The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2015

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 203

On Thursday, February 12, 2015, the President signed into law:
 
H.R. 203, the "Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act" or the "Clay Hunt SAV Act," which makes various changes to authorities related to veterans mental health care and suicide prevention.
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2015

Readout of the President’s Call with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan

President Obama spoke by phone today with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan to discuss bilateral and regional issues.  The two leaders agreed to continue to work together to strengthen U.S.-Pakistan relations and advance our shared interest of a stable, secure, and prosperous Pakistan and region.  The President discussed his recent visit to India, and noted the United States supports all efforts by both nations to improve ties.  President Obama welcomed the improved relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and noted appreciation for Pakistan’s efforts to combat terrorism.  Both leaders expressed the intent to meet at a mutually convenient time.  

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 12, 2015

Statement by the Press Secretary on Ukraine

The United States welcomes the agreement reached today in Minsk by the OSCE-led Trilateral Contact Group, which was endorsed by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France.  The agreement represents a potentially significant step toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict and the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty consistent with the Minsk agreements from last September.  We especially appreciate the tireless efforts of German Chancellor Merkel and French President Hollande to reach this new accord.  We call on all parties to carry out the commitments undertaken in today’s accord and the September agreements fully and without delay.  This agreement must now be followed by immediate, concrete steps to fulfill the commitments by all parties.  The cease-fire must be implemented and honored.  Heavy weapons must be withdrawn from the conflict zone, and Russia must end its support for the separatists and withdraw its soldiers and military equipment from eastern Ukraine.  The true test of today’s accord will be in its full and unambiguous implementation, including the durable end of hostilities and the restoration of Ukrainian control over its border with Russia.  The United States is particularly concerned about the escalation of fighting today, which is inconsistent with the spirit of the accord.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

Daily Briefing by the Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 02/11/15

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 
 
12:15 P.M. EST
 
MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I don’t have anything at the top, Darlene, so we can go straight to your questions if you’re ready.
 
Q    Thank you.  Two questions on Kayla Mueller.  Has the White House learned any of the details since the last time you briefed yesterday on the circumstances of her death, specifically timing and manner?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any additional intelligence to share about this matter today. 
 
Q    Is the U.S. still trying to figure out the circumstances of her death, or have we moved on from trying to find out what exactly happened to her?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, there certainly continues to be some ongoing work, but I don’t have any results of that work to share at this point.
 
Q    There also were some reports today that she was apparently, while in captivity, married off to an ISIS fighter.  Do you have anything on that?
 
MR. EARNEST:  I have seen those reports as well, but I don’t have anything to share on that matter, either.
 
Q    Okay.  Moving on to the AUMF -- 
 
MR. EARNEST:  I might have more to say about that.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Will the President request any additional spending to go along with that, or is there any -- are there cost estimates associated with the request?
 
MR. EARNEST:  At this point, there are no specific cost requests that the administration is making of Congress as it relates to our ongoing campaign against ISIL.  You’ll recall at the end of last year the President did make a specific request to Congress and we were gratified that that request for additional resources to execute our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL was supported in bipartisan fashion.  And we certainly welcomed that kind of support.  I hope that we’ll continue to see that kind of bipartisanship as Congress considers the appropriate role that they should play in demonstrating their support for the President’s strategy.
 
Q    There are some Democrats who have expressed concern about the scope of the authority the President is asking for, and John Boehner said this morning that he didn’t think it gives the military commanders enough flexibility and authority to do what they would need to do in order to defeat ISIS.  Is there any reaction to comments from both parties on that?  And how do you think it will affect the chances of this getting passed through Congress?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Darlene, the President has laid out the goal at the very beginning of this process of wanting Democrats and Republicans to be able to support this authorization to use military force.  So it’s going to require Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to do something that they have not done with a lot of success over the last several years, which is actually to work together to make progress on something that’s pretty important for the country.  So we are hopeful that Democrats and Republicans will be able to sit down and take a look.  
 
I think in some of these situations, Democrats and Republicans have a genuine difference of opinion about how to proceed, and those differences are understandable.  I wouldn’t want to leave you with the impression that we consider them to be insignificant.  We’re talking about rather weighty matters of national security.  But what we’ll need is we’ll need Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate to take seriously their responsibility to weigh in on these weighty matters of national security.  
 
After all, it was the Founding Fathers of our country who envisioned a legitimate role for Congress to play when it comes to matters of national security like this.  And we hope that Congress will assume that responsibility and act in bipartisan fashion to lend their support to the strategy that the President has laid out.  After all, the President, our men and women in uniform, are certainly fulfilling their responsibility to keep the country safe.  It’s time for Congress to step up to the plate and fulfill their responsibility to do the same thing.
 
Julia.
 
Q    Hi, thanks.  In the Buzzfeed interview that the President did, he criticized Staples for not -- for cutting hours and creating more part-time workers who wouldn’t qualify for health care.  Since then, the CEO, Ronald Sargent, has shot back and said that their policy for part-time workers has been in place for over a decade and this had nothing to do with Obamacare.  Does the President stand by his comments?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Julia, we’ve often seen opponents of this law -- Republicans -- trying to cite the experience of some workers at companies like Staples as evidence that the Affordable Care Act was somehow bad for the economy and bad for job creation.  So it sounds as if -- I haven’t seen the comments from this Staples executive that you’re citing, but I think it would be a pretty good indication that he disagrees with those Republicans who indicate that the Affordable Care Act is responsible for a large number of employees having their hours cut back.  
 
This is something that we’ve seen some anecdotal evidence that this is the case.  Republicans have tried to make the case that this is widespread, but there has not been evidence of that.  
Q    Okay, so when the President shamed Staples and companies who would have cut back hours, that’s not necessarily 
-- if, in fact, they actually cut back hours independent of Obamacare, that would actually not be a criticism then of these companies? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  What I'm suggesting is the reason that -- I suspect the reason that the interviewer asked the President the question about Staples is because he had noted that there were Republicans who have criticized the Affordable Care Act and said that it is having a negative impact on job creation and they have cited the experience of companies like Staples and others, as having to cut back on worker hours because of the Affordable Care Act.  So that’s why you can imagine that I'm in a position where I'm feeling gratified that the executive at Staples has come forward and said that the decisions -- or the policies that they’re putting in place as it relates to the number of hours that their employees are working is entirely independent of the Affordable Care Act.  That’s consistent with the case that we’ve been making for years now, and undermines probably the chief Republican criticism of the law.
 
Q    Okay.  On Yemen, on the U.S. and the UK closing their embassies there, is that going to change our counterterrorism strategy there?  And what will remain of U.S. presence in Yemen?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Julia, I can tell you that our counterterrorism operations in Yemen are ongoing.  Those operations continue to be coordinated with national security officials in Yemen.  As we have said since the beginning of this latest round of turmoil, that the United States would be focused on monitoring the security situation in Yemen and in Sana’a in particular, mindful of the need to protect U.S. personnel that are operating at the embassy there.  
 
And over the last several weeks, the United States has taken steps to draw down the number of personnel that were operating at that facility in Sana’a.   Overnight, the United States did make the decision and carried out the decision to temporarily relocate American personnel out of the U.S. embassy in Sana’a.  
 
I should note that we are certainly grateful to the government of Oman, that provided critically important assistance to ensure that that temporary relocation was executed safely, and we are grateful to the Oman government for stepping up and playing an important role in that effort.  
 
That said, there continue to be Department of Defense personnel -- U.S. Department of Defense personnel on the ground in Yemen that are coordinating with their counterparts in Yemen, in the Yemeni government, and continuing to carry out the kinds of actions -- the counterterrorism actions that are necessary to protect the American people and our interests around the world. 
 
Okay, Jim.  
 
Q    Josh, back to the AUMF.  Because the President does lay out certain criteria where ground forces would be used, in terms of what he’s asking, is the President going to be asking for more U.S. forces to be deployed in theater?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Not at this point.  
 
Q    Not at this point, but that’s possible? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, we have been pretty clear -- the President has been pretty clear about what he envisions for our strategy.  And it is codified in the language that was submitted to Congress today.  It notes -- or it places a limitation on the ability of the Commander-In-Chief to order enduring offensive ground combat operations in Iraq and in Syria. 
 
And in the cover letter that the President submitted to members of Congress, the President noted that that is consistent with the strategy that the President has pursued so far in that the President does not believe that making a long-term, large-scale commitment of U.S. ground combat troops into Iraq or Syria would be in our best interest.  
 
There are a variety of reasons for that.  The first is we are still dealing with the consequences of that large-scale long-term commitment that was made by the previous administration when they were pursuing the previous strategy in Iraq.  Those consequences -- some of them are fiscal and some of them are human.  And that is something that our country will continue to deal with in years to come.  
 
In addition to that, the President believes that a more successful strategy will involve building up the capacity of local forces to take the fight to ISIL extremists on the ground in their own country.  That’s why there are American military personnel that are operating in Iraq, that are training and equipping Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, and offering them advice as they take the fight to ISIL on the ground.  And we’ve seen that that has been successful in blunting the offensive that ISIL had mounted in the middle of last year, and even, in some cases, rolled back some of the offensive gains that they had made. 
 
There is a similar strategy in place in Syria to train Syrian opposition fighters.  That work is not as far along as the effort to support Iraqi ground forces is, but it's ongoing.  
 
Let me just say two other things about that.  There are two other reasons why it is -- well, at least one other reason why -- two other reasons why this is important.  
 
The reason the President wants to pursue a different strategy is, one, it's also consistent with the preferences of the central government in Iraq.  One of the reasons we saw that Iraqi security forces had failed was because they weren’t backed up by a unified central government that had succeeded in uniting that country to face the threat from ISIL.  So to deploy a large-scale, long-term commitment of U.S. ground troops in Iraq would be contrary to the wishes of the very central government that we’re trying to support.  
 
And finally -- and this is important, too -- and finally, it's also important to the cohesion of our international coalition.  There are 60 countries that have made a substantial commitment alongside the United States to take the fight to ISIL. And many of those countries -- that includes countries in the region.  And, at least some of those countries would not be entirely comfortable with a large-scale, long-term foreign military deployment in their neighborhood.
 
Q    But operations would be authorized for rescue missions, taking out ISIS leaders, calling in airstrikes and intelligence. How is that not mission creep?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, because, Jim, the President has been clear about this I think from the very beginning that this kind of large-scale, long-term commitment of U.S. ground troops is not a successful strategy. 
 
Q    But short of a large-scale, long-term operation, you can expand the operation under this authorization? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, what we have -- 
 
Q    Your language is fuzzy, is it not?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Intentionally so.  And the intent is --
 
Q    Intentionally so?  That language is intentionally fuzzy? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, Jim, because we believe that it's important that there aren't overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the Commander-in-Chief who needs the flexibility to be able to respond to contingencies that emerge in a chaotic military conflict like this.  
 
So the fact of the matter is we do need the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief, both this one and the next one, to have the ability to respond to specific contingencies; that if there is the need to order military action within these constraints but that is clearly in the best interest of the United States or the safety and security of our military personnel, then the Commander-in-Chief needs to have the ability to order that military action and to do it quickly without seeking additional specific authorization from the Congress.
 
Q    And the three-year time limit does tie the hands of his successor, does it not?
 
MR. EARNEST:  How so?
 
