The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on Conviction of Malaysian Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim

The United States is deeply disappointed with Mr. Anwar’s conviction following a government appeal of the original verdict finding him not guilty.  The decision to prosecute Mr. Anwar and the conduct of his trial have raised a number of serious concerns about rule of law and the fairness of the judicial system in Malaysia.  These concerns are compounded  by the government’s intent to expand its sedition law, which Prime Minister Najib had pledged to repeal, to prosecute government critics.

When National Security Advisor Susan Rice met with Malaysian opposition leaders in April 2014, she reiterated the President's message that countries who uphold the human rights of all their citizens -- regardless of their political affiliation, ethnicity, race, religion or sexual orientation -- are ultimately more prosperous and more stable.  The United States and Malaysia have built a strong “comprehensive partnership,” and we remain committed to expanding our cooperation on shared economic and security challenges affecting our countries’ interests in Asia and globally.  In that context, we urge the Government of Malaysia to apply the rule of law fairly, transparently, and apolitically in order to promote confidence in Malaysia’s democracy, judiciary, and economy. 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by President Obama and Chancellor Merkel in Joint Press Conference

East Room
 
12:04 P.M. EST
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Good morning, everybody.  Please be seated.  As always, it is a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and partner, Chancellor Angela Merkel, back to the White House.  Angela, of course, has been here many times.  But this visit is a chance for me to congratulate her on two achievements. Well into her third term, Angela is now one of Germany’s longest-serving chancellors.  Perhaps more importantly, this is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate Angela and Germany on their fourth World Cup title.  As we all saw in Rio, Angela is one of her team’s biggest fans.  Our U.S. team, however, gets better each World Cup, so watch out in 2018.  (Laughter.)    
 
Germany is one of our strongest allies, so whenever we meet it’s an opportunity to coordinate closely on a whole range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity.  As Angela and our German friends prepare to host the G7 this spring, it’s also important for us to be able to coordinate on a set of shared goals. 
 
And at our working lunch this afternoon, we’ll focus on what we can do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs.  As strong supporters of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, we agree that there needs to be meaningful progress this year toward an agreement that boosts our economies with strong protections for consumers and workers and the environment.  
 
I look forward to hearing Angela’s assessment of how Europe and the IMF can work with the new Greek government to find a way that returns Greece to sustainable growth within the Eurozone, where growth is critical to both the United States and the global economy.  And we’ll be discussing our work to get all major economies to take ambitious action on climate change, including our initiative to limit public financing for coal-fired power plants overseas and our global efforts to phase down some of the most dangerous greenhouse gases. 
 
Our discussion this morning focused on global security issues.  We reaffirmed our commitment to training Afghan security forces and supporting a sovereign, secure and united Afghanistan. We agree that the international community has to continue enforcing existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, even as the P5-plus-1 works closely together to do everything we can to try to achieve a good, verifiable deal.  
 
Two issues in particular that dominated our workday this morning -- Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the international fight against ISIL.  
 
With regard to Russia and the separatists it supports in Ukraine, it’s clear that they’ve violated just about every commitment they made in the Minsk agreement.  Instead of withdrawing from eastern Ukraine, Russian forces continue to operate there, training separatists and helping to coordinate attacks.  Instead of withdrawing its arms, Russia has sent in more tanks and armored personnel carriers and heavy artillery.  With Russian support, the separatists have seized more territory and shelled civilian areas, destroyed villages and driven more Ukrainians from their homes.  These are the facts.
 
But Russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the United States and Germany and our allies and partners around the world.  And I want to thank Angela for her strong leadership and partnership as we’ve met this challenge.  Chancellor Merkel and Vice President Biden met with Ukrainian President Poroshenko in Munich over the weekend, and Angela also shared with me the results of her talks in Moscow.  We continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution to this issue.  And as diplomatic efforts continue this week, we are in absolute agreement that the 21st century cannot stand idle -- have us stand idle and simply allow the borders of Europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun.    
 
So today we’ve agreed to move forward with our strategy.  Along with our NATO allies, we’ll keep bolstering our presence in central and Eastern Europe -- part of our unwavering Article 5 obligation to our collective defense.  We will continue to work with the IMF and other partners to provide Ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues economic and anti-corruption reforms.  We discussed the issue of how best to assist Ukraine as it defends itself, and we agreed that sanctions on Russia need to remain fully in force until Russia complies fully with its obligations.  
 
Even as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution, we are making it clear again today that if Russia continues on its current course -- which is ruining the Russian economy and hurting the Russian people, as well as having such a terrible effect on Ukraine -- Russia’s isolation will only worsen, both politically and economically.
 
With regard to ISIL, Germany and the United States remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization.  I thanked Angela for her strong support as a member of the international coalition that is working in Iraq.  In a significant milestone in its foreign policy, Germany has taken the important step of equipping Kurdish forces in Iraq, and Germany is preparing to lead the training mission of local forces in Erbil.  Germany is a close partner in combating the threat of foreign terrorist fighters, which was the focus of a special session of the U.N. Security Council that I chaired last fall.  And under Angela’s leadership, Germany is moving ahead with new legislation to prevent fighters from traveling to and from Syria and Iraq.
 
At the same time, both Angela and I recognize that young people in both our countries, especially in Muslim communities, are being threatened and targeted for recruitment by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL.   And protecting our young people from this hateful ideology, so that they’re not vulnerable to such recruitment, is, first and foremost, a task for local communities, families, neighbors, faith leaders who know their communities best.  But we can help these communities, starting with the tone and the example that we set in our own countries.  
 
So I want to commend Angela for her leadership, speaking out forcefully against xenophobia and prejudice and on behalf of pluralism and diversity.  She’s made it clear that all religious communities have a place in Germany, just as they do here in the United States.  And we’re grateful that our German friends will be joining us at our summit next week on countering violent extremism, because this is a challenge our countries have to meet together. 
 
And let me end on an historic note.  This year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.  It marks the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Germany.  So in a time when conflicts around the world sometimes seem intractable, when progress sometimes seems beyond grasp, Germany’s story gives us hope.  We can end wars.  Countries can rebuild.  Adversaries can become allies.  Walls can come down.  Divisions can be healed.  Germany’s story -- and the story of Angela’s life -- remind us that when free people stand united, our interests and our values will ultimately prevail.  
 
And as we look to the future, as I prepare to visit Bavaria in June, I’m grateful for my partnership with Angela, as Americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of Germany.
 
Chancellor Merkel.
 
CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  Thank you, President, dear Barack.  I’m delighted to be back in Washington.  Nine months ago, we were here for the last time, and this visit here has a lot to do with, first and foremost, the fact that we have assumed the presidency of the G7 presidency this year, and that we coordinate on these matters very closely, as we do on others. And obviously, we’ll address issues related to the global economy when we meet in Bavaria, in Schloss Elmau, in the summer.
 
From a European vantage point, I think we can say that we have made significant progress in a number of areas.  We have countries who are now back on the growth path.  Ireland comes to mind here in particular, but also Spain and Portugal.  After a strong phase of structural reforms, they have now made significant progress.  The new Commissioner that’s come in office has launched a growth program in which Germany will participate. 
 
We will pin our hopes basically on growth and infrastructure, but also on other growth projects.  For example, the digital economy. If I think of the state of the digital economy in the United States, there is a lot of things to be done by the Europeans now.
 
I would say that a free trade agreement, the conclusion of a free trade agreement, for example, would also go a long way towards boosting growth.  We know that you are very much engaged in the Asia Pacific area -- there are a lot of free trade agreements there as well.  And Germany will come out very forcefully in seeing that the negotiations between the EU and the United States on free trade agreements are pursued in a vigorous manner.  It’s in our own vested interest -- in the interest of the United States but also in the German interest.
 
We are dealing basically in our G7 agenda with health issues.  Let me just mention one -- what sort of lessons have we drawn, for example, from the terrible Ebola epidemic.  I think the one thing that we’ve learned is that the international organizations, the international community has to be quicker in reacting to such epidemics.  And the G7 can give a very important contribution to doing this.  
 
And we’re also interested, for example, in seeing Gavi be successful.  We’re delighted to be able to conclude the replenishment conference that has just been completed in Germany so successfully.  
 
Then we dealt with security issues this morning.  It is true Germany this year celebrates the 25th anniversary of its reunification.  This would not have been possible, not have been achievable without our transatlantic partners, without the support of the United States of America.  And we will always be grateful for this.  And it is one case in point that it is well worth the effort to stand by one’s values for decades to pursue long-term goals and not relent in those efforts.
 
After we thought in the ‘90s maybe that things would turn out somewhat more easily, somewhat less complicated, now we see ourselves confronted with a whole wealth of conflicts, and very complex ones.  We worked together in Afghanistan -- we talked about this as well.  Germany has decided, in its fight against IS, to give help to deliver training missions, to deliver also weapons, and, if necessary.  We work together on the Iran nuclear program, where we also enter into a crucial phase of negotiations.
 
One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning.  We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity.  For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we’ve been able to achieve.  This is not just any old point, it’s an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it.  And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects:  in Crimea, and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.  
 
So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order.  And this is what the French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days.  We’re going to continue those efforts.  
 
And I’m very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the United States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives.  And this is going to be continued.  And I think that’s, indeed, one of the most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send to Russia. 
 
We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks.  These days we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement.  I’ve always said I don’t see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution.
 
So there’s a whole host of issues that we need to discuss.  Over lunch, we will continue to talk about climate protection, about sustainable development and the sustainable development goals.  
 
So yet again, thank you very much for the very close cooperation, very close coordination, and the possibility to have an exchange of views on all of these crucial issues.  I think not only in hindsight can we safely say that the United States have always stood by us, have helped us to regain our unity in peace and freedom, but we can also say we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflicts of the world today.  Unfortunately, there are many of them, and we will continue to do so in the future.
 
Thank you for your hospitality.  
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  First question, Steve Mufson, The Washington Post.  
 
Q    Thank you.  You’ve said -- stressed that U.S. and Europe need to have cohesion on the issue of sanctions and on dealing with Ukraine, and yet the administration is discussing sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, which is very different from what the Chancellor has said over the weekend.  So I was wondering whether this was a good cop-bad cop act, or is this a real reflection of difference of views in the situation on the ground.  
 
And more broadly, if there’s no agreement this week, what lies ahead?  Are we looking at a broader set of sanctions?  What makes us think those set of sanction will change the Russian President’s mind any more than the current ones?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, let me start with the broader point. I think both Angela and I have emphasized that the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been low.  Russia obviously has a extraordinarily powerful military.  And given the length of the Russian border with Ukraine, given the history between Russia and Ukraine, expecting that if Russia is determined that Ukraine can fully rebuff a Russian army has always been unlikely.
 
But what we have said is that the international community, working together, can ratchet up the costs for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity.  And that’s exactly what we’ve done.  
 
And Russia has paid a significant cost for its actions -- first in Crimea and now in eastern Ukraine.  It has not yet dissuaded Mr. Putin from following the course that he is on, but it has created a measurable negative impact on the Russian economy, and that will continue.  
 
My hope is that through these diplomatic efforts, those costs have become high enough that Mr. Putin’s preferred option is for a diplomatic resolution.  And I won’t prejudge whether or not they’ll be successful.  If they are successful, it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and effort of Chancellor Merkel and her team.  If they are not, then we will continue to raise those costs.  And we will not relent in that. And one of the things I’ve very encouraged about is the degree to which we’ve been able to maintain U.S.-European unity on this issue.  
 
Now, it is true that if, in fact, diplomacy fails, what I’ve asked my team to do is to look at all options -- what other means can we put in place to change Mr. Putin’s calculus -- and the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that’s being examined.  But I have not made a decision about that yet.  I have consulted with not just Angela, but will be consulting with other allies about this issue.  It’s not based on the idea that Ukraine could defeat a Russian army that was determined.  It is rather to see whether or not there are additional things we can do to help Ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression.  But I want to emphasize that a decision has not yet been made. 
 
One of the bigger issues that we’re also concerned with, though, is making sure the Ukrainian economy is functioning and that President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk can continue with the reform efforts that they’ve made.  And I’m glad to see that because of our cooperation and our efforts, we’re starting to see a package come together with the IMF, with the European Union and others that can help bolster the European economy so that they have the space to continue to execute some of the reforms and anti-corruption measures that they’ve made.
 
One of the most important things we can do for Ukraine is help them succeed economically, because that's how people on the ground feels this change, this transformation, inside of Ukraine. If that experiment fails, then the larger project of an independent Ukraine will fail.  And so we're going to do everything we can to help bolster that.
 
But there is no doubt that if, in fact, diplomacy fails this week, there’s going to continue to be a strong, unified response between the United States and Europe.  That's not going to change.  There may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements; there may not be.  But the broad principle that we have to stand up for not just Ukraine, but the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty, is one where we are completely unified.
 
CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  The French President and I have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through diplomatic means.  We have the Minsk agreement -- the Minsk agreement has never been implemented.  Quite the contrary is true.  The situation has actually worsened on the ground.  So now there is a possibility to try and bring about a cease-fire and to also create conditions that are in place where you have not every day civilians dying, civilian victims that fall prey to this.  And I’m absolutely confident that we will do this together. 
 
I, myself, actually would not be able to live with not having made this attempt.  So there is anything but an assured success in all of this -- I have to be very clear about this.  But if at a certain point in time, one has to say that success is not possible even if one puts every effort into it, then the United States and Europe have to sit together and try and explore further possibilities of what one can do.  Just let me point out here that foreign ministers of the European Union last week already tasked the Commission to think about further possible sanctions.  
 
