inaudible) emerging market -- competition from China, Malaysia, Turkey and Europe. And Ambassador Rice said this week that the engagement with the U.S. is different because the U.S. doesn’t see the continent as a place to extract resources but a place of boundless opportunities. What I hear from African leaders and people who work in Africa is that they already know that. And I would ask you what message will you deliver to show that the U.S. approach to Africa has truly turned a corner, that you do value them as this equal partner, and how are you showing that during a summit without using bilateral meetings?

MR. RHODES: Thanks, Jessica. Let me just say a couple things. First of all, with respect to China, President Obama has made clear that we welcome other nations being invested in Africa, and, frankly, China can play a constructive role in areas like developing African infrastructure. At the same time, we do believe we bring something unique to the table. We are less focused on resources from Africa and more focused on deepening trade and investment relationships. And I think the way in which that will be demonstrated at the summit is if you look at the nature of our engagement -- first of all, we are engaged across the U.S. government so that it is not simply the State Department, but the Commerce Department, the United States Trade Representative, OPEC and Ex-Im -- all have very deep ties in Africa.

All of those principals have made recent trips to Africa or had recent meetings with African leaders to discuss what the United States can do to increase our trade and investment footprint on the continent. Our businesses will be represented at the U.S.-Africa Business Forum -- are pursuing a much broader engagement on the continent. And they are seeking to deepen their own investments in Africa in ways that will I think create a broader prosperity on the continent, because they are putting resources into African economies in ways that support development and job creation in Africa, but also create new markets for American goods. And so there will be specific commercial deals that can be discussed, but also the broader climate around trade and investment.

And then there are some very specific things that we're focused on. AGOA is one -- as we seek a renewal of AGOA heading into next year. But also, we've sought to support the greater integration of trade within Africa. And it happens to be the case that in some cases it's easier for African countries to export beyond Africa’s shores than to trade with their neighbors because of how their economies were set up. And so we've worked, for instance, with the East African community to facilitate greater trade across borders in East Africa so that you're looking at issues like customs and you're looking at ways for different countries to integrate their trade practices.

That will be good for them because they can create more integrated economic arrangements, but it will also be good for us because that will then make it easier for us to harmonize our trade and investment across different parts of the African continent.

So when you look at this agenda, it's really about how do we use the remarkable growth in parts of Africa to go to the next level, so that investment is flowing into Africa, jobs are being created, new markets are being grown, there’s integration on the continent, and there’s deeper trade with the United States. And again, we, uniquely as a country in the global economy, bring all those different assets to bear -- not just dollars, but business partnership, trade expertise, and an interconnection to the global economy.

I don't know, Gayle, if you want to add anything to that.

MS. SMITH: I think just one example I would point to is Power Africa, because one of the challenges in Africa that we found in the energy sector and that our partners have talked to us about is you’ve got a huge number of potential projects, you’ve got a lot of capital that is looking for a place to invest, and how do you bring those two things together.

Through Power Africa, what we have been able to do is provide a menu of things that can render those projects bankable. So we're working with governments to improve their regulatory environment, or provide risk insurance to companies that want to go in but there is still a high perception of risk.

So at the same time, we are bringing capital to investments in power and energy, including U.S. capital, but we're also building the capacity of these countries to grow economies that are sustainable and deliver. And I think that's one of the big shifts. We're interested in the investment, but we're also interested in building the capacity, even as we move more closely into this emerging market.

Q Do you have a count now on how many countries will be participating in the official events? And for those countries whose Presidents cannot attend, what level of representation is allowed, I guess is the question –- vice president, ministerial -- for the dinner and for the Wednesday session, Presidents at the State Department?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: All 50 of the delegations that were invited are attending, not all at the level of the Presidents. Those in which Presidents are unable to attend for various reasons have designated either Vice Presidents or Prime Ministers, and in a few cases foreign ministers have accepted on their behalf and they will be allowed to participate in the summit deliberations.

MR. RHODES: And I'd just add we also included the African Union. And the way in which we approach the summit is to view Africa in the way in which Africa views itself in terms of its political organization. In other words, we didn’t simply do a Sub-Saharan African summit. We invited all of Africa, with the exception of certain countries that are either not in good standing with the AU or are of particular concern to the United States, such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Q Hi, I just want to ask this question specifically to the National Security Advisor. I heard you guys talk about peace and security, and then I also heard you guys talk about security within the African continent. Now, we have seen the development of al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and also the Tuareg rebels in Mali, and also the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria. And mostly, these are terrorist groups that are working with networks like al Qaeda, and they are expanding and causing conflict in areas like Kenya, and al-Shabaab. Now, I want to ask, specifically when President Obama meets with these African leaders, part of the agenda -- are you guys going to discuss new counterterrorism policies that would involve African countries networking and partnering with the United States?

Because already small countries like The Gambia have been -- I mean, in the international community, countries like Senegal have (inaudible) The Gambia when it comes to arms dealing with Iran and also -- and unrest in the sub-region. So would this be part of the agenda of this (inaudible) peace and security not just in Africa but also the security of -- the national security of the United States? I would like to ask your senior government officials about that.

MR. RHODES: Sure. I’ll say a couple of things and see if my colleagues want to add to that. First of all, we are very focused on the threat of terrorism in Africa. We see it as particularly acute in the areas that you mentioned -- North Africa, Somalia with al-Shabaab, and of course Boko Haram in Nigeria. Those aren’t the only areas, but those have been particular areas of focus.

When the President at West Point announced a new focus on building a network of counterterrorism partners, he was very specific to say that this would come from South Asia to the Sahel. And we have pursued a $5 billion Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, for instance, to support those efforts. And that includes, for instance, what the United States is doing to facilitate the French-led effort in Mali to push back against extremists who have sought to control portions of Mali. It certainly speaks to our cooperation with countries like Morocco and Algeria and other North African partners who share our counterterrorism challenge. And it very much speaks to the threat of al-Shabaab. And the President lifted that up as an example where we’ve had cooperation where the United States brings resources to bear to support AMISOM -- has aimed to push back against al-Shabaab within Somalia, and to support the development of a government there. And we’ve had some -- but at the same time, the United States also, frankly, does pursue its own counterterrorism operations as necessary to support that AMISOM-led effort and to push back against al-Shabaab.

That’s the type of example that we want to build on, where you have regional partners bringing these resources to bear, with the support of the United States that can provide intelligence, it can provide certain unique capabilities that we can bring to bear, and it can also provide a political context where we’re not just dealing with the threat, but we’re also seeking to develop democratic institutions and development that can serve as a counterweight to terrorism -- that that’s our long-term approach in a place like Somalia. And we certainly would want to work with countries like Kenya and Uganda to support counterterrorism efforts in the neighborhood.

So I think this context will be a part of the peace and security discussion, just as we’ll also be discussing the issues related to peacekeeping and some of the challenges that you see in places like the Central African Republic.

