Weekly Address: Calling on Congress to Raise the Minimum Wage

WASHINGTON, DC— This week, President Obama took action to lift more workers’ wages by requiring that federal contractors pay their employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour. In this week’s address, he highlights that executive action and calls on Congress to pass a bill to raise the federal minimum wage for all workers.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, Saturday, February 15, 2014.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
February 15, 2014

Hi, everybody. In this year of action, I said I’d do everything in my power to expand opportunity for more Americans.  And this week, I took action to lift more workers’ wages by requiring federal contractors to pay their employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour.  These are workers who serve our troops’ meals, wash their dishes, care for our veterans – Americans who work hard and will get a raise as these contracts come up.  This will be good for contractors, for taxpayers, and for America’s bottom line.

We know why this is important.  Our economy has been growing for four years.  Our businesses have created eight and a half million new jobs.  But while those at the top are doing better than ever, average wages have barely budged.  Too many Americans are working harder than ever just to get by, let alone get ahead.  And that’s been true since long before the recession hit. 

That’s why we’ve got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just a fortunate few.  We’ve got to restore opportunity for all – the notion that no matter who you are or how you started out, with hard work and responsibility, you can get ahead in America. 

The opportunity agenda I’ve laid out is built on more new jobs that pay good wages; better training for folks to fill those jobs; a smarter education for our kids; and making sure honest work is rewarded.  And the action I took this week will reward hard work for more Americans. 

But to finish the job, Congress needs to act.  In the year since I first asked Congress to raise the minimum wage, six states have passed laws to raise theirs.  More states, cities, counties, and companies are taking steps to join them.  An overwhelming majority of Americans support raising a minimum wage that’s worth about 20% less than when Ronald Reagan took office.

Right now, there’s a bill in Congress that would boost America’s minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.  That’s easy to remember: ten-ten.  And remember, the average worker who would get a raise if Congress acts is about 35 years old.  Most lower-wage jobs are held by women.  And raising the minimum wage wouldn’t just raise their wages – its effect would lift wages for about 28 million Americans.  It would lift millions of Americans out of poverty, and help millions more work their way out of poverty – without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending.  It will give more businesses more customers with more money to spend – and that means growing the economy for everyone. 

You deserve to know where the people who represent you stand on this.  If they don’t support raising the federal minimum wage to ten-ten an hour, ask them “why not?”  The opponents of raising folks’ wages have deployed the same old arguments for years, and time and again, they’ve been proven wrong.  Let’s prove them wrong again, and give America a raise.  Let’s make opportunity easier to come by for every American who’s willing to work for it. 

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/14/14

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

11:00 A.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Hello, everyone.  Good afternoon -- or good morning, and happy Valentine’s Day.  Actually, I have no announcements to make so I’ll go straight to your questions.

Julie Pace.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  I wanted to ask a couple questions about what’s happening in the Syria talks in Geneva.  I get that the U.S. thinks that this is going to be a difficult process, but what should we read into the prospect for anything coming from this when the Russians don’t seem to agree with the U.S. on the actual purpose being there?  They say that this is not just for finding a transitional government in Syria. 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, everyone who signed onto the idea of the Geneva Communique understands and understood what the purpose was and is.  And there is no question that the talks thus far have not produced significant breakthroughs, but it is important that everyone recognize that the only resolution to this conflict comes through a negotiated political settlement. 

We are going to continue to pressure not just the Assad regime but also countries like Russia and Iran to recognize that it is in nobody’s interest to see the continuing bloodshed and collapse that’s taking place inside Syria.  Now, the President said last week that this is a difficult process and we are far from achieving the goal we envision here.  But we have to keep at it.  There is no other way to resolve this ongoing crisis that doesn’t involve the two sides sitting across from each other at a table.

Q    But is this process actually backtracking, moving backwards, if you say that everyone came to the table agreeing that this was about finding some kind of transitional body to run Syria and now you have the Russians saying that that’s not the point of the talks?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I would say that we recognize that significant progress is not being achieved but it is important that the talks themselves have taken place.  And we are going to continue to press all sides, all parties to this to recognize that there is no other way out of this conflict.  We continue to believe that the main problem is the regime’s unwillingness so far to engage constructively on the implementation of the Geneva Communique, which, as I said earlier, is the foundation of the talks. 

The opposition, by contrast, has shown a seriousness of purpose.  They continue to outline their vision for the future of Syria, and we commend them for that.  They have shown that they are willing to engage constructively for the sake of the Syrian people, and we haven’t seen that kind of engagement from the regime so far. 

Again, we recognize the situation in Syria continues to be terrible for the people of Syria.  Our efforts, including our humanitarian efforts, our efforts at the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution that would make it easier to deliver humanitarian aid, our efforts on behalf of the opposition are all aimed towards bringing about a transition in Syria that will lead to a better future for the country.  There is no other way to get from here to there.

Q    And then just quickly, I think in the President’s remarks just now, he didn’t bring up fast track for the trade agreements in his remarks to Democrats.  Is that something he still believes is realistic this year or whenever these deals are ready to take that plunge?

MR. CARNEY:  The President’s position has not changed.  It has long been the case -- Major and I know, Ann and I know -- I’m going to call out a few veterans -- that this has been an issue that has never been easy for either party, in fact.  There are divisions on these issues in both parties.  But we’re going to press forward, and we’ve laid out why we think it’s important for the American economy and American workers to expand trade in the way that the TPP would do with our Asia partners.  We have to remember that this is the fastest-growing part of the world, and we, the United States, need to be there and taking advantage of that growth on behalf of the American economy, on behalf of American workers.  But these are obviously always issues that require a lot of discussion and consideration.

Q    Going back to Syria for a second, Secretary Kerry apparently told reporters in Beijing that the President has asked for other options on Syria.  What did he mean by that?  What other options could there be?

MR. CARNEY:  Secretary Kerry was reiterating what has always been the case, which is that the President is always looking at options on policy matters like Syria -- that include Syria.  But as a general principle, the President is always asking his team to evaluate where we are and where we could be.  This is not a one-time thing.  It’s not like this is a new review.  We’re constantly -- he is constantly tasking his national security team with the job of evaluating where we are, evaluating what options might be available to him going forward.

He acknowledges, as I just said to Julie, that the situation in Syria is terrible for the people of Syria.  It’s destabilizing for the region.  We are aggressive in our pursuit of providing humanitarian aid to the Syrian people and in supporting the opposition and in pressing for progress through the Geneva process.  But he is always looking at other options -- or always asking for all the options that might be available to him.  But I wouldn’t see this as some new announcement or new consideration.  

Q    It’s not a reflection of the frustrations and difficulties in talks --

MR. CARNEY:   Well, there is certainly frustration.  But I would say, regardless of where we were in the process the President as a starting principle on these issues, always tasks his teams both on foreign policy and domestic to not be complacent about the path forward -- “We’re on this track; is that the track we have to stay on” -- always, he says, consider other options if other better options become available. 

But, again, I want to make it clear this is not a new perspective that the President is bringing to this.  It’s the perspective he has had all along.

Q    On Afghanistan, President Karzai has said the release of the controversial detainees is of no concern to the U.S.  What’s your response to that? 

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we are disappointed.  And I think the U.S. military has made clear that we are disappointed that the Afghan government released detainees that we believe pose a continuing threat to coalition forces and to Afghans.  We urge the Afghan government to make every effort that those released do not commit new acts of violence and terror and to immediately bring to justice any who do so.  And we strongly urge the Afghan government to come to an appropriate resolution for the remaining disputed cases, including more serious consideration by Afghan prosecutors.

Q    I just wanted to ask -- the President praised the Democrats for unity in the face of debt limit talks just now in Cambridge, Maryland.  One issue that the President has advanced that’s caused some heartburn among his allies is this changes to cost of living for Social Security, the so-called chained CPI. In the interest of harmony, is he going to relinquish that request going forward this year?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to get ahead of what we’ve already announced will be the presentation of the President’s budget.  So I know that’s a way of asking what’s going to be in the budget.  What I can tell you is the President has demonstrated in the past and will continue to demonstrate his commitment to achieving additional deficit reduction that addresses our medium- and long-term challenges through a balanced approach.