On the issue of what is effective and what not, I’m somewhat surprised sometimes.  Just let me mention Iran.  For a fairly long period of time we have had sanctions in place there; people don't seem to question them.  And I think they have been fairly successful, if we look at the current state of affairs with the negotiations on the nuclear program.  So I think, in parallel, I think it was a very good thing to put some costs onto the Russians through these sanctions that we agreed on because we see also that Russia seems to be influenced by this.  And this is why I am a hundred percent behind these decisions.
 
As to the export of arms, I have given you my opinion.   But you may rest assured that no matter what we decide, the alliance between the United States and Europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid, even though on certain issues we may not always agree.  But this partnership, be it Ukraine and Russia, be it on combating terrorism on the international state, be it on other issues, is a partnership that has stood the test of time and that is -- I mean, in Europe, we're very close.  But this transatlantic partnership for Germany and for Europe is indispensable.  And this will remain so.  And I can say this also on behalf of my colleagues in the European Union.
 
Sorry, I have to call you myself.  From DPA, the German Press Agency.
 
Q    President, you said that you have not yet made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be delivered to Ukraine. What would be your red line?  What would be the red line that needs to be crossed for you to decide an armament of the Ukrainian army?  And what do you think -- will this hold by way of a promise?  Because the Chancellor said it will make matters worse.  And what can the Nobel Laureate Obama do more to defuse this conflict?
 
And, Madam Chancellor, President Putin today demanded yet again that the government in Kyiv negotiate directly with the separatists.  When do you think the right moment has come to do this?  And with looking at all of the big issues that you discussed, this breach of confidence due to the NSA affair, of the U.S.-German relations, has that played a role today?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Do you want to go first on this?
 
CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  I can gladly start.  
 
The question as to how one assesses the effectiveness of certain measures has been actually dealt with.  The President has not yet made a decision, as he said.  What’s important for me is that we stand very closely together on the question of a renewed diplomatic effort.  We keep each other informed.  We’re in close touch.  And nobody wishes more for a success than the two of us who stand here side by side.
 
But this would also mean not only having a cease-fire in place, but to also, over and above that, having certain rules in place.  And you said the Russian President himself thinks there ought to be direct contacts.  Let me just point out to you, these direct contacts already exist through the trilateral contact group with representatives from Donetsk and Luhansk.  And the problem over the last few days, and the problem of the last meetings actually was rather more than that, there was not really that much of an end result -- if they matter at all, or if representatives from Donetsk and Luhansk were there at all.  Sometimes they didn’t even arrive.  
 
And this was, after all, for me, the core of the Minsk agreement, that there are local elections in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution and that the outcome of that is that you have representatives, authorities that can speak for those regions.  And the Ukrainian President has paved the way for this, to giving certain specific status to the oblasts of Luhansk and Donetsk.  And these elections are an essential point that will then enable us to say, well, maybe now there can be contacts even without a trilateral group.  
 
And this is actually on the agenda of the many talks that we need to make.  But I can very well understand the Ukrainian side, that the territory they consider to be part of their territory and that anything else would violate their territorial integrity, that they want to actually see that elections take place there.  And that has also been stated by President Putin that he wishes to see those elections happening there. 
 
Now, on the NSA issue.  I think there are still different assessments on individual issues there, but if we look at the sheer dimension of the terrorist threat, we are more than aware of the fact that we need to work together very closely.  And I, as German Chancellor, want to state here very clearly that the institutions of the United States of America have provided us and still continue to provide us with a lot of very significant, very important information that also ensure our security.  And we don’t want to do without this.  There are other possibilities, through the cyber dialogue, for example, to continue to talk about the sort of protection of privacy versus data protection and so on, and security.  But this was basically -- combating terrorism was basically in the forefront today.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  On providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the Ukrainian military generally.  That’s been part of a longstanding relationship between NATO and Ukraine.  And our goal has not been for Ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations, but to simply defend itself.  And President Poroshenko has been very clear -- he’s not interested in escalating violence, he is interested in having his country’s boundaries respected by its neighbor.
 
So there’s not going to be any specific point at which I say, ah, clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here.  It is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade Russia from encroaching further and further on Ukrainian territory.  Our hope is, is that that’s done through diplomatic means.  
 
And I just want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just of the American people but for the German people, we are not looking for Russia to fail.  We are not looking for Russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened.  Our preference is for a strong, prosperous, vibrant, confident Russia that can be a partner with us on a whole host of global challenges.  And that’s how I operated throughout my first term in office.
 
Unfortunately, Russia has made a decision that I think is bad for them strategically, bad for Europe, bad for the world.  And in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, we can’t simply try to talk them out of it.  We have to show them that the world is unified in imposing a cost for this aggression. And that’s what we’re going to continue to do.
 
With respect to the NSA, I’ll just make this point very briefly.  There’s no doubt that the Snowden revelations damaged impressions of Germans with respect to the U.S. government and our intelligence cooperation.  And what I have done over the last year, year and a half, is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and to restore confidence not just for Germans but for our partners around the world.
 
And we’ve taken some unprecedented measures, for example, to ensure that our intelligence agencies treat non-U.S. citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns -- something that I put in a presidential order, and has not been ever done not only by our intelligence agencies but I think by most intelligence agencies around the world.
 
There are going to still be areas where we’ve got to work through these issues.  We have to internally work through some of these issues, because they’re complicated, they’re difficult.  If we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in New York or Berlin or Paris, and they are communicating primarily in cyberspace, and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that, but that requires us then being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure that we’re able to do that, carry out those functions, while still meeting our core principles of respecting the privacy of all our people?  
 
And given Germany’s history, I recognize the sensitivities around this issue.  What I would ask would be that the German people recognize that the United States has always been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties, that we have traditions of due process that we respect, that we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the last 70 years, and certainly the last 25 years, in reinforcing the values that we share.  And so occasionally I would like the German people to give us the benefit of the doubt, given our history, as opposed to assuming the worst -- assuming that we have been consistently your strong partners and that we share a common set of values.  
 
And if we have that fundamental, underlying trust, there are going to be times where there are disagreements, and both sides may make mistakes, and there are going to be irritants like there are between friends, but the underlying foundation for the relationship remains sound.
 
Christi Parsons.
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  The Iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines.  Should the upcoming March deadline for talks be the final one?  And what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend those talks?  Also, sir, some have suggested that you are outraged by the Israeli Prime Minister’s decision to address Congress.  Is that so?  And how would you advise Democrats who are considering a boycott?
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  First of all, we understood I think from the start, when we set up the interim agreement with Iran, that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the United States and Iran, and the world and Iran, when it comes to their nuclear program.  So I think there was always the assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time, that we would probably need more time to move forward.  
 
The good news is, is that there have been very serious discussions.  That time has been well spent.  During this period of time, issues have been clarified; gaps have been narrowed; the Iranians have abided by the agreement.  So this is not a circumstance in which, by talking, they’ve been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program.  To the contrary.  What we know is the program has not only been frozen, but with respect to, for example, 20 percent enriched uranium, they’ve reversed it.  And so we’re in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up.
 
Having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we’re at point where they need to make a decision.  We are presenting to them, in a unified fashion -- the P5-plus-1, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.  
 
And if, in fact, what they claim in true -- which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that, in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon -- if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal.  They should be able to get to yes.  But we don’t know if that’s going to happen.  They have their hardliners; they have their politics.  
 
And the point, I guess is, Christi, at this juncture, I don’t see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon.  
 
Now, if a framework for a deal is done, if people have a clear sense of what is required and there’s some drafting and t’s to cross and i’s to dot, that’s a different issue.  But my view  -- and I’ve presented this to members of Congress -- is that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical.  The issues now are, does Iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done?  
 
And we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that’s been shown by Germany, by the other members of the P5-plus-1 -- which, I should acknowledge, includes Russia.  I mean, this is an area where they’ve actually served a constructive role.  And China has served a constructive role.  And there has been no cracks in this on the P5-plus-1 side of the table.  And I think that’s a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually solve a problem.
 
With respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu, as I’ve said before, I talk to him all the time, our teams constantly coordinate.  We have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections.  As much as I love Angela, if she was two weeks away from an election she probably would not have received an invitation to the White House -- (laughter) -- and I suspect she wouldn’t have asked for one.  (Laughter.)
 
So this is just -- some of this just has to do with how we do business.  And I think it’s important for us to maintain these protocols -- because the U.S.-Israeli relationship is not about a particular party.  This isn’t a relationship founded on affinity between the Labor Party and the Democratic Party, or Likud and the Republican Party.  This is the U.S.-Israeli relationship that extends beyond parties, and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to Israel’s security, and the shared values that we have.
 
And the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn’t get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. Whether that’s accurate or not, that is a potential perception, and that’s something that we have to guard against.
 
Now, I don’t want to be coy.  The Prime Minister and I have a very real difference around Iran, Iran sanctions.  I have been very clear -- and Angela agrees with me, and David Cameron agrees with me, and the others who are a member of the negotiations agree -- that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they’re about to be completed.  And we should play that out.  If, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should embrace that.  If we can’t get a deal, then we’ll have to make a set of decisions, and, as I’ve said to Congress, I’ll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against Iran.
 
But what’s the rush -- unless your view is that it’s not possible to get a deal with Iran and it shouldn’t even be tested? And that I cannot agree with because, as the President of the United States, I’m looking at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution.  And those options are narrow and they're not attractive.  And from the perspective of U.S. interests -- and I believe from the perspective of Israel’s interests, although I can't speak for, obviously, the Israeli government -- it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution.  
 
So there are real differences substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of Mr. Netanyahu coming to Washington.  All right?  
 
Q    Ms. Merkel, you just said the question is what will be effective in the Ukrainian crisis.  And diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not really made all that -- has not really brought about that much of a progress.  Can you understand the impatience of the Americans when they say we ought to now deliver weapons?  And what makes you feel confident that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks?
 
And on Greece, obviously I also have to ask you, what is your comment on the most recent comments of the Greek Prime Minister who says let’s end those programs, and I’m going to stand by the promises I made during the election campaign?  How do you envisage the further cooperation with the Greek government?
 
And to you, Mr. President, I address the question, there is quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be delivered to the Ukrainians.  Now, you yourself have said you want to ratchet up the cost that Putin has to bear and then make him relent and give in maybe.  And you said all options have to be on the table, so apparently also weapons.  So what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular Ukraine army, but will then also perhaps get into the hands of separatists or militias on the Ukrainian side, who are accused by Amnesty International and other NGOs of having violated human rights?  
 
Thank you. 
 
CHANCELLOR MERKEL:  (As interpreted.)  Whenever you have political conflict, such as the one that we have now between Russia and Ukraine, but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has always proved to be right to try again and again to solve such a conflict.  We’ve spoken at some length about the Iranian conflict.  Here, too, we are expected to try time and again.  And there’s always a point where you say, well, all of the options are on the table, we’ve gone back and forth, but then one has to think again.  
 
Looking just at the Middle East conflict, for example, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict?  And I’ve welcomed it every time, and I’m going to participate and support it every time because I think every time it has been well worth the effort.
 
Now, when you have a situation now where every night you see people dying, you see civilian casualties, you see the dire conditions under which people live, it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we owe it to the people to explore every avenue until somebody gives in.  
 
But we’ve grown up under conditions -- I have to point this again -- where we said nobody would have dreamt of German unity. The people who have said in West Germany, remember they said, well, should we keep citizenship of Germany for the GDR?  They’ve been criticized by people as some who have revisionist ideas.  And then think of President Reagan when he said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate. Many people said at the time, how can he possibly say that?  But it was right.
 
We have no guarantee.  I cannot give you a guarantee for the outcome of the Wednesday talks or for other talks.  And maybe nothing will come out of it.  But then we’re called upon again to think about a new possibility.  And since we thought about every step of the way, will this be affective or not, we will continue to do so.  
 
A lot of things have to be thought about, and I’m very glad that with the American President, I have always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons.  In my speech in Munich, I gave you clearly where I stand.  But we’ll continue to try it.  I think that’s why we are politicians, that’s why we chose this profession.  Others have to do other things -- researchers have to, all of the time, find new things to explore and we have to see that the well-being, the prosperity of our people is ensured.  But we never have a guarantee that the policies we adopt will work, will have the effect -- oh, sorry, Greece.  I almost forgot.  Yes.  On Wednesday, there’s going to be a Eurogroup meeting.  And I think what counts is what Greece will put on the table at that Eurogroup meeting or perhaps a few days later.
 
The German policy, ever since 2010, has been aimed at Greece staying a member of the Eurozone.  I’ve said this time and again. The basic rules have always been the same.  You put in your own efforts, and on the other side, you’re being shown solidarity as a quid pro quo.  The three institutions of the Troika -- the ECB, the European Union Commission, and the IMF -- have agreed on programs.  These programs are the basis of any discussion we have.  I’ve always said I will wait for Greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we’ll talk about this.
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA:  The point Angela made I think is right, which is we never have guarantees that any particular course of action works.  As I’ve said before, by the time a decision reaches my desk, by definition, it’s a hard problem with no easy answers.  Otherwise somebody else would have solved it and I would never even hear about it.
 
The issue that you raised about can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide Ukraine is used properly, doesn’t fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to overaggressive actions that can’t be sustained by the Ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does it prompt not simply from the separatists but from the Russians -- those are all issues that have to be considered. The measure by which I make these decisions is, is it more likely to be effective than not?  And that is what our deliberations will be about.
 
But what I do know is this -- that the United States and Europe have not stood idly by.  We have made enormous efforts, enormous investments of dollars, of political capital, of diplomacy, in trying to resolve this situation.  I think the Ukrainian people can feel confident that we have stood by them.  People like Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Kerry have spent countless hours on this issue, as has Angela and her team on the German side.  And just because we have not yet gotten the outcome that we want doesn’t mean that this pressure is not, over time, making a difference.  
 
I think it’s fair to say that there are those inside of Russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the Russian economy.  I think Mr. Putin is factoring that in.  But, understandably, until the situation is entirely resolved, we’re going to have to keep on trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome.  
 
What I do know is, is that we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain the strong transatlantic solidarity that’s been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years.  And I’m confident that I’ve got a great partner in Angela in maintaining that.
 
Thank you very much, everybody.
    
END 
12:53 P.M. EST
 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the President on the Passing of Dean Smith

Last night, America lost not just a coaching legend but a gentleman and a citizen. When he retired, Dean Smith had won more games than any other college basketball coach in history. He went to 11 Final Fours, won two national titles, and reared a generation of players who went on to even better things elsewhere, including a young man named Michael Jordan—and all of us from Chicago are thankful for that.

But more importantly, Coach Smith showed us something that I've seen again and again on the court – that basketball can tell us a lot more about who you are than a jumpshot alone ever could. He graduated more than 96 percent of his players and taught his teams to point to the teammate who passed them the ball after a basket. He pushed forward the Civil Rights movement, recruiting the first black scholarship athlete to North Carolina and helping to integrate a restaurant and a neighborhood in Chapel Hill. And in his final years, Coach Smith showed us how to fight an illness with courage and dignity. For all of that, I couldn’t have been prouder to honor Coach Smith with Medal of Freedom in 2013.

Michelle and I send our thoughts and prayers to his wife Linnea, to his family, and to his fans all across North Carolina and the country.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Weekly Address: Everyone Who Works Hard Should Get Ahead

WASHINGTON, DC — In this week’s address, President Obama highlighted the progress our economy has made, with more than 3.1 million jobs created in 2014 – the best year for job growth since the late 1990s. America has come a long way, and with the right policies, we can continue to grow our economy into one where those who work hard can get ahead. That’s why earlier this week the President released a budget proposal focused on middle-class economics – the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, does their fair share, and plays by the same set of rules. The President said he looks forward to working with anyone, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to fight for commonsense policies that will help the middle class succeed.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00 a.m. ET, February 7, 2015.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Indianapolis, Indiana
February 7, 2015

Hi everybody. I’m talking with you today from Ivy Tech Community College in Indianapolis, where I just held a town hall and heard from everyday Americans about what we can do, together, to make their lives a little better.

This week, we got news that confirms what we already know -- that our businesses continue to create jobs for hardworking folks all across the country. Last month, America’s businesses added another 267,000 jobs. In 2014, our economy created more than 3.1 million jobs in all -- the best year for job growth since the late 1990s. All told, over the past 59 months, the private sector has added 11.8 million new jobs—the longest streak on record. And in the single most hopeful sign for middle class families, wages are rising again.

America is poised for another good year – as long as Washington works to keep this progress going. We have to choose -- will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well, or will we build an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead?

Because while we’ve come a long way, we’ve got more work to do to make sure that our recovery reaches more Americans, not just those at the top. That’s what middle-class economics is all about -- the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.

This week, I sent Congress a budget built on middle-class economics. It helps families afford childcare, health care, college, paid leave at work, homeownership, and saving for retirement, and it could put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of a working family each year. It helps more Americans learn new skills to earn higher wages, including by making two years of community college free for responsible students all across the country. It invests in the research and infrastructure our businesses need to compete and create high-paying jobs. And it pays for this with smart spending cuts and by fixing a tax code that’s riddled with special-interest loopholes for folks who don’t need them, allowing us to offer tax breaks to students and families who do need them.

I believe this is where we need to go to give working families more security in a time of constant economic change. And I’ll work with anyone—Republican or Democrat—who wants to get to “yes” on these issues. We won’t agree on everything, and that’s natural -- but we should stop refighting old battles, and start working together to help you succeed in the new economy.

That’s what you elected us to do -- not to turn everything into another Washington food fight, but to have debates that are worthy of this country, and to build an economy not just where everyone can share in America’s success, but where everyone can contribute to America’s success.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by the President in Town Hall on Middle-Class Economics

Ivy Tech Community College
Indianapolis, Indiana

2:33 P.M. EST
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody!  (Applause.)  Hello, Hoosiers!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Well, please, everybody, have a seat.  Have a seat.  Let me begin by saying thank you to Mayor Ballard for that introduction, for all the great work you’re doing for the people of Indianapolis, and for your service as a Marine.  We are very proud of the partnership that we've had with this city.
 
I also want to recognize Ivy Tech Chancellor Kathleen Lee and President Tom Snyder.  Where are they?  (Applause.)  There they are over here.  Some outstanding members of Congress -- Joe Donnelly, our Senator.  Where’s Joe?  There he is.  (Applause.) Congressman André Carson.  (Applause.)  And somebody who has been a great friend for the people of this state, the people of this nation, a great friend to me personally, one of the people who have ensured that America is safe for so many years -- former senator and mayor of Indianapolis, Dick Lugar.  (Applause.)   
 
On the way over here, Dick and I were reminiscing about the first foreign trip I ever took was with Dick Lugar.  He was the savvy veteran; I was the green-behind-the-ears freshman.  We went to Russia.  We were both interested in nuclear proliferation.  He had really written the book on it.  And Dick Lugar seems like a kind of relaxed guy, but if you're on a trip with him, he will wear you out.  (Laughter.)  And then at one point, we were actually held by a Russian colonel at the airport for about three hours -- which normally might have made people nervous, but Dick, he’d been around the block a few times, so he just took a nap.  (Laughter.)  It was fine.  It got cleared up. 
 
It is great to be back in Indiana, great to be back close to my home state.  I respect the Pacers.  (Laughter.)  But, yes, I am a Bulls fan.  I make no apologies.  We've had some fierce rivalries in the past, and I'm looking forward to Mr. George and others getting back on track so we can have some more playoff runs. 
 
But that's not all that I know about this state.  One of my first trips as President was to Elkhart, and I stopped by some of your manufacturing plants.  I played 3-on-3 at a school up in Kokomo -- and my team won, by the way.  (Laughter.)  When it comes to elections, I’m batting .500.  I'm one for two -- which isn't bad.  (Applause.)  The last time -- I will acknowledge the last time I got kind of smoked here in Indiana.  (Laughter.) But that’s okay.  That’s exactly why I wanted to come back.  And I don't plan to take too long in the front because I want to make sure that we've got some time for questions.
 
But when I gave my State of the Union address a couple of weeks ago, I repeated a vision that I originally laid out in Boston over a decade ago.  And that's a vision that says there’s no liberal America or conservative America, there’s the United States of America.  And I know that sometimes it seems like our politics are more divided than ever; that in parts of Indiana, the only blue you’ll ever see is on Colts signs -- (laughter) -- and in Chicago, the only red is for the Chicago Bulls.  But I still believe what I said back then, that we actually have so much more in common than not. 
 
It doesn’t always get focused on in our politics.  And I’ve seen so much of the good, generous, big-hearted optimism of people across the country these past six years to give in to the cynicism that sometimes gets peddled as wisdom around the country.
 
And we’ve come a long way these past six years since we suffered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.  Now, this morning, we found out that America’s businesses added another 267,000 jobs.  (Applause.)  In 2014, our economy created more than 3.1 million jobs, and that's the best year of job growth since the 1990s.  (Applause.)  So, all told, over the past 59 months, the private sector has added about 11.8 million -- so that's almost 12 million -- new jobs.  And that's the longest streak of private sector job growth in our history. 
 
Meanwhile, our deficits are shrinking -- they’ve gone down by about two-thirds.  Our dropout rates are down.  Our graduation rates are up.  We’re as free of foreign oil as we’ve been in 30 years.  We've doubled the amount of clean energy that we're producing.  A lot of families are saving a lot of money at the gas pump, which is putting some smiles on folks’ faces.  (Laughter.) 
 
AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you!
 
THE PRESIDENT:  You're welcome.  (Laughter and applause.)  Although I was telling somebody the other day, at some point they’re going to go back up, so don't start -- (laughter) -- going out there and ignoring the mileage when you're buying a new car.  You’ve got to keep looking for those savings. 
 
And in the single most hopeful sign for middle-class families, wages are starting to go up again.  (Applause.)  
 
So America is poised for another good year.  Indianapolis is poised for another good year -- as long as Washington works to keep this progress going.  And I was struck as I was listening to the Mayor’s introduction -- here in Indiana, we've been able to do some good things because we haven't been so worried about Democrat-Republican; we focused more on trying to get the job done.  And that attitude we're hoping to kind of infect Washington with, try to adapt that same attitude when it comes to the problems that we face going forward.  And Dick Lugar was a great example of that. 
 
We have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any nation on Earth.  But we've got to make some decisions about what that future looks like.  Are we going to be a nation where a few of us do spectacularly well and everybody else is struggling to get by?  Or are we going to have a country in which everybody has opportunity, everybody has got a chance to succeed?
 
Last year, I got a letter from Jyliann Milham, who lives up in Fishers.  Where’s Jyliann?  There she is right there, right in front.  And Jyliann has got four kids, ages six through 16 -- which means that she’s busy.  (Laughter.)  For 13 years, Jyliann was a stay-home mom.  A few years ago, she was going through a divorce, had to find a way to support her family.  She didn’t have a college degree.  Most of the jobs that she could find paid minimum wage.  As she put it, “I was a mom with four kids, and I had everything coming against me.” 
 
So Jyliann came here to Ivy Tech to invest in herself, learn new skills.  She paid her way with the help of a grant from her country and a grant from the state of Indiana.  She made the Dean’s list, earned a spot in the radiography program at IUPUI --
(laughter.)  And that’s a profession that pays pretty well.  And today, she’s a few months from graduating.  She’s ready to get started on a new career.  (Applause.)  Really proud. 
 
And in the letter she wrote, she said, it’s not just the possibility of financial security and career advancement.  She said, it’s also “something I can show my children.”  It’s about pride, and it’s about being able to point to a brighter future for the next generation.
 
And that's who I get up for every single day.  Sometimes people ask me, Mr. President, your hair is so gray -- (laughter) -- folks are always talking about you not always in the most flattering way -- how do you do it?  Well, the reason is folks like Jyliann, who are out there all across Indiana, all across the country; they’re working so hard, doing the right thing, not asking for a handout.  They just want to make sure that if they are putting in the effort and they’re meeting their responsibilities that they can get ahead. 
 
And we can’t do it for them, but we can help.  We can create structures of opportunity like we have here at Ivy Tech.  That’s something we can do for everybody.  And that’s what keeps me going.  I want to make sure that this is a country where hard work is rewarded and you get a chance to make a decent living.
And that’s what I’ve been calling middle-class economics is all about -- the idea that in this country, everybody does best when everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody has got a fair shot, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. 
 
We live in a time of constant change.  And technology has made some jobs obsolete, global competition has shipped some jobs overseas.  It’s tougher to afford economic necessities like child care or health care.  And that’s been true since long before the financial crisis hit back in 2007, 2008.  And that’s why, at a time when the economy is finally picking up steam and growing again, we’ve got to work twice as hard, especially in Washington, to help more Americans like Jyliann. 
 
So this week, I sent Congress a budget that’s built on this idea of middle-class economics for the 21st century.  It means helping middle-class families afford child care and health care, make it a little easier to pay for college without taking on loads of debt, paid leave at work, helping first-time homebuyers, helping people save for retirement.  And my budget addresses each of these issues, and it could put thousands of dollars back in the pockets of hardworking middle-class families.  (Applause.)  
 
Middle-class economics also means helping more people like Jyliann upgrade their skills.  Because this competitive economy is not going to get easier.  Folks just aren’t going to be in the same job for 30 years.  These young people who are here today, they’re going to have a bunch of different jobs, and they’re going to be -- there’s going to be the need for you to continually upgrade your skills.  It’s all about lifelong learning now, not just a one-time deal.
 
So that’s why my budget makes two years of community college free for every responsible student.  (Applause.)  Every responsible student.  Because here in America, it shouldn’t matter how much money your folks make; if you’re willing to work hard, you should be able to get that opportunity.  And you shouldn’t necessarily have $100,000 worth of debt when you leave -- (applause) -- especially if you’re going to go into a profession like teaching. 
 
And we’re not just working to make community colleges free, like Ivy Tech; we want to make our community colleges even better and more responsive, and more attuned to what’s going in the marketplace.  Right here, at this school -- one of the best in the country, not just in the state of Indiana -- (applause) -- you’re finding ways to raise graduation rates, and partner with businesses to help provide apprenticeships and other pathways to careers that pay well in fields like construction and technology.
 
Middle-class economics also means that we’re investing in what makes our economy grown -- better roads, faster Internet, cutting-edge research so that our businesses are creating high-paying jobs.  And the good news is we can actually afford to pay for all this.  We don’t have to add to our deficits if we’ve got some smart spending cuts and if we fix a tax code that is filled up with special interest loopholes and kickbacks for folks who don’t need them.  (Applause.) 
 
And in my budget, I identify some of these.  There’s a trust fund loophole that allows the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, who have benefitted more over the last 20 years than anybody when the economy has been growing, but this trust fund loophole allows the top 1 percent of Americans to avoid paying taxes on their unearned income.  That’s not something that Jyliann, when she gets her job, is going to be able to do.  The majority of people here can’t avoid paying taxes.  I don’t know why the folks who are most able to pay them should be able to avoid it.  So we need to fix that.  And then we can use the savings to cut taxes for middle-class families who really need it.  (Applause.) 
 
We know that there are companies that have stashed about $2 trillion overseas that haven’t paid U.S. taxes.  Let’s close those loopholes and make it more attractive for businesses to locate here in the United States of America.  Let’s give those folks a tax break.  They’ll create jobs right here in Indianapolis, right here in Indiana, as opposed to giving tax breaks to folks that are shipping jobs overseas or parking money overseas.  We can do that.  (Applause.)  And use one-time savings from reforming our tax code to put people to work rebuilding America.
 
These are ideas that are pretty common sense.  Now, in Washington, folks saw the budget and said, well, these are Obama’s plan -- some of them are pretty good ideas, but they’re never going to go anyplace because the Republicans control Congress and they’re not going to do it.  Well, I’m not pushing these ideas for my sake; I’m pushing them because I think this is where America needs to go.  And we should have a healthy debate about how to do the things that are necessary to help America grow. 
 
Republicans and Democrats won’t agree on everything, and that’s fine.  But we should agree on the stuff we’re talking about now.  We should agree that hardworking families should be able to get child care that’s not more expensive than sending a kid to college.  (Applause.)  We should agree that somebody like Jyliann, who wants to better herself, should be able to go to college without being loaded up with even more debt. 
 
We should be willing to agree that a great city like Indianapolis needs to keep its infrastructure in good shape in order to attract new businesses so they feel confident that they can get their products and services out to market, and that we’ve got the best-trained workforce in the world because that’s what’s going to make companies want to locate here.  Those are things we can agree on.  We should agree that the tax code should be fair, and nobody should be treated better just because they’ve got better accountants or better lawyers. 
 
So if Republicans disagree with the way I’m trying to solve these problems, they should put forward their own plans, and I’m happy to look at it.  But what we can’t do is ignore the problems and pretend that they don’t matter, pretend that families aren’t out there struggling, doing their best. 
 
And I believe in a crazy thing Dick Lugar once wrote.  Dick said, “The other party is also patriotic and may have [some] good ideas.”  (Laughter and applause.)  That’s shocking.  So I know Mayor Ballard believes the same thing, and certainly I do.  So let’s roll up our sleeves, work together, and try to get some stuff down.  That’s what all of you elected us to do -- not to turn everything into a Washington food fight, not to just refight the old partisan battles.  Let’s have a debate that’s worthy of this country, and build on an economy that is picking up steam, and make sure that it is serving everybody, that prosperity is broad-based, that not only everybody is sharing America’s success, but everybody is contributing to America’s success.  That's what we're trying to do.
 
So that's what’s on my mind.  Now, I want to hear what’s on your mind.  All right?  So we're going to start taking some questions.  And the way this is going to work is really simple.  You raise your hand.  (Laughter.)  I will call on you.  And if you could stand up, introduce yourself, try to keep your question relatively short.  I’ll try to keep my answer relatively short.  In fact, the only rule I’m going to impose is I’m going to go girl-boy-girl-boy to make sure it’s even.  (Laughter.)  Make sure it’s fair.  All right?  Okay, let’s get started.  Who wants to go first?  This young lady right here.
 
Q    Hi, I’m Erica Walsh (ph) with the College Democrats of Indiana.  I was curious how you think offering two-year free community college will impact universities with traditional four-year college?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think a lot of folks are going to still use the traditional pathway of going to a four-year university.  And if you -- if that's your best option, God bless you, that's great.  There’s always going to be a market for Indiana University or Notre Dame.  It’s not like suddenly people are going to stop wanting to go there.
 
But what the two years of free community college potentially does is for somebody who is cash-strapped, their best option may be let me go get two years in a community college; I may have already at that point gotten the training I need to go out into the workforce and get a good-paying job.  Or if I decide that I want to continue with my education, I can now transfer to a four-year institution with those credits, which means that the amount of tuition I’m paying at the four-year university is going to be reduced.  Either way you are saving money. 
 
And this is part of what we need to do to be more creative about how do young people get the skills they need without spending as much money or taking on as much debt.  This isn’t the only kind of thing we're looking at.  For example -- and I think Ivy Tech is looking at this kind of partnership with high schools -- a number of community colleges now are linking up with high schools where you can start taking college credits in high school so that by the time you get to the community college, you've already got some credits, which reduces the amount of time that you have to spend in the community college.  And that will save you money, too.
 
So the point is, is that we have this very rigid system.  We have this image in our heads -- okay, you go through high school, and then right away, you go to a four-year university.  And instead, what we should be thinking about is how do we create from the time you are in 9th grade all the way until the time that you've got a job, how do we make sure you're able to get the best skills possible at the cheapest cost. 
 
And if there are faster pathways to do that, let’s use those faster pathways.  If there are cheaper ways to do that, let’s find ways to reduce cost.  Let’s use technology in some cases.  Online learning is getter better and better and better.  And are there ways in which -- particularly, say, somebody who is a mom and has an irregular schedule and can't be on a campus all day -- are there ways that she can get some credits while still looking after a family, or working part time.  So we just have to be much more creative about these issues. 
 
The one thing that in addition to being creative we have to remember is that state legislators have a responsibility to make sure that state institutions are still getting the support that they need.  Because part of what’s happened -- (applause) -- part of the reason that the cost of higher education has gone up so rapidly is that state support for those institutions has gone down or not kept up with inflation.  So what happens is then school administrators have to make up for it with higher tuition.
 
Now, the school administrators, they have a responsibility to be more efficient.  And students and parents, we have a responsibility to be smart consumers.  I joke with Malia and Sasha -- because Malia is now at the age where she’s starting to look at colleges -- and I said, these days I hear everybody is looking for fancy gyms and gourmet food and -- (laughter) -- really spiffy dorms. 
 
Let me tell you, when I was at college, we -- the college I started at, Occidental College, it did have a gym, but like the weight room was -- it was like a medicine ball and you had -- (laughter) -- I mean, it wasn’t fancy.  It wasn’t state of the art.  The cafeteria, I don’t remember some of the stuff they served there, but I remember it wasn’t that appetizing.  (Laughter.)  I do know there was something on the menu that we called “roast beast,” because we couldn’t really tell what kind of meat it was.  (Laughter.)  It was some sort of meat product. 
 
So students and parents have to be better consumers.  The universities have to figure out how to become more efficient and also give information to young people ahead of time.  Because part of what happens these days is, in recruiting students, they’ll say, don’t worry about it, you’ll be able to afford it.  Well, it’s true that, in part, we’ve expanded Pell grants, and we cut out the bank middleman on student loans so that we could give more student loans, that a lot of young people are able to finance college that they couldn’t do before.  But if they don’t know ahead of time that when you get out you may have a $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 bill, then that’s a problem.  So we’ve got to provide them better information.
 
But, ultimately, what also has to happen is state legislators have to step up.  The federal government will do its part.  And we’ve expanded the support we’re giving to students.  But these public institutions have a special obligation.  And it is a good investment, because the states with the best educational system, that’s where companies are going to go.  It’s true not just in this country, it’s true all across the world.  (Applause.) 
 
Okay.  It’s a gentleman’s turn.  This young man right here, white shirt.  I’m not sure we’ve got a mic back here.  How loud are you?  Are you able to just shout?  No.  (Laughter.)  All right.  Kind of a soft-spoken guy.  Here we go.
 
Q    Hi.  I'm a student here at Ivy Tech.  My question is, if community college does become free, do you feel as if the value of having an associate’s degree will begin to drop? 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Absolutely not.  But I think it’s a good question.  I’ve been asked this question before.  I don’t know where this is coming from. 
 
I’ll tell you a story -- or I’ll give you an example.  There is a college in New York called City Colleges of New York.  And back in the ‘40s, ‘50s, ‘60s, the City Colleges of New York produced as many Nobel laureates as a lot of Ivy League schools. It was free, but it was considered one of the best universities in the country, one of the best college systems in the country.  Nobody thought, well, because you went to the city colleges and it didn’t cost you any money, that somehow the education was devalued.
 
So the issue is not whether you’re -- how much money you’re paying.  The issue is what kind of education is it providing you. And the reputation of the school is going to be determined by, when the graduates come out, do they have the skills they need to do the job.  And if they do, then employers are going to know it, because employers are hungry for well-qualified students.  I can’t tell you how many businesses I talk to where they say, our biggest problem is we can’t find enough workers who are trained in the fields that we’re searching for.  So don’t let anybody think that paying more means a better education.
 
One thing that we do have to think about -- and this is where community colleges can be an outstanding bridge -- is making sure that we’re reaching out to businesses and finding out what do they need for the positions that they’re hiring, and having those businesses help community colleges design training programs and departments, to serve those needs.
 
And we’re seeing a lot more work done by community colleges on that front.  And Ivy Tech does a great job also with apprenticeships in partnership with labor councils.  That’s another example of smart education.  It turns out the average apprentice gets a $50,000 starting salary once they get out of apprenticeship -- on average across the country.  So we’re doing a lot to encourage schools to expand apprenticeships and partnerships. 
 
But don’t think paying more is better.  Paying less is better.  (Applause.)  I'm always looking for a deal.  (Laughter.) 
All right, let’s see -- yes, right there. 
 
Q    My name is Amy Saxton (ph) and my question is, I pay for my daughter’s college.  I'm now saving for my grandchildren’s college with a 529 plan.  Do you see any changes that might impact me as I go into retirement?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  We initially looked at changing the 529 plan.  And the reason is that -- I have 529s for both Malia and Sasha.  For those who aren’t familiar, 529 is basically a savings account that you can put in tax-free up to a certain amount for savings for your child’s college.  The problem is when you looked at the statistics, the folks who used the most were folks who were a little more on the high end.  A lot of people couldn’t use them because they just weren’t generating enough savings to be able to take advantage of the benefit.  And so our thinking was you could save money by eliminating the 529 and shifting it into some other loan programs that would be more broadly based. 
 
But I think enough people -- and we were going to hold harmless folks like you or me who already had money in 529s, so it wasn’t as if suddenly you had to start paying taxes on it.  But just going forward we were going to change it. 
 
I’ll be honest with you.  There were enough people who already were utilizing 529s that they started feeling as if well, changing like this in midstream, even if I'm not affected right now, I like the program.  It wasn’t worth it for us to eliminate it, the savings weren’t that great.  So we actually, based on response, changed our mind, and are going to be paying for the two years of free community college with other sources, including some of the tax loopholes that we’re closing.  So, short answer to your question is 529s will not change at this point.  (Applause.) 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Got a gentleman here who really has a question, right here.  He was waving and everything.  This is going to be a good one.
 
Q    It’s going to be a good one.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I know that’s right.
 
Q    My names Eddie White with the Indiana Pacers.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, good to talk to you, man.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Basketball is really important in this state.  You know, we have this saying, “In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana.”   (Laughter.)  Years ago, on a radio show, you told me that -- when I asked you about your game, you said you were “a poor man’s Tayshaun Prince.”  Where is your game today?  And one more thing -- Tamika Catchings says she’s ready, one-on-one any time you want.  (Applause
 
THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  Well, let me make a couple of points here.  (Laughter.)  First of all, I love Tamika.  She refereed the game we played in Kokomo, so she was a witness to my domination on the court.  (Laughter.)  But when it comes to me playing her one-on-one, at this point I’m not sure.  Because I’ll be honest with you, my game is a little broke.  (Laughter.)  I’ve been a little busy.  And what happens is that sort of the risk-reward ratio starts shifting.  Like the chances of an Achilles tear or an ACL injury is increasing each month.  And then the satisfaction I get from playing diminishes because I’m so bad.  (Laughter.)  And so I think golf.  (Laughter.)  Likelihood of injury much lower.   But I still love the game.  I still love the game.
 
This is a good time for me to give a shout-out to the NBA.  Mayor Ballard mentioned the work that he’s doing with My Brother’s Keepers.  And this is something that we initiated in response to all the negative news that we were hearing about young African American men and Latino men and their interactions with police.  And we said, all right, there are a whole bunch of issues that we have to deal with on the criminal justice side, but we have to have an affirmative agenda to make sure that young people feel hope and opportunity and pathways.  (Applause.)
 
And so the idea of My Brother’s Keepers is that we are working with both the private sector and the public sector, all across the country, on mentorship programs.  The Mayor is talking to folks about doing a zero-to-three program, because we know that if you invest early in young people, they are much more likely to succeed in school.  We know that there are certain points in time where kids are more likely to drop out, or more likely to get in trouble with the criminal justice system, and so figuring out interventions.  We know that if they're reading at grade level in the third grade, then they're much more likely to graduate, so making sure that we're really concentrating on reading skills at that level.
 
And the interest and involvement has surprised even me.  People have been really generous and stepped up to the plate.  And the NBA is participating.  And some of you who have been watching the games may have seen some of the ads of some of the players talking directly to the TV screen and saying to young people, they matter.  And so I just want to commend them for the great work they're doing on that front.  Commissioner Silver has been very good on it.  So we appreciate it.
 
All righty, let’s see.  Young lady way in the back.  Right there.  Yes, you.  Hold on one second, though.  Wait for the mic to come. 
 
Q    I want to get this right so I’m going to read it off.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.
 
Q    Hi.  My name is Isabelle Keller. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  But you don't have to talk that fast.  (Laughter.)
 
Q    Okay, I’ll do it slowly.  I’m sorry. 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  You're just kind of nervous. 
 
Q    Yes.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.
 
Q    A little bit.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.
 
Q    My name is Isabelle Keller, and I’m the junior class president at my high school.  And I’m co-chairing a bipartisan event at my school next year to help engage high school students in our political process.  What advice do you have in helping attract high school students and get them more engaged to work in our country’s politics?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  That's great.  See, I love young leaders like this.  (Applause.)  They're juniors in high school taking an interest.  Make sure one of our volunteers gets -- what’s your name again?  Isabel?  Okay, let’s get Isabelle’s email and maybe I’ll send her a note to kick off the event next year.  (Applause.) 
 
One of the big challenges that we have in this country is the lack of civic engagement, the lack of participation.  In the last election, only about a third of people who were eligible to vote voted.  A third!  And you have elections that take place, for example, in Ukraine, where they're in the middle of a war, and their participation rates are 60 percent.  And here, with all the blessings that we’ve got, the notion that only a third of us would vote that are eligible doesn't make any sense.  And so it starts at a young age.
 
And I think the most important thing in any bipartisan event like that is to help young people understand that politics is not some sideshow in Washington, it’s not some cable chatter yacking, arguing.  It’s how we, together, as a community, make decisions about our priorities -- what do we think is important. 
 
When you’re a junior in high school, if you’re like Malia, if you decide you and your friends are going out, you’ve got to make all kinds of decisions about where we’re going to eat, and what movie do you want to see, and you guys take votes and you’re trying to figure out maybe one of your friends doesn’t have enough money and are we going to chip in to help make sure she can go, too.
 
Well, the same thing is true for a country.  We’ve got to make priorities.  We’ve got to make decisions.  Are we going to invest in schools?  Are we going to make sure that when you graduate you can afford to go to college?  Are we going to make sure that we’re investing in the research that creates new medicines that will help cure cancer or Parkinson’s disease?  Are we going to make sure that we’re treating our veterans the way they need to be treated when they come home?  How are we going to pay for that?  Who’s going to pay for that?  Are we going to make sure that we’re passing on an environment with clean air and clean water, and how are we going to do that?  And how are we going to balance that with making sure that we’re growing an economy, so when you graduate from college there’s a job for you?
 
Those are all the things that politics determines.  So I think, more than anything, helping young people understand that this stuff matters to them and that government is not something separate from you -- it is you.  In a democracy, it’s you that makes these decisions. 
 
And then making sure you got good pizza at the event is also important.  (Laughter.)
 
All right.  Who’s next?  Young man right here.  Right here.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.  Thank you.
 
Q    Hi, I am Mark.  First, I want to say thank you for all the things you’re doing and the things that you’re going to do for our nation.  (Applause.)  Secondly, my name is Mark Kelly.  I am actually currently the president of (inaudible.)  And my question is, what is the criteria and the requirements for this plan that you’re trying to propose?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  For which plan?
 
Q    For two years free college?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  The idea would be that you would have to maintain at least a 2.5 average.  (Applause.)  So we’re not going to -- I mean, there’s no such thing as a completely free lunch.  We want to reward people who are making the effort.  Because one of the problems we have when it comes to college education is that young people aren’t graduating fast enough, they’re dragging things out too long, and that just adds costs.  And even if they are taking out loans, so it’s technically they’re paying for it, the problem is, is that the more expensive it gets, the less likely it may be that they can pay it back.
 
So what we’re saying is you’ve got to earn it.  You’ve got to have a 2.5 average.  You’ve got to maintain attendance.  You’ve got to stay on a schedule and have a game plan at the front end so that you graduate on time.
 
And obviously, there would be special circumstances like illness or what have you, but the point is, this is not you get two years of free goofing off.  This is to help you achieve your goals.  But that means that you have to put in the effort.  So that would be the main criteria.  (Applause.)
 
All right.  Yes, right here.  Hold on a second, mic is coming.
 
Q    My name is Christylee Vickers.  I’m an OIF veteran from the U.S. Army, and I’m also the President of the Ivy Tech Collegiate Veterans Organization.  (Applause.)
 
THE PRESIDENT:  What branch were you in?
 
Q    I was in the Army and I was a mechanic.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Army strong! 
 
Q    Hooah!
 
THE PRESIDENT:  All right.
 
Q    Now, my question is, veterans get to use the GI Bill.  They also get VOC rehab if they are underemployed, or if they use their GI Bill or if their GI Bill -- if they were a Cold War veteran they never got that.  How does this affect a veteran’s use of education?  Because veterans today are dealing with unemployment rates higher than other people.  They’re dealing with unemployment altogether.  And what’s really important is getting a veteran who is dealing with post-traumatic stress or other problems to get an education and have people who understand the fact that they have issues, but at the same time they have benefits that they’ve earned and they’ve paid for through blood and tears?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  Well, first of all, thank you for your service.  We’re proud of you.  (Applause.)  For those who qualify under the post-9/11 GI Bill, you’re already supposed to be getting the benefits that you have earned.  And so nothing would change about that program.
 
As you point out, it’s not just college tuition, though, that is often a burden on our veterans.  So I am very proud of the fact that I have increased veterans funding more than any administration since I’ve been in office.  (Applause.)  And a lot of it is focused on some of the challenges that you talk about.
 
For example, we made it much easier for veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder to qualify under disability claims.  We expanded significantly the number of mental health facilities that were available.  We set up, for example, special programs for women veterans, because they’ve got different medical needs, through the VA system. 
 
Another example that’s really important is we’ve been working with states and local governments around issues of licensing.  So you said you were a mechanic.  There may be, in a lot of states, licensing requirements for you to be a mechanic, or to be an EMS officer, or to be a nurse.  And what we were finding was, is that -- I still remember I had a conversation with a guy up in Minnesota.  This is when I first came into office.  We're at a little diner, sitting down.  He had just come back from Iraq.  He had two or three tours in Iraq.  And you can imagine what an emergency medic in Iraq is dealing with in 2006 or 2007.  He decided he wanted to make a career as a nurse.  He was having to come back and he was having to start with Nursing 101.  I mean, he had to start from scratch, as if he didn't have this incredible wealth of experience and skill. 
 
And so we set out to work with state legislators and cities and others that oftentimes are responsible for licensing to say there’s got to be transferability and credit for the incredible work that veterans do on the job so that they don't have to start all over again and take a whole bunch of new classes just to get certified on stuff they already know how to do.  (Applause.)  And that's been really helpful, as well.
 
The key now is to get more employers to recognize the skills of our veterans.  So Michelle and Jill Biden, through their Joining Forces program, have been able to recruit companies all across the country -- major corporations like Honeywell, smaller companies -- to not just do job fairs, but make concrete commitments we are going to hire a certain number of veterans, a certain number of military spouses.  And hundreds of thousands of folks have come through these programs.
 
The challenge that we’ve still got is that we’ve got to find ways for veterans to upgrade their skills through this process.  And that's where things like apprenticeships -- so that folks aren’t just getting hired at the bottom rungs, but have the opportunity to maybe come in at a higher wage and a higher salary.  So we’ve got tie together the education process with the hiring process.
 
Q    Can I add to that?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Sure.
 
Q    In Indiana, there’s a bill currently in the House and the Senate that is trying to give the private sector military hiring preference, like the government does.  Within the government, you have a point system being a veteran, for serving, for having a disability rating, for being a spouse, and so on.  And in Indiana, they’re trying to pass this bill to give hiring preference, saying if you and a veteran have the same qualifications, veterans should get the job.  I feel like that is somewhat fair because they put their life on hold for two to 20 years to serve our country, and they’re taking this job experience that you’ve acknowledged, and they’re taking that real-world and they’re the fact that they always show up to work on time, they’ll pass a drug test.  And they’re willing to put in that extra mile.  Do you agree with that bill that’s trying to get passed? 
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I am always careful about agreeing with bills that I have not read because that's how I get into trouble. (Laughter.)  But if there are any state legislators here, this young lady is going to be very interested in talking to you.  And the --
 
Q    (Inaudible) we just passed that bill out of the Senate Committee this past week.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there you go.  (Applause.)  See, so -- that's your representatives and senators hard at work.  (Laughter.) 
 
But I think the basic concept of making sure that we are crediting the work that is done by veterans is really important. The sacrifices that not just veterans but their families make are incredible. 
 
And I’m proud to say that we do much better now than we did in the past.  When you read about the Vietnam era, it’s just heartbreaking how veterans were treated when they came home.  I think we, as a society -- and this has been bipartisan -- have really improved, but we still have a lot more work to do.  So the veterans’ health system, for example, is far better now than it was 30 years ago, or 20 years ago -- demonstrably better.
 
But as we saw -- remember in Phoenix, there are still situations where the wait times are too long.  Veterans are really satisfied once they get in the system, but getting the initial appointment is often too tough.  There’s too much bureaucracy.  There’s too much red tape.  So we have to just constantly keep at this and constantly keep improving it.
 
And as we end -- we’ve now ended both the Iraq War and the Afghan War, we got millions of people -- (applause) -- in terms of the combat role, we’ve got hundreds of thousands of folks who are coming home, and they're going to need help making this transition.  And obviously we still have folks in harm’s way now dealing with ISIL, as well as helping to train both Iraqi and Afghan armies.  And they're going to need help, as well.  They're still on rotations.  Their families are still missing them, and they're missing birthdays and soccer games.  And it’s a big sacrifice.
 
So thanks for the question and thanks for your service.
 
All right, we got a gentleman?  Let’s see.  This is a good bunch to choose from.  He’s got a veteran’s -- he’s got a veteran’s hat on, which makes me more biased towards him.  (Laughter.)  This is an example of your -- but are you going to ask another veteran’s question?
 
Q    No.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, right here. 
 
Q    Mr. President, thank you for coming and thanks for taking my question.  I am Chris Bowen.  I’m the student government president here, so I represent the students here in the central region of Indiana for Ivy Tech.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  That's great.
 
Q    And something we could use right away is a tax credit for books.  The costs on the books are just running away.  We need somebody to do -- some help in that area, and then the same thing with advisors.  We really need some advisors that know the classes that we need to look at the skills that we already have in our life and say, hey, have you thought about looking at an approach in a different way.  And so we really need some help from the federal government in those areas.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  I think that's a great point.  First of all, I should have mentioned at the outset, when Michelle and I got out -- when we got married, in addition to the bonds of love, we had the bonds of debt.  (Laughter.)  Our net worth was negative because we had all these student loans.  And basically for the first 10 years of our marriage, we paid more in student loan repayment than we did on our mortgage. 
 
And since we both went to law school, we both remember well the cost of books.  And for those -- and then I taught in the law school, so I remember having to assign books.  I actually cheated a little bit and put together these syllabi where I’d Xerox stuff off, and they could get a packet, and it was a lot cheaper for folks.  (Applause.)  But that's not always possible.  (Laughter.)
 
But I will say, nothing is worse than when a professor assigns their own book.  (Laughter.)  Because then you know they're getting over.  (Laughter.)  But the book costs are enormous.  They're real.
 
Now, one of the advantages of the two year of free college tuition plan -- that doesn't include room and board and books -- but what that does then is it frees up your ability to use Pell grants or other programs for books, right?  So it would relieve some of those costs and living expenses and transportation and all that stuff.  So school still wouldn’t be perfectly free, but you would now have the budget to manage that.
 
With respect to advisors, I think this is a great point.  We're actually starting at the high school level.  Michelle just had an event to celebrate counselors.  And she had -- Connie Britton, remember she played a counselor in “Friday Night Lights”?  You all watch that show?  That was a good show.  (Laughter.)   So she came to speak, but it was celebrating the role of counselors in high schools. 
 
But the same is true in community colleges with advisors.  A lot of young people have a general idea of what they want to do, but don't always know the path to get there, don't know what the requirements are, don't know what classes they should be taking.  And one of the big problems that drives up college costs is young people start down one path, they get about halfway through it, they realize, actually that's the thing I’m more interested in over there.  They switch, but all those credits that they took now are wasted.  And they’ve got to start all over again.  And that extends greatly the amount of time that it takes to graduate.  So having more counselors and investors on the front end, end up being a good investment for the system overall. 
 
Now, I haven’t talked to your president here about how schools are currently budgeting advisors, but certainly this is something that we are interested in.  And we're going to want to partner with community colleges and public universities, as well as with high schools to see what more work we can do on that front.  So good suggestions.  That's why you got elected president.  (Applause.)  Absolutely.
 
It’s a young lady’s turn.  Right here.  Right in the middle.  You, yes.
 
Q    Good afternoon, Mr. President.  My name is Dana Phillips with (inaudible) Lee & Fairman.  And my question is, with the focus being on two-year community colleges right now, what focus does your administration have for historically black colleges and universities for students outside of Indiana, where they may choose to attend these institutions with such dire straits that many of them are facing right now?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we have some outstanding historically black colleges and universities.  We’ve got some universities that historically serve primarily Latino students, who do a great job as well.  Many of those schools, because of their critical role in serving underrepresented communities, under federal legislation get additional dollars to help with infrastructure and maintain their faculties and so forth. 
 
But many of the problems that those schools face are also the ones that every other school faces, which is rising tuition, students taking out too much debt, graduation rates that are too low.  And so we’re working with them on this common set of problems.
 
Now, I will say this:  There are some historically black colleges and universities that are not doing a good job with graduation rates.  And so one of the things that we’re doing is we’re saying to schools of all stripes that we’re going to develop some measures so that parents and students can know ahead of time how those schools are performing so that we can increase consumer education.  Because what I don’t want to do is to have the federal government pay for a Pell grant or a student loan, and you go to a school where they’re taking that money, you’re getting into debt, but your graduation rate is low -- which means you may end up leaving without a degree.  You now are on the hook for this debt; if you can’t pay it, then taxpayers have to pay for it.  That’s a problem.
 
So what we’re doing is, those schools that are doing outstanding jobs serving underrepresented communities, we’re going to give them some extra help.  Schools that are not doing a good job, we’re saying to them we’re going to give you the training to get better, but at a certain point, if you don’t get better, we’re going to start advertising the fact that your graduation rates are too low.  We’ve got to have some accountability in this overall process. 
 
Gentleman right here.  There you go -- in that spiffy gray jacket. 
 
Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  My name is Frank Short (ph).  I have a question.  You’ve been our leader for six years, you have two years left.  What you be your number-one priority, and what could we, as hardworking Hoosiers, help you to do to accomplish that?
 
THE PRESIDENT:  My number-one priority is to make sure that the American people’s wages and incomes are going up -- since right now the stock market has gone up, corporate profits are at an all-time high, corporate balance sheets have never been better in history -- that’s not according to me, that’s according to Bloomberg and Fortune Magazine, not publications that generally are my big promoters.  (Laughter.) 
 
So they’re going well.  And the question now is, how do the folks who work in those companies, how do we get them more income and more wages.  Now, that can’t happen if the economy doesn’t grow.  So first and foremost, we’ve got to keep this growth going.  And one of the worries that we’re going to have this year -- the economy is doing well.  The problem is, overseas, the economies aren’t doing so well.  Europe is not doing well.  China is slowing down because they’re transitioning, and so that’s having some impact on our exports.
 
So if we want to keep the progress that’s going on right now, the best thing we can do is to make the investments that I talked about in the State of the Union to create more growth and more demand here in the United States.
 
I’ll be very specific.  This is something that you can help on:  Infrastructure.  We know that we’ve got about $2 trillion worth of deferred maintenance we need to do in this country -- bridges that are unsafe, sewer mains that are bursting, airports that are out of date.  We’ve got an air traffic control system that doesn’t take advantage of new technologies.  If we put in place a new state-of-the-art air traffic control system, it’s estimated that airlines could save 30 percent on their fuel costs because they wouldn’t be hovering around trying to wait to land.  That means 30 percent less pollution from fuel.  It means we could cut delays by about 30 percent, which I know everybody here who has flown lately would really appreciate.  It would be good for business.
 
And the good thing about infrastructure is you can’t export those jobs.  They have to be done here by American workers.  And so then those American workers have more money in their pocket, and then they go the restaurant nearby, and then suddenly the restaurant is doing a little bit better, so they hire a couple more shifts -- and you get this virtuous cycle. 
 
And traditionally, that’s been a bipartisan issue.  So if we can get Republican representatives and senators and Democratic representatives and senators here Indiana, if you guys can push them to say, let’s go ahead and move forward on an infrastructure program -- I know the Mayor wouldn’t mind doing it -- and convince them, that keeps the economy growing overall.
 
But then there are also some things that I want to do more directly for middle-class families, and that has to do with this tax system.  As I mentioned before, there was a young woman I talked about at the State of the Union -- wonderful family, the Erlers, two little boys; one of them school age, one of them is still too young and in preschool.  Their child care is more than tuition at the University of Minnesota -- or at least close. 
 
We are the only advanced nation on Earth that does not provide support to families when their kids are really young, and doesn’t invest in making sure that our child care system works the way it should.  So I’ve put forward an initiative that says let’s consolidate and make more helpful a tax credit for child care.  Let’s boost the quality of child care so that parents have confidence when they’re putting their kids someplace that teachers there are trained and they’re getting good early childhood education.  Let’s get more slots.  That’s something that is just concretely helping families right now.
 
And, by the way, it’s not just the poor family that has trouble here.  There are a lot of folks who we’d all consider middle class who have the same problem.  I mean, it’s just hard, especially now that the typical middle-class family, they’ve got two breadwinners.  Folks both have to work in order to succeed.
 
And we know how to do this.  My grandfather, when he went away to war, fighting Patton’s Army in Europe, my grandmother stayed home; she was Rosie the Riveter.  She was working on an assembly line for bombers, and this country provided child care because they knew it was a necessity.  If you were going to have women working in the workforce, somebody had to look after those kids.  So it’s not as if we don’t have any experience doing this. We just don’t do a good job.
 
Paid sick leave -- here’s another good example.  We’ve got 43 million Americans who don’t have paid sick leave.  Think about that.  Again, we’re like the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide paid sick leave.  Well, that’s money out of people’s pockets.  People will get sick.  And the idea that in a society like ours we would force people to choose between leaving a sick child at home, for example, of giving up a day’s pay, that doesn’t make any sense. 
 
So the way Hoosiers can help, the way folks all across America can help is to let your members of Congress know these things are important. 
 
And if, as I said before, Republicans in Congress -- Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and the leadership there -- if they disagree with how I’m paying for a bigger child care tax credit, if they disagree with how I plan to pay for infrastructure, if they don’t want to raise -- or close loopholes on the top 1 percent, or go after some of these loopholes that send profits overseas -- if they don’t want to do it that way, then they should show me another way. 
 
But your voice letting them know this is important -- not because it’s partisan, but because it’s the right thing to do for America.  If they hear that from enough people, then that’s going to make a difference.
 
But it goes back to what that young lady asked me about -- Isabelle, right?  See, I’ve got a good memory.  I’m not getting too old.  (Laughter.)  It goes back to what Isabelle was saying  -- our system only works when people are involved.  When people are involved and informed and taking the time to ask questions and let their opinions be known, then ultimately the government will respond.  But if only a third of the people are saying anything, the government doesn’t respond, and you get the government that we’ve seen in Washington lately -- which is unresponsive and is not doing enough.
 
So people have to get involved, and you’ve got to be informed.  And if we are, then I am so optimistic about this country.  The reason we’ve gotten out of this recession over the last six years is in part -- I’m going to go ahead and brag a little bit -- we made some good decisions.  (Applause.)  We made the decision to save the auto industry.  We made the decision to stabilize the financial system.  We made the decision to help local governments keep their teachers on the payroll and not lay them off.  We made a bunch of decisions to do infrastructure Awere in.
 
But the main reason was because people worked hard in the private sector and small businesses, and they tightened their belts and they made sacrifices, and they paid down debt and they dug themselves out of holes.  The resilience and the grit and the basic decency of the American people and our willingness to work hard and our innovation, our willingness to take risks -- it puts us in such a good position.
 
I travel all around the world.  I know the economies of every country in the world.  I know their problems, I know their advantages.  People talk about China and they talk about Germany and they talk about India -- nobody has got better cards than we do if we make good decisions together.  And somebody once said about America, we always end up doing the right thing after we’ve tried everything else.  (Laughter.)  And I’m hoping that we don’t have to try every other thing before we do the right thing right now to help middle-class families get ahead.
 
If we do that, the economy is going to be stronger, businesses are going to do better, consumers are going to be more confident, we’ll sell more good overseas, our kids will have the kind of future we want for them.  That’s what I’m going to be working on for the next two years.  I hope you help.
 
Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)

END  
3:43 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz en route Indianapolis, IN, 2/6/2015

Aboard Air Force One
En Route Indianapolis, Indiana 

12:58 P.M. EST

MR. SCHULTZ:  Good afternoon, everyone.  Welcome aboard Air Force One.  Thank you for joining us as we head to Ivy Tech Community College where the President will discuss the importance of middle-class economics, specifically making the paychecks of working families go further, preparing hardworking Americans to earn higher wages, and keeping good high-paying jobs here in America.

The President will also be joined today by a bipartisan group of elected officials, including former Senator Dick Lugar, who is on the plane with us this afternoon; Senator Joe Donnelly; Congressman André Carson; and Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard, who will actually introduce the President.

I also want to draw your attention to Ivy Tech’s renowned apprenticeship program, an initiative that serves as a model of how technical and community colleges can successfully coordinate to help students advance towards an industry-recognized credential.  To date, more than 9,000 apprentices have been awarded college degrees through Ivy Tech’s program, and apprentices have an average starting wage of north of $50,000.

And as you all know, just last week, the President unveiled efforts to align more than $50 billion in education and workforce investments to support more programs that link apprenticeships, on-the-job learning, and the chance to earn college credit.

So, with that, I will take your questions.

Q    What can you say about the Islamic State’s claim that an American hostage that has been held there has been killed?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Nedra, I saw those reports.  We're obviously deeply concerned by those reports.  We have not at this time seen any indication to corroborate those claims, but that's all we have right now.

Q    Do you have any information that she was in the area where this bombing campaign was going on?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, I know these reports are a few minutes old, so I can assure you that our intelligence community is looking into them.

Q    Can you say in general what the United States does when we conduct our airstrikes to ensure that American hostages or other hostages being held by the Islamic State are not in the vicinity?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I can tell you that, as with all of our coalition partners, the United States supports and coordinates with the Royal Jordanian Air Force as they continue to fly over Syria.  I'd refer you to the Department of Defense on how that works, but we do coordinate.

Q    Eric, can I ask you how closely has the U.S. tracked this woman’s location while she’s been in custody or has been a hostage of ISIS?  Does the U.S. know where she is, generally?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Kevin, I appreciate the question, but I don't have an intelligence assessment to read out to you at this time. I can tell you that, of course, the United States of America spares no effort to secure the safe release of any American held overseas.  That includes exhausting military options, intelligence resources, diplomatic channels, obviously the financial stranglehold we put on ISIL.  So I can speak generally to that, but that’s about it.

Q    So, Eric, what’s the intelligence community doing now to verify this?  Do we have the CIA investigating this?  What are you doing to confirm or disprove these reports?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, I don't have anything further to tell you about this.  Obviously we are deeply concerned, and as soon as we have anything additional we'll be in touch.

Q    On another topic, the Benghazi Select Committee has said they intend to interview several current and former administration officials, including several presidential aides.  How are you responding to that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I saw that press release, Nedra.  I will say that, as you know, we've cooperated with all legitimate oversight requests heretofore on Benghazi, and that’s actually been a two-year journey with Congress.  And every time I turn around, there’s another committee in Congress issuing a report exonerating us from any of the conspiracy theories Republicans have proffered over the past two years. 

But as you know, we’ve participated in 22 congressional hearings, over 125 member and staff briefings, and dozens of witness interviews.  All told, again, I believe that several of the committees have issued reports giving us a clean bill of health on this issue.

Q    So at this point, have you determined whether or not you’ll make those officials available?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I haven't even seen the request.  We’ve only seen a press release on this.

Q    Can you talk about yesterday -- the President got some criticism for his comments at the prayer breakfast.  Was he surprised by that?  And what is your response to that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I saw that commentary, Anita.  I think that the President has spoken many times to his belief in American exceptionalism.  And the President believes America is the greatest country on Earth not only because of our military might or economic prowess, or because we serve in a unique leadership role amongst the international community, but part and parcel to America’s standing in the world is our values, and those are values like equality, tolerance, fairness, civil rights, human rights, treating every human being with respect and decency -- no matter their gender, their race, their faith, their sexual identity.  Part and parcel to that and our values are holding ourselves up to our own values and our own standards. 

So the President believes that when we fall short of that, we need to be honest with ourselves and look inward, and hold ourselves accountable.  That’s what gives us the moral standing around the world -- not just because we assert it, but because we hold ourselves accountable.  So whether that’s our elected officials, whether that is a free and vibrant press, a judiciary system that’s independent -- those are the values the President was talking about.

Q    Did he think he would have that kind of criticism?  Was he surprised by that?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Fair question.  I have not spoken with him about the reaction to the remarks, but I know that there’s a failed presidential candidate, an RNC chairman from the past who have criticized us.  But I don’t have a response to either of those two people.

Q    He’s also being criticized by some Republicans, like Rob Portman, who’s not one of these conservative pundits.  He’s a Republican senator who said that he’s troubled by the idea that the President was drawing some sort of moral equivalency between what ISIS does and things done in the name of Christianity.  Was he trying to draw a comparison and a sense of equivalency between those two things?  Or does he reject that characterization?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, what I think the President was trying to say is, over the course of human history there are times where extremists pervert their own religion to justify violence.  And that’s what the President was trying to talk about yesterday.

Q    How did President choose the national prayer breakfast to make those points? 

MR. SCHULTZ:  Again, I think if you look at the entire text of the remarks, you’ll see how well suited they were for that audience and that setting.  And again, I think the President -- I’d refer you to his speech earlier this year at the United Nations General Assembly, where he spoke very compellingly about the United States’ standing in the world and how part and parcel to that standing is us living up to our own values and our own principles.

Q    Can I ask about the event today, actually?  He’s talking about I guess things that came up in the State of the Union and the budget, but it’s the first travel since the budget.  There’s a couple members of Congress -- you said a few that are around -- but has he talked to leadership in the last week about his budget rollout and what he wants?  Has he talked to any congressional leaders?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don’t have specific conversations to read out to you at this time.  But I can tell you that we are absolutely in touch with House members, Senate members and their staffs of both parties, working through the President’s priorities and what he laid out in the budget, and a lot of the proposals, like today’s, on making the first two years of community college free for all Americans, working through those to achieve -- make that a reality.

Q    Has the President garnered any bipartisan support for the community college proposal?  When he announced it, he talked about Senator Alexander being from a state that does a similar thing.  But to date, I'm not aware of any Republicans who have signed on, or even said anything good about his approach to doing this.  Has there been progress behind the scenes?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I'm so glad you asked, Julie.  I went back on the calendar and I looked that we announced this proposals 27 days ago.  So I don’t have -- I'm not surprised that Congress hasn’t passed this yet, because it is a significant proposal.  And as you point out, it is an idea that has engendered bipartisan support.  This was a program that was started under a Republican governor in Tennessee, adapted by a Democratic mayor in Illinois, and now you’ve got a Democratic President talking about it in Washington.

So while this is not law yet, we believe the conversation just started, and we’re looking forward to lifting up those ideas today in Indianapolis. 

Q    On the conversation on the AUMF with Congress -- what’s the timetable for sending up language?  And can you quantify at all for us the behind-the-scenes sort of conversations and consultations that have gone on about what that resolution should say?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I believe my colleague, Josh Earnest, has put the timetable at “relatively soon.”  I'm going to stick with that. 

Q    But he didn’t rule out today.  Can you now rule out --

MR. SCHULTZ:  I can rule out today, yes.  I can tell you that consultations have been robust; that right after the New Year break, the President sat down with leadership.  This was a topic that came up in the discussion.  And it was clear that leaders on the Hill wanted to do this -- wanted to get this done.  It was also clear that this is a priority for the President and that they wanted language from the White House.  They also wanted to be consulted in advance of sending that language up.  So that’s what we’ve been doing -- robust, intensive, discussions, bicameral and bipartisan.

Q    Who’s been involved in those discussions?  Do you have senior administration officials on the Hill talking to people about this?  Cabinet members, the National Security Advisor?

MR. SCHULTZ:  We have a whole team that’s working on this.  That includes folks from our White House Counsel’s Office, our national security team, our legislative team, and maybe even a communications person or two.

Q    I’ve got some labor questions for you, Josh -- or, excuse me, Eric.  I’m sorry. 

MR. SCHULTZ:  I’ll take it as a compliment.

Q    First of all, when looking at the West Coast ports, there’s a potential of a shutdown of those ports in the next seven to five days.  And we’re interested in knowing if the White House would be willing to do anything along the lines of what Bush did and employ Taft-Hartley to force those negotiations to go forward and for the workers to go back to work.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes, Annie, I appreciate the question.  And I can assure you that officials at the White House and across the relative agencies are closely monitoring the situation.  Right now, our belief is that both sides should be resolving this at the negotiating table.

Q    Is Taft-Hartley something that’s off the table for you, or is it something that you’d consider?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think it’s just a premature question, because we believe both sides ought to resolve this at the negotiating table.

Q    Do you have any sense that they’re about to come to some sort of resolution?  I mean, you’re talking about $2 billion a day in loss.

MR. SCHULTZ:  We believe this ought to be resolved at the negotiating table.  We believe they’re working expeditiously to do so, and that’s how it should be resolved.

Q    On another labor question, or similar lines -- U.S. oil workers have -- negotiations have broken down with U.S. oil workers in nine plants, which could potentially have a terrible effect.  I’m curious if the White House has been involved at all in helping those negotiations?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I don't have any specific pieces of involvement to read out to you at this time.  I can tell you this is another situation that we are monitoring, and it’s yet another situation that should be resolved at the negotiating table through the sort of collective bargaining that has been known to help be an instrument to resolve these in the past.

Q    But there’s not a federal monitor in that case -- mediator in that case.  Is that right?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I believe that’s correct.  I just meant in the colloquial term that we are monitoring it.

Q    Okay.  Just one other question.  On the Department of Energy -- the Department of Energy pulled a $1 billion commitment for a clean oil plant in Illinois.  And this is a project that had been sort of a marquee clean oil project for quite some time.  And I’m just curious, like, why was the administration’s mind changed on this particular project?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Yes, I’d refer you to the Department of Energy for details on their decision to close out the federal support for the project.  I think it was becoming clear to them that it wasn’t going to be able to meet the budgetary deadlines to use funding that Congress had set aside for it.

Q    Is it any sort of retreat from the clean coal efforts that the administration has backed?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Absolutely not.  As you know, the administration has shown unprecedented support for clean coal technologies.  And I’d refer you to our budget released this week that includes a new proposal for tax incentives to support clean coal.

Q    On arming Ukrainian rebels, there seems to be growing political pressure for this.  And yesterday, Josh seemed to open more of a door by talking about a level of bloodshed that may call for arming them.  Where does the White House stand with this decision?  Are they holding off until the President can speak with Chancellor Merkel?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Julie, I know your question was premised on rising political forces, but I just want to be clear that a decision like this made by the President would only be made by what’s in the best interest of the national security of the United States. 

I don't have an update for you on this.  As you know, Josh has discussed this at length over the past few days, specifically our hesitations on this, which I’m happy to repeat include that given the military might of Russia, no amount of lethal aid that we would supply could bring the Ukrainians on par with that.  And then, also that our fundamental belief is this is something that should be resolved diplomatically.

Q    Also, in Yemen, rebels have taken over and dissolved parliament.  What’s the White House response to that?  And does that change our counterterrorism strategy there?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I’ll do both.  We have seen the reports that the Houthis held a public press conference in which they announced a new presidential council and their intention to dissolve the Yemeni parliament.  We are deeply concerned with this unilateral step.  We believe that this doesn't meet the standard set by the U.N. Special Representative for Yemen, in which our goal is to convene both parties to achieve consensus.

And in terms of our counterterrorism operations, as the President said a few days ago now, those remain uninterrupted.  And I don't have a change for you on that.

Q    And just one more time, can you just confirm that the United States is not investigating or trying to confirm whether or not this American female hostage was killed?  You haven’t said whether they're investigating or not.  I’m asking if they are.

MR. SCHULTZ:  Let me be clear:  We have not yet seen any indication to corroborate ISIL’s claim, but I’ll also be clear that members of the intelligence community are absolutely looking into this.

Q    Can I ask about Susan Rice’s event today?  I know she’s probably going to get into a lot of the details of the document itself.  But can you speak a little to how the document came together, who put it together, who wrote it, why you’re putting it out now, and what has changed in the five years since you last put out the National Security Strategy?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Thank you, Kevin.  As you point out, National Security Advisor Susan Rice is going to have a lot more to say on this, I believe maybe right now, at Brookings.  But I can tell you in terms of the process that was put together, it is the culmination of a very long process, an exhaustive process, a process that takes into account senior leadership of the departments and agencies.  And that includes Department of Defense, Department of State, our partners who work on trade issues, the intelligence community.  And this also includes high-level discussions with both Ambassador Rice and the President.

Q    Any thoughts on why you’ve decided to put it out at this point in time versus -- I know you said you’re going to start working on it in 2013, so why is it now that it’s coming out?

MR. SCHULTZ:  I think it’s important to just take a step back and realize that this is a document that provides strategic perspective to span several years, offering direction that has to go a little bit deeper than the daily headlines.  So therefore, it’s not unusual to take a substantial amount of time to put it together and then put it out.

Q    Was there any effort or any thinking that went into getting it out before you request new authorization from Congress for the operation against ISIL?  I mean, was there a thought that you should have a document that reflects the governing principle before you ask for specific authority to strike Iraq, Syria and maybe other places?

MR. SCHULTZ:  Well, again, on the AUMF, we believe that we already have the authority under the 2001 AUMF.  The President also believes that we present a much stronger front to the international community when both branches of government are speaking together.

In terms of the timing, I don’t believe it’s tied to the AUMF language, but I do think it’s tied to the budget.  Because, as you’ll see, the budget that we released earlier this week conforms to the National Security Strategy.   

END 
1:16 P.M. EST

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Remarks by National Security Advisor Susan Rice on the 2015 National Security Strategy

Good afternoon, everyone.  Thank you, Strobe, for your kind words and to everyone at Brookings.  This was my home for six peaceful years.  I miss it.  Looking around the room, I see many friends who challenged and encouraged me — and who continue to generate some of the best ideas for America’s foreign policy.  So, I’m very pleased to be here.

This morning, President Obama released his 2015 National Security Strategy.  Fundamentally, it’s a strategy to strengthen the foundations of America’s power—political, economic, and military—and to sustain American leadership in this new century so that we can surmount the challenges of today and capture the opportunities of tomorrow.

Our strategy is guided by the same four enduring national interests we laid out in the 2010 National Security Strategy – security, prosperity, values, and a rules-based international order.  Our interests are enduring, but in many respects, 2015 is a whole new ballgame.  Much has changed in the last five years.  

As a nation, we are stronger than we’ve been in a long time.  Since President Obama took office, we arrested the worst financial crisis and repaired the biggest collapse in world trade since the Great Depression.  In 2010, unemployment in the United States was almost 10 percent.  Today, businesses have added more than 11 million new jobs, and unemployment is down to 5.7 percent.  In 2010, our deficit topped $1 trillion; today, we’ve cut that in half, to less than $500 billion. Our kids are graduating at higher rates, and millions more Americans have healthcare.  We’ve unlocked a domestic energy boom that has made us the world’s number one producer of oil and gas, strengthening our energy security – with huge ripple effects for global oil markets and geopolitics.  We’ve brought home almost 170,000 American troops, responsibly ending two long and costly ground wars and re-purposing our military strength so we can better respond to emerging threats and crises.  The diversity and creativity of the American people continue to be a wellspring of American power—driving innovations that are revolutionizing everything from the way we hail a cab to the way we treat disease.  By fortifying our foundational strengths, America is in a better position to confront current crises and seize the opportunities of this new century.     

Yet, few know better than we the complexity of the challenges that America faces.  Every day, I start my morning with a briefing that covers the most sobering threats and the difficult problems we confront around the world.  These include the fall-out from the Arab uprisings, Russian aggression, Ebola, cyber attacks, and a more diffuse terrorist threat.

But, too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective.  Yes, there’s a lot going on.  Still, while the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or the Cold War.  We can’t afford to be buffeted by alarmism and an instantaneous news cycle.  We must continue to do the hard work of leading a complex and rapidly evolving world, of seizing opportunities, and of winning the future for our children.  

Strong and sustained American leadership remains essential, as ever.  Think for a minute where the world would be today without decisive U.S. leadership.  Ebola would be spreading throughout West Africa and likely to far corners of the world.  Instead, America galvanized the world to roll back this horrible disease.  Without us, Russia would be suffering no cost for its actions in Ukraine.  Instead, the ruble is in a free fall, and Russia is paying dearly for flaunting the rules.  Without us, there would be no military campaign or sixty countries countering ISIL’s advance.  There would be no prospect for a global deal on climate change; no pressure for Iran to be at the negotiating table; and, no potential for trade that meets a higher standard for our workers and businesses.   

Nonetheless, there is a loud debate in Washington about American leadership in the 21st century.  But the issue is not simply when we should have started arming Syrian rebels or whether we should provide lethal weapons to Ukraine.  It is about the nature of U.S. leadership for the future.  With this national security strategy, we stake out a much larger role for America in shaping our world, while anticipating the challenges to come.

Before I go through the elements of this strategy, I want to note how our approach may differ from what others may recommend.  We believe in the importance of economic growth, but we insist upon investing in the foundations of American power: education and health care; clean energy and basic research.  We will always act to defend our country and its people, but we aim to avoid sending many thousands of ground forces into combat in hostile lands.  We have renewed our core alliances, while also building partnerships with emerging powers and neglected regions.  We are committed to fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, even as we rally the world to meet the threats of tomorrow—malicious cyber actors and deadly pandemics; climate change and competition in space.  We focus – every day – on the crises in the Middle East and Ukraine, but we are simultaneously rebalancing to the regions that will do more to determine the course of the 21st century—East Asia and India, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas.

So, with that in mind, let me outline the four ways we are advancing our core interests. 

The first element of our strategy is to secure the U.S., our citizens, our allies and partners through a dynamic global security posture in which we employ our unique capabilities, forge diverse coalitions, and support local partners.  This approach builds on a more secure homeland and a national defense that is second to none.  President Obama is committed to maintaining the best trained, best equipped, and best led military force the world has ever known, while honoring our promises to service members, veterans, and their families. To ensure success, we call on Congress to support responsible investments in our national security, including by ending sequestration. 

To counter today’s threats, we’re implementing a comprehensive counter-terrorism approach that takes account of how the enemy has evolved.  As al-Qa’ida core has been decimated, we’ve seen the diffusion of the threat – to al-Qa’ida affiliates, ISIL, local militias, and home-grown violent extremists. This diffusion may for now reduce the risk of a spectacular attack like 9/11, but it raises the probability of the types of attacks that we’ve seen in Boston and Ottawa, Sydney and Paris.  To meet this morphing challenge, we are combining our decisive military capabilities with local partnerships, with the financial tools to choke off funding, and the international reach of our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies.  We’re strengthening the capacity of weak states to govern their territory and provide for their citizens, while countering the corrosive ideology of violent extremism.  Fighting terrorism is a long-term struggle.  There will be setbacks, and there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.  We have to work across multiple lines of effort in diverse contexts to be effective.

To degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, we assembled a broad coalition that is confronting this scourge from all angles—from training Iraqi security forces and supporting the moderate Syrian opposition to encouraging political reforms in Iraq that foster greater inclusion.  Together, we’ve taken out thousands of ISIL’s fighters; destroyed nearly 200 oil and gas facilities that fund their terror; and pushed them out of territory, including areas around Baghdad, Sinjar, and the Mosul Dam.  Just last week, ISIL conceded defeat in their months-long siege of Kobane.  And with the world united in condemnation of its horrific executions, ISIL should know that their barbarism only fortifies the world’s collective resolve.

Our counter-terrorism strategy is still at work in Afghanistan, where we ended our combat mission as planned.  Now, we are focused on supporting a sovereign and stable Afghanistan that will not be a safe haven for al-Qa’ida terrorists.  Even as we help develop Afghan security forces, we will continue to keep pressure on al-Qa’ida through a capable counterterrorism mission.

American leadership remains essential not only to tackling today’s threats but also to addressing the global challenges that will define the nature of security for our children and grandchildren.  And here, too, we have to lead with our heads, enlisting partners to work alongside us.

American leadership is addressing the danger of nuclear proliferation. No threat poses as grave a risk to our security as the potential use of nuclear weapons.  That is why we continue to secure nuclear material and strengthen international norms against the use of all weapons of mass destruction, moving us closer to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. 

American leadership rallied the world to toughen sanctions against Iran.  Through diplomacy and sustained economic pressure, we’ve halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolled it back in key respects.  Now, we must give diplomacy a chance to finish the job.  If diplomacy fails, it will not be for lack of good faith by America or the P5+1.  And then, if necessary, we would be stronger in leading our partners to dial up the pressure and in making sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. 

American leadership is addressing the dangers of pandemic disease.  Our agenda to improve global health security doesn’t end with Ebola.  It strengthens the capacity of states and international institutions to prevent, detect, and respond to future outbreaks, before they become deadly epidemics.

American leadership is addressing the very real threat of climate change.  The science is clear. The impacts of climate change will only worsen over time—even longer droughts, more severe storms, more forced migration.  So we’re making smart decisions today that will pay off for generations, like our ground-breaking climate commitment with China that will limit both our nations’ greenhouse gases and bend down the global emissions curve. 

American leadership is also addressing the pressing need for enhanced cyber-security.  As more of the world comes online, we’re leading an international effort to define the rules for how states engage with one another in cyberspace, while ensuring the Internet remains a powerful tool to drive future advances.  At the same time, we are committing new resources to bolster the security of U.S. critical infrastructure, government networks, and other systems against cyber threats.

Second, we will expand prosperity by using our renewed economic strength—our resurgent economy and improved energy security—to bolster the global financial system, advance an open international economic order, and reduce inequality and poverty. 

With the world’s top universities, premier research facilities, and a culture of entrepreneurship, America already has the keys that will drive our knowledge economy through the coming century.  And, with critical investments in technology and innovation, we’ll keep sharpening our technological edge to keep the American economy at the forefront of innovation.     

We’re opening more markets to American businesses, workers, and farmers while forging trade agreements that set high standards for fair wages, safe workplaces, and environmental protections.  And, to make sure new trade and growth benefit people around the world, we’ll continue to pursue a sustainable development agenda, grounded in our commitment to end extreme poverty. 

We’ll work with Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority so we can finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership, thus securing a free trade agreement with many of the world’s fastest-growing economies.  We’re working to make rapid progress with the European Union on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, expanding what is already the largest trading relationship in the world.  And, we are committed to renewing and enhancing the African Growth and Opportunity Act to further deepen our investment in that promising region. 

Africa is primed to become a major center of global growth.  We’ve ramped up our commitments across the continent, including through the President’s Power Africa initiative to connect millions more people to reliable electricity.  Through Feed the Future, we’re helping farmers plant better crops and raise their incomes, while also improving the food security of the region.  And last August, for the first time ever, President Obama hosted some 50 African leaders to chart ways our nations will do more together and seize opportunities for U.S. businesses to invest in Africa’s future.   

Third, at a time when citizens in every region are demanding greater freedom and more accountability from their governments, our strategy is to defend democracy and human rights, combat corruption, promote open government, and stand with civil society.  We do so by living our values at home, growing the ranks of capable democratic states, and defending universal rights.  We’ll help countries in transition—like Burma, Tunisia, and Sri Lanka—become more open, more democratic, and more inclusive societies.  We’ll support established democracies that are in danger of backsliding.  We’ll empower citizens and NGOs in places where they are under attack.

At the same time, President Obama has deepened our commitment to promoting that basic American value: equality. We believe everyone should be able to speak their minds and practice their faith freely.  We believe all girls deserve the very same opportunities as boys.  We believe that all humans are created equal and are worthy of the same love and respect—including our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters.  These beliefs are fundamental to who we are.

Advancing equality is both morally right and smart strategy.  If we reduce disparities, which can lead to instability and violence, we increase our shared security.  Reams of empirical evidence demonstrate how countries do better—across every metric—when they tap the talents of all their people.  So, we champion the rights of vulnerable communities—those targeted by abuse or excluded from society—and counter escalating cycles of hatred that can spark violence.  Mass killings threaten our common security and diminish our shared humanity, so we affirm that governments have a responsibility to protect civilians.  We’ll continue to lead global efforts to prevent atrocities and hold accountable those who commit the worst abuses. 

We’re also reaching out to populations that America can ill-afford to neglect.  With more than half the world under the age of 30, our strategy invests in and empowers young people through educational exchanges and entrepreneurship.  Our Young Leaders initiatives in Africa and Southeast Asia identify and mentor the next generation of talent to grasp opportunity.

And, because we seek to lead by example, we’ll keep working to make our own laws more inclusive, to sustain our prohibitions against torture, to protect civil liberties and privacy, and to improve transparency on issues like electronic surveillance.  We’ve reduced the population of Guantanamo by nearly half, and while there are tough challenges ahead, we mean to keep going until we finish the job.    

Finally, our strategy leverages American leadership to uphold the liberal international order, which has served the world well for 70 years, by reinforcing rules-of-the road and strengthening and diversifying our alliances and partnerships in every region of the world.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a heinous and deadly affront to long-standing international law and norms.  In lock-step with our European allies, we have built a coalition of partners around the world to impose steep political and economic costs on Russia, in contrast to its cost-free invasion of Georgia.  And, we will continue to turn up the pressure, unless Russia decisively reverses course.  At the same time, we’re providing vital economic support to help the Ukrainian people write a better future for their country, and we are strengthening our enduring alliance with Europe—by reassuring our allies in Eastern Europe and investing in modernizing NATO to meet emerging threats.

As we update the existing international system, our strategy is to enhance our focus on regions that will shape the century ahead, starting with the Asia-Pacific.  Our rebalance is deepening longstanding alliances and forging new partnerships to expand cooperation.  We’re investing in ASEAN, the East Asia Summit, and the Pacific Islands Forum to strengthen their capacity to enforce regional norms, respond to crises like natural disasters, and resolve disputes peacefully, so that the Asia Pacific remains a region of dynamic growth and opportunity.

With China, we’re building a constructive relationship that expands practical cooperation across a wide spectrum of issues from global health to non-proliferation, even as we confront real differences over human rights, cyber-enabled economic espionage, and the use of coercion to advance territorial claims.  President Obama’s recent trip to India strengthened another critical partnership that will deliver economic and security benefits for both our nations and the broader region, and help lift up the lives of more than a billion people.  In furtherance of our relationships throughout the region, I’m pleased to announce today that we have invited Prime Minister Abe of Japan and President Xi of China for state visits, and we look forward to welcoming other Asian leaders to the White House this year—including President Park of South Korea and President Widodo of Indonesia.

At the same time, we seek a Middle East that’s more secure, prosperous, and where democracy can take root.  That’s the ultimate vision we’re working toward with partners throughout the region.  We’ll continuously strengthen the unique bonds that unite the peoples of Israel and America.  Our commitment to Israel’s security remains enduring and unshakeable.  We refuse to give up on a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.  We’ll keep investing in the ability of our Gulf partners, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to deter aggression, even as we deepen our cooperation on regional challenges.  Since Libya, Syria, and Yemen confront persistent violence and instability, we’ll protect our people, work with partners to shrink terrorist safe havens, and support those working to achieve political and social reform.  

To be sure, the region’s challenges are many, including: a generational transformation; citizens’ legitimate demands for political and economic reform; sectarian, ethnic, and tribal tensions; and Iran’s destabilizing influence.  But, we’ll keep leading international efforts to reduce insecurity and, drawing on all sources of our influence—not just our military—we will work to foster progress that endures.  

Closer to home, Latin America and the Caribbean is a region that’s experienced rapid growth, with a large and growing middle class, vibrant democracies, and still untapped potential.  It’s grappling with challenges like transnational crime and trafficking that have serious implications for our own security.  Thanks in part to our opening with Cuba, which turns the page on 50 years of fruitless policy, we have new opportunities to strengthen our partnership with our neighbors.  We’re investing particularly in Central America to improve governance and citizen safety to address some of the root causes of mass migrations, like we saw last summer.
 
Across a range of issues, with an array of partners, the United States is proudly shouldering the responsibilities of global leadership.  As President Obama made clear during his State of the Union address: “The question is not whether America leads in the world, but how.”  The answer is: we are pursuing an ambitious, yet achievable agenda, worthy of a great power.  The President’s Budget directly supports his strategy.  Our national security leadership is united around this shared vision and agenda.  And, we are eager to work with Congress to restore the vital bi-partisan center to U.S. foreign policy.

Our unparalleled leadership is grounded in America’s enduring strengths and guided by a clear sense of purpose.  We approach challenges using all levers of our power—vigorous diplomacy, broad-based development, economic leverage, our technological advantages, the talent and diversity of our people, and, when needed, our military might.  We rally partners to enact sustainable solutions when challenges arise.  We strive to set the highest standards by our own example.  And, we lead with our eyes fixed firmly on the future, alert to opportunities to make the world safer and increasingly just.

President Obama has two years left in his term—and two years is plenty of time.  This national security strategy is a blueprint for what we intend to get done over the next two years – from degrading ISIL and opposing Russian aggression, to leaving behind a world that can more effectively meet the dangers of climate change and disease, cyber threats, and extreme poverty.

If we run through the tape, America will be better and more sustainably positioned to continue leading – on the issues, and in the regions, that will shape our future.
One thing I can guarantee you: President Obama is going to leave everything on the field, and so will the rest of us.  The challenges ahead will surely continue to be many and great.  Progress won’t be quick or linear.  But, we are committed to seizing the future that lies beyond the crisis of the day and to pursuing a vision of the world as it can and should be. 

That’s our strategy for sustaining the leadership that future generations deserve.  Anything less would not be worthy of the American people or of our great nation. 

Thank you.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the President on the Passing of Representative Alan Nunnelee

Michelle and I were saddened to learn of the passing of Representative Alan Nunnelee.  Alan represented the people of his beloved Mississippi for two decades, first as a state senator and then in Congress.  A proud son of Tupelo, Alan never wavered in his determination to serve the men and women who placed their trust in him, even as he bravely battled the illness that ultimately took his life.  As a Sunday School teacher and a deacon at his church, Alan believed deeply in the power of faith and the strength of American families.  Today, our thoughts and prayers are with Alan’s family – his wife Tori, their children and grandchildren, and all those who loved him. 

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Fact Sheet: The 2015 National Security Strategy

Fact Sheet:  The 2015 National Security Strategy

Today, the United States is stronger and better positioned to seize the opportunities of a still new century and safeguard our interests against the risks of an insecure world.  The President’s new National Security Strategy provides a vision and strategy for advancing the nation’s interests, universal values, and a rules-based international order through strong and sustainable American leadership.  The strategy sets out the principles and priorities that describe how America will lead the world toward greater peace and a new prosperity.

  • We will lead with purpose, guided by our enduring national interests and values and committed to advancing a balanced portfolio of priorities worthy of a great power.
  • We will lead with strength, harnessing a resurgent economy, increased energy security, an unrivaled military, and the talent and diversity of the American people.
  • We will lead by example, upholding our values at home and our obligations abroad. 
  • We will lead with capable partners, mobilizing collective action and building partner capacity to address global challenges.
  • We will lead with all instruments of U.S. power, leveraging our strategic advantages in diplomacy, development, defense, intelligence, science and technology, and more.
  • We will lead with a long-term perspective, influencing the trajectory of major shifts in the security landscape today in order to secure our national interests in the future.

We will advance the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners by:

  • Maintaining a national defense that is the best trained, equipped, and led force in the world while honoring our promises to service members, veterans, and their families.
  • Working with Congress to end the draconian cuts imposed by sequestration that threaten the effectiveness of our military and other instruments of power.
  • Reinforcing our homeland security to keep the American people safe from terrorist attacks and natural hazards while strengthening our national resilience.
  • Transitioning to a sustainable global security posture that combines our decisive capabilities with local partners and keeps pressure on al-Qa’ida, ISIL, and their affiliates.
  • Striving for a world without nuclear weapons and ensuring nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of irresponsible states and violent non-state actors.
  • Developing a global capacity to prevent, detect, and rapidly respond to biological threats like Ebola through the Global Health Security Agenda.
  • Confronting the urgent crisis of climate change, including through national emissions reductions, international diplomacy, and our commitment to the Green Climate Fund.

We will advance a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity by:

  • Strengthening American energy security and increasing global access to reliable and affordable energy to bolster economic growth and development worldwide.
  • Opening markets for U.S. goods, services, and investment and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses to boost our economic competitiveness.
  • Advancing a trade agenda – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – that creates good American jobs and shared prosperity.  
  • Leading efforts to reduce extreme poverty, food insecurity, and preventable deaths with initiatives such as Feed the Future and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
  • Proving new sustainable development models like the President’s Power Africa Initiative.

We will advance respect for universal values at home and around the world by:

  • Holding ourselves to the highest possible standard by living our values at home even as we do what is necessary to keep our people safe and our allies secure.
  • Promoting and defending democracy, human rights, and equality while supporting countries such as Tunisia and Burma that are transitioning from authoritarianism.
  • Empowering future leaders of government, business, and civil society around the world, including through the President’s young leaders initiatives.
  • Leading the way in confronting the corruption by promoting adherence to standards of accountable and transparent governance.
  • Leading the international community to prevent and respond to human rights abuses and mass atrocities as well as gender-based violence and discrimination against LGBT persons.

We will advance an international order that promotes peace, security, and oppor­tunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges by:

  • Working with partners to reinforce and update the rules of the road, norms, and institutions that are foundational to peace, prosperity, and human dignity in the 21st century. 
  • Strengthening and growing our global alliances and partnerships, forging diverse coalitions, and leading at the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
  • Rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific through increased diplomacy, stronger alliances and partnerships, expanded trade and investment, and a diverse security posture.
  • Strengthening our enduring commitment to a free and peaceful Europe by countering aggression and modernizing the NATO alliance to meet emerging threats.
  • Pursuing a stable Middle East and North Africa by countering terrorism, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and reducing the underlying sources of conflict.
  • Building upon the success of the U.S.-Africa Leaders’ Summit by investing in Africa’s economic, agricultural, health, governance, and security capacity.
  • Promoting a prosperous, secure, and democratic Western Hemisphere by expanding integration and leveraging a new opening to Cuba to expand our engagement.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Letter from the President -- National Security Strategy

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 3043), I transmit herewith the National Security Strategy of the United States.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA