Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Earnest: Good afternoon, everybody.
You seem pretty cheery today,
which I'm pleased to hear.
I do not have any announcements at the top,
so we can go straight to questions.
Kathleen, do you want to start?
The Press: Sure.
I just wanted to go back to the President's remarks
this morning.
He inched a little closer to perhaps
endorsing Hillary Clinton, with
his comments about future generations
being surprised that a woman could hold the Oval Office.
Is that what he meant by that?
Again, leaning into the idea that he's rooting for her.
Mr. Earnest: I think the President was leaning into
the idea of a value statement,
that the United States is a country where people who
work hard and are willing to play by the rules are not
going to be limited by their last name or what they look
like or their religion or even their gender,
but rather that America is a place where if you work
hard, your dreams can come true.
And the President wants to preserve that promise for
future generations.
The President has certainly talked about that quite a
bit and certainly when it comes -- and it certainly
applies to the scenario when women are competing for the
highest elected office in the land,
and that they should be evaluated based on their
ideas and their values and their agenda.
And it's the kind of country I think that we all aspire
to, and that certainly is the value that the President
was giving voice to today.
The Press: So is he ready to see a woman President?
Mr. Earnest: I think the President indicated in his
remarks that the country is ready for that.
But the candidates are going to be evaluated based on
their values and on their priorities and on their agenda.
Well, look, there already has been a tough debate
already about who the next President will be,
and that debate will only intensify in advance
of November.
And that's the way that we're going to choose
our next President.
And the President will be an eager participant
in that process.
The Press: And then one more on politics.
There is an announcement of remarks coming from Speaker Ryan
later this afternoon, as I'm sure you're aware.
Do you think Democrats should be preparing for the
possibility that he could be the Republican nominee?
Mr. Earnest: Well, it's my understanding that the
meeting that Speaker Ryan has convened is to assure
everybody, including Democrats,
that people don't need to be concerned about the prospect
of him running for President anytime soon,
at least not this year.
But I'll let him speak for himself about his own plans.
I think Democrats are going to have a forceful argument
to make, and the President will be part
of making that argument.
In some ways, he already has been.
But there will be plenty of time to consider exactly how
that argument lines up and who the candidates will be
over the course of this year.
And Republicans have their own process that's
established for nominating a candidate for President.
They have their own set of rules that guide how that
process will work.
And I understand that Speaker Ryan is the chair of
the Republican convention, so he certainly -- I suspect
he's spent a little time brushing up on the finer
points of those rules over the last few weeks.
And ultimately, it will be up to Republicans to decide
who they want to represent their party
in the general election.
The Press: So Democrats should take that at face value?
They should not do any preparation or at all be
ready for the --
Mr. Earnest: I think that
Speaker Ryan is hoping that everybody will take him at
face value when he delivers his comments later today.
But I'll let him speak for himself.
The Press: And just one more,
looking ahead to next week.
I assume the White House is following sort of the
fallout from the Panama Papers and that Cameron has
been caught up in some discussion.
I'm wondering if you could just tell me whether or not
the White House is following that and if we should expect
the President to defend the Prime Minister in any way on
this front when he's there next week.
Mr. Earnest: Well, I know that the White House has
been following this story.
There's been a lot of reporting that's been
generated by journalists who have analyzed the data that
was released.
And in some cases, this has caused politicians in places
like Iceland and China and, yes,
some places in Europe who have been connected to that
information in one way or another.
I know what Prime Minister Cameron has done is he's
released an unprecedented amount of information about
his taxes in order to help his constituents understand
exactly what has taken place.
I don't know to what extent that will satisfy the
inquiries that he and his office have received.
But the argument that the President made when speaking
from this podium last week is that the United States
has been a strong advocate of greater transparency in
the international financial system.
And there are a number of steps that the Obama
administration has advanced in pursuit of that goal,
but there obviously is more work that we believe
can be done.
This is an important principle because we know
that there are bad actors that capitalize on the
opaque nature of some international financial
transactions to try to launder money, to evade U.S.
sanctions, and to store the profits of corruption.
So greater transparency into those transactions would
enhance the ability of the United States and our
international partners to combat those efforts.
So we're going to continue to advocate
for transparency.
And it sounds like Prime Minister Cameron has opted
for greater transparency to help the British people
understand exactly his role in this story.
And I don't know whether or not this will continue to be
the topic of intense interest when
President Obama travels to London next week.
I would anticipate that while the President is in
London, he'll have an opportunity to take
questions from all of you, and we'll see at that point
whether or not you and your British counterparts
consider this to be a relevant,
newsworthy topic at that point.
The Press: Another likely topic will be Brexit.
Can you describe whether or not the President -- what we
should expect from him on that front,
and whether or not he's at all concerned about meddling
or weighing in too much on an issue --
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't have any specific set of remarks
to preview for you.
The position that we have previously expressed is that
the United States benefits from a strong UK that's part
of the EU.
And ultimately, the British people will have to decide
exactly what they want the future to hold with regard
to their country's relationship with the rest
of Europe.
And I think that, in any case,
the President will respect the sovereignty of the UK
and the right of the British people
to make that determination.
But when the President is taking questions from the
press corps, I wouldn't be surprised if this is at that
point considered a newsworthy topic that comes up.
Tim.
The Press: I want to talk about Brazil a little bit.
Lots of difficult news as Brazil -- more votes
expected on impeachment proceedings for
President Rousseff in coming days.
And then today, the IMF downgraded its forecast of
the economy -- going to shrink 3.8 percent this year
instead of 3.5 percent.
Just wondering how the White House -- how concerned is it
that these economic problems could hit
the U.S. eventually.
Mr. Earnest: I did not see the news about the new
economic assessment from the IMF.
But the kinds of political challenges that's facing the
government in Brazil does not typically have a
positive impact on the broader economic outlook
of the country.
So I'm not surprised to hear that assessment from the IMF.
I don't think any of the developments,
either in the political realm or in the economic
realm, have changed the President's assessment of
the situation there.
When the President did his news conference in Argentina
alongside President Macri, the President voiced his
confidence in the durability of the Brazilian government
and Brazilian democracy to weather the political
crosswinds that they're enduring right now.
And the President had confidence in the ability of
that governing system to resolve the concerns that
have been raised and allow the Brazilian government and
the Brazilian people to move forward.
They obviously have a busy summer ahead.
There are Olympic Games that they're preparing to host
that will put Brazil in the spotlight.
And we certainly are hopeful that the British government
will be able -- or that the Brazilian government will
confront these challenges, will deal with them
according to the rules that are codified in their
constitution and in their system of government,
and move forward in a way that can,
over the longer term, begin to strengthen their economy.
Obviously, when you have a country as large as Brazil
that has as many economic ties with the United States,
it's in our interest to see their economy strong.