Q    If a future President, if the next President wants to go longer than three years in 2018, he’s going to have to go back, or she’s going to have to go back to Congress.  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is true that this authorization to use military force would expire, based on the way that this draft reads, would expire three years after Congress passes it.  And the President believes that is an appropriate period of time for our military to implement a strategy, and for us to measure what kind of progress is being made and whether or not the national security interests of the United States are being appropriately advanced.
 
And if, after three years, the strategy is continuing to succeed and we're seeing the results that we would like and we believe it is necessary for that strategy to continue to be implemented, then, yes, then Congress can take up additional legislation to approve the continued use of military force.  And again, if the strategy is demonstrating continued progress and it is determined that that strategy needs to continue to be implemented in the same way, then Congress should certainly be able to pass that authorization to use military force as well.
 
That is, after all, the appropriate role for Congress to play in all of this, and it is not appropriate for Congress, frankly, to try to sidestep the responsibilities that they have in this matter.
 
Q    Just to quickly follow up on Yemen.  There are reports, including from CNN, that the Houthis did not allow the Marines to take their weapons with them when they were departing, and that there were cars and other assets, I guess, of those embassy personnel that were seized, and that inside the embassy, that documents were destroyed and other items were destroyed inside the embassy.  Is that your understanding of how things unfolded? It sounds like this was a close call.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, this was a delicate situation.  We noted that we were -- that the administration was carefully monitoring the security situation on the ground in Sana’a to ensure the safety and security of American personnel who are there.  And so obviously the U.S. government determined that the security situation in Sana’a was serious enough that it required the temporary relocation of U.S. personnel that are operating in that country and in that city.  
 
So I think it is fair for you to assume that this was a pretty serious situation.  I know that there are some conflicting reports on the ground about what has happened since the facility was emptied.  And I can't speak to those specific reports and I can't confirm them.  But I certainly would use this opportunity to reiterate the responsibility that the Yemeni government and that the Houthi rebels have in ensuring the protection of diplomatic property and other equipment that was left behind.
 
Margaret.
 
Q    Thanks, Josh.  I have an AUMF question, but I first want to ask you on two other small -- well, very important news items.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Okay.
 
Q    One is, has the President been briefed on the situation in Chapel Hill with the shootings and the deaths of those Muslim students?  And does he have any reaction -- does the White House have any reaction?
 
MR. EARNEST:  There’s no specific reaction from the White House.  I know that this is something that local law enforcement is investigating.  I know that they, based on published reports, they have a suspect in custody.  And I know that part of that investigation will include the circumstances that may have led to this act of violence and that will also include the investigation of questions about what motivation this individual may have had. So this is the very beginning of an ongoing local law enforcement investigation, and we’re going to await the results of that investigation before we say anything.
 
Q    So he’s not been in touch with the families or anything at this point?
 
MR. EARNEST:  No, he has not.
 
Q    And yesterday -- I believe today, actually, the U.S. brought a case before the World Trade Organization over China’s subsidy program and a challenge to it.  And I’m just wondering whether that came up yesterday in the call with the Chinese leader, whether he gave him a heads-up that that was coming, and whether there was any discussion or reaction to that.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know, frankly, whether or not the President brought it up in the context of the call.  But I’m glad that you brought up this case with me, because it is an appropriate time for me to remind all of you of this administration’s strong record of going to the WTO to protect the American economy and American businesses and American workers.  
 
Throughout this presidency, 18 different times this administration has taken specific cases to the World Trade Organization raising concerns about the trade practices of other countries.  Eighteen times, the United States has come away victorious in resolving those claims, that they were resolved in the favor of the United States and in the favor of U.S. businesses and U.S. workers.  
 
And I think that is testament to the kind of commitment that this administration and this President has made to ensuring that as we engage in a global economy, that the President is going to make sure both that we are protecting American workers and American businesses, and that we’re going to hold other countries accountable for playing by the rules.  
 
And as we consider taking additional steps to enter into trade agreements with other countries, particularly in the Asia Pacific, that as people evaluate whether or not the President is sufficiently committed to protecting American interests as he does that, I think this is a pretty good example that he’s not just committed to protecting American interests but that he’s been very successful in doing so.
 
Q    And if you’re able to clarify any more on whether it was something they discussed yesterday, that would be great.  
 
On the AUMF, it sounds sort of obvious, but is this now the package that you believe does have enough bipartisan support to be passed by Congress?  How confident are you that the AUMF ask, as it now stands, is going to be a go, get a green light?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Margaret, the text that was sent up to Capitol Hill today and sent to all of you today does reflect the results of hours of conversations between administration officials and Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.  And it does reflect a committed effort on the part of this administration to try to find common ground on some of these complicated and significant issues.
 
At the same time, I’m not at all going to be surprised if there are members of Congress who take a look at this legislation and decide, well, I think there are some things that we should tweak here, and if we do, we might be able to build some more support for.  So I think it is fair for you to assume that this reflects a starting point in conversations.  But this starting point was arrived at after extensive consultations between senior members of the President’s national security team and Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill in both the House and the Senate.
 
Justin.
 
Q    On the AUMF, I’m wondering -- I’m about to ask you to play dictionary, but if you can define the word “enduring” and what “enduring” means in the context of this AUMF?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I wouldn’t have a specific number to assign to that word, but I do think that it is an apt way to describe what the President envisions and what he doesn't.  What the President does not envision is a long-term, large-scale commitment of ground combat troops that we saw in the context of operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.  That's not what the President has in mind.  
 
There’s no question that U.S. military personnel who served in those countries were there on an enduring basis.  They were there for years -- in Afghanistan, more than a decade now.  And that is not at all what the President envisions as part of the strategy for degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.  And for the reasons that I admittedly went on at length to convey to Mr. Acosta, the President doesn't believe -- not only does the President not believe that should be part of our strategy, he believes that if we were to make those kinds of commitments, it would actually undermine our strategy for success in degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.
 
Q    I guess what I’m trying to figure out is why that word was inserted.  Because as you've already discussed, there are already all these provisions to explain kind of instances where ground forces could be used, for rescue missions or whatever else they might need to be used for.  So that already exists in the AUMF.  What is the point of the word “enduring” ahead of “offensive ground operations”?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Right.  Well, I think that, again, the reason this phrase is put in there in the way that it is, is it is designed to, again, be very clear about what the President does not envision.  And again, what he does not envision is any sort of large-scale, long-term commitment of ground combat operations like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan previously.  But what he does want to preserve is the ability to react to contingencies.  And in some cases, reacting promptly to contingencies may require ordering military action that does involve combat boots on the ground.  
 
And again, the two most easily imagined examples are examples in which the President would order a military operation involving combat troops to go try and rescue U.S. hostages.  The President has already done that once.  And that put combat boots, U.S. combat boots on the ground in Syria in an offensive operation.  They were running toward a target, firing at ISIL fighters. 
 
Q    Sure.  It’s already sort of set aside in the AUMF --
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, not really.  Again, this phrase is to try to codify exactly what we're envisioning, right?  So “enduring offensive ground combat operations” means not doing what was done under the previous administration in Iraq, but yet preserving the ability to order military operations like the one the President has already ordered to try to rescue U.S. hostages. And that is the way that it’s described in the AUMF.
 
Q    So the AUMF does include separate language about rescue operations or about --
 
MR. EARNEST:  I see where this is -- it does not include that.  The President -- this AUMF text does not itemize specific contingencies that would authorize the President to do certain things.  And the reason for that is pretty straightforward, that when we're dealing in a chaotic situation like a military conflict, particularly like this one, it would be difficult for even a group of really smart, experienced people to come up with a comprehensive list of the kinds of contingencies; that there certainly is the possibility that contingencies that none of us could otherwise imagine could arise, and it would be important that there not be language in the AUMF that would limit the President’s ability to quickly reaction to those contingencies.  
 
So there have been previous proposals that have been put forward by some members of Congress that did envision some sort of checklist that would carve out some specific loopholes, if you will, that would allow the President to response to contingencies that they were able to imagine.  And it is the view of this administration that an approach like that doesn't sufficiently preserve the needed flexibility for the Commander-in-Chief.  
 
Jon.
 
Q    On the authorization of military force, I just want to make sure I’m reading it properly.  There is nothing in this authorization that would prevent an expansion of this war effort beyond Iraq and Syria to other countries?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jon, there are no geographic limitations included in this specific draft legislation.
Q    So it would offer this President or the next President to -- authorize this President or the next President to engage in an air campaign against ISIS, ISIL targets if they were in Lebanon, or if they were in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or if they had moved elsewhere?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, if necessary, it would preserve the ability of the President, of the Commander-in-Chief, to order military operations against ISIL or ISIL-affiliated groups in other countries.  
 
And let me explain to you the reason why.  Simply, we don't want to send a signal to ISIL that they may be able to establish a safe haven somewhere else; that if we pass a piece of legislation that says Congress has authorized the President to carry out the use of military force against ISIL targets in Iraq and in Syria, we don't want anybody in ISIL to be left with the impression that if they moved to some neighboring country that they will be essentially in a safe haven and not within the range of United States military capability.  So that is why we’ve been clear about not including a geographic limitation in this proposal.
 
Q    And in the President’s letter accompanying this authorization of military force, it says that it does not authorize long-term, large-scale contact -- combat operations like those conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq.  You would acknowledge that there is a lot of daylight between what’s going on now and having 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, as we had at one point in both of those countries?  I mean, there’s a lot of room for expansion. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  What I would acknowledge is that the strategy that the President has pursued in this case against ISIL to degrade and destroy them is markedly different than the strategy that was pursued by the previous administration in Iraq.
 
Q    I understand.  I'm trying to get at what’s authorized here, because it clearly authorized what’s going on now, but it would also authorize -- based on that language -- a rather dramatic expansion of the current operation.  We are nowhere near 100,000 ground troops in -- like we were in Iraq or Afghanistan. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  That's for sure.  And that is --
 
Q    And that's the only thing you're expressly limiting -- 
 
MR. EARNEST:  -- based on policy decisions made by this Commander-in-Chief.  That's exactly true.
 
Q    But this is going to apply to the next Commander-in-Chief.
 
MR. EARNEST:  It will.  It will.
 
Q    Commander-in-Chief Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, whoever.  (Laughter.)  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes.  
 
Q    This will apply to the next President.
 
MR. EARNEST:  It will.  It will.  And the President has been very clear about the strategy that he has envisioned here, and he’s been very clear I think about what he believes is in the best interest of the United States.
 
And you are right that the next Commander-in-Chief, when that person is elected by the American people, will have to pursue their own strategy.  But they will be -- they will face the same limitations and constraints under the authorization to use military force that the President would.
 
Q    But the only constraint I’m seeing is that you can't conduct an operation on the scale that we saw in Iraq or Afghanistan under the previous administration -- and under this administration.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, it’s something that could be described as an enduring offensive ground combat operation.  
 
Q    A fuzzy term, as you pointed out earlier.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I acknowledge that what it does is it does preserve the ability of the Commander-in-Chief to make the kinds of decisions that he or she believes is in the best interests of the United States.
 
That said, the President believes we should state clearly upfront that the kind of commitment of ground troops that we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan in the previous administration was not in the best interests of the United States. 
 
Q    Now, the President’s letter also talks about the places where combat troops, grounds troops could be used under this authorization.  Of course, he mentions rescue operations, which have already been done.  But there are things here that I believe haven’t been done yet -- correct me if I’m wrong.  Special operations personnel on the ground to after ISIL leadership; combat operations on the ground to gather intelligence or to enable kinetic strikes, presumably by our partners on the ground, or maybe by our pilots.  Are those things that the President is currently contemplating in addition to ground combat troops for intelligence-gathering or to go after ISIL leaders on the ground?
 