I’d just note -- because you mentioned Nigeria -- there are -- we have been looking at ways that we can increase our cooperation with Nigeria. We have a team on the ground there that is supporting their efforts against Boko Haram and seeking to find the girls that were kidnapped earlier this year.

But I don’t know if, Linda or Gayle, do you have anything you’d want to add to that?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I would just add that this was an issue that was brought to our attention by African leaders almost to a number that they are equally concerned about the rise in terrorism across the continent, that they see a nexus between activities in different regions, and that they want to build their capacity to respond, they want to be able to share information and cooperate with each other to address those issues. So we will spend quite a bit of time discussing those issues and looking at how we move together in the future to address terrorism.

MS. SMITH: I’d just add one small thing to this in terms of some of what we’ve heard from the leaders in consultation. Terrorism obviously a big concern to them, but also a host of other transnational threats. And many of these come down to the same vulnerabilities in terms of security, borders, information, so on and so forth.

So, in addition, the drug trade, trafficking, so on and so forth, are also on their minds. I think the only thing I would add in terms of how we might approach it is how do we think about this, again, systematically, strategically, and in a sustainable way, so we get back to that core issue of building their capacity and supporting their efforts to address these challenges on the ground.

Q Hi, this is Marilyn Geewax. I’m just wondering -- the big news, of course, this week has been about Ebola and Africa. And I just wondered if it will have any impact in any way that is -- maybe some Presidents won’t be able to come or flights have some troubles getting in. Is there any impact at all from this story about Ebola?

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: You want to take that, Gayle?

MS. SMITH: Let me take a first cut, Linda, and turn to you. Obviously, this has been a great concern. We have been engaged with and in the region in working on this issue since March, when the first cases appeared. Obviously, there has been a decline in a couple of countries so that there’s greater attention on it. We are closely engaged with the leaders and the governments of the three countries most affected. The Assistant Secretary may want to say more on that.

We’re doing several things. One is ramping up our efforts to support a regional effort to deal with this outbreak and support, again, three governments who are doing a lot of things to contend with a real threat. Mind you, these are countries that have emerged -- particularly Sierra Leone and Liberia -- from years of war. And so this is an uphill challenge for them. We’re also taking the necessary steps domestically to protect the American people. We have no plans to change the agenda of the summit, but we will obviously adapt as needed and in consultation with our partners, depending on their requirements.

And, Linda, let me turn to you if you’d like to add anything.

MS. SMITH: Yes. I would just add I’ve been in conversation with all three heads of state in the region over the past two days to, one, confirm to them that we want to support their efforts and to commend them for their leadership and offer our condolences for the deaths of their citizens, but at the same time, to find out from them what additional assistance we might provide. We’ve provided a range of support and assistance to respond to the outbreak, we’ve provided personal protective equipment, essential supplies, public health messaging efforts, and a great deal of technical expertise.

You may have heard CDC today describing some of the activities that we are providing. We did hear from both President Sirleaf and President Koroma that because of their involvement and engagement in the crisis in their countries, that they were reconsidering whether they should come to the summit. And while we would be terribly disappointed not to have them here, we also understand the importance of them being in their countries and showing leadership at this critical time.

Q Thank you very much. I just have two quick questions. Number one, I wanted to directly put the issue of why (inaudible) President Obama will not be holding any one-on-one meetings with any of the leaders that are coming. And then secondly, are we going to get a list of the numbers of the Presidents that will be coming to the meeting? Thank you

MR. RHODES: Sure, I can take that. On your first question, given the fact that we have nearly 50 leaders coming, frankly, we just wouldn’t be able to do bilats with everybody, and so the simplest thing is for the President to devote his time to engaging broadly with all the leaders. That way we’re not singling out individuals at the expense of the other leaders. So that way the President can commit his time to broad engagement.

I will say that the President will have a chance to interact individually with each leader. That’s part of the purpose of having the dinner where he’ll be able to personally receive each leader attending the dinner. And so he will certainly speak with and interact with every leader who is coming here to the summit. And I think that speaks to his commitment to engage Africa.

Keep in mind, too, that no U.S. President has ever done a summit like this with every African leader. I think that speaks to the deep respect he has for engaging Africa as an equal partner. Of course, he had the opportunity to meet bilaterally, for instance, with President Jonathan in the past. He will certainly be able to have bilateral meetings in the future with a range of important African leaders, including the President of Nigeria.

On your second question, we will certainly -- as we get the list finalized in terms of African attendees -- that is the type of thing that will be available. We can’t provide it now. As Linda noted, of course, for instance, there have been changes in two of the countries affected by the Ebola virus, but as we get the list finalized we will be able to make that available for people.

Q Thank you for doing the call. Let me try again as a variation of a previous question. Weren’t you disappointed, though, because a lot of leaders from North Africa decided to send lower representation to the summit? And how do you respond to many of them that they sort of insinuate that the focus, the U.S. focus is on the Sub-Saharan countries rather than North Africa?

MR. RHODES: Well, I’d say a couple things. First of all, we made a conscious choice to integrate North Africa into the summit and not simply view it as an opportunity to engage Sub-Saharan Africa. We wanted to engage the entire continent. That -- the African Union approach. And, of course, we’re including the African Union in the summit as well, which sends I think an important signal about the importance that we place on our relationship with the African Union as a key international and regional organization.

With respect to the North African countries, we, frankly, have an opportunity to engage on a bilateral basis very regularly with a number of those countries. So, for instance, if you look at a country like Egypt, there is no shortage of U.S. time and attention and resources that are devoted to the U.S.-Egyptian relationship. Secretary Kerry, of course, was just in Egypt for several days. So we’re confident that we are able to work very closely across the board on the range of issues we have, for instance, with Egypt. And if you look at Morocco, for instance, the President was able to welcome the King here just recently. So we’ve had that head of state engagement.

I would actually, frankly, note that we’re very pleased to have the opportunity to receive a Libyan delegation. In the context of the recent drawdown of our embassy operations, it’s important for us to find ways to be able to engage Libyan leaders and, in addition to our diplomats who are staying in the region in Malta, to continue to engage Libyan counterparts. The summit will be a good opportunity for us to continue our support for efforts to bring about an end to some of the violence that we’ve seen in recent days in Libya and to find out ways that the international community can invest in institutions that can be more durable for the Libyan people going forward.

So we’ll have that opportunity to engage those who attend from North Africa even as we have an agenda here that is very much focused on the continent and focused on our development initiatives and focused on our investments across all of Africa. So, again, we have an agenda that is not limited in focus to some of the issues that the United States works on a very regular basis with North Africa, but we do see North Africa as a key part of our broader approach to the continent.

Q On the issue of security, I was just wondering, since Africa, kind of a hotspot for more of a -- continent -- some parts of a continent is a hotspot for various persons who are trying to become a terrorist or breed terrorism, what countries on the continent are you looking to foster some kind of, what do you call it -- I just forgot the word -- what is it when you send the person back? That you’re asking to send the terrorist back? I just forgot -- I just lost -- but you know what I’m talking about. When a criminal is extradited -- I’m sorry, you’re trying to extradite the person.

MR. RHODES: I see. Well, thanks, April. It’s always good to hear your voice, and we appreciate your focus on these African issues and certainly your engagement with the President on the recent trip he made to Africa.

Look, we are concerned about efforts by terrorist groups to gain a foothold in Africa. I think what we’ve seen is, in addition to groups like al-Shabaab that gain a foothold in a place like Somalia, we see international terrorist networks sometimes seek to take advantage of ungoverned spaces so that they can get a safe haven. And so that’s what we saw in Mali where some extremist groups, including those affiliated with al Qaeda, took advantage of an ongoing conflict between the government and the Tuaregs to gain territory and hold it.

And what we’re doing is several things. On the specific question you ask about are we concerned about people traveling to Africa, out focus there has been, for instance, on dissuading those in, for instance, the Somali-American community from being recruited from overseas by al-Shabaab. And I have nothing but admiration for the extraordinary work that’s been done by the diaspora, including the Somali-American community, in rejecting some of the extremist propaganda that we see online and distributed in communities here. And so we work to forge community-based solutions with the diaspora to prevent the young people from being corrupted and recruited from abroad by a group like al-Shabaab.

So that’s one instance in which we are working not just to deal with the threat of terrorism in Africa, but to ensure that there’s not an effort to reach into the United States and our diaspora communities who are very much a part of the solution to these challenges.

On extradition, that has not been a -- I wouldn’t term that as a focal point beyond the Gitmo piece. So if that’s -- to take that as a specific jumping-off point, we have transferred some detainees to North African countries, for instance. Algeria, for instance, recently received some detainees who had been cleared for transfer. I believe there are other cases where -- like Sudan, where individuals that served their time and have been released.

When we transfer detainees from Gitmo to any country, we do a review to assure that our national security interests can be protected in the context of that transfer. We consult with the government that is going to be receiving those individuals. So that would certainly be the case in a situation like Algeria.

But that’s a very narrow part of our counterterrorism agenda. The bigger part of our agenda is to work with African countries to build their counterterrorism capabilities, to find where the United States may have unique capacity not just to conduct counterterrorism operations, but to facilitate international and regional counterterrorism activities. And so in France, with Mali, for instance, we can help facilitate French efforts with some of our intelligence and some of our logistical support. We’ve similarly worked closely with AMISOM and Somalia to strengthen their capabilities.

But then we’re looking at how do we get at the broader issue of countering violent extremism in Africa so that these groups, like Boko Haram, like al-Shabaab, like al-Qaeda, are not able to prey on young people with disinformation and intimidation; that we’re getting information out with African partners that puts forward a better vision of the future. And I think nothing puts that on greater display than the types of young leaders that we’ve been engaged with through our Young African Leaders Initiative, who frankly represent the much more (inaudible) future available to young people across Africa.

So it’s a multi-dimensional approach, but it’s one that’s focused on building African capacity and supporting it with unique American capabilities.

I think we’ve got time for one more question.

Q Hi there, thanks for briefing. I’ve got two questions. First one is on who is coming and who is not coming. What is the actual diplomatic process by which certain heads of state don’t get invited or don’t show? I’m thinking about Mugabe and al-Bashir. And if some are excluded, how come Uhuru Kenyatta -- the ICC and (inaudible) is coming? Second question -- internal African crises. Are you expecting or hoping to see any kind of political process on some of the worst issues facing the continent? I’m thinking South Sudan, CAR, Somalia, or Congo. Thanks.

MR. RHODES: So on your first question, we were guided by, in part, how the African Union approaches its relations with member states. But then again, we also have individual countries that we have unique challenges with, too. So just to take a few examples, the Central African Republic is currently suspended from the African Union, so that falls into the category of a country that we made a decision based on the determination of their current association with the African Union. If you look at Sudan, given not just the ICC case, which is of course of deep concern, but the pattern of behavior out of President Bashir and the way in which the United States has approached those issues, including -- well, including the ICC piece, we did not feel it appropriate to invite President Bashir.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: And then I would just add to that the lack of cooperation with the ICC.

MR. RHODES: Yes, absolutely. And then Zimbabwe -- President Mugabe, the specially designated national -- he’s subject to U.S. sanctions given what he has done to undermine democratic processes and institutions in Zimbabwe. And so given our grave concern and our sanctions, we did not see it appropriate to invite President Mugabe.

So these are individual leaders who are either not in good standing with the AU or are specifically designated for U.S. sanctions who would not be invited.

Now, President Kenyatta, of course we’ve expressed some concerns around the ICC. Kenya has a process by which they’re working to address those concerns, and we’ve been supportive of those efforts. And we also have obviously a very deep and significant relationship with Kenya on not just security issues but on issues associated with trade and development. And they have been a key regional partner, so they will be a part of these discussions.

But Gayle or Linda may want to address both those questions.

MS. THOMAS-GREENFIELD: I think you covered it all.

MS. SMITH: And just the one thing I would add on your second question -- yes, we think the summit will provide a number of opportunities to work on some of the cases of chronic conflict or some of the challenges on the continent. We’ll be able to speak to some of those as the week unfolds next week, but certainly on issues like South Sudan, we seize every opportunity; we’ve got to try to move the ball forward. We’ll be doing so next week as well.

MR. RHODES: Let me just mention, just because you asked specifically, the five countries not invited -- I mentioned CAR, Sudan, and Zimbabwe -- or the five leaders not invited. Eritrea was not invited. The U.N. continues to sanction Eritrea for its efforts to destabilize Somalia, but also Eritrea has not accepted diplomatic relations with the United States, rejecting our offer of an ambassador. Some people have also asked about Western Sahara; the United States and the U.N. do not recognize the Western Sahara as a country. So CAR, Eritrea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and then the unique case of Western Sahara -- those are the -- those leaders not attending.

Well, thanks, everybody, for getting on the call. I think we’ll wrap it up there. And we’ll be able to be in touch on these issues going forward.

MS. MEEHAN: Thanks, everyone, and just a reminder that this call was on the record. Thanks very much.

END
7:05 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

July 31, 2014

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 7/31/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:47 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. Apologize for keeping you waiting a little bit this afternoon. There is a presidential event scheduled for a little later this afternoon. The President is also running a little behind schedule. But if you do feel like you need to leave the briefing early in order to cover the President’s remarks, I will not take personal offense at your early departure.

With that, Jim, would you like to get us started today?

Q Yes, thanks. Thanks, Josh. I wanted to ask you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Has the U.S. determined who was responsible for the U.N. school strike?

MR. EARNEST: Jim, what I can tell you is that the U.N. Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, said yesterday that “All available evidence points to Israeli artillery as the cause.” He further said the coordinates of the school, like all U.N. facilities in Gaza, were repeatedly communicated to Israeli Defense Forces. The U.N. Rights and Works Agency Commissioner General said that UNWRA has gathered evidence, analyzed fragments and examined craters, and their initial assessment is that it was Israeli artillery that hit the school in which 3,300 people had sought refuge.