It's in our interest to see the country's economy
develop in a way that they can continue to be an
important trading partner with the United States.
Prior to the President's trip to Brazil in the first
term of his presidency, we spent a decent amount of
time talking about how important those economic
ties were, and how direct the consequences are for our
trade relationship, both here in the United States
when it comes to our economy,
but also the impact that it has on the economy of Brazil.
But, look, even in light of the developments that you
have cited, the United States and President Obama
himself have confidence in the durability of the
Brazilian democracy to weather those challenges.
The Press: And I know you haven't seen all the details
of the IMF -- the wider IMF report today,
but they're also quite gloomy about the global economy.
Japan, Russia and Brazil all don't pan out too well.
How worried is the White House that if this continues
it will lead to more global protectionist sentiment?
Mr. Earnest: Well, over the last couple of years,
the President's economists have noted that the chief
headwinds to the U.S. economy
right now are emanating from overseas.
There is a direct impact on the U.S.
economy that is deeply integrated with the global
economy when we see some of our partners encounter some
economic difficulties.
But this also goes to the argument that the President
himself has made quite a bit, recently,
that the United States has an economy that's the envy
of the world -- that the United States' economy is
durable, that the United States' economy is strong.
And the investments that -- and the strategy that we
committed to in the President's first couple of
years of his presidency are now reaping significant
benefits for the American people and the American economy.
That's a good thing.
And it is what makes the U.S.
economy the envy of the world.
And the President's view is that even in this situation
where some of our significant trading partners
are encountering some economic difficulties,
this would be exactly the wrong time to retrench.
What we should be doing is helping U.S.
businesses look for additional
opportunities overseas.
We know that's good for our broader economy.
It's good for creating jobs.
It's good for economic growth.
We know that actually places upward pressure on wages --
that jobs in the United States that are tied to
exports actually pay higher, on average,
than the typical American job.
That is all the more reason that we should be looking
for additional opportunities to help American businesses
do business overseas.
And that's one of the reasons that the President
continues to be an ardent advocate of congressional
approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
This would expand the ability of U.S.
businesses to engage in commerce with countries in
the Asia Pacific region, some of whom are the most
economically dynamic countries in the world.
And that is the path to the kind of economic growth and
success that the President would like to see
the United States enjoy over the long term.
Justin.
The Press: While the President was speaking at
UChicago last week, he said that he saw encryption as
one of the major judicial issues of the time,
and judges sort of sorting out the difference between
privacy and security.
And so I'm wondering if that's another signal,
especially in light of the draft that's been
circulating on Capitol Hill and leaked in part last
week, that the President prefers Congress not act
here, and that this issue be sort of decided in
combination between the courts and the sort of
broader national conversation he's talked
about and you've talked about.
Mr. Earnest: Well, let me just restate the principle
-- and I think it's worth doing.
The President believes in strong encryption.
He believes that strong encryption has important
value both for our economy and our national security.
He also believes that strong encryption can be critical
in protecting privacy.
All those are good things.
All those are things that the President
strongly believes.
And it's why he believes that strong encryption
should be robustly deployed.
At the same time, we should not set up a situation where
bad actors -- terrorists -- can essentially establish a
safe haven in cyberspace.
And I recognize, and the President recognizes,
that there is some tension in those principles.
And resolving that tension both in the near term,
but also over the longer, will be challenging.
And one of the reasons that that will be challenging is
not just because these are principles that are really
important, but these are also principles that we're
trying to enforce in a very dynamic environment.
Technology companies are regularly innovating and
finding new ways to encrypt information.
And ensuring that we have a policy and a resolution of
those two principles that can adapt to that
ever-changing environment will be critical to the
long-term success of this policymaking process.
What I will say is, after describing how complex that
situation is, I'll just observe that there are some
quite simple things that Congress has struggled to do.
I think the example that's at the front of my mind
today is, the administration two months ago put forward a
specific, documented requested for $1.9 billion
in funding to fight Zika.
This is a virus that we know threatens pregnant women and
their newborn children.
This is a virus that our scientists and public health
professionals are increasingly worried about.
But yet we haven't seen Congress do anything on a
common-sense matter of public health and public safety.
That's quite a disappointment,
and I think it reflects the level of dysfunction in
Congress right now, particularly because we see
too many Republicans dragging their feet to act
on what should be a rather common-sense piece
of legislation.
That does diminish my expectations when it comes
to assessing Congress's ability to tackle something
as complicated as an encryption policy.
The Press: Well, does that mean that you don't think
Congress will pass something?
And whether they have not passed Zika funding or not
taken a vote on your Supreme Court justice,
do you think that they are not capable of passing
legislation that adequately addresses this issue?
Mr. Earnest: I think both are in doubt.
Both their ability to pass legislation and their
ability to put together constructive legislation
that would pass are both questions that are
significantly in doubt.
The Press: Russia and Saudi Arabia have reportedly
reached an agreement to freeze oil production.
So I'm wondering if that's something the U.S.
was in touch with Saudi Arabia about,
if it's something that we expect to hear about next
week, because it kind of cuts both ways economically.
Because it would probably increase gas prices,
but could give a boost to the U.S.
energy sector -- whether this is an agreement that
the White House supports.
Mr. Earnest: I haven't seen the news reports about this.
I have been asked about previous news reports
hinting at an agreement like this that did not prove to
-- that didn't pan out and that didn't prove to be true.
So why don't we take a closer look at this specific
news report before commenting on it.
But we'll take a look and get back to you.
The Press: And one last one.
Is it fair to read the President's comments earlier
today that female soccer players should have their
work equally valued as an endorsement of the U.S.
Women's National Team's complaint to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission?
And if so, or even if it's more of a broad push by the
President, does he think there should be any sort of
change in U.S.
soccer since women are paid dramatically less than males?
Mr. Earnest: I think the point of the President's
remarks today was just to acknowledge the facts of
that specific situation.
What sort of ruling is handed down by the EEOC is
something that the commissioners there will
have to conclude on their own.
I think the President is just sort of acknowledging
the paid disparity that exists in a variety of
professions, including when it comes to the best soccer
players in the world.
And that's what the President was alluding to.
The Press: On the U.S.
National Team, as the President of the United States,
would he like to see something change at U.S.
soccer, whether it be leadership or whether it be
them adopting a different pay structure?
Mr. Earnest: Well, again, I haven't talked to him about
this specific issue.
And I'm certainly not versed in all of the policies that
may govern the setting of salaries for the men's and
women's team.
I think the President's observation today, however,
is that there is a significant disparity based
solely on the gender of the players,
and that seems unfair.
What consequences that has for policy decisions that
eventually have to be made, I'll acknowledge that I
don't know what that policy process is.