The budgets he has put forward in the past, the offers he has made in the past reflect that willingness, a willingness to compromise, to give as well as receive, that we haven’t seen demonstrated thus far by Republicans, and I think most people in this room have reported as much.  So that’s a way of describing the point of view that the President brings to these issues.

Q    Getting back to Afghanistan, I know this administration is weighing what force level to contribute to Afghanistan, pending a signature to this bilateral security agreement.  But doesn’t this give you some pause when it comes to committing troops long term or even short term to Afghanistan when dangerous prisoners are being released?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we definitely expressed -- as I just did today, and others have, including military leaders -- our disappointment with the release of detainees that we believe pose a threat to U.S. forces, coalition forces and Afghan forces, as well as Afghan civilians. 

On the matter of the bilateral security agreement, we continue to seek a conclusion to that process promptly.  And then, on the question of troop presence beyond 2014, it is obviously contingent upon -- any presence is contingent upon the signing of the BSA.  And we are still not at a point where a decision has been made or can be made about what a post-2014 troop presence would look like, except to say that it would be much smaller and narrowly focused on two missions, counterterrorism and training in support of Afghan forces.

So those views remain the same.  There’s no question that we are disappointed, as we’ve been clear about.

Q    And getting back to the enrollment numbers yesterday, there have been some reports that a significant number of consumers, enrollees, have not been making their premium payments to activate their coverage.  Might that affect the actual number of enrollees?  When the administration says 3.3 million people so far, if there’s a sizeable portion of those folks who haven’t paid their premiums, might that number actually be lower?

MR. CARNEY:  As I’ve said in this room in the past, including this week, the contract between an individual and an insurance company is a private contract.  That is something that is determined by the insurance company and the enrollee.  Right now, insurance companies, for that reason, have the most up-to-date, comprehensive, and reliable information on the number of people who have paid their premiums.  And I think if you saw in one newspaper several major insurance companies have indicated that a high percentage of people have, in fact, paid for their plans. 

And there are thousands -- going back again and looking at this more broadly -- there are thousands of insurance plans being sold across the country and eventually all of these plans will report to CMS the total number of enrollees who have paid for their premiums.  Right now, the insurers have, the issuers have the most up-to-date, comprehensive information.  When it comes to payments, the roll that CMS plays is the issuance of the payment of tax credits and subsidies for those who qualify for them, so that subsidize the policies that enrollees have signed up for when they qualify for a subsidy. 

And there’s an automated payment system that will be coming online fully in the next several months, which will include in the flow of information more specific, timely data relating to the payment of premiums by enrollees provided by the insurance company, which is just a way of saying we will -- CMS will have concrete and timely data on those who have paid. 

Right now, that information is most reliably provided by issuers who have -- I think citing this -- I think it was a New York Times article reported that a very high percentage have been meeting their premium deadlines.

Q    Of those 3.3 million people that the administration said have enrolled in plans, do you know if all 3.3 million have made their payments?  You don’t know?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, the issuers are the ones who have the most specific information about who has met their payments, and, again, citing a recent report, that figure is 80 percent or above for the major issuers that are cited in that newspaper article.  We are working on an automated payment processing system that will be set up as part of the CMS system and which, when it is online and functional, will result in having -- even though it’s set up so that there’s an automated system for the payment of the subsidies to the issuers -- it will also in the return information provide more data to CMS about who more specifically has met their premiums, what percentage of enrollees have met their premiums.

Overall, I know there is a constant search for less than good news in the healthcare.gov arena, but if you look at the data reported, it is overwhelmingly positive, and the predictions of failure and doom and gloom that we saw -- understandably, perhaps, given how rocky the start was in October and November -- have all come to naught.  In fact, there has been a significant increase in enrollees.  The website is working effectively for the vast majority of people who use it to peruse their options and then select a plan. The breakdown demographically that we’ve seen of enrollees continues to meet expectations, and we saw a surge in youth -- our young American, young adult enrollees in January. 

And we expect that, come March 31st, we will have a significant number of Americans who have purchased plans, enrolled in plans, signed up for plans through the marketplaces, through the exchanges, and that the demographic breakdown will be well within what we had hoped to see in order for the marketplaces to function effectively.

Ann.

Q    Thank you.  Looking forward to California on a couple of issues -- what is the Climate Resilience Fund that the President is going to be proposing?  Will he be mentioning that today?  And is the billion dollars for it something that he could do through administrative executive action, or would that be a request of Congress?

MR. CARNEY:  He will, as I think information provided to you this morning made clear, announce today that his budget will include a new $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund.  And this is part of a broader approach to dealing with the challenge represented by climate change that the President put forward in his Climate Action Plan.  The President’s visit to Fresno will demonstrate his concern about the communities across California that are struggling with the impacts of one of the state’s worst droughts in over a hundred years.  And the President is committed to ensuring that his administration is doing everything it can to help farmers, ranchers, small businesses and communities that are being affected. 

The President will today announce significant new efforts the administration is taking to provide support and relief to those feeling the pain of the drought.  We put out a full list of these new commitments, but among them are speeding up the delivery of up to $100 million in livestock disaster assistance for California producers from the farm bill.  While these livestock programs took over a year to get assistance out the door under the last farm bill, at the President’s direction, USDA has committed to cut that time by more than 80 percent, and begin signup in April.

Also, $15 million in targeted conservation assistance for the most extreme and exceptional drought areas, and $60 million made available to food banks in the state of California to help families that may be economically affected by the drought. 

Q    He’s into his sixth year as President.  Does he think anything that the administration has been able to accomplish in the first five years has even mitigated the effects of either the California drought or the other climate impact?

MR. CARNEY:  We put in place historic fuel efficiency standards that outside analysts will attest will have a greater positive impact on carbon emissions than almost any other policy that one could imagine.  But the President is not done in addressing this challenge and that was reflected in his Climate Action Plan that he laid out last year and in the steps that we’re going to continue to take.

The Climate Resilience Fund is a piece of that.  And I think it’s important to note that -- because there’s always discussion about severe weather and its relationship to global climate change -- and let’s make clear, no single episode of weather, no storm, no flood, no drought can be said to have been caused by climate change, global climate change, but the science is clear that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change. 

Yes, we’ve always had heat waves, but now the worst ones are longer and they’re hotter.  And we’ve always had droughts, but the worst ones are getting longer and dryer.  We’ve always had severe storms, but instead of hundred-year storms that happen once in a hundred years, we’re having hundred-year storms that happen every other year or every five years.  And the severity of the storms, I think we all note from having experienced them or seen the reporting on them, has been significant.  Sandy is a perfect example.  So it’s a reminder of the steps that we need to take and that this President is committed to taking.

Q    Real quickly on the dinner tonight, is there a reason why he’s meeting with King Abdullah in California since the King has been here this week?

MR. CARNEY:  I was asked this the other day, Ann, as you probably know, and the President looks forward very much to holding a working dinner with King Abdullah of Jordan at the Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands.  Jordan is an invaluable ally and a close friend of the United States, and Sunnylands offers a private location and less formal setting that will allow the President to have a wide-ranging discussion with the King.  This meeting is a demonstration of the strength of our partnership with Jordan and our friendship with King Abdullah and the people of Jordan. 

The President looks forward to discussing with King Abdullah opportunities to promote peace, prosperity and reform.  He will also discuss opportunities to discuss -- to strengthen, rather, the U.S.-Jordan strategic partnership and how to advance our political, economic and security cooperation.  The two leaders will also continue consultations on regional developments, including Middle East peace and, of course, Syria.

Q    But we don’t expect a specific new initiative or announcement out of their talks tonight?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t want to get ahead of the President.  I can tell you that the President looks forward to hearing how the King has advanced Jordan’s economic and political stability since their last meeting, and how the U.S. can further support the King’s vision for Jordan’s future. 