The Israeli government has acknowledged that Israeli forces were firing in that area in response to fire from Hamas in the immediate vicinity of the school. The Israelis have said it is possible that there was stray Israeli fire.

So while we underscore the importance of a full and prompt investigation of this tragic incident, as well as the shelling of other U.N. facilities and schools that have been hit, it does not appear there’s a lot of doubt about whose artillery was involved in this incident. That is why we have continued to urge Israeli military officials to live up to their high standards that they have set for the protection of innocent civilians. There is clearly more that can and should be done to ensure the safety of innocent civilians.

Q So you do not dispute the U.N. determination on this thing?

MR. EARNEST: At this point, we don’t have any evidence that would contradict what both U.N. officials and Israelis officials are saying about this incident.

Q On another point, does the President agree that the tunnels that Hamas has used to transport or hide armaments should be destroyed and be part of any cease-fire agreement?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think what we have said -- this goes to the broader discussion about demilitarizing Gaza, and there have been some discussions about the proper way to do that. It is our view that an immediate cease-fire is what’s most important; that as the violence continues in a very active way, it puts at risk innocent civilians on both sides of this conflict. And trying to put in place a cease-fire, working with the international community, would provide greater protection for those innocent civilians. And that’s what we believe should be the focus.

Now, once that cease-fire is in place, we certainly would play a role in facilitating conversations among the parties that would involve discussion about demilitarizing Gaza and ensuring that rockets cannot be launched from Gaza, aimed squarely at innocent civilians, and that these tunnels that have been used to carry out attacks against Israeli civilians and Israeli military on the Israeli side of the border are also dealt with as well.

Q So a cease-fire first, and then deal with demilitarizing.

MR. EARNEST: Correct.

Q And finally, there’s a Palestinian-American teenager -- I believe his name is Mohamed Abu Nie -- who’s been in Israeli custody for three weeks. And I wondered if the White House has raised this issue directly with Israel, Israeli officials.

Q Jim, I don’t have any conversations about that to read you in on at this point.

MR. EARNEST: Steve.

Q Josh, what is the status of efforts to get a cease-fire?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is something that Secretary Kerry has been actively engaged in. And --

Q Are there any thoughts right now about it?

MR. EARNEST: Well, there are a lot of discussions that are ongoing between U.S. officials and Israeli and Palestinians leaders. Obviously, the U.N. is closely involved in this. There are also regional players that have a role in bringing both sides to the table in trying to facilitate an agreement between the parties who are in conflict here. So there is an active effort that continues to be underway on this. And Secretary Kerry continues to be intimately involved in those conversations, even as he’s on the road, to deal with other important United States security measures.

Q But the Israelis are talking about a long campaign. Are you resigned to that, that it being a long campaign?

MR. EARNEST: We believe that it is in the clear interest of both sides in this conflict for there to be an immediate cease-fire reinstated along the lines of the November 2012 agreement that was reached and brought an end to some hostilities. That’s clearly in the interest of both sides, and that’s what we are urging both sides to do.

Q And just separately, lastly, Speaker Boehner says if the President takes further unilateral actions, he will be “sealing the deal” on his “lawlessness.” What’s your reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST: I didn’t have the opportunity to watch what apparently was a rather colorful news conference that was convened by the Speaker today. I will say that this President has repeatedly put forward specific proposals that deserve, and in some cases have already earned, bipartisan support to make progress on behalf of middle-class families all across the country. The best example of that is the proposal that this President put forward for comprehensive immigration reform. The President laid out principles in January of 2013 about what comprehensive immigration reform should look like, so we could maximize the economic benefits of that reform in the form of creating jobs and expanding economic opportunity, and addressing so many other problems that are caused by our broken immigration system.

Democrats and Republicans in the Senate side hammered out an agreement after a couple of months of negotiations, and eventually passed a piece of legislation with strong bipartisan support. Again, this is legislation that the CBO has found would reduce the deficit, create jobs, expand economic growth.

But for more than a year, Speaker Boehner and his colleagues in the House Republican conference have actively blocked that legislation from coming to the House floor for a vote. The reason they have blocked that legislation is because they know that if it were -- if a vote were convened on this measure, it would pass, and it would pass with bipartisan support in the same way that it passed with bipartisan support in the Senate.

So we have not been shy about expressing our frustration about that. We have also been pretty candid about the President’s determination, even in the face of this congressional obstruction, to make progress on behalf of the American people. And so that’s why you’ve seen the President use the executive authority that’s codified in the law for any President of the United States to try to push our policy and a policy that benefits middle-class families forward. And the Republican commitment to keep in place the wall that is preventing the comprehensive immigration reform bill from coming up for a vote is why the President is considering measures that he could take on his own to try to address some of these problems.

And I don’t have any announcements about what that action would look like, but it will be consistent with the proposal that was put forward by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate that is supported by business leaders and labor leaders, leaders in the faith community, and even law enforcement leaders across the country about the benefits it would have for communities across the country.

Now, the President can’t do as much as Congress could do in terms of addressing some of these problems. But we’re going to figure out what exactly the law will allow the President to do, and we’re going to do as much as possible within the confines of the law to address a problem whose solution Republicans in Congress continue to actively block.

Michelle.

Q So while we don’t have a cease-fire in the Middle East, and we’ve heard from a number of people in the administration now that Israel could do more, so how could they do more at this point, exactly?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we have steadfastly defended the right of the Israeli government and Israeli military leaders to take the actions that they feel are necessary to protect their people and to defend their country. The steps that they have taken have also been taken with the standards that they put in place to protect the lives of innocent civilians. That stands in pretty stark contrast to the approach that’s adopted by Hamas, that is actually using their military might to target innocent Israeli civilians.

What we have said is that Israel clearly -- based on published reports about the significant, tragic loss of life experienced by innocent Palestinian civilians -- is that the Israeli military can and should do more to protect the lives of those innocent civilians. So there is a difference in approach between what Hamas is perpetrating on the Israeli people and what Israel is doing to defend their country.

But the shelling of a U.N. facility that is housing innocent civilians who are fleeing violence is totally unacceptable and totally indefensible. And it is clear that we need our allies in Israel to do more to live up to the high standards that they have set for themselves.

Q Do you feel the method of attack is not as precise as maybe many believed going in? And the U.S. continuing to supply them with more ammunition, does that raise concerns in the administration right now? Do you agree that the weaponry is not precise?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the concerns that we have expressed are with the specific military decisions made by the Israeli military -- that they have put in place high standards that ensure that they are taking steps to protect innocent civilians who may be caught in the cross-fire. And the observation that I think many across the globe have made is that there are, despite those standards, that there are innocent Palestinian lives that are being lost.