But I think that disparity and the inherent unfairness
of that disparity I think is pretty obvious to anybody
who's been paying attention -- and the President has
been paying attention.
Bill.
The Press: Does the President think that the CPT
joke shared by Secretary Clinton and Mayor de Blasio
is in poor taste?
Mr. Earnest: I will admit, Bill,
I didn't see the joke that you're referring to.
The Press: CPT was used as basically a racial
reference, but they claim that it was actually a
politician reference.
But questions have been raised about the propriety
of the use of the phrase.
Mr. Earnest: Well, it's hard for me to comment on it
because I just haven't --
The Press: Is he aware of it?
Mr. Earnest: I'm not sure that the President is aware
of it.
I haven't spoken to him about it.
The Press: Why don't you ask him?
Mr. Earnest: Okay, will do.
Kevin.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
Does the President believe that, before now,
Americans were ready for a female President,
or just now?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think the President has believed
for some time that the country is ready
for a woman President.
The Press: This is not novel,
this is not America is finally getting it right?
He feels like this has always been the case?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't know if it's always been the
case, but I think it has been the case for some time
now that the country is ready for a woman to be
elected President of the United States.
Look, for the reason that the President traveled to
this location, this newly designated national
monument, is to acknowledge the fact that for more than
our country's history -- if I'm doing the math right;
I think I am -- for more than half of our country's
history, women were denied the right to vote.
And that certainly is going to inhibit the ability of a
woman to serve as President of the United States.
But only because of the progress that many women --
and men -- fought for, we have made our country more
fair, that we have made our country more just,
and we certainly have enhanced the justice that is
built into our voting system.
And it is only because of that hard-won progress that
we have reached a situation more recently that it is
possible for a woman to be elected President of the
United States, that that's a practical reality.
That's a good thing.
And that reflects what our founders envisioned in terms
of forming a more perfect union.
Now, the irony is that we see too many Republicans on
the other side of aisle trying to use the voting
system to make it harder for Americans,
who are otherwise eligible to vote, to cast a ballot.
And that's moving in the wrong direction.
And the irony is and the disappointment is that some
Republicans have acknowledged that this is a
purely -- that they have a purely partisan motive for
trying to erode the progress that we have made
in our system of voting.
And that's something that we need to improve.
The Press: Does the President feel like he's
done -- well, let me ask this way: Is he satisfied
from Ledbetter to today in the advancement that he has
made to ensure equal pay for equal work?
And if he's dissatisfied, what's the source of
that dissatisfaction?
And what's he doing about it?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Kevin, the President has taken a
number of steps since being elected President to try to
make equal pay for equal work a reality in this country.
And you alluded to the fact that the very first bill
that the President signed into law was the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
That made it easier for workers to get access to
information and to take their case to court to
ensure that they were being treated fairly
by their employer.
But the President has done a number of other things,
including creating the National Equal Pay Task Force.
He has advocated for the passage of the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
The President issued even an executive order that
prohibits federal contractors from
discriminating against employees who inquire about
their level of compensation.
And we've been working closely with both the
Department of Labor and the EEOC to better target the
enforcement of equal pay laws.
There are already some rules that are on the books that
could be effectively used to ensure that people are being
treated fairly.
The President has often made the case that this isn't
just an issue for women; that a lot of the women who
are being discriminated against in the workplace and
are not getting the same amount of pay for their work
that their male colleagues are getting are women who
are part of two-paycheck households.
They have a husband who is also working hard trying to
put food on the table, and they've got kids that
they're trying to provide for.
So this isn't just a women's issue.
This is a families' issue.
And it's among the reasons that the President has been
such an ardent advocate of this policy because his top
domestic priority has been to expand economic
opportunity for the middle class.
And if we're going to do that successfully,
we need to make sure that those families that require
or rely on two paychecks to pay the bills,
that both of those paychecks are fair.
The Press: So what grade are we talking about?
An "A"?
A "B"?
An "I" for incomplete?
Mr. Earnest: Well, look, there are a lot of people
who can observe the progress that we've made,
and I'll let them draw their own conclusions.
But certainly the President is proud of the progress
that we have made to make our country more fair,
to make sure that that fairness actually shows up
in the paycheck every month.
The Press: How interested is the President in
declassifying the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Report?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the President is certainly
somebody who has advocated for reforms to our country's
classification system.
You'll recall back in 2009, the President issued an
executive order that essentially established the
National Declassification Center that would expedite
the consideration for declassification of a number
of government records.
There's also an effort underway to establish an
open and uniform system for placing controls on
sensitive but unclassified information so we can ensure
that information is handled appropriately when it's
sensitive, but also that we can live up to the
President's commitment to transparency that should
apply even in a national security setting.
I can't tell you whether or not the President has read
these 28 pages.
I can tell you that the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence is currently doing a
declassification review of those pages.
And the President certainly has confidence in the
ability of those national security professionals to
consider those documents for release.
The Press: You said you can't tell me if he
has read them.
Has he been asked?
Have you asked him personally?
Has he taken a look?
This is in news.
He's insatiably curious.
I imagine that he has access,
that he probably has seen them, no?
Mr. Earnest: I just -- I don't know whether
or not he's --
The Press: You haven't had a chance to ask him?
Mr. Earnest: I have not asked him about that.
The Press: I'd appreciate if you get the opportunity,
I'd certainly like to get --
Mr. Earnest: Got a long
list of questions for him today, I guess here, huh?
(laughter)
The Press: Yes.
Double work.
Just one last button-up on that one.
Given the suggestion -- and I'm reading it now and I've
read almost all of the 858 pages -- that there is a
section that is not classified that reads in
part: "The joint inquiry developed information
suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some
of the September 11th hijackers while they were in
the United States."
It has also been alleged or suggested by some that that
support may have come, in fact,
from the Saudi leadership in the kingdom.
Ahead of the trip there, do you suspect this will be
part of the conversation?
And have you heard an allegation such as the one
I've just offered?
Mr. Earnest: Well, this something -- this actually
was an allegation that was considered by
the 9/11 Commission.
This was the outside group that was formed.
And there were national security experts who
investigated 9/11 and issued a report both chronicling
what they knew about what happened,
and proposing a set of reforms that they encouraged
the government to implement to try to prevent it from
happening in the future.
A part of the conclusion of that report states:
"Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary
source of al Qaeda funding.
But we have found no evidence that the Saudi
government as an institution or senior Saudi officials
individually funded the organization."
So there already has been a close look at the kind of
support that al Qaeda, including al Qaeda in the
United States may have received.
And this was included in a declassified 9/11 Commission
Report that was released a number of years ago.
The Press: So it is not likely -- just to button it
up -- that this will be a topic of conversation during
the visit?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't know whether or not this
will come up.