The two leaders will also discuss the United States’ commitment to assisting Jordan meet its economic challenges this year.  Among them, on Syria, we are committed to working with Jordan to support the more than 600,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan and Jordanian host communities, and we are working together at the U.N., where Jordan is on the Security Council, to press for greater humanitarian access inside Syria.  The U.S. and Jordan both strongly support the Geneva II process and efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict. 

Of course, Jordan is a key stakeholder in the Middle East peace process so you can expect a discussion on those issues and you can expect the President to convey again his deep appreciation for the King’s support for the negotiations. 

So there will be a variety of issues discussed, and I don’t have any announcements to preview.

Major.

Q    Is it time for this administration to reevaluate the utility of the Geneva process itself, that it may not actually be what it thought it was going inthat everyone is agreed on a central set of goals and timetables -- that the Syrians are just playing  for time, continuing their humanitarian assault on the civilians, calling everyone in any disputed territory a terrorist -- even an unarmed civilian, who is now starving -- that they’re just playing for time and stringing this out, and the process itself, though we’re invested in it, isn’t a legitimate process?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’ve certainly identified that this is a very difficult situation and that the Geneva process has not provided a solution to the conflict.  What has not been identified in your question or in other assessments of where we are in the process is a better alternative to finding a resolution to the conflict that allows for a transition for Syria.  And because of that, we are committed to this process. 

We recognize that there is no other way to find a political solution -- or rather there is no other resolution to the conflict that does not include a political settlement, and that’s why the Geneva process is important.  As I just said in answer I think to Julie’s question or Mark’s, we are going to continue to pressure not just the Assad regime but also to get countries like Russia and Iran to recognize that it is in nobody’s interest to see the continuing bloodshed and collapse that’s taking place in Syria.

But, absolutely, Major, this continues to be a very difficult issue and the President is committed through our support -- our leading role in providing humanitarian aid and our significant support for the opposition, as well as our leading role in helping bring about a political resolution, to try to make progress on this very difficult problem.

Q    And when we ask about options, I understand the President always is asking for options -- that’s an ongoing process for any President.  But I’m wondering if these things are sort of coming together that what the President -- or has the President asked for a better alternative?  As you just said, there isn’t a better alternative than Geneva currently.  Has he asked his staff, has he asked the people who are devoting a tremendous amount of attention to this to try to find a better alternative?  Have we reached that stage?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, as I said earlier, we’re always at the stage where the President is asking for his teams to consider where we are and what the options are for getting where we need to be -- in Syria and in other issues around the world, and in domestic policy.  So I was just trying to put into context the question about Secretary Kerry’s remarks, which were wholly accurate, but that is a reflection of where the President always is and has been on Syria.  The President doesn’t take options off the table.  We’ve been very clear about not engaging militarily directly in a civil war in Syria, putting boots on the ground.  Others may disagree with that position, but the President has been clear about it.  But as a general principle, with Syria and other issues like this, he retains all options.

Q    Let me just take three things that have happened since the State of the Union.  One, at the State of the Union, the President says, pass fast track.  The very next day, Harry Reid says, I’m not interested in it, I’m burying it.  This week, the House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says, I’m not in favor of the Camp-Baucus bill, the only existing legislative vehicle for fast track.  And the President doesn’t bring it up at his caucus meeting with the House Democrats.  Taken together, can’t we all fairly conclude that this is now on the backburner and whatever push the President hoped to initiate at the State of the Union is, for the moment, completely derailed?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, as I said at the time, the idea that there is some opposition within the Democratic Party historically and traditionally to fast track is not a new discovery.  It wasn’t new last week, it wasn’t new in 1993, and it certainly hasn’t been new any time in the interim --

Q    But as you know, in 1993, President Clinton, when confronting that, amped it up, increased the pressure, demonstrated over time intensity on the issue.  And I’m just saying is the President backing off now?

MR. CARNEY:  Major, what I can tell you is the President made clear in his State of the Union address that he has an agenda driven by the need to expand opportunity and assist the middle class and to reward hard work and responsibility.  And his economic agenda includes that piece of -- does include the piece that we’re talking about, but also includes many others.

Something else has happened since the State of the Union address is that House Republicans abandoned their gamesmanship that had threatened the American economy, threated the American middle class, threatened default for the first time in our history, and passed a clean debt limit, a raising in the clean debt limit.  That’s a significant change in the way that we’ve been doing business here in Washington for the past several years, and it is a welcome change.  It is a good thing for our economy, and I think it represents a positive step forward, a victory for the American people and the American economy.  And we saw the President -- I’m just talking about when you --

Q    What does that --

MR. CARNEY:  I'm just talking about when you --

Q    -- have to do with the top Democratic leaders in both chambers ignoring the President’s --

MR. CARNEY:  I’ve addressed that issue.  I’m saying that you framed it as somehow this has been the only thing that’s happened since the State of the Union address, which, of course, is not the case.

Q    It’s the only thing that’s happened on trade, which is my question.

MR. CARNEY:  Major, our position hasn’t changed, nor has the fact that this is an issue that has been contentious for both parties for decades.

Q    Jay, I’ve got two quick ones, but since we’ve been in the front row, if you promise to come back to me, if you can go take a few from the back, I’ll wait.

MR. CARNEY:  Ed, that is very gentlemanly of you. 

Jared.  Jared one.

Q    Which one is Jared one?

Q    Me.  (Laughter.) 

Q    On the climate change resilience fund, what does the White House think the chances are of Congress supporting that $1 billion fund, considering their aversion to new spending?  And is there anything in particular the President is going to try and do to gain support for that?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t want to get ahead of something that the President is going to announce today and about which there will be greater detail in the coming days, except to lay out simply that the idea of a Climate Resilience Fund is something that should be, and we expect will be supported broadly across the country, because all parts of the country, generally speaking, have had to deal with and will have to deal with the need to mitigate and be resilient in the face of challenges posed by severe weather. 

And we’ve seen that obviously over the course of the five-plus years the President has been in office, and we saw it prior to that.  Unfortunately, the evidence shows that we’ll see it in coming years.  So the need to be prepared, the need to take steps that help our farmers and businesses and communities deal with the consequences from severe weather events is I think evident to everyone across the country -- red states, blue states, purple states, big communities, small communities, big businesses, small businesses, agriculture and the like. 

So we’ll have more information for you on it, but I think this is something that touches the lives of Americans across the country.

Q    But if lawmakers, as you said, it’s already evident that some of these natural disasters we’re seeing are linked to climate change, and they don’t seem to support measures currently, based on the Republican Party, then why would you --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I think you’re broadly defining something that’s fairly -- I mean, you’re talking about cap and trade from a few years ago and that sort of thing.  This is obviously something that is meant to deal with -- help the country deal with the impacts of global climate change.  But it is obviously --

Q    More narrow?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, it’s a different -- it’s about resilience, it’s a piece of it.  It’s not similar to past actions necessarily.

Q    Would it be fair to conclude that the administration is basically out of leverage with President Karzai?  I mean, he seems to be intent on spending the last few months in power frustrating everything the U.S. and its allies is trying to work for.

MR. CARNEY:  We have been very clear that we negotiated the bilateral security agreement in good faith.  We participated in a process that saw that agreement negotiated with the Afghan government, presented to the loya jirga, where it was endorsed.  And we are frustrated by the fact that President Karzai has indicated an unwillingness to sign an agreement that has the support of the Afghan people and, obviously, we believe, is the preferable path forward in terms of our national security interests, as well as Afghan national security interests.  I think Director Clapper has spoken to this in open testimony. 

So our position continues to be that the BSA ought to be signed promptly.  It is simply a fact that when you talk about the complexities of drawing down our forces and preparing for a force that would stay on should a BSA be signed, that the longer we go into 2014 the more difficult it becomes to prepare for contingencies, and the more real the contingency of no BSA and zero troops becomes.  And that's a reality.  So that's where we are.

We have to, both the United States and our NATO partners, plan accordingly, and it becomes more difficult to plan the longer we go without a signed BSA. 

Q    On Syria, to follow up -- you said the administration wants to convince nations like Russia and Iran that it was not in their interest for this -- the crumbling in Syria to go on.  Does that mean the administration is thinking about discussing this directly with Iran?  Might that be one of the options that could be developed that the President is looking at?

MR. CARNEY:  I would stick with where I was in terms of seeking to convince nations like Russia and Iran that it is not in their interest.  It’s certainly not something that would be part of the -- as I understand it -- the negotiations around a six-month process that might end in an agreement with the P5-plus-1 on Iran’s nuclear program.

We, obviously, have a host of other issues with Iran and a host of other major disagreements with Iran and we have not changed our views on any of those.  But we communicate our views about Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Iran’s destabilizing role in the region, and Iran’s destabilizing role in Syria very clearly and will continue to do that.

Roger.

Q    You mentioned the aid that the U.S. is giving Jordan for the refugees and so forth.  When the President meets with won't King tonight, is he, the President, expecting any further requests from Abdullah on the refugee question, or anything else, for that matter?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I wouldn't want to get ahead of the meetings or speak for the King.  This will obviously be a topic the two Presidents -- or the President and the King discuss, the two leaders discuss.  It’s certainly a matter that they discussed the last time they met and is something that is a significant issue for Jordan and puts a lot of pressure on Jordan, and we have assisted Jordan in dealing with it.  

Any specific announcements that may or may not be made, I'll let the President make them.

Q    Is the U.S. satisfied with what it’s currently doing with regard to the refugees?

MR. CARNEY:  With what -- is the U.S. satisfied with what the U.S. is doing?

Q    Yes.

MR. CARNEY:  I'm not sure I understand the question.  We obviously recognize this is a major issue for Jordan and we discuss with the King and the Jordanian government this issue I think with great regularity and will -- we work with, as others do, with Jordan to try to mitigate the impacts of the refugee problem.

Q    Would the U.S. be willing to do more?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I don’t have a new policy announcement to make or changes in the approach we’ve taken to announce, but I would suggest to you that the President is meeting with the King later today and I’ll point you to his remarks on those issues.

Leslie, and then Ed.

Q    Back on the trip to Fresno, has the White House taken any position yet on the House and Senate water bills and do they plan to get involved at all in ironing out any of --

MR. CARNEY:  On the House bill, we have a statement of administration policy out on that bill and you can go online and read it in full.  But the short version is that it would not alleviate the effects of California’s current drought and would disrupt decades of work, work that supports building consensus, solutions and settlements that equitably addressed some of California’s most complex water challenges.

On the Senate bill, the Feinstein-Boxer bill, I can tell you that we’re encouraged by progress in the Senate on efforts to ease the pain caused by drought -- by the drought.  And the Obama administration continues to do everything in its power, in coordination with the state of California, to provide relief and support to those who have been affected.  We look forward to continuing to work with the bill sponsors and other members of Congress as the process moves forward.  And we hope they move forward with this bill.

Q    So that’s a, yes, you would get actively engaged in --

MR. CARNEY:  We are actively engaged, and we support the Feinstein-Boxer effort.

Q    And can I ask one other question?  I was just wondering, halfway through the Olympics, do you guys have any readout on what the President has been watching, what has he been able to catch up with?  Is he disappointed that there wasn’t that many golds in the big stuff for the Americans?

MR. CARNEY:  The President I know is paying attention and cheering on American athletes.  I think in general we all should be very proud of how U.S. athletes have performed thus far and look forward to more stunning performances in the coming days -- and also to more annotated explanations of what those slopeskiers are talking about when they explain their maneuvers.  I don’t know if you caught some of that, but it’s pretty cool -- the “1920 Japan” or something like that.  But anyway, it’s been a lot of fun, I know, for all of us.  I know the President has enjoyed it.  I don’t have a specific readout on what he’s been able to watch. 

I’m particularly paying attention to the women’s hockey team.  I have a second cousin on that team.

Q    Who?

MR. CARNEY:  But I’m hoping very much that they get the gold this year.

Ed, I owe you.

Q    I heard you did some sledding yesterday.  Were you --

MR. CARNEY:  You did hear I did some?  (Laughter.)

Q    I heard.  I had a source on that.  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  That’s true.  I was out with my kids sledding yesterday.  It was a lot of fun.

Q    Did you medal?  (Laughter.)

MR. CARNEY:  I most certainly did not medal.

Q    Good.  On substance, I wanted to ask you a follow-up to Jim Acosta’s question about health care.  It seemed like in your answer about the insurance companies, you said the backend payment systems might not be up for several months, I believe I heard you say.  And my question on that would be could that be a problem here?  Because the enrollment obviously goes through the end of March -- if it’s -- I don’t know if it’s several months, a few months.  How do you --

MR. CARNEY:  It’s a good question.  Let me explain.  This is the automated payment processing system.  The payments themselves are happening.

Q    They’re going to insurance companies?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.

Q    But then, my question then is on the payments that you have to make I believe it’s to the insurance company --

MR. CARNEY:  That’s the ones I’m talking about.

Q    -- right -- for the subsidies.  My question is then there are people who the President has said need health care.  They need these subsidies, they need these tax credits in order to do that.  If that takes a few months, are they getting the money or --

MR. CARNEY:  Let me be clear.  The payments are happening on time.  There is an automated processing system that is not online yet, and once that automated payment processing system is online in a few months, that system will provide CMS with the kind of data that we’ve been asked about and CMS has been asked about, which is the overall picture of how high a percentage of enrollees have made their premium payments.  The system is designed just for the financial role that CMS or the government plays, which is to provide subsidies for those who qualify for them to the issuers.

But the system is -- once we have that automated payment processing system up, we’ll be able to have -- we, CMS, HHS and the federal government -- will have the data in a timely fashion on the percentages of who have actually paid their premiums.  Right now, before that system is up, the most accurate and timely information about the percentage of enrollees who have met their premium payment deadlines comes from the issuers themselves.

Q    Last question.  On executive action -- to the House Democrats, the President said again, a couple of times, to be clear, he will work with Congress when he can, as you say; other times, he will take executive action.  I also know that there have been other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, like Bill Clinton, who have used more executive orders than this President has.  Nonetheless, in the 2008 campaign, this President said again and again that he was going to “reverse” that.  He used that word -- going to reverse George Bush’s executive actions; these are damaging the country.  Why the change of heart on the idea of pulling back on executive action?  Now he seems to be full-steam ahead.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, let’s be clear what we’re talking about. There is no question that this President has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did.  The matter the President was discussing in his campaign in 2008 wasn’t the number; it was the quality and the type of executive actions that he believed were not appropriate. 

And obviously he won’t be engaging in those kinds of executive actions.  He will be engaging in executive actions, as he pledged in the State of the Union and as he has demonstrated throughout his presidency, that advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility. 

Q    Isn’t one man’s bad executive action another man’s good?  I mean --

MR. CARNEY:  No.

Q    -- George W. Bush would defend those.  Like, what would be an example that went over the top, do you think, whereas --

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think there are numerous examples in the national security arena, and the President acted very swiftly when he took office on some of those, including torture and the like.  But I think there’s a more nuanced discussion of how there is a difference qualitatively, not necessarily quantitatively, because quantitatively it is true -- and it is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion that the President might use legally available authorities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility, when obviously they supported a President who used executive authorities quite widely.

Jared two.  (Laughter.)  

Q    I’m going to fight that designation.  Jay, a little over two years ago, the President changed his position and supported Priorities USA Action, what most of us considered a pretty public reversal on super PAC fundraising.  In the State of the Union, campaign finance got a couple of lines.  In the readouts and public statements to congressional Democrats in the last couple of weeks, not a lot on campaign finance.  What’s the President’s message on super PAC fundraising, especially given that, based on the January report, seems like Democrats are outraising Republicans when it comes to super PAC money?

MR. CARNEY:  The President’s position hasn’t changed.  The Supreme Court, in a decision he quite publicly opposed or disagreed with, has changed the environment dramatically.  And that’s the reality we live in.  The President’s views on what we should do in terms of a policy approach have not changed, and that remains to this day.  There’s no question that the Supreme Court action has, as we’ve all seen and you have covered, changed this world rather dramatically.

Q    So will he use either his pen or his phone to affect change?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any updates.  We try to spring those on you when he has new executive actions to announce.

Q    Thanks, Jay.

MR. CARNEY:  Chris and then Dan.

Q    A court yesterday ruled against Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.  At least four circuit courts will be considering the issue this spring, which likely means the Supreme Court will be taking up the issue and making a decision next year.  Is the President eager for the Supreme Court to make a nationwide decision on this issue over the course of his presidency?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to speak hypothetically about cases the Supreme Court may or may not take.  What I can tell you is the President supports, as he has made clear, making available to LGBT Americans the rights that we all should enjoy, and his views on same-sex marriage were I think very powerfully expressed, and he feels gratified by the enormous progress that’s been made on this issue and the change in perspective that I think we’ve seen evolve across the country in a rather remarkable amount of time -- a remarkably short amount of time, which is not to say that it shouldn’t have happened earlier, but that it is, given the way these kinds of struggles for equal rights tend to play out, notable and commendable that Americans across the country have embraced this issue as strongly as they have.

Q    But do you anticipate the administration will participate in these cases as much as --

MR. CARNEY:  I wouldn’t be the right person to guess.  You might look for speculation at the Justice Department.

Daniel, and then we’ll wrap it up.

Q    Just a couple quick on North Korea.  Just looking at Kerry’s quote where he said -- made it very clear that if the North doesn’t comply -- talking about China -- and come to the table, be serious about talks and to stop its own nuclear program, that China is prepared to take additional steps in order to make sure that their policy is implemented.  I guess the question is we’ve heard this a number of times before major talks we’ve had with Secretaries of State with China.  What possible additional steps would China be taking?

MR. CARNEY:  Could China take to put pressure on the North Koreans?

Q    Right.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think China has a unique relationship with North Korea, has unique leverage and influence on North Korea.  So I think there is at least potential for a wide variety of things that Beijing could do to alter North Korean behavior potentially.  But those are discussions we have all the time with the Chinese, and we’ve been quite clear about our hope and expectation that China would, in its own interest as well as the interests of the region and the world, use its unique influence and leverage to help bring about a situation where North Korea comes into compliance with its international obligations and ceases being the isolated state that it’s become because of its failure to comply.

Q    Is there concern about major provocation in advance or perhaps coinciding with the President’s Asia trip in April?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t heard of any.  I mean, these are issues that we monitor very closely.  We make clear our views on actions taken by North Korea and actions that North Korea fails to take to meet its obligations.

Thanks, everybody.

Q    Week ahead?

MR. CARNEY:  My colleague, Eric Schultz, will be delivering the week ahead aboard Air Force One.  We’re still putting the final touches on it and I’m sure he will deliver it with accuracy and gusto. 

Thanks very much.

END
11:49 A.M. EST

Gaggle with Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz en route CA

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Fresno, California

2:12 P.M. EST

MR. SCHULTZ:  Good afternoon, everyone.  What can I do for you?

Q    Eric, we have a lot of very detailed questions and we’d like to get them underway right out. 

MR. SCHULTZ:  I appreciate that, yes.  I'm at your service.

Q    When should we expect the President to sign the debt ceiling bill?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I checked on that before we left and we had not received the bill.  So I don't have any updates on that for you right now, but as soon as I do we'll let you know.

Q    The Senate did send it.

Q    What’s the President going to do tomorrow and Sunday and Monday?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, as you know, the President looks forward to meeting with King Abdullah this evening at -- meeting with him tonight and then a working dinner afterwards.  As you know, Jordan is an invaluable partner and close friend of the United States, and Sunnylands provides a real intimate opportunity to discuss a lot of the issues they face both in that region and around the globe.

Q    How long is the King’s stay?

MR. SCHULTZ:  You’ll have to talk to them about their schedule.

Q    There’s the dinner.  Are there other activities?  When he was here with President Xi, for example, they went for a walk and had a private conversation.  There was a presentation of a gift.  Are things like that going to be happening tonight?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We expect a working dinner -- sorry -- the meeting and then the working dinner.  And then I don't anticipate a public schedule beyond that over the weekend.

Q    We're at Sunnylands.  He was here last June and now he’s back.  Is there something about Sunnylands that has brought him back two times in the past year?

MR. SCHULTZ:  The President really enjoys the opportunity to sort of have an informal, intimate discussion with a leader that he’s so close with, King Abdullah, and out of the swirl of Washington.  It’s more conducive to a conversation, given all the issues they face and given their warm relationship. 

Q    I have a question about Fresno.  One of the central elements of the Feinstein-Boxer bill involves flowing water from north to south in California, and part of that can be done administratively.  Is the President going to encourage that in his appearance in Fresno?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We are encouraged by progress in the Senate on efforts to ease the pain of this historic drought and we hope that Congress will advance that legislation swiftly.  There’s a number of complex and dynamic issues going on at the same time and there’s no easy answer -- until California just gets more rain -- and that requires additional discussion with our state, local and congressional partners.  But we look forward to continuing those conversations as this legislation moves forward.

Today, we're very pleased to note that several state and federal agencies are working together to allow for the maximum pumping of water, consistent with state and federal regulations, including requirements that protect health and safety during the course of this drought.

Q    -- the House bill that Republicans say would address the drought?

MR. SCHULTZ:  As you know, we put out a position of administrative policy on that a while ago, but the short version is this would not alleviate the effects of California’s current drought and would disrupt decades of work that supports building consensus solutions and settlements that equitably address some of California’s most complex water challenges.

Q    What will the President be doing Saturday, Sunday and Monday?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, I don't anticipate a public schedule for this weekend.  If that changes I'll let you know.

Q    Does he have any other -- what will he be doing for his personal time?

MR. SCHULTZ:  As you know, the President has enjoyed the golf course on Sunnylands before and I would not be surprised if he does that again this trip.

Q    -- enjoyed the cuisine of Bobby Flay I think the last time he was out here.  Do you know if there’s a special celebrity chef along or coming out to Sunnylands?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I have not heard that, but is that you fishing for an invite?

Q    Just fishing for information.

MR. SCHULTZ:  I'll let you know.

Q    -- Jordan and Syrian refugees, is there anything that the U.S. can do further to help Jordan absorb refugees from Syria?  And do you expect that to be part of the discussion with the King?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I do expect that to be a conversation with the King.  And as you know, we’re committed to working with Jordan to support the more than 600,000 Syrian refugees in Jordan and Jordan host communities.  We’re working together with the U.N. to press for greater humanitarian access inside Syria, and the United States and Jordan both strongly support the Geneva II process and efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.  I expect them to very much discuss this this evening.

Q    Can you tell us -- we know that Congressman Costa and Senators Feinstein and Boxer are on the plane.  Is there anyone else on the plane, either political or friends of the President who are traveling to California?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Am I not good enough?

Q    You’re awesome.  (Laughter.)

MR. SCHULTZ:  In terms of the drought, I think those are the people that would be of most interest to you.

Q    -- how about for Sunnylands -- are there any -- no other guests?  We left the House Democratic retreat, where he spoke earlier today.  Can you talk with us about what commitments he‘s made toward fundraising for Democrats -- House Democrats between now and the midterm elections?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure, but I want to be clear that the conversation this morning, even after you all left, was very much focused on the legislative agenda for 2014 and sort of talking about the economic opportunity framework laid out in the State of the Union and how they can work on achieving that together over the course of the next 11 months.