The loss of those lives, the lives of innocent Palestinians, is tragic. The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the lives -- are with the families of those who have been lost in this terrible conflict. And what we are simply asking the Israelis to do and, in fact, urging the Israelis to do, is to do more to live up to the standards that they have set for their own military operations to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

Q And lastly, on Ebola, I know that there have been high-level talks to do something about possibly bringing Americans or workers that have been exposed out of there. Can you discuss that a little bit?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I can confirm for you, Michelle, that the State Department and the CDC are working to facilitate options for potential medevacs for U.S. patients, specifically American citizen humanitarian workers. There have been reports that humanitarian aid workers from the United States in West Africa have contracted the Ebola virus. I'm not in a position to talk about individual cases, but these kinds of medevacs would be consistent with -- well, let me point out one other thing. These kinds of medevacs that are performed by private entities, by private organizations, yet facilitated by the U.S. government and government agencies is consistent with what has been done in similar situations in the past.

In 2003, there were reports of American citizens overseas who had contracted SARS, and the U.S. government facilitated the private transportation of those patients back to the U.S. so that they could benefit from our modern medical infrastructure and have access to the kind of technology that could render lifesaving aid to them.

In 2007, there were Americans overseas who were at risk of contracting drug-resistant tuberculosis. Again, those individuals were transported through private means, but yet in a manner that was facilitated by the U.S. government to return to the U.S. where they could get treatment.

So there are conversations underway about doing something similar in this situation to ensure that these American humanitarian aid workers who are currently in Africa can be returned to the U.S. in a way that -- so that they can have access to modern medical facilities and technologies that would allow them to get access to potentially lifesaving aid.

Q Can we say that this is going happen? We just are looking at -- we don't know the timeline yet?

MR. EARNEST: I'm not in a position to confirm it. I'd refer you to the CDC on this.

There’s one other piece of this that is important for you to understand, and this goes to an assessment that was reached by the CDC. The CDC has concluded that there is no significant risk in the United States from the current Ebola outbreak. And while it is unlikely that the disease would spread if the virus were detected in the United States, the CDC is taking action to alert health care workers in the U.S. and remind them how to isolate and test suspected patients while following strict infection control procedures.

Jon.

Q Josh, a quick follow-up on Ebola. Is there any concern that this could affect anything regarding the upcoming Africa summit?

MR. EARNEST: At this point, there are no plans in place to alter the schedule in any way.

Q Okay. And a question, which I haven’t had a chance to ask -- it actually happened last week -- but General Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, made some comment out at the Aspen Forum about -- suggesting that we are less safe now than we were five years ago. The exact question he was asked, “Are we safer today than we were two, five, 10 years ago? What’s your assessment on that?” And his answer was, “[Yeah], my quick answer is [that] we’re not. My expanded answer is we understand that we’re not, and we are working to organize ourselves better.”

So what I’m wondering is, does the White House agree with that assessment that we are less safe now than we were two, five or 10 years ago?

MR. EARNEST: Jon, I didn't see his full comments, so I don't want to comment directly on them. But I will say that there are very important steps that this administration has taken. And thanks to the service of our men and women in the intelligence community and our men and woman in the military, that there have been very devastating blows that have been leveled against al Qaeda, particularly core al Qaeda.

What is beyond debate is that prior to 2001, core al Qaeda was operating in a virtual vacuum in the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and used that area that was essentially lawless as a base of operations to launch a horrific attack against the United States of America.

Since that time, members of the military, members of the intelligence community and others have worked to mitigate that threat, and, in fact, decimated the core al Qaeda leadership that previously was operating with impunity in that area.

However, what we continue to face are elements that are either sympathetic to al Qaeda, or associate themselves with the ideology of al Qaeda in other remote areas of the world that do pose a threat to the United States and our interests and our allies. And this administration has kept up a very aggressive pace of trying to counter that threat.

And we have done that in a variety of ways. We’ve done that by working with our partners around the globe, our allies around the globe to counter that threat. There are intelligence-sharing and national security agreements that we have with these other countries to mitigate that threat. And this President considers it to be his very top priority to ensure the safety and security of the American people here at home, but also all across the globe.

Q But what’s the bottom-line assessment? Do you agree that we are less safe now than we were five years ago? Or are you suggesting that that's not correct?

MR. EARNEST: What I’m suggesting is that I’m not in a position to respond directly to his comments.

Q But just to the question generally, are we less safe now, or are we more safe now than we were five years ago?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think what we are is we are in a position where we have made significant gains over the last decade or so against al Qaeda elements that previously operated with impunity in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and used that area to launch terrible attacks against the American people. There’s no doubt that we’ve made tremendous progress along those lines.

The threat from other affiliated organizations around the globe continues to exist. And this administration is working literally around the clock to mitigate those threats, to counter those threats, in some cases to bring those terrorists to justice. And the President’s record on that is incredibly strong.

Q Okay, just one last thing on the Congress leaving town. As you’ve pointed out and we’ve discussed, a five-week recess.

MR. EARNEST: Actually, somebody told me today that they're returning on September 8th. So it may even be longer than five weeks.

Q So should we go six weeks? And I’ve asked you this before, but now that the jet fumes can be smelled, will the President call on Congress to stay until they can get their work done to delay this recess, to deal with specifically the border crisis issue? There was a whole long list of things that they’re leaving without finishing up. So will the President say, hey, Congress should stick around until it gets its work done?

MR. EARNEST: Well, unfortunately, Jon, I think we have seen that Congress being in Washington, D.C. doesn’t actually guarantee they’re going to do any additional work. So I think their record speaks for itself in terms of this Congress’s record. Specifically, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has demonstrated an inability to do very much, particularly when it’s related to the priorities that are shared by middle-class families.

Again, it was pretty disappointing that in the very limited time remaining, that House Republicans were focused on passing legislation authorizing them to file a lawsuit against the President merely for doing his job. The fact is we would have been much more happy -- and I think the American people would have been happier -- to see Republicans focused on legislation that would raise the minimum wage or guarantee access to equal pay for equal work. It would make the cost of a college education more affordable, or even legislation that would solve so many of the problems caused by our broken immigration system. Unfortunately, Republicans were focused instead on political priorities rather than the priorities of the American people, and particularly American middle-class families.

Cheryl.

Q To sort of follow on that -- the House and Senate are still very far apart on the border supplemental, and they’re obviously leaving town. Can your agencies operate and handle this crisis with no money for the next five weeks?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Cheryl, there are already a number of steps that this administration has taken to add additional resources to the border and confront some of the challenges that we’re facing at the border right now. This administration has shifted resources from the interior to the border. We have surged some technology to allow immigration judges and other ICE prosecutors and asylum officials the opportunity to try to whittle down the bottleneck or the backlog of immigration cases that currently exists. We’ve prioritized the cases of recent border crossers to try to process those cases more efficiently.

So there are a number of things that this administration has done to try to deal with this problem. There have also been some diplomatic efforts underway to try to address this problem at the source. You’ll recall that the Vice President traveled down there. The Secretary of State traveled to Central America. The President met with Central American leaders here at the White House just a week or two ago to talk about some of these issues.