The fact that it's been in the news more recently might
change that equation.
But I think it's true that the people who have looked
carefully at this, the experts who have looked
carefully at this and put together the 9/11 report did
not find any direct links between the Saudi government
providing support, financial support to al Qaeda.
The Press: The senior Saudi government.
They don't say anything about
the junior Saudi government.
Mr. Earnest: The Saudi government as an institution
is the way they described it,
and that's what I was referring to.
Jerome.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday that
everybody should visit Hiroshima.
Does the President want to go to Hiroshima in May?
Mr. Earnest: Does the President count as "everybody"?
The Press: Well, he said "everybody, "
-- and I mean "everybody," I quote him.
Does the President want to go in May?
And then how likely is it to happen?
Mr. Earnest: I don't have an update in terms of the
itinerary of the President's trip to Asia in May.
He obviously will be in Japan for the G7 summit there.
And I don't know at this point whether or not any
side trips will be on the President's itinerary.
The President, on previous trips to Japan,
has sort of faced a question about whether or not to
include a stop in Hiroshima.
And look, the symbol of Hiroshima is the significant
and even, in some ways, tragic ability that mankind
has to wreak terrible destruction.
And one of the reasons that the President has started
and routinely convened a Nuclear Security Summit is
in pursuit of a world without nuclear weapons.
And that continues to be a long-term goal.
The President himself has indicated that that's
unlikely -- that goal is unlikely to be achieved
during his lifetime, but there certainly is progress
that we can make in pursuit of that goal.
And one place to start is by better safeguarding and
securing nuclear weapon -- nuclear materials and
nuclear-weapon technology that could spread and that
could proliferate.
That's been the point of the summit.
So obviously there's probably -- symbolically,
there's no more powerful illustration of that
commitment than the city that contained the victims
of the first use of that weapon.
But at this point, I don't have an update for you on
his itinerary, but we'll keep you posted.
Chris.
The Press: Josh, another anti-transgender bathroom
bill, much like the controversial North Carolina
law, is percolating in Tennessee.
The state attorney general, a Republican,
said the measure could result in the loss of an
estimated $1.2 billion for the state
and Title 9 funding.
Does the administration agree that the measure could
result in loss of federal funding for the state?
Mr. Earnest: Well, this is a question that individual
agencies have been considering after previous
states have passed these bills into law.
I don't know what mechanism is in place for individual
agencies to consider those kinds of questions in
advance of a law being passed,
but you can check with the Department of Education for
greater clarity on that.
What I can tell you is that the administration is firmly
committed to promoting and defending equal rights of
all Americans, including LGBT Americans.
And specific laws like this that seek to target and
marginalize one small segment of the population is
nothing less than mean-spirited.
That was true when they passed similar provisions in
places like North Carolina and Mississippi,
and it's true even as it's being considered in a place
like Tennessee.
What's also true in Tennessee is that the state
has thrived economically in part because of their
ability to make their case to businesses across the
country that they've got a great climate
for doing business.
Passing mean-spirited bills through the state
legislature is not a good endorsement
of your business climate.
And ultimately, individual businesses will have to make
their own decisions about this.
I think what is also true is that states like Tennessee
and, to a certain extent, North Carolina and
Mississippi, have a long history even over the last
couple of generations of working through questions
of civil rights.
And President Obama has talked on a number of
occasions about the important progress that our
country has made with regard to civil rights.
This is a good illustration that the fight for civil
rights is not over, and demanding equality for every
American and ensuring that those Americans are not
singled out or targeted because of their sex or
their race or what their last name is,
or their religion, or who they love or who they are is
a struggle that continues.
And the President, every time,
is going to be on the side of equality and fairness and
justice for every American.
The Press: The reviews for the federal agencies of the
North Carolina and Mississippi laws remain ongoing.
Do you have an expectation for when they'll be complete?
Mr. Earnest: I don't have an expectation for that.
You'll have to talk to the individual agencies about that.
They're obviously coordinating their
activities among themselves, and they're obviously doing
this work in conjunction with the Department of
Justice, because there are important legal questions
that have to be resolved.
But I don't have an update for you in terms of when
that work will be concluded.
Suzanne.
The Press: CNN interviewed former Mexican President
Vicente Fox, obviously talking about Donald Trump
and his proposals, his politics.
It's not the first time he has criticized,
saying that he's "arrogant," he's "egocentric, "
and he also called him a "dictator."
But he did have a message for the American people.
He said, "Wake up, America."
Does the President feel as if the American people need
to "wake up" during this election?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think the President -- let me say
a couple things about that.
The first is that I think the President has observed
in public on a number of occasions that he is
confident that Mr. Trump will not be elected President.
That's something that the President, himself,
has said directly.
More generally, the reason that we have elections in
this country is it's an opportunity for the American
people to consider the values and agenda and track
record of those who are competing for the highest
elected office in the land.
And the decision that is ultimately reached by the
voters is one that has significant consequences.
The American people have chosen to invest significant
power and authority in the President of the United
States, and making this decision is an important one.
It's one that has significant consequences not
just for the United States but for other countries
around the world.
And I think that's part of what -- it sounds like,
at least -- I didn't see the interview,
but it sounds like that's part of what President Fox
was referring to.
Again, ultimately the President will have an
opportunity to make clear why he believes the
Democratic nominee is the one that should be elected
and is the one that he prefers.
But he'll have an opportunity to make that
case certainly once the Democratic Party has chosen
a nominee, and presumably he will join that debate in
earnest once the Republicans have chosen their nominee
as well.
The Press: And interestingly,
the Freedom of Information Act -- some of
Bill Clinton's presidential papers were released today.
And this was back in October of 1999,
when there was a possibility that Donald Trump would be
running in an independent party for President,
for the nomination.
And these are notes from his aides,
President Clinton's aides, before he was preparing for
a CBS News interview -- if asked about whether or not
his own problems in the White House, his scandal,
contributed to celebrities wanting to be President.
And his aides said here, according to the notes,
that he responds saying, "I think it may say something
about the way the media covers politics these days,
but I have the utmost confidence in the American
people to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Regardless of who runs for President or how they're
covered, the public eventually sees through all
the smoke and mirrors.
They, after all, have the ultimate power
at the ballot box."
Does President Obama see it that way?
And what do you make of the fact that there's that
argument that was made 17 years ago?
Mr. Earnest: Look, I think it sounds like based on what
you've read that President Clinton was expressing the
same kind of confidence in the American people and the
American voters that President Obama has
routinely expressed confidence in.
and it doesn't mean that every election goes down
exactly the way the President would hope,
but it does mean that, particularly in a national
election that will get as much attention as the
presidential election will, the President does continue
to have an abiding confidence in the American
people and in American voters to take their
responsibility to choose the next President quite
seriously and to do the diligent work required to
make the best choice.