In terms of what he is going to do in the midterms, I’d refer you to the outside groups coordinating that.  I think there were several announcements over the weekend and I’m not going to have anything more to add.

Q    Any more specifics about what he told them at the retreat?  You said they talked -- what sort of legislative items?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think definitely minimum wage came up, a lot of the sort of underpinnings of the economic opportunity framework that the President laid out at the State of the Union, and also the ways the President is going to use the pen and the phone to exercise his executive authority to help the middle class. 

Q    Has the White House reacted at all to this idea of doing a discharge petition to move immigration forward, which Senator Schumer said he supported?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We have laid out our principles on this and we now believe it’s up to Congress to work its will.

Q    So discharge petition is -- that would be okay?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We’ve actually said we’re going to step back  -- the President’s position on this has been very clear, he’s laid out his principles, so we’re going to take a step back.  The Senate obviously passed a bill and we’re going to let the House work its way.  We hope very much that immigration reform becomes a reality. 

Q    Do you happen to know if King Abdullah had some other reason to come to California?  I’m just curious about whether he’s flying across the country just for this one dinner for the President and if that’s actually something he asked for?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I would refer you to the Jordanians for that question.

Q    Can we ask about stuff that may or may not have come up during the retreat? 

MR. SCHULTZ:  Sure.

Q    Did Iran come up?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes, as a topic.  But I’m not going to get into specific conversations between members and the President. I’m not going to read out every Q&A back and forth with the President but this was a good try on the new guy.

Q    How does the President and Mrs. Obama feel about being apart on Valentine’s Day?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Zach, I had no idea you were such a romantic. But as you know, the First Lady actually got asked this question I think last week by Ryan Seacrest about their Valentine’s Day plans.  She said they’re going to low-key it this year, so I’m just going to leave it at that.

Q    Do you know where she is today or this weekend?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I’d refer you to the First Lady’s office for questions on her travel schedule.

Q    Can we expect in the Fresno stop -- I guess we’ll find out soon enough, but can we expect the President to talk about climate change and greenhouse gases in connection to the drought in California?

MR. SCHULTZ:  As you know, no single episode of extreme weather -- no storm, no flood, no drought -- can be said to have been caused by global climate change.  But the science is clear that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change. 

Q    And is the White House position not that it’s just climate change but that it is manmade climate change, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that are --

MR. SCHULTZ:  Dr. Holdren read out a lot of sort of the science on the call yesterday.  And, again, I’d just refer you to the President’s forthcoming remarks.

Q    Is he going to talk about this climate fund while he’s in Fresno?  And can you tell us any more about that?  What’s the President’s expectation?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes, I am happy to.  The President is going to keep making the case to the American people that we’re already being hurt by climate change.  The pain will only get worse for our children and grandchildren if we leave it for future generations to deal with.  And even if Republicans in Congress refuse to take common-sense steps to cut back on carbon pollution, you’d think that they’d be interested in joining us to make sure that our communities are prepared for increasingly severe weather that we’re obviously experiencing.

Q    Is the fund a pen and phone thing, or does he need Congress to sign off on that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  One minute.  Yes, it’s going to be part of the President’s budget, 2015 budget, we’ll be releasing next month that will include a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund.  Through this fund, the President hopes to take major steps.

Q    Earlier today, Jay said that they’re not previewing items from the upcoming budget, but this is being previewed.  Why is that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think because we are -- the President wanted to go to Fresno and hear directly from folks about the challenges that they face from this historic drought -- farmers, ranchers, small businessmen -- and also propose concrete action items that we’re going to take.  And I think the President felt strongly that he should be able to talk to them about what he believes that the federal government should be doing to help.

Q    I just want to get on the record, if there is golf later this weekend, is the White House committing to releasing a full list of friends, donors, celebrity athletes, anyone with whom the President may be golfing?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes, Margaret.  As you know, it is our standard process to let you know when the President golfs and who it is with.

Q    Any foreign leader calls so far or expected on the flight?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don’t have any calls to read out for you right now, but I will let you know if that changes.

Q    King Abdullah is arriving separately at Sunnylands on his own --

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don’t have any details on his travel.

Q    But he’s not on the plane?

MR. SCHULTZ:  He isn’t. 

But I do have a week ahead.

Q    We’ll take it. 

MR. SCHULTZ:  Do you have one more, Steve?  Okay. 

On Monday, the President will return from Rancho Mirage, California.  On Tuesday, the President will deliver remarks at an event on the economy in the Washington, D.C. area. 

On Wednesday, the President will travel to Toluca, Mexico to participate in the North American Leaders Summit.  At the summit, the President will discuss a wide range of issues including economic competitiveness and citizen security with the Mexican President and Canadian Prime Minister.

On Thursday, the President will return from Toluca and attend the Democratic Governors Association dinner.

And on Friday, the President will meet with Democratic governors in town for the annual NGA Winter Meeting to discuss his “Opportunity For All” agenda and the “Year of Action.”

Q    Is the NGA dinner at the White House or somewhere else?

MR. SCHULTZ:  That’s a great question.  I don’t believe it’s at the White House, but I have to double-check.

Q    Do you know about the Tuesday economic -- what do we know about that?  The Tuesday economic event?  Can you tell us more?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We’ll have more for that as it becomes available.

Q    And on the Olympics, has the President been watching the Olympics?  Can you fill us in?  Is he watching -- is there a feed right now?  What does he like?  Does he like the slope stuff or skating?  What’s he into?

MR. SCHULTZ:  The President is obviously an avid sports fan. He’s been enjoying the Olympics, as we all have.  I don’t have any specific color to read out to you right now, though.

Q    Is he going to watch “House of Cards”?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I heard a movement that they were trying to release it early.  Did that happen?  Is it today?  I will have to ask.

Q    Thank you.

Q    How did your first gaggle go?

MR. SCHULTZ:  You guys can be the judge.  (Laughter.) 

END
2:25 P.M. EST

Press Briefing by Secretary Vilsack and Dr. Holdren on the President's Trip to CA

Via Conference Call

6:31 P.M. EST

MR. LEHRICH:  Hey, everybody, thanks for joining us today.  I hope those of you who are on the East Coast are staying warm and dry.  As a reminder, this call is embargoed until 6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, which means it’s not in tomorrow’s newspapers but can be online at 6:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow morning.  The call will be on the record with that embargo. 

As you know, the President will be in the Fresno, California area tomorrow, where he’ll be talking about the severe droughts that are affecting much of California.  To talk about some of the new announcements the President will have tomorrow and related issues we’ve got Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Dr. John Holdren, who is the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and is going to talk to you about some of the science behind the weather we’re seeing here.

So, with that, I will turn it over to Secretary Vilsack.

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Matt, thank you very much.  And thanks to everybody on the call.  And certainly thanks to John Holdren for doing this as well.  Let me just preview for you the President’s focus on this California drought situation, which is really impacting California with its worst drought in over a hundred years, and it’s also impacting obviously other states as well.

Tomorrow the President will meet with producers and those who have been impacted and affected by the drought.  He’ll have an opportunity to observe the impacts on the ground, and he’ll I think offer a message of hope and a message that the federal government will do all that it can to try to alleviate some of the stress connected with this drought.

The President, last week in Michigan, signed the 2014 Agricultural Act, which is the farm bill, and in the farm bill it restored disaster assistance for livestock producers which had been dormant since October of 2011.  The President will direct the Department of Agriculture to accelerate in an historic effort to get the disaster programs now authorized under the farm bill to a point where farmers and producers in California and across the country will be able to apply for disaster assistance.

Normally, this process takes anywhere from six to eight months.  The President is going to direct us to get it done within 60 days so that within 60 days, by April 15th or there abouts, farmers and producers will be able to make applications for livestock assistance and should receive checks shortly thereafter.

This will not only impact folks in California but it will also have the opportunity to provide help and assistance to producers in the Dakotas who suffered from historic snowstorms last fall, and for those who suffered through the 2012 droughts across the country and other isolated situations.

We anticipate and expect that with this announcement that once applications are filed and money distributed, it will mean somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million of assistance to
California producers and probably likely nearly a billion dollars of assistance to producers across the country.

The President is also going to announce additional conservation assistance at a time when water is scarce and when livestock producers are challenged, and with those who are faced with drought conditions on their land and the possibility of losing very precious soil.  The President will be announcing an additional $15 million in targeted conservation assistance for those communities and areas that have been most affected by drought.  Five million dollars of that will be directed to California.  This is in addition to the $20 million that was announced last week.  An additional $10 million will then be given and made available to producers in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado and New Mexico.  These resources will be above and beyond what normally these states have received and these producers would receive for assistance.

The President will also announce an additional $5 million in targeted emergency watershed protection -- I should back up and indicate that the $15 million that’s being announced in targeted conservation assistance is really designed to provide opportunities for producers to conserve more effectively their water resources, to utilize the money to impact and reduce soil erosion as a result of the drought, and potentially use the proceeds to improve livestock access to water.

Five million dollars in targeted emergency watershed protection assistance will also be announced to California, and this is designed to specifically stabilize stream banks, to replant upland strips that have been stripped of their stations as a result of the drought.  This is also a soil conservation and water quality initiative.

In addition, we recognize -- the President definitely recognizes that droughts not only impact producers but also impacts the families of those who work in these orchards and with these growers and producers.  A lot of folks will not be employed, or if they’re employed, they won’t work the number of hours that they would normally work.  So we’re going to make sure that we provide assistance and help to those who might need the help of food banks to be able to provide food for their families. Sixty million dollars will be made available to food banks in the state of California to help families who have been economically impacted by the drought. 

And as summer approaches, we realize that it may be a challenge for children to have access to meals, and so we will be working with the state of California and the Department of Agriculture to establish 600 additional summer meal sites to make sure that youngsters in this state who have been impacted in drought-stricken areas will have some assistance and some help during the summer months.

The President is also going to follow the lead of Governor Brown in California when he declared state agencies to focus on drought emergency relief last month.  Governor Brown basically encouraged those in California to utilize water more effectively and efficiently.  The President will direct tomorrow federal facilities which are located in California to immediately curb water use, including a moratorium on water usage for new and nonessential landscaping projects, to redouble our efforts to look at longer-term water use reduction operations and technologies at federal facilities.

And the President will direct the Department of Interior to continue to take executive action to work with water contractors and communities to speed up changes in -- obviously to maintain important environmental safeguards, but to make sure that key water projects that could be encouraged and moved along are done so.  NOAA, EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Services will be working daily with their state counterparts to try to make sure that everything that can be done to move water projects forward is being done in an effective and efficient way.

And we’ll obviously continue to invest in climate resilience.  The President has been very focused on it, directing these agencies to be looking at this.  The USDA announced that there is a climate change hub, one of which -- sub-hub will be located in Davis, California.  That sub-hub will be doing research and assessing the vulnerabilities specifically of California to the change in climate.  The President’s 2015 budget will include additional resources for a climate resilience fund.

So these steps are being taken in addition to the steps that have been taken and announced last week -- the $20 million for conservation and the $14 million for forestry assistance that was announced by the Department of Interior and USDA -- all in an effort to try to send a very specific message to producers in California that we are here to help to the extent that we can.

With that, I think I’d like to turn it over to John Holdren so he can explain to you the context of all of this.

John.

DR. HOLDREN:  Well, thank you, Secretary Vilsack.  First of all, we know that scientifically, no single episode of extreme weather, no storm, no flood, no drought can be said to have been caused by global climate change.  But the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.

We’ve always had droughts in the American West, of course, but now the severe ones are getting more frequent, they’re getting longer and they’re getting drier.  And we understand a substantial part at least of the reason that that is happening in a warming world.  First of all, in a warming world, a larger proportion of total rainfall occurs in extreme downpours, and that means more of the rainfall is lost to storm runoff, and less soaks into the ground. 

Secondly, in a warming world, more of the precipitation that falls in the mountains occurs as rain rather than as snow.  The rain runs off quickly in contrast to snowpack that melts gradually and thus maintains river flows through the spring and the summer.  And third, higher temperatures, of course, mean greater loss of water to evaporation both from soils and from reservoirs. 

There are other, more subtle respects in which global climate change may be affecting the prevalence of drought -- scientists are still arguing about those -- but the three I just described are more than enough to understand why we are seeing droughts in drought-prone regions becoming more frequent, more severe, and longer.

The situation in California as I think you all know is particularly severe.   As Secretary Vilsack noted, it is the most severe drought in the more than hundred years of incremental records, but it’s also probably based on paleoclimate records one of the strongest droughts in the last 500 years.  And by the way, the drought in the Colorado River Basin is probably one of the strongest droughts in that area in the last thousand years.

MR. LEHRICH:  Thank you, Dr. Holdren and Secretary Vilsack.  And we’re ready for some questions now.

Q    Mr. Secretary, what does the administration think of the Feinstein-Boxer legislation that was introduced last Tuesday? Briefly, that would push the feds to be more flexible on how they control pumping and the water contracts for Central Valley water as well as the state water projects.

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Well, the reality I think this is an opportunity for us today to focus on executive action.  Obviously we’ll be -- the administration will be taking a look at what the senators are proposing -- I know they’re proposing additional help and assistance.  And we’ll obviously work with the Senate and the House if they can reach a consensus on this.  Obviously there’s a difference of opinion, based on what Senator Feinstein and what Senator Boxer have proposed, and what the House recently passed.

But rather than wait for congressional action, what we’re going to try to do is try to put the resources that are available that we have control over to work as quickly as possible.  And that’s -- I don’t want to underemphasize the significance of the President’s directive on this livestock assistance because, historically, this has taken months and months and months to do, and the President has been very clear to me and to USDA that he wants it done so that people can begin applying within 60 days.  That is going to send a very strong message about his need and his desire to get things moving and to help to the extent possible.

MR. LEHRICH:  And I can just add to that, Roger, from our perspective that we are encouraged by the progress in the Senate on efforts to ease the pain caused by the drought and that we look forward to continuing to work with the bill sponsors and other members of Congress, like the Secretary said, as the process moves forward.

Q    Mr. Secretary, could you elaborate on what you mean by operational flexibilities?  When you want to speed changes to key water projects, what key water projects are you talking about?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  These are projects that the Interior, EPA, Bureau of Reclamation and the Fish and Wildlife Services are working on.  These are not projects that are specific to USDA.  But the President has been very clear that he doesn’t want any delay.  He wants folks to move as quickly as possible.  And the announcement today in terms of the disaster assistance is a reflection of that. 

I’m sure we can get you a list of the projects that are currently being worked on in California, but the bottom line here is that there’s no time for delay, there’s no time for inefficiency.  The President wants things to move and he’s directing all of his agencies to do what they can to try to alleviate or to try to mitigate the impacts and effects of this drought.

Q    Thanks.

Q    I just want to make sure - we’re only talking about the -- we’re not talking about the livestock indemnity program, it’s just the forest disaster program, because you said it’s going to be a billion dollars country-wide and that it would help the folks who went through blizzards, but that would be more like the livestock indemnity program, wouldn’t it -- for animals who just died from freezing to death?  I just want to make sure there’s nothing in here for fruit and vegetable growers.

SECRETARY VILSACK:  First of all, let me be clear about this:  There are four livestock disaster programs, there are four disaster programs that were reauthorized in the farm bill, and the President is instructing us on all four, to get them lined up so that applications can be received within 60 days and money can flow shortly thereafter.  So this is both the forage and the livestock indemnity program, the tree assistance program -- and one that’s escaping me right now.  So it’s all four; all four of them have to be institutionalized. 

And as it relates to some of the specialty crops that are grown in California, it’s conceivable the tree assistance program might be of assistance to tree producers, to nut producers here in this state.

Secondly, the conservation programs that we’re announcing are designed to provide help and assistance to growers of a multitude of crops, including fruits and vegetables.  To the extent that that land is now fallow and there is concern about soil erosion, to the extent that there are ways in which water resources, irrigation systems can be assisted or helped, these resources could potentially be made available as well for those growers. 

So this is not limited to livestock.  This is basically designed to try to provide help and assistance to producers of all stripes here in California, given the diversity of agriculture that’s been impacted.

Q    Super.  Thanks.

Q    Hi.  Thanks, Mr. Secretary.  I was wondering if there was any work being done to ease water transfers between the state water program and the Central Valley Improvement program.

SECRETARY VILSACK:  That's a question I’m not qualified to answer, but perhaps somebody from the White House can get some information to you on that.  I don't know the answer to that question.

MR. LEHRICH:  Sure.  Shoot us an email and we will make sure we get you in touch with the right people, I would imagine at the Department of the Interior.

Q    Thanks for the call, Mr. Secretary.  The state expected $1.1 billion to be available --

SECRETARY VILSACK:  I’m sorry.  I couldn’t hear that question very well.  There’s a problem with the phone.  I’m not sure why.

Q    Yes, is that better?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  You can try it.

Q    Yes, Mr. Secretary, so the $1.1 billion, is that the total in damages that you -- that has been calculated for this?  Or that's just the amount of money that may be used?  In other words, is it $1.1 billion in damages right now, just to be clear?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Yes, to be clear about this, we estimate that the livestock disaster assistance programs will provide for California producers up to $100 million.  That's our estimate based on what we know and what we think we know about the damages that already have been suffered.

The billion-dollar number would include the $100 million and would include all of the other potential applications that could be forthcoming from folks who lost livestock or were impacted by the 2012 drought across the country, or who lost serious losses as a result of the snowstorms in the Dakotas last fall.  So it’s a billion dollars total.  Of that amount, $100 million is the estimate for what we think is likely to occur in California.  Is that clear?

Q    Okay.  One follow-up?  Would you support more reservoirs to hold the water for droughts like this in California?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Well, I think actually I‘m probably not the person to ask that question.  What I am interested in making sure that we do is to provide producers with as much information as we possibly can about how to most effectively use the water resources, whatever they are, wherever they come from, however they're stored in an environmentally appropriate way and the like, and distribute it appropriately.

Our goal here is to make sure that we provide producers help and assistance because they have suffered immediately and to use the climate hub efforts to assess the long-term vulnerabilities, to provide and identify technologies for producers that they can use to adapt to a changing climate or to mitigate the impacts.

We have already invested several hundred million dollars in research in California.  A lot of it has been focused on trying to figure out how to use water more effectively, how to reduce the salinity of the water that is available, how to ensure that new technologies -- new seed technologies are being developed, to utilize scarce water resources more effectively.  That's the role and responsibility of the USDA, and that's what we’re -- that's what I’m focused on -- getting relief to folks.

DR. HOLDREN:  Can I just add -- this is John Holdren.  Let me just add one point there.  The problem in California is not that we don't have enough reservoirs.  The problem is that there’s not enough water in them.  Just to give you some numbers: As of the end of last weekend, Fulsom Lake was at 22 percent of capacity; Lake Oroville at 37 percent; Pine Flat at 18 percent; San Luis Reservoir at 30 percent.  You get the idea.  We just haven’t had enough water flowing into those reservoirs.  It wouldn’t help to build any more.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Yes, can you tell me if the administration took a position on the bill that passed the House last week that was supposed to address these water problems in California?

MR. LEHRICH:  Yes, Gary.  We did take a position.  We’ve issued a statement of administration policy opposed to that bill. and we’ll be happy to send you the full text of that statement of administration policy.

Q    Thank you.

Q    Hi.  Thank you for speaking with us.  I have a question about the $100 million in livestock disaster assistance.  Can dairy farmers use that money to shore up the crops they need to feed to their livestock?  Or is it simply for livestock head guys?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  There are two different programs.  One addresses livestock that died as a result of whatever -- storms, drought.  There’s also a forage program that basically provides help and assistance to producers who have been unable to obtain the forage that they traditionally could rely on to feed their livestock.  This gives them cash assistance that allows them potentially to get forage and feed from other sources. It might be more expensive.  There may be transportation expenses.  So it’s both.

Q    Okay, so we could see California dairy farmers using that money to buy forage from out of state?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  Or a different feed that they wouldn’t normally or traditionally use, because they have their own access to their own fields, which right now are not producing enough. It’s always up to the producer.  It’s up to the producer’s situation.
 
But the point of this is it provides help and assistance to producers who have been negatively impacted by this drought either in terms of the availability or substantial cost with alternatives or substitutes.
 
Q    The President rarely discusses climate change when he talks about extreme weather.  Is that going to change tomorrow?  And if so, for all those parched Americans out there, how do you really connect things like cutting greenhouse gases or backing renewable energy with terrible drought?

DR. HOLDREN:  I mean, number one, you can certainly expect that the President will talk about the connection between the increasing frequency and intensity of droughts and climate change when he speaks tomorrow.  He has actually repeatedly talked about the connection between climate change and extreme weather.  He did so in his speech at June 25th at Georgetown University when he rolled out the Climate Action Plan.

And he will talk tomorrow about the phenomena that I mentioned earlier in this call, which is that we really understand a number of the reasons that global climate change is increasing the intensity and the frequency and the length of droughts in drought-prone regions.  This is one of the better understood dimensions of the relationship between global climate change and extreme weather in particular regions.

Q    I also have a question about moving along key water projects.  I’m wondering if by that you or the administration is endorsing in any way the Bay Delta Conservation Project to build twin tunnels under the Delta to transfer water more effectively from north to south.
 
SECRETARY VILSACK:  I don’t know the answer to that question.  I can tell you that we have at the USDA been involved in the California Bay Delta area with additional investments over the last several years.  But I’m not familiar with that specific project.
 
DR. HOLDREN:  Nor am I.

Q    Can I have a follow-up question?  I’m wondering for the drought assistance for growers and farmers, what form will that assistance take?  Do you have an idea about that?

SECRETARY VILSACK:  When you say “form” -- well, let me just see if I can respond to your question.  The livestock disaster assistance we referred to earlier is in the form of cash.  It’s in the form of money.  The conversation assistance is also in the form of resources that will be utilized by producers.  It helps to pay for conservation practices that they may install on their property or efficiencies that they may create in terms of water resources that they’re currently using.

Most of these programs are sort of matching funds providing help and assistance to the producer -- not fully paying for all of the steps, but helping to pay for a portion of them.  The emergency water assistance grants are grants made to communities themselves.  So that’s resources, money that’s provided to a community, it’s not provided through producers.  It’s provided to a community that is faced with water shortages.  And they may be taking steps to secure additional water resources.  And this money is provided to assist them in helping to pay for whatever steps they’re taking.

The food bank resources is money from The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, that gives food banks the capacity to go out and purchase whatever they believe is most appropriate, most necessary, to help families based on what demand at the food bank is.  And the summer meal program, basically once the sites are set up, USDA provides a cost to -- the 600 summer meal sites, that is -- USDA provides reimbursement to the affiliates or the community that is sponsoring the meal sites.  We basically pay for the meals and we provide a reimbursement level based on the number of meals that are supplied.  So it’s a wide range of types of assistance that are provided.
 
MR. LEHRICH:  Thank you, Secretary Vilsack and Dr. Holdren. And thank you all for taking the time to join us.  One more reminder that this call was on the record, but is embargoed for 6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning Eastern time, which means it’s not in Friday’s papers, it’s in Saturday’s papers, but can be online at 6:00 a.m. Eastern time.
 
As always, if you didn’t get a fact sheet or have follow-ups, feel free to get in touch with us.  Otherwise, I’m sure that Secretary Vilsack and the President look forward to seeing a bunch of you tomorrow in California. 

Thanks again.  Have a good night.

END
7:01 P.M. EST