The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 14, 2014

Press Briefing by Senior Administration Officials on the Visit of King Abdullah of Jordan

Aboard Air Force One En Route Fresno, California

2:30 P.M. EST

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So we will do this on background as three senior administration officials.  I’ll give a little bit of a topper, just to give you guys some flavor, some of which you’re already gotten from Jay and from Eric, on the briefing -- or on the meeting tonight with the King of Jordan.  And then I will open it up.     

Q    I was going to ask you tell us about anything the President may be announcing tonight in terms of deliverables.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So I don’t want to get ahead of anything that the President may or may not announce. I think suffice it to say, as everybody knows, Jordan has an extraordinary burden in hosting almost 600,000 refugees from the Syrian crisis.  We are constantly engaged in conversations with them about what more we can do to help support their assistance to these refugees and their own budget and economy as they deal with that. 

So I don’t want to get ahead of anything the President may or may not announce, but suffice it to say it would be a topic of conversation in the meeting tonight.

So with that, let me just give you a little bit of a laydown.  Obviously, as you guys know, the President is going to host a working dinner with King Abdullah this evening at Sunnylands, the Annenberg retreat.  Jordan is an invaluable ally, close friend of the United States, and Sunnylands offers a private location, a less formal setting that will allow the President to have a wide-ranging discussion with the King. 

The meeting is really –- hosting him at Sunnylands -- a demonstration of both our partnership with Jordan, the warm friendship that the President has with King Abdullah, and our friendship with the people of Jordan.  So that's one of the reasons that we picked Sunnylands as a location, as opposed to doing it in Washington where they’ve met on previous occasions. 

The President looks forward to discussing with King Abdullah opportunities to promote peace, prosperity and reform.  I would expect that they will discuss opportunities to strengthen the U.S.-Jordan strategic partnership, how to advance our political, economic and security cooperation.  And obviously they will continue consultations on Syria and the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians on finding a durable, comprehensive Middle East peace solution.

The President, I think it’s also important to note, will have an opportunity to hear from the King about how the King has advanced Jordan’s economic and political stability and some of the reforms that he’s been working on since he was last briefed on this by the King in April 2013, when they met, and how the U.S., importantly, can help support the King’s vision for the future of Jordan.

The two leaders will also discuss the U.S. commitment to assisting Jordan meet its economic challenges -- and that goes to the question about Syrian refugees in particular.  We are committed, as you know, to working with Jordan to support approximately 600,000 Syrian refugees at this point in Jordan and Jordanian host communities, the majority of which now are in host communities as opposed to in the camps.  I know that gets sort of a lot of press, but a lot of them are within urban areas in Jordan now also.

Jordan and the United States both strongly support the Geneva II process and efforts to find a political solution to the crisis.  And I also expect that they will discuss, as the Vice President did earlier this week with the King, the growing threat of extremists –- the extremist threat emanating from the Syrian crisis.  So it’s safe to say that will be a topic of discussion.

Also Jordan is a key stakeholder in the Middle East peace process, as you guys know.  And we have deep appreciation for the King’s support for the negotiations.  So the President and the King will be able to review the status of the talks and our efforts to realize a viable, independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Jewish state of Israel -- two nations enjoying self-determination, security and peace.

And again, since we expect this would be wide-ranging, I know some people have asked will they discuss Iran, so I would say yes.  I would expect they would touch on the ongoing P5-plus-1 negotiations with Iran to try and reach a comprehensive solution, and the President will have an opportunity to brief the King and sort of bring him up to speed on where we are in that process as well.

So with that, that's sort of a framework of the meeting.  I will just open it up for questions and let our two senior administration officials sort of field anything that you have.

Q    How much pressure is dealing with the refugee crisis putting on the King’s government?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think quite a significant amount of pressure.  As my colleague mentioned, there are almost 600,000 refugees -- Syrian refugees in Jordan.  The Jordanian government has had to help support them in Jordan, obviously with help from the international community, but a lot of these refugees are living in Jordanian communities, as my colleague mentioned.  They’re not all in refugee camps.  So that's put significant strain on the Jordanian economy, which is already under significant pressure even before the Syrian conflict.

We also know that the Jordanians face the cutoff of gas from Egypt given that the pipeline has been blown up now several times, which has added to the challenges that Jordan has had meeting its energy demands.  So they’re on track with the IMF agreement that they reached a couple of years ago, which we think is really important.  We’ve also tried to do as much as possible. We’ve provided over a billion dollars of assistance in 2012-2013. We’re on track to do the same thing in 2014.

Q    With a B?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes.  Total assistance.  And we’ve also urged our other partners to see how they can help the Jordanians, as well -- partners in the Gulf, in Europe and elsewhere -- both as part of an effort to help neighboring states deal with the spillover from the Syrian conflict, but also to help Jordan move forward in its reform agenda, which we strongly support.

Q    Can you talk to us about how significant a portion of the jihadis in Syria now you believe to be Jordanian?  How big a problem is that?  And is that an issue that the President and the King will discuss tonight?  How do you sort of quantify that?  What’s going on there?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m not sure that we’ve talked about the breakdown of jihadis in Syria by nationality.  I mean, it’s a problem --

Q    -- a significant component, though, right?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are jihadists from a variety of Arab countries.  There are also jihadists from outside the Arab world who are fighting in Syria, as we know from some of the videos that we’ve seen.  So I think it’s a problem that all of the regional governments know they have to address together.

We’re working pretty closely with Jordan, with Turkey, with Lebanon, with Iraq to try to not only stem the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, but also to make sure that we interdict young men who intend to travel to Syria to fight in the conflict before they get to that point of trying to smuggle themselves in, basically.

The Jordanians have been very good partners, though, on counterterrorism in general.  We have a very strong relationship across the board.  That's been the case for many decades.  So I think the conversation between the President and the King is going to be one in which they both share the same goals and will discuss how we can build on the cooperation and support that we’ve already offered Jordan to do more together to address this growing threat in Syria.

Q    So obviously the crisis in Syria has a destabilizing effect to some degree on the region.  Would you say that effect is getting worse, or it’s kind of destabilizing but it’s kind of at the same level?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Clearly, every day that the conflict in Syria goes on brings with it new challenges for the region as a whole.  I think the humanitarian crisis, the growing extremism problem, the burdens that the crisis is imposing on neighboring countries to deal with the refugees, those problems as long as the conflict in Syria continues will continue to grow.

And we’ve made it a specific focus of our policy to try to help these neighboring countries to deal with these burdens.  The President met with the Lebanese President last September in New York and announced a significant increase in U.S. assistance to Lebanon.  He’s meeting with, obviously, the Jordanian King now.  We have an ongoing dialogue with the Turks and with the Iraqis.  So we understand that this conflict is imposing significant burdens on neighboring countries. 

We want to work to address those pressures while at the same time, obviously, trying to move forward to resolve the conflict in Syria as quickly as we can, because these issues aren’t going to -- these pressures aren’t going to diminish until the underlying conflict in Syria is resolved.

Q    Do you think that, as the President goes into this meeting tonight with the King, that he is now beginning to think about changing the strategy in Syria in some way?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The President has always said that he -- he’s always looking for the best options available with regard to Syria.  And ever since this conflict began, I think we have been examining the full range of options.  The President has made clear that the one thing we aren’t going to do is deploy American troops -- deploy boots on the ground.  But short of that, everything else is potentially on the table.

And this is a constant process of evaluating where we are with the Geneva negotiations, with the humanitarian situation.  You know about the resolution that we’re putting forward at the U.N. with regard to the problem of extremism in Syria.  So we monitor these issues on a daily basis and are in touch with the President about different ideas to address them. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that there’s a silver bullet in any of this.  Obviously this is an extremely difficult conflict and there are no easy answers, but I think the President has made clear from the beginning that he wants the best ideas that we can develop in the government.  And I think that’s what Secretary Kerry was referring to the other day.

Q    Any of those options more on the table now than they were a month ago?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think what we would say there is the President addressed this in his press conference.  He always reserves the right to keep all options on the table, obviously, in the interest of U.S. national security.  But we continue to believe that, at this time, there’s not a military solution to this crisis, which is why the emphasis right now is on trying to bring the sides together and foment a political solution and a political transition.

Q    Arming the Syrian rebels, for instances, is that under more active consideration now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, you know that we have been supporting the Syrian opposition for some time.  Back in I think it was April of last year we announced an increase in our support of the opposition to include military support to the opposition.  So I think the general category of support to the Syrian opposition is certainly one of the areas that we’ve explored over the past couple of years and I think that will continue to remain on the table. 

We have to obviously figure out how to do that in a way that helps advance towards a political solution because, as my colleague said, we don’t see a military solution to this conflict, but helping to improve the position of the Syrian opposition, put pressure on the Syrian regime is certainly part of I think the overall calculation.

Q    Congress has been funding Jordan at a level that was set six years ago, around $660 million a year, and then putting in all of these add-ons to deal with these sort of crises -- the Iraqi border, the Syrian border.  I guess a new -- the next sort of five-year phase is under discussion this year, right?  Is the White House’s belief that the U.S. just needs to plan on giving Jordan more money, period, going forward?  Or is this not yet -- are you still sort of weighing that?  And are they talking money on this trip?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So, first of all, we have a five-year memorandum of understanding with Jordan in which the administration agreed to request $660 million a year -- $360 million in ESF, $300 million in FMF.  That MOU expires in September of this year.  So without getting ahead of what the President and the King may discuss, I think certainly our bilateral relationship, our support for Jordan will be one of the issues that they’ll be discussing. 

And I think we have worked with Congress over the past couple of years to increase our support to Jordan because they are facing such tremendous pressure from Syria and from the rest of the region -- I mentioned the pipeline from Egypt as well.  So the Syrian conflict I don’t think anyone expects to conclude in the next few weeks, months.  I mean, this is not something that’s going to be resolved overnight.  So that will certainly factor into our calculations about what we need to do to help Jordan weather this challenge. 

Q    It sounds like he may be asking for more money but you can’t say that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think he’s (Senior Administration Official) just going to let his comments stand where they were.

Q    Do we know how much it’s costing the Jordanian government to have all these refugees in their country?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  My colleague reminds me that  -- was that a U.N. or --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  -- a USAID estimate this year that it will cost them $900 million in 2014.

Q    -- $900 million to cover the cost of dealing with the refugees?  That’s what it will cost Jordan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Jordan is also facing a $3.2 billion budget deficit in 2014, which could also be exacerbated, depending on what happens with the Egyptian gas, how much they’re able to get this year.  It could add billions more to their deficit.

Q    The risk of extremists sort of infiltrating the refugee community in Jordan -- I’m wondering if we have any kind of specifics that we’re asking for in terms of how Jordan’s military and intelligence handles that threat and if we’re satisfied with measures they’ve taken to address it.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I would say, first of all, that Jordan is a very strong counterterrorism partner so we work very closely with them on a wide range of issues and I think ensuring that support that we’re both offering to the Syrian refugee community goes to the right people -- refugees that are truly in need -- is certainly one aspect of that. 

But at the border, there are also screening procedures in place that the U.N. implements to ensure that those who come across really are in need and don’t present a security threat.  So I think the Jordanians are very cognizant of this concern and have taken steps to try to address it.  And we’re very confident of our cooperation with them.

Q    Middle East peace and Jordan’s role in that -- I understand that a big issue with our negotiations with the Palestinians and the Israelis is security along the Jordan border.  What are we asking Jordan to do and what have they told us about the security plan they’ve presented?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, so first of all, I mean, Jordan, as you said, has a very important role to play on Middle East peace.  King Abdullah, his father have long been some of the most high-profile supporters of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.  Obviously Jordan has a peace treaty with Israel and King Abdullah has been particularly supportive of Secretary Kerry’s efforts, the President’s efforts to move these negotiations forward.  He’s met recently with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas to try to urge them to make the compromises that are necessary for peace.  And he’s also played a leading role in marshaling support for the Palestinians within the Arab League, which is also very important. 

But as you mention, Jordan also has an important role on the ground, given that it shares a border with the West Bank and with Israel.  And I think everyone knows that the security arrangements that would accompany a peace agreement are among the most important issues that are being negotiated now.  There has always been particular concern about the Jordan Valley, so, without getting into details of the negotiations, Secretary Kerry, General Allen, who has been leading an effort, as you know, to develop ways to address security requirements for both Israel and the Palestinians, have both been working intensively with not only Israel and the PA but also with Jordan to see if there are ways in which these three countries, with our support, can cooperate to ensure that that border is as secure as possible.

And again, without going into details, I think the Jordanians have been extremely cooperative and extremely forward-leaning in thinking about different ways that we can achieve that goal that are also compatible with, obviously, Israel’s security but also Palestinian sovereignty. 

Q    Is President Obama satisfied with anti-corruption efforts inside the King’s government in Jordan?  And also, the human rights groups have expressed some concerns about barriers to entry for refugees.  If the U.S. is going to help fund these efforts at the border, is the President going to press the King for greater access for refugees into the country?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Right.  So on the first count, as my colleague said, I think the President and the King will discuss Jordan’s reform efforts.  We strongly supported the King’s reform agenda and want to continue to do so.  The King has talked many times, including when he last met with the President in April of last year, about his long-term vision for Jordan as a constitutional monarchy as a model for the Middle East.  That’s something -- that’s a vision that I think we very much share.  And certainly one element of that is the fight against corruption.  And there have been some important steps that the Jordanian government has taken -- setting up the National Integrity Commission, moving forward with trials of, in some cases, important figures for corruption.  We, I think, want to help Jordan move forward to achieve those goals, and I think this general category of reform is something that the President and the King will discuss tonight.