The Press: And finally, Defense Secretary Carter has
formally notified Egypt and Israel that the U.S.
is considering reconfiguring its resources in the Sinai
by increasing its reliance on remote sensory technology
as opposed to troops because of the threat of ISIS.
Can you confirm that?
Mr. Earnest: What I can tell you is that
the United States remains
as committed as ever to the success of a
multinational force and observers.
This is part of the treaty that was signed between
Israel and Egypt, and the United States has played an
important role in ensuring the success of that treaty.
And what is true is that since the decisions were
made about how to observe that treaty and its entering
into effect, there have been great advances in technology
that will allow some of the work that is currently done
by MFO forces in the Sinai to be supplemented
with new technology.
This has the potential to actually make this
monitoring effort even more effective.
And the changes that the Department of Defense is
prepared to make are consistent with this desire
to supplement our efforts with new technology.
What sort of impact that has on the presence of the
U.S. military in the Sinai Peninsula,
I'd refer you to the Department of Defense on that.
But I can tell you as a policy matter that the U.S.
commitment to this treaty and this mission has never
been stronger.
And that's evidenced by the fact that the United States
government is prepared to deploy new equipment and new
technology to supplement the ongoing efforts of those
forces that have been in the Sinai Peninsula
for several decades now.
The Press: -- it's more dangerous on the ground for
U.S. troops because of the threat of ISIS?
Mr. Earnest: Well, obviously,
we're aware of the threat from extremists in that part
of the world.
That threat has been in existence since those forces
were deployed there.
And there have been a number of steps that have been
taken over the years to enhance the force protection
measures that are in place.
But the policy changes that are being implemented by the
Department of Defense are a reflection of newly
available technology that can ensure the success of
this MFO operation.
Jordan.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
I want to ask you about comments made by New Orleans
Saints head coach Sean Payton after one of his
players was shot dead over the weekend.
He said, "I hate guns."
And he said, "If that opinion in Louisiana is
super unpopular, so be it."
And that "I guess the idea that we need them to fend
off intruders, that's some silly stuff
we're hanging on to."
I'm wondering if the White House agrees with those
comments, and if anyone from the White House has reached
out to Sean Payton as a potential ally
in your gun control efforts.
Mr. Earnest: I'm not aware of any conversations with
Coach Payton about this specific issue.
It sounds like he's somebody who was speaking from a
position of great tragedy, and he clearly has lost a
former player and somebody who he's said publicly meant
a lot to him.
And there's a lot of pain and emotion in that quote
and in that expression.
The policy position that the administration has taken is
somewhat different than that,
but the administration has been forceful in advocating
for the adoption of common-sense measures that
would keep guns out of the hands of people who
shouldn't have them.
And we can do that in a variety of ways without
undermining the constitutional rights of
law-abiding Americans.
And the President continues to be a forceful advocate
for those kinds of policies.
It's unclear what exactly transpired on Saturday night
that resulted in the death of Will Smith,
the former New Orleans Saints football player.
That situation is still under investigation.
It's unclear whether or not a different policy could
have prevented that loss of life.
But, look, it does serve to illustrate that gun violence
is too common in our society.
And there are things that we can do to reduce
that gun violence.
We can't prevent every act of violence from occurring,
but we can certainly take some common-sense steps that
would reduce gun violence that don't undermine the
constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.
And the President believes strongly that those measures
should be taken, and he's going to continue to
advocate for them.
Olivier.
The Press: Josh, I have a couple
about classified information.
The first, I'm trying to understand what you said,
that the President is getting information from the
news media about the ongoing troubles with
Secretary of State Clinton's emails.
He's never received an aide's assessment of the
technical national security or political ramifications
of this controversy?
Mr. Earnest: I can tell you, Olivier,
that the President has -- and I mentioned this
yesterday -- but the President has neither asked
for, nor received a briefing on the confidential elements
of the ongoing investigation.
Obviously, the President has talked about this issue
publicly because he's read the newspaper and there have
been many details of the case that have been reported
publicly -- in large part because Secretary Clinton
has asked that her emails in question
be released publicly.
And there are thousands, tens of thousands of pages
of emails that all of you have combed through
and reported on.
And that has informed the President
about the situation.
The President also can draw upon his own knowledge of
her work there.
But it is true that the President has not received a
specific briefing -- and he hasn't asked for one -- on
the confidential, ongoing investigation that's being
conducted by the Department of Justice.
The Press: Okay.
And then I was struck, watching the briefing
yesterday, how much distance you put between the
administration and the prosecution of leakers and
whistleblowers and the like yesterday.
Because when you talk about no one with politics in
their job description shapes these investigations -- the
President appoints the Attorney General;
the President nominates a number of federal prosecutors.
The President, as we've seen on immigration,
has fairly wide latitude in deciding the priorities of
prosecution, where these law enforcement resources go.
How can you -- I mean, it really sounded to me
yesterday like you were putting an enormous amount
of distance between the President
and those prosecutions.
Can you elaborate on what you were trying to say?
Mr. Earnest: I guess the point that I was trying to
make -- and I was trying to be intentionally strong --
there is a question about this principle of whether or
not criminal investigations are going to be conducted
independent of political influence --
The Press: So individual ones, though, right?
Because you're not disputing that the President sets the
tone, the Attorney General sets the tone,
there are guidelines?
When Eric Holder enacts new guidelines covering the way
the Justice Department will handle, say, reporters,
in one of these cases, they're shaping the general
tenor of these investigations, right?
You're saying -- what you're talking about are individual
ones, aren't you?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I guess I'm not sure that I detect a --
The Press: Well, in principle versus
in a specific case.
Mr. Earnest: Well, look, this question -- well,
let me say it more affirmatively.
The President is committed -- as he described to
Chris Wallace from Fox News, the President is committed to
ensuring that individuals who have conducted criminal
prosecutions do their work without influence from
politicians or anybody that's involved in politics.
Criminal prosecutions must be conducted
and guided by the facts.
They must be led in the direction that the evidence
takes them.
And that is the way that we can ensure that people can
have confidence in our criminal justice system.
If people feel like the facts of an investigation
are not being guided by the evidence but are being
guided by the politics, that's going to undermine
our basic conception of justice.
And it should.
And that is true regardless of which party
is in the White House.
In fact, I think that's why there was so much concern
raised in the previous administration when there
was evidence that politics was interfering with
decisions about hiring U.S. attorneys
across the country -- that this goes to a core
principle that is unique in America.
I acknowledge that there are also other countries where
we regularly travel where there is a little more
tolerance for political influence in the criminal
justice system and in the law enforcement system.
We don't have that tolerance in this country.