MR. EARNEST:  The President has indicated in the past -- and we went through some questions about this when General Dempsey testified before Congress last fall -- that it was on the table for the President to adopt a recommendation when it was made.  And it has not yet -- at least based on the last update I’ve gotten on this -- let me start over.  If the President’s senior military leaders and his national security team recommended to him that it would be beneficial to our strategy and this overall operation to forward-deploy some troops to assist in kinetic airstrikes, that that is something that the President would consider.  But I think what General Dempsey testified before Congress is that he had not yet made that recommendation to the President.
 
Q    Or to go after ISIL leaders, which is mentioned here.  That was not part of Dempsey’s testimony.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, and I think that is a different scenario. I don't know that there has -- that anything like that has been floated at this point.  I mean, I think what the President, or at least what some of us envision in this description is the raid that President Obama ordered against Osama bin Laden.  That was a scenario where there were U.S. combat troops that were on the ground in Pakistan, in this case, to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.  And you could imagine a scenario where the President might find that it would be beneficial to our strategy to order a similar raid against a high-value target that was a member of the ISIL leadership.
 
Q    Okay.  And then one other topic quickly.  The counterterrorism chief for the FBI, in prepared testimony before Congress today, said that -- warned of a “new wave of extremism that would blend home-grown violent extremism with foreign terrorist organizations.”  And he said, “Individuals inspired by foreign terrorist groups could be covertly arming themselves with expertise and tools to carry out an attack on the homeland.”  Does the White House agree with the counterterrorism chief of the FBI?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I haven’t seen his entire testimony.  But based on what you've read and what we’ve said in the past, the President has directed his team -- including the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement -- to be vigilant about the kinds of threats that are posed both by foreign fighters -- these are individuals with Western passports and they have previously traveled to the region to fight alongside ISIL and may be considering or may have already returned home and considering carrying out acts of violence here.
 
We're also mindful of the need to try to counter efforts by ISIL to use social media to radicalize people and inspire them to carry out acts of violence.  That's one of the reasons that the President is convening a summit here next week here at the White House on countering violent extremism, to make sure that we are mobilizing all of the resources that we have both at the federal government but also at the local level to try to counter that messaging, and to protect people who may be exposed to that kind of radical messaging.
 
Q    And one of the things he expressed concerns about specifically is that those coming to the country as Syrian refugees may not be properly vetted.  Is there a concern in the administration that we could have people coming to this country, portraying themselves as refugees from the conflict in Syria, who may actually be something far more sinister?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I can say is that as a general matter, the United States government does spend extensive resources to ensure that individuals that have recently traveled in Syria are properly vetted before they're allowed into this country. 
 
Major.
 
Q    A couple on Yemen.  At the top, you said that counterterrorism operations are ongoing and they're being coordinated with national security officials in Yemen.  Who are they?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, I’d refer you to the Department of Defense who is principally the point of contact for a lot of these operations and they may be in a position to tell you a little bit more about who their counterparts are in Yemen.  But there are --
 
Q    Are these U.S. national security officials in Yemen that you're referring to?  You mean like special operators?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I noted that there are Department of Defense personnel, U.S. Department of Defense personnel that continue to be on the ground in Yemen, that are continuing to work with their counterparts to carry out counterterrorism missions.
 
Q    And to someone who might ask you reasonably, the embassy is closed, you have a pretty serious and somewhat delicate -- to use your words -- evacuation of U.S. personnel -- in what way does this still qualify as a success of U.S. counterterrorism operations?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Major, it's really important to differentiate between two things.  Yemen has been a country that has been divided and reassembled on multiple occasions, and it is a country with a pretty weak central government.  That's been the case for a long time now.  And that is despite the efforts of the United States to try to support the Yemenis in terms of having the kind of central government that represents all of their people and is able to successfully provide security for their people.  But that has been a long-running challenge.
 
But what is also part of our strategy in terms of our dealings with Yemen is to make sure that we are using our diplomacy and our work -- our counterterrorism work with the Yemeni government, but also using our own equipment and personnel to carry out counterterrorism operations in Yemen.  Some extremists, including the extremists in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, have sought to use the instability in Yemen as a safe haven to plan and carry out operations or terror attacks around the globe.  And because of our diplomatic work, because of our strong counterterrorism partnership, but also because of this President’s own determination and willingness to order U.S. military operations in that region, we have succeeded in applying significant pressure to the AQAP leadership that's operating in Yemen.  
 
And I'm often not in a position to talk about specific operations that have been carried out, but it is not uncommon for you to read unconfirmed reports that the United States was somehow involved in taking an AQAP leader off the battlefield in Yemen.
 
Q    Justin appropriately focused on the word, “enduring.”  Not to parse this too specifically, but I'd like to focus on the word, “offensive,” because the joint resolution starts with, “Whereas ISIL holds significant territory and has stated its intention to seize more territory, and demonstrated their capability to do so” -- would this not authorize defensive operations that, in fact, could be enduring if, in fact, Baghdad or someplace else strategically important were to come under sustained threat from ISIL and the U.S. would need to protect it to achieve its long-term military goals?
 
MR. EARNEST:  We certainly wouldn't want anything in the AUMF to be construed by anybody as a limitation on the ability of American men and women to protect themselves, particularly if they’re military personnel that are operating in a place like Iraq.  So let me give you a good example of this.  Right now there are some U.S. military personnel that are operating in bases outside Baghdad, but in Iraq, where they are working not in a combat role but to train security forces in Iraq.  So these are individuals who -- they’re operating still in a very dangerous part of the world.  And if their base, for example, were to come under sustained attack by ISIL extremists, they would certainly have all of the authority that they need to protect themselves and protect their position, and we wouldn't want any language in the authorization to use military force to leave them with the impression that they should do something other than protect themselves.
 
Q    Right, clearly.  And it also seems to me to open up the window for the moving into Iraq large numbers of U.S. combat forces in a defensive posture if necessary to sustain and ultimately achieve the other objectives that are outlined here in the AUMF.
 
MR. EARNEST:  That is certainly not contemplated in the President’s strategy.  The underpinning of our strategy here is to try to build up the capacity of local security forces so they can provide for the security of their own country.
 
Q    It doesn’t rule it out.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that the strategy that the President has laid out I think probably would rule out what you’re talking about.  And Congress is going to have to sort of evaluate this language in terms of trying to strike the right balance of both placing appropriate limitations on the Commander-in-Chief while at the same time making sure that they don’t interfere with his or her ability to react to contingencies that may arise in a military conflict.
 
Q    Why not repeal the 2001 authorization in this process? And why no mention of the Assad regime?  I know they’re different questions.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, they are.  Let’s do the first one first, which is that what the President does mention in his letter to Congress is further refinement of the 2001 AUMF.  As the President mentioned in the speech that he gave at National Defense University a year and a half ago, he noted that the authorization to use military force that was passed by Congress in the days after 9/11 is now more than 13 years old.  And there is no doubt that the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda has changed; it’s evolved.  The threat that we face from al Qaeda is much different than it was in 2001.  
 
And it is the view of the President that the AUMF that authorized the use of military force against al Qaeda should be changed to reflect that, with the eventual goal, as the President articulated in that speech a year and a half ago, of repealing that 2001 AUMF -- that, eventually, we want to be in a scenario where we’re not on a permanent war footing.  
 
But there is no question that right now, the threat that we face from al Qaeda is one that we take very seriously and one to which the President and his national security team devote significant attention.
 
On Assad, the policy of the administration has not changed. The President and this administration does believe that Assad has lost his legitimacy to lead the nation of Syria.  In fact, it is the view of this administration that because of Assad’s failed leadership, the security situation in Syria deteriorated precipitously and allowed a group like ISIL to gain a foothold and eventually to expand pretty rapidly not just across Syria but also across Iraq.
 
So our opposition to and our concerns about the Assad regime have been well chronicled.  But our focus, and the focus of this authorization to use military force, is on ISIL. 
 
Q    Let me briefly indulge my colleagues on behalf of our affiliate in Chicago.  The President welcomed the Jackie Robinson Little League team here and celebrated their success.  That success in the Little League World Series is now under intensifying scrutiny.  Does the President have any regrets about celebrating that victory, or believe this investigation is in danger of de-legitimizing that which he celebrated here with those young men on that baseball team?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President invited the Jackie Robinson West Little League team to the White House to celebrate the accomplishment of those young men and the performance that they -- the strong performance that they delivered on a pretty large stage for a 12-year-old.  The President is proud of the way that they represented their city and the way they represented the country.  
 
The fact is, some dirty dealing by some adults doesn’t take anything away from the accomplishments of those young men. 
 
Q    And the White House believes dirty dealing has been done?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, that’s just based on the public reports that I’ve read.  So I understand that there is an investigation into this, but --
 
Q    Is he going to take any other steps, Josh?  Just to follow up on that one, is he going to do --
 
MR. EARNEST:  I'll come back to you.
 
Ed. 
 
Q    Josh, I want to come back to AUMF, but I don’t want to forget -- I don’t think you’ve been asked about Ukraine yet.  And you read out a call the President had with Russian President Putin yesterday and we heard the President’s side of it.  What can you tell us now that this deadline that the President and Chancellor Merkel held up on Monday at that news conference that Wednesday is the deadline -- did Vladimir Putin indicate to the President at all that he’s ready to deal, that he’s going to deescalate this?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, I think that’s something that Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande, President Poroshenko will find out when they meet with President Putin later today.  That’s scheduled for Minsk later today.  And that will be a very important meeting, that it will be an opportunity for certainly President Putin to come to the negotiating table.  And we’ll have an opportunity at least preliminarily to gauge how serious he is about trying to resolve, or at least deescalate the situation in Eastern Ukraine. 
 
Q    If that does not deescalate, when the President talked the other day about potentially arming Ukrainians, what did he mean by quote “lethal, defensive weapon.”  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, the United States has provided substantial assistance to the Ukrainian military already, in excess of $100 million worth of equipment.  On a couple of occasions I’ve read the long list -- I’ll spare you this time. 
 
Q    But aren't weapons usually offensive?  I'm trying to understand the approach of you’re giving the military weapons, but defensive -- wouldn’t it be an offensive?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are things like counter-mortar radars, de-mining equipment.  These are things that could be used as weapons by military force to protect themselves.  And again, that is equipment that the President has already authorized could be provided to the Ukrainian military as they withstand this withering assault from separatists that are backed by the Russian military.
 
Q    But can you sustain a withering assault with de-mining equipment?  Does that make a difference? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, I think what we have seen is that we have seen that Russia has committed significant military equipment to backing the separatists.  And what the President has said is that it's unrealistic to think that the United States can provide enough military assistance that we can level the playing field between the Ukrainian military and the Russian military.  So what the administration has sought to do, working closely with our partners in Europe, is to apply pressure to the Putin regime and change their calculus as it relates to their commitment of military resources to back the separatists.
 