On your question about Syrian refugees, every country takes upon itself obligations to admit refugees in need.  Jordan is certainly one of those countries and it’s on the front line of the Syrian conflict.  So our assistance to Jordan in dealing with this problem has been predicated on the idea that the border will remain open to legitimate refugees.  That will continue to be I think a fundamental part of our cooperation and I think also a fundamental lodestar for Jordan’s efforts with regard to the Syrian conflict.

But, clearly, there are tremendous pressures.  And we’re going to need to work closely with Jordan, as will other countries, to ensure that they can meet the burden represented by these hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Q    Can you talk --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Two more questions.

Q    -- host communities?  How does that work?  Families taking in families?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So 80 percent of the refugees in Jordan are actually urban refugees, so they’re not in the tented communities.  In the beginning of the conflict, you saw a lot of attention on Zaatari as a camp and a lot of Syrians were there, but now they’re being hosted in communities.  So they’re in people’s homes; they’ve set up makeshift tents.  And so the burdens that places on host communities in terms of their hospitals, schools, electricity, water, that whole public infrastructure that goes into what would be supporting Jordanian communities also has to now support dramatic increases of population.

So our assistance looks not just to help the Syrians that are in now these communities, but also the communities themselves.  How do we help make sure the water infrastructure is set so that everyone is able to benefit from water?  We have AID programs that have increased school shifts so that students go in the morning and then again in the afternoon.  So we’re trying to think of creative ways to make sure that all of the populations, not just Syrians but also Jordanians, are helped.

Q    Is the U.S. poised to take any Syrian refugees?  Like there’s a call for this.  Is the U.S. preparing to make any announcement on that?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think this is an issue that we are continuing to explore.  There are no announcements that I know of that we intend to make right now.

Q    Of the pressures on Jordan, from the influx of refugees from Syria and whatever economic or political issues that are going on inside the country -- what is the biggest pressure on Jordan now?  Or is a combination -- some sort of combination of the two?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, I think clearly the conflict in Syria is a tremendous source of pressure because 600,000 refugees in a country that is, 5 million, 6 million -- 10 percent of the population -- I mean, that’s a huge burden to take on.  But Jordan is also in the process of trying to transition its economy from a donor-based economy that is based on the expectation of donor contributions to one that’s self-sufficient. That’s an important part of their IMF agreement.  It’s an important part of their effort to diversify their sources of energy away from reliance just on partners in the Gulf and on Egypt towards other sources of energy, and also to modernize their economy so that Jordan can become a hub for technology, for service industries across the Middle East.  That’s part of the King’s vision for putting Jordan on a firm economic as well as political footing for the next 20, 30 years. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So just again, this was on background attributable to senior administration officials.  There is no embargo so you’re welcome to use it as soon as you would like.  We will produce a transcript.

Thanks, everybody.

END              2:55 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 14, 2014

Remarks by the President Before Roundtable Discussion

San Luis Water Facility Firebaugh, California

3:40 P.M. PST 

THE PRESIDENT:  I wanted to come here basically to listen.  We're all equally dependent upon California producers for so many of your products in our lives*.  As you know, Michelle wants us to use more of your products, not less.  In fact, I think her Let's Move initiative has met with some of the producers to talk about how we can get our kids eating more produce, more nuts, more healthy foods.  And because of the huge economic impact of what you do not just on California but the nation overall, there is a national concern around the drought that is facing California.

Now, as I'm sure Tom has shared with you and I think many of you know firsthand, we've been monitoring this for quite some time, and a whole host of our agencies have been coming in to interact with all of you and find ways that we can provide some immediate relief.  But the truth of the matter is that this is going to be a very challenging situation this year, and frankly, the trend lines are such where it’s going to be a challenging situation for some time to come. 

And as we were flying over those beautiful mountains of yours that are the source of traditionally so much water in this area -- and despite the rain and snow that had come just over the last few days, it was still looking fairly bare -- it gives you a sense that the baseline of water throughout the West, not just California, is going to be probably lower than what we've been accustomed to over the last hundred years.  And that means we're going to have to make some decisions about how we conserve better, how we allocate water better, how we recycle water better, and how we cooperate more effectively not just in this state but throughout the region and around the country.

Now, water politics in California traditionally I know has been pretty easy  -- (laughter) -- and I told the Governor I'm not going to wade into this because I want to get out of here alive on Valentine’s Day.  (Laughter.)  So my goal today and I think my administration’s goal generally is to try to facilitate and work with a whole range of stakeholders at the local level and see how we can find common ground to point to a new direction moving forward. 

But I will say this:  I think there’s a tendency, historically, to think of water as a zero-sum game, that either the agricultural interests are getting it, or urban areas are getting it, north, south.  Given what we anticipate to be a significant reduction in the overall amount of water, we're going to have to figure out how to play a different game.  And if the politics are structured in just such a way where everybody is fighting each other and trying to get as much as they can, my suspicion is, is that we're going to not make much progress -- particularly because Jim Costa told me if you want to guarantee yourself a job in California, become a water rights lawyer. 

So what we can't afford I think is just years of litigation and no real action.  And our hope is, is that we can convene a conversation that helps us move forward.

So I'm glad to be here.  Even though I'm only going to be here for a little over an hour, what I am at the outset making a commitment to you is, is that we are going to stay on top of this, because it has national implications not only for our economy but we're also going to have to make sure that we weave in this issue of water in the West with the broader issues of climate change that are having an impact all across the country in different ways.  There’s a connection between drought in the West and hurricanes along the Atlantic and coastal erosion.  And what this all means is we're going to have to start rethinking our infrastructure and what are the projects that 50 years from now, 100 years from now, our children and grandchildren are going to be able to say we had the foresight to deal with these problems in a serious way.

And that's not going to be happening overnight.  We'll try to get immediate relief right now, but we also have to have this larger conversation.

END               3:44 P.M. PST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 14, 2014

Background Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Preview the President's Upcoming Trip to Mexico

Via Conference Call

3:50 P.M. EST

MS. HAYDEN:  Hi, guys.  Thanks, everyone, for joining us today.  We wanted to take a chance today before the long weekend to talk to you about the President’s trip to Toluca, Mexico, for the North American Leaders Summit on February 19th.  We’ve got senior administration officials here to talk to you.  I will tell you their names so that you know who you’re hearing from but, again, you must refer to them as senior administration officials.

Again, the call is on background, there’s no embargo and our speakers are to be referred to as senior administration officials from hereon.  So with that, I’ll turn it over to senior administration official number one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody.  I’ll just go briefly through the program and some of the key elements.  And then, my colleague can get into a little more detail.  And then, we’ll take your questions.

The program is taking place entirely on Wednesday, February 19th.  It’s in Toluca, Mexico, which is the hometown of President Peña Nieto.  And this will be President Obama’s second visit to Mexico to see President Peña Nieto, who he has developed a good working relationship with.  And we’ve been encouraged by President Peña Nieto’s leadership in pursuing a very ambitious reform agenda in Mexico.  And it’s, of course, another opportunity for him to see Prime Minister Harper, who he’s worked with for the last five years as well.

On Wednesday, there will be an official arrival ceremony when we get to Toluca.  Then, the President will have a bilateral meeting with President Peña Nieto.  Following the bilateral meeting, there will be a working lunch with all three of the leaders, with Prime Minister Harper and President Peña Nieto and President Obama.  I’m sure that there will be an opportunity for the President to speak one on one bilaterally with Prime Minister Harper too while he’s there.

Then, the leaders will interact with some business leaders and academics who have been supportive of and focused on the North American relationship.  Then, they will proceed to the formal trilateral meeting of the North American Leaders Summit.  Following the conclusion of the session, the three of them will then conduct a joint press conference. 

In terms of how we look at the North American Leaders Summit, principally, I think this reflects the importance of the relationships with Canada and Mexico to our economy.  Just to put that in some perspective, a third of U.S. exports are to Canada and Mexico, and that trade supports roughly 14 million jobs here in the United States.  And so, we believe that we have a significant interest in strengthening North American competitiveness as a whole, because when North America is functioning well as a trading block it strengthens our position in the global economy. 

And NALS, the North American leadership summit -- North American Leaders Summit has a been a forum where we can address things like how we are reducing barriers to trade, improving the commercial environment and dealing with whatever trade concerns or irritants may emerge as well.  And so, we have an agenda that focuses, again, on lifting up North American competitiveness, reducing barriers to effective and efficient trade that supports jobs in all three countries.

Clearly, one of the focal points has been the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Both Canada and Mexico have joined those negotiations in the last two years.  And we are obviously at a critical point in working towards finalizing an ambitious trade agreement -- high-standards trade agreement that would encompass roughly 40 percent of the global economy in the TPP countries. 

We see, frankly, TPP as an opportunity to build on the work that was done in NAFTA by introducing additional standards, for instance, on issues like labor and the environment so that it is truly a 21st century high-standards trade agreement that, again, is both in the interest of our prosperity here at home and also will strengthen the position of North America as it relates to some of the fastest-growing emerging markets in the Pacific.

Beyond the trade and economic competitiveness issues, we’ll also be discussing issues related to security.  And that includes the security of our respective borders, our ongoing support for Mexico as it deals with significant challenges from narco-trafficking.  We’ll also be addressing Central America and the Caribbean.  And our three countries have close relationships with the countries of Central America and the Caribbean.  We work together to strengthen their economic competitiveness in connection to our markets, but also their security as they deal with similar challenges related to criminal activity and drug trafficking.

Beyond that, I would also highlight that energy cooperation and our efforts to combat climate change are a continued area of focus between our countries.  I’d also just note that in our bilateral meeting with Mexico, in addition to discussing these issues, we regularly discuss our ongoing efforts to promote comprehensive immigration reform here in the United States, again, which clearly deals with a significant population of Mexican American immigrants who have done very much to strengthen and enrich our own country.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague and then we’ll take some of your questions.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’m just going to add a couple of points on this.  As my colleague mentioned, there’s a very good reason why we’re going to be focusing on streamlining trade among our countries, given the importance to the prosperity of all three countries.  But it’s more than about our commercial relationships, it’s about working together effectively in the world as partners and emphasizing our shared values and strategic interests.

It’s our home.  North America is our home.  It’s where we see the chance to secure the prosperity of the American people and keeping ourselves safe and prosperous for the next several decades.  This implies working with some of the challenges we face immediately related to transportation, border-area infrastructure and the like, regulatory cooperation and so forth, but also setting a course for future decades and building on what we’ve accomplished over the last few decades and turning it into something even greater as we look at an expansion of our relationships, our integration, our shared production platforms and the fact that we have one of the largest and most highly skilled workforces in the world and the region.

So specifically, the kinds of things that we’re going to be working on as part of this summit are going to be initiatives aimed at improving our inclusive and shared prosperity -- for example, by facilitating Trusted Traveler Programs among our three countries, working to harmonize trade information for importers and exporters, working where we can to collaborate more effectively on our transportation planning, reinvigorating our work on regulatory cooperation.  So those are some of the areas where we’re going to be focusing.

We’re also going to be looking at education cooperation.  As I said, we have highly-skilled workforces that we need to be working together -- since we build things together, we need to be looking at how we educate our populations as well.  We’ll be focusing as well on matters related to energy and climate change.  We’re energy powerhouses, all three countries.  But we also have a shared interest in improving our work on protecting the environment.

We’ll also, as my colleague mentioned, work on citizen security programs, for example, our coordination of emergency management communications and our work together to combat man-made and natural disasters.  We’ll also have, as my colleague mentioned, our work on Central America.  One of the areas that we’re going to be working on is on helping the region reduce its energy costs to become -- basically to increase its competitiveness in the global economy.  We’ll also be looking at working with the region on disaster -- natural disaster response and finding ways to work together to increase their own economic integration.

So, I think with that we’ll go ahead and start up with the questions.

Q    I want to first -- if you can just tell us why this needs to be on background?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We can take that back, Peter.  I think generally we often do these preview calls.  But if you want to register your interest in changing that, we can take that back and get back to you offline.

Q    Well, I ask almost on all these calls, because nothing you’ve said so far sounds like it’s greatly secret or sensitive or of particularly diplomatic sensitivity.  And this seems -- I’m sorry, my substantive question is, is there a conflict in going to talk to Mexico about trade when you’re telling -- certainly the Vice President was telling Democrats on the Hill that you’re not going to be making much of a push on TPA this year, that you recognize it’s not going anywhere?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, Peter, and again, point taken on your process point.  We’ll consider that and let people know.

Look, on trade, we continue to be very focused on negotiating and completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  And the President has made this a priority.  As we’ve looked at our trade agenda in 2009, 2010, we understood that after the completion of the implementation of the South Korean, Panamanian and Colombian FTAs, we wanted to broaden our trade agenda.  We recognize also though that the Doha round was not progressing.

And so, what we determined to do is to pursue ambitious, multilateral trade agreements that could open up the most important markets in the world to high standards trade, so that U.S. businesses had access to those markets, but that we were dealing with issues like labor and environmental standards and intellectual property as we negotiated those agreements.  We decided to prioritize the Asia Pacific region because of its role as really a driver in the global economy. 

And I can tell you that TPP has been our priority for several years now.  We felt very strongly that in order to truly bring together the potential of the Asia Pacific region, this was not just an agreement we wanted to reach with Asian countries, but we wanted to bring along North America and some of the Pacific nations in the Americas.  And that’s what we’ve done with not just Chile and Peru, but with countries like Canada and Mexico coming into the negotiations in 2012.

It is still very much our goal to complete a TPP agreement this year.  And the President has put a lot of time and energy into the negotiation of TPP.  Similarly, Mike Froman has really made this a priority as the U.S. Trade Representative.  I can tell you that in the TPP negotiations, we have now progressed to the point that we are really dealing with some final sets of sensitive issues in each of the nations, which is normal as you get towards the end of a trade agreement you have some of the most difficult issues to nail down. 

But we believe very strongly that TPP is profoundly in the interest of the American people, because ultimately it will allow us to help establish rules of the road for trade in one of the most critically important regions in the global economy, that it will take into account our interest in addressing issues like intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, as well as the labor and environmental standard standards that have increasingly been a part of the trade negotiations that we’re pursuing around the world.

So I would not in any way suggest that we’re walking back from our commitment to TPP.  We very much want to get that done.  We’ve communicated that to Congress.  The President referenced both TPA and the desire to complete an Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement in the State of the Union.  So we are viewing this as a key priority not just for our foreign policy nation security agenda, but for our economic agenda as we seek to increase our exports. 

And I’d just say one other thing, Peter.  There’s been some criticism in the past around some of the issues that were not addressed in NAFTA.  Frankly, that’s all the more reason to do TPP, because what TPP does is it allows us to address some of the issues that were not a part of the NAFTA agreement on labor, on the environment so that we’re essentially bringing this agreement into the 21st century and broadening the group of countries that are in the trading block with North America.  So we would make the case, again, to people who maybe in the past have been critical of NAFTA that TPP provides us with the opportunity to modernize our trading relationships in North America while bringing in these other emerging markets.

Q    Right, but the question was about Congress not getting TPA this year, as the Vice President was saying today.  If I’m a partner negotiating with you, why would I bother to give up any concessions if you guys aren’t going to have the authority to actually make this happen?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, Peter, I wouldn’t suggest that the Vice President was saying we’re not going to pursue this agreement or TPA in conjunction with this agreement.

I mean, there’s a question as to how we work with Congress going forward to sequence our pursuit of TPA and the TPP agreement, and we’re committed to pursuing that.  And I think we’ve made clear to all of our partners in the TPP negotiation that President Obama is personally committed to achieving this agreement and then of course to working with Congress to have it approved.  We’ve done that in the past with South Korea, with Colombia, with Panama. 

So we’ve proven we can get high-standard trade agreements through Congress.  And I think when people have the ability to review what will be an agreement that is profoundly in our national interests, that we’ll be confident that we can gain the support of members of Congress.  But we understand that the onus is on us.  We don’t want people to take our word for it.  We’re going to have to continue to make the case that this agreement is in the interest of the United States and it’s fundamental to our competitiveness in the 21st century.

 SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would just add one more point.  As a practical matter, these are also our largest export destinations and so there’s a lot of business that can be accomplished between us just on the mechanics of trade among these countries.  As my colleague mentioned, Canada and Mexico buy more goods made in the United States than any other countries in the world.  And this is also about finding ways to make that trade and our joint producing more productive to make all three of us more competitive in the world in addition to the work that we’re concluding together on the TPP.  Thanks.

Q    I’m just curious -- do you have any idea what kind of message the President is going to bring to Prime Minister Harper when it comes to the Keystone pipeline and how that’s going?  What kind of update is he going to give him?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.  First of all, let me just say that as we’ve made clear, we are following the process that’s in place on Keystone.  We have the report from the State Department that was an important part of that process.  Again, Secretary Kerry is now going to be reviewing that and making his recommendation.  Other agencies will have their own opportunity to weigh in, and ultimately we’ll, at the end of that regular order, make our determination about whether or not to pursue Keystone.

Look, we understand the interest of the Canadian government on this issue.  They’ve been very clear with us as they have been publicly that they would like to see this issue resolved.  We understand that.  They are fully entitled to their opinion and their desire to see a conclusion to the process.

I think what President Obama will do is explain to him where we are in the review of the Keystone Pipeline, and indicate that we’ll of course let our Canadian friends know when we’ve arrived at a decision.  So I think, frankly, the message that he’ll be delivering is quite similar to the one you’ve heard from us publicly, which is we believe it’s important to allow this process to continue, to make this determination as to whether or not Keystone is in the national interest and doesn’t significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.  And we would fully expect that Canada would continue to express its desire to see the process resolved, but it will run its course. 

The only other thing I’d say is that our energy cooperation is not limited to Keystone.  Canada is an important energy partner separate and apart from that with both the United States and Mexico.  We’ve also worked in North America to strengthen our commitment to clean energy, to cooperate on climate change, and also to bring in nations in areas like Central America and the Caribbean so that we are collectively more secure in terms of our energy and, again, less dependent on other regions of the world.

So the North American energy story is a good news story in its own right.  It contributes to America’s energy independence and our relations with some of our closest friends and allies, not just in terms of proximity but in terms of shared values.  But Keystone we expect to be consistent with the statements you’ve seen out of us and out of the Canadian government.

We’ll take the next question.

Q    I was wondering, since we’re on the topic of messages, and you’ve already outlined the main topics of the summit, what sort of message is the President going to give the Mexican President Peña Nieto with the ongoing violence in Michoacán and whether or not they’re going to talk about new initiatives or somehow renewing the -- or expanding the Merida initiative to combat drug traffickers down there.  So in other words, what sort of deliverables can we expect from this summit?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for that question.  First of all, we have a very good and effective security relationship with Mexico and we have a for a number of years now, including with this administration.  Certainly our shared security interests are going to be a part of the conversation.  As President Obama made very clear in his initial meeting with President Peña Nieto, we stand by to help in any way we can and to cooperate as determined by the government of Mexico as it develops its security posture and deals with security concerns and judicial reform in Mexico.

You mentioned the Merida programs; those are continuing.  And there’s a process in place between our two governments to develop priorities for cooperation.  There’s a greater emphasis on the judicial cooperation now and finding ways to work together in that field.  With respect to Michoacán, certainly we’re following closely what is happening there and stand by the government of Mexico as it confronts challenges there and elsewhere.

Q    One thing, I just wanted to second Peter’s request to see if we can put this on the record.  And I also wanted to follow up on the TPP and fast-track issues.  Democrats have made it clear that this is not an issue on their agenda this year and trade deals are just as a rule tough sells during election years, so I’m wondering if the President is going to have a kind of dose of reality for his two partners as he discusses this issue and make it clear that they might simply have to wait perhaps until next year to have completion on TPP.  And similarly, in his bilat with President Peña Nieto, will that same kind of realism be part of his discussion on immigration given where House Republicans stand on that issue this year?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  First of all, I want to be very clear on the trade issue.  I mean, people are referring to secondhand accounts of what the Vice President may have said in a close-door session.  I’m confident and I have seen President Obama and Vice President Biden both make the case for TPP publicly and privately.  And we will indicate, frankly, to our partners in Mexico and Canada as we have to the American people that we believe TPP is in our interest and that we should try to complete an ambitious agreement this year. 

And I think the case that we’ll make to anybody is that this is a key part of our economic agenda because it has the potential to create an enormous amount of jobs in the United States.  When you look at the markets that are part of TPP in the Asia Pacific region, the largest, fastest-growing emerging economic region in the world, that if we are not getting in the game, negotiating trade agreements, helping to set the rules of the road so that we’re addressing issues like intellectual property, state-owned enterprises, labor and the environment and also making sure that there’s a level playing field for our businesses, that we are going to lose out in the global economy.

Look, there are other countries that would very much like to get into these markets.  We’ve seen, for instance, in the Asia Pacific, China pursue a range of different trade agreements.  It would not be in the interest of the United States to put this on the back burner.  So I think what you’ll see not just here but going forward is us continuing to make the case that TPP needs to be completed.  It needs to be completed though consistent with our interests, which is why these are very tough negotiations -- because we want to make sure that it is a trade agreement that sets the standards that we need to give certainty not just that our businesses will have access to markets but that these other issues are addressed -- like labor, like environment.  But we’re going to keep at this. 

And TPA is a part of that broader context and I think as we look at the different pieces of our trade agenda, TPA, TPP and the agreement that we’re pursuing with the European Union.  These are things that we’ll be taking as part of our agenda with Congress.  And in the past, I’d note have been able to get broad, bipartisan support for trade agreements.  So, for instance, the South Korean, Colombian and Panamanian agreements are ones that were able to pass Congress with broad, bipartisan majorities because when people took a look at what the opportunity was for the United States, they understood that these weren’t just in our foreign policy interests -- they were very much in our economic interests. 

So that’s the message I think the President will be addressing in North America as well as around the world, and it’s the message we’ll continue to discuss with Congress.  I wouldn’t suggest in any way that we are not committed to the goal of completing a TPP agreement this year that has the types of standards we want to see and provides the economic boost that we believe it will bring.

With respect to immigration, I think President Peña Nieto has a very good understanding, frankly, of the state of play in the United States.  Immigration is an issue that we work with in government very regularly.  I think that the President will indicate the same thing that he did when he met with President Peña Nieto in May of 2013, which is that we are going to remain committed to comprehensive immigration reform.  We’re going to be committed to immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers who are here. 

And we’re doing that, frankly, because once again, that is in our economic interests.  Part of what makes the United States’ economy competitive is our trade relationships and part of that is also having a dynamic workforce that welcomes (inadudible) our shores.  And we understand that there are significant family ties across the border that make this an issue of interest to people in Mexico.  And I think if you look at that, you will see that Mexican Americans, Hispanic Americans have made enormous contributions to our economy and our society.  That’s all the more reason to move forward on immigration. 

It’s not my particular area of focus, obviously, but I do know that this will always remain a key legislative priority for our administration.  And I know that President Peña Nieto appreciates that and is committed to doing what the Mexican government can do to help ensure that we have a secure border as as a part of a (inaudible).  My colleague may want to add something on that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So just back on the trade issue, in terms of the conversations that we’re going to have there, the fact is we already have a highly integrated production chain, supply chain, and we founded the world together.  We build things together, and we sell it to the world together so there’s a clear understanding on the part of the Mexican and Canadian governments why TPP is to our benefit and why we should pursue this.  So they don’t need to be convinced in that sense.  What we do have is lots of examples of where our working with both Mexico and Canada makes us more competitive in the global economy and that’s where we’re going to be focusing on and there’s a clear understanding that TPP will make us ultimately more effective together.

Q    You mentioned something about some of the things that you were going to discuss related to the border.  You mentioned it was the traveler program and also from actions to expedite or to make more efficient the flow of goods through the rest of the border.  And my question basically is -- I mean, can we expect some sort of announcement in these two areas?  Especially I’m interested in the Trusted Traveler program.  I have no idea if we can expect some sort of agreement, but will stand this program to these three countries?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I won’t get ahead of our partners in the discussions as we get ready to go, but I think you should expect that there will be some work related to the Trusted Traveler program.  As you know, we have worked with Canada and with Mexico in these programs.  We’re very pleased with the progress of our cooperation on these types of programs.  And we’d like to accelerate and deepen our work on a North American basis in the Trusted Traveler Program area.

Q    I think I heard you say that the Presidents will be meeting with business leaders and I think I heard you say academics who are supportive of the North American agenda or project.  And that sounds a little bit like singing to the choir.  And we know that there are groups or parts of a population that are skeptical or not supportive of NAFTA and any further kind of integration, maybe think that NAFTA has been a failure.  And I wonder if there’s any sense that there needs to be some reaching out to people to explain not just to the elites, but to the people in the three countries why this is important?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, let me address that and my colleague can get more in the specifics of who they’re engaging.  I think we’re well aware of the support for NAFTA as well as some of the opposition to NAFTA over the course of the last 20 years.  On the one hand, we know that NAFTA has helped facilitate a dramatic increase in trade that has supported jobs in all three countries.  On the other hand, we know that there are issues that were not a part of the NAFTA agreement that we would like to address.  President Obama himself has spoken over the years about some of the types of issues that we would like to see introduced into trade agreements. 

And, again, the point I’d make is that TPP is in part intended to plug those holes, that if you look at what is missing from NAFTA in terms of the labor standards, environmental standards and in terms of dealing with 21st century commerce that has different requirements from the types of manufacturing and other trade of the 20th century, that TPP is an opportunity to take the foundation of NAFTA, but then introduce elevated standards across the board and actually deal with some of the issues that have been raised.

So I think President Obama is certainly well aware of some of the voices that have spoken out in opposition to NAFTA over the years.  He himself has raised concerns.  But we’re seeking to address those concerns in part through our relations with Canada and Mexico directly in forums just like this where we can address trade and commercial issues, and also through the TPP negotiations. 