And I think the President -- I haven't looked recently at
the President's remarks when he introduced Attorney
General Lynch as his nominee for that important role,
but it's worth going back -- and I'll do it
when we're done here.
I'm confident that one of the reasons the President
chose her for this job is because of her career-long
commitment to focusing on facts and evidence,
and not considering politics when making law enforcement
or prosecutorial decisions.
She had a long track record of that because she was the
U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York,
where she handled a series of high-profile cases where
politics threatened to intrude,
and she was steadfast about preventing
that from happening.
So I think that should be an indication both of the
President's commitment to this principle,
but also an indication that the President has chosen the
right person for the job.
The President has chosen somebody who doesn't just
believe in this principle, but who,
over the course of her career,
has demonstrated a commitment to this principle
even in a difficult environment.
There are some pretty high-profile criminal cases
in New York that she was responsible for handling.
And she has demonstrated throughout her career an
ability to keep those political forces at bay and
make sure that prosecutorial decisions were being made
based on the facts and on the evidence,
and not on politics.
And that certainly is the expectation that the
President has for the way that she does her job on a
daily basis as Attorney General,
and it's his expectation that that's the way that she
and the investigators who are taking a look at
Secretary Clinton's email system will
do their job as well.
Does that answer your question?
The Press: No, but we can take this up later.
I don't want to monopolize the rest of the briefing.
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
I'm not trying to intentionally avoid
answering your question.
The Press: I'm not impugning her record
or her principles.
I just don't know that there would have been this many
prosecutions of this many leakers if this were not a
priority of the President or the people that he nominates
to key positions.
So what I'm saying is that these -- you talked about
these prosecutions yesterday in terms that to me,
at least, sounded like you were trying to push them off
and put them -- you said, well,
some of these started in the previous administration,
these are all independent prosecutors.
And what I'm saying is, as we know from -- again,
as we know from immigration policy,
the President can set general principles for how
these law enforcement resources are allocated.
And so I just don't -- I just was not eager to let
you push these off and say, essentially,
these aren't really -- this is not our record,
this is these anonymous provisional prosecutors
doing this.
Mr. Earnest: Well, look, I guess the other way I could
try to answer your question is to -- you sort of posed
the counterfactual, right?
That if the President hadn't sort of raised this publicly
as an issue of concern, protecting classified,
sensitive national security information,
that maybe the Department of Justice would have handled
it differently.
I guess the way that I would pose it back to you is,
if there were evidence that the President were having
those kinds of conversations with the Department of
Justice, like that information is not really
that important, you don't need to prosecute,
that would be a huge story.
That would be a huge problem.
Because I think the question that you would rightfully
raise is, did the President reach out to the Department
of Justice and those prosecutors to raise
concerns about the case because he didn't think the
information was that sensitive?
Or is it because this is an individual who voted for him
or contributed to his campaign?
Or somebody who had written an op-ed favorable of his
national security policy?
Any time that the President -- that there is evidence
that a President would somehow intervene or try to
influence the outcome of an individual prosecution would
be a significant problem.
And there would rightly be questions raised.
So as others were sort of entertaining the
counterfactuals, I think the counterfactual that I would
raise is, what if the President did express some
preference on this?
I think reasonably all of you would be really
uncomfortable with that.
As an American, I think I would be, too.
Because I think the problem -- the concern that would be
raised is, is this decision that's supposed to be made
be a career federal prosecutor being made on the
merits, or is it being influenced by a politician
that may have an ulterior motive?
The Press: This is where the general principle versus an
individual case distinction come in, for me.
Mr. Earnest: But we can certainly continue this.
And I think that there are --
The Press: Thank you.
Mr. Earnest: The last thing I will say on this is that I
have asked for more publicly available information about
sort of what is often cited in terms of these questions
about how the Department of Justice has chosen to pursue
investigations of people who are accused of leaking
classified information.
And so we can talk about it in the briefing tomorrow,
or in private tomorrow if everybody else is bored with
this conversation.
But there is more that I hope that I can present
that we can discuss.
Mark.
The Press: Josh, is the NSC meeting tomorrow at CIA a
decision-making meeting about ISIS strategy
or just an update?
Mr. Earnest: Well, tomorrow's meeting is
consistent with the regular cadence of meetings that the
President convenes with his national security team to
take a look at our campaign to degrade
and ultimately destroy ISIL.
The President typically uses these meetings where senior
members of his team participate to get an update
on how things are going.
And those regular in-person updates are valuable to
testing how effective the strategy is.
And one of the keys to our success is going to be our
ability to be nimble and to look for opportunities,
and to detect opportunities early for investing more in
certain elements of our strategy to try to yield
additional progress.
So it's not uncommon for the President to make decisions
in the context of these meetings.
I don't know whether or not a decision will be announced
in the context of tomorrow's meeting.
But the President will deliver a statement at the
conclusion of the meeting.
And so you will get an opportunity to hear from him
directly about what he believed was accomplished in
the discussion.
The Press: On the subject of CIA,
is there any White House reaction to the statement by
Director Brennan that he would refuse a direct order
from the President to engage water-board interrogation?
Mr. Earnest: I don't know whether I have a specific
reaction to it -- The Press: Can you put that on
your list of things to ask?
(laughter)
Mr. Earnest: -- but I'll try to at least
address your question.
Director Brennan was expressing his support for a
value that he's long expressed,
which is he believes that the national security of the
United States is enhanced and is strengthened when we
make clear that the United States doesn't torture people.
And we certainly don't implement a policy
that allows torture.
And we don't send even an ambiguous signal that
somehow the U.S. government might condone torture.
That's the value that Director Brennan was
standing up for in the context of that interview.
And that's not the first time that he's done it.
He is somebody who, throughout his career,
has recognized how important it is for our national
security policy to reflect our values.
And Director Brennen -- more eloquently than I am here --
can help you understand exactly why that is critical
to the success of our country and critical
to our national security.
People look to the United States as a place where
human rights are not just protected but championed.
And implementing a policy and one that has been proven
time and time again over the course of this presidency is
that we can implement a policy,
a national security policy that is consistent with our
values, advances our interests,
and keeps the American people safe.
The President is proud of that track record,
and that track record was possible because of the
enormous contributions of people like Director Brennan.
The Press: And lastly is there an impact on the
President's trip next week by the new travel warnings
about Saudi Arabia that were issued yesterday?
Mr. Earnest: I saw the updated guidance that had
been issued by the State Department.
I believe that was actually consistent with guidance
that they had issued six months ago when they were
just renewing it.
I would not anticipate that that would have any impact
on the President's itinerary.
Jim.
The Press: Josh, in that Fox interview that was aired
Sunday, the President also told Chris Wallace that his
biggest regret was in driving Muammar Qaddafi from
power in Libya without considering the vacuum in
power that took place afterwards.