Q    Okay.  A couple quick ones on ISIS AUMF.  One, several times in your answers you refer back to Afghanistan as being a big difference from the previous administration.  It seems a little awkward for you to be citing Afghanistan when we’re seeing more reports and public testimony from Ash Carter suggesting the President might be backsliding again on how many troops you’re leaving behind in Afghanistan.  I understand it's not 100,000 -- a big difference -- but are you leaving the door open yet again to leaving more troops behind in Afghanistan than the President has repeatedly told the public about? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, the President has laid out what he believes is a very clear strategy for Afghanistan, and that over the course of his presidency we’ve seen the President announce a surge of military personnel into Afghanistan that did allow the Afghan people to assume greater responsibility for the security situation in that country.  There’s a tangible contribution to the improvement in the security climate in Afghanistan.  And since then, the President has authorized and ordered, in fact, a staged withdraw -- a responsible withdraw of American military personnel from Afghanistan.  
 
And the President, throughout that time, has preserved for himself the flexibility to respond to the security situation on the ground.  But what has been clear over the course of the last six years is that the President’s vision for the strategy has been consistent, and I can tell you that over the course of the last two years, as we continue to withdraw our military personnel from Afghanistan, the President remains committed to that strategy.
 
Q    Since in Afghanistan and repeatedly back on ISIS and the AUMF, you talk -- the word “flexibility” just keeps coming up.  So if this is all about flexibility, why is there any sunset at all?  Why is there a three-year timetable?  Why not leave it open?  Is the President guaranteeing with this that you’re going to defeat ISIS in three years?
 
MR. EARNEST:  The President is not saying that.  The President has made clear that this is a longer-term proposition; that dealing with the extremists in ISIL, particularly in a region of the world that’s as volatile as the Middle East, is going to be a longer-term proposition.  The President has been very forthright about that.  
 
Q    So why not leave the door open, if it’s going to take longer than three years, you’re acknowledging up front --  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, it will.  And let me say one other thing about that.  The other thing is this -- is that the other reason this is going to take a while is that the President does not believe it is in the interest of the United States for us to commit all of our military resources to going in and solving this problem for the Iraqi people or for the Syrian people; that, ultimately, a durable solution to this nettlesome problem is building up the capacity of security forces in Iraq and of opposition fighters in Syria to fight for their own country.  
 
And it’s going to take time to build up the capacity of other fighters.  The United States has the bravest, most well-equipped, best-trained fighting force in the world.  It is a logical assumption that if U.S. military resources were committed and we were going to go in there and do this on our own that the timeline would be shorter.  But in this situation, building up the capacity of local security forces is going to take some time, but we can do that in a way and making that kind of longer-term commitment is consistent with our national security interests.
 
Q    Last one on Kayla Mueller.  The President in the Buzzfeed interview said, we did all we could to try to rescue her.  We’ve been told about intelligence as far back as last May, suggesting that the intelligence community had at least some sense of her whereabouts and other hostages.  And the President talked about, you talked about the rescue operation I believe happened in July.  There’s a gap there between May and July.  Obviously I understand there could be weather, there could be other factors on the ground, other pieces of intelligence -- you don’t just move in within five minutes.  I get that.  But how can the President, if there’s that gap of a couple of months, how can he tell Buzzfeed, I did all I can, when a couple of months there passed.  Can you explain that gap?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Ed, I can confirm for you that there was no delay in the President’s decision to order this military raid as soon as he and his military advisors and his national security team had confidence or at least a high degree of confidence about where exactly she was.  And that is why the President can say unequivocally that he and his administration and this government did everything that we could to try to secure the safe return of Kayla Mueller.
 
Chris.
 
Q    Thanks, Josh.  Some of the lawmakers who either were involved in crafting or certainly voted on the 2002 AUMF have stated since then that they never intended it to be what it became.  And that’s not just in terms of the timeline and how long it took, but in the breadth of it.  So when you talk about some sort of intentional fuzziness in the language, what do you say to lawmakers today, particularly Democrats, who have those concerns about an open-endedness, if not in terms of time but in what actually transpires?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, anybody who takes a look at this language that’s included in the submission that we put forward would acknowledge that it does contain limitations.  It does include this three-year sunset that Ed referred to in his line of questioning.  It does include limitations that prevent the deployment of enduring offensive ground combat operations.  So there are limits.  But within those limits, the President believes that the Commander-in-Chief needs to have flexibility to respond to contingencies that often come up in a chaotic situation like a military conflict.  
 
And this military conflict, in particular, has demonstrated -- or has created a particularly chaotic situation.  And it’s important for the Commander-in-Chief to have the ability to order military operations when necessary to protect the American interest -- American national security interests or the American people.  But all of that can be done within the constraints that we've laid out, which is within three years and within -- or at least short of an enduring offensive commitment of ground combat troops.
 
Q    You’ve said -- the President has said, as a matter of fact, that he doesn’t believe he needs this legally, but he thinks it sends an important message.  What is that message, very specifically?  And if this AUMF passes, what’s the very practical implications of it if it’s not necessary legally?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think on principle the President believes two things.  One is that the United States Congress, the members of the United States Congress, when they took the oath of office, took an oath to fulfill their duties under the United States Constitution.  And one of the duties that they have been given under the United States Constitution is to have a role in foreign policy.  And the President believes it’s important for Congress to step up and assume that responsibility.  
 
As I mentioned before, the President, his national security team, and certainly our men and women in uniform have fulfilled their responsibility to keep the country safe.  And Congress, both Democrats and Republicans on the Hill, have a responsibility to make their voice heard and to take the actions that they have been given -- or assume the responsibilities that they’ve been given under the Constitution to take actions that are supportive of the national security interests of the United States.
 
The second thing is -- and this is important as well -- is that it does send a powerful signal to the American people, to our allies, and even to our enemies, that the United States government and that the Democratic and Republican parties inside the United States are united and supportive of the President’s strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.  And that will be an important diplomatic signal that we’ll send to the members of our coalition that the United States government commitment to this task of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL is unwavering.  And it will send a clear signal to our enemies that if there is any doubt in their mind that the United States of America takes their threat very seriously, this would eliminate that threat -- that doubt.
 
Q    But would it be fair to say that the impact is largely political and diplomatic, and will not have an impact, either strategically or operationally?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President has already indicated and his lawyers have confirmed for him based on their review of the law that Congress has already given the President the authority to authorize -- or to order these military actions under the AUMF that they passed in 2001.  
 
There are some lawyers who argue that the President has this authority under the 2002 AUMF as well.  But the fact of the matter is the President has the authority to order the military operations that have been undertaken so far.  The President believes that as a matter of principle, it’s important for Congress to make their voice heard and to pass an authorization to use military force that is more tailored to the specific threat that the United States faces today.
 
Q    Let me ask you, finally, there’s been a lot of talk about the fact that this has been an unusually high level of cooperation between the White House and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  We’ve heard about conversations -- Air Force One conversations.  Can you speak a little bit more about that level of cooperation and what the President plans to do going forward as this debate gets underway?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Chris, I can tell you that a wide variety of officials were involved in these conversations; that it’s not just officials from the White House who were involved.  The Secretary of State has previously testified before Congress on some of these issues.  Other high-ranking officials at the Department of Defense and the Department of State, some of my colleagues at the National Security Council have all been involved in the conversations with members of Congress and their staff about these issues.  And certainly the White House Counsel’s Office, so members of the President’s own personal staff, have been involved in these consultations as well.
 
And it’s all been part of an effort to try to find common ground on these complicated but yet very important issues.  And we have put forward legislative language today -- this is language that members of Congress requested to try to help them identify common ground, or at least identify common ground as a starting point for the legislative process on Capitol Hill.  
 
So the administration and this President will continue to be engaged in conversations and working with Democrats and Republicans, because ultimately what we would like to see is an outcome that reflects the strategy that the President has pursued so far, that reflects our clear national security interests and that reflects the bipartisan support of the Congress.
 
Q    I guess I asked the question because, as you well know, a lot of Republicans and some Democrats have criticized the President for not being more involved and not doing more outreach, and, in fact, some have been quite complimentary over the last couple of days about the level of discussions between the White House.  So would you foresee a more in-depth level of participation, direct participation by the President going forward on this debate in particular?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, it won’t surprise you to hear that the President has a lot of personal interest in the way that this is all resolved.  And so, yes, I would anticipate that the President will continue to be involved in conversations with individual members of Congress as this issue works its way through the legislative process.
 
Cheryl.
 
Q    Thanks.  Two quick ones.  Given the difficulties that the Senate is having passing funding for the Department of Homeland Security, would the White House consider a short -- another short-term CR?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, Cheryl, we haven’t seen a specific proposal like that.  I can tell you that the administration believes firmly, as I’ve said on many occasions, that it is pretty irresponsible for Republicans in Congress to be playing politics with the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. And what’s clear now is that they have painted themselves into a corner.  That they -- I made reference to this in a briefing earlier this week -- I don’t know if it was yesterday, maybe it was last week -- where, back in the fall, we were talking about this, this whole cromnibus thing, where essentially the Congress would pass a full year -- or a full fiscal year of funding for every element of the U.S. government except for the Department of Homeland Security.  
 
And we had a long discussion about how I didn’t think Republicans were going to think it was particularly smart to hold up funding, or at least threaten funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in protest over their political differences with the President.  And lo and behold, that’s actually what’s happened.  And I do think that it raises questions about whether or not Republicans are prepared to assume the responsibility that the American people have given them to run the United States Congress.  
 
This is a matter that the President can’t solve for them.  Again, the Founders of this country conferred upon the United States Congress the power of the purse, and they are the ones that have to make the funding decisions and they are the ones that have to make the decisions about what the budget of the Department of Homeland Security is going to look like.  And I don’t think there’s anybody who thinks it’s a good idea, Democrat or Republican, for us to not fund the Department of Homeland Security, particularly at this time when our homeland faces some pretty serious threats. 
 
So it is time for Republicans to set aside politics, to focus on their core responsibility to fund the Department of Homeland Security.  If they do that, I think they will find a lot of willing partners on the Democratic side of the aisle, and they’ll find a Democratic President who is eager to work with them to sign legislation that will ensure that our Department of Homeland Security has the resources necessary to protect the American people.  
 
Q    And real quick, last night the members of the Congressional Black Caucus came out, said they had discussed trade with the President and that they were looking for creative ways to find job opportunities for the unemployed should Trade Promotion Authority pass.  I’m just wondering if you have any insight into what they’re looking at.
 
MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any -- I didn’t sit in on the conversation.  I know that there was a rather detailed readout of that meeting that was put out after the meeting concluded.  At this point, I don’t have any specific detail to add to it other than I know that there was an extensive discussion of the economy and middle-class economics in the context of that meeting.  But as it relates to specific proposals, I’m not in a position to readout exactly what they discussed.
 
Jessica.
 
Q    Quick follow on Chris’s question about sort of the AUMF and the tangible evidence of what could happen.  Is there anything from what you understand that you could do under the requested AUMF language that you cannot do under the current language?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think it’s actually the other way around.  I think what the President envisions is more constraints on the executive branch in the ISIL AUMF than exists under the 2001 AUMF.  For example, the 2001 AUMF does not have a time limitation, but, yet, the ISIL alternative that we’ve put forward does.  The 2001 AUMF that we’re currently operating under does not include a limit on enduring offensive ground combat operations; that is something that is contemplated in the legislative language that we put forward.  
 
So I think the way to look at it is that there are some things that are allowed under the 2001 AUMF that would not be allowed under the ISIL AUMF.  And this is part of -- this is consistent with the President’s approach to these issues.  The President gave this speech at National Defense University a year and a half ago where he talked about why it was important for Congress to play a more hands-on role as the U.S. government confronts some of these difficult challenges.  And the proposal that we put forward I think reflects the President’s desire to give Congress that role, but to ensure that when Congress speaks, that they’re speaking with a bipartisan voice.
 
Q    I haven’t heard you use that rationale in defending the new request.  I’ve heard unity.  I’ve heard Congress needs to step up.  Is that also part of the rationale for the new draft of legislation and asking the Congress to vote on this?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I mean, the reason that these -- 
 
Q    In other words, the restrictions -- that you want the restrictions.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President said this more eloquently than I could in that National Defense University speech, so I would commend that to your attention.  But, yes, the President’s view is that Congress should play a more important role in these matters, and that he’s hopeful that they will step up to the plate, assume responsibility, and engage in the kind of dialogue on this issue that is worthy of the American people and that is worthy of something as important as our national security.
 
Alexis.
 
Q    Josh, I want to just follow up on this and ask two related questions about AUMF.  Is the President saying that if Congress does not step up and exercise its responsibility, the end result of not passing a new AUMF will have no practical impact on his exercise of his authority as Commander-in-Chief.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President does believe that he has the authority that he needs to authorize or to order the military actions that have already taken place.  So the answer to your question is, yes, because the President believes that Congress has already given him this authority.  However, the President has made the case, I think pretty persuasively to all of you at least, that the authorization of military force should be updated and right-sized to reflect the threats that America faces right now.  
 
Q    And the follow-up is, as Congress engages in this debate, which could be prolonged, is the President expecting to be influenced by the debate in terms of his strategy or pursuit of policy to defeat ISIL?
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the President has been pretty clear about what our strategy is, and it is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief to lay out that strategy.  That doesn't mean the President -- well, the President is, of course, open to the advice and counsel and opinions and insights of members of Congress as he assumes his responsibility for implementing the strategy.  
 
As I mentioned before, there is plenty of reason for us to feel good about the progress of the strategy so far.  As I’ve done on a couple of occasions -- let me just give you an update -- the coalition has conducted more than 2,350 airstrikes against ISIL targets; 1,300 of those airstrikes have been conducted in Iraq and more than 1,050 of them in Syria.  Those airstrikes have been successful in taking out ISIL fighters, their commanders, more than 1,000 vehicles and tanks that were operated by ISIL, more than 200 oil and gas facilities.  This is part of the infrastructure that funds their reign of terror.  These airstrikes have also succeeded in taking out at least 20 training camps and more than 2,000 different fighting positions, checkpoints, buildings and barracks in Iraq and in Syria.
 
And this has been -- the evidence for this can be viewed in many ways.  In the middle of last summer, we saw that ISIL was rapidly making an advance across the desert in Iraq and they were closing in on Erbil.  But because of steps that this President ordered to support fighters on the ground and to carry out military airstrikes, that advance was rebuffed and it’s been rolled back.  
 
There was a lot of discussion last fall about the situation in Kobani and that the advances that ISIL had made in Kobani posed significant threat.  But because of fighters on the ground that were backed by coalition airstrikes, those fighters succeeded in driving ISIL out of Kobani.
 
Now, I don't want to leave you with the impression that that is going to somehow be a turning point in the broader conflict, but I do think it is clear evidence that the strategy that the President has pursued has succeeded in rolling back ISIL and limiting their capacity to establish an Islamic state, which, as we know, is what their goal is.  
 
So the President certainly welcomes advice and insight of opinions from members of Congress, but the strategy that we’ve pursued so far has shown important progress already.
 
Q    And just to follow on one other element of this -- the word “enduring” -- the President is conceding that the risks to U.S. national security, as you described it, and his efforts as Commander-in-Chief to defend that will be “enduring”.  It will be many years’ long.  So despite the elements that you’ve just described as success, he is not arguing that this element of our U.S. foreign policy will be “enduring,” it will be prolonged -- yes? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what the President has said is that it requires a serious commitment from the United States and from our government to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.  And we're going to work closely with the international community; the members of this coalition that the President has put together will have a lot to say about this.
 
And this is another -- I’ve talked a lot about the AUMF today, but I think there’s one other important point that's worth making about this three-year limit that's in place, based on the draft legislation that we’ve put forward.  Based on what I’ve just said about the important progress that our strategy has already demonstrated, it certainly is possible that three years from now the threat that is posed by ISIL could look different.  And so it might make sense, then, three years from now for maybe there continues to be a need for military operations but the threat that we face could, after three years, be different.
 
If our strategy continues to succeed, we could see that ISIL continues to be rolled back.  As the proficiency of the Syrian opposition fighters improves, based on the training that they get in the region and then they take the fight to ISIL on the ground in Syria, we could see the threat from ISIL change.  And it might even be a scenario where the AUMF that Congress needs to pass to continue authorizing the use of military force could be further limited and further constrained, further tailored to meet the threat that we face three years from now.
 
So that would be the other reason for there to be this three-year limit in place -- not because we expect the war to be over, or this conflict to be over, but because we anticipate that the conflict will be different because of the progress that we’ll have made in degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.
 
Laura.
 
Q    Thank you so much.  I have a serious question and a lighter question. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Okay.
 
Q    So I’m going to begin with the serious question.  On Buzzfeed, the President spoke yesterday about the difficulties of not paying ransoms for hostage.  Could you confirm that the United States will never pay a ransom for an American hostage?  And what do you have to say to the family who is asking you to pay a ransom? 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Laura, it is the policy of the United States to not make concessions to terrorists, and that includes paying ransom.  That is a policy that has been in place over the course of the six years of this administration.  It was also in place in previous administrations, as well.  
 
And the reason for that, in this case, is twofold.  The first is we know that ISIL benefits financially from hostage-taking and the payment of ransoms, that many of their operations are funded by the ransoms that they collect.  And one of the core components of our strategy against ISIL is to shut off their sources of funding.  So that is one reason that the United States will not be a part of paying ransom to terrorists.
 
The second thing is it only exposes Americans to greater risk.  If ISIL can operate under the assumption that every time they take an American hostage that they can collect a substantial sum of money in exchange for that person, it only makes the situation more dangerous for Americans.  
 
So that is the reason that we have pursued this policy.  At the same time, I would acknowledge, as the President did in the interview yesterday, that this is a policy that is terribly painful for families that are in the unthinkable position of having a loved one held hostage in Syria or the broader region. 
And that is why our hearts go out to the families that are in that terrible position.  It's why the administration works so closely with them.  It's why there’s deep engagement all across the administration -- that we use our diplomatic resources, our law enforcement resources, our intelligence resources, and even our military capability, to try to secure the safe return of Americans who are being held hostage. 
 
But I will not be in a position to deny that this is a very painful policy for the administration to pursue in the eyes of a family that is desperate to secure the return of their loved ones.  
 
Q    The lighter question -- the French love Jon Stewart.  Does the White House have a comment on Jon Stewart?  Also, do you have a comment on what’s happening with Brian Williams?  Because it's making news also all over the world about what journalists in America might be.
 
MR. EARNEST:  Yes, it is.  Well, there are a lot of fans in the United States of Jon Stewart’s as well.  And as somebody who -- I would certainly describe myself as a fan and an occasional victim of Jon Stewart.  (Laughter.)  But we will certainly be sad to see him go.  He is somebody who brought a really unique perspective to comedy, and even to informing the public about what was happening in their country.  And he’s a really -- a talented guy.  And as others have noted, this is probably not the last we’ve heard of Jon Stewart, and I certainly hope that’s the case. 
 
As for Mr. Williams, I know that this is something that NBC News has been talking about quite a bit in the last several weeks.  And I don’t think that’s something I'm going to wade into from here. 
 
April, I’ll give you the last one today. 
 
Q    Josh, back on the CBC and the AUMF.  Did the President or the Vice President at all, in any way, preview this AUMF letter today to the CBC last evening?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  April, I didn’t sit in on the meeting -- I know that it lasted for quite a while.  I don’t think -- I know that they did not hand out paper copies of what was distributed on Capitol Hill today.  But I wouldn’t be surprised if there might have been some discussion of this issue in the meeting.  Let me have somebody who sat in on the meeting follow up with you and maybe they can give you some more insight into this. 
 
Q    So you’re not surprised that that could have happened last night?
 
MR. EARNEST:  That there might have been a discussion of some of the AUMF?  I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened.  But let me have somebody who sat in on the meeting follow up with you about it. 
 
Q    I wanted to ask you this as well on the CBC.  With that, with the AUMF, was there a discussion about Boko Haram, as there was a topic of Africa put on the table with that meeting last night?  What was your -- what was the White House response to the CBC about Boko Haram and Africa?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  April, again, I don’t know whether or not this -- whether this particular national security issue came up either.  I can tell you that this is an issue that is commonly raised to the President’s attention when he deals with members of Congress, and I know that there are many members of the Congressional Black Caucus who are particularly concerned about the security situation in Nigeria and other countries that are affected by Boko Haram.  
 
And the President restated to them what I have said publicly many times, which is that there continues to be a U.S. presence in Nigeria.  These are individuals who are working closely with our counterparts in Nigeria who have a specific expertise, who are using intelligence resources and other advice from the U.S. government to try to assist the Nigerian government as they carry out counterterrorism operations and they fight these extremists in their own country.  That coordination continues, and it continues to be a situation that we’re concerned about here.
 
Q    And lastly with the CBC.  The new chair, Congressman G.K. Butterfield, has very high expectations for these remaining two years of this President.  He said the first six years were historic, but he’s expecting more with these last two.  Is the White House going to in a way marry his expectations with new legislation that affects -- that targets black America?  Particularly, as he says, black America is in a state of emergency in this country. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, April, I think, most importantly, it's the President who has high expectations for the last two years of his presidency.  The President has used this analogy that he’s entering the fourth quarter.  We’re not in the -- or at least stages of the fourth quarter of his presidency, and a lot of important things happen in the fourth quarter.  And I think anybody who watched the President’s State of the Union address would acknowledge that he’s got pretty large aspirations for what can be accomplished both by working with Congress and by working on his own to make progress for the American people.  And certainly by focusing on middle-class economics, we can do the most good for the most Americans, including many black Americans as well.  
 
Q    Thank you. 
 
MR. EARNEST:  Lynn, were you trying to ask a question earlier, or do you want to ask it now?  
 
Q    Well, thank you very much.  
 
MR. EARNEST:  You’re welcome. 
 
Q    I just want to -- given the enormous attention that the team got when they were here in November, if there was anything more of a message to the boys about what you said was the “dirty dealings of adults.”  If they feel that his trip here was not right, or if they have to apologize, or do you think they have anything -- is there any message to the boys, more than to the adults?  
 
MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I think what the President would say is that, again, the actions of those adults doesn’t in any way take away -- does not in any way take away from the accomplishments of those young men who performed brilliantly on the baseball diamond, on a pretty large stage.  
 
And their accomplishment is the product of years of commitment and practice and some skill.  And they should be proud of what they’ve accomplished, and there’s nothing that those adults who may not have done the right thing could do to take away from those accomplishments.  
 
And the President, for that reason, was pleased to have the opportunity to have met them last fall.  And the President, I think in the message that he delivered to them personally, is hopeful that they will continue to take that sense of purpose and that determination and that patience, and apply it to success in other elements of their lives.  
 
Thanks, guys. 
 
END    
1:31 P.M. EST
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:

  • Sarah Elizabeth Mendelson - Representative of the United States on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the Rank of Ambassador

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

  • Peter J. Beshar - Member, Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
  • Kathryn Brinsfield - Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, Department of Homeland Security
  • Allen Croff - Member, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
  • Todd McCracken - Member, Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

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 individual to a key Administration post:

Sarah Elizabeth Mendelson, Nominee for Representative of the United States on the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador

Sarah Elizabeth Mendelson is the Senior Adviser and Director of the Human Rights Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C., a position she has held since 2014.  She also served as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance at the United States Agency for International Development from 2010 to 2014.  Prior to this, Ms. Mendelson was Director of the Human Rights and Security Initiative at CSIS from 2007 to 2010, and Senior Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at CSIS from 2001 to 2010.  Previously, she was an assistant professor at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the Graduate School of Public Affairs and Policy at the State University of New York at Albany.  She was also a Resident Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a Program Officer for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs serving in Moscow, Russia.  Ms. Mendelson received a B.A. from Yale University and a Ph.D. from Columbia University.

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

Peter J. Beshar, Appointee for Member, Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Peter J. Beshar serves as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Marsh & McLennan Companies, a position he has held since 2004.  He was a litigation partner and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Department during his time at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP from 1995 to 2004.  Mr. Beshar served as Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York in 1994.  He served as Special Assistant to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance during the U.N.’s peace negotiations on the former Yugoslavia from 1992 to 1993.  He also served as a clerk for Judge Vincent Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 1989 to 1990.  Mr. Beshar is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  He was a member of the Obama for America National Finance Committee from 2011 to 2012.  Mr. Beshar received a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Dr. Kathryn Brinsfield, Appointee for Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer, Department of Homeland Security

Dr. Kathryn Brinsfield is the Associate Chief Medical Officer and Director for Workforce Health and Medical Support at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a position she has held since 2009.  Since 2013, she has also served as the Acting Assistant Secretary in the Office of Health Affairs and the Acting Chief Medical Officer at DHS.  From 2012 to 2013, she was detailed to the National Security Staff as the Director of Medical Preparedness Policy.  Previously, Dr. Brinsfield served in leadership roles for the Emergency Medical Services of the City of Boston Public Health Commission.  She retired from the Boston Public Health Commission as Medical Director for Public Health Preparedness and Homeland Security in 2009.  Dr. Brinsfield has also held associate professorships at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston University School of Public Health, and has worked as an attending physician and Director of Resident Education at Boston Medical Center.  Dr. Brinsfield received a B.S. from Brown University, an M.P.H. from Boston University School of Public Health, and an M.D. from Tufts University School of Medicine.

Allen Croff, Appointee for Member, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Allen Croff is an adjunct professor at Vanderbilt University, a position he has held since 2011.  He also serves as a consultant to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a position he has held since 2010.  From 2010 to 2012, Mr. Croff was a senior technical advisor to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.  He was vice-chairman of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2004 to 2008, and he subsequently consulted with the NRC until 2010.  Prior to this, he worked in various capacities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1974 to 2003.  From 1998 to 2005, Mr. Croff was a member of the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee.  Mr. Croff served as member of ten National Academy of Sciences’ committees from 1991 to 2013, and was a member of the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board from 2004 to 2009.  Mr. Croff received a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University, a Nuclear Engineer Degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an M.B.A. from the University of Tennessee.

Todd McCracken, Appointee for Member, Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations

Todd McCracken has served as President and CEO of the National Small Business Association (NSBA) since 1997.  In this capacity he also oversees the activities of the Small Business Exporters Association.  Since 1988, he has held multiple roles at the NSBA, including Director of Government Affairs and Vice President.  Mr. McCracken has been a member of the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations since 2011.  He served on the National Advisory Council of the Small Business Administration during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.  Mr. McCracken received a B.A. from Trinity University.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

Remarks by the President on Request to Congress for Authorization of Force Against ISIL

Roosevelt Room
 
3:37 P.M. EST
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Today, as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries -- our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.  
 
More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists.  We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines, making it harder for them to move.  We’re destroying their fighting positions, their tanks, their vehicles, their barracks, their training camps, and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations.  We’re taking out their commanders, their fighters, and their leaders.  
 
In Iraq, local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back.  In Syria, ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani, losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians.  And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause.    
 
Now, make no mistake -- this is a difficult mission, and it will remain difficult for some time.  It’s going to take time to dislodge these terrorists, especially from urban areas.  But our coalition is on the offensive, ISIL is on the defensive, and ISIL is going to lose.  Its barbaric murders of so many people, including American hostages, are a desperate and revolting attempt to strike fear in the hearts of people it can never possibly win over by its ideas or its ideology -- because it offers nothing but misery and death and destruction.  And with vile groups like this, there is only one option:  With our allies and partners, we are going to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. 
 
And when I announced our strategy against ISIL in September, I said that we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together.  Today, my administration submitted a draft resolution to Congress to authorize the use of force against ISIL.  I want to be very clear about what it does and what it does not do.
 
This resolution reflects our core objective to destroy ISIL.  It supports the comprehensive strategy that we have been pursuing with our allies and partners:  A systemic and sustained campaign of airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria.  Support and training for local forces on the ground, including the moderate Syrian opposition.  Preventing ISIL attacks, in the region and beyond, including by foreign terrorist fighters who try to threaten our countries.  Regional and international support for an inclusive Iraqi government that unites the Iraqi people and strengthens Iraqi forces against ISIL.  Humanitarian assistance for the innocent civilians of Iraq and Syria, who are suffering so terribly under ISIL’s reign of horror.  
 
I want to thank Vice President Biden, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and General Marty Dempsey for their leadership in advancing our strategy.  Even as we meet this challenge in Iraq and Syria, we all agree that one of our weapons against terrorists like ISIL -- a critical part of our strategy -- is the values we live here at home.  One of the best antidotes to the hateful ideologies that try to recruit and radicalize people to violent extremism is our own example as diverse and tolerant societies that welcome the contributions of all people, including people of all faiths.
 
The resolution we’ve submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria.  It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  The 2,600 American troops in Iraq today largely serve on bases -- and, yes, they face the risks that come with service in any dangerous environment.  But they do not have a combat mission.  They are focused on training Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces.  
 
As I’ve said before, I’m convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East.  That’s not in our national security interest and it’s not necessary for us to defeat ISIL.  Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL -- and that’s what they’re doing.    
 
At the same time, this resolution strikes the necessary balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances.  For example, if we had actionable intelligence about a gathering of ISIL leaders, and our partners didn’t have the capacity to get them, I would be prepared to order our Special Forces to take action, because I will not allow these terrorists to have a safe haven.  So we need flexibility, but we also have to be careful and deliberate.  And there is no heavier decision than asking our men and women in uniform to risk their lives on our behalf.  As Commander in Chief, I will only send our troops into harm’s way when it is absolutely necessary for our national security.  
 
Finally, this resolution repeals the 2002 authorization of force for the invasion of Iraq and limits this new authorization to three years.  I do not believe America’s interests are served by endless war, or by remaining on a perpetual war footing.  As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force.  After all, it is our troops who bear the costs of our decisions, and we owe them a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.  So this resolution will give our armed forces and our coalition the continuity we need for the next three years.  
 
It is not a timetable.  It is not announcing that the mission is completed at any given period.  What it is saying is that Congress should revisit the issue at the beginning of the next President’s term.  It’s conceivable that the mission is completed earlier.  It’s conceivable that after deliberation, debate and evaluation, that there are additional tasks to be carried out in this area.  And the people’s representatives, with a new President, should be able to have that discussion.
 
In closing, I want to say that in crafting this resolution we have consulted with, and listened to, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  We have made a sincere effort to address difficult issues that we’ve discussed together.  In the days and weeks ahead, we’ll continue to work closely with leaders and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.  I believe this resolution can grow even stronger with the thoughtful and dignified debate that this moment demands.  I’m optimistic that it can win strong bipartisan support, and that we can show our troops and the world that Americans are united in this mission.  
 
Today, our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL, and we salute them for their courageous service.  We pray for their safety.  We stand with their families who miss them and who are sacrificing here at home.  But know this:  Our coalition is strong, our cause is just, and our mission will succeed.  And long after the terrorists we face today are destroyed and forgotten, America will continue to stand free and tall and strong.  
 
May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much, everybody.
 
END 
3:45 P.M. EST
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

Remarks by the President on America's Leadership in the Ebola Fight

South Court Auditorium

1:46 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Please, everybody, have a seat.  Thank you.  Thank you, everybody.  Well, thank you, Rear Admiral Giberson, not only for the introduction, but for your leadership and your service.

Last summer, as Ebola spread in West Africa, overwhelming public health systems and threatening to cross more borders, I said that fighting this disease had to be more than a national security priority, but an example of American leadership.  After all, whenever and wherever a disaster or a disease strikes, the world looks to us to lead.  And because of extraordinary people like the ones standing behind me, and many who are in the audience, we have risen to the challenge.

Now, remember, there was no small amount of skepticism about our chances.  People were understandably afraid, and, if we’re honest, some stoked those fears.  But we believed that if we made policy based not on fear, but on sound science and good judgment, America could lead an effective global response while keeping the American people safe, and we could turn the tide of the epidemic.

We believed this because of people like Rear Admiral Giberson.  We believed this because of outstanding leaders like Dr. Raj Shah at USAID and Dr. Tom Frieden at the CDC.  (Applause.)  We believed it because of the men and women behind me and the many others here at home and who are still overseas who respond to challenges like this one not only with skill and professionalism, but with courage and with dedication.  And because of your extraordinary work, we have made enormous progress in just a few months. 

So the main reason we’re actually here today is for me to say thank you.  Thank you to the troops and public health workers who left their loved ones to head into the heart of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa -- and many of them did so over the holidays.  Thank you to the health care professionals here at home who treated our returning heroes like Dr. Kent Brantly and Dr. Craig Spencer.  Thank you to Dr. Tony Fauci and Nancy Sullivan, and the incredible scientists at NIH, who worked long days and late nights to develop a vaccine.  All of you represent what is best about America and what’s possible when we lead.

And we’re also here to mark a transition in our fight against this disease -- not to declare mission accomplished, but to mark a transition.  Thanks to the hard work of our nearly 3,000 troops who deployed to West Africa, logistics have been set up, Ebola treatment units have been built, over 1,500 African health workers have been trained, and volunteers around the world gained the confidence to join the fight.  We were a force multiplier.  It wasn’t just what we put in; it’s the fact that when we put it in, people looked around and said, all right, America has got our back, so we’ll come too.  And as a result, more than 1,500 of our troops have been able to return. 

Today, I’m announcing that by April 30th, all but 100 who will remain to help support the ongoing response, all but those hundred will also be able to come home -- not because the job is done, but because they were so effective in setting up the infrastructure, that we are now equipped to deal with the job that needs to be done in West Africa, not only with a broader, international coalition, but also with folks who have been trained who are from the countries that were most at risk.

So I want to be very clear here:  While our troops are coming home, America’s work is not done.  Our mission is not complete.  Today, we move into the next phase of the fight, winding down our military response while expanding our civilian response.  That starts here at home, where we’re more prepared to protect Americans from infectious disease, but still have more work to do.  For as long as Ebola simmers anywhere in the world, we will have some Ebola fighting heroes who are coming back home with the disease from time to time.  And that’s why we’re screening and monitoring all arrivals from affected countries.  We’ve equipped more hospitals with new protective gear and protocols.  We’ve developed partnerships with states and cities, thanks to public servants like Mayor Mike Rawlings and Judge Clay Jenkins of Dallas, Texas, who were on the front lines when the first case appeared here on our shores. 

A few months ago, only 13 states had the capability to even test for Ebola.  Today, we have more than 54 labs in 44 states.  Only three facilities in the country were qualified to treat an Ebola patient.  Today, we have 51 Ebola treatment centers.  We have successfully treated eight Ebola patients here in the United States.  And we are grateful to be joined by six of these brave survivors today, including Dr. Richard Sacra, who received world-class care at Nebraska Medical Center -- and a plasma donation from Dr. Kent Brantly.  Then he returned to Liberia to treat non-Ebola patients who still need doctors.  That’s the kind of commitment and the kind of people we’re dealing with here.  (Applause.)

Meanwhile, in West Africa, it’s true that we have led a massive global effort to combat this epidemic.  We mobilized other countries to join us in making concrete, significant commitments to fight this disease, and to strengthen global health systems for the long term.  In addition to the work of our troops, our USAID DART teams have directed the response.  Our CDC disease detectives have traced contacts.  Our health care workers and scientists helped contain the outbreak.  Our team is providing support for 10,000 civilian responders on the ground. 

That’s what Brett Sedgewick did.  Where’s Brett?  There here is.  (Laughter.)  So Brett went to Liberia with Global Communities, which is an NGO that partnered with us to respond to Ebola.  Brett supported safe-burial teams that traveled to far-flung corners of Liberia to ensure that those who lost their lives to Ebola were carefully, safely, and respectfully buried so that they could not transmit the disease to anyone else.  And Brett reflects the spirit of so many volunteers when he said, “If you need me, just say the word.”  That’s a simple but profound statement. 

That’s who we are -- big-hearted and optimistic, reflecting the can-do spirit of the American people.  That’s our willingness to help those in need.  They’re the values of Navy Lieutenant Andrea McCoy and her team.  Andrea, raise your hand so that I don’t look -- (laughter).  Andrea and her team deployed some seven tons of equipment, processed over 1,800 blood samples.  They’re the values that drive Commander Billy Pimentel.  Where’s Billy?  Raise your hand.

COMMANDER PIMENTEL:  Here, sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, sir.  (Laughter.)  Like that Navy can-do attitude. 

He led a team of Naval microbiologists to set up mobile laboratories that can diagnose Ebola within four hours.  And he said, “It has been an honor for us to use our skills to make a difference.” 

These values -- American values -- matter to the world.  At the Monrovia Medical Unit in Liberia -- built by American troops; staffed by Rear Admiral Giberson and his team from the U.S. Public Health Service Corps -- a nurse’s aide named Rachael Walker went in for treatment, and left Ebola-free.  And I want you to listen to what Rachael’s sister said about all of you.  “We were worried at first,” she said, “but when we found out [Rachael] was being transferred to the American Ebola treatment unit, we thanked God first and then we thanked America second for caring about us.” 

And the Americans who she was speaking of aren’t just doctors or nurses, or soldiers or scientists.  You’re what one lieutenant commander from the U.S. Public Health Service Corps called the “hope multipliers.”  And you’ve multiplied a lot of hope.  Last fall, we saw between 800 and 1,000 new cases a week. Today, we’re seeing between 100 and 150 cases a week -- a drop of more than 80 percent.  Liberia has seen the best progress, Sierra Leone is moving in the right direction, Guinea has the longest way left to go.

Our focus now is getting to zero.  Because as long as there is even one case of Ebola that’s active out there, risks still exist.  Every case is an ember that, if not contained, can light a new fire.  So we’re shifting our focus from fighting the epidemic to now extinguishing it. 

The reason we can do that is because of a bipartisan majority in Congress, including some of the members who are here today, who approved funding to power this next phase in our response.  And I want to thank those members of Congress who are here for the outstanding work that they did.  (Applause.)  One of them, Chris Coons, recently traveled to the region and saw firsthand that we have to continue this fight in Africa. 

So while our troops are coming home, plenty of American heroes remain on the ground, with even more on the way.  Doctors and nurses are still treating patients, CDC experts are tracking cases, NIH teams are testing vaccines, USAID workers are in the field, and countless American volunteers are on the front lines.  And while I take great pride in the fact that our government organized this effort -- and I particularly want to thank Secretary Burwell and her team at Health and Human Services for the outstanding work that they did -- we weren’t working alone.  I just had a chance to meet with some leading philanthropists who did so much, and are now committed to continuing the work and finding new ways in which we can build platforms not only to finish the job with respect to Ebola, but also to be able to do more effective surveillance, prevention, and quick response to diseases in the future.   

Other nations have joined the fight, and we’re going to keep working together -- because our common security depends on all of us.  That’s why we launched the Global Health Security Agenda last year to bring more nations together to better prevent and detect and respond to future outbreaks before they become epidemics.  This was a wakeup call, and why it’s going to be so important for us to learn lessons from what we’ve done and sustain it into the future. 

And in the 21st century, we cannot built moats around our countries.  There are no drawbridges to be pulled up.  We shouldn’t try.  What we should do is instead make sure everybody has basic health systems -- from hospitals to disease detectives to better laboratory networks -- (applause) -- all of which allows us to get early warnings against outbreaks of diseases.  This is not charity.  The investments we make overseas are in our self-interest -- this is not charity; we do this because the world is interconnected -- in the same way that the investments we make in NIH are not a nice-to-do, they are a must-do.  We don’t appreciate basic science and all these folks in lab coats until there’s a real problem and we say, well, do we have a cure for that, or can we fix it?  And if we haven't made those investments, if we’ve neglected them, then they won’t be there when we need them.

So as we transition into a new phase in this fight, make no mistake -- America is as committed as ever, I am as committed as ever to getting to zero.  And I know we can.  And I know this because of the people who stand behind me and the people out in the audience.  I know this because of people like Dr. William Walters.  William, you here?

DR. WALTERS:  Sir.

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Laughter.) 

Dr. Walters is the Director of Operational Medicine at the State Department.  Last summer, he was called to help move Dr. Kent Brantly -- who’s here -- back to the United States for treatment.  And Dr. Walters says the first thing he did was to Google Dr. Brantly.  (Laughter.)  A little plug for Google there.  I know we got some -- (laughter.)  And the first picture he saw was of Kent and his family. 

Now, remember, the decision to move Kent back to the United States was controversial.  Some worried about bringing the disease to our shores.  But what folks like William knew was that we had to make the decisions based not on fear, but on science.  And he knew that we needed to take care of our heroes who had sacrificed so much to save the lives of others in order for us to continue to get people to make that kind of commitment.  They had to know we had their backs in order for us to effectively respond.  And so, as William said, “We do the work we do to impact something bigger than ourselves.”  We do the work we do to impact something bigger than ourselves. 

That’s the test of American leadership.  We have this extraordinary military.  We have an extraordinary economy.  We have unbelievable businesses.  But what makes us exceptional is when there’s a big challenge and we hear somebody saying it’s too hard to tackle, and we come together as a nation and prove you wrong.  That’s true whether it’s recession, or war, or terrorism.  There are those who like to fan fears.  But over the long haul, America does not succumb to fear.  We master the moment with bravery and courage, and selflessness and sacrifice, and relentless, unbending hope.  That’s what these people represent.  That’s what’s best in us.  And we have to remember that, because there will be other circumstances like this in the future. 

We had three weeks in which all too often we heard science being ignored, and sensationalism, but you had folks like this who were steady and focused, and got the job done.  And we’re lucky to have them, and we have to invest in them.

So I want to thank all of you for proving again what America can accomplish.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  (Applause.)
   
END
2:03 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa O. Monaco Strengthening our Nation’s Cyber Defenses

**Remarks as Prepared for Delivery**

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa O. Monaco
Strengthening our Nation’s Cyber Defenses
The Wilson Center
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you, Jane, for your kind words, for your leadership on national security, and to everyone here at the Wilson Center for hosting me today.  Some of you may not know this, but my very first job in Washington, I’m afraid to admit nearly 25 years ago, was working as a research assistant at the Wilson Quarterly—back when it was a quarterly, paper journal.  Now, like everything else in our world, the Wilson Quarterly is online and much more up-to-the-minute.  So today feels a bit like coming home.  

Before I get to my main subject today, I’d like to say a few words about the terrible news of this morning.  With deep sadness, we have confirmed the death of Kayla Mueller, who had been held hostage by ISIL for more than a year.  Today, our hearts go out to her family, and my thoughts in particular are with her parents, Carl and Marsha Mueller, who have shown strength and dignity over many difficult months.  Kayla represented the best of us—she was a testament to the boundless human spirit, and her legacy of compassion will serve as an inspiration to all those who seek to make our world a more just place.  Her life reaffirms a clear truth:  that a hateful and barbarous terrorist group like ISIL will never overcome the basic decency and hope that dwells in the human heart.  And, as the President made clear, we will find and bring to justice the terrorists who are responsible for Kayla’s captivity and death—no matter how long it takes.   

As President Obama’s Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor, I brief him every morning on the most significant, destructive, and horrific threats facing the American people.  I am oftentimes, as the President reminds me, the “bearer of bad news.”  Since I began this job two years ago, I can tell you that an increasing share of the bad news I deliver is unfortunately on cyber threats.  In just the last nine months,  we’ve seen a growing list of high profile targets – Home Depot, JP Morgan Chase, Target, Sony Pictures, CENTCOM, and the U.S. Postal Service, to name a few.

We are at a transformational moment in the evolution of the cyber threat.  The actions we take today – and those we fail to take – will determine whether cyberspace remains a great national asset or increasingly becomes a strategic liability.  An economic and national security strength, or a source of vulnerability. 

So today, I want to talk about the threat we face and the Administration’s approach to countering it, drawing on counterterrorism lessons learned from the last decade of war. 

Let me start with the facts.  According to a recent U.S. Government assessment, cyber threats to our national and economic security are increasing in their frequency, scale, sophistication, and severity of impact.  The range of cyber threat actors, methods of attack, targeted systems, and victims are expanding at an unprecedented clip.  

The pace of cyber intrusions has also ticked up substantially—annual reports of data breaches have increased roughly five-fold since 2009.  And the seriousness of those breaches is also rising, causing significant economic damage.

No one, it seems, is immune – from healthcare companies and universities to the tech industry, critical infrastructure, and entertainment sector.  Just last week, Anthem, one of the nation’s largest health insurance providers, announced that hackers had breached a database containing the personal information of 80 million customers and employees.  Inside the U.S. government, we know that state and non-state actors, terrorists, hackers, and criminals are probing our networks every day – seeking to steal, spy, manipulate, and destroy data.  

At the state level, threats come from nations with highly sophisticated cyber programs, including China and Russia, and nations with less technical capacity but greater disruptive intent, like Iran and North Korea.  Several nations regularly conduct cyber economic espionage for the commercial gain of their companies.  And politically motivated attacks are a growing reality, as we saw with North Korea’s attack on South Korean banks and media outlets last year.

As for non-state actors, threats are increasingly originating from profit-motivated criminals—so-called hackers for hire—those who steal your information and sell it to the highest bidder online.  Transnational criminals use cyber as a vector for profit.  There are the ideologically motivated hackers or terrorists.  You have groups like Anonymous that thrive on creating disruptions on company’s websites and leaking personal information online.  You have groups like the so-called Syrian Electronic Army, which conducts cyber attacks in support of the brutal regime in Syria. 

And then there is ISIL, which has harnessed social media for a propaganda machine that’s radicalizing and recruiting young people to their hateful message around the world.

Most concerning, perhaps, is the increasingly destructive and malicious nature of cyber attacks, as we saw with Sony Pictures Entertainment last fall.  This attack stole large amounts of data and rendered inoperable thousands of Sony’s computers and servers.  It was a game changer because it wasn’t about profit—it was about a dictator trying to impose censorship and prevent the exercise of free expression.  At bottom, it was about coercion, which the United States believes is unacceptable, and which is why we took the extraordinary step of publicly identifying North Korea as responsible for the attack and responded swiftly, imposing additional sanctions on Kim Jong-Un’s regime.

In short, the threat is becoming more diverse, more sophisticated, and more dangerous.

And I worry that malicious attacks like the one on Sony Pictures will increasingly become the norm unless we adapt quickly and take a comprehensive approach, just as we have in other contexts.  Which brings me to the counterterrorism model.

Now, to be sure, there are many differences that make it difficult to apply lessons learned from the counterterrorism experience to cyber.  For one, the private sector plays a more central role in spotting and responding to cyber incidents than they do in the counterterrorism realm, where the government largely takes the lead. 

Having observed our Nation’s response to terrorism post 9/11 from three different perches in the U.S. government—at the FBI, as Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice, and now at the White House—I can tell you there are structural, organizational, and cultural shifts that were made in our government in the counterterrorism realm that also apply to cyber.  We need to develop the same muscle memory in the government response to cyber threats as we have for terrorist incidents.

Structurally, since 9/11 our government has done the hard work of breaking down walls in our counterterrorism agencies and bringing people together to share information so that we get the best possible assessment of the threat.  Whenever possible, we’re bringing partners together to share information and extend our operational reach.  This model has made our counterterrorism mission against an evolving enemy more effective and sustainable.   

Like counterterrorism, meeting cyber threats requires a whole-of-government approach that uses all the appropriate tools available to us—including our global diplomacy, our economic clout, our intelligence resources, our law enforcement expertise, our competitive technological edge, and, when necessary, our military capability.  Those who would harm us should know that they can be found and will be held to account.

In the cyber context, we need to share threat information more broadly and coordinate our actions so that we’re all working to achieve the same goal—and we have to do so consistent with our fundamental values and in a manner that includes appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties.  We need to sync up our intelligence with our operations and respond quickly to threats against our citizens, our companies, and our Nation. 

Make no mistake.  Over the last few years, we have developed new and better ways to collaborate across all levels of government and with our partners in the private sector—including at the operational hubs in our government charged with monitoring threats, issuing warnings, sharing information, and protecting America’s critical infrastructure. 

At the White House, we’ve taken steps to improve our policy response.  Last summer, following a rising number of breaches and intrusions to public and private networks, we created the Cyber Response Group, or CRG—modeled on the highly effective and long-standing Counterterrorism Security Group.  The CRG convenes the interagency and pools knowledge about ongoing threats and attacks and coordinates all elements of our government’s response at the highest levels. 

Despite this progress, it has become clear that we can do more as a government to quickly consolidate, analyze, and provide assessments on fast-moving threats or attacks.  As President Obama said during the State of the Union last month, we will make “sure our government integrates intelligence to combat cyber threats, just as we have done to combat terrorism.” 

So today, I’m pleased to announce that we will establish a new Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, or CTIIC, under the auspices of the Director of National Intelligence.  Currently, no single government entity is responsible for producing coordinated cyber threat assessments, ensuring that information is shared rapidly among existing Cyber Centers and other elements within the government, and supporting the work of operators and policy makers with timely intelligence about the latest cyber threats and threat actors.  The CTIIC is intended to fill these gaps. 

In this vein, CTIIC will serve a similar function for cyber as the National Counterterrorism Center does for terrorism—integrating intelligence about cyber threats; providing all-source analysis to policymakers and operators; and supporting the work of the existing Federal government Cyber Centers, network defenders, and local law enforcement communities.  The CTIIC will not collect intelligence—it will analyze and integrate information already collected under existing authorities. 

Nor will it perform functions already assigned to other Centers.  It is intended to enable them to do their jobs more effectively, and as a result, make the Federal government more effective as a whole in responding to cyber threats.  CTIIC will draw on the existing Cyber Centers to better integrate their relevant expertise and information to improve our collective response to threats. 

Of course, responding to today’s threat is only part of the task.  The real challenge is getting ahead of where the threat is trending.  That’s why the President’s National Security Strategy identifies cyber as a critical focus area to ensure we both meet the challenges of today and prepare for the threats we will face tomorrow.  The President’s new budget backs up this commitment with $14 billion to protect our critical infrastructure, government networks, and other systems. 

And later this week, at Stanford University, President Obama and I and several Cabinet members will join hundreds of experts, academics, and private sector representatives for a first-of-its-kind summit to discuss how we can improve trust, enhance cooperation, and strengthen America’s online consumer protections and cyber defenses. 

But to truly safeguard Americans online and enhance the security of what has become a vast cyber ecosystem, we are going to have to work in lock-step with the private sector. 

The private sector cannot and should not rely on the government to solve all of its cybersecurity problems.  At the same time, I want to emphasize that the government won’t leave the private sector to fend for itself.  Partnership is a precondition of success—there’s no other way to tackle such a complicated problem.  It requires daily collaboration to identify and analyze threats, address vulnerabilities, and then work together to respond jointly. 

To the private sector, we’ve made it clear that we will work together.  We’re not going to bottle up our intelligence—if we have information about a significant threat to a business, we’re going to do our utmost to share it.  In fact, within 24 hours of learning about the Sony Pictures Entertainment attack, the U.S. government pushed out information and malware signatures to the private sector to update their cyber defenses.  We want this flow of information to go both ways. 

The private sector has vital information we don’t always see unless they share it with us, and the government has a unique capacity to integrate information about threats, including non-cyber sources, to create the best possible picture to secure all of our networks.

When companies share information with us about a major cyber intrusion or a potentially debilitating denial of service attack, they can expect us to respond quickly.  We will provide as much information as we can about the threat to assist companies in protecting their networks and critical information.  We will coordinate a quick and unified response from government experts, including at DHS and the FBI.  We will look to determine who the actor is and hold them to account.  And, as we respond to attacks, we will bring to bear all of the tools available to us and draw on the full range of government resources to disrupt threats.  

I want to commend companies that have shown strong leadership by coming forward as soon as they identify breaches and seeking assistance so we can work together and address threats more rapidly—which is good for the company, good for the consumer, and good for the government.  Across the board, we’re tearing down silos, increasing communication, and developing the flexibility and agility to respond to cyber threats of the 21st century, just as we have done in the counterterrorism world.    

Moving forward, as our lives become more and more dependent on the Internet, and the amount of territory we have to defend keeps expanding, our strategy will focus on four key elements. 

First, we need to improve our defenses—employing better basic preventative cybersecurity, like the steps outlined in the Cybersecurity Framework announced last year, would enable every organization to manage cyber risk more effectively.  But even just employing basic cyber hygiene could stop a large percentage of the intrusions we face, so we’ve got to start by getting the basics rights.      

Second, we need to improve our ability to disrupt, respond to, and recover from cyber threats.  That means using the full strength of the United States government—not just our cyber tools—to raise the costs for bad actors and deter malicious actions.

Third, we need to enhance international cooperation, including between our law enforcement agencies, so that when criminals anywhere in the world target innocent users online, we can hold them accountable—just as we do when people commit crimes in the physical world. 

And fourth, we need to make cyberspace intrinsically more secure—replacing passwords with more secure technologies, building more resilient networks, and enhancing consumer protections online, to start with.

President Obama will continue to do everything within his authority to harden our cyber defenses, but executive actions alone will not be enough.  We need durable, long-term solutions, codified in law that bolster the Nation’s cyber defenses.  This is not, and should not, be a partisan issue.  The future security of the United States depends on a strong, bipartisan consensus that responds to a growing national security concern.  Everyone shares responsibility here, including the Congress.

In December, Congress passed important bills to modernize how the government protects its systems and to clarify the government’s authorities to carry out its cyber missions.  Today, we need the Congress to build on that progress by passing the package of cybersecurity measures that President Obama announced last month that encourage greater information sharing, set a national standard for companies to report data breaches, and provide law enforcement with updated tools to combat cybercrime.  And we look to Congress to pass a budget with critical funding for cybersecurity, including for DHS.  The Administration is ready to work with Congress to pass these measures as quickly as possible. 

Cybersecurity is and will remain a defining challenge of the 21st century.  With more than three billion internet users around the world and as many as ten billion internet-connected devices, there’s no putting this genie back in the bottle.  We have to get this right.  Our prosperity and security depend upon the Internet being secure against threats; reliable in our ability to access information; open to all who seek to harness the opportunities of the Internet age; and interoperable to ensure the free flow of information across networks and nations. 

But we are at a crossroads, and the clock is ticking.  The choices we make today will define the threat environment we face tomorrow. 

All of us have a responsibility to act—to take preventative measures to defend our systems; to build greater resilience into our networks to bounce back from attacks; to break down silos and improve information sharing and the integration and analysis of threats; to pass cybersecurity legislation; and to ensure we take a comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to respond to cyber attacks, just as we do in other contexts.   

These are hard and complicated issues.  But I’m confident that working together—government, industry, advocacy groups, the public, and Congress—our networks will be safer, our privacy protected, and our future more secure. I look forward to tackling these threats with all of you.  Thanks very much. 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

President Obama Announces Presidential Delegation to Attend the Presidential Inauguration of Her Excellency Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, President-elect of the Republic of Croatia

President Barack Obama today announced the designation of a Presidential Delegation to Zagreb, Croatia to attend the Presidential Inauguration of Her Excellency Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, President-elect of the Republic of Croatia on February 15, 2015.
 
The Honorable Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Deputy Secretary of Energy, will lead the delegation.
 
Members of the Presidential Delegation:
 
The Honorable Kenneth H. Merten, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Croatia, Department of State
 
Mr. Hoyt B. Yee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
 
The Honorable Capricia Penavic Marshall, Former U.S. Chief of Protocol, Department of State
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
February 11, 2015

Readout of the President's Meeting with Private Sector Supporters of the International Response to End Ebola

Today, President Obama met with 13 private sector and foundation leaders who have joined the international response to end the Ebola epidemic by providing urgent assistance, mobilizing public interest and action, and setting the stage for recovery.  The President thanked participants for contributing to the progress achieved thus far and encouraged them to sustain the momentum.  The President also urged continued vigilance to end the Ebola epidemic and shared views about the next steps to achieve a resilient and Ebola-free West Africa. The President reiterated his commitment to "Get to Zero," focus on regional recovery, strengthen global capability to prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to future outbreaks, and he encouraged the private sector leaders to do the same.

Private Sector Participants:

  • Hugo Bague (Rio Tinto)
  • David M. Barash (General Electric Foundation)
  • Larry Brilliant (Skoll Foundation)
  • Michael Deich (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation)
  • Gabrielle Fitzgerald (Paul G. Allen Family Foundation)
  • Jacqueline Fuller (Google)
  • Joel Kaplan (Facebook)
  • Randy Newcomb (Humanity United)
  • Ed Martinez (UPS Foundation)
  • Strive Masiyiwa (Econet Wireless)
  • Lucy Southworth (Larry Page Family Foundation)
  • Tidjane Thiam (Prudential) Jeffrey Wright (Actor)