But I’ll turn it over to my colleague to give a little more context.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So I think there’s a very clear understanding on the part of all three governments that this is something that we need to message more effectively, that the reality is that the three countries benefit significantly from the association we’ve developed.  And we would have to have something along these lines anyway, even if NAFTA didn’t exist.  These are our largest trading partners, in addition to being our neighbors.

Plus, we have much closer communities that we’ve been developing over the last several decades.  So one of the areas that we’ve been focusing on in preparation for this upcoming summit is what we can do together to create a mechanism that’s going to allow us to really collect more information from stakeholders in not just particular sectors, but all the broad range of stakeholders, including those who might be skeptical of some of the programs that we’re undertaking together or the relationships that exist the way they do right now.  So that is definitely going to be one of the items that we’re going to be dealing with in this upcoming summit and trying to establish a mechanism to collect those views in a more structured way going forward.

Q    You had mentioned in the call earlier that the President will go into the summit and inform the Prime Minister about the process regarding Keystone.  A lot of Canadians know about the process already, the State Department report was big news up here.  Will the President be going into this meeting with any firmer sense or indication of a timeline regarding a decision?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks for the question.  No, I don’t think that we will be introducing any new element or timeline to the decision.  Again, we have been very transparent about how the process works.  The State Department has issued their report, Secretary Kerry is reviewing that for a period of time.  He will then arrive at a recommendation.  Then there’s the opportunity of course for agencies that are involved to make their own comment, and then we’ll make a decision.

So again, I think there’s nothing that we could say privately that we’re not already saying publicly about how we are working to resolve the issues associated with Keystone.  Like I said, we understand and appreciate that the Canadians are eager to get a decision.  Ultimately, though, we do need to make sure this runs through our regular order and that the process is very thorough.

So with that, the Canadians I think fully understand where we currently are and appreciate that, even though they would like to move to a decision.  Of course, it also takes place in the backdrop of the Winter Olympics.  And while we always wish our Canadian friends well, we’re quite confident in the American hockey team this year and their prospects to bring home a gold medal.  So I’m sure the President will have an opportunity to underscore the success we’ve seen from some of our athletes and our belief that the USA can bring home the gold in hockey this time because we’re still smarting a little bit from how things turned out last time.

Q    The friendly rivalry continues.  Is the bilat scheduled, or has that yet to be scheduled?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  It’s yet to be scheduled.  President Peña Nieto is hosting so we have the formal bilat with him.  I think in the past, often at these summits the President and Prime Minister Harper have been able to find time to spend together.  I’m certain that they will find time to have a one-on-one discussion whether or not it’s formal or not.

And we should add that even as we’re addressing all these North American issues, even as we know these interests that the Canadians have in Keystone, there are broader foreign policy issues in the region and the world where we’d like to check in with Canada.  That runs the gamut from issues that are taking place with respect to Iran and the Middle East, to issues in the Hemisphere more broadly.

So I’m sure that he’ll have a chance to check in on those issues with Prime Minister Harper as well.

Q    Thanks.  Appreciate your time.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody, for joining the call.  And we, again, will note your requests process-wise and let you know if that changes.  And we look forward to seeing everybody on the way to Toluca.

END                                             4:28 P.M. EST

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 14, 2014

Remarks by President Obama and His Majesty King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands Rancho Mirage, California

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, it is a great pleasure to welcome my good friend and partner, King Abdullah, back to the United States.  And it’s wonderful to be able to host him here at beautiful Sunnylands.  I want to thank the Annenberg Group that has maintained this wonderful facility and made it available to us.

This gives me an opportunity to have an extensive consultation with His Majesty in a less formal setting.  But I think it’s fair to say that we have very few friends, partners and allies around the world that have been as steadfast and reliable as His Majesty King Abdullah, as well as the people of Jordan.  In a region that obviously is going through enormous changes, the friendship between our peoples has been a constant.

And most recently, we are now partnering because Jordan just took its seat on the Security Council and is working actively with us on a whole range of international issues.  I'm going to be very interested in hearing more from His Majesty about the reforms that he has initiated both politically and economically, because his top priority, obviously, is the prosperity of his people and providing more opportunity for the population there.

We’ve been very impressed with the fact that although oftentimes difficult and although it meets resistance sometimes, His Majesty has been able to move forward with the reforms that meet the IMF program that has been put together.  And in part because of these successes, I want to announce today that we will be providing the Kingdom of Jordan a $1 billion loan guarantee fund that will help Jordan access the international capital markets, as well as extend for five years the Memorandum of Understanding that we have with the Kingdom of Jordan that allows that country to pursue the kind of development that will not only help the people of Jordan but help the region as a whole.

Our cooperation on a whole host of issues is extensive.  We're going to be talking a lot about the political changes that are taking place in the region.  Obviously, a central focus will be the situation in Syria.  And the people of Jordan have been very generous in absorbing hundreds of thousands of displaced persons from that war-ravaged country.  It puts a great strain on the resources of Jordan and it’s very important for us to make sure that we're supportive of the Kingdom in accommodating all these refugees.

At the same time, both of us recognize that we can’t just treat the symptoms.  We’ll be working aggressively at the United Nations level and at the regional level to try to provide basic humanitarian assistance and access to people who are suffering tremendously as a consequence of the war inside of Syria.  But we’re also going to have to solve the underlying problem -- a regime led by Bashar al-Assad that has shown very little regard for the well-being of his people.  He’s attacked civilians in ruthless ways.  We are going to need a political transition in that region.

And we’re going to continue to strategize on how we can effectively change the calculus inside the country so that we can have a Syria that is intact, that is respectful of all groups, that ends the killing, and that allows for a representative government that can provide peace and prosperity for everybody there.

We don’t expect to solve this any time in the short term, so there are going to be some immediate steps that we have to take to help the humanitarian situation there.  There will be some intermediate steps that we can take to apply more pressure to the Assad regime, and we’re going to be continuing to work with all the parties concerned to try to move forward on a diplomatic solution.

But in all of these issues, and in the critical issue of trying to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinian -- an issue that His Majesty and his father before him had enormous stake in and investment in, and has been a very capable and trustworthy partner -- on all these issues, we are very grateful for the work that we’re able to do together.  And I look forward to what I’m sure is going to be an illuminating and constructive conversation.

So, thank you, Your Majesty.  And welcome. 

 

HIS MAJESTY KING ABDULLAH:  Thank you very much, Mr. President.  I’m delighted and pleased on behalf of myself and the Jordanian people, and really, really appreciative of the time that you’re giving us today.  And on behalf of all of us, thank you for the support of yourself, of your administration, of the American people, of Congress, with the outstanding support that you’ve shown Jordan with all the changes that we’re facing.  With all of the challenges that are ahead of us, I will continue our comprehensive reform program.  We’re not using the challenges in our region as an excuse to waver, and I’m looking forward to our discussion, our reform process with you this evening.

As you mentioned, we are going to be members of the U.N. Security Council for the next two years.  There are many challenges in our region and beyond, and I look forward to working with the United States and the international community on how we can best bring peace and prosperity not only to the region but beyond. 

Sir, obviously, we’d like to commend the role that the United States has been playing in bringing Israelis and Palestinians closer together.  And obviously your role, the leadership that the United States has shown has been critical and very much admired.  And the diligence of the way that the United States has been able to bring both partners much closer together over the past several months has really given me a lot of hope.  And so I would just like to commend the dramatic role of the United States in that regard.

 As you’re very well aware, we’re obviously a stakeholder in all final status negotiations and, therefore, our national interest in these issues are of paramount importance.  But I am cautiously optimistic even with the major challenges that America has been really working tirelessly to really improve the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. 

Obviously, as you mentioned, sir, the main challenge that we have is how do we bring a political, comprehensive solution to the Syrian people.  Our major concern in the area is the rise of extremism in Syria, the sectarian violence, and if we don’t find a solution, the spillover in the region and the effect that will have.  But, again, I’m sure that our views are similar and we will be working very closely with you, sir, and our Western friends in trying to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people as quickly as possible.

Sir, you’ve mentioned your very generous support by yourself and the American people of the challenges that Jordan faces.  Jordan is a resilient country.  We see ourselves as an oasis of stability to our neighbors.  And you have mentioned that the challenges that we face with the immense pressure of Syrian refugees and what it does to the host nation from a humanitarian point of view.  And the United States has been beyond the call of duty in its support for us.  And I just wanted to mention, again in front of you, how grateful I am and the people of Jordan for that outstanding support.

We do hope that the rest of the international community also steps up and catches up in the support not only for the Syrian refugees, but also the impact it has on Jordanians and Jordanian infrastructure, as well as looking at mechanisms of how we can push humanitarian supplies into Syria. 

So we have a lot to talk about, sir, today, but I am very grateful on behalf of all of us for this time that you’re giving us and the tremendous support that you’ve shown our people.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you very much, everybody.

END         8:05 P.M. PST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 14, 2014

Remarks by the President on the California Drought

Joe Del Bosque’s Field Los Banos, California

4:55 P.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I want to thank Joe and Maria Del Bosque and their beautiful daughters for showing Governor Brown and me around their farm. 

Joe has got an incredible story.  The son of a migrant farmworker, farm work is how he put himself through college.  He’s been a farmer for most of his life.  He started by going around to other folks’ land and saying, I'll grow some cantaloupes for you as long as you pay me for what we produce, and over the years was able to develop this amazing business and not only start growing cantaloupes, but almonds and cherries and all kinds of other good stuff.

“There are three things that make farming work in California,” according to Joe, “soil, water, and people.”  And in the little free time they have, Joe and Maria work to improve the health and safety of farm workers.  There are a lot of people who are dependent on him year-round, and a lot of people who work seasonally with Joe and Maria, and their livelihoods depend on the functioning of these farms.

But today, we’re here to talk about the resource that’s keeping more and more California’s farmers and families up at night, and that is water -- or the lack of it. 

As anybody in this state could tell you, California’s living through some of its driest years in a century.  Right now, almost 99 percent of California is drier than normal -- and the winter snowpack that provides much of your water far into the summer is much smaller than normal.  And we could see that as we were flying in -- Jim and Barbara and Dianne and I were flying over the mountain ranges and could see, even though there was a little bit of snow that just came in the last couple of days, that it’s nothing like it is normally.

While drought in regions outside the West is expected to be less severe than in other years, California is our biggest economy, California is our biggest agricultural producer, so what happens here matters to every working American, right down to the cost of food that you put on your table. 

And that’s why, last month, Governor Brown declared a state of emergency, directing state officials to prepare for drought conditions.  And together, our administrations launched a coordinated response.  Secretary Vilsack, who is here today, declared 27 counties as primary natural disaster areas, making farmers and ranchers eligible for emergency loans.  And over the past two weeks, his team at USDA and Mike Connor’s team at the Interior Department have released new funds for conservation and irrigation; announced investments to upgrade water infrastructure; and partnered with California to stretch the water supply as much as possible.

Today, I’m want to announce new actions that we can take together to help these hardworking folks.

First, we’re accelerating $100 million of funds from the farm bill that I signed last week to help ranchers.  For example, if their fields have dried up, this is going to help them feed their livestock. 

Second, last week, we announced $20 million to help hard-hit communities, and today, we’re announcing up to $15 million more for California and other states that are in extreme drought. 

Third, I’m directing the Interior Department to use its existing authorities, where appropriate, to give water contractors flexibility to meet their obligations. 

And fourth, I’m directing all federal facilities in California to take immediate steps to curb their water use, including a moratorium on water usage for new, non-essential landscaping projects.

A bipartisan bill written by your outstanding Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, as well as your own outstanding Representative and almond farmer, Jim Costa, includes similar ideas.  And I hope that Congress considers the legislation that they have crafted soon, work through some of the concerns that have been expressed -- let’s make sure that we're getting some short-term relief to folks, but also long-term certainty for people who are going to be harmed by this drought.

These actions will help, but they’re just the first step.  We have to be clear:  A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms, floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher. Droughts have obviously been a part of life out here in the West since before any of us were around and water politics in California have always been complicated, but scientific evidence shows that a changing climate is going to make them more intense.

Scientists will debate whether a particular storm or drought reflects patterns of climate change.  But one thing that is undeniable is that changing temperatures influence drought in at least three ways:  Number one, more rain falls in extreme downpours -- so more water is lost to runoff than captured for use.  Number two, more precipitation in the mountains falls as rain rather than snow -- so rivers run dry earlier in the year.  Number three, soil and reservoirs lose more water to evaporation year-round.

What does all this mean?  Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change, this trend is going to get worse.  And the hard truth is even if we do take action on climate change, carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades.  The planet is slowly going to keep warming for a long time to come.  So we’re going to have to stop looking at these disasters as something to wait for; we've got to start looking at these disasters as something to prepare for, to anticipate, to start building new infrastructure, to start having new plans, to recalibrate the baseline that we're working off of.

And everybody, from farmers to industry to residential areas, to the north of California and the south of California and everyplace in between, as well as the entire Western region are going to have to start rethinking how we approach water for decades to come.

And as I said when I was meeting with the town hall group, we can't think of this simply as a zero-sum game.  It can't just be a matter of there’s going to be less and less water so I'm going to grab more and more of a shrinking share of water.  Instead what we have to do is all come together and figure out how we all are going to make sure that agricultural needs, urban needs, industrial needs, environmental and conservation concerns are all addressed.  And that's going to be a big project, but it's one that I'm confident we can do.

Part of the Climate Action Plan that I put forward last summer is designed to protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the United States for the effects of climate change that we’re just not going to be able to avoid.  So, last week, for example, the USDA announced seven new “climate hubs” to help farmers and ranchers adapt their operations to a changing climate -- one of which will be at UC Davis, focused on resilience for California’s specialty crops. 

The budget that I sent to Congress -- the budget that I send to Congress next month will include $1 billion in new funding for new technologies to help communities prepare for a changing climate, set up incentives to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure.  And finally, my administration will work with tech innovators and launch new challenges under our Climate Data Initiative, focused initially on rising sea levels and their impact on the coasts, but ultimately focused on how all these changes in weather patterns are going to have an impact up and down the United States -- not just on the coast but inland as well -- and how do we start preparing for that.  And that has to be work that we do together.  This cannot be a partisan endeavor.

One of the great things about that town hall that I just came out of -- not everybody agreed on anything -- (laughter) -- except people did agree that we can't keep on doing business as usual.  That's what people did understand -- that there has to be a sense of urgency about this. 

And issues like the federal government helping states to build infrastructure to adapt and ensure economic development and that families and workers are able to prosper -- there’s nothing new about that.  We just saw a photograph of President Kennedy and current Governor Brown’s dad building some of the aquifers that have been so important to the economy of this state for decades.  If we were able to do that then, we should be able to do it now.  It's just a matter of us making sure that we're not putting politics ahead of trying to get things working.

Our work with Governor Brown and his administration is going to continue.  Californians have all had to come together and already make sacrifices, big and small, to help your neighbors and your state get through this.  The good news is California is always on the cutting-edge.  Already you use water far more efficiently than you did decades ago.  You do it smarter.  Joe was explaining just how this drip irrigation that you see in this region has made many of these farms much more efficient when it comes to water utilization.  And so we know that we can innovate and meet this challenge, but we've got to start now.  We can't wait.

So I want to make sure that every Californian knows -- whether you’re NorCals, SoCal, here in the Central Valley -- your country is going to be there for you when you need it this year. But we're going to have to all work together in the years to come to make sure that we address the challenge and leave this incredible land embodied to our children and our grandchildren in at least as good shape as we found it.

So, thank you very much, everybody, for the great work that you guys do.  And I've already told the Governor as well as all your outstanding representatives here that our administration is going to stay on this and we are prepared to cooperate with local, state officials throughout.  And that's not just in California, because we're going to see some similar problems in places like Colorado, Nevada, some of the neighboring Western states, and so part of the conversation is also going to have to be a regional conversation. 

But this is something that I'm very committed to.  We're going to make sure to get it done, working together.  Thank you so much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END                5:08 P.M. PST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 13, 2014

President Obama Announces his Intent to Nominate Jane Chu as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama announced his intent to nominate Dr. Jane Chu as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.

President Obama said, “Jane’s lifelong passion for the arts and her background in philanthropy have made her a powerful advocate for artists and arts education in Kansas City.  She knows firsthand how art can open minds, transform lives and revitalize communities, and believes deeply in the importance of the arts to our national culture.  I’m proud to nominate her as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts.” 

President Obama announced his intent to nominate Dr. Jane Chu as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts:

Dr. Jane Chu, Nominee for Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
Dr. Jane Chu is President and CEO of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts in Kansas City, Missouri, a position she has held since 2006.  She was a Fund Executive at the Kauffman Fund for Kansas City from 2004 to 2006, and Vice President of External Relations for Union Station Kansas City from 2002 to 2004.  She was Vice President of Community Investment for the Greater Kansas City Community Foundation from 1997 to 2002.  Dr. Chu is a Trustee at William Jewell College and serves on the Board of Directors of the Ewing Marion Kauffman School and the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce.  Kansas City’s Nonprofit Connect recently announced her as their Nonprofit Professional of the Year.  Dr. Chu received an A.A. in Visual Arts from Nebraska Wesleyan University, a B.M. in Piano Performance and a B.M.Ed. in Music Education from Ouachita Baptist University, an M.A. in Piano Pedagogy from Southern Methodist University, an M.B.A. from Rockhurst University, and a Ph.D. in Philanthropic Studies from Indiana University.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 13, 2014

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden on National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco’s Meeting with Saudi Minister of Interior Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abd al Az

Yesterday, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Susan E. Rice and Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco hosted His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Nayef bin Abd al Aziz al Saud, Minister of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for meetings at the White House.  They discussed issues of importance in the strategic relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, including our robust security cooperation and efforts to address violent extremism and to counter terrorism across the Middle East.  They also exchanged views on regional issues and committed to continuing to strengthen our cooperation on a range of common interests.  President Obama will travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in March to meet with His Majesty King Abdullah bin Abd al Aziz Al-Saud as part of regular consultations between our two countries. 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2014

Statement by the President on Congress Voting to Raise the Debt Ceiling

I’m pleased that Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to pay for what they’ve already spent, and remove the threat of default from our economy once and for all. The full faith and credit of the United States is too important to use as leverage or a tool for extortion. Hopefully, this puts an end to politics by brinksmanship and allows us to move forward to do more to create good jobs and strengthen the economy.  Instead of wasting time creating new crises, Congress should be focused on creating new jobs and opportunities. That’s what the American people deserve from their representatives in Washington, and that's what they should get.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2014

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Todd A. Batta, of Iowa, to be an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, vice Brian T. Baenig, resigned.

Maria Cancian, of Wisconsin, to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services, vice Carmen R. Nazario.

R. Jane Chu, of Missouri, to be Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts for a term of four years, vice Rocco Landesman, retired.

Julia Akins Clark, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority for a term of five years.  (Reappointment)

Victoria Reggie Kennedy, of Massachusetts, to be a Governor of  the United States Postal Service for a term expiring December 8, 2016, vice Carolyn L. Gallagher, term expired.

D. Nathan Sheets, of Maryland, to be an Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Lael Brainard, resigned.

Mark Sobel, of Virginia, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund for a term of two years, vice Margrethe Lundsager, resigning.

Francis Xavier Taylor, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security, vice Caryn A. Wagner, resigned.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2014

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 2/12/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:54 P.M. EST

MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon.  Thank you all for being here.  I have with me, as you can see today, another guest briefer, the Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, who is going to talk to you a little bit about the President’s event today where he will sign the executive order that raises the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour, and why it is an important step forward towards achieving the President’s objective here, which is ensuring that if you work hard, if you take responsibility for yourself and your family, you should not be paid a wage that keeps you in poverty. 

So, as you know, the President very much wants to see Congress take action on this, but this is a step he can take using his authority, and he will sign that order today.

     So, as in keeping with past practice, we’ll have the Secretary speak first.  You can address questions to him on subject areas that he covers at the top.  We’ll let him go and I’ll remain for questions on other subjects. 

     With that, the Secretary of Labor.

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Great.  Thanks, Jay.  Good afternoon.  The President has said that this year will be a Year of Action, and so today he will take an important step to expand opportunity by rewarding hard work with fair wages. 

     In a short time from now, the President will sign an executive order to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for workers employed through federal contracts.  If you’re serving food or doing laundry on a military base, if you’re a nursing assistant caring for our nation’s veterans, if you’re staffing the parking lot at a federal courthouse, or if you’re working concessions at our national parks, then you deserve a raise.  As the President said in the State of the Union address, if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.

     The President believes that the federal government should lead by example as a model employer, joining so many other private businesses who recognize that paying a fair wage is both the right thing to do, the smart thing to do, and the efficient thing to do.

     We estimate that the executive order will benefit hundreds of thousands of people directly by increasing their pay, but it will also improve taxpayers’ return on their investment.  Higher wages make for a more productive workforce, thus improving the quality and efficiency of services provided to the government. 

     But this should be a first step.  Every American worker, not just federal contract employees, need a raise.  That will take an act of Congress.  So the administration will continue to push strongly for the passage of the Harkin-Miller bill, which will increase the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.  And in the meantime, we’ll continue to encourage and support efforts at the state level and at the local level to do the same.

     And with that, I’m happy to take any questions.

     MR. CARNEY:  Chuck.

     Q    Mr. Secretary, do you have an estimate on how many workers are going to be helped by this federal contract raise?  I know that you’ve been coming up with a -- there hasn’t been a full -- in the last few weeks.  Do you have a better --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, we estimate that it will be in the hundreds of thousands.  And the reason we don’t have a more precise estimate than that is as we finalize the regulations in the course of the ensuing months, that will give us a better handle on that.  I had read a study that it indicated that it was in the millions.  We believe that’s too high.  And the assumptions that were involved in that estimate, including the fact that they had a $12/hour minimum wage, those assumptions didn’t apply to the executive order that the President will be issuing.  But we’re confident that our estimates are where the actual number will be.

     Q    Can I follow up on that?  You said hundreds of thousands -- during what time period?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  During the course -- it goes into effect January 1st of next year.  So not every contract will come up January 1st of next year.  So in the course of the ensuing period of time, which will be months and years for contracts to come to the end of their life and be renewed, then you will have more and more people benefitting.  The President was very explicit about not wanting it to interfere with contracts that are already in place.

     Q    No, but I’m asking you a specific question.  You’ve given us an estimate here.  You claim this is going to benefit hundreds of thousands of workers.  So is this during the first year, during the first five years, during the first ten years?  What period of time are we talking about?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  It will benefit hundreds of thousands of workers as new contracts come in place.  And new contracts will come in place over the course of years beginning January 1st of 2015 when the executive order goes into effect.

     Q    So over the course of eternity?  I mean, I’m just wondering, what’s the --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Over the course of a number of years -- three to five years.

     Q    Three to five years?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Some will benefit year one, more will benefit year two, more will benefit year three.  Even more will benefit in the ensuing years.

     Q    And what percentage of workers on federal contracts make the minimum wage, or make less than $10.10 an hour?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, again, we don’t have a precise figure because we’re still finalizing the regulations and preparing the regulations.  But, again, we estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of workers who will benefit from this, which means they are making below $10.10 an hour right now.

     Q    Just one last question.  What more will this cost?  Because obviously you’re raising the wages of those working on federal contracts, so what will be the cost of this?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  All federal agencies will be doing this within their existing budget.  And the reason why this is the efficient thing to do is because when employers are paying a fair wage, they have a more efficient workforce.  And when you have a workforce where you have less attrition, you have those sorts of efficiencies.  So we’re confident that just like so many other private sector companies that have paid a fair wage and have low attrition and an efficient and effective workforce, that we will realize the same efficiencies here in the federal government.

     Q    So you’re not allowing the price of the contract to go up?  Are you preventing that in the executive order?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  All of this will be implemented within the existing budget of agencies.  So there’s not a bump-up in the budget to account for this.  Because, again, the efficiencies of paying a fair wage are what we will gain from this executive order.  The President has said many times that the federal government should set the example, and that’s exactly what we’re doing here.

     Q    Mr. Secretary, there were some who had hoped that this would apply to existing contracts.  Can you explain both the legal and economic reasons why that decision was not made?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, the President made a judgment, and I agree that it should be applying to new contracts so that in the middle of a contract there’s not the disruption of having to have a wage inserted that wasn’t in place when you negotiated the contract to begin with.

     Q    Was there ever going to be litigation over that?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, no, again, the President wanted to draw an appropriate balance between ensuring that we have a minimum wage and also minimizing disruption on contractors.  And changing the rules in the middle of a contract we felt would be disruptive and that is why it applies to future contracts and doesn’t take effect until January of 2015.

     Q    And you can see there will be some economic lag time before these benefits are actually enjoyed and then translates to the broader economy?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, again, any law that you put in place will have an effective date that is some time down the road.  And so this is no different than any other law, whether it’s increases in the minimum wage that Congress has passed, which had an effective date down the road.  We just issued some regulations to help home health care workers and we had a delayed effective date so that we could work with the various stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation of that law.  This is no different than any other law that would address these important pocketbook issues for people.

     MR. CARNEY:  Jeff.

     Q    Mr. Secretary, this is obviously something -- right here.

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Hey, Jeff.

     Q    Hi -- that the President can do with his pen.  How likely is it, though, that you will get congressional support for doing a broader minimum wage hike?  There’s not a lot of appetite for this among Republicans.

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, I’m very optimistic --

Q    Why?

SECRETARY PEREZ:  -- and I’m optimistic because I look at history.  First of all, I look at where the American people are.  The American people, regardless of your ideological stripes, strongly support an increase in the minimum wage and they support it because they support the proposition that nobody who works a full-time job should have to live in poverty. 

And when members of Congress go home, they listen to their constituents.  I was in New Jersey earlier this week -- or last week, in Jersey City, listening to baggage workers who are working at Newark Airport talking about how they’re making choices between food and health care; how a guy’s son just turned 16 and he had to look him in the eye and say, I can’t afford to buy you a birthday present because I’ve got to buy food for us.  These are stories that we hear all across the country. 

And if you look at the history of the minimum wage, it has always enjoyed strong bipartisan support, whether it was the increase that George W. Bush signed or the increase that one of my predecessors, Elizabeth Dole, spoke proudly of in helping to shepherd.  And so this issue has enjoyed bipartisan support, and I’m confident that it will continue to.  And we’ll fight very hard because, again, people are working hard and falling further behind, and that’s not right. 

     Q    But it doesn’t enjoy bipartisan support right now.  What do you think needs to change to make that political calculus different?

SECRETARY PEREZ:  I think when members listen even more to their constituents they will see that people are working 40, 50 hours a week and they’re on food stamps.  They’ll see that we’re subsidizing the banking industry to the tune of $900 million a year, because you’ve got bank tellers who are working and collecting food stamps.  The fast food industry subsidized to the tune, according to one report, of $7 billion a year. 

If we want to reduce reliance on public subsidies like food stamps, if we want to promote self-sufficiency, which I think there’s bipartisan support for, if we want to make sure that we reward work and really acknowledge the dignity of work, raising the minimum wage makes a lot of sense.

     And so I think the American people are ahead of some in Congress.  And I’m confident that as people go back and listen to their constituents that this movement will continue to grow.

     Q    Just to follow up, this is not indexed for inflation, right?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  No, that’s incorrect.  It is indexed for inflation.

     Q    It is.  And then the second question is, in the job retraining -- or job training project that the Vice President spearheaded, is there a timeframe?  Can you just remind us, is there a timeframe in which that work is going to be completed?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  We’re working feverishly now and we will be throughout the year, because we want to get back to the American people as soon as possible.  And I meet with the Vice President with great regularity as we draw a blueprint for ensuring that people have career pathways and those tickets to the middle class that come when you have access to training and upward mobility.

     MR. CARNEY:  Ann.

     Q    Thank you.  I apologize, maybe I should have looked this up.  Are there people -- I understand this is for contractors.  Are there federal government employees who earn less than $10.10 an hour now, people at the Justice Department or Labor Department or in the White House complex who are earning less than that $10.10 figure now?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  I’m not sure the answer to your question, so I’d have to get back to you.  And to that extent that there are, we’re certainly looking into ways to address those issues as well.

     Q    At the end of last month, the President talked about helping out the long-term unemployed by encouraging companies to overlook their employment history and also their credit scores.  Aside from doing a solid for the people that are affected by that, why is that good business practice?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, I’ve met with so many long-term unemployed in the course of the last few months.  And what I saw was these are people with immense talent.  They find themselves in a predicament that is no fault of their own.  They’re in the quintessential Catch-22 -- I can't pay my bills right now, and I need a job to pay my bills.

And so what we did and what the President did in meeting with the CEOs and getting the pledges of over 300 companies was, again, to use his convening authority to help address this issue.  And it was a fascinating conversation, because what we realized is that there are so many companies who have practices that are benign, such as a credit check.  I can understand why someone would want to do a credit check for somebody, but the reality is, if you’ve been unemployed for two years, you’ve probably missed a couple payments.  And what we saw in that room was a willingness from companies to look at people’s abilities and take a fresh look.

     And we also compared and highlighted many best practices, including the fact that we have the authority and are actually involved in some very promising work where we subsidize wages.  So if an employer hires someone who is long-term unemployed right now, we’ll pay half the wage over six to eight months, and sometimes even more.  And what we have found is that program really works well.  So that convening really helped us to shine a light on this issue.  And we have a $150 million grant solicitation that is going out imminently to further promote those best practices.

     Q    If two employees who are otherwise equally qualified, one of whom currently has a job or has been unemployed for a day, another one who has been unemployed for 13 months, the company shouldn’t look at that?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, again, this -- what we’re trying to do in this program is have the company appreciate that that person who has been unemployed for 13 months has tremendous talent.  And what we heard from companies was that, you know what, I used to look skeptically on that person who had been out for 13 months.  We took a risk, and they're some of our most productive employees.  And so that's what we were trying to communicate is that sometimes we put in place certain filters that prevent us from seeing potential in people, and that's what this initiative is about.

     And I was really heartened at the spirit of the enterprise. It’s very similar to our actions in hiring veterans where employers have really stepped up in a big way.  And I’m confident that we’re going to see the same thing happen here.

     Q    I just am wondering why if the administration feels so strongly about this it didn't do it before?  So is this something --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  What is the “this” in your sentence?

     Q    Oh, I’m sorry -- the executive order.  Going back to the executive order.  So is this something that you pushed for personally?  Or is it something that would have had a negative impact on the economy when it was more fragile a couple of years ago?  Or how do you explain --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, the President has been very, very strong in stating that we have to reward work with a fair wage.  And he has continued to work with stakeholders across the aisle in an effort to raise the minimum wage.  And over the course of the last year, that has been unsuccessful to date.  I’m confident that the winds are changing in that context. 

But the President felt that it was important for the federal government to model behavior.  We can't go out and tell the private sector that they need to raise the minimum wage if we’re not practicing what we preach.  And so that’s what this executive order is about:  practicing what we preach; modeling best practices; and demonstrating that you can pay a fair wage, have an efficiently run government, and help put money in people’s pockets, which stimulates consumption, which stimulates job growth.

     MR. CARNEY:  Chris.

     Q    Speaking of executive orders, there’s been a lot of discussion recently about a potential executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  If the President were to sign such an executive order, could the Labor Department implement it?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, I can’t get into what-ifs.  I’m certainly aware of the executive order that was proposed that you’re talking about.  And the President takes a backseat to no one in his commitment for equal access to opportunity for people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.  And it’s an issue that we continue to contemplate and work on.

     Q    On a related note, there’s also been talk about implementing existing order -- Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, and apply that to transgender workers to prohibit discrimination against them in the wake of Macy v. Holder.  Will the Labor Department take that step?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  That issue is under review in the aftermath of the Macy decision.  And I’ve asked my staff to expedite that review so that we can bring that issue to conclusion at the Department of Labor.

     Q    When will the review come to an end?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  I’m hoping it will come to an end as soon as possible.

     Q    Just following, in terms of -- the President has been in office now for more than five years.  Why is this coming now -- now, and not in 2009 or 2010?  What has changed?  Now is just the broader focus on the issue of income inequality?  Or is there --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  I think it’s important to put us back in context.  In 2009, we were dealing with the Great Recession, bleeding 800,000 jobs a month.  The President was I think appropriately focused on the Recovery Act and all the issues that were involved in trying to stop the bleed and prevent this economy from going into a depression.  And he succeeded in doing that.  There are so many things -- and Jay is far more conversant in things happening around the world.

     The President has taken multitasking to new levels in this administration.  And so it certainly doesn’t reflect a lack of interest in this, it reflects the fact that we were confronting in 2009 a crisis.  As we move forward, as the economy continues to grow -- and we’ve seen 47 consecutive months of private sector job growth to the tune of 8.5 million private sector jobs -- the time is now, in the President’s judgment, to really act on the minimum wage.  It’s a way to put more money in people’s pockets, stimulate consumption, stimulate job growth, and really address this issue of fairness.

     And so I think now is the right time, and the President is going to continue to do his level best to ensure not only the effect of implementation of this EO, but also to ensure passage of a federal minimum wage hike.

     Q    Can I just get two clarifications, just very quick, on the hundreds of thousands?  Is this 200,000; 900,000?  How many hundreds of thousands will this benefit?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Well, again, as we develop the regulations we will have a better sense of that.  And as soon as we have that better sense we will let you know.

     Q    Let me make sure I got what you said -- I think it was to Chuck -- correct.  So you’re saying we’re going to -- contractors will pay more money to their employees but this won’t cost any more money?  Is that what you’re saying?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  The federal agencies --

     Q    It won’t be more expensive?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Federal agencies will be doing this within their existing budgets.  And again, I think there’s a pretty robust body of evidence that demonstrates that when you have a workforce that receives a fair wage, you lower attrition, you increase efficiency and you can do more.  And that’s why Costco pays a fair wage.  That’s why the Ace hardware store in Northwest D.C. that I just visited pays above the minimum wage.  I think there’s a very strong body of evidence that demonstrates that.  And we will be efficient here and --

     Q    But we are going to close the loop on something.  I guess what you’re saying is it’s not going to cost the budgets more, but the contracts themselves, could they cost more?  You say they got to work within their own budget, but it could it mean, say, instead of 10 contracts it’s going to be nine because of --

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Again, agencies are going --

     Q    So the contracts could end up costing more?

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  No.  Well, again, we don’t know that, because we don’t know what -- first of all, agencies, as I said before, are operating within their existing budgets.  And businesses will bid on these contracts, and frankly, many of them already pay the minimum wage or a higher minimum wage in other contexts.  And so this won’t be an increased cost for them.

     So I think it would be inaccurate to suggest without further evidence that that would happen, because we already see a lot of employers out there.  Remember, we have prevailing wage laws that have been in effect for decades that require employers to pay prevailing wages, which are far above the minimum wage.  We haven’t seen contracting dry up or go away.  When I was Labor Secretary in Maryland we implemented the nation’s first living wage law.  We saw an increase in the number of contractors.

     So when you promote efficiencies like we’re doing here, good things happen.

     MR. CARNEY:  Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

     SECRETARY PEREZ:  Thank you.  Take care.

     MR. CARNEY:  I’d like to thank the Secretary for joining us today and I will take your questions after I make a couple of points at the top. 

First of all, as you know, according to the National Weather Service, a very complex weather pattern will continue to affect the southern United States through Thursday.  Yesterday, President Obama declared an emergency for 45 counties in Georgia at the request of Governor Nathan Deal, authorizing FEMA to support the state in its efforts to respond to the storm. 

The President was briefed yesterday morning and updated during today’s presidential daily briefing.  He directed his team to stay in close touch with our federal partners as well as the state and local officials leading the response.  FEMA has deployed an incident management assistance team to the Georgia emergency operations center, and additional teams are on alert for deployment as needed. 

FEMA has liaisons in the emergency operations centers of South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, and has identified liaisons for other impacted states ready to deploy, should they be requested.  FEMA has activated its national response coordination center in Washington, D.C. and its regional response coordination center in Atlanta.  And later today, FEMA will activate in Philadelphia to help coordinate any requests for assistance from affected states. 

In addition to providing around-the-clock staffing support to FEMA’s distribution centers in Atlanta, FEMA has also activated an incident support base to pre-stage commodities, including generators, meals, water, blankets, and cots in Augusta, Georgia.  We encourage residents and visitors in the track of the storms to follow the instructions of state, local, and tribal officials; to monitor NOAA weather radio, and to monitor their local news for updates and directions provided by local officials. 

Secondly, I wanted to let you know that due to the severe weather that I just mentioned and that is forecasted to hit this area, the D.C. area tonight and tomorrow, and acting out of an abundance of caution, we will reschedule the event at the White House tomorrow to launch the “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative.  We are working to find a new date for this event and we’ll share more information about that as soon as we can.

And now to your questions.

Julie.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  Just to move the minimum wage debate into the legislative realm, what has the White House been asking of Senator Reid and Democrats on the Hill in terms of a timeline for bringing this up?  Do you now see this, especially with immigration perhaps moving to the background a bit, as the most realistic legislative priority for the White House?

MR. CARNEY:  It is a very high priority for the reasons that Secretary Perez just outlined.  In America, you shouldn’t work full-time and live in poverty.  It’s as simple as that.  And I think a broad majority of Americans support that idea; certainly the President does. 

So we’re going to work with both houses of Congress and leaders in both houses of Congress to press this issue.  I would not agree with the premise that immigration is moving to the background. 

Q    Well, Speaker Boehner said he’s not planning to bring it up any time soon.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think that the Speaker identified the fact that this has long been a difficult issue for the Republican Party, but the fact is there has been significant progress on comprehensive immigration reform, including the principles that the leadership of the House put out just a few weeks ago.  That’s a giant step in the direction of comprehensive immigration reform becoming a reality -- well, maybe not a giant step, but a reasonably large step given where the House had been in the past. 

     So we are certainly not of the opinion that we can’t get this done in 2014.  We’re still optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform can get done this year -- not because we want it, not because the President says it should happen, but because businesses across the country say it, Republicans and Democrats across the country say it; labor groups, faith-based groups and law enforcement groups say it should happen.  So we’re going to continue to press on that. 

On the minimum wage, we’re going to work with leadership to have the Congress take this matter up.  And we want to see Congress raise the minimum wage. 

     Q    But have you set any kind of timeframe for that?  Because you wanted them to do this last year and obviously that didn’t happen.  So I’m wondering if you’re putting a timeframe around it or something to try to ratchet up the pressure.

     MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a timeframe to describe to you today.  But we are in active conversations with leaders on the Hill about how to move this issue forward.  Because, again, this is broadly supported by the American people.  The evidence that the Secretary was talking about with Jon about the fact that raising the minimum wage does not have a discernable effect on job creation and creates efficiencies across the board, and injects energy into the economy, because you’re paying people a living wage.  And especially, when you’re at that minimum wage, you tend to be spending what you earn and that has positive economic impact.  So there are a lot of reasons to get this done, and we think it will get done. 

     Q    And then, a bit of a logistical question.  King Abdullah of Jordan has been in Washington for most of the week, and he met with the Vice President today.  Why couldn’t the President have met with King Abdullah in Washington?  Why does he have to go out to California to do that?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, we’ve announced the schedule and the fact that he is meeting with the King out in California, and the President looks forward to that meeting.  The King has a lot of partners that he has conversations with, including in the administration the Vice President, the Secretary of State and others, as well as I’m sure on Capitol Hill -- Jordan being an important partner in the region for the United States. 

     So the President will meet with the King out in California, and I don’t have a readout yet of the Vice President’s meeting with him this morning, but I know that was an important part of his time here in D.C. 

     Q    I guess I just don’t understand, though, if the King has been here where the President is for three, almost four days, why do they both have to go --

     MR. CARNEY:   Well, as you know, I think we put out a schedule for California that includes the President is going to Fresno, where he is going to discuss the effects of this historic drought in California.  The King is also going to go out to California.  The President and the King can meet there and will meet there as part of this trip.

     Jeff.

     Q    Jay, two questions.  One, I’d like to follow up on something that Secretary Perez said in response to Chris’s question.  Is the administration contemplating executive action on LGBT workplace non-discrimination?  That was the word that he used.

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think what I can say to that is what I’ve said in the past, is that I don’t have any updates for you on obviously the discussion in Washington and beyond about that kind of executive action.  What our position is and has been is that we strongly support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  We note the progress made in the Senate, the fact that there’s been movement in the Senate on this, and I think against some of the conventional wisdom we've seen movement on this. 

     On the broader range of issues around LGBT rights, we've seen dramatic progress, and we're going to keep pressing Congress to catch up with the country on these issues.  Turning the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into law would be a huge step forward by Congress, and the President looks forward to that happening.  But I just don't have any update on the discussion around other hypothetical EOs, and I think that's what Secretary Perez was indicating.

     Q    It wasn’t a hypothetical, so I just wanted to clarify, should we read into that any sort of a shift in the position of maybe going away from just a congressional push back to the possibility of an executive order?

     MR. CARNEY:  I think broadly speaking, the administration looks at all opportunities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity, that levels the playing field, that sustains equal opportunity for all that is part of the President’s vision.  That's as a broad matter.  On specific -- would the President do this executive action or that executive action, I mean, that list could be endless, and I don't have any update for you on that kind of proposition.

     What I can tell you is that it is our policy position that the House ought to and the Congress ought to send the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to the President’s desk so he can sign it into law.

     Q    Just one question on the debt ceiling.  Is it the White House’s view, or your view, that what happened yesterday is the end of debt ceiling fights with the Republicans?  Or is this a temporary blip for 2014?

     MR. CARNEY:  It’s our view that yesterday represented a victory for the American economy and the American middle class. An end to that kind of brinksmanship for now is a very welcome thing.  As a sort of starting principle, Washington should not be causing harm to the American economy.  And that's what Washington and Congress, Republicans in Congress had been doing through the kinds of brinksmanship that we've seen in the past over shutting down the government or threatening default.

     So obviously, yesterday was a very positive development.  It says something about the expectations that the American people have of Congress that people notice when Congress actually doesn’t do direct harm to the economy.  And by Congress I mean Republicans in Congress.  This has been an effect brought about entirely by the ideological passions of House Republicans in particular.  And it’s a good thing that we’re not seeing it happen again. 

I can't predict the future.  What I can say is this will be the third time now, hopefully, that the debt ceiling has been raised without drama or delay.  And it would be hard to argue in the future that somehow having done it three times doesn’t matter; now we’re going to threaten to shut the government down again.  Let’s threaten to default on the full faith and credit of the United States again.  I think that argument becomes harder to sustain in the future, but it’s hard to know what the future will bring.

     Brianna.

     Q    Thanks, Jay.  On the debt ceiling, does the President think that this came about because of taking this position of we will not negotiate on the debt ceiling?  Does he think it has to do with election-year politics?  What does he attribute this development to?  Maybe speaking to a certain --

     MR. CARNEY:  I think what happened yesterday reflects the fundamental soundness of the position the President has taken, which is that the President of the United States -- whether he or she is a Democrat or a Republican -- should not pay on behalf of the American people a ransom to Congress so that Congress authorizes the bills that Congress racked up to be paid.  You engage in that practice and you undermine the faith that the world has in the American economy, and you do enormous harm to the American economy and the American middle class -- all out of ideological pique.

     So the President held firm to the position that he’s had, feeling very confident that it was the right position.  Again, it’s not a reward to any President, as Democrat or Republican, for Congress to do its fundamental responsibility.  It is the least that Congress can and should do -- and in this case, Republicans can and should do -- on behalf of their constituents, which is not to throw the American or global economy into chaos.  So it’s an important milestone in our view.

     Q    Do you worry at all, having sort of gone out in this move to go around Congress where he can -- I mean, if this is a sign of maybe slightly -- you had the budget deal, you have this -- I mean, did maybe he jump the gun on sort of talking about going around Congress when maybe there is a sign that right now it’s a little easier to --

     MR. CARNEY:  You left out the farm bill.  I think that what that reflects -- no, but I think it’s an important question.  It reflects that the President’s proposition was never that he was, from now into the future, only going to act using his administrative authority or executive authority.  He was making clear that where Congress would not work with him on behalf of expanding the economy and rewarding hard work and responsibility, he would take actions that he could to advance that agenda. 

But he’s always eager, as demonstrated by the bipartisan farm bill that he signed into law, by the budget deal and the funding that went along with the budget deal, and by the prospects for immigration reform and the prospects for raising the minimum wage, that he’s absolutely eager to work very hard with lawmakers of both parties to advance an agenda that helps the middle class. 

And it’s never been an either/or proposition.  We have seen a lot of obstructionism in Congress and that’s been to the detriment of the American economy and the American people.  So where that continues to be a problem, the President is going to act using the authority that he can.  He is certainly not going to allow Congress to prevent him from doing the very best he can do on behalf of the American people and the economy.  But he can’t, he fully recognizes, do everything that needs to be done by himself.  Some of the actions that we need to take here to solidify our recovery, to further secure the middle class, to advance innovation has to be done with Congress.  And he looks forward to working with Congress. 

Q    Last one.  Can you just comment on Senator Paul and FreedomWorks have filed a class-action lawsuit against President Obama and the FBI Director, NSA Director, DNI when it comes to the phone metadata program that was revealed by Edward Snowden.  Do you have a reaction to that?

MR. CARNEY:  Sure.  Obviously, about a specific matter of litigation I’d refer you to the Department of Justice.  And while I’m not in a position to speak to a pending lawsuit, what I can say is that in January the President emphasized that, “in an extraordinarily difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people.  They are not abusing authorities in order to listen to your phone calls or read your e-mails.” 

And to the extent that the question you ask refers specifically to the Section 215 bulk metadata collection program, as we’ve said previously, we believe that the program, as it exists, is lawful.  We’re not alone.  It has been found to be lawful by multiple courts and it receives oversight from all three branches of government, including the Congress.

So, again, I can’t speak to the specific litigation, but I can speak to what the President’s views are and what the administration’s views are about the program in question.

Let me move around a little bit.  Dan.

Q    Thanks.  Clearly, Syria was on the agenda.  Biden talked with King Abdullah, and will be as well in California.  I know you don’t make a habit of commenting on everything that Senator McCain says, but he had a fairly broad attack this morning in the Senate floor on the President.  He cited the Directive on Mass Atrocities, of Holocaust Museum comments, U.N. speech.  He said, how can a leader of a free world who says it’s the moral obligation to do what we can to prevent worst atrocities -- how can it be that he’s not doing more to prevent atrocities occurring every single day in Syria.  Is the President still feeling pretty fulfilled -- everything he said about atrocities in all of these venues in terms of --

MR. CARNEY:  The United States is doing more than any other country in an effort to provide humanitarian relief to the Syrian people, in an effort to help bring parties together and help bring the two sides together to resolve this conflict in the only way it can ultimately be resolved, which is through a negotiated political settlement and the creation of a transitional governing authority.  That’s the only way out for Syria. 

The President has made clear, as he did just yesterday in his press conference with President Hollande, that he understands how terrible the situation has been and continues to be in Syria.  And that is why it is so important to continue to press for progress in the talks and to continue to keep the pressure on the Assad regime so that it is held responsible for the brutality that it has inflicted on the Syrian people.  That's why we support the opposition.  That's why we provide aid to the opposition.

     I didn't see Senator McCain’s remarks, and I’m not sure what exactly he’s advocating.  If he’s advocating a U.S. invasion of Syria, I don't know.  Is he advocating a bombing campaign?

The President has spoken clearly about his views on these issues.  He, as he made clear yesterday, doesn't take options off the table as a general principle as President.  But it has certainly been his view that the course of action that we’ve taken when it comes to Syria has been the right one.  And we’re going to continue to press for a resolution through the only means that one can be achieved.

Q    Just a follow-up briefly on NSA.  Why hasn’t the President actually visited NSA?  We had all those reports about morale -- damage to morale there because of the controversy over the surveillance.  Is he planning a visit?

MR. CARNEY:  I think the President has spoken clearly in a very high-profile speech about his high regard for the professionals, largely anonymous professionals, Americans who, in our intelligence community and specifically at the NSA, work under enormous amounts of pressure to keep us safe and do so following protocols that ensure the privacy of ordinary Americans, and do so knowing that their successes -- because of the nature of their work -- will go unnoticed and unreported upon by and large, and that any failures, any mistakes, any misses can result in calamity.  That's a lot of pressure to put on any American, and we should remember -- and the fact that so many of our fellow citizens are doing that work on our behalf.

Major, yes.

Q    Would you agree that the import of today’s executive order, at least for the short term, is political symbolism, not economic vitality?

     MR. CARNEY:  Not if you’re one of the families that’s affected.

     Q    But they’re not going to be affected until next year, at the very earliest.

     MR. CARNEY:   Well, I think as Secretary Perez said, yes, the executive order takes effect on January 1st.  And then as contracts become --

     Q    Contracts have to come in, be approved.  So it’s a considerable amount of time after. 

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, you can diminish or dismiss --

     Q    I’m just asking.

     MR. CARNEY:  -- the effect for that family where the father or the mother is now going to be making $10.10 an hour instead of a lower wage and the effect that will have on that family.  There’s no question that it doesn’t resolve the problem or the need to raise the minimum wage across the country.  That’s why we’re calling on Congress, in the same breath, to take action.

     Q    But that’s one of the reasons for it -- to create this political symbol of you taking this action to jumpstart that debate.

     MR. CARNEY:  I think symbols by definition are not substantive -- that this has a substantive effect on federal contractors and those who make below $10.10 an hour.  And there’s no question -- and I think we stated clearly -- that our projections fall into a range of hundreds of thousands, not millions.  We’re not suggesting otherwise.  But those are real people for whom this will mean a very positive change.

     And it demonstrates the President’s commitment to do everything he can using his authority to advance an agenda that expands opportunity, that rewards hard work, that follows the basic principle that if you work full-time, you shouldn’t live in poverty.

     So we have more work to do.  And in order to have every American benefit from placing that principle into law, we need Congress to act.  Meanwhile, we’re going to continue to encourage states to take action, as many have, to raise state minimum wages.  And we’re going to implement this executive order.

     Q    Let me ask you about Afghanistan.  There was a lengthy principals meeting here last week on that topic.  There’s been some reporting in the aftermath that the administration has sort of come to the grudging conclusion that this BSA is not going to be signed by Karzai before the elections, and that it is important within the Pentagon and the larger NATO communications to reassess and begin planning for a post-2014 troop presence, because that is not going to be signed before April and you just have to accept that reality and move ahead.  Is that true?

     MR. CARNEY:   I think two things --

     Q    -- shift in the conversation?

     MR. CARNEY:  -- two things are true.  And these are good questions.  Two things are true.  We continue to seek to conclude the bilateral security agreement.  We continue to press the Afghan government to sign the agreement.  We continue to make clear that absent a BSA signed, we cannot plan for U.S. or NATO troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014.  And planning has to take place around the contingencies that exist with either a signed BSA or a BSA that is not signed.  And as time progresses into this year, it becomes more difficult to plan for a post-2014 troop presence that would be there to focus on two missions absent a signed BSA.

     So on the broader question, what is the Pentagon planning? I think you can take to the bank that the Pentagon is planning for more than one outcome, as they always do.

     Q    Right.  But I guess the central question is, do the discussions now sort of fall into a category of assuming after the election this is going to be resolved and so the U.S. and its NATO partners can begin planning with that assumption?  That Karzai is the single impediment here and he’s not going to be on the stage and not going to be an impediment past --

     MR. CARNEY:  I don't think that's the case.  We don't look at it as personality-based.  We can't -- this was an agreement negotiated with the Afghan government.  It was an agreement, and negotiated in good faith over a long period of time with the Afghan government.  It was an agreement that was endorsed by the loya jirga in Afghanistan, a significant milestone and hurdle cleared.  And it ought to be signed.  We're not renegotiating it, and we can't -- I think the answer to your question is I don't think that planners would start doing things based on the hope or prediction that a future government would take action.  I don't think that's how this works. 

It is the Afghan government that negotiated this agreement.  There is the reality that this is -- we're now in February of 2014 and we're having to look at, with our NATO allies, what the world looks like in terms of our troops beyond 2014.  And that's why it needs to be signed promptly if we're going to be able to fulfill our preferred approach here, which is to have a limited troop presence in order to continue to conduct CT operations and to train and support the Afghan security forces.

Q    One last one.  The Michael Sam story continues to generate a lot of comments on social media and elsewhere, and people are describing it as a significant moment not only for the NFL but sports in general.  When we asked this to you on Monday you hadn’t had a chance to talk to the President.  One, I wonder if you’ve had a chance to talk to the President about this, or if he’s made any effort to reach out to Michael Sam.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't have any details on the President’s conversations or phone calls.  I can tell you that I have spoken about this with him, and he, like the First Lady and like so many others, admires Michael Sam’s courage and believes that the action he’s taken is an important step, and looks forward to seeing him playing in the NFL.

Q    Jay, on health care, we're getting indications Secretary Sebelius may be announcing new enrollment numbers today.  Can you give us a sense of where the administration is?

MR. CARNEY:  My understanding is enrollment numbers will become available.  I'm not sure about the timing.  As has been the case in the past, what I am confident of is that after a very rocky start to healthcare.gov, we have seen a significant increase in enrollments, in signups, and we passed the 3 million mark, so I can predict that it will be above 3 million when the next figures are announced, and that we were seeing in December and January an increase in the demographic diversity of those who were enrolling, including a surge greater than the overall surge among younger enrollees. 

So when it comes to predictions about how many people will have signed up come March 31st, I don't have an exact number.  CBO has made predictions.  What we are confident about is that that will be a large number, and it will be a population that is diverse enough to allow the marketplaces to function effectively.

     Q    Since you’re saying there seems to be a surge in young people and the demographics are better, when we will see numbers beyond “enrollment,” see how many people are actually paying into the system?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, as you know, payments -- this is private insurance -- not often characterized in some quarters as that, but it is private insurance.  It is a contract between an individual or -- well, an individual even representing his or her family -- and a private insurance provider.  So insurance companies obviously have data about when those payments are made.  But this would be no different from any other insurance contract that you would purchase.

     But as far as what data or what information we have about those who have paid their premiums, I would refer you to CMS.  But it is important -- this is not -- again, when people like to talk about it as government health care, it is profoundly not that.  When people write that the law was crafted by Democrats alone, they forget that it was based on a Republican law entirely; enacted and signed into law by a Republican governor; modeled in part off of a proposal in the mid ‘90s from a Republican senator.  And that's because it -- and as such, when you know that that's what it is, you’re not surprised to learn that it’s based on the private insurance market.

     Q    Two other quick things.  Republicans are holding up a McKinsey & Company study that suggests only about 11 percent of the enrollees are actually new people getting insurance, that it’s a lot of people who have moved plans or are renewing, and that a lot of the Medicaid recipients are not new Medicaid recipients.  Do you have any sense of the breakdown?  Is that study anywhere close in terms of --

     MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t seen that study.  I think there are several areas that fall into that question.  There are those who have enrolled through the marketplace, either the state-run marketplaces or the federally run marketplaces on behalf of the states.  And that figure is over 3 million.  It will continue to grow, and we’ve seen steady growth in enrollments.

     Separately, the 6.3 million individuals were determined eligible to enroll in Medicaid or CHIP between October and December.  That's a figure cited often.  We have said all along that those numbers include both Medicaid and CHIP new eligibility determinations in states that expanded coverage.  In other words, individuals who are eligible because of that expansion, as well as determinations made based on prior law, and some states Medicaid renewals in groups not affected by the health care law. 

So there’s a mix there, and I don't know what the breakdown of that mix is, but what is absolutely true is that there is a significant number of new Medicaid and CHIP and enrollees because of the expansion in those states where Medicaid has been expanded under the Affordable Care Ac.  That number would be significantly larger if those hold-out Republican governors were to follow the lead of other Republican governors and expand Medicaid on behalf of their constituents.

     Q    Last one.  The Washington Post has a pretty tough editorial on the President’s latest executive action on health care.  To be clear, they criticize Republicans at the beginning in saying that they shouldn’t be trying to gut the individual mandate.  They say that's a bad idea.   But “none of that excuses President Obama’s increasingly cavalier approach to picking and choosing how to enforce the law.”  That's The Washington Post editorial.  How do you respond to the notion that this has been cavalier?

     MR. CARNEY:  Well, because this is a common-sense approach to phasing in an aspect of the law and its implementation for some employers.  Often not noted in reporting on this is that we’re talking about 2 percent of employers when we talk about those employers with between 50 and 99 employees.  That’s 2 percent.  Ninety-six percent of employers in America are unaffected by the so-called employer mandate because they have 50 or fewer employees.  Those with more than 100, larger companies, are not affected by the moving of or the phasing in of the deadline over 2015 and 2016. 

And this phase-in is reflected by the phase-in you have for individuals, where the penalty -- if you can afford insurance, you don’t qualify for the hardship exemption, but choose not to buy it -- that penalty is phased in over several years.  And that’s what you’re seeing, again, with 2 percent -- 2 percent of the employers in the country.

     Q    Jay, I want to just follow up quickly on Syria.  You said something in response to the question that you got earlier on McCain’s comments.  You said the President believes he’s got sort of the right policy right now.  And yet, yesterday, the President sounded as if he knows the policy is not working.  He said the situation on the ground is horrendous, acknowledging that Geneva is just -- the only good of Geneva is they showed up.  Other than that, nothing else.  Can you really classify this as the right policy if it’s not working?

     MR. CARNEY:  The right isn’t -- I was trying to contrast that with those who I think honestly come by and support a different position, which involves in some cases the use of U.S. troops or other U.S. military assets.  I’m not assigning that position to any specific individual.  There are obviously a broad range of opinions about the approach that should be taken in Syria. 

The President readily acknowledges and did yesterday how difficult the situation continues to be in Syria, but he continues to believe that the only path out of that conflict is through a negotiated political settlement.  And as we press for progress on that front with our partners, we continue to be the leader in providing humanitarian aid.  We continue to press for a United Nations Security Council resolution to open up corridors for the provision of humanitarian aid.  We continue to call on Russia to stop blocking the passage of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that would achieve that -- because it is unfathomable to argue that you care about the welfare of the Syrian people and block a resolution that would ensure that humanitarian aid prevented Syrians from starving to death.  So we’re pressing forward on all fronts. 

I think that the point I was making -- and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify -- was not that the situation in Syria is not serious, but that when contrasted with an approach that might involve a U.S. military presence, for example, in Syria, or directly engaging in a civil war in Syria, the President believes this is the right approach.

     Q    But you can’t sit here and say that this approach is working right now, since it’s not, right?  I mean, this policy is not working.

     MR. CARNEY:  Can I say that the Syrian civil war has ended?  No.  Can I say that the two sides have met for the first time?  Yes.  That’s modest progress to be sure, with an emphasis on “modest.”  But it is an improvement over where we were a few weeks and months ago.  And, meanwhile, we continue to press for the ability to provide more direct humanitarian aid to Syrians, and we continue to --

     Q    The President himself didn’t sound confident yesterday that this policy is the right one, but he said at the same time he doesn’t believe there’s a military solution now.  And he said that there isn’t a military solution either.

     MR. CARNEY:   Well, I think that the President --

     Q    It sounds like he is still searching for a better policy.

     MR. CARNEY:  The President reflected that this is an extremely difficult problem; that the path forward here is complicated and will be long, but that the only resolution here is through a negotiated political settlement.  That’s the only way this civil war is going to end and that’s why we’re working with our partners.  We’re pressing everybody involved in this to help bring that about.  But it’s not going to come easy, there’s no question.

     Jon.

     Q    To follow up on that, acknowledging that there may not be a better policy out there right now, certainly that there could be policies that would be worse, isn’t it time to acknowledge that when it comes to easing the humanitarian crisis in Syria, that the President’s policy has been an absolute failure?  I mean, you had the Director of National Intelligence tell Congress that the situation on the ground was an “apocalyptic disaster.”  How can we look at the policy towards Syria as anything other than a failure?

     MR. CARNEY:  Jon, we provide more humanitarian aid to the Syrian people than any other nation on Earth.  And we are --

     Q    That’s greatly admirable, but what I’m talking about is in terms of ending the crisis within Syria.  The crisis has gotten worse.  Assad’s grip on power has not weakened at all over the past year.  And we have our own top intelligence officer saying it’s an “apocalyptic disaster.”  How is that anything but a failure?

     MR. CARNEY:  The crisis in Syria is a crisis.  The circumstances on the ground are horrific.  That is why we have to bring the parties together to try to compel them towards a negotiated political settlement, because there isn’t a military solution here.  The Assad regime is not going to win militarily.  And the Assad -- the opposition, the Syrian people are not going to abide by a future in which Assad continue to govern them.  That creates a stalemate, and that’s why it has to be negotiated.  There has to be -- based on the Geneva principles, there has to be a negotiated political settlement. 

     There is no question that the circumstances on the ground are terrible and they are exacerbated by a failure of those countries who could help improve the humanitarian situation on the ground from taking action to do that through the United Nations Security Council.  So we’re going to continue to press for that kind of action.  We’re going to continue to provide assistance to the opposition.  And we’re going to continue to be the leader in providing humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people.

     Q    Can I ask, while the French flags are flying, why is it that the President still hasn’t nominated a U.S. ambassador to France?  I mean, that post has been vacant since November.  I assume he knew long before that, that the post was going to become vacant.  Why have we not nominated -- or why has he not nominated a U.S. ambassador to France?

     MR. CARNEY:  I’m still being vetted.

     Scott.

     Q    No, a serious question.  I mean, it’s an important post.

     MR. CARNEY:  When the President has a nomination for that post we’ll make an announcement.

     Q    And will it be somebody who has donated or bundled or helped raise $500,000 or more for the Obama campaign?

     MR. CARNEY:  Jon, as you know, being a donor to the President’s campaign does not guarantee you a job in the administration but it does not prevent you from getting one.  And the fact of the matter is the President has made nominations to ambassadorial posts and other posts from the ranks of the private sector, from government service, and has put in place qualified nominees across the board.  So I don’t have an answer for you on that particular nomination.  When I do, we’ll make it.

     Q    But more than half of the political appointees he has made to ambassadorial posts gave more than -- or bundled, helped raise more than $500,000 for his reelection campaign.  Is that a coincidence?

     MR. CARNEY:  Look, the President takes an approach where he finds qualified nominees for these posts from a variety of walks of life.  And in that, he’s not different from his predecessors.

Q    Didn’t he promise it would be different than his predecessors on that point?

MR. CARNEY:  And what I can tell you that being a donor does not get you a job in this administration nor does it preclude you from getting one.  And I would note that some of our non-career Foreign Service ambassadors, like Ambassador Rivkin in France and Ambassador Roos in Japan, have been widely noted as enormously effective and successful in those jobs. 

     Cheryl.

     Q    Thanks.  A budget question.  Does the White House support the military COLA bill that just passed, even though it’s paid for by extending the sequester?

     MR. CARNEY:  Cheryl, the Defense Department spoke to this a few weeks ago.  And while we need to make some important reforms in this area, we are supportive of efforts to grandfather current recipients so they are not affected.  In addition to dealing with this issue, the President continues to urge congressional Republicans to stop blocking efforts to extend unemployment insurance to 1.6 million hardworking Americans.  So on this bill, it’s consistent with the position that the DOD took a few weeks ago.

     Scott.

     Q    You mentioned the President’s trip to Fresno.  Can you talk about what he hopes to achieve there and what the administration is doing?

     MR. CARNEY:  I’m sure we’ll have more details on it.  I think as we’ve talked about a little bit in the past, the situation with the drought in California is quite serious and the President is concerned about it.

     Alexis.

     Q    One quick question.  As you know, OFA is raffling off the President for the purpose of ginning up public, I guess, enthusiasm for enrollment in ACA.  Can you describe what the policy goal is that the President hopes to achieve by being the prize in OFA since he’s no longer a candidate and we tended to think of them as a political organization but now they’re trying to advocate for policy?  What’s the purpose of it?

     MR. CARNEY:  To get people to enroll. 

     Q    But how does he being the prize, how does that help?

     MR. CARNEY:  Look, I mean, I think you’ve seen a broad array of efforts aimed at reaching people who are important to get enrolled, especially young people.  And there have been a range of efforts, some of them I think quite novel, that have been designed around that principle -- that calling on moms to tell their kids that they should do the right thing and get insured, that it’s the right thing to do.  They may not be sick today but they could get sick tomorrow. 

And so I think that -- I’m not specifically familiar with this particular effort, but this is reflective of I think the kind of approach that’s being taken to ensure that we get that information out there so that folks know this opportunity is available to them -- that quality, affordable health insurance is available in a way that it never has been before.  Because it’s absolutely important that we get not just a large number of people enrolled in the exchanges but that that mix of people is diverse and that there’s a sizeable portion of young Americans as part of that group.  So that’s what the effort is about.

     Thanks very much.

END                 

1:59 P.M. EST