Does he believe he bears any responsibility,
along with the coalition allies,
for the fact that Libya has become a breeding ground,
base of operations for many militant organizations,
including ISIS?
Mr. Earnest: Jim, the President has acknowledged
that the United States and certainly the
Commander-in-Chief -- he does take some
responsibility, along with our coalition partners,
for failing to plan effectively for the
situation in Libya after Colonel Qaddafi
was removed from power.
And there have been consequences for that failure.
And the political and security turmoil that we've
seen inside of Libya has been tragic,
that there have been innocent lives that have
been lost, including some brave Americans who are
serving their country in Libya.
But what we have seen the United States and our
coalition partners do is invest in and support a
long-running U.N. process
to try to rebuild the political structures
inside of Libya.
And there now is a Government of National
Accord that is in Tripoli that is beginning to
establish its rightful role as the government of Libya.
But that's been a long-running process.
And the fact is this was an enormous challenge.
Because Qaddafi had been in power for so long -- 42
years -- the civil society structures,
the governmental structures of Libya were eroded away.
And when he was removed from power there was no sort of
structure to try to preserve order until a new leader of
the country could be selected.
It just meant that the government,
and to a larger extent, the civil society in that
country just disintegrated.
And trying to rebuild all of that from scratch has been a
painstaking effort, particularly when the people
in that country are enduring the influence and
destabilizing activities of extremists that are
operating in their country.
And so this has been a significant challenge.
But we're pleased with the progress that has been made,
particularly recently.
And the United States is going to continue to play an
important role in preventing ISIL from establishing a new
safe haven in Libya that they could use to carry out
attacks in the United States or in the nations
of our allies.
And that's why you've seen the United States and the
Commander-in-Chief order some military action against
ISIL targets in Libya to take them
off the battlefield.
So those efforts have been important,
but we've got a lot of work to do to try to bring the
situation in Libya under control.
It won't be a military solution,
it will be a political solution,
much like the one that we've seen make some progress in
the last few weeks.
The Press: There have been instances where small
numbers of U.S. Special Operations Forces
have been on the ground in
Libya in an advise-and-assist and a
reconnaissance effort, if you will.
But now that a government, an effective government
seems to be forming, once that is a solid government
entity, is the U.S.
willing to commit any kind of ground forces there even
in an advisory role eventually?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Jim, I think it's far too early to
consider that question, because I think what you
will find is the United States is interested in
partnering with the sovereign government,
the newly established Government of National
Accord in Libya.
They obviously have their own self-interest in trying
to combat the extremists that are operating
in the country.
They face some significant challenges in doing that
because there are also a variety of militia groups
across the country that make unifying the security
presence in that country rather challenging,
and that is going to have an impact on their ability to
go after extremists that may be trying to establish a
safe haven inside of Libya.
I think it's too early at this point to offer up a
specific policy proposition about what the United States
will do down the road.
But what we are committed to doing right now is showing
our support for that government and,
where necessary, taking military action to take
prominent ISIL targets off the battlefield in order to
protect the United States and our allies.
The Press: Would you say an increase in U.S.
military activity in Libya is likely?
Mr. Earnest: I think it's -- look, I think U.S.
military activities in Libya will be responsive to the
threat that we face there.
And that's why the President has ordered military action
that, in one case, took out the senior ISIL official in
Libya, in another case, took out a number of ISIL targets
that had emerged in Libya.
So we're going to continue -- the President will not
hesitate to order military action were necessary,
even in Libya, if it's necessary to take that
action in order to protect the American people
and our allies.
The Press: And has the Defense Department,
Secretary Carter, Chairman Dunford yet presented to the
Pentagon, to the President their request for additional
ground forces in Iraq as I guess advise and assist --
in advise-and-assist roles?
Mr. Earnest: I know there have been a number of
reports about recommendations that some
members of the President's national security team have
given to the President.
I'm not going to talk about the consultations between
the President and members of his national security team.
What I can tell you is that the President's direction to
every member of his team is to look for opportunities to
reinforce those elements of our strategy that are
yielding the most progress.
And the President has asked them to come to him with
suggestions for how it is possible to reinforce those
elements of our strategy that are showing
the most success.
The President will consider those
recommendations accordingly.
And if we have any announcements to make,
we'll let you know.
Arlette.
The Press: Thank you, Josh.
In an interview yesterday with Mic news,
Vice President Biden talked about how it's important
what politicians say.
He said, "It matters what people say.
It matters what your leaders say.
It matters.
Words matter."
So based on that thought, I wanted to go back to
Mayor de Blasio's joke about "running on CP time."
I know you say that you haven't seen this joke,
but is it appropriate for politicians to be making
jokes that hint at racially insensitive terms?
Mr. Earnest: Well, listen, I don't think that there's
anybody -- I haven't seen the joke and so I'm very
reluctant to wade into this very far.
But let me just say in general that certainly
Mayor de Blasio and Secretary Clinton have over the course
of their career demonstrated a genuine commitment to the
pursuit of equality and justice and civil rights.
And that's not just a talking point that they
include on the campaign materials.
That is something to which they have dedicated their
careers in public service.
So I can't speak to any misguided attempts at humor.
I can only speak to their commitment that they've
shown over the course of their career to justice
and civil rights.
The Press: And tomorrow the Citizens Against Government
Waste is going to release their annual Congressional
Pig Book, outlining waste in government.
Back in 2009, they determined there was close
to $270 billion that could be saved.
That number has gone up while the President
has been in office.
The last year the report said that it was $639
billion that could be saved.
Does the White House think that they've done enough to
promote cutting waste in government?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the administration certainly has
made important strides in reducing waste from
government spending.
Oftentimes our efforts are set back by Congress
continuing to fund programs and specific government
actions -- well, I'd just say government programs that
we believe are no longer necessary.
And there are a number of reforms that the Department
of Defense, for example, has routinely encouraged
Congress to make that would save taxpayer dollars,
that for political reasons members of Congress -- even
Republicans -- haven't supported.
And that's been a source of some disappointment.
There certainly is more that can be saved in terms of
government spending.
But the President has been serious about a commitment
to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars.
And the President is quite proud of the record that his
administration has in cutting the deficit.
We've cut the deficit by nearly three-fourths as a
percentage of the economy since the President
took office.
We've made important progress in cutting wasteful
spending, in eliminating old,
outdated regulations that end up
costing money unnecessarily.
So the President's record on this is strong and one that
he's quite proud of.
David.
The Press: Josh, a few more questions on TPP.
While we were talking -- while you were talking,
the Secretary of State was in L.A., talking about the
importance of the TPP on foreign policy.
I think you said earlier in the briefing that the
President is still very committed to getting TPP done.
And the Peterson Institute has done studies about the
economic impact and said we'd be leaving money on the
table, the United States would,
economically for each year that the TPP is delayed.
Are you pressing Congress for a vote?
What timetable are you looking at?
And is getting Congress to vote on this before the
summer recess off the table now?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't have a timeline to lay out.
Obviously, individual members of the Congress,
including many Republicans, have voiced their strong
support for the agreement.
They recognize both the national security and
economic benefits that the American people would enjoy
through the effective implementation
of this agreement.
We've also seen strong support from outside
organizations like the Chamber of Commerce,
the Farm Bureau and others who typically don't support
administration priorities who have leant their vocal
advocacy to this policy.
So we're going to continue to push Congress to
implement this agreement, to act in bipartisan fashion to
approve this agreement.
And we're hopeful that they will.
The Press: Is the White House calling
for a vote now, though?
You're asking to have a vote
on the Supreme Court justice.
With immigration, you said just let it go forward for a
vote, it's going to pass.
Do you believe this agreement
should go forward immediately?
Mr. Earnest: Well, there are some additional steps in
this process that have to be undertaken before we would
be calling for Congress to vote on it.
For example, I know that there is an economic impact
study that is still being conducted,
and there needs to be a formal presentation made by
the administration to Congress before we can call
on a vote.
But even at that point, I know that there would be
some consideration by congressional committee.
So there's an established process.
It takes probably longer than we would prefer,
but that's true of a lot of things
when dealing with Congress.
But at this point, what we are hoping to do is to
continue to make a strong bipartisan case for
congressional action to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Because we believe that effective implementation of
that agreement would be good for our national security
and good for our economy.
The Press: Do you have a -- like I said,
the Secretary of State talking about the impact --
there was a conference call just a few weeks ago with a
former general at the Pentagon saying how
important this is.
Do you believe that you're creating conditions in the
country through these arguments in public that is
improving the prospects for a big trade bill
to go through?
Or do you believe you're losing ground?
And what does that mean if it's the latter?
Mr. Earnest: Well, listen, I think that's a difficult
thing to assess.
Obviously, many of the presidential candidates --
who are getting a lot of airtime themselves these
days -- have not spoken favorably of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In some cases, they've spoken rather negatively
of it.
But look, there is a strong, substantive case that this
administration has and will continue to make
about how the U.S. economy will benefit from
the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We're talking about 18,000 taxes that other countries
impose on American goods that would be cut through
the implementation of this agreement.
We're talking about an agreement that would raise
labor standards, environmental standards and
human rights standards in a variety of countries
around the world.
And we're talking about an opportunity that U.S.
businesses would have to get access to countries that
have very dynamic economies.
So there's a real opportunity to be seized here.
And it would also have the effect of making progress in
Southeast Asia, a place where we know that China
would love to make progress.
China is suggesting that they would like to go out
and try to reach agreements with all of these countries,
and gain a foothold -- or expand their influence in
this region of the world.
They would do so by lowering labor standards,
by lowering environmental standards,
and making it harder for
U.S. businesses to compete on a fair playing field in this
region of the world.
So it's pretty clear, both economically and
strategically, why this deal makes sense
for the United States.
And we're going to make that case to Congress,
to both Democrats and Republicans.
And, yes, this may require some members of Congress
tuning out the noise of the presidential election in
order to focus on the merits of the agreement.
When focused on the merits, we've got
a particularly strong case.
George.
The Press: I want to follow on your earlier answer
on Hiroshima.
This morning, one of your predecessors, Dana Perino,
retweeted something, saying "President Obama wants to
apologize for us winning World War II."
Knowing that kind of criticism is likely and that
people will talk about apologies and so on,
is that a factor in the decision on whether to go?
Mr. Earnest: It's not.
The President has spoken on countless occasions -- I
think most memorably at the 70th anniversary of D-Day --
about the debt of gratitude that all Americans owe to
the Greatest Generation of Americans.
And look, I didn't see the tweet that you're referring
to, and I've made a habit to try to avoid criticizing my
predecessors from here, so let me just say that the
President will be focused on the policy considerations,
and whatever decision he makes and whatever policy
decision the administration makes will be consistent
with the President's strong view about the bravery,
courage and heroism of those Americans who fought and won
World War II, thereby securing the liberty and
freedom not just of the United States,
but of human beings around the world.
The Press: Josh, what are the factors for the
President to decide if he goes to Hiroshima or not?
Is it public opinion, or is it visual,
or a John Kerry recommendation?
What are the factors?
Mr. Earnest: This is a decision that -- this is a
question about whether or not the President will visit
Hiroshima that comes up regularly whenever the
President makes plans to travel to Japan.
The President has been to Japan I don't know how many
times now, three or four times now, as President,
and in advance of every trip this question has come up.
So the President will -- and his team will obviously
consider our options here.
And once we've made a decision one way or the
other, we'll be able to talk in a little bit more detail
about why we've made the decision that we made.
The Press: Is the possibility about 50 percent,
or more?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I wouldn't put a number on it.
Tara, I'll give you the last one.
The Press: Can you tell me a little bit more about the
President's visit to London?
You talked about it earlier.
Maybe you can give me a sense --
Mr. Earnest: A lot of interest in foreign travel today.
The Press: Exactly.
Maybe you can give us a sense about what subjects
will be discussed and what we should be thinking about
before the trip.
Mr. Earnest: Well, we'll obviously have more to say
about this later in the week as we get closer to the trip.
I can tell you that the President strongly values
the special relationship between the United States
and the United Kingdom.
We partner on so many issues it would be difficult to
enumerate all of them here at the end of the briefing.
But I can tell you that President Obama has found
Prime Minister Cameron to be an effective advocate for
his country, but also an effective interlocutor for
advancing the joint interests of our countries.
So I'm confident that there will be a discussion about
our counter-ISIL campaign.
Obviously, the UK is making important contributions,
including military contributions,
to our effort to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
The United States and the United Kingdom have worked
effectively to try to enhance homeland security in
our two countries.
We obviously work seamlessly to share intelligence
information in a way that enhances our nation's
national security.
I would expect that the President will talk about
the global economy.
Obviously, the United Kingdom has a large economy
that has significant influence on the global
economy, and our efforts to strengthen our economic ties
benefit the citizens in both of our countries.
But, look, there are also important cultural ties.
And the President will have an opportunity
to talk about that.
And I know the President is very much looking forward
to his visit.
The President has been to the U.K.
three or four times now, and I know he's enjoyed each visit.
This will be his second visit to London, I believe,
and he's hoping that it won't be consumed just with
work, that he might get to have a little fun
while he's there, too.
But we'll have more details on his schedule later this week.
Thanks a lot, everybody.
We'll see you tomorrow.