The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by President Obama and President Ghani of Afghanistan in Joint Press Conference

East Room

*Please see below for a correction, marked with an asterisk.

2:30 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Please have a seat.  Before I begin, I want to say that our thoughts and prayers are with our friends in Europe, especially the people of Germany and Spain, following a terrible airplane crash in France.  It’s particularly heartbreaking because it apparently includes the loss of so many children, some of them infants.

I called German Chancellor Merkel -- and I hope to speak with President Rajoy of Spain later today -- to express the condolences of the American people and to offer whatever assistance that we can as they investigate what has proven to be an awful tragedy.  Our teams are in close contact, and we’re working to confirm how many Americans may have been onboard.  Germany and Spain are among our strongest allies in the world, and our message to them is that, as their steadfast friend and ally, America stands with them at this moment of sorrow.

Now, it is a great pleasure to welcome President Ghani to the White House.  As many of you know, President Ghani spent time here in the United States, as a student and as a scholar.  He happened to go to Columbia University, where we both studied, and then spent time at the World Bank just down the street from here.  And so his life reflects, in many ways, the friendship and mutual respect between Americans and Afghans.  And in that spirit, Mr. President, I want to extend to you the warmest of welcomes.

President Ghani’s presence here today, along with Chief Executive Abdullah, underscores Afghanistan’s progress.  In last year’s election, millions of Afghans defied the threats from the Taliban and bravely cast their ballots.  In the spirit of compromise and putting their interests behind the interests of the nation, President Ghani and Dr. Abdullah ensured the first peaceful and democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan’s history.  And together they now lead a national unity government that reflects the diversity, the strength and the determination of the Afghan people.

Their government signed the Bilateral Security Agreement between our two countries, and on December 31st, after more than 13 years, America’s combat mission in Afghanistan came to a responsible end.  Afghan forces now have full responsibility for security across their country.  Some 330,000 Afghans serve in the police and security forces, and they are making extraordinary sacrifices -- fighting and often dying for their country, and they continue to grow stronger month by month.

Today, we honor the many Afghans -- men, women and children -- who have given their lives for their country.  We salute the more than 2,200 Americans, patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan, and the many more who were wounded.  This morning, President Ghani and Dr. Abdullah visited Arlington National Cemetery to pay their respects to our fallen heroes.  We are grateful for that gesture of gratitude, and we know it meant a lot to the families as well.  We’ll see the bonds again between our people on display when President Ghani has an opportunity to address Congress tomorrow. 

So with a new government in Afghanistan and with the end of our combat mission, this visit is an opportunity to begin a new chapter between our two nations.  President Ghani and Dr. Abdullah, I thank you both for your strong support of the partnership between our two nations.  And yesterday, they had a chance to spend time at Camp David with our respective teams, and had excellent discussions on how we can move forward together.  Today, guided by our Strategic Partnership, we focused on several areas.

First, we agreed to continue to keep in place our close security cooperation.  Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place, and insurgents still launch attacks, including cowardly suicide bombings against civilians.  President Ghani is pursuing reforms to further strengthen Afghan security forces, including respect for human rights.  And as part of the ongoing NATO mission, the United States will continue to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces. 

As we announced yesterday, we’ll work with Congress on funding to sustain 352,000 Afghan police and troops through 2017.  At the same time, we’ll continue to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations, and we agreed to maintain a dialogue on our counterterrorism partnership in the years ahead.

At our peak four years ago, the United States had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.  In support of today’s narrow missions, we have just under 10,000 troops there.  Last year, I announced a timeline for drawing down our forces further, and I’ve made it clear that we’re determined to preserve the gains our troops have won.  President Ghani has requested some flexibility on our drawdown timelines.  I’ve consulted with General Campbell in Afghanistan and my national security team, and I’ve decided that we will maintain our current posture of 9,800 troops through the end of this year.

The specific trajectory of the 2016 drawdown will be established later this year to enable our final consolidation to a Kabul-based embassy presence by the end of 2016.  This flexibility reflects our reinvigorated partnership with Afghanistan, which is aimed at making Afghanistan secure and preventing it from being used to launch terrorist attacks.  Reconciliation and a political settlement remain the surest way to achieve the full drawdown of U.S. and foreign troops from Afghanistan in a way that safeguards international interests and peace in Afghanistan, as well as U.S. national security interests.

Second -- and since the best way to ensure Afghanistan’s progress is a political settlement -- we’re going to continue to support an Afghan-led reconciliation process.  President Ghani, you’ve shown bold leadership in reaching out to Pakistan, which is critical to the pursuit of peace.  Afghanistan and the United States agree on what the Taliban must do, which is break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws, including protections for women and minorities. 

Third, we’ll continue to support the national unity government in its efforts to truly serve the Afghan people.  We discussed the urgent need, with parliament’s support, to seat a full cabinet.  President Ghani, in your inaugural address you spoke forcefully about the need to combat corruption, uphold rule of law, and strengthen democratic institutions -- and the United States very much commends you for those efforts.  And you moved many Afghans with your eloquent tribute to your wife and partner, First Lady Rula Ghani.  America will continue to be your partner in advancing the rights and dignity of all Afghans, including women and girls.  

And, finally, we’ll continue to support the development that underpins stability and improves the lives of the Afghan people.  Over the years, there have been major gains -- dramatic improvements in public health, life expectancy, literacy, including for millions of girls who are in school.  President Ghani is a leading expert on development, and I’ve been impressed by the reforms that he’s pursuing to make Afghanistan more self-reliant.  He wants to empower Afghans in these efforts, and that’s why, under the new development partnership that we announced yesterday, U.S. economic assistance will increasingly go through Afghan institutions, in support of Afghan priorities, with an emphasis on accountability, performance and achieving results.

In closing, I’d note that, as many of you know, President Ghani is, by training, an anthropologist -- as was my mother.  It’s been said that, “The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human differences.”  Afghanistan, and our world, is marked by incredible diversity and differences of history, and culture and faiths.  But I believe that the progress that we’ve made on this visit will advance the goal for which so many of your citizens, Mr. President, have sacrificed over the years -- the goal of making our two countries, and the world, safer. 

President Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah, thank you both for your leadership and your partnership.  America’s combat mission in Afghanistan may be over, but our commitment to the Afghanistan people -- that will endure. 

President Ghani.

PRESIDENT GHANI:  President Obama, first of all, I'd like to express the deep sympathies of the government and the people of Afghanistan to German and Spanish families and governments.  Both of these countries took part in the ISAF coalition.  They have made major commitments and they’ve sacrificed in Afghanistan. 

I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those common sacrifices and, simultaneously, take the opportunity to pay tribute to the 2,215 American servicemen and women who paid the ultimate sacrifice; more than 22,000 American soldiers who have been wounded in action; civilians, numerous contractors and others.  You stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us, and I'd like to say thank you.

I would also like to thank the American taxpayer for his and her hard-earned dollars that have enabled us.  Yesterday at the Pentagon, I saw a young girl; her name is Reese.  And her father came out of retirement, out of reserve, to serve again in Afghanistan.  She is sending a care package every week to her father.  And I want to thank her and the fathers of all other American children who are making sure that their parents are helping us and standing next to us.

Reese, I promised, now has 3 million Afghan sisters in school.  And those sisters are dreaming of achievements that whatever career path, and hopefully one day we'll see an Afghan woman president.  It should not be soon -- it should not be too far, because we soon -- we now have four women in the cabinet.  That's 20 percent of our cabinet are women.  I hope that some other countries will match us.  (Laughter.)  That we are intent.

And thank you for the reference to Afghanistan’s First Lady.  She was delighted to have an opportunity to speak to Mrs. Obama.  She’s devoted her life to the most underprivileged of Afghans, and all of us are committed to make sure that 36 percent of Afghans that live below poverty will have -- will live with dignity and one day not in the distant future see prosperity.

Dr. Abdullah and I are grateful for the reception that you’ve accorded us, Mr. President.  Your national security team has gone out of its way to engage in intensive, comprehensive discussion, and both of us would like to thank Secretary Kerry for the loss of hours of sleep we caused you, and for your very able diplomacy and catalyzing the unity that today is on display.  The government of national unity is going to be an enduring phenomena, and both of us stand for the unity against the divisions that our opponents and enemies had hoped for. 

This unity is a reflection of the desire of the Afghan public to overcome the last 200 years of our political history where rarely public figures have chosen the country before themselves.  We are committed in this regard to emulate the founding fathers and mothers of the United States, where national interest would stand above personal or factional interests.

I'm glad that the security transition is completed.  You fulfilled your promise to your people, and we fulfilled our promise to our people.

Afghans, for millennia, they’ve guarded our homeland and have a reputation for serving.  The last years were an exception when we needed help, and we’re grateful that help was provided, but we are pleased that the security transition has been met according to the timeline that you set.  Today the combat role of the United States and Afghanistan is over. 

But the train, advise and assist mission is a vital part of our collective interests and collective endeavors.  Tragedy brought us together; interests now unite us.  And we can assure you that the government of national unity has revitalized the partnership, and looks at this partnership with the United States as foundational not just for Afghanistan’s stability but for regional and global stability. 

Much binds us together, and the flexibility that has been provided for 2015 will be used to accelerate reforms, to ensure that the Afghan National Security Forces are much better led, equipped, trained, and are focused on their fundamental mission.

I'm pleased to say that the departure of 120,000 international troops has not brought about the security gap or the collapse that was often anticipated.  I’d like to pay tribute at this moment to the continuous sacrifice of the Afghan security forces, civilians, and a patriotic nation. 

Our patriotism is part of, simultaneously, our internationalism.  We are unique in that we have embraced democratic ways.  We are very proud of our Islamic civilization that is in Islam.  That is truly in dialogue with the word, and we have the capacity to speak truth to terror.  They do not speak for Islam -- we do.  And it's the genuine Islam that is interested in dialogue between civilizations and cooperation and endeavor forward.

On regional cooperation, we have taken both in novel steps -- we do hope that these steps would be reciprocated, because the threats that exist, the changing ecology of terror, are making it imperative that all governments cooperate with each other. 

Today, the state system as we have known it is under attack.  These are not classic national liberation movements; these are destructive, nihilistic movements.  And it's essential that we confront them with vigor and determination.  But we must differentiate between those and Afghan citizens who desire peace.

Any political difference, anything that defines us must be resolved politically, and we have shown the wisdom and determination that we can arrive at unity of purpose.  So our commitment to peace is clear.  What we require is reciprocity so that Afghan patriots will choose the country over themselves and unite in resolving whatever might be that divides us.

But we will not have peace with those who use our territory as a proxy for other purposes, as a battleground for alien forces, or as a launching pad for global terrorism. 

This trip has provided us an opportunity to have a comprehensive overview, and I again want to express thank you for your commitment to submit a bill to Congress for support of our security forces 2017.

There’s much work that lies ahead of us.  And the flexibility that has been provided will be used to maximum effect to accelerate reforms to ensure that our security forces honor human rights; that they internalize the practices that binds an army, a police force, a secret service to the people.  Violence against our people has no place within our security culture, and we will overcome those types of legacies.

It’s again a pleasure to be standing next to a graduate of Columbia University.  (Laughter.)  There’s much that unites us.  And your mother was an inspiration to us.  I understand that the president of the World Bank actually got the job because he invoked your mother’s teachings to convince you that an anthropologist could lead the World Bank.  So thank you for according him that rare opportunity.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  He’s doing a great job.

All right, with that, let’s take a couple questions.  Leo Shane, Military Times.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  This is on, right?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Yes, it’s on.  I can hear you.

Q    With the increased slowdown in the drawdown here, we're looking at more risk, more danger for U.S. troops that are in Afghanistan.  How do you justify that to them?  How do you tell them that the mission is still worth it?  And how do you assure them that there is an end coming to this mission?

And for President Ghani, you've talked the last couple days a lot about the sacrifice of U.S. troops.  You were at Arlington earlier today.  How do you tell them that this continued sacrifice will be worth it to them, as well?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, first of all, I think it’s important, Leo, to remember the timeline for a withdrawal down to an embassy-centered presence, a normalization of our presence in Afghanistan remains the end of 2016.  So that hasn’t changed.  Our transition out of a combat role has not changed. 

Now, I am the first to say that as long as our men and women in uniform are serving in Afghanistan, there are risks involved.  It’s a dangerous place.  Casualties have come down precipitously as we’ve engaged in the drawdown.  It’s been over 90 days since two Americans were killed in Afghanistan.  That has occurred precisely because we're not in a combat role.  And I think it is worth noting the significant casualties that the Afghan security services have incurred.  As we’ve drawn down, they’ve stood up, and they're fighting.  And they're fighting with courage and tenacity, and they're getting better month by month.

But you can't minimize the sacrifices that our military families make.  It means some folks are going to be rotating back into Afghanistan for a few extra months relative to what otherwise would have been the case.  We’re essentially moving the drawdown pace over to the right for several months, in part to compensate for the lengthy period it took for government formation; in part because we want to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to help Afghan security forces succeed so we don’t have to go back, so we don’t have to respond in an emergency because counterterrorist -- or because terrorist activities are being launched out of Afghanistan. 

We’re on the path to do that, and it was my assessment as Commander-in-Chief that it made sense for us to provide a few extra months for us to be able to help on things like logistics, making sure that equipment is not just in place but it’s also used properly; that the training and advising and strategic input that’s been provided continues through this fighting season, in part so that President Karzai [Ghani]*, who has taken on the mantle of Commander-in-Chief in a way that we have not seen in the past from an Afghan President, can do a serious review and can assess here is where our strengths are, here’s where our weaknesses are, and we can proceed with more effective joint planning going forward.

So the bottom line is our men and women in uniform make enormous sacrifices.  Their families do, too; they serve alongside them.  This will mean that there are going to be some of our folks who are in Afghanistan under the new schedule who would have been home.  But it is important to keep in perspective, first of all, that we’ve gone down from 100,000 down to under 10,000; that they are not on the frontlines because they’re not in a combat role.  We are doing all that we can do to make sure that force protection is a priority for those who are in Afghanistan.  And the date for us to have completed our drawdown will not change.

But it is my judgment, it’s the judgment of General Campbell and others who are on the ground, that providing this additional time frame during this fighting season for us to be able to help the Afghan security forces succeed is well worth it.  And in that sense, once again, we are asking our men and women in uniform to fight on behalf of our freedom and on behalf of a more orderly world.

It does, perhaps, raise one thought, which is right now there’s a debate going up on Capitol Hill about budgets.  This would be a good time for my friends up on Capitol Hill, including on the other side of the aisle, to take a look at their budgets.  If we’re holding both our defense and non-defense budgets to 2006 levels, it’s a lot harder for us to do the job that we need to do not only on the national security side but also here at home, making sure that when our men and women come home, and when they potentially go into civilian life, that they’ve got a strong economy, that their kids have good schools, that they can send their kids to college, that they get the veterans benefits that they have so richly earned and deserve.  That would be a good way for us to express the thanks for the sacrifices they consistently make.

PRESIDENT GHANI:  I met yesterday the widow of General Greene.  She would like the memory of her husband to be preserved by a sustainable Afghanistan that is secure.  The 2,215 Americans that have died must not die in vain.  They must leave behind a legacy of a stable Afghanistan.  And it’s that preservation of those gains that I think inspires the American servicemen and women to obey the call of their commander, the order of their commanders.

Second, we have taken them out of harm’s way.  As the President mentioned, for the past 100 days, because the combat role has ended, the exposure, the number of casualties is really down.  There isn’t -- my most horrible reading of the day is my first, middle-of-the-day and end-of-the-day security reports where I see the casualties of the Afghan figures.  But thank God they’re no longer American or European casualties.

John Campbell is making sure that they remain in a support role.  The train, advise, assist role has risks but they’re nowhere comparable to combat role.  And end of that combat role is very significant to this.  And again, the institutional gains that would be achieved through the train, advise and assist role is what will guarantee that the investments of the last 14 years pay off in terms of gains that would endure. 

Last point -- Afghanistan is the front line.  Because of American engagement in Afghanistan, there have not been attacks on mainland United States.  But let’s not forget that fortresses cannot be built around countries or continents.  We are living in an interconnected world, and our security is joined together.

Q    Thank you very much.  President Obama, you’re talking about the long-term strategic partnership between Afghanistan and the United States.  At the same time, you’re talking about deadlines about the withdrawal of the soldiers from Afghanistan.  How do you ensure the long term -- or how do you define the long-term strategy partnership after 2017, or from 2017 onward?

(As interpreted.)  Mr. President Ghani, I wanted to -- what do you expect, Mr. President -- what would the expectation coming to the United States and what would you like to return with to Afghanistan?

PRESIDENT GHANI:  (As interpreted.)  Our expectations were that our cooperation will be enhanced and we will have a clear vision and practical vision for cooperation -- for an enduring cooperation with the United States be there.  And this change of environment has occurred, and today the United States government considers the government of Afghanistan a really reliable partner.

Commitments that are made are considerable, and the funding proposal of supporting Afghan security forces by 2017 and it has reached to $4.1 billion.  It’s nothing less -- it's a significant issue, it's a very important issue.

And also, yesterday, there was a new framework of our economic cooperation was laid out, according to which $800 million were made -- a commitment were made that those will be spent through the Afghan budget.  But most importantly is the flexibility that has been shown in the area of security cooperation.  And this flexibility is going to ensure and provide confidence to our security forces and our people, and also is going to send a very strong message to the region that this cooperation is not short term, but is enduring and long term.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Our strategic partnership is based on a very simple principle.  We want the Afghan people, through their security forces directed by their president and commander-in-chief, to be able to provide for their own security.  And our goal is to make sure that we are a strong partner in helping to build and sustain effective Afghan security forces.

So from the start, when I first came into office, we put additional U.S. troops, coalition troops and resources into Afghanistan to shift momentum at a time when the Taliban and the enemies of peace and stability inside of Afghanistan I think were moving and had momentum.

We broke that momentum, elections took place, and the Afghan National Security Forces began to build up and get trained and become more and more effective.  And because of a successful election and a national unity government, and the leadership of President Ghani and Dr. Abdullah, we are now in a position where the Afghan security forces are not only more effective, but they're also better directed by the civilian government. 

We’ve been able to draw down and remove ourselves from a combat role, as President Ghani indicated, without collapse, as was predicted.  And Afghan soldiers have fought, and they’ve fought well.  And obviously there are still improvements to be made, but they're making significant progress.

So the strategic partnership involves us continuing to help support Afghan security forces -- that means financially.  The international community is going to have to continue to provide assistance to the Afghan government, which is carrying a significant security load not only for itself, but for the region and, in some ways, the world.  And we’ve made a commitment to do that.

We're going to continue to provide the kind of security cooperation and support that is required -- training, assisting, advising, helping on logistics, helping on developing enabler capacity -- all the things that go into a modern military, a professional military, a professional police force that can provide security on Afghan soil by Afghans.

And the cooperation and the strategic partnership involves building up the prosperity and opportunities for the Afghan people through the economic development that was mentioned by the President. 

So we intend to be working with the Afghan government and the Afghan people for a long time.  And, in many ways, our troop presence, our military assistance is just one component of what is a much larger process.  And the more successful we are in building Afghan capacity and strengthening the Afghan economy, the more the strategic partnership that we have will be like the partnership that we have with many countries around the world.  And it will be based on mutual interest, and scientific and educational exchanges, and business opportunities, and commerce and trade.  And that, I think, is the goal that we're all looking for.

Josh Lederman.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  You’ve made very clear that you're not buying Prime Minister Netanyahu’s attempts to walk back the comments that he made before the election, opposing Palestinian statehood, and that you're reassessing your approach.  What could Prime Minister Netanyahu do, if anything, in the short term to persuade you that he’s serious about Israeli-Palestinian peace and that he’s an honest broker that you could work with?  Or is it too late to repair that relationship during your presidency?  And is there any truth to allegations that Israel was spying on the Iran talks?

And, President Ghani, if I may, you’ve been working very hard to pursue reconciliation talks with the Taliban, but there’s some indications that that’s not going so well and that they may not be willing to sit down with you.  What makes you hopeful that you can get those talks off the ground?  And do you want the U.S. to be involved in those talks?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Let me, first of all, address your second question about spying allegations.  As a general rule, I don't comment on intelligence matters in a big room full of reporters. (Laughter.)  And I think I'll continue that tradition.

But with respect to the possibility of an agreement that ensures that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon, we have not just briefed Congress about the progress or lack thereof that's being made, but we also brief the Israelis and our other partners in the region and around the world.  And if, in fact, an agreement is arrived at that we feel confident will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, it's going to be there for everybody to see.  And people are going to be able to lift up the hood and see what’s in there.

So I have confidence that if there’s an agreement, it's going to be a good agreement that’s good for American security and Israeli security and the region’s security.  And if it isn't, then there probably won't be an agreement.  So there will be, I think, significant transparency in the whole process.

With respect to Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, I think it's important to understand that the issue here is not what I believe, but it’s what the Palestinians and the parties in the negotiations and the Israeli people believe is possible.  That's the most important issue.  I've said before and I'll simply repeat:  Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the election run-up, stated that a Palestinian state would not occur while he was Prime Minister.  And I took him at his word that that's what he meant, and I think that a lot of voters inside of Israel understood him to be saying that fairly unequivocally.

Afterwards, he pointed out that he didn’t say “never,” but that there would be a series of conditions in which a Palestinian state could potentially be created.  But, of course, the conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet anytime soon.  So even if you accepted, I think, the corrective of Prime Minister Netanyahu in subsequent days, there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time -- which was always the presumption. 

I don't think anybody ever envisioned in any peace agreement, certainly not one that Prime Minister Netanyahu would agree to, or that the Israeli people would agree to, that overnight you suddenly have a Palestinian state right next to Jerusalem and that Israel would not have a whole range of security conditions that had to be met, and that it would be phased in over a long period of time.

So the issue has never been, do you create a Palestinian state overnight.  The question is, do you create a process and a framework that gives the Palestinians hope, the possibility, that down the road they have a secure state of their own, standing side-by-side with a secure, fully recognized Jewish state of Israel. 

And I think -- it's not just my estimation -- I think it’s hard to envision how that happens based on the Prime Minister’s statements.  And so, when I said that we have to now do an evaluation of where we are, it's not in reference to our commitment to Israel’s military edge in the region, Israel’s security, our intelligence cooperation, our military cooperation.  That continues unabated.  And I will continue to do whatever I need to do to make sure that our friends in Israel are safe.  That's what I've done since I've been President, and that's not going to stop.  And so the Israeli people need to know that.

But I am required to evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli-Palestinian relations over the next several years.  Because up until this point, the premise has been, both under Republican and Democratic administrations, that as different as it was, as challenging as it was, the possibility of two states living side by side in peace and security could marginalize more extreme elements, bring together folks at the center and with some common sense, and we could resolve what has been a vexing issue and one that is ultimately a threat to Israel as well.

And that possibility seems very dim.  That may trigger, then, reactions by the Palestinians that, in turn, elicit counter-reactions by the Israelis.  And that could end up leading to a downward spiral of relations that will be dangerous for everybody and bad for everybody.

So, bottom line, just to summarize here -- number one, our military and intelligence cooperation with Israel will continue unabated, unaffected, and we are absolutely committed to making sure that the Israeli people are safe, particularly from rocket attacks and terrorist attacks aimed on civilians.

Number two, that the evaluation that’s taking place is specific to what happens between the Israelis and Palestinians going forward.  We’ll continue to engage the Israeli government as well as the Palestinians, and ask them where they are interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved.  But what we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there.  And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years.  That is something that we have to, for the sake of our own credibility, I think we have to be able to be honest about that.

And I guess one last point about this, because obviously I’ve heard a lot of the commentary -- there’s a tendency I think in the reporting here to frame this somehow as a personal issue between myself and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And I understand why that’s done, because when you frame it in those terms, the notion is, well, if we all just get along and everybody cools down, then somehow the problem goes away.  I have a very business-like relationship with the Prime Minister.  I’ve met with him more than any other world leader.  I talk to him all the time.  He is representing his country’s interests the way he thinks he needs to, and I’m doing the same.

So the issue is not a matter of relations between leaders; the issue is a very clear, substantive challenge.  We believe that two states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations, and for regional stability.  That’s our view, and that continues to be our view.  And Prime Minister Netanyahu has a different approach.  And so this can’t be reduced to a matter of somehow let’s all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.”  This is a matter of figuring out how do we get through a real knotty policy difference that has great consequences for both countries and for the region.

Q    Will you consider supporting Palestinian statehood at the U.N.?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  We’re going to do that evaluation -- we’re going to partly wait for an actual Israeli government to form. 

PRESIDENT GHANI:  Peace is our priority.  Don’t make premature judgments.  And what we have asked from the United States, and President Obama has graciously supported it, is to support an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process.  And we are confident that this approach will bear the results in time.  Peace is always difficult, and it requires focus, attention and sacrifice, and that’s what we are willing to do to bring it about. 

Q    Thank you very much.  Mr. President, I’ve got a question to Mr. Obama.  You just mentioned that Afghanistan is still a dangerous place.  While it’s a dangerous place, is it the right decision to draw down the force level at a time when it’s a dangerous place and meanwhile Afghan forces are less equipped and they cannot fight truly? 

(As interpreted.)  Mr. President, my question is, the peace process -- what was your initial -- or your request from the United States President?

PRESIDENT GHANI:  (As interpreted.)  The United States has agreed with us that the peace process will be led by Afghans, and Afghans will continue this process and it will be led by Afghans.  And this is obvious for us, and we are thankful for the support. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Afghanistan is still a dangerous place.  The way it’s going to become less dangerous is by Afghan security forces and Afghan police being capable of keeping law and order and security in the country.  And that is not going to happen if foreign forces are continually relied upon for the basic security of Afghanistan. 

So there are going to be specialized areas where we can cooperate, dealing with some of the most vicious terrorist networks.  There’s going to be intelligence cooperation and counterterrorism cooperation.  And there are going to be specialized areas where we can provide logistical support and training, and enabling support.

But the fact is, is that unless Afghan soldiers and Afghan police are able to maintain security, at some point, someday, the United States and other coalition forces would leave.  And the good news is, what we’ve seen as we’ve removed ourselves from combat roles is the Afghan security forces have stepped up.  And although they're certainly not as well-equipped as coalition forces, they're better equipped than the Taliban.  They're better equipped than the Haqqani Network. 

And so with the kind of leadership that President Ghani is showing as a commander-in-chief, with the leadership that's being shown by a growing cadre of military officers up and down the military chain, Afghan forces are proving themselves and discovering that, in fact, when they fight, they can be successful.  And we want to stand with them in that process because we are very much invested in your success.

So, Mr. President, thank you for an outstanding visit.

PRESIDENT GHANI:  Thank you, Mr. President.  Thank you.

END
3:25 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

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

·         Kathleen Ann Doherty – Ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus, Department of State

·         Hans G. Klemm – Ambassador to Romania, Department of State

·         Jeffrey Prieto – General Counsel, Department of Agriculture

·         Lucy Tamlyn – Ambassador to the Republic of Benin, Department of State

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

·         Wanda M. Austin – Member, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

·         Thomas O. Melius – Commissioner, United States Section of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission  

President Obama said, “These fine public servants bring a depth of experience and tremendous dedication to their important roles.  I look forward to working with them.” 

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

Kathleen Ann Doherty, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Cyprus, Department of State

Kathleen Ann Doherty, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy, a position she has held since 2013.  Previously, Ms. Doherty served at the Department of State as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs from 2011 to 2013 and as Director of the Office of European Union  and Regional Affairs from 2010 to 2011.  Prior to that, she served as Economic Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in London, United Kingdom from 2008 to 2010, Economic Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia from 2006 to 2008, Senior Watch Officer in the State Department’s Operations Center in 2005, and Economic Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy from 2000 to 2004.  After joining the Foreign Service in 1990, her early assignments included posts in the Dominican Republic and Brazil.  Ms. Doherty received a B.A. from Colgate University and an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics.

Hans G. Klemm, Nominee for Ambassador to Romania, Department of State

Hans G. Klemm, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, is a Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of State, a position he has held since January 2015.  Previously, Ambassador Klemm served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department’s Bureau of Human Resources from 2012 to 2015.  Before that, he was Senior Coordinator for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 2012, and Senior Coordinator for Rule of Law and Law Enforcement at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan from 2010 to 2012.  He also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Timor-Leste from 2007 to 2010.  Prior to that, Ambassador Klemm served as Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, Japan from 2006 to 2007, and as Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Career Development in the Bureau of Human Resources from 2004 to 2006.  He was a participant in the Senior Seminar at the Department’s Foreign Service Institute from 2003 to 2004, Director of the Office of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Textile Trade Affairs in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs from 2001 to 2003, and Deputy Director of the Office of European Union and Regional Affairs in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs from 2000 to 2001.  Ambassador Klemm’s earlier assignments with the Department of State included postings in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago.  Ambassador Klemm received a B.A. from Indiana University and an M.A. from Stanford University.

Jeffrey Prieto, Nominee for General Counsel, Department of Agriculture

Jeffrey Prieto serves as Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Agriculture, a position he has held since June 2014.  Prior to this, he served as the Deputy Executive Officer and General Counsel in the Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) from 2012 to 2014.  From 2010 to 2012, Mr. Prieto served as ENRD’s Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General at DOJ.  Previously, he was a Trial Attorney with ENRD’s Environmental Enforcement Section from 1999 to 2010.  From 1998 to 1999, Mr. Prieto was an Attorney-Advisor to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water.  From 1997 to 1998, he was a White House Fellow assigned to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Mr. Prieto received a B.A. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, an M.P.A. from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, and a J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Lucy Tamlyn, Nominee for Ambassador to the Republic of Benin, Department of State

Lucy Tamlyn, a career member of the Foreign Service, class of Minister-Counselor, currently serves as Director of the Office of the Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan in the Department of State, a position she has held since 2013.  Previously, Ms. Tamlyn served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon, Portugal from 2011 to 2013, Economic Counselor at the U.S. Mission to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, France from 2009 to 2010, and as Provincial Reconstruction Team Leader in Erbil, Iraq from 2008 to 2009.  Prior to that, Ms. Tamlyn was Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in N’Djamena, Chad from 2005 to 2008, Alternate Permanent Representative and Deputy Director in the United Nations Economic and Social Council Section of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York from 2003 to 2005, and Alternate Permanent Representative at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture in Rome, Italy from 2000 to 2003.  Since joining the Foreign Service in 1982, she has also served at posts in Austria, Brazil, Colombia, and Mozambique.  Ms. Tamlyn received a B.A. from Saint John’s College and an M.A. from Columbia University.

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

Dr. Wanda M. Austin, Appointee for Member, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Dr. Wanda M. Austin is President and CEO of The Aerospace Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center, positions she has held since 2008.  She has held various positions at The Aerospace Corporation starting in 1979, including Senior Vice President of the National Systems Group from 2004 to 2007, Senior Vice President of the Engineering and Technology Group from 2001 to 2003, and General Manager of the MILSATCOM Division from 1999 to 2001.  Before joining The Aerospace Corporation, Dr. Austin was a Member of the technical staff at Rockwell International from 1977 to 1979.  She became a member of the Defense Science Board in 2010 and served as a Member on the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee in 2009. Dr. Austin is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, and the NASA Advisory Council, and she is an Honorary Fellow of The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.  She also serves on the boards of the University of Southern California, National Space Foundation, and National Geographic Society.  Dr. Austin received a B.A. from Franklin & Marshall College, an M.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, and a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California.

Thomas O. Melius, Appointee for Commissioner, United States Section of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Thomas O. Melius is the Midwest Regional Director at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), a position he has held since 2008.  He was Regional Director in Alaska at the FWS from 2006 to 2008.  Mr. Melius was Assistant Director for External Affairs at the FWS from 2003 to 2006, was Assistant Director for Migratory Birds and State Programs at the FWS from 2000 to 2003, and was first Assistant Director for External Afairs at the FWS from 1998 to 2000.  Mr. Melius was the Director of Conservation Policy and Senior Advisor at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation from 1997 to 1998.  He was a senior professional staff member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation from 1995 to 1997.  Mr. Melius was a professional staff member on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries from 1985 to 1995.  Mr. Melius received a B.S. and M.A. from South Dakota State University.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

U.S.-Afghanistan Joint Statement

President Barack Obama welcomed Mohammad Ashraf Ghani, President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, and the accompanying Afghan delegation to Washington from March 22-26, 2015.

The visit offered an opportunity to renew U.S.-Afghan relations, review the joint achievements of the last 13 years in Afghanistan, and to discuss the actions each country needs to take to ensure that the social, economic, security and human rights gains made over that period are sustained and advanced.

President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah expressed deep appreciation for the contributions, sacrifices and sustained commitment of the United States that made these achievements possible and underscored that this support is paying dividends for Afghans, Americans, and the international community alike.  The Afghan economy has grown more than fourfold over the last 13 years and young Afghans are attending school at unprecedented levels, with girls and women comprising a growing percentage of these students.

The leaders further noted the success of joint counter-terrorism efforts to date and emphasized that sustained U.S. and other international assistance will be important to enable the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) to address the significant security challenges facing Afghanistan and the wider region. President Obama and President Ghani reiterated their commitments under the U.S.-Afghanistan Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) and the U.S.–Afghanistan Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (also known as the Bilateral Security Agreement, or BSA) to advance common objectives in these and other areas. The Presidents welcomed the decision of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Rabbani made on March 23 at Camp David to meet again in Kabul this year to restart the U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Commission meetings and to review progress in the implementation of the SPA.

Promoting Our Shared Democratic Values

President Obama commended President Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah and the Afghan people on the landmark 2014 presidential election resulting in the first democratic and peaceful transfer of power in Afghanistan’s history. President Ghani noted that the broad based and inclusive National Unity Government that emerged from that election enjoys the full support of the Afghan people. President Obama welcomed the recent announcement of a slate of cabinet nominees. President Ghani reaffirmed the new Afghan government’s commitment to maintaining and expanding the role of an independent, vibrant civil society and to protecting the human rights of all Afghans. President Obama encouraged a strong partnership between President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah and welcomed the National Unity Government’s goals of promoting security, economic growth, democracy and human rights, in particular the rights of women and minorities.  President Obama further welcomed the announcement of the establishment of the Afghan Special Commission for Electoral Reform envisioned in the September 2014 political framework as a means to further the national unity government’s goals in this area and offered financial support for Afghan electoral operations and reform efforts.

Advancing Long-Term Security and Strengthening the Peace Process

President Ghani and President Obama reaffirmed their shared commitment, reflected in the SPA and BSA, to closely cooperate in preventing terrorists from ever again using Afghan soil to threaten Afghanistan, the region, or the world. President Obama hailed the successful completion of the security transition, the end of the NATO-led combat mission, and Afghan forces taking the lead on, and full responsibility for, security throughout Afghanistan. The leaders also acknowledged the important continuing role of NATO’s new Resolute Support Mission in supporting the further development of the ANDSF’s capabilities.

Both Presidents saluted the courage and growing capability of Afghan security forces, including their success in securing the elections last year. The leaders joined in paying their respects to the families of Afghan soldiers and civilians who have been killed or injured in the 13-year war. President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah also offered condolences to the families of American soldiers and civilians who were killed and injured while serving in Afghanistan, and on behalf of the Afghan people, expressed gratitude to the American people for their sacrifices and continued support.  

Both sides agreed on an early formation of the Joint Commission to oversee the implementation of the BSA and President Obama affirmed ongoing U.S. support for Afghan security forces.  Based on President Ghani’s request for flexibility in the U.S. draw down timeline, the U.S. will maintain its current posture of 9,800 troops through the end of 2015.  The specific trajectory of the 2016 U.S. troop drawdown will be established later in 2015 to enable the U.S. troop consolidation to a Kabul-based embassy presence by the end of 2016. This flexibility reflects the re-invigorated partnership with Afghanistan, which is aimed at making Afghanistan secure and preventing it from being used to launch terrorist attacks.  Reconciliation and a political settlement remain the surest way to achieve the full retrograde of U.S. and foreign troops from Afghanistan in a way that safeguards international interests and peace in Afghanistan, as well as U.S. national security interests.  Consistent with the principles of the SPA and BSA and as part of the broader bilateral security relationship, the two Presidents agreed to continue a dialogue on U.S. and Afghan counterterrorism (CT) objectives, to include the development of a joint CT partnership strategy through and beyond 2016.

While reaffirming their determination to cooperate against those who advocate violence and extremism, President Obama and President Ghani also stressed the need for an Afghan-led peace process, enjoying regional support, in particular from Pakistan, noting that as a part of the outcome of any such process, the Taliban and other armed opposition groups must end violence, break ties with international terrorist groups, and accept Afghanistan’s constitution, including its protections for the rights of women and minorities.  President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah emphasized their mutual and strong determination to advance a reconciliation process based on these principles.  President Obama reaffirmed strong U.S. support for an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process and committed to make available additional financial support for the Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) to facilitate the peaceful reintegration of former combatants into their local communities.

President Obama welcomed recent developments in Afghan-Pakistani relations. Both leaders emphasized the importance of continued efforts to advance Afghan-Pakistani dialogue aimed at building trust and producing tangible progress in the peace process, and improving the security situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the region at large.

Reinforcing Regional Security and Cooperation

The leaders called on all countries in the region to support Afghanistan’s security, stability and prosperity. Both presidents endorsed efforts to deepen the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process and expressed appreciation to China for hosting the October 2014 Heart of Asia summit and to Pakistan for hosting the next meeting later this year. President Obama welcomed steps by the National Unity Government to integrate Afghanistan more fully into the regional economy through various regional organizations, processes and programs and committed continued U.S. support for those efforts. President Ghani presented a development strategy built around regional connectivity, good governance, and investments for productivity.  Central to this strategy is cooperation between Afghanistan and the region through trade, transit and investments.  The two Presidents agreed to work to bring together like-minded countries to discuss Afghanistan and regional integration efforts at a high-level meeting on the margins of the 2015 United Nations General Assembly meeting.

Fostering Social and Economic Development

The leaders acknowledged the significant challenges Afghanistan is facing as it strives to overcome its current budgetary gap, and become increasingly economically and fiscally self-reliant. Emphasizing that economic reform is a central pillar of the National Unity Government’s agenda, President Ghani briefed President Obama on specific steps the Afghan government is taking to combat corruption, increase transparency, reduce poverty and create jobs.  President Ghani noted that in addition to many recent achievements, Afghanistan continues to face formidable challenges, including the need to root out corruption and strengthen good governance, build the foundation for sustainable and inclusive economic growth, increase regional connectivity, and address illicit drug production in Afghanistan.  In support of these efforts, President Obama and President Ghani announced a New Development Partnership that would focus up to $800 million in U.S. economic assistance on urgent Afghan priorities tied to Afghan achievements of specific development results and implementation of key policy reforms. President Obama also welcomed the recent successful negotiation of an IMF Staff Monitored Program for Afghanistan.  President Ghani committed to take action on all necessary steps needed to implement this program.

Both Presidents further welcomed the decision to resume regular meetings of the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement Council and the agreement to expand capacity-building cooperation between the U.S. Treasury Department and relevant Afghan government agencies as set forth in the agreement signed by Treasury Secretary Lew and Finance Minister Hakimi on March 23 at Camp David.

President Obama and President Ghani agreed that Afghan prosperity depended on the development of the country’s human capital. To this end President Ghani reiterated the Afghan government’s determination to educate all Afghan boys and girls.  President Obama expressed U.S. intent to provide sustained support for education in Afghanistan. Noting the significant impact that educational and cultural exchanges have had on Afghan and American society, and the U.S. commitment in the SPA to promote such programs, President Obama announced the U.S. intention to increase the number of Fulbright fellowships available to qualified Afghan students by 50 percent for the next five years, making this one of the largest Fulbright programs in the world. In addition, President Obama announced the establishment of an $18 million USAID scholarship program to support women attending universities throughout Afghanistan. The two presidents also welcomed the decision of the Smithsonian Institution to host a major exhibition of contemporary Afghan handicrafts in 2016.

Strengthening Afghan Institutions and Governance

President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah outlined the National Unity Government’s efforts to improve government performance, effectiveness, efficiency, and combat corruption. They also underscored the National Unity Government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and reforming the judiciary. They stressed that restoring Afghan people’s confidence in justice institutions is a top priority for the Afghan government. President Obama and President Ghani agreed on the importance of cooperating to provide justice sector personnel with the skills and qualifications needed to counter narcotics, ensure safe and humane corrections, expand legal education, protect the rights of women and girls, and provide other essential justice services.

Conclusion

This visit constituted the first meeting among President Obama, President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah since the inauguration of the National Unity Government last September and marked a pivotal moment in the U.S.–Afghan partnership. Looking back, it was an opportunity to review the remarkable strategic, political and economic achievements of this partnership and the successful completion of the security transition in Afghanistan. Looking forward, both presidents endorsed a vision of a sustained relationship rooted in shared values, interests and sacrifices, bound by mutual commitments enshrined in the U.S.–Afghanistan Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement.   

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Presidential Memorandum -- Disposal of Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste in a Separate Repository

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY

SUBJECT:      Disposal of Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste in a Separate Repository

Your memorandum and accompanying report of January 9, 2015, analyze the factors enumerated in section 8 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the "Act") concerning disposal of high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic energy defense activities, conclude that a strong basis exists to find a separate repository is required pursuant to section 8 of the Act, and recommend that I make this finding.

In accordance with the Act, I find the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic energy defense activities only is required.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with Moaz al-Khatib

National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met yesterday with Moaz al-Khatib, former President of the Syrian Opposition Coalition.  Mr. Khatib offered his perspective on the path to a political solution to resolve Syria's civil war.  Ambassador Rice stressed that Bashar al-Asad has lost all legitimacy to govern and must go, expressed concern for the humanitarian situation in Syria, and reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to a negotiated political transition that would preserve the institutions of the Syrian state, protect minorities, and lay the foundations for a more inclusive government.  

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Readout of the President’s Phone Call with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

Yesterday evening President Obama spoke  with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to express his and the First Lady’s condolences and the condolences of the American people on the death of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.  The President recognized founding Prime Minister Lee’s remarkable leadership and lasting contributions, not just to Singapore’s development, but also to the region’s dynamism.  The President also conveyed his appreciation for founding Prime Minister Lee’s wise counsel and strong support for U.S.-Singapore relations.   

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 3/23/2015

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:56 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I hope you all had a good weekend.  Let me do a couple of quick things before we get started.  The first is, we got some sad news over the weekend that Jerry Warren, who had served as the Deputy Press Secretary for both President Nixon and President Ford, passed away over the weekend. 

He was somebody who had garnered a reputation for really trying to build a strong relationship between the administration and the White House Press Corps, and he obviously did that at a very challenging time in our nation’s history and in the context of one administration had a difficult relationship with the Press Corps.  But that was something that he had really dedicated his time here at the White House to, but also something that he had dedicated his life to.  So our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Mr. Warren today. 

The second thing, on a happier note, today is the fifth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act becoming law.  And to mark the occasion, I thought I would share with you five key numbers -- the Affordable Care Act by the numbers, if you will.

The first number is 16 million.  And that’s the number of Americans who have gained health care coverage since the Affordable Care Act became law.

The second number is 50.  Fifty years ago was the last time that we saw health care price growth this low. 

The third number is 50,000.  That’s the number of deaths that have been prevented due to improvements in the quality of care in hospitals.  That includes fewer medical errors and infections.

The fourth number is 1,800.  1,800 refers to how much lower the average family premium is in an employer plan due to the slower growth in health care costs.  So we often talk about how the Affordable Care Act did so much to offer assistance to those families that don’t have access to health care.  Here’s a good example of how the average worker who gets health care through their employer has benefitted from the Affordable Care Act. 

The fifth and final number is 76 million.  And that’s the number of Americans who are benefitting from preventative care coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act.  And that’s preventative care coverage that individuals can receive for free, so a pretty good deal.

So we’ll have some more -- obviously we put out some information on this last night, but thought I would just offer up a little primer. 

So, with that, Josh, do you want to get us started today?

Q    Sure.  Thanks, Josh.  The presidential campaign for 2016 kicked off in a rather big way this morning with Senator Ted Cruz making his announcement and laying out a campaign vision that is rather antithetical to a lot of what President Obama has stood for.  In particular, in line with what you were discussing about the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Senator Cruz said, “Imagine in 2017 a new President signing legislation repealing every word of Obamacare.”  So I wanted to get your thoughts on the start of the presidential campaign and what a Ted Cruz candidacy would mean.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Josh, I don’t have a direct response to anything that any of the candidates have to say right at this point.  But I will just say as a general matter that I would anticipate that over the course of the next presidential campaign -- and I think this is something that we can hope to be true -- that there will be a robust debate about the future of the country.  And the President certainly is pleased about the substantial progress that we’ve made over the last little over six years. 

There’s a lot more that the President hopes to get done in his remaining two years in office.  And that would certainly use -- or would certainly serve as a useful foundation that the next President can build upon.  And the President is certainly mindful of that in our two remaining years here, and I anticipate that there will be a pretty robust debate about that and how best to use the progress that we’ve made to move the country forward. 

And there will be some candidates who will offer up substantial changes from what the President has done, but this will be an opportunity for all the candidates to debate it, and ultimately, the American people will cast a vote accordingly.  But all that is more than a year and a half away, and there’s a lot of important pressing business that we’re focused on here at the White House.

So this is a worthy debate that has, some would say, started shortly after the midterm elections, but there is a reason to be talking about it today.  But I’ll let others engage in that debate while we’re focused on the very difficult task and the very exciting opportunities that also lie ahead over the course of the next year and a half or so.

Q    Switching just for a minute to the other primary -- Hillary Rodham Clinton is in town today doing a few public events while she’s here.  Does the President have any plans to meet with her?  And if he does, would you be able to open that up to some level of access, considering the circumstances of it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Josh, I don’t have any additional details to share about the President’s schedule today.  But obviously, the President and Secretary Clinton have a number of occasions since she left the State Department, have had an opportunity to get together.  But I don’t have any meetings to share with you from here.

Q    And I wanted to ask you in Yemen, where the situation has been deteriorating, and particularly with the news that these last remaining U.S. Special Forces that have been in the country have been removed.  How does that change the U.S. counterterrorism strategy in Yemen?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Josh, I can tell you that the United States did make an announcement over the weekend indicating that all U.S. personnel had been temporarily relocated from Yemen because of the deteriorating security situation inside that country.  That was a step that the United States took in close coordination with the Hadi government.  The United States continues to believe that President Hadi is the rightful leader of Yemen.  That was a sentiment that was echoed in a United Nations statement that was issued over the weekend as well.

We have talked a lot about our counterterrorism strategy in this region of the world.  It has been predicated on -- or at least a core component of it is close coordination with central governments and our efforts to try to build up the capacity of central governments to assume security responsibility for their own country.  Obviously the situation in Yemen is a dangerous one, and the President and his national security team made a decision to relocate military personnel from Yemen for that reason.

I will say that there continues to be ongoing security cooperation between the United States and the national security infrastructure of the Hadi government.  That will continue to be valuable coordination.  The United States continues to have assets and resources in the region that will allow us to take steps where necessary to continue to apply significant pressure to extremist targets and to keep the American people safe. 

But it is true that that coordination would be more effective if there were U.S. personnel in the country.  It doesn’t mean that that coordination has been eliminated, but it would be more effective if U.S. personnel were allowed to remain in that country.  That is why the United States will continue to support the broader international community as we pressure both sides to try to resolve their differences politically and to promote the kind of dialogue that’s necessary to stabilize the country, to stabilize the central government. 

And I’ll just say -- I do want to commend to your attention the statement from the United Nations that voiced the unanimous opinion of the international community that President Hadi continues to be the rightful leader of Yemen; that the Houthis -- Houthi insurgents who have obviously advanced on the capital, they undermine the efforts to achieve a political resolution to this situation by continuing to occupy government institutions and to take unilateral actions that are not constructive to that process.  And the United States, alongside the broader international community, hopes that they will stop doing that and participate in the U.N.-led effort to try to resolve the differences of all the parties there.

Q    So I know you mentioned coordination and resources the U.S. has elsewhere in the region, but is it fair to say that at the current point in time, with the security situation being as it is, that the U.S. does not have an active counterterrorism campaign taking place in Yemen?

MR. EARNEST:  I would not describe it that way, Josh.  And the reason simply is that it is true that U.S. officials had to relocate from Yemen because it’s a dangerous country.  But I’ll tell you that as of today, Yemen remains a dangerous country for extremists as well.

The United States has demonstrated a capability to take extremists off the battlefield in Yemen when they pose a threat to the United States.  Those efforts continue, and our capabilities to carry out those kinds of actions persist to this day as well.

Q    And lastly, it wasn’t too long ago that the President was holding up Yemen as somewhat of a model for counterterrorism strategies in Iraq and Syria and other places.  I’m wondering, does the President still see Yemen as a model for success in fighting terrorism that can be applied elsewhere in the region?

MR. EARNEST:  Josh, the case that we have made is that Yemen did serve as a template for the kind of strategy that we would employ and have employed to mitigate the threat from extremists around the world.  And in Yemen, the United States did, on occasion, take steps to remove some extremists from the battlefield.  Those were steps that were carried out using U.S. capabilities, but they were done in coordination with a central government and with national security forces inside that country.

Ultimately, our goal here is to build up the capacity of local countries so that they can assume responsibility for their own security situation.  And that has both the effect of stabilizing the country so that extremists can’t use it as a safe haven to plot and carry out attacks against the West, but it also means that these countries can better provide for the security situation inside them so they aren’t vulnerable to extremist actions on their own. 

There are a couple of I think other relevant examples here.  One is we talked a little bit last week about the fact that in Somalia, where the United States does not have a significant military presence, U.S. military forces, however, did undertake an action that took one of the masterminds of the Westgate Mall attack off the battlefield.  That was a success that will enhance the security of the United States and our allies around the world.  We continue to be very mindful of the threats that are posed by extremists in Somalia, but that is an indication of how dangerous Somalia is for extremists as well, because the United States has sustained pressure on them.  But that is an effort that we continue to be vigilant about and we continue to be keenly aware of the threat that emanates from Somalia.

I’d also note, as a second example, that it’s been quite some time before the acronym AQIM has been brought up in this room.  The reason that we haven’t brought that up is not that AQIM is no longer a violent, dangerous group; they are a violent, dangerous group.  But because of the efforts of the United States and, most importantly, our partners, the threat from AQIM in North Africa has been mitigated but certainly not eliminated.  This is thanks to the efforts of our French allies, who have made a substantial commitment of forces to try to stabilize the country of Mali.  The United States continues to work with the Mali government as they try to stabilize their country and to eliminate the threat from extremists that are operating there.

And the last example that I would cite is actually one that we do cite frequently, which is Syria.  There’s no U.S. embassy in Syria.  There’s no U.S. military personnel inside of Syria.  But yet, the United States has the capability and the wherewithal to carry out strikes against extremists inside of Syria, not just ISIL but even other extremist groups that have a more immediate -- or that pose a more immediate threat to Western interests.  And the United States has the capability and has demonstrated a willingness to apply pretty intense pressure to those organizations as well, even though there is no U.S. military or diplomatic footprint inside Syria.

Jeff.

Q    Josh, how dangerous is the situation in Yemen to the United States, given the presence of al Qaeda there?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, Yemen has been dangerous for quite some time.  And as I mentioned in response to Jeff’s question, we would prefer a situation where Yemen was at least stable enough where the United States could maintain some diplomatic and military facilities there.  That would enhance our coordination and cooperation with the national security infrastructure of the Hadi government that would allow us to more effectively mitigate the threat from these extremist organizations. 

But at the same time, we do still have capabilities nearby that can be used to apply significant pressure to the leaders of these organizations.  And that’s why, as I mentioned to Josh, that Yemen is a dangerous country, it continues to be.  The administration made the decision to withdraw U.S. personnel from Yemen because it’s a dangerous place.  Yemen continues to be a dangerous place for the extremists that are operating there, too, and that’s because the United States does retain the capability to take them off the battlefield and that is a capability that we’ll continue to use.

But we continue to be very mindful of the threat that is posed by AQAP.  And this is work that we are engaged in around the clock to try to protect the American people and our interests around the world.

Q    Do you have any sense of a timeframe for when personnel would be able to go back?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have a timeframe to share with you from here.  Obviously there is a lot of important work that needs to be done before that can take place.  And the good news is, we have seen that the international community is engaged in this process, and trying to resolve the differences between the Hadi government and the Houthi insurgents is something that we want to resolve diplomatically if possible.  But this kind of political work and diplomatic work takes a lot of time.  But we have seen the investment that’s required from the international community, and the United States is certainly supportive of that process.

Q    Moving on to another international crisis of sorts.  In Germany today, the German Chancellor and the Greek Prime Minister are meeting.  Does the United States, does the White House have any advice for Chancellor Merkel or for her Greek counterpart about the bailout program and the discussions that they’re having?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, I can tell you that the United States, as we have for a number of years now, [has] been in close touch with our European allies and partners about some of the financial insecurity on the continent.  And we continue to be mindful of that.  It is in the best interest of the United States and our economy for those differences and for that instability to be resolved. 

The good news is, I think, that each of the members of the EU recognizes that they each have their own interest in trying to resolve this situation.  And my counterparts over at the Treasury Department could probably provide you some more insight in the kinds of conversations that the United States government has had with our counterparts in Europe on this matter.

Q    And lastly, there’s been a lot of fluctuation in the last few days and weeks in the currency markets with the dollar and the euro.  Is this something the White House is watching? And are you worried about it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, there’s a long tradition in the U.S. government of only the Treasury Secretary talking about the value of the U.S. currency.  So I will say that the President and the rest of his economic team are regularly updated on the financial markets.  But for any sort of comment on those movements that you’ve observed as well, it sounds like, I’d refer you to the Secretary of the Treasury.

John.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  Two questions.  The President has had a very gracious policy of calling people in other countries when they lose elections, as well as the winners.  And I cite, for example, President Sarkozy in France, Prime Minister Noda in Japan, and General Shafi’i in Egypt when he lost their election in 2012.  Did he call Isaac Herzog after the Israeli election, or around the same time he called Prime Minister Netanyahu?

MR. EARNEST:  John, I don’t believe that he did, no.

Q    So there was no contact between them?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I don’t know that he placed a telephone call to him after the election, no.  I think that there are a couple of occasions in recent years where the President has had an opportunity to meet Mr. Herzog.  But I’m not aware of any recent conversations between the two men.

Q    The other question is that, this coming weekend, the world’s eyes will be on Nigeria for their election, and polls show a dead heat.  If General Buhari is elected, he has a controversial past, which includes expelling 700,000 immigrants, as well as use of hardline tactics in getting people show up for work on time, and secret trials.  Is the administration going to have any problem recognizing a government in Nigeria if General Buhari is elected?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, John, I’m going to refrain from commenting on any of the candidates, but I will note that the President just did today release a video message to the Nigerian people.  I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to see this, but the President did so as the Nigerian people look ahead to the presidential elections that are scheduled for March 28th.  The President called on all leaders and candidates to make it clear to their supporters that violence has no place in democratic elections, and that they will not incite, support or engage in any kind of violence before, during or after the votes are counted.

The President called on all Nigerians to peacefully express their views and to reject the voices of those who call for violence.  But you can take a look at that video for yourself, John, and see the message that the President had for the Nigerian people as they prepare for the election.

April.

Q    Josh, I had a follow-up on Nigeria, on another subject -- the Nigerian girls, the missing Nigerian girls.  When they went missing we were hearing calls, “Bring our girls home.”  As we mark the days further away from when they were captured by Boko Haram, is there still hope that these girls will be found collectively safe and unharmed?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, April, I don’t have an update for you in terms of that ongoing effort.  What the United States has done is we’ve deployed U.S. personnel with a variety of capabilities to Nigeria, to assist the Nigerian government as they try to root out the extremist elements that were responsible for that kidnapping and try to return those girls to their homes.  But I don’t have an update for you on that progress at this point.

Q    And could you tell us about John Podesta’s conversations, when he was here, with those in the Nigerian government about the efforts to bring the girls home?  Because we’re understanding that the further the days are marked that they’re not found, that it doesn’t look as promising.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we obviously continue to be concerned about the situation in Nigeria as it relates to Boko Haram, and the United States has offered extensive support to Nigerian security forces.  We recognize that there’s also an important role here for regional military forces to play in trying to combat the spread of this extremist element.  And the United States continues to be supportive of those efforts.

We have been mindful of encouraging the Nigerians at every turn to recognize the responsibility that they have, even as they’re carrying out these dangerous missions, to respect the basic human rights of the population.  And that’s going to be an important part of their counterterrorism efforts, as well.

Q    On another subject -- talking about Loretta Lynch.  There was a thought prior to her confirmation hearing process that there could be a delay.  Some in this administration understood that the layout of the land, that the politics will be played and there could be a delay, but they didn’t expect a delay like this.  What are your thoughts about this delay?  And are you now looking at the fact that a confirmation hearing may not happen?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, she did testify before Congress, so she has had a hearing.  What she has not gotten, however, is the vote -- and that is what she deserves.  She is a career prosecutor with an impeccable record.  She is somebody who has taken on and convicted would-be terrorists in New York City.  She is somebody who has prosecuted and negotiated settlements that yielded billions of dollars for the taxpayers and holding accountable some unscrupulous financial institutions.  She is also somebody who has a record of trying to stand up for the public trust and holding public officials accountable for openness and transparency and honesty.

So she is somebody who has the strong support of law enforcement because of her record as a tough, but fair, independent prosecutor.  She is somebody who no doubt deserves strong bipartisan support in the Senate.  The continued delay is unconscionable. 

And again, the President had the opportunity when he first nominated her back in November to have her nomination be considered by the Democratic Senate in the lame-duck session.  And out of deference to the incoming Republican leadership, and listening to promises from the incoming Republican leadership that she would be considered in a timely fashion and that she would be treated fairly by the incoming Senate, there is no doubt now that her delay has extended beyond that previous description of a confirmation in a timely fashion, and that has been grossly unfair to her and to the American people.

Let me just say, though, that at the same time, while she waits for her confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder continues to work very diligently in that office to protect the American people, to advance the cost of justice, and to use every lever of authority that rests in that office to do the good work that’s expected of him.

And he’s somebody with a tremendous work ethic and he is going to stay on that job until she’s confirmed.  But I know that he is very much looking forward to the day when he can hand off the keys of that office to Loretta Lynch.
Q    One last question.  I guess there’s irony -- today is the fifth anniversary of the ACA and you're telling all the numbers, and you have Ted Cruz talking about announcing his run for the Oval Office and using the ACA as, I guess, one of his points of his presidential run, looking at possible repeal, signing legislation that would repeal it.  What does this White House feel about the fact that the ACA, your legacy piece, is now, I guess, smack dab in the middle for all the takers from the GOP side as it comes to them running against the next Democratic candidate for President?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there was a presidential candidate who ran in 2012 promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and that campaign pledge didn’t work out very well for him.

Cheryl.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  The President will be at the SelectUSA conference here in a little while.  Will he be addressing the trade or trade promotion authority, or do you have any updates on the progress of that, of trade agreements?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't have any update in terms of the ongoing discussions on Capitol Hill about this specific issue.  I can tell you the President is very much looking forward to speaking at the SelectUSA Summit.  It will be an opportunity for him to reiterate once again the critically important role that exports play in strengthening our economy and creating jobs here in the United States.  The President continues to be convinced, and the data bears this out, that when U.S. businesses have an opportunity to compete around the world on a level playing field that U.S. businesses tend to do very well.  And that has had benefits both for our broader economy but also for the workers who are employed by those businesses.

So this is something you’ll hear the President talk about a little bit more this afternoon.

Jim.

Q    Josh, over the weekend, Ayatollah Khomeini gave a speech and during that speech there were people in the crowd chanting, “Death to America.”  And the Ayatollah responded back to them, according to various translations, “Of course, death to America.”  Do those comments give this White House any pause about moving forward with a nuclear deal with that country?

MR. EARNEST:  Jim, I can tell you that I think that those kinds of comments -- I didn’t see them firsthand, but I'll take your word for them -- those kinds of comments only underscore why it is so critically important that the United States and the international community succeed in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  And the best way for us to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is sitting down at the negotiating table and getting Iran to make very specific commitments that would prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and getting Iran to make commitments as it relates to a set of historically intrusive inspections that would allow us to verify that Iran is abiding by the agreement and therefore not in a position to acquire a nuclear weapon.

The other thing that we have been steadfast in repeating is that if we are successful in reaching an agreement with the Iranians by the end of March -- that's the deadline for a political agreement -- that it would not at all resolve the long list of concerns that we continue to have with the Iranian regime.  We've seen the Iranian regime utter disgraceful threats toward our closest ally in the region, in Israel.  We have seen Iran actively engaged in supporting terror activity around the globe.  And we know that Iran continues to wrongly detain American citizens inside of Iran.

So we have a rather long list of concerns with Iran and their behavior.  And even if we are able to reach a nuclear agreement, those other lists of concerns won't go away.  In fact, what we have said is given that long list of concerns, it's all the more important that we succeed in the effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Q    And do you feel like you can negotiate in good faith with a Supreme Leader who is calling for “death to America”?

MR. EARNEST:  Jim, what we have seen is we have seen the Iranians sit down at the negotiating table and demonstrate a willingness to have constructive conversations.  But what is just as true is we are going to insist in the context of those negotiations that Iran agree to historically intrusive inspections so that we can verify their compliance with the agreement.  The national security advisor I think said it best when she said that our approach to Iran is distrust and verify. 

Q    Okay.  And on a related note, 367 House members, bipartisan group, signed on to a letter saying that Congress must be convinced before there is permanent sanctions relief for Iran as part of any nuclear deal that may get hammered out.  And is there any objection to that letter?  You have it right there.

MR. EARNEST:  I do have it right here.  And I guess great minds are thinking alike today.  I underlined exactly the same sentence of the letter.  The sentence says, “Should an agreement with Iran be reached, permanent sanctions relief from congressionally mandated sanctions would require new legislation.”  That's the line that you just recited.  That is --

Q    -- it’s an important line.

MR. EARNEST:  It is, and it is an important one for a variety of reasons.  One is that it reflects the role that Congress has to play in this process, and that is a role that the United States -- that the administration has repeatedly acknowledged.  That is why you see the administration going to great lengths to make sure that we are briefing members of Congress about the status of the talks.  I happened to see that the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did an interview over the weekend in which he said that in recent days he’d heard from both the Vice President and the Secretary of State.  I think that is an indication of the kind of commitment that the administration has to consulting with Congress throughout this process.  And --

Q    So no objection to that letter?  The same objections that you have with the Cotton letter, for example?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think there are a variety of differences.  The first this is a bipartisan letter; the Cotton letter was a letter that was signed by 47 Republicans.  The second is, the letter from Senator Cotton was one that was directed to our adversaries in the Islamic Republic of Iran; this is a letter that members of Congress signed and sent to the President. 

The other thing is Senator Cotton and many of the other people who signed that letter made clear that the goal of the letter was actually to undermine the talks.  And the second line that I underlined in this letter notes that “the signatories remain hopeful that a diplomatic solution preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon may yet be reached, and we want to work with you to assure such a result.”  That’s an indication that they have a keen interest in the agreement.  We would certainly expect that Congress would, given the significant consequences that an agreement like this would have for our national security.  And we would anticipate that Congress would play its rightful role in considering, after Iran has demonstrated sustained compliance with the agreement, a measure that would, down the line, as they described, offer permanent sanctions relief from congressionally mandated sanctions.

Q    And what did you make of these death threats from ISIS that specifically mentioned 100 U.S. troops?  Some of these troops may have met with the President; some can be seen in photographs in various press releases and named in various press releases from the U.S. military over the last several months.  What is the White House reaction to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, we obviously take the safety and security of our military personnel very seriously.  At this point, there is no indication that there was a data breach involved here.  It appears that the information that was distributed by ISIL was information that was freely available through social media on the Internet.

The administration has been in touch with the branches of the military to ensure that steps are taken to notify personnel, and the United States is working with the FBI, who is the lead investigator here, to determine the validity of any potential threats that may arise from this posting.

Q    And on President Ghani, I'm just trying to figure out, by the end of his visit and by the end of this press conference tomorrow, are we going to have a firm sense from the President as to how many troops will be removed from Afghanistan, on what timetable?  And will they all be -- or nearly all be pulled out before the end of 2016?  Are we going to have a firm understanding of all of that before President Ghani leaves town?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as I described last week, the goal that the President has set for the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by the end of 2016 or the beginning of 2017 is one that we've been pretty clear and firm on, which is that the President does envision a scenario where the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan by that point, by early 2017, reflects the need to protect the substantial diplomatic presence that the United States will maintain in Afghanistan, as well as the establishment of a security cooperation office.  The links between Afghan security forces and the U.S. military are significant and they will endure, so we would anticipate that there would be a presence for that reason, as well.  But that obviously -- we're talking about in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500 troops. 

At this point, the United States troop presence is around 10,000 in Afghanistan, and the question is how much flexibility is there in the drawdown between where we stand today and that endpoint in early 2017.  That will be the subject of some discussion with President Ghani.  President Ghani has indicated a desire to bring that up and discuss that personally with the President.  This is an issue the President and his national security team have already been talking about for some time, but I don’t have anything to preview in terms of any announcements that may or may not be made tomorrow.

Bill.

Q    The leaders of the Oversight Committee have written a letter asking the Secret Service Director to have four officers testify when he testifies tomorrow before their committee.  Would the White House support having these officers who were witnesses to the incident on March 4th testify?

MR. EARNEST:  Bill, actually, this is the first I’m hearing of the letter.  I can tell you that what we would expect is for the Secret Service to cooperate with two things.  One is legitimate congressional oversight, but also with the ongoing DHS inspector general investigation into this matter.  So I don’t have an opinion one way or the other about whether or not these individual officers should appear before Congress.

But I think the fact that the Secret Service Director is testifying before Congress for the third time in a week or so I think is an indication of that agency’s interest in cooperating with congressional oversight.  And the fact that the director himself asked the DHS IG to step in and investigate this matter I think is a commitment that is indicative of the commitment that he has made to getting to the bottom of this matter.

Q    But there’d be no mutually exclusive reason for them not to testify before Congress, even though they’re cooperating with DHS?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it would be hard for me to speak to that.  I’d refer that question to the Secret Service.

Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  First, I want to ask you about Denis McDonough’s speech to J Street.  I know some critics have noted that McDonough outranks the two administration officials who were sent to AIPAC to speak, and so I’m wondering if there was any message being sent there from the White House about their speaker selection to these pro-Israel groups.

MR. EARNEST:  No, no message that’s trying to be sent here.  There were two U.S. officials who were sent to speak to AIPAC, and I think having the national security advisor and the U.S. representative to the United Nations -- U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations speak at that conference I think reflects the seriousness with which we consider the AIPAC organization.

Q    And just a follow-up on -- I don’t know if you’ve seen the reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu said today that he regrets the comments that he made about Israeli Arabs voting.  I don’t know if you had seen that or if you have any reaction to those statements.

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen those comments, but I think we’ve made pretty clear the serious concerns that we had with those comments.  So if that’s what he said, then it certainly seems appropriate for him to make that acknowledgement.

James.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  Just a few on Yemen, one or two on Iran, and then one final subject.  You keep referring to the Hadi government.  And I just wonder, what is the U.S. government’s assessment as to whether what you’re calling the Hadi government is, in fact, a functioning government?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there’s no doubt that they are hobbled by the kind of instability that we see inside of Yemen.  But the United States stands with the international community -- and I’d point you to this statement from the United Nations over the weekend that indicates the international community’s commitment to supporting the Yemeni people and the legitimacy of President Hadi to continue to run that country.

Q    But as a practical matter, who is in charge of the capital and the operations of government in Yemen right now, as far as you can see?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, such as it is, right?  I mean, the President had to flee the capital, so we have seen that the Houthi insurgents continue to occupy some of the government institutions in that country, including in the capital.  And the international community has called on the Houthi insurgents to leave, to vacate those government facilities so that the government can come in and can function, and so that we can also facilitate a diplomatic process for resolving the current concerns that have been raised by the Houthis about their government.

Q    Because you had said earlier that the Houthis had advanced on the capital, but the fact is they advanced on the capital, they’ve seized the capital, and they’re running the capital, correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Mm-hmm.

Q    Do you regard the Houthis as a terrorist organization?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t know of any sort of specific designation that may have been made by the State Department, but what we have been focused on are the serious concerns we have about the destabilizing activity of the Houthis.  And we would encourage both sides, including the Houthis, to put an end to the violence and come to the negotiating table.  The United States and the United Nations will certainly participate, in terms of facilitating those agreements to try to broker differences so that we can end the bloodshed, that we can end the violence, and try to bring some stability to this nation that’s been racked by so much instability over the years.

Q    Do you have an assessment of the relationship between the Houthis and the regime in Iran?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we know that there are links between the two.  What is unclear is how much operational support is being offered by the Iranians to the Houthis.  At this point, I still don’t believe that we’ve seen any evidence of any sort of command and control being exercised by Iranian officials over Houthi movements.  That’s something that we’ve said for a few weeks -- let me check and make sure that’s still true -- but I haven’t heard any different so far.  But we’ll confirm that for you.

Q    Do you have anything further than you did last week about the twin claims of responsibility by ISIS-related figures for the attacks, respectively, in Tunis and in Yemen?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any update on that.  At this point, we still have not seen any evidence of ISIL directing those attacks or enhancing the ability of those individuals to carry out those attacks.   What we have seen and what we suspect may be the case here is that individuals have cited an allegiance with ISIL merely for propaganda value to the extent that they determine there is some, not for any sort of operational value.

Q    On Iran -- CIA Director Brennan, appearing on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, stated that the U.S. intelligence community has a pretty good idea of Iran’s nuclear facilities and programs, something he said by way of dismissing the idea that there may be some undeclared sites that are presently unknown to the United States government as we continue these negotiations.  Given the track record of the U.S. intelligence community with respect to Iran and its undeclared sites, should the American people have confidence that we don’t, in fact, know about some undeclared sites right now?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I do take the CIA Director at his word.  John Brennan is somebody that I think does have a good track record in terms of serving the American people.  And I do have confidence in his assessment that he shared with Mr. Wallace on his program over the weekend that he believes that we do have significant insight into their nuclear program.

The thing that I will say is -- and this is one of the reasons that the President has been dogged about trying to pursue a diplomatic resolution to our concerns about their nuclear program -- is that in the context of a diplomatic agreement, the United States and the international community would insist upon historically intrusive inspections.  And that would give us even more insight than we already have into the details of the program, and that’s one of the reasons that the President believes that this is the better course of action.

So in response to an earlier question, you heard me describe our view that the best way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is at the negotiating table -- because if the United States or somebody in the international community had to resort to the military option, that would prompt the Iranians to kick out all of the inspectors and would reduce our visibility into their program, and therefore could make it easier for them to try to develop a covert option.  That so-called covert option is one that is very challenging for them right now, and it would become only more challenging in the context of a negotiated solution to the situation with their nuclear program there.

Q    And last, on Iran -- the President told the Huffington Post on Friday that, as far as he can see, the Iranians have not yet made what he called the “kinds of concessions” that would be necessary for a deal to be reached.  I know there’s only so much you can say about what’s on the table in these negotiations, but of course you should feel safe in discussing that which the President has discussed publicly.  And so what kinds of concessions -- what broad categories of concessions are they not making that the President sees as necessary?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, he has a little bit more latitude to talk about these things than I do.  So let me just repeat that what we will insist on is making sure that we cut off every pathway to a nuclear weapon that Iran has, and that they agree to and submit to historically intrusive inspections into their nuclear program.  And if Iran is not able to make those commitments, then there will be no deal that’s reached.

Q    In saying that they haven't made certain kinds of concessions, is he saying they haven't been reciprocal in the making of concessions; that the United States has made concessions, and just Iran has not?

MR. EARNEST:  What we have made pretty clear is that this deal will be predicated on serious commitments from the Iranians about resolving the international community’s concerns with their nuclear program, and commitments that they will comply with intrusive inspections.  And those are the kinds of commitments that we’re going to insist on before we even contemplate any sort of sanctions relief.  And what we would envision is a demonstrated commitment to compliance with the agreement before phasing the sanctions relief.

Q    Last question -- and you’ve been very generous, as have my colleagues.  In your gracious remarks at the top about the passing of Jerry Warren, you stated that he served in the Nixon administration, and you went on to say that that administration had, what you called, a difficult relationship with the press.  Using whatever metrics you employ to make that assessment, would you say that the Obama administration has a difficult relationship with the press?

MR. EARNEST:  No.  I actually think that the Obama administration has worked hard to try to facilitate a constructive working relationship with the press.  And as I’ve observed at this podium on many occasions, that necessarily means that there will be a little friction, because it is the responsibility of the free and independent press here in this room and across the country to push the administration to be more transparent and to give greater insight into the priorities here.  And so that means that there’s always going to be a little bit of friction.  But I am pleased with the kind of constructive, working relationship that I do think has benefitted certainly the journalists who are covering the White House, but, most importantly, I think it’s benefitted the American people.

Jim.

Q    Since the deadline is only a week away, I think it’s a fair question to ask, even though I doubt you’ll answer it.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I’ll try.

Q    Is the United States close to a deal with Iran on nuclear proliferation in that country?  And what are the roadblocks if they’re not today?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it would be hard to talk about roadblocks for some of the similar reasons that James raised.  I can say that, as a general matter, we do believe that we have made important progress over the last few weeks.  You’ve obviously seen that Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz, a number of other nuclear experts from the United States and the international community, have spent a lot of time around the negotiating table with their Iranian counterparts over the last few weeks.  And I can say that we’ve made some important progress.  But as the President acknowledged in his interview on Friday, there are still some substantial gaps that remain.  And I wouldn’t change the assessment that we’ve offered earlier about the likelihood of an agreement.

Q    And then just on Senator Cruz’s announcement today, along with the other things that I’m sure you disagree with, he said that he would abolish the IRS.  I’d like to get your comment on whether or not the United States government could, in fact, work without the IRS.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t want to respond to anything that any of the candidates has made in the context of a campaign speech.  So there may be somebody who previously worked at the IRS who could better answer your question and assess the kind of contribution that the IRS makes to the effect of running the U.S. government.

Q    If I could just press on that, Josh -- this is a department that works for the White House, for your administration, and here is a candidate who says it’s totally unnecessary.  There’s no response from the White House about whether or not the IRS is unnecessary?

MR. EARNEST:  Only because I’ve worked pretty hard to be assiduous about allowing the candidates to make their own comments and declare their own views.  At some point, we’ll reach a phase where I’ll be a little bit more willing to engage.  But at this point, I’m going to let them have their day.

Thanks, Julia.  Chris.

Q    Well, if you don’t want to respond to what the candidates have to say, let me ask you to respond to something that California Governor Jerry Brown had to say yesterday about Ted Cruz.

MR. EARNEST:  I think he speculated on a different scenario -- he himself might be a candidate.

Q    He said that Cruz’s position on climate change makes him absolutely unfit to be running for office.  Would the President agree that someone who doesn’t believe in climate change is unfit for your office?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, I’ll just say as a general matter that the President certainly believes that dealing with the causes of climate change is an urgent matter, and one the United States, as the leader in the international community on so many priorities, that the United States needs to lead on this one, too.  And you’ve seen the President work -- make a significant announcement in China at the end of last year, demonstrating the sustained commitment of both the United States and China to reduce carbon pollution.  There are a number of other steps that the President has taken to do two things.  One is try to reduce our carbon footprint, but do that in a way that’s actually good for our economy by making investments in renewable energy like wind and solar, and investments in technology that will enhance energy efficiency.  These are all things that could be good for our economy and good for the climate.  And certainly the President intends over the two years that he has remaining in office to redouble the efforts of this country to lead on this important issue.

Q    Well, you’ve said and the President himself has said on a number of occasions that this is the fourth quarter and a lot of things happen in the fourth quarter.

MR. EARNEST:  Important things happen in the fourth quarter.

Q    Important things happen in the fourth quarter.  And I know you don’t like to get into political analysis, but what’s the conversation like in the White House about this very early start to this campaign?  You have one Republican obviously who declared today, several more who may get in over the next month or two.  And what that means for the President’s ability to get attention for what he still wants to get done in the fourth quarter?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, those of us who worked on the 2008 campaign I think look back -- look at the start of this campaign with some envy.  By this point in 2007, I was working on my second campaign and had been doing so for four months.  So those who are just getting started today are getting off pretty easy in my book.

Setting that aside, I would anticipate that the -- as I mentioned earlier in response to Josh’s question, that we will over the course of the next year and a half or so, until the general election in 2016, have an opportunity to have a very robust debate all across the country about the direction of the country.  And the President is very proud of the substantial progress that we’ve made so far, and between now and then he anticipates that we’re going to make some additional progress.  And he is certainly very focused on that. 

And there will be a debate in the context of the presidential election about when the President leaves office where to take the country from there.  And I would anticipate that at some point down the line, the President himself might even weigh in on this debate.  But this is a healthy part of our democracy and this will be something that all of the candidates and many of you will be focused on.

The President, however, has some very important work ahead of him.  And when he was running for reelection, he wasn’t running for a two-year term; he was running for a four-year term.  And he intends to make the best use of those -- of all four of those years that he can to move the country in the direction that garnered him majority support in the last presidential election.

Q    And any reaction to the Supreme Court decision to deny a challenge to a Wisconsin’s voter ID law? 

MR. EARNEST:  I saw reports about that just briefly today.  I think what I would do is just refer you to the President’s comments at Selma a couple of weeks ago, where he talked about how it should be the responsibility of the government and the responsibility of all of our citizens to try and put in place rules and laws that make it easier for eligible voters to cast a ballot and not harder.  And that is certainly the view that the President has articulated, even at that rather poignant location in our nation’s history, and that’s certainly something the President will continue to advocate for.

Byron.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  To follow on Jordan’s question, and it sounds like you haven’t seen the reports about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments, but would an apology to Israeli Arabs be enough to stop the White House reevaluation of Israel policy?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, no, let me separate those two things.  Again, based on what Jordan said to me -- I did not see those comments -- but based on what Jordan said and what you have reiterated, it certainly seems like his comments were appropriate.  But the statements that we have made over the last week about the need to reevaluate U.S. policy is actually predicated on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comments that legitimately call into question his commitment to a two-state solution; that for years, under the leadership of both Democratic and Republican Presidents, the U.S. policy has been to advocate for a two-state solution that’s negotiated by the two parties. 

And our explanation for intervening at the United Nations when there are some efforts taken by our allies to impose a solution from the outside, the United States has said we shouldn’t impose a solution on the outside because the two parties should sit down at the negotiating table and work this out for themselves.  And the United States is willing to take a role in facilitating those conversations.

Now, there’s legitimate doubt about the commitment of our ally in those negotiations to participating in those talks.  So it certainly calls into question what our policy can be if our ally is, at best, reluctant to participate in those conversations.  So that is why -- that is what has prompted this reevaluation of U.S. policy.

Q    Is there anything the Prime Minister can do to maintain the current policy?  I mean, would a resumption of talks, would a restating of his commitment to the two-state solution be enough?  Is there anything -- is there any action he can take to sort of keep the current Israeli-U.S. relationship and the policy at the United Nations intact?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, one thing that I can tell you will continue between the United States and Israel is the commitment of the United States to Israel’s security and the military and intelligence cooperation that we’ve seen now for generations will continue under this President.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has previously described that coordination with the Obama administration as unprecedented, and the President certainly intends to keep it at that level.

As it relates to our diplomatic policy, however, the United States will continue to keep an open line of communication, starting at the top levels but also among other senior members of the Netanyahu administration as they form a government.  And the Obama administration will continue to keep those lines of communication open and we'll continue to listen to our Israeli allies as they contemplate their path forward. 

They obviously have some decisions to make as they form a new government, and we'll continue to consult with them about them.  But I don't have any sort of benchmark to lay out from here other than to say the United States continues to be wedded to the principle of security cooperation and continue to keep an open line of communication between our two countries.

Fred.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Related to Israel -- in Geneva, with the Human Rights Council, the U.S. this year did not step forward in defense of Israel on item number 7.  Does the White House have any comment on that?

MR. EARNEST:  I do, Fred, and I appreciate your raising this.  This is not the first time that the United States has refused to participate in the UNHRC discussion of Item 7.  We do not participate because we remain deeply troubled by the Human Rights Council’s standalone agenda item directed against Israel and by the many repetitive and one-sided resolutions that have been pursued under that agenda item.  We have coordinated our refusal to participate with Israel, which will also not participate in those discussions.

I would note that the Israeli government themselves have put out a statement saying every year the Americans stay away from this debate, which singles Israel out for censure, and they do so at Israel’s request.  So this, I think, does underscore the kind of strong relationship that continues to exist between our two countries.

Q    And regarding the ACA anniversary, a lot of the critics still point out that the promises made beforehand were that the cost would decrease, the President had said, by $2,500 at one point -- or several points, I think.  And also, CMS in 2013 had said that the reason for the slower growth rate was because of the sluggish economy, not because of the ACA.  I mean, at the point in which the economy starts to pick up, then the growth rate for health care costs will increase.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Fred, I guess I'd point out a couple of things, is that we have indicated that there are a number of things that have contributed to the historically slow growth in health care costs that we've seen.  And when I say historic, I mean the slowest growth in 50 years.  And certainly it seems that even the hardest-core critic of the Affordable Care Act would be hard pressed to make the case that it's just a coincidence that in the year after the Affordable Care Act, and in subsequent years, that the slowest growth in health care costs just happened to coincidentally occur in the first few years that the Affordable Care Act was implemented.

The second thing I would point out is that -- this was actually one of the numbers I did at the top -- that we have seen that the average family that gets their health insurance through their employer has put an extra 1,800 bucks in their pocket, and that's because of the kind of slower growth trends that we've seen in health care costs.  That is real money.  And there is some economic data to indicate that that money that employers are saving in terms of paying for the premiums for their employees is actually being redirected toward wages.  And that is a good sign, and we certainly would like to see more of that in the future.

And I think that's a good example, as I noted at the top, of how individuals who already have health insurance are benefitting from the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Viqueira.

Q    Thank you.  Still less than 50/50 odds of getting a deal with Iran?

MR. EARNEST:  In terms of the likelihood of us reaching a deal, I would not offer up different odds at this point.

Q    So what’s the change?  It was less than 50/50 publicly up until recently.

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I have said previously is that it's at best 50/50.  So maybe I'm just feeling optimistic today. I don't mean to -- I guess the point is I don't mean to signal a change on this.

Q    Okay.  President Ghani says that ISIL is targeting his country.  Under the terms of the authorization, the AUMF that the President -- the proposal that the President sent Congress, there are no geographical limitations.  So the United States and coalition allies could conceivably enter combat operations in Afghanistan against ISIL?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Mike, what we have said is that there are some very specific descriptions of what the AUMF would cover.  And you're right that it does not note any sort of geographical limitation, but it does describe the kinds of forces that would be subject to the authorization to use military force.  Just putting a sign on your front door that says this is the international headquarters of -- or the Afghanistan headquarters of ISIL doesn’t necessarily mean that you're going to be targeted by the U.S. government.

The authorization to use military force describes individuals who take up arms alongside ISIL.  And I can point to you that there’s one high-profile example of a senior member of the Taliban who did declare his affiliation with ISIL, but that individual has been taken off the battlefield thanks to the efforts of the United States and our Afghan partners. 

So the United States continues to be vigilant about this.  And as I mentioned I think in response to James’s question, right now what we perceive is that there are some extremists who do seek some sort of propaganda value out of aligning themselves with ISIL.  But we obviously are monitoring very closely those extremists who seek to do harm whether they’re affiliated with ISIL or not.

Q    As we wait for a potential announcement on U.S. troop levels heading into this year and then 2017, perhaps tomorrow, I'd like you to respond to some of the criticism that we hear about the President’s timetable and that his ironclad commitment to have the United States remove all but those 1,000 individuals or however many out of Kabul has to do more with his fulfilling a commitment than it does with the military reality on the ground.  Could you respond to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is a commitment that the President made, Mike, and it does reflect what the President views as our core national security interests.  Over the course of the next two years, until the beginning of 2017, we hope that we will continue to make progress in building up the capacity of Afghan security forces to provide for the security situation in their own country. 

And what the President is mindful of is that making a substantial commitment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan, again, is not in our national security interest.  Drawing the United States into another land war in Asia is not in our best interest, and that our strategy here is to build up the capacity of the Afghan central government and the Afghan security forces to provide for the security situation in their own country and to do so in partnership with the United States. 

One of the things that we envision creating in Kabul is an office that would facilitate military-to-military cooperation.  That would enhance the security of the Afghan people, and it would serve the national security interest of the United States, but it's very different than making a substantial commitment of U.S. ground troops back into Afghanistan.

Q    The Afghan government is evidently not there yet, right?  So at least until 2017.  Will there be an evaluation at that time, a reevaluation?  Or is the United States just gone no matter what?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President I think has been pretty firm in describing what sort of plan he envisions for the United States based on his assessment of our national security interests in that country. 

Mark, I’ll give you the last one. 

Q    Thank you.  And forgive me, I think I'm slow and math is not my strong suit. 

MR. EARNEST:  That’s usually not the case.

Q    For months -- okay, well, wait for it -- For months, including I think at the year-end news conference, the President and you since then have said that -- used this 50/50 formulation of “that’s where we are on the talks, that’s the chance of...”  How is it that we’ve had important progress and substantial progress but the odds are still the same? 

MR. EARNEST:  I think there are two reasons for that.  The first is, I think as you would expect in the context of a complicated negotiation like this, that as they work through the issues, some of the more difficult issues get punted to the end.  And I’ve described this phenomenon in the context of trade talks, but I think it applies in these conversations as well.  The most thorny things are the things that get punted to the end.  So that’s the first thing.  While we’ve made substantial progress in resolving a lot of issues, there’s still some important ones that remain unresolved.

The second thing is that ultimately the decision about this agreement is one that will have to be made by the leaders of the Iranian regime, including the Supreme leader.  And it will require Iran’s leadership to make a very difficult decision:  to cut off all the pathways to a nuclear weapon and to agree to a historically intrusive set of inspections. 

And the fact is, there’s not a lot of transparency into that decision-making process, and so the uncertainty about the willingness of Iran’s leaders to make and hold those kinds of commitments is what leads to some skepticism here about whether a deal is even possible. 

But based on the constructive engagement we’ve gotten around the negotiating table, we asses that there’s -- on the good days, we assess that there’s a 50/50 proposition that will succeed in this.

Q    So the progress has been substantial and important, but just not important enough to affect the odds?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that they have been important enough to get us closer to reaching the kind of common-sense agreement that the international community could agree to.  But I think what remains to be seen is the likelihood that Iran’s leaders would agree to cutting off every path they have to a nuclear weapon and agreeing to a set of inspections that would allow us to verify their compliance with the agreement.  That’s what remains to be seen. 

And again, the Iranian regime is not particularly transparent about how these kinds of decisions are made, and I think that’s what adds some healthy doubt to the situation. 

Q    So when an Iranian official says the talks are within reach of a deal and other diplomats say it’s close, they’re wrong?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what they -- I think what I'm trying to describe to you is a scenario that’s slightly more complicated than that.  A handshake agreement around the negotiating table is obviously very important and would demonstrate substantial progress.  There is a lot of doubt on the front end of this deal that the Iranians would even engage in this process constructively, so having us enter a situation where we could reach a handshake agreement around the negotiating table I think represents substantial progress.  But what is still in doubt is whether or not the leaders of Iran would go along with this agreement.  And because of the lack of transparency we have into that process, that’s why we continue to be a little skeptical that this is something that is possible. 

But because it is possible, you’ve seen the United States and the international community engage very aggressively in this diplomatic process because it is, in the mind of the President, the best possible way for us to resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program.

Okay.  Thanks, everybody.  Have a good Monday.

END
2:05 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Remarks As Prepared at J Street Annual Conference

As Prepared for Delivery --

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you, Alex, for your very kind introduction. It’s great to be here at J Street with so many friends who are committed to a strong alliance between the United States and Israel, to the security of the State of Israel, and to peace.

I want to thank Jeremy Ben-Ami, Mort Halperin, and everyone at J Street for the important work you do around the country, including those of you from my home state of Minnesota. President Obama actually got a letter last week—one of the ten letters from Americans he reads every night—from a couple in Minneapolis. They were just writing to thank the President for standing up for a progressive agenda, and they signed the letter, “Your Minnesota Jewish cheering squad.” That was pretty great.

President Obama asked me to convey his deep appreciation to all of you for your partnership and your work on behalf of the U.S.-Israel relationship, especially building support for our efforts to advance a two-state solution.

I also want to acknowledge all the young people in the audience—more than 1,000 college students. I know sitting in a dark conference hall listening to some guy in a suit give a speech probably isn’t everyone’s ideal spring break. That you are here continues a tradition of young Jewish American leaders working to make our union more perfect, even if - as with the bravery of Rachel Beyda at UCLA - doing so opens you to criticism. You make us all stronger and America even better. Thank you.

Now, I started out with President Obama as part of his national security team, but as his Chief of Staff—and with appreciation for all the work J Street has done as our partner—I want to focus first on the big picture: how far our country has come these past six years. Because J Street is an organization that, in the best tradition of the American Jewish community, shares a set of values about the type of country that we are – a democracy where all of our people can access opportunity.

With typical American determination, we turned around the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We’re at 60 months of private-sector job growth—the longest streak on record. America’s businesses have created 12 million new jobs and unemployment is down from 10 percent in 2009 to 5.5 percent today. We’ve cut our deficit by about two-thirds. Middle-class wages are finally growing again. And, as President Obama reminded us last week, none of this happened by accident. It’s in part a result of, in his words, “decisions made by [this] administration…to prevent a second depression, and to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity.”

Because of those decisions, an auto industry that was flat-lining is once again churning out great American cars, and we’re negotiating new high-standard trade agreements that will make it easier to sell those cars, and other goods made in America, all over the world. Factories are now opening their doors here at home at the fastest pace in nearly two decades. As Interior Secretary Jewell reported last week, we’ve helped boost oil production from 5 million to 9 million barrels per day, increased solar energy production ten-fold, and tripled wind energy generation. In so doing, we’re creating jobs and protecting the planet for future generations—and the United States is leading the global fight against climate change.

We’re making sure more of our people have the tools they need to get ahead in the 21st century. More of our kids are graduating from high school than ever before, and more Americans are earning their degrees than ever before. Today is also the fifth anniversary of President Obama signing into law the Affordable Care Act. Sixteen million more Americans now have the security of health insurance, cutting the ranks of the uninsured in America by about a third. Health care prices have risen at the slowest rate in 50 years. And young entrepreneurs can now compare and buy affordable plans, which frees them up to strike out on their own – making it easier for them to follow their dreams, start new businesses, and create more jobs.

We’ve fought for policies that make it easier for women to participate in the work force—equal pay, better maternity leave, and flexible work schedules. We’ve advanced historic protections for LGBT Americans. And President Obama has appointed more women, minorities, and openly gay judges—all exceptionally talented jurists–to the federal bench than any president in history, including putting two extraordinary women on the Supreme Court – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Last month, the President put forth a budget that will build on this progress and keep us moving forward. It’s a strategy for middle-class economics—growth that benefits everyone. Unfortunately, last week, Republicans in Congress unveiled a budget that will do the opposite, undermining our progress with top-down economics that have failed the country before.

The Republican budget prioritizes tax cuts for those at the very top, while cutting investments in education and job training that benefit middle-class families. It would end initiatives that help small manufacturers grow their businesses and create jobs. It would strip health insurance from millions and gut Medicaid, doubling the ranks of the uninsured. The House even proposes to end Medicare as we know it. They call it the “path to prosperity” – but as the President said, it’s only a path to prosperity for people who have already prospered.

Nor is it a path to security. At a time when we’re facing global challenges that require America to lead in new ways, the Republican budget would cut our core national security funding. That’s right. Let me say it again—the Republican budget would cut our core national security funding. Now, since we go through the budget process each year, this sometimes feels like theatre without consequences. The consequences, however, are very real. The consequences of the Republican budget are a smaller military force and less funding for training and equipment, leaving our troops exposed to greater risks.

Or, take another issue we all feel so strongly about: assistance to Israel and funding to promote peace. Our military assistance to Israel – which, among other things, includes Iron Dome – comes from the defense side of the national security budget. On the other side is our non-defense funding for the entire world, including critical areas in the Middle East. The problem is, adjusting for inflation, the Republican budget holds both sides of that core budget – defense and non-defense – at the lowest point in a decade. That means we would be investing in our national security – in 2016– at 2006 levels. That’s a decade ago. Well, the threats we face in 2016 won’t be 2006 threats. And the threats Israel faces won’t be 2006 threats. We have to do better.

So as they debate their budget this week, Republicans need to answer a simple question: why does a budget at 2006 levels not put at risk the critical investments we need to make, including in Israel’s defense?

The President’s budget, on the other hand, provides the resources necessary to sustain our National Security Strategy and protect America’s vital interests. President Obama has proposed an increase in defense spending—and non-defense spending—and ways to pay for it. For Israel alone, we’ve requested more than $3 billion in foreign military financing and more than $100 million to improve Israel’s capability to defend against ballistic and cruise missile threats. And we’ve asked for an additional $55 million for Iron Dome.

Of course, our relationship with Israel isn’t defined by numbers in a budget. Ours is a deep and abiding partnership between two vibrant democracies. We saw that democracy in action when Israelis of all backgrounds—Jewish and Arab, religious and secular–cast their ballots last week. At the heart of any democracy is the right of all citizens to participate equally.

In his call to congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu last Thursday, President Obama committed to continuing consultations on a range of regional issues, including resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The process of forming a new Israeli government is now underway, and in the coming days and weeks, we’ll see what that looks like. So, with the remainder of my time with you today, I’d like to share with you how President Obama sees the road ahead.

First, no matter who leads Israel, America’s commitment to Israel’s security will never waver. As we all know, Israel faces real dangers in a tough neighborhood. I traveled with then-Senator Obama to Israel in 2008. I will never forget our time in the holy city of Jerusalem and following behind him as he approached the Western Wall—and even in the dark hours of that very early morning, it was a place bustling with energy afforded by one’s faith. On that trip, the President toured Sderot and saw the devastation wrought by Hamas-launched rockets. He met with Israelis living under the threat of rocket attacks. And, since then, I’ve seen President Obama’s personal commitment to increasing our security cooperation with Israel to unprecedented levels.

Today, our security, military, and intelligence cooperation is stronger than it’s ever been, and that’s not going to change. The U.S.-Israel consultative group will continue to ensure cooperation at the highest levels of our governments. Under President Obama, we’ve spent hundreds of millions helping to develop David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defense systems. I recall very clearly a call with the Israeli Ambassador at 5:00 PM on a Friday evening last July, when he requested – and shortly thereafter the President and Congress delivered – an additional $225 million for Iron Dome missiles and batteries. That on top of the nearly $1 billion we had invested in Iron Dome already, which saved so many Israeli lives during the conflict with Hamas last summer. And, next year, when we deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Israel will be the only country in the Middle East with a fifth-generation aircraft. In other words, we will continue to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge. As the President has said so many times, we have Israel’s back.

Second, we continue to believe that the best way to safeguard Israel’s long-term security is to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians—two states for two peoples, living side-by-side in security and peace.

To achieve this, the United States has long advocated direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. In 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly endorsed a two-state solution. Over the course of President Obama’s administration, most recently with the tireless efforts of Secretary Kerry, the United States has expended tremendous energy in pursuit of this goal. That is why the Prime Minister’s comments on the eve of the election—in which he first intimated and then made very clear in response to a follow up question that a Palestinian state will not be established while he is prime minister—were so troubling.

After the election, the Prime Minister said that he had not changed his position, but for many in Israel and in the international community, such contradictory comments call into question his commitment to a two-state solution, as did his suggestion that the construction of settlements has a strategic purpose of dividing Palestinian communities and his claim that conditions in the larger Middle East must be more stable before a Palestinian state can be established. We cannot simply pretend that those comments were never made, or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through direct negotiations.

In recent days, some have suggested our reaction to this issue is a matter of personal pique. Nothing could be further from the truth. America’s commitment to a two-state solution is fundamental to U.S. foreign policy. It’s been the goal of both Republican and Democratic presidents, and it remains our goal today. Because it is the only way to secure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.

That is why President Obama has said that we need to re-evaluate our approach to the peace process and how we pursue the cause of peace – because, like all of you, we care deeply about Israel and its future. We will look to the next Israeli government to match words with actions and policies that demonstrate a genuine commitment to a two-state solution. And, like every administration since President Johnson, we will continue to oppose Israeli settlement activity since it undermines the prospects for peace. Meanwhile, we share Israel’s concern about the security environment in the region – which is why, as part of the last round of talks – the President and Secretary Kerry had General John Allen prepare a detailed plan to provide for security in the West Bank over the long-term.

In the end, we know what a peace agreement should look like. The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. Each state needs secure and recognized borders, and there must be robust provisions that safeguard Israel’s security. An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state.

President Obama still firmly believes what he said in Jerusalem two years ago—that peace is necessary, just, and possible. Peace is necessary because it is the only way to ensure that a secure State of Israel is both Jewish and democratic. Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. That’s the truth. And as President Obama has said, neither occupation nor expulsion of Palestinians is the answer. Anything less than true peace will only worsen the situation. A “one-state solution” would effectively end Israel’s nature as a Jewish and democratic state. Unilateral annexation of the West Bank territories would be both wrong and illegal. The United States would never support it, and it’s unlikely Israel’s other friends would either. It would only contribute to Israel’s isolation.

Peace is also undeniably just. Palestinian children deserve the same right to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land. A two-state solution will finally bring Israelis the security and normalcy to which they are entitled, and Palestinians the sovereignty and dignity they deserve.

And we cannot give up on the idea that peace is possible, because peace will make Israel stronger. It would provide clear, secure borders that would increase Israel’s security. It would deal a knock-out blow to calls for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions, which many of you have fought hard and courageously to oppose. It would undercut efforts to isolate Israel in the international community and roll back de-legitimization efforts.

Achieving peace won’t be easy. It will require political courage. But nothing would do more to improve Israel’s security or its relations with its neighbors than to bring about a sovereign and contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure, democratic, Jewish Israel. No nation has done more to stand with Israel in the world, including at the United Nations, than the United States. And so, as difficult as it is, the United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and the lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve.

I know that you are here because you care deeply about the cause of peace. And your voices are important too – you can help remind people that there is a great constituency for peace; that there are people who believe, as President Obama does, that peace is necessary, peace is just, and – yes – peace is possible.

Third, and finally, the United States will continue to do everything in our power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In the coming days, our P5+1 negotiators will continue to meet with Iran’s representatives to see if we can bridge the remaining gaps and come to an understanding that will peacefully and verifiably resolve the international community’s concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. And, as we have said all along, we will not accept a bad deal.

Our diplomatic engagement with Iran has already delivered concrete results. Through the Joint Plan of Action, we’ve succeeded in stopping the advance of Iran’s nuclear program and even rolling it back in key areas. Iran is getting rid of its existing stockpile of its most highly enriched uranium. It has capped its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and frozen its enrichment activities—that means no new enrichment facilities and no new centrifuges, including its next-generation models. Iran has also ceased construction on its plutonium reactor at Arak.

We know Iran is living up to its commitments so far because, through the Joint Plan, we have gained unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program. For the first time, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency are allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow. Along with our international partners, we have provided Iran with extremely limited sanctions relief. But make no mistake, Iran’s economy is still under enormous pressure, and Iran remains cut off from the vast majority of its foreign currency reserves.

The question now is whether we can reach a long-term deal—one that provides verifiable assurances that Iran cannot pursue a nuclear weapon. Two weeks ago, my friend and colleague Susan Rice, the President’s national security advisor, laid out exactly what we are trying to accomplish with these negotiations. As she said, “a good deal is one that would cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Every single one.”

That means Iran would not be able to develop weapons-grade plutonium at Arak, or anywhere else, nor would it be allowed to use its underground site at Fordow to enrich uranium. A deal would also extend the amount of time it would take Iran to produce a single bomb’s worth of weapons-grade uranium—to reach breakout capacity. According to experts, Iran is only two or three months away from breakout, but under a deal, that window would have to be at least a year.

To prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon through covert channels, any deal would include frequent and intrusive inspections at Iran’s nuclear sites. The only deal we’ll accept is one that assures us that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful. And, if we detect any failure to comply on Iran’s part, the extended breakout window would give us plenty of time to respond. In other words, we’d make it harder for Iran to reach breakout and rush for a nuclear bomb.

Any deal would last for more than a decade—setting back Iran’s program for far longer than would military strikes. And, at the expiration of any deal, Iran would still be obliged under international agreements to provide comprehensive access to its nuclear facilities and to continue providing assurances that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Let me make one final, critical point about these negotiations. The deal we are pursuing is both realistic and achievable. A scenario where Iran forgoes domestic enrichment capacity for all time would surely be ideal, but it’s not grounded in reality. Not even our closest partners support denying Iran the ability to pursue peaceful nuclear energy forever, and Iran already knows how to enrich uranium. We can’t turn back the clock on that. An absolutist position makes for good rhetoric, but as Ambassador Rice said, “sound bites won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

The bottom line is this—compared to the alternatives, diplomacy offers the best and most effective way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and this is our best shot at diplomacy. We have to give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

Let me also say that the Obama Administration welcomes and appreciates the important role Congress plays in U.S. policy toward Iran. Congress helped put in place the strongest sanctions regime ever against Iran, which helped bring Iran to the negotiating table. Now that we’re at the table, Congress should not seek to undermine negotiations before a deal is reached.

I’m sure you heard about the letter some Republican senators addressed directly to Iran’s leaders. It was a blatant political move—as the President said, that is not how America does its business. Moreover, some of the same Senators who signed that letter criticize the President’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force against ISIL because it imposes limits on the Commander-in-Chief. So they want to give the President open-ended authorities to wage war in the Middle East, while imposing strict limits on his ability to reach an agreement that could help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without waging another war in the Middle East. Open-ended authority for war but limits on diplomacy? That just doesn’t make sense. We cannot remove diplomacy from America’s toolbox – that’s not how we’ve come to lead the world.

The letter was also critically flawed in its legal reasoning. We are pursuing a political arrangement with Iran that does not require congressional approval. Such deals are an essential, long-standing element of international diplomacy. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have relied on them. It’s how President Roosevelt negotiated the Atlantic Charter. It’s how President Nixon, with the Shanghai Communique, helped open our relationship with China. It’s how we—peacefully—removed Syria’s entire declared stockpile of chemical weapons. Those are just a few examples of many.

Some senators have also proposed legislation that would torpedo diplomacy by suggesting Congress must vote on any deal and by stripping the President of his existing authorities to waive sanctions. Let’s be very clear about what this would do. It would embolden hard-liners in Iran. It would separate the United States from our allies. And it would potentially fracture the international unity that has been essential to keeping the pressure on Iran. In other words, this legislation could cause the United States to be blamed if diplomacy fails. Additionally, it would set a damaging precedent by limiting the ability of future presidents to conduct essential diplomatic negotiations. That’s why President Obama has said: should this legislation pass Congress—he will veto it.

If a deal is reached, we will share the details and technical documents with Congress, at which point we welcome a full debate—after all, only Congress could terminate U.S. statutory sanctions on Iran during the duration of the agreement. And everyone from the President on down will aggressively seek congressional and public support for any deal. There will surely be voices on all sides—I hope that yours will be among them. Because a good deal is the best way to reach our shared goal—preventing Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

Even if a nuclear deal is reached, our concerns about Iran’s behavior in the region and around the world will endure. Iran remains a state sponsor of terrorism, a proliferator and a gross violator of human rights. It actively seeks to destabilize its neighbors, props up the Assad regime in Syria, and supports groups devoted to violence such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iranian leaders have threatened Israel’s very existence, behavior and rhetoric that have no place in the 21st Century.

Yet to walk away from the opportunity to diplomatically and peacefully resolve one of the greatest threats to international security would not strengthen our hand to stop Iran’s destabilizing actions. Imagine for a moment how an Iran armed with a nuclear weapon, secure in its ability to deter its neighbors, would use that nuclear overhang to even more aggressively destabilize the region and transfer nefarious technology. It will therefore be far better for everyone—including Israel—to counter other challenges from Tehran while having verifiably addressed the international community’s concerns over its nuclear program. And that is what President Obama intends to do.

Last week, President Obama released his annual message for Nowruz—the Persian new year. As he has every year, he spoke directly to the people and leaders of Iran. He made it clear that Iran’s leaders face a choice between two paths. The first is the path Iran is on today—one that has cut off Iran from the world and caused needless hardship for the Iranian people. If Iran’s leaders cannot accept a reasonable deal, that is the path Iran will remain on. But if Iran’s leaders agree to a deal, there can be a better path—one that opens up opportunities for the Iranian people to participate in the global economy, creates jobs, and builds a brighter future.

The challenges I’ve described today aren’t easy—but they aren’t impossible either. As Jewish congregations across the country prayed on Saturday—and I won’t attempt the Hebrew here—He who makes peace in His high places, He shall make peace upon us, and upon all of Israel. But it’s not enough for us to just hope for peace in our world; it’s up to us to make it happen. In my Catholic tradition, when I think about the work ahead of us, I remember the words of St. Augustine. “Pray as though everything depended on God,” he said, “work as though everything depended on you.”

St. Augustine was speaking about the same responsibility that Jewish people know as tikkun olam – our shared duty to heal the world. The problems we face may seem overwhelming, but we push forward. Smart choices, a relentless determination—they can add up to progress. They add up to a world that’s more peaceful and more secure than it was before.

That’s why we’re never going to give up on peace between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s why we’re going to give everything we’ve got to see if we can get a good nuclear deal with Iran. And that’s why our commitment to the security of the Israeli people will never waver.

Like so many of you, I’m a parent. My wife Kari and I have three incredible kids. And like parents everywhere, we want our children to grow up in a country and a world that is peaceful and where, if they work hard, they can reach their God-given potential. I want you to know that President Obama is working every day to make that future possible. And he firmly believes that, if we work together, if we work—as St. Augustine said—as though everything depended on us, we will succeed in leaving our children a better world. Thank you so much. And thank you for being our partners in this work.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at the SelectUSA Investment Summit

Gaylord National Convention Center
National Harbor, Maryland

2:39 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you. Please have a seat.  Well, thank you, everybody.  And let me begin by thanking Penny Pritzker for her outstanding leadership. We’ve got six Cabinet Secretaries and dozens of U.S. ambassadors here, which should tell you that SelectUSA is a major priority for this administration.  Since I was here with you 17 months ago, this gathering has doubled in size.  So I want to thank all 2,600 of you -- elected officials and local leaders from across this country, and business leaders from around the world -- thank you for making this a priority, as well.

The fact is there’s never been a more exciting time for us to do business together.  And today, I want to talk about why America is not only the right place for you to invest, but why America is the safest, strongest, smartest place for you to invest than we’ve been in a long time.

After the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, America is now in the midst of the longest streak of private sector job growth on record -- 60 straight months; 12 million new jobs.  Businesses in America have added more than 200,000 jobs each month for 12 straight months.  That’s the first time that’s happened in nearly 40 years. 

Our unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10 percent in 2009 to 5.5 percent today.  After a decade of outsourcing, we’re starting to bring good jobs back to America.  Over the last five years, manufacturers have added jobs at a rate not seen since the 1980s.  In fact, the manufacturing sector is actually growing faster than the rest of the economy.  And last week, I announced nearly $500 million in new public and private investment in strengthening American manufacturing. 

And even though the United States is already home to more foreign direct investment than any other country in the world, we’ve worked hard to address some of the challenges that held us back for too long.  Our high school graduation rate is now at an all-time high.  More young people are earning their college degrees than ever before.  Our energy production is booming, our energy costs are low, our leadership on climate change is restored.  On the fiscal front, our deficits have shrunk by two-thirds.  Our health care costs are flattening out for the first time in half a century. 

Over the past six years, we’ve worked hard to make ourselves a smarter place to invest and to do business than any other country in the world.  So we've got a good story to tell.  And that’s one reason I created SelectUSA, the first-ever government-wide initiative to encourage more companies from around the world to invest and create jobs right here in the United States.  We've got a good story to tell, but we want to make sure all of you had a chance to hear it.  And the SelectUSA team wakes up every morning with one mission -- bringing job-creating investment to the United States of America.  It's a kind of one-stop shop, sort of a match-making service for investment.

Economic development organizations from around the country can connect with foreign investors from around the world who are interested in bringing their businesses here.  Now, understand a lot of state and local leaders in this room have been working tirelessly for a long time to attract foreign investment.  The idea behind SelectUSA is just to make it easier for you to do that, and easier for our international partners to find the best opportunities.

And by the beginning of this year, SelectUSA had assisted more than 1,000 clients, helping to generate more than $20 billion of investment in the United States -- investment that has spurred economic growth and created jobs all across the country. The companies in this room have invested $13 billion over the last year, which will create an estimated 32,500 new jobs. 

So what’s great about SelectUSA is that everybody wins.  Communities that welcome foreign investors see more jobs and economic activity and they can reach more potential investors.  The companies that invest in America have access to the largest market in the world -- and it's a market that is strong and stable, and growing.

And one thing I want to emphasize, it’s not just big corporations or billion-dollar investments that make a difference.  With the help of SelectUSA, for example, a Canadian company named Peds Legwear invested $7 million to rescue a failing sock company in Burke County, North Carolina.  And that investment saved 45 jobs.  They recently cut the ribbon on a new plant that will ultimately create more than 200 new jobs.  Had a little cheer back there.  That's good.  (Applause.)  

With the help from SelectUSA, Reha Technology, a Swiss medical robotics firm, just announced its merger with an American company called Interactive Motion Technologies.  The new company will headquarter in Watertown, Massachusetts -- and today it’s announcing a new $5 million investment to expand this year.

So we’re seeing real results from SelectUSA, and we want to build on that momentum and get even more of you to invest.  So today, we’re going to expand and improve our services.  We’re launching a new partnership between state and federal economic development officials.  We’re launching the SelectUSA Academy, with online and on-site training programs for investors.  We’re improving our online investment tools, helping companies identify state-based incentives so that they can decide where to invest.

So for companies considering new investment here, I want to be as clear as possible.  The United States of America is the best place in the world to do business.  We’ve got the most skilled and productive workers, the best universities, the most innovative entrepreneurs in the world.  We’re the global leader in patents –- home not only to more R&D investment than any other country but to nearly one-third of all R&D investment in the world.  Our access to global markets makes it easy to ship goods made in the USA around the world.  Our commitment to the rule of law and strong intellectual property protections make America a dependable place to innovate and do business.

And we’re a country that always believes we can be better, a country that adapts and advances, and sets new standards for new times.  It’s one of the reasons why I put forward a budget for this coming fiscal year that reflects the realities of the new economy.  We’re going to give workers and businesses the tools they need to succeed in a fast-paced, highly competitive, constantly changing world.  And that means new investments in education, new investments in job training, including making two years of community college free, because we want to make sure that our workers continue to be prepared to fill the jobs that you intend to bring here.  It means new investments in manufacturing, and 21st century infrastructure that 21st century businesses need.  We’re modernizing port, strengthening our bridges, making Internet and wireless and broadband far more accessible more quickly. 

Now, that’s my budget.  I recognize there’s something called Congress here and there are going to be some negotiations taking place.  So far, Republicans in Congress have put forward a different kind of budget.  But I’m confident that we can find a way forward.  I’m confident that we can find a path that doesn’t undermine our standing, but strengthens it.  Because the things that help businesses grow are not partisan.  There shouldn’t be anything partisan about making sure that our kids get the best education possible, or that we’ve got world-class infrastructure. 

We’re working together on a bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority and strong new trade deals from Asia to Europe that aren’t just free but are also fair and reciprocal -- trade deals that help businesses grow our exports and put American workers first.  And I’m confident we can, together, reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, giving our businesses one more tool that they need to compete.

Today, I’m pleased to announce a new action I’m also taking to make it easier for global companies who are present here today to launch and invest in the U.S.  My administration is going to reform the L-1B visa category, which allows corporations to temporarily move workers from a foreign office to a U.S. office in a faster, simpler way.  And this could benefit hundreds of thousands of nonimmigrant workers and their employers; that, in turn, will benefit our entire economy and spur additional investment.  (Applause.) 

Of course, as all of you know, one of the thing that would make America even more attractive to businesses and that would grow our economy and shrink our deficits, and keep this country safer, stronger, and smarter, would be a comprehensive immigration reform package.  And that’s why I’m going to continue to push and prod and poke and cajole friends in the Republican Party to get on board and help us get this done.  We need to get immigration reform done here in the United States of America.  That’s who we are.  (Applause.)

So the bottom line is this:  America is proudly open for business, and we want to make it as simple and as attractive for you to set up shop here as is possible.  That is what this summit is all about.  I hope you take full advantage of the opportunities that are here.  This is a pretty good networking session.  I can't even see the folks way out in the back.  (Laughter.)  There are a lot of deals to be done right here under this roof.  And I hope that everybody is going to take full advantage of it. 

Because we're committed to SelectUSA for the long haul.  We are committed to building partnerships with you so that our companies and our communities can thrive together.  And we intend to be with you not just today or tomorrow, but in the years and decades ahead. 

That's my commitment to you.  Because we are confident that if you invest in any of the communities that are represented here, what you will find is not only outstanding workers, and not just outstanding infrastructure, and not just an extraordinary market, and not just cheap energy, but what you will find is that the American people like doing business and they respect business, and they’re looking forward to working with you to make sure that your companies succeed, and that the faith that you place in those communities is ultimately going to result in outstanding results for your company.

Thank you very much, everybody.  Good luck.  (Applause.) 

END
2:52 P.m. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President at White House Science Fair

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  Hello, hello!  Thank you.  Everybody have a seat.  Thank you.  Hello, scientists.  (Laughter.) 

So this has got to be the most fun event of the year.  (Laughter.)  At least in the top three.  And before I go any further, though, I need to lay down some rules.  We had to put these in place based on the previous science fairs.  First of all, no taking your robots or electric go-karts for a spin on the South Lawn.  (Laughter.)  You can't do that.  Rule number two, if you’re going to explode something, you have to warn us first.  (Laughter.)  Actually, just don’t explode anything.  (Laughter.) Number three, no using a marshmallow air cannon in the house -- (laughter) -- unless you let me shoot it first.  (Laughter.)   

This is our fifth White House Science Fair.  And every year, I walk out smarter than I walked in, because these young people have something to teach all of us -- not just about batteries, or attacking cancer cells, or how to build a working robot or a rocket.  I will say, though, the robots I see keep getting smarter every year.  We are keeping an eye on that, by the way.  (Laughter.)  You’re on notice, Skynet.

But these young scientists and engineers teach us something beyond the specific topics that they’re exploring.  They teach us how to question assumptions; to wonder why something is the way it is, and how we can make it better.  And they remind us that there’s always something more to learn, and to try, and to discover, and to imagine -- and that it’s never too early, or too late to create or discover something new. 

That’s why we love science.  It’s more than a school subject, or the periodic table, or the properties of waves.  It is an approach to the world, a critical way to understand and explore and engage with the world, and then have the capacity to change that world, and to share this accumulated knowledge.  It’s a mindset that says we that can use reason and logic and honest inquiry to reach new conclusions and solve big problems.  And that’s what we are celebrating here today with these amazing young people. 

Now, first of all, I'm going to announce the people who are not that young -- although some of them are youngish.  We’re joined by some of America’s top scientists and engineers -- starting with my Science Advisor, John Holdren.  (Applause.)  Yay, John.  The Director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins is here.  (Applause.)  The head of our Patent and Trademark Office -- so, young people, if you’ve got something fancy, talk to Michelle Lee right here.  (Applause.)  She’s ready to sign you up.  The Acting Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, Suzette Kimball is here.  (Applause.)  And somebody who has one of the coolest jobs in town, the head of NASA, Charles Bolden is here.  (Applause.)  Where’s Charlie?  If there are any aspiring astronauts here, he’s the man to impress.  He’s been in space himself. 

We also have some outstanding guests who are here who’ve been participating in this on an ongoing basis.  Bill Nye, the Science Guy, is here.  (Applause.)  Signature bowtie.  So is Rush Holt, who’s one of the few scientists to serve in Congress.  We could probably use some more.  (Applause.)  There you go.  Rush is now the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  And just so you knew that athletes think science is cool, too, we've got Victor Cruz of the New York Giants here.  (Applause.)  He is a big fan of science.  And he has to be -- as all-pro wide receiver, he’s got to figure out trajectories and angles and velocities and the physics of doing the salsa.  (Laughter.)  For those of you who don't know, he does a salsa every time he gets a touchdown, and he gets a lot of them.  (Laughter.)

Now, Victor has been here before to celebrate the New York Giants winning the Super Bowl.  But as I’ve said many times before, we’ve got to celebrate the winners of our science fairs as much as we celebrate the winners of football or basketball or other athletic competitions, because young scientists, mathematicians, engineers, they’re critical to our future.  You guys are the ones who are going to define the contours of the 21st century.

And I just had a chance to meet some of these young people.  And I fired a lot of questions at them, and they know their stuff.  It is unbelievable what so many of these young people have accomplished at such an early age.  And I wish I could talk about every single one of them because all of them were extraordinarily impressive.  But I want to leave enough time for everybody else to explore some of their exhibits.  John Holdren probably wants me to get some of their résumés in case we’re hiring.  But let me just mention a few of the young people that I had a chance to talk to, to give you a sense of the scope and depth and quality of the work that they’re doing. 

So, first of all, we’ve got Sophia Sánchez-Maes who’s here from Las Cruces, New Mexico.  Where’s Sophia?  I just talked to her.  Did she get in?  There she is, right there.  (Applause.)  Sophia is a senior in high school and she is crazy about algae.  (Laughter.)  Now, to the non-science buffs here, you might say, what’s so great about algae?  But Sophia knows that algae is fascinating, especially as a potential fuel source. 

So scientists are already working to turn algae into fuel.  One of the hurdles is to make the process more efficient so less energy gets wasted along the way.  Sophia saw that was a challenge.  She asked why.  She has created a more efficient method.  She’s identified optimal algae to use in her method, and she’s helping to bring the world closer to using algae as a clean, renewable, and even inexhaustible energy source.  And it’s already being tested in her hometown, the process that she’s developing.  It is amazing.  So let’s give Sophia a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  

Harry Paul is here from Port Washington, New York.  Where’s Harry?  There’s Harry, right here.  (Applause.)  So Harry graduated and is now in his first year at Tufts.  But listen to this story, because I think it gives you a sense of the quality of the young people we’ve got here.  Harry was born with a condition called congenital scoliosis -- a curvature of the spine.  So, growing up, Harry endured more than a dozen operations.  Rather than feel sorry for himself, he thought there’s got to be a better way of doing this.  So he designed a new type of spinal implant. 

Starting in his freshman year in high school, he started researching the processes that he himself had gone through -- his doctor was an expert on this -- and he decided, let’s see if I can come up with something better, an implant that can grow along with the growing child so it doesn’t have to be constantly replaced or adjusted, which means you don’t need as many intrusive operations.  And Harry’s implant could reduce the number of surgeries that a child may need for more than a dozen to as few as five, which obviously would cut down medical costs, but more importantly, would save a lot of young people pain and time out from school and recovery time, and the potential complications of an operation. 

Unbelievable stuff.  Give Harry a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

So Nikhil Behari is here from Pennsylvania.  Where’s Nikhil. There’s Nikhil.  (Applause.)  He’s a freshman -- right? -- in high school, interested in how we can better protect ourselves against hackers and data thieves online.  So scientists are already using biometrics to prove that each of us walk in our own distinct ways.  And Nikhil wondered, what if we each type in a distinct ways?  So he collected all kinds of data about how a person types -- their speed, how often they pause, how much pressure they use; built a special keyboard to test it.  And he proved that his hypothesis was correct -- that even if somebody knows your password, they don’t necessarily punch it in exactly the way you do. 

And he asked why -- and made discoveries that now could help keep our online accounts more secure.  So in the future, if keystroke-based authentication keeps your siblings from breaking into your Facebook account or your Instagram account, you will know who to thank.  (Laughter.)  It will be Nikhil.  Congratulations.  (Applause.) 

So those three are just samples of the extraordinary scientists that we’ve already -- and engineers -- that we’ve already got here. 

I should give special mention to our Girl Scouts from Oklahoma. Where are those Super Girls?  (Applause.)  They’re standing up, but you can’t really see them -- (laughter) -- because they’re in kindergarten and first grade.  They are today’s youngest scientists at six years old.  They built their device out of Legos.  They realized that some people who might be paralyzed or arthritic might have trouble turning pages on a book so they invented this page turner.  It was awesome.  It was working so well, despite the fact, as they pointed out -- this is a quote, they said, “This is just a prototype.”  (Laughter.)  That’s what they said.  I said, well, how’d you come up with the idea?  They said, well, we had a brainstorming session.  (Laughter.)  And then one of them asked, “Mr. President, have you had brainstorming sessions?”  (Laughter.)  I said, yes, but I didn’t come up with something as cool as this -- (laughter) -- an automatic page turner.  Unbelievable.

Ruchi Pandya -- where’s Ruchi?  There’s Ruchi.  (Applause.) Found a way to use a single drop of blood to test a person’s heart function, much like a person with diabetes tests their blood sugar.

Anvita Gupta -- where’s Anvita?  There she is.  (Applause.) Used artificial intelligence and biochemistry to identify potential treatments for cancer, tuberculosis, Ebola.  What she’s done is she’s developed an algorithm that could potentially significantly speed up the process of finding drugs that might work against these diseases.

Something smells like it’s burning there -- and I don’t think it’s an experiment.  (Laughter.)  I think it’s somebody’s camera.  Do we have it under control?  We don’t see any flames bursting.  Yes?  All right.  Okay, it sounds like a little electrical short, but let’s keep monitoring that.  (Laughter.)  Exits will be -- (laughter) -- in that direction, should anything happen.  The last time there was a fire here, the British were invading.  (Laughter.) 

But Anvita’s algorithm has the potential of speeding up pathways to discovering what drugs would work on what diseases, and is consistent with some of the work that we announced around precision medicine that we are funding at a significant pace here at the White House.

Now, I should point out that, like several of the young people here, Anvita and Ruchi are first-generation Americans.  Their parents came here, in part, so their kids could develop their talents and make a difference in the world.  And we’re really glad they did.

So I want to congratulate all of you for your remarkable achievements.  You’ve made a lot of people proud -- your parents, your teachers, your friends, your mentors.  And as President, I’m proud of you, because America is going to be stronger and smarter and healthier, and a much more interesting place because of you. 

But it’s not enough for our country just to be proud of you. We’ve also got to support you.  We’ve got to make sure that young people like you are going to keep on having what you need to discover and experiment and to innovate.  So I’ve got three announcements to make that really were already kind of in the works before I met you guys, but it’s a pretty good occasion to announce them because you’re so inspiring.

First -- four years ago, I set a national goal to provide 98 percent of Americans with high-speed wireless Internet so that any young scientist or entrepreneur could access the world’s information.  Today, I can announce that we have achieved that goal, and we did it ahead of schedule.  (Applause.)  That’s a big deal.

Second, to make sure that we keep expanding broadband across the country, I’m creating a new team called the Broadband Opportunity Council, made up of leaders across government, who will work with business and communities to invest in next-generation Internet nationwide.  Because this not just going to be a key for your ability to learn and create; it’s also a key for America’s ability to compete and lead in the world. 

Number three -- no young person in America should miss out on the chance to excel in these fields just because they don’t have the resources.  So, five years ago, we launched a campaign called “Educate to Innovate,” to help more of our students explore science, technology, engineering and math.  Today, I’m pleased to announce $240 million in new contributions from businesses, from schools, from foundations across the country to help kids learn in these STEM fields.  So we are very, very proud to make that announcement.  (Applause.)

Corporations have pledged to help expand high-quality science and technology education to more than 1.5 million students.  More than 120 universities have pledged to help train 20,000 new engineers to tackle the toughest challenges of this century.  Foundations like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Gates Foundation, and the Simons Foundation, will support scientists early in their careers with mentoring and funding.   And, all told, these new commitments bring our grand total up to $1 billion in commitments to our kids since we first got this initiative started five years ago.

And I was talking to some of the folks who are helping to finance our efforts, and one of the things that they’ve discovered is that it’s not enough just to talk about STEM.  Part of what’s important to do is also to recognize that what you do in math and engineering and science has a purpose to it; that there are huge challenges that we have to solve in how we have clean energy, and how to we clean up our environment, and how do we solve crippling diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s.  And when we give students the inspiration not just that math and science are inherently interesting, and technology and engineering are inherently interesting, but there’s actual problems to solve, it turns out that young people, they rise to the challenge.  And that’s what’s so exciting about it.

We don’t want to just increase the number of American students in STEM.  We want to make sure everybody is involved.  We want to increase the diversity of STEM programs, as well.  And that’s been a theme of this science fair.  We get the most out of all our nation’s talent -- and that means reaching out to boys and girls, men and women of all races and all backgrounds. Science is for all of us.  And we want our classrooms and labs and workplaces and media to reflect that.

And this is something that Megan Smith, our Chief Technology Officer, is really keen about.  Part of the problem is we don’t tell the stories enough of the incredible scientists and inventors along the way who are women, or people of color, and as a consequence, people don’t see themselves as potential scientists.  Except the good news is these young women and African American and Latino and Asian American folks, young people who are here today -- you guys certainly see yourselves as scientists.  So you’re helping to inspire your classmates and kids who are coming up behind you to pursue these dreams as well. And that’s what’s so exciting. 

Because the United States has always been a place that loves science.  We’ve always been obsessed with tinkering and discovering and inventing and pushing the very boundaries of what’s possible.  That’s who we are.  It’s in our DNA. Technological discovery helped us become the world’s greatest economic power.  Scientific and medical breakthroughs helped us become the greatest source of hope around the world.  And that’s not just our past, that’s also our future, because of amazing young people like this. 

So I want to thank you for inspiring me.  You got me off to a good start today.  Keep exploring.  Keep dreaming.  Keep asking why.  Don’t settle for what you already know.  Never stop believing in the power of your ideas, your imagination, your hard work to change the world.  

And to all the adults in the room, and to any members of Congress who might be listening, just think about all -- oh, Eddie Bernice Johnson is here, an outstanding member of Congress, who’s a big support of STEM education.  Just remember, all these young people -- to continue to pursue the research that might bring about a new clean energy source, or might cure a disease, a lot of them are going to need the capacity to get research positions and fellowships and grants.  And that, particularly when it comes to basic research, has typically been funded by the federal government.  And my federal budget promotes a significant increase in the kinds of research that needs to happen.  Unfortunately, some of the budgets coming out of Congress don’t make those same commitments. 

So it’s not enough for us to just lift up young people and say, great job, way to go.  You also have to have labs to go to, and you’ve got to be able to support yourself while you’re doing this amazing research.  And that involves us as a society making the kind of investments that are going to be necessary for us to continue to innovate for many, many years to come.

So, congratulations.  Give all these young people a big round of applause.  (Applause.)  Go take a look at their outstanding stuff.  It’s really great.  (Applause.)    

END
12:37 P.M. EDT