As I mentioned a week or two ago, we have actually seen some initially encouraging indications that the flow has receded somewhat; that in the month of June, that there were weeks that were averaging more than 300 individuals being apprehended at the border, children being apprehended at the border every day. That flow has been cut in half, or even more. So we certainly are encouraged by that initial assessment.

That said, because these numbers tend to fluctuate a lot, and there is some volatility in these numbers, we have continued to focus on this challenge. And we are doing everything we can to try to stem the flow at the source; to process efficiently the cases of those who are currently going through the immigration system; and do the other kinds of things that will ensure that our border remains secure, that the law continues to be enforced, while at the same time we’re ensuring that those individuals who are apprehended are treated in a humanitarian way and have access to the due process to which they’re entitled.

Q Do you still need that money, then?

MR. EARNEST: We certainly would welcome Congress taking action on a request that we forwarded to them almost four weeks ago now. And the fact that House Republicans have waited literally until the very last day of their session to even consider taking a vote on this is an indication that they’re not operating with the best interest of the American people in mind, that’s for sure.

Chris.

Q But given what you just said and the fact that so many actions the administration has taken you believe have already helped the situation, does the White House believe perhaps it doesn’t need as much money as was in that original request?

MR. EARNEST: The answer to that is, no. We continue to believe that those resources are necessary, simply because we have seen in the past that these numbers can be pretty volatile. So we’re encouraged that the flow, at least for now, appears to have receded. But we remain very focused and concerned on this situation, both because those numbers can be volatile, but also because those who have been apprehended have extended the backlog that already existed in our immigration court system.

So working through that backlog and ensuring that we can enforce the law efficiently while ensuring that we’re respecting the due process rights to which many of these individuals are entitled is a priority. And we have been saying for weeks now that we need additional resources to address a problem that Republican members of Congress are eager to acknowledge is a problem on cable television, but when they get back to work in their congressional offices they’re not really willing to take any action.

Q Can I ask you about the internal CIA report that suggests that indeed the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the conversations on the Hill that John Brennan had with Dianne Feinstein and Saxby Chambliss? Back in March, he said that when the facts come out a lot of people who are claiming there has been all this spying and monitoring and hacking will be proved wrong. Given what this report says, and the fact that he went to the Hill and has apologized, does the President believe that there is a credibility issue for John Brennan there?

MR. EARNEST: Not at all. The fact of the matter is, Director Brennan is the one who suggested that the inspector general investigate this situation in the first place.

In response to that report, the CIA Public Affairs Office put out a statement in which they said that Director Brennan was briefed on the IG’s findings, and noted that that finding included, “a judgment that some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding reached between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA.”

So Director Brennan is the one who suggested that this situation be investigated. He supported the IG launching that investigation. He now has been briefed on those results, has affirmed the conclusion that the employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding reached between the CIA and the committee. Director Brennan has taken the further step of appointing an accountability board to review this situation, review the conduct of these individuals who are involved, and if necessary ensure that they are properly held accountable for that conduct. He has appointed somebody who doesn’t work at the CIA, former Senator Evan Bayh, a member of the Senate Intel Committee, to lead that accountability board and to offer him some recommendations about steps that can be taken to ensure that these kind of misunderstandings don’t happen again.

So Director Brennan has taken all of the kinds of responsible steps to address this situation. The fact of the matter is Director Brennan is somebody who over the course of the last five and a half years has played an instrumental role in helping the President make the kinds of decisions that I mentioned to Jon earlier that have decimated the leadership of core al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he currently is operating in a very difficult environment to ensure the safety of the American public. He is somebody who had a very difficult job who does that job extraordinarily well.

Q So no concern about the fact that he stated so certainly in March that this hadn’t happened? Or any perception problems that may arise over the fact that obviously the President has a close relationship with him, that he was formerly, obviously, as you know, the NSC Deputy Director for Terrorism -- no action anticipated as a result of this disconnect?

MR. EARNEST: Absolutely not. As I mentioned, Director Brennan has done what is necessary to get to the bottom of what exactly happened. He has been candid about the inconsistencies that the IG found, and he has taken the additional step of appointing somebody who does not work at the CIA to conduct a review, an accountability review of what exactly happened and to determine what’s necessary to hold those individuals accountable.

That’s the kind of proactive leadership that the President would expect from somebody who has an important job like running the CIA. And it in no way impacts any judgment on John Brennan’s strong record of making the kinds of difficult decisions that are necessary to keep the American public safe.

Q Josh, and is it accurate that it’s an apology he’s making today to the leaders of the Intelligence Committee?

MR. EARNEST: In terms of communication between the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I’d refer you to the CIA.

Q And do you know if it’s right that Senator Feinstein is here today to have a conversation with the President about this?

MR. EARNEST: I believe -- we’ll have to check -- that she is among those who is participating in the discussion that the President has convened with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill about a range of foreign policy matters in the Cabinet Room. I know that some of you were actually in that room taking photographs of that meeting. I was not actually in that room.
So I believe Senator Feinstein was there.

Q (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST: Okay. Your colleague confirms that Senator Feinstein was in the room for that meeting. And so that was the reason that she’s at the White House today. I do not know whether or not she and the President will have the opportunity to discuss this specific issue.

Julie.

Q Can I follow up?

MR. EARNEST: I’ll come right back to you, Bill. Julie, go ahead.

Q Just going back to Ebola and the summit for a moment. You said that you didn't anticipate any scheduling changes. But I’m wondering --

MR. EARNEST: I do not.

Q -- there are already three leaders who have pulled out of coming to the summit because of the health crisis in their countries. And so I’m just wondering, is the White House anxious at all about the impact that this could have on the summit? And at what point does the President become concerned that it could hinder the progress that he’s hoping to make in these meetings next week?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we certainly understand the decision that was made by some of these African leaders to not participate. They obviously have some very pressing items and business to handle in their own countries.

We certainly would have preferred that circumstances would allow them to attend and participate in what we think will be a very important conference for building the future of the relationship between the United States and nations in Africa.

I understand that these nations, however, are planning to send delegations to participate in the conference and will allow them to get the benefit of being here and participating in this historic event.

But again, I don't anticipate at this point that any scheduling changes will be required. But if our assessment of that situation changes, we’ll definitely let you know.

Q And just quickly on the meeting that -- the foreign policy meeting with the Senate and House members -- or I guess not very many House members. But what --

MR. EARNEST: I think there were some more House members who were going to come, but they were delayed because of votes on the floor.

Q What was on the agenda? What was the point of the meeting? Did anything come out of -- what was the President’s message to them on some of the world crises that he’s facing and they’ve been asking him about in recent days?

MR. EARNEST: The goal of this meeting was to further the important and valuable consultative relationship that exists between the White House and Capitol Hill. We obviously have worked in close partnership with members of Congress, particularly those who -- a few relevant committees -- in pursuit of our foreign policy goals around the globe. So this was intended to be a wide-ranging discussion of a range of issues.

We’re putting together a more formal readout of that meeting, and then we’ll be able to issue it a little later this afternoon.

Q Josh, which leaders pulled out of the summit?

MR. EARNEST: Check with the State Department on that. I’m not sure. It’s some of the countries that we’re talking about who -- where these reported cases of Ebola have occurred.

Q And that’s why the leaders -- you said the leaders pulled out because of that?

MR. EARNEST: No, no, I think that they did decide not to travel to the United States because they were attending to this important public health priority in their own country.

Bill.

Q On the CIA IG report, is there a draft of talking points circulating here at the White House?

MR. EARNEST: I’ve seen those reports. I --

Q Received a draft?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I’ve seen the AP story about the draft talking points that are reportedly circulating around the White House. I think because they are still in their draft form I have not reviewed them. It’s also my understanding that this AP report is based on essentially an errant email that was inadvertently sent to a reporter. Those kinds of circumstances come up, frankly, on our side of the aisle and on your side of the aisle sometimes, too. So it was unfortunate. But I don't have any comment on any sort of draft of talking points that are reported, but I haven't seen them.

Q Well, now that it's out there, you could email it to all of us. (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: Well, soon enough you’ll have the benefit of hearing me deliver the final version of those talking points -- probably in the next week or so, I would assume.

Q Is it true, as the draft apparently indicates, that the Secretary of State was not told about these various procedures at the time?

MR. EARNEST: Bill, I'm just not in a position at this point to comment on the findings of a report that has not yet been declassified and has not yet been released by its authors on Capitol Hill.

Q Worth a try.

MR. EARNEST: It was.

Peter.

Q While that inadvertently emailed information was interesting and helpful to us at least, I'm wondering what happened to the tougher standards you all were going to put in place after the inadvertent sending out of the name of a CIA official in Afghanistan earlier this year.

MR. EARNEST: Well, we have put in place some difficult standards. I think those are pretty -- two different scenarios. The information that you're referring to in that previous incident was related to classified information that had been improperly or inadvertently communicated to the media. There are a number of steps that we have put in place, some corrective actions to ensure that kind of thing doesn’t happen again. There will be more thorough vetting of those who participated in meetings with the President. There will be more careful review of the list that was -- before it is publicized to the media. So that will be a way for us to put in place some safeguards for protecting classified information, while at the same time living up to the record of transparency that we pride ourselves in.

This situation is different. It did not relate specifically to classified information. It related specifically to the circulating of a draft document that I haven't yet seen and not in a position to talk about just yet.

Q Anybody yet taken to the woodshed for pressing the send button?

MR. EARNEST: I think a mistake like that is something that we have all made in one form or another. I think in this case it was somebody who had sent an inadvertent email, and it was a particularly sensitive piece of information that was circulating. So, an unfortunate error, but an honest one.

Wendell.

Q Josh, how much was the timing of today’s executive order a kind of in-your-face to John Boehner for yesterday’s vote on suing the President?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the executive order that the President will be signing a little later this afternoon is a really important one. It puts in place some additional protections for workers to ensure that they are paid fairly and they’re not discriminated against because of their age or gender. It also ensures that their workers are taking the necessary -- their employees are taking the next steps, the steps required to ensure that they are operating in a safe work environment. And it will do this by holding federal contractors to a high standard for meeting basic labor law provisions.

Q I'm not talking about what it does. I'm talking about the timing.

MR. EARNEST: Right. Well, what I'm saying is that we wanted to do this as soon as possible because it puts in place important protections for workers. It also puts in place important protections for taxpayers. This administration and this President promised to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars. And we have found that there’s actually correlation between federal contractors that don't do a good job of protecting basic worker rights, not living up to the performance standards of the contract that they’ve signed.

So this is an executive order that will put in place important protections for workers. It will ensure that we are good stewards of taxpayer dollars when conducting the business of the American people. We also are ensuring that we're not providing an incentive for employees -- or for federal contractors to cut corners. Again, the vast majority of federal contractors actually do a good job of living up to these fair labor standards, and we want to make sure that those unscrupulous actors don't get a benefit for not looking out for their workers in the way they should.

Q Okay. And on what it does -- you already said earlier today that you could help more people if Congress got involved and passed legislation. Have you thought that you might be able to help more people than just people who work for federal contractors if you perhaps lowered your standards and compromised with Congress on broader legislation?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think, Wendell, time and time again this administration has sought bipartisan compromise and in many cases even struck a bipartisan compromise with Republicans only to see it be thoroughly rejected by House Republicans. The best example of this is the common-sense immigration reform proposal that the Senate put forward. The President laid out his principles on January 29, 2013. He did that in a speech in Las Vegas that I believe many of you attended.

Several months later, over the course of several months, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate sat down and hammered out an agreement. We acknowledged at the time that that agreement was struck that it was a compromise proposal. It didn’t include every single thing that the President wanted, but it did broadly reflect the principles that the President had laid out. And that is why we got 68 senators, including 14 or so Republicans, to vote for that piece of legislation.

We are confident that Democrats and Republicans would vote for that legislation if they were given the opportunity to do so in the House of Representatives. That is exhibit A of the President’s willingness to compromise with Republicans, to find common ground, not get everything that he wants but to get everything that would be good for the American public. But yet again, the only reason it’s not moving forward is because House Republicans are refusing to allow it to move forward.

Wendell, we’ve said a couple of times that it would be okay if House Republicans decided that they had some sort of principled objection to this compromise and wanted to vote no. What’s not okay is for the House Republican leadership to continue to obstruct a piece of legislation that we know would pass the House of Representatives from even coming up for a vote.

JC.

Q Josh, what immediate actions can President Putin take to get the U.S. and the EU to roll back their latest sanctions?

MR. EARNEST: Well, there are a number of steps that we’ve been calling on President Putin to take for quite a few months now. The first step is he could use his influence with the Russian-backed separatists. After all, as Mr. Blinken, the President’s Deputy National Security Advisor, mentioned here earlier this week, many of the leaders of that separatist movement are actually Russian citizens. So presumably, their President would have some influence over them. Getting them to agree to lay down their arms and agree to a cease-fire with the Ukrainian government would be an important first step and something important for President Putin to do.

The second thing that President Putin could do would be to prevent the transfer of heavy weapons from the Russian border -- from the Russian side across the border with Ukraine and put them into the hands of Russian separatists. We’ve seen the Russian military, at the direction of President Putin, conduct training exercises to ensure that those Russian-backed separatists know how to use that heavy equipment to maximum effect. There have been some tragic consequences for those decisions. And those are just three examples of the kinds of things we would like to see President Putin do.

Until he does them, he will face deepening isolation from the international community and the possibility that the international community would impose further economic costs on Russia for his failure to live up to basic international norms.

Q Has the President made these points specifically clear to President Putin, perhaps on the phone or through any diplomatic liaison?

MR. EARNEST: On multiple occasions at multiple levels, including at the presidential level, our insistence that President Putin and Russia live up to basic international norms has been made crystal clear.

Jessica.

Q I’ve got a few. I just saw that Treasury added a few more people to the list of those being sanctioned in regard to Ukraine. Do you have any comment on that? It includes a Russian Railways individual.

MR. EARNEST: I’m not familiar with that latest round of announcements, but I’d refer you to my colleagues at Treasury who may be able to give you some more information.

Q On Israel -- to follow up on Michelle’s question, specifically with regard to the ammunition that Israel has asked for and the U.S. has said it would give the Israelis, is there any acknowledgement at the White House that sending the Israelis more ammunition might prolong the conflict? And was there any consideration not to send it?

MR. EARNEST: No. This is -- the request that was made by the Israelis to the Department of Defense was part of a routine foreign military sales delivery. The requested items were readily available and were provided as they have been on numerous other occasions. For details about that specific transaction, I’d refer you to the Department of Defense.

Q And lastly, can you just give voice to your reaction at the White House to the Boehner lawsuit broadly and what it portends for a defense on behalf of the President?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Jessica, I think the response here at the White House is some disappointment that rather than focusing on raising the minimum wage, guaranteeing equal pay for equal work, lowering the costs of a college education or even fixing our broken immigration system, the Republicans instead are focused on a frivolous taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the President of the United States.

The fact is that Republicans in the House have repeatedly rejected any attempt to try to get them to do their job, that there are some common-sense pieces of legislation that they could pass -- that would pass -- if they would allow them to come up for a vote.

And that inaction has tarnished the standing of the House Republican leadership in the eyes of the American people, and it certainly has prevented the nation’s elected representatives in Washington from living up to their commitment to try to make progress for the American people.

And what the President has said is he is going to move forward, unbowed in the face of that obstruction, to try to make progress where he can within the confines of the law on behalf of middle-class families all across the country.

April.

Q As you say, you’re disappointed. What does this White House view the basis for these lawsuits are, for why the lawsuit?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we haven’t -- despite the legislative time and attention that's been devoted to this taxpayer-funded political stunt, it is actually not yet clear what the legal basis -- what their legal basis is for filing the lawsuit. I know that they're -- I’ve seen reports that they are planning to file a lawsuit related to some provisions of the Affordable Care Act, but their opposition to the Affordable Care Act is not new.

So we’ll take a look at their legal reasoning, assuming there is one, and determine what’s necessary to defend -- or represent the views of the administration in a court of law.

Q But they explained their legal reasoning. I’m asking --

MR. EARNEST: No, I don't think we’ve seen their -- they haven’t put forward a proposal yet in terms of their lawsuit.

Q They say you acted beyond your bounds, you’ve acted illegally in these executive orders. But I’m asking you, what do you think the real reason is for this?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think we’ve described it as a taxpayer-funded political stunt before, and I think that is an appropriate label in this circumstance as well.

Q And also, there are concerns from some of the leaders, the black leaders in this country and those who advocate for Africa, many of the countries on the continent of Africa -- there are concerns that this summit will be overshadowed once again as Presidents have tried to focus in on Africa before, and there have been other issues, other major issues, but it’s been overshadowed. What do you say to these leaders as this President is convening the largest contingent of African leaders to come to talk about issues of investment, and it’s supposedly to be win-win situation for both sides? What do you say to that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, April, I do think this demonstrates the President’s historic commitment to advancing American interests on the African continent; that there is ample opportunity for Africa nations and the United States of America to find areas of common ground where we can -- where both sides can make some progress. And so having a robust discussion about what citizens in Africa can do to promote greater respect for human rights in their country is a worthy endeavor.

We’re going to facilitate some conversations between private sector leaders in Africa and private sector leaders in this country to opportunities to cooperate economically in ways that benefit the economies and businesses on both sides.

There is an opportunity for us to build some deeper cultural and personal bonds between the African people and the American people. So there are a variety of opportunities, and we’re going to devote some significant time -- two or three days -- to this effort. And it builds upon the historic trip that the President made last year to Africa. I know that you traveled on that trip, and I think were probably struck in the same way that the President was about the importance and the opportunity that exists for American involvement and for the opportunity to strengthen that relationship between the U.S. and those nations in Africa.

Q Let me try to attack this one last time. As you are dealing with very serious issues in the Middle East, dealing with very serious issues with Russia and Ukraine, is there a place for serious issues to be on the forefront in the next couple of days when it comes to Africa? Will they get as much attention? That's what people want to know.

MR. EARNEST: Well, it’s certainly going to get the President’s attention, and the President will be devoting significant time and attention to this very important series of meetings. In terms of the media attention that it leaves, I think we’re in your hands.

Goyal, I’ll give you the last one.

Q Thank you, sir. Two questions. One, Secretaries of State and Commerce are in India, and they just released a joint statement. And, one, if these Secretaries are carrying special messages from the President? And what is the future of the U.S.-India relation under the new government in India?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Goyal, I know that when Secretary Kerry and Secretary Pritzker are traveling in India and meeting with their counterparts in India, they do so with the expression of full support from the President of the United States. The President certainly recognizes the importance of a strong relationship between the United States and India. That relationship is multifaceted. There’s an important national security relationship that exists there.

There are obviously very important economic ties between our two countries. There exists the potential for us to build on some of those economic ties. And I know that was the subject of some discussion during the talks earlier this week. I know the President is looking forward to being briefed by officials at the State Department and at the Commerce Department about the results of those conversations.

Q And, second, as far as the new sanctions against Russia are concerned, how these countries will affect, like, India doing business with Russia?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the sanctions regime that has been put in place against Russia is one that has been carefully coordinated across the global community. So there was a sanctions regime that was put in place by the United States that was followed by sanctions from our European partners. I know that many of our G7 partners have also put in place some pretty tough economic sanctions against Russia, and that will limit Russia’s access to the international financial community and it will deepen their isolation. And that is specifically a result of steps that President Putin has taken to destabilize the area in Ukraine.

He has failed to accept and acknowledge and abide by generally accepted international norms. There have been consequences for that. And we hope that by putting in place these economic costs, it will cause him to reevaluate his strategy in Ukraine.

Q Are you telling countries like India not to do business or act -- or support the United States?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we’ve been pretty clear about what our sanctions regime entails. And if you have questions about that, I’d encourage you to check with the Treasury Department.

Thanks a lot, everybody.

END
1:30 P.M. EDT

Statement by Deputy NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on the 70th Anniversary of the Massacre of Roma and Sinti People at Auschwitz-Birkenau

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 1528, S. 517

Readout of the President’s Call with President Putin of Russia

On-the-Record Conference Call on the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit

Remarks by the President at Special Olympics Dinner Celebration

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Humanitarian Ceasefire Announcement in Gaza

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 7/31/2014

Readout of Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Benjamin Rhodes’ Meeting with Iraqi Chaldean and Assyrian Community Leaders

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate