MR. EARNEST:  Happy Friday, everybody.  Nice to see you all.  Before we get started, as you might judge from the monitors behind, we got a couple things we want to do at the top before we get started.

As all of you saw this morning, today the final monthly jobs report of the Obama administration was released, and I want to go over a couple of the highlights here.  

Like many of you, I've spent the first Friday morning of each month of the last eight years anticipating the monthly jobs data.  At the beginning of the administration, the earliest days of this presidency, the day that was in the minds of many people down right terrifying, our economy was losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month and the unemployment rate was climbing sharply.  Eight years later, driven by the policies this administration put in place and the resilience of the American workforce, the data looks quite different and the numbers tell a very different story about the health of our economy.

In December, the U.S. economy added a 156,000 jobs, extending the longest streak of total job growth in our nation's history.  U.S. businesses have now added 15.8 million jobs over the course of the economic recovery.  Wages are continuing to rise, and the unemployment rate continues to be less than half of what it was during the peak of the recession.  

Over the eight years that President Obama has been in office, you all have held us to an extraordinarily high standard when it comes to the economic recovery, and we're proud of the progress that America has made.  This progress shows that policy matters.  Without the policies the President fought for, it would not have been possible.  And so I recount the facts today, because acknowledging how far we have come as a country is an important part of understanding what's needed to create an economy that provides good job opportunities and generates higher wages for all Americans who are willing to work for them.  

The President-elect, of course, has promised a different approach.  His approach includes rolling back regulations that have protected middle-class families from having to foot the bill for Wall Street's risky behavior.  His approach includes leveling high tariffs on foreign goods that drive up costs for consumers in the United States and put at risk higher-paying U.S. jobs that are tied to exports.  And, of course, he's also vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act which would add trillions to the deficit.

As you evaluate the impact of the President-elect's policies over the coming years, here are some metrics that should be used to evaluate the approach that we have taken and compare it to the approach that's been pursued by the other side.  Since job growth turned positive in October of 2012, the U.S. economy has added jobs for 75 straight months.  This is, as I referred to earlier, the longest streak of job growth on record, and it's actually more than two years longer than the previous record.  So this is quite a streak, and we'll see if it continues.  

In 2016, hourly wages increased 2.9 percent.  That's the fastest 12-month pace since the start of the recovery.  Real hourly wages have grown faster over the current business cycle than in any business cycle since the early 1970s.  Wages are obviously a metric that this administration has watched closely, and we're pleased to see that wage growth is accelerating and has accelerated over the President's tenure in office.

The third metric -- the unemployment rate has been cut by more than half since its peak of 10 percent in 2009 to 4.7 percent in December of this year.  As recently as 2014, just a couple of years ago, many economists expected the unemployment rate to remain above 5 percent until at least 2020.  So we've repeatedly beaten the predictions about driving down the unemployment rate.

Fourth, since 2010, the United States has put more people back to work than all the other G7 economies combined.  That is a strong validation of the economic strategy that President Obama pursued.  It does stand in contrast to the economic strategy that was pursued by some of our closest allies, but the results speak for themselves and it's why we regularly describe the U.S. economy as the envy of the world.

Finally -- and I don’t have a chart for this -- we can also cite a metric that we know is one that is certainly closely watched by the incoming President's economic team.  That's the stock market.  And the S&P has more than tripled since the lows that it reached in March of 2009 within President Obama's first couple of months in office.  So we certainly set a high bar.  It's a bar that we are proud of, and it's one that the incoming administration will be challenged to meet.

One other piece of news I want to share briefly this morning before we get started is, today is the last day for Pete Boogaard in the White House Press Office.  So Pete has served in the White House for a little over a year now, and has served with distinction.  But, notably, Pete spent a lot of time working in other critically important agencies of the Obama administration, including at the Department of Homeland Security.  And he is somebody who has time and again showed a lot of cool under fire.  

Those of you who have worked closely with Pete understand that -- we were reminiscing shortly before the briefing that he's had some of the more challenging issues to discuss in his portfolio, everything certainly from questions about immigration policy, which includes a wide bucket of issues both that are related to homeland security and national security, but also issues like Zika.  And so we're obviously very proud of Pete's service.  He showed himself to be a dedicated professional.  And wherever he ends up next is going to be a place that's extraordinarily lucky to have him. 

So, thank you, Pete, for your service.  I appreciate it.

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

Q    Sure.  Thank you, Josh.  And thank you, Pete, for your help and hard work over the last several years. 

When we met here yesterday, the President was still being briefed on the Russia hacking report.  Now that that's concluded, is there anything you can tell us about his impressions of that or what he might have learned that moved the ball from what he had previously known about the extent of Russian hacking, or any preview that you can give us of the unclassified version that Speaker Pelosi -- Minority Leader Pelosi says will be coming out this afternoon?

MR. EARNEST:  Josh, I don’t have a specific presidential reaction to share with you about the report.  As leaders of the intelligence community testified yesterday, they are even more certain now of the assessment that they released back in October about the role that Russia played in destabilizing the U.S. elections and trying to cast doubt on the durability of our political system.  I am aware that there are reports that this review will be released later today, but for the precise timing of that I'd refer you to the intelligence community.

I'll tell you that I have not seen the report, so when the unclassified report is released, I'll be reading it along with all of you.

Q    President-elect Trump is saying that he's asking the House and Senate intelligence panels to investigate NBC News for what he says was top-secret information shared to them prior to his briefing that's taking place as we speak.  Can you say whether or not that information put in that report was top secret, and whether it was leaked by the Obama administration to a news outlet prior to President-elect Trump receiving his briefing?

MR. EARNEST:  Josh, what I can tell you is that I'm not in a position to confirm the information that was included in that report.  I’d refer you to the intelligence community for that.   I certainly feel confident in saying that that is not material that was leaked to the public by the White House, but I’d refer you to the intelligence community to speak to it beyond that.

The other observation I have, though, is I don't frequently respond to tweets from the President-elect, but I certainly do read them.  And I did read two days ago that he was tweeting a steadfast defense of the integrity of the foreigner who runs the leading purveyor of the improper release of classified information retained by the United States government.

Two days later -- two days after defending that person’s integrity, the President-elect is now expressing some concern about the possible release of this classified information.  The original tweet leads me to conclude that his concerns are about something other than protecting classified information.  What those concerns are is something that I’ll let him articulate, and presumably all of you will have an opportunity to ask about them.  But given his track record and certainly given some of the rhetoric that he used in praising WikiLeaks on the campaign trail, I think it would call into question whether or not that's the actual source of concern that he is expressing today.

Q    Just to button that up, you're ruling out that the White House leaked that information to NBC, but you're not ruling out that another -- that an agency that's part of the intelligence community or another federal agency might have done so? 

MR. EARNEST:  I can't speak to the inner workings of the intelligence community, particularly as it relates to the compiling of the specific report.  The intelligence community was charged by the President of the United States with compiling a report.  And as we've discussed at some length over the last couple of months here, the men and women of the United States intelligence community are patriots.  And these are people who serve their country.  They set aside their own personal political views to do the right thing for the country.  

So the President has got enormous confidence in them, believes that he’s been extraordinarily well served by them over the last eight years in providing to him timely, accurate, specific information that was not shaded to advance a political or ideological agenda, but rather was oriented toward providing him the best possible information so he could make the best possible national security decisions.

But for questions about how the intelligence community has handled specific pieces of information, you should go talk to them about that.

Q    And lastly, since you follow the President-elect’s tweets, you’ll have seen his comments about the IOU from Mexico that will pay us back for building a wall.  And I wanted to ask you about what is being discussed in Congress about using existing authorities to authorize building the wall, and then really just have new appropriations to pay for it until we get paid back.  Does the outgoing President feel that if a border wall is going to be built, that there should be a new affirmative vote in Congress to say, yes, this is what we want to do, and this is the direction we're going? 

MR. EARNEST:  I have to admit, Josh, I haven’t seen all the proposals.  I know there are a couple versions of the tweets that were sent, so it’s hard to decipher exactly what the plan is.

What I can tell you about President Obama’s views is that President Obama strongly supported the largest ever investment in border security in our nation’s history that was a part of the common-sense immigration bill that this administration negotiated with Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. 

There were billions included in that bill that would have increased security along our border -- investments in technology, investments in physical barriers, and investments in personnel to ensure that our border was secure.  Of course, that was coupled with a whole range of other proposals that would be good for our economy, that would be good for reducing the deficit, that would be good for ensuring that the United States of America is living up to our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  It would have ensured that we are not ripping apart families.  It certainly would have ensured that we are not seeking to deport young people who are in the United States through no fault of their own, and young people who are American in every way but their papers.  That's the kind of proposal that President Obama put forward.

And it gave the millions of people who are in the United States without proper documentation an opportunity to get right with the law, and it would have required them to face some accountability measures -- background checks, paying taxes and other things -- but also would have brought them out of the shadows in a way that would be good for our economy, and in a way that would ultimately have strengthened Social Security and reduced the deficit.

But, as I said, the President-elect supports a different approach.  The only reason that the President’s approach didn’t pass is not because it didn’t have sufficient bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, but rather because it was a victim of the Republican leadership strategy to say no to everything that President Obama was inclined to support, even if it included policies that they themselves supported.  That strategy was cynical, but it did have some political benefits.  And it does go down -- the failure of that legislation to pass the House of Representatives, even though it had majority support, even though it would have passed if it had come up for a vote -- does remain one of the most disappointing and frustrating episodes in this administration’s relationship with the Republican leadership in Congress.

Jeff.

Q    Josh, a couple other questions related to the President-elect.  First, on the intelligence briefing.  President-elect Trump called the probe a “witch hunt.”  What’s the White House’s feeling about that?

MR. EARNEST:  I saw the news report.  Apparently, he had a conversation with one of your colleagues at The New York Times today.

I guess I would leave it to his team to characterize exactly what that means.  What I can tell you the President directed the intelligence community to do is to learn as much as possible about the kind of malicious cyber activity that we’ve seen in this country in the context of the 2016 election and in the previous -- recent presidential elections.  And the goal was not just to look at one country, but to look at all malicious actors in cyberspace to get to the bottom of what has recently occurred, to understand the trend which appears to be getting worse, and to develop a strategy to counter it.

There also was a desire to make sure that we’re holding accountable those who were engaged in some of those nefarious acts.  And you’ve already heard some announcements from the administration detailing some aspects of our response.  But that is the charge that the intelligence community was supposed to fulfill, and the President is pleased with the work that they’ve done.  

We’ve talked a lot about the service and sacrifice of our 
men and women in the intelligence community.  They worked through the holidays in order to put this report together.  And I think it’s an indication of their deep commitment to the national security of this country, to fulfilling the directives of the President of the United States.  And they have fulfilled the President’s expectations of producing a conscientious report that was briefed to him, that will be briefed to Congress, that will be briefed to the President-elect later today -- all at the President’s direction.  And the intelligence community is also prepared to follow through on the President’s final direction, which is to make as much of that report public as possible.  
And again, you will have to check with them for the precise timing of that, but some reports indicate that that’s coming later today.  But that’s something that they can confirm.

Q    On another topic, following up on Josh’s question, does this White House think it’s realistic or probable that Mexico will reimburse the United States government for a wall built on its border?

MR. EARNEST:  All I would point out, Jeff, is that the Mexican government and the President of Mexico has indicated that that’s not going to happen.  But I’ll leave it to the Mexican government to respond to this, and I’ll let the President-elect try to describe how his strategy would work.

Q    And lastly, the issue of cars and tariffs has come up quite a bit in the last few days.  One of the ways that President Trump has discussed via Twitter is related to a foreign company, Toyota, making Mexican-built cars and importing them to the United States, that there would be a tariff on that.  Is that realistic?  And what is the Obama administration’s response to that issue?

MR. EARNEST:  Jeff, I’m not going to talk about one specific company.  I think what I can do is talk about what President Obama’s approach to this issue has been.  He has actually -- President Obama of course is somebody who has, over his eight years in office, learned quite a lot about the way that the U.S. auto industry works, primarily because it was poised to fail when he entered office.  And his administration had to implement a strategy to give them an opportunity to succeed.

The President made a big bet on the American auto industry, and he won because he placed his confidence in American autoworkers and giving them a chance to rebuild their companies, to retool their companies, that they would come back better and stronger than ever -- and that’s exactly what’s happened.

So the President has some credentials when it comes to understanding exactly what kinds of policies are going to benefit U.S. autoworkers and more than a million Americans whose jobs depends on that auto industry.  And the fact is that the American auto industry actually depends on an integrated global supply chain.  That’s just the way that our economy works, particularly when you’re talking about the production of a modern vehicle.  And to try to erect walls that keep out some aspects of that global supply chain or the products that are produced by that global supply chain is only going to have a detrimental impact on the industry and on the workers who rely on that industry for a job.

So the President does not believe that that’s a smart approach.  In fact, what the President believes is that the American auto industry produces the very best automobiles and vehicles in the world, and what we should be looking to do is implementing a strategy that will allow the U.S. auto industry to compete on a level playing field.  And that’s exactly the strategy that President Obama implemented with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- to go to countries like Japan and Vietnam that have large economies and a growing middle class, exactly the kinds of places where the U.S. auto industry could compete very well.  And looking for opportunities for U.S.-produced goods to be sold around the world is going to be good for our economy, it’s going to be good for American companies, but, most importantly, it’s going to be good for American jobs.

I made a reference earlier to the fact that we already know that jobs inside the United States that are tied to exports pay, on average, somewhat higher than jobs in the United States that aren’t tied to exports.  So looking for more opportunities for U.S. businesses to export their goods around the world, it’s going to be good for our economy and good for American workers.  But like I said, President-elect Trump wants to try it a different way and we’ll see if it works.

Justin.

Q    Is the President, as the leader of the Democratic Party, disappointed or upset that the DNC refused requests from the FBI to turn over their server in the hack investigation?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s not the responsibility of the President of the United States to make those kinds of decisions.  He is of course the nominal head of the Democratic Party, but the Democratic National Committee has an elected leadership that’s elected by the members of the Party, and I’ll let them speak to the way in which they cooperated with the investigation into this matter.

Q    Well, is the President, as the nominal head of the Department of Justice for the Obama administration, disappointed that the DNC didn’t seem to cooperate with FBI requests?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I’ll let the Department of Justice speak to the level of cooperation that they received from the DNC and other people who were a part of this investigation.  Obviously, this investigation was conducted separate from any sort of White House influence.  So it would be inappropriate for me to -- even if the President did have concerns -- for me to express them from here.

Q    Did you guys know that Theresa May was sending top staffers to meet with the Trump administration last month?  And have you or the State Department -- has Theresa May’s staff sought advice from you or the State Department on her interactions with the President-elect?

THE PRESIDENT:  I can’t speak to what staff-level conversations may have occurred between representatives of the United States government and representatives of Prime Minister May’s office.  I can tell you that what the Obama administration has sought to do is to work effectively with our allies and with the President-elect’s team to ensure a smooth handoff in the context of the transition, and that includes a smooth handoff of the relationship between the United States and some of our closest allies around the world.  But I can’t speak with much precision about conversations that may have occurred in advance of those kinds of conversations.

Q    Lastly, yesterday you promised some preview of the President’s speech next week in Chicago.  So I’m wondering if you could maybe talk either about some color about how that’s developing or what's --

MR. EARNEST:  What I can tell you is that I anticipate that the President is going to be devoting a significant portion of his weekend to working on the address.  I’ve had an opportunity to review a very early draft, and what I can tell you is that the President is interested in delivering a farewell address that’s forward-looking.

We’ve had ample opportunity, certainly over the last year and over the last couple of months, to review the many significant accomplishments of the Obama administration, and I’m confident there will be a reference or two to that progress in the speech that he’ll deliver Tuesday night.  But primarily the President is hopeful about the future of the country, particularly if our citizens are engaged in our democracy and if our leaders draw upon the longstanding, deeply-held views of this country to confront the challenges ahead.  

If that happens, if both those things happen, then the President believes that the prospects for the United States being even more safe, and more prosperous, and more fair are bright.  And the President is obviously proud of the progress that we have made and continues to be optimistic about our future, and he’s looking forward to an opportunity to talk about why.

Lana.

Q    So the President has obviously been spending a lot of time talking about Obamacare and trying to fight back against Republican efforts to repeal without a replacement in plan -- in place, rather.  After January 20th, is he going to continue that same effort at that same level, or will he, as he was saying before, become a private citizen and just a regular citizen of the United States, and will that then sort of fade away, or will there be a break from that?

MR. EARNEST:  The President will be a private citizen on January 20th.  He will be a private citizen with deeply held views about the most effective way to reform the health care system in the United States.  Many of those views and ideas have been put into action in a way that's been extraordinarily beneficial for the American people and for our economy.  And the President is proud of that progress.

And you could certainly expect the President to follow these developments closely and to continue to be thinking about how these kinds of reforms should work.  But there is a long tradition in our country -- and President Obama benefited from it in the early days of his presidency -- of the outgoing President giving the incoming President the opportunity to succeed.

So I would not expect President Obama to be regularly holding conversations with Ezra Klein and Sarah Kliff at some other house in Washington, D.C.  He did that at Blair House today as the sitting President of the United States.  But the President believes that other people, including congressional Democrats, but not only congressional Democrats, are going to have to step forward and take up the mantle and wage this fight on behalf of the American people.  

The prospect of Republicans repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement would inject unprecedented chaos into our health care system, which constitutes about a fifth of the U.S. economy.  It also is going to prompt up to 30 million Americans to lose their health insurance and put at risk many of the gains that we've made in protecting the 130 million Americans that have preexisting conditions.  If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, you take away those protections.  And those are protections that extend not just to people who are purchasing health insurance through Obamacare marketplaces, but it also includes all those Americans that get their health insurance through their employer.  So the stakes are significant.  And President Obama will remain engaged to the extent that he’ll be following exactly what kind of developments occur, he’ll continue thinking about these issues.  

But when it comes to making the public case with this approach, it’s time for other people to step up.  And the President is confident that there are plenty of Democrats with the right values and the right passion and the right skills to make a persuasive case that will ultimately benefit the American public.

Q    Just to be clear, with all of his passion that he feels about Obamacare and how he feels about that issue, come January 20th we should not expect to see the President making public speeches about it, writing more op-eds, those sorts of things?

MR. EARNEST:  The President has had ample opportunity over the last eight years to regularly make speeches and regularly write op-eds on topics that are near and dear to his heart, including the effective implementation of health care reform.  So the time for him to do that on a regular basis has passed, and so I would not expect him to do that with much frequency at all as a former President.

Q    Can the White House confirm that Obama-appointed diplomats have been asked to leave their post by January 20th?

MR. EARNEST:  I saw the -- I’ve seen this news report.  For all of the details, I’d refer you to the State Department. 

What I can tell you is that it is, of course, customary for politically appointed chiefs of mission to return back to the United States on Inauguration Day and afford the incoming administration and the incoming President the opportunity to select his own representatives to advance our country’s interests in countries around the world.

What I will say is this administration is extraordinarily proud of the service of the politically appointed ambassadors of the United States government who have advanced our interests in countries large and small around the world.  In many cases, these are men and who are professionals in a separate career.  But they have chosen to dedicate a number of years of their life to public service in a really important way.

In many of these countries where President Obama has traveled, the U.S. ambassador is a prominent public face of the United States of America.  And the way that that person chooses to conduct themselves and their personal lives, the way that that person speaks publicly and advances our interests and articulates our values in that country is extraordinarily important.  And many of these professionals have taken advantage of this opportunity, and America is better for it.

And we certainly owe them a debt of gratitude for their public service.  And we certainly will be hoping that the incoming administration will choose people as effective and as talented and as patriotic as have served in these kinds of positions under President Obama.  

Kevin. 

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to ask you about race.  The President made some comments about the state of race relations in the country.  It has been a difficult time, to say the least, in the city of Chicago in the wake of that Facebook post.  I’m curious -- two parts to this question.  The first part is, is it fair to describe the President’s optimism about the future of race relations in this country based solely on his experience, the trajectory of him growing up and having seen the country in a very different way as President?  And does he also understand the negative perception many have about the state of race relations in the country today?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, I think that the President’s optimism about the progress that our country has made on the issue of race is rooted primarily in our experience as a country, in our experience as a society.  

There are a lot of examples of this.  And I think the most pertinent one could be around the issue of the relationship between some local law enforcement agencies and the African American community that they're sworn to serve and protect.  There are some communities that have been -- where a significant gap has been exposed.

And the President often will cite that it was not that long ago, 20 or 25 years ago, that you had the city of Los Angeles that after a high-profile incident where there were deep concerns about police brutality against a black motorist, that that city was in flames, and that you saw a stark racial divide emerge immediately that was distressing to many people in the country.

And while that gap and that gulf in some communities still exists, the response has been much different; that there are certainly places where there have been public demonstrations and some civil unrest, but nothing on the scale of what we saw in Los Angeles.  And I think what’s also notable is that there are a number of prominent voices of all races who are speaking out trying to bridge that divide.

So I think that’s an apt illustration of the situation that we find ourselves in, which is that we’ve made important progress in a way that actually makes a difference in the lives of Americans in communities all across the country.  But we still got a lot of work to do if we’re going to solve that problem.  And the President also feels optimistic because he has seen the commitment that’s been shown by young people -- many of them African American, but not all African American -- who are seeking to organize in their communities, who are seeking to protest the government and make their voice heard, and bring about the kind of change that they would like to see in their community.

And the President is optimistic that they’re going to have an impact -- a positive impact -- in addressing those concerns and in healing some of those divisions.  And it’s this younger generation of activists and younger generation of leaders who the President continues to be optimistic will be able to continue the kind of progress that we’ve made in healing the racial divide in this country.

Q    I know you’re not being (inaudible) and I respect what you said, but I think there are a number of people that feel very pessimistic when they see incidents like what happened in that Facebook post, when they see shootings -- motorist in South Carolina, the devastating attacks in Dallas.  Is the President sensitive to that?

MR. EARNEST:  Of course, he is.  And I think the President himself has expressed his own profound concerns and disappointment and, in some cases, outrage about many of the incidents that you've described, including the Facebook video that drew so much outrage and attention in the last couple of days.

So the President certainly understands that we’ve got a lot of work to do, and there are reasons for people to feel pessimistic that we haven’t made as much progress as we would like.  But in the President’s mind, it’s impossible to deny that we have, in fact, made progress.  And the fact that you see people of a variety of races speaking out on these issues with one voice, appealing to the same kinds of values, gives the President a lot of optimism that these are problems that can be resolved, where we can make progress.  And there certainly is work to be done.

Look, to go back to something you raised in your first question, there’s no denying that the President’s personal journey and the personal progress that he’s made is one indication of the progress that we’ve made as a country.  The President I think spoke very eloquently about this at Selma a year and a half ago, where you essentially had African Americans who were being beaten and abused by local law enforcement with water cannons and dogs, trying to get -- just so they could have the right to cast a ballot.  And 50 years later, you have an African American President of the United States.

That’s remarkable progress.  Doesn’t mean that all our work is done, because in too many communities across the country we are seeing people from the minority community being disadvantaged and being denied the right to vote, or at least having had their ability to vote obstructed because of cynical partisan policies that have been put in place.

So there’s a whole lot more work to be done on that, but certainly the President’s story is one powerful indication of the progress that we’ve made, but it’s far from the only one.

Q    I want to ask you about detainee transfers.  We talked a bit about the dwindling number of detainees that are still housed at the facility at Guantanamo.  Can you give an update on that and whether or not that will continue to be the trajectory as we wind down the last 14 days?

MR. EARNEST:  Kevin, I know you’ve been following this closely, so I know that you saw the announcement from the Department of Defense yesterday about the transfer of four Yemeni nationals from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to Saudi Arabia.  That transfer was effectuated after the 30-day notification was provided to Congress, and after a comprehensive review was conducted by the U.S. -- by the President’s national security team, including a number of agencies, including the intelligence community, about these individuals being safe to transfer to Saudi Arabia under a set of security restrictions that would limit their ability to threaten the United States.

This does bring the prison population -- or the population at Guantanamo Bay to 55.  And when President Obama took office, the detainee population at Gitmo was 242.  And in that time, we’ve move 183 detainees to 42 countries.  And that certainly is an indication of the progress that we have made in reducing the prison population.  

But the President does continue to be concerned principally about two things.  One is, as the Gitmo facility continues to remain in operation, it continues to serve as a recruiting tool for extremists who hold that up as an example of the United States not living up to the kinds of values that we claim to be fighting for.  And to continue to operate that facility is to continue to give terrorist recruiters a valuable tool.

Secondly, the President is also concerned about the highly inefficient waste of taxpayer dollars.  The cost of operating the facility at Gitmo is significantly higher than the cost of operating a similar facility that would effectively safeguard our national security by housing them here in the United States.  And there has been no good reasonable explanation put forward about why Congress is intent on preventing that from happening.

Q    Can I get a cost-per-detainee sort of analysis maybe? 

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll see if we can get you some metrics to put some numbers around that cost-benefit analysis.

Ron.

Q    On the economy, the President is also going to leave office I believe with the distinction of being the first President since Herbert Hoover not to experience a year of growth at 3 percent GDP.  That’s correct, right?

MR. EARNEST:  I hadn’t heard that statistic, but we can certainly look into it to confirm it for you.

Q    That’s what I’ve read, that --

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.  We’ll look into it.

Q    Assuming that is the truth, does the President accept responsibility for that, as well?  And how do you explain that -- you know sluggish growth has been a problem throughout the eight years.  How do you explain that -- how do you square that with this historic job growth and so on and so forth?  And I think -- the other thing is that some would argue that slow growth is in part what’s contributed to this feeling of anxiety in the country that things aren’t getting better, and that, in fact, may be one of the crucial variables that just won the election, if you want to keep on going down this road.  The question is, how much responsibility does the President accept for the sluggish growth thing?  Because I think you're going to say, well, look where we started and look at what Congress did and didn’t do, so on and so forth.  

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I'll say a couple things about that.  The first is, the President of the United States is somebody who takes responsibility for what happens in this country while he's President, and President Obama has certainly done that in a variety of settings.  Many observers have indicated the important role that the private sector plays in driving our economy, and President Obama has been the first to acknowledge that.  He himself gives credit to the private sector driving our recovery.  And that recovery has been historic.  The President himself has also frequently made the observation that the financial crisis that the United States encountered was not just significant, it was historic -- the largest recession in our nation's history since the Great Depression.  And all that occurred right as President Obama was taking office.  And so we were digging out of a historically large hole, certainly the largest hole that any President faced dating back to the early stages of the 20th century.

Q    Just on this -- so how long does the argument last of "look at the hole we started in"?  For example, how long is that a valid argument into the next administration?  You're seven years into it now.  You see the point?  How long is that a valid explanation for why growth has been so slow?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say one other thing and then I'll get to that question, which is -- and you alluded to this, but it's relevant -- during the President's first two years in office, he was able to work effectively with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to put in place the economic policies that did lay the groundwork for our recovery, everything from the Recovery Act, including the Affordable Care Act.  These are policies that were beneficial to the economy, and they led to the kind of growth and progress that is the envy of the world.  

Since then, even the kinds of proposals that have typically enjoyed bipartisan support, that the President has put forward, have not gotten them -- infrastructure investments, immigration reform, even the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  All of those are things that would have had a tangible, positive impact on the economy and on job creation.  

So the President is proud of his economic record, and the progress that we've made is historic.  And there is no other President that can cite the kind of job creation streak that President Obama can cite based on what's happened in the economy while he's been President.  But there certainly is more that the President believes that we could have done and should have done.  But that was not possible because of the obstruction that we ran in to once Republicans took control of the United States Congress.

With regard to this question about how do Presidents put into context what they did with their time in office, the President makes what I think is a pretty common-sense illustration of this, which is that he's a better runner in a relay race, and he took the baton from President George W. Bush. And when he took the baton, our economy was at the bottom of a deep hole -- was plunging to the bottom of a deep hole.  And he had a lot of uphill running to do while he was holding that baton.  That's not a situation that President Trump will face.  President Trump, not for the first time in his life, will inherit a much more financially beneficial situation.  And he'll have an opportunity to build on that momentum.  

So I think you can make a strong case that the standard that he should be held to is even higher.  He's got many more advantages.  He's got the wind at his back.  He's got a stable financial system.  He's got an economy that's built up momentum, when you evaluate economic growth, when you evaluate job creation, when you evaluate wage growth.  And what he does with all of those advantages that he's inherited is up to him, and he'll face -- we'll have an opportunity to evaluate his performance.  

Q    To follow up on this intelligence briefing matter, back-and-forth, and given that the President and the President-elect have some rapport and have this handful of exchanges by phone and then otherwise, would you expect that there might be a conversation between the two of them about this briefing and what it means, and this particular issue because it's so prominent and because I would imagine the President feels so passionately about it?

MR. EARNEST:  There is not plan for the President to call the President-elect.  That's not on his schedule today.  So I suppose if the President-elect were to call him, he'd return the call.  He's been doing that -- done that a number of times since the election.  

But, look, as our intelligence leaders testified yesterday, there's not a lot of ambiguity in this situation.  They're not expressing a lot of ambiguity in their public statements.  Certainly, their October statement was not ambiguous.  Their testimony yesterday before Congress was not ambiguous.  I'll let them speak to what's included in the report, and we'll have an opportunity to take a look at the unclassified report when it's released.  I'd be surprised if there's anything in there that's particularly ambiguous.  If there is, it may be because of the need to protect sources and methods.  But --

Q    And because of the lack of ambiguity, as you point out and others have, and because this is a matter of national security, is it reasonable to expect that the President of the United States might call up the President-elect and say, look, you need to think about this differently?  I mean, it would just seem like a natural thing to do if, in fact, the President is so concerned about this, as he rightfully perhaps should be and has said that he is.

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I think what I can tell you is I certainly wouldn’t rule out that this is an issue that they've discussed previously.  Now, I'm going to protect their ability to have private conversations, so I can't sort of catalogue the conversations that they've had.  But I think common sense would lead you to conclude that this an issue that they've talked about before.  And given the significance of this incident and given the unambiguous nature of the intelligence community's work, I suspect that this is an issue that will continue to be discussed both publicly and privately.  

Certainly, we've seen leaders on Capitol Hill, including Republicans, indicate their commitment to continuing to investigate this matter and learn as much as they can about it, and begin to take steps to prevent the kind of negative impact we saw from happening again.  So I guess I wouldn’t rule out future conversations, but I do not anticipate a telephone call between the President and the President-elect on this specific topic today.  But of course, if the President-elect calls the President of the United States, he'll call him back.

Q    There could be other communications methods.

MR. EARNEST:  There could be.  So that's part of our commitment to the transition.

Q    Just using my common sense, as you've suggested, it would seem logical, then, that the President has talked to him about this, and yet the President-elect has still expressed publicly so much skepticism about the intelligence findings.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, they obviously disagree on a lot of things.

Q    And just on this whole matter of tweeting --

MR. EARNEST:  Maybe that’s the understatement of the day, huh?  (Laughter.) 

Q    On this matter on -- you made a reference to tweeting earlier, that you read all of them but you don’t --

MR. EARNEST:  I try to.  It’s hard to keep up sometimes.

Q    What does the President think about that?  The fact that he does this -- not necessarily the content, but the fact that the President-elect is communicating in this manner.

MR. EARNEST:  I think you can tell from the President’s communication style that he believes that communicating in a different way plays to his strengths, and I think in some ways that contrast was quite stark.  Even just this morning, the President was engaged in a serious, detailed, long discussion of the intricacies of health care policy.  Those are the kinds of arguments and facts and presentations that don’t lend themselves to 140-character limits.  

But obviously, the President-elect has a different communication style and it certainly contributed to some of his success in building support for his campaign.  Whether that’s a style that he believes will benefit him once he has assumed all of the awesome responsibilities of the President of the United States is something that I think we’ll all just have to wait to find out.

Q    And given all these awesome responsibilities, does the President think, as others have said, that this method of communication is dangerous?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I guess I should also clarify, President Obama has a Twitter feed too.  He’s got tens of millions of supporters and followers on Twitter -- or presumably they aren’t all supporters.  I’m sure they’re not.

But he’s got a lot of followers on Twitter.  It can be an effective method of communication, but when every word and the meaning of every utterance is so closely scrutinized to try to detect its precise impact on global events, sometimes the 140- character limit has some downsides.  Sometimes it requires some more explanation to make sure people understand exactly what you mean.  And when you’re President of the United States, it’s important for people in this country and around the world to understand exactly what you mean.

Q    And lastly, in other news, you said you might have some details about the party tonight.

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have additional details about the party tonight.

Q    Or any details.  

MR. EARNEST:  As I mentioned earlier, the President and First Lady are hosting a party here at the White House tonight.  It will be an opportunity for them to spend some time with their friends, and I suspect it will be the last opportunity for them to be able to host such an event before they leave the White House.

Q    Any names on the guest list?

MR. EARNEST:  No names that I have to release from here.

Q    Hundreds of people?  Millions of people?

MR. EARNEST:  It will not be millions of people.  (Laughter.)  It will be smaller than that.  But the President and First Lady are looking forward to it, and this is something that they’ve done before, and it’s one of the things that they will miss about the White House in terms of their personal life and being able to share some of the -- how special that is with their friends in the way that millions of Americans have gotten a glimpse of the specialness of the White House through White House tours.

Q    Are you going?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ll keep you posted on my Friday night plans.

Mark.

Q    By any chance did you ask President Obama about what Vice President Biden said yesterday -- that Donald Trump ought to grow up when it comes to some of his tweets and name-calling?

MR. EARNEST:  I did not speak to President Obama about it.  I can give you my reaction, if you care, which is just simply that Vice President Biden is somebody who, through his four-decade career here in Washington, has developed a reputation for an avuncular communication style.

Q    Avuncular?  (Laughter.) 

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah.  It seems to generate headlines sometimes, but I think what many people have found is that they have benefitted from following the advice of Vice President Biden.

Q    Would a comment like that be in the spirit of the smooth and seamless transition that President Obama wanted?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I think the Vice President, just like everybody else in this administration, has in words and deeds demonstrated a clear commitment and extended courtesies to the incoming President’s team.  

And I know that that is certainly true of the Vice President’s staff, but I also know that that’s true of the Vice President himself.  Earlier this week, he happened to be walking the halls at the same time that somebody on our team was showing my successor around the West Wing, and the Vice President graciously invited Mr. Spicer into this office and spent some time talking to him about how special it is to work at the White House.  And I think that's a pretty clear indication of the Vice President’s commitment to ensuring that all of us -- including the Vice President -- are committed to the kind of smooth and effective transition that President Obama directed.

Q    And earlier in an answer to Ron, you said the President is proud of his economic record.  How does that statement relate to the national debt, an issue that we rarely hear on in this room or from the President, a national debt that is nearing $20 trillion, an 87 percent increase over what it was when he took office?  Certainly -- well, would you regard that as a blot on his economic record?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Mark, I think certainly the President’s record when it comes to fiscal responsibility is quite strong. The deficit has been reduced by two-thirds since President Obama took office.  And the reason that that's important is if we can get the deficit-to-GDP ratio down around 3 percent, that's going to allow us to stabilize the debt as a percentage of GDP.  And that's the metric that economists look at.  

And there has been a lot of progress made in terms of asking those at the top of the income scale to pay a little bit more, in terms of strengthening the economy and raising the amount of tax revenue that's coming into the U.S. government.

There have also been some cuts to government spending, some of which were fashioned in a different way than President Obama would have preferred, but yet resulted in the kind of deficit reduction that's been good for the country and good for our economy.  But there is more work that needs to be done to address the medium- and long-term consequences of the nation’s fiscal picture.  And that will certainly be something that the incoming President and the Republican leadership in Congress will have to address.

We certainly have heard a lot from congressional Republicans about their desire to reduce the deficit.  And we’ll see if they have the same success that President Obama has had 
in reducing the deficit by two-thirds over the next eight years.

Dave.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  We’re talking a lot about domestic policy today.  Will the President in his speech in Chicago discuss foreign policy at all?

MR. EARNEST:  I would anticipate that the President will talk a little bit about the work that is necessary to advance our interests and to keep America safe.  But I would not anticipate that that will be the focus of his farewell address.

Q    What do you say to people who argue that given the continued problems in the Middle East and Syria and in Iraq, the inability to defeat ISIS completely, the growing tensions and years-long problems with Russia that seem to be increasing, even the problems in Europe that seem to be growing with democracies, people losing power, and allies facing new challenges -- what do you say to people who would argue that the President has not left the country in a stronger position in foreign affairs for Trump?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’d say a couple things about that, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to do that.

The first is that when President Obama took office, there were 180,000 U.S. servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and today that number is down below 15,000, I believe.  And I think that is an indication of the important progress that President Obama has made.  

Each President is going to face unique challenges and a unique set of circumstances in the international community.  And what President Obama has sought to do is to strengthen our relationships with our closest allies.  And the President feels good about the progress that we’ve made in strengthening our relationship with countries who are part of our NATO Alliance.  The incoming President indicated that he might try to do something a little bit different.  This President certainly hopes that he won’t, but we’ll have to see how he chooses to manage those relationships.

President Obama is proud of the way that we have overhauled and strengthened the relationship that the United States has with countries throughout the Western Hemisphere, and some of that is because of the policy change that we made with regard to Cuba.  That certainly has created ample opportunities for the United States to strengthen our relationship with countries throughout Latin America.  Obviously, the President had the opportunity to visit Argentina in 2016.  That was a good example of some of the improvements that we’ve made.

I will say that the President is disappointed that Congress didn’t act to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  That certainly had the potential to strengthen our security and economic relationships throughout the Asia Pacific.  That was a missed opportunity, but I don’t think that’s one that you can pin on the President of the United States, because he did the hard work of negotiating the kind of an agreement that would have advanced our interests, and it didn’t move forward because of Congress’s failure to act.

The last thing I’ll say is when President Obama took office, the number-one threat that was identified by the United States and our allies around the world was the risk that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.  That would be extraordinarily destabilizing to not just the Middle East, but to the world.  It would be extraordinarily concerning to our closest ally, Israel.  And it would pose a threat to our allies in Europe that are within range of some of Iran’s missile capabilities.

But because of the principled, hardnosed diplomacy of this administration, the United States succeeded in reaching an international agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  And the international community can now verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and is now farther away from being able to get a nuclear weapon than they have been in some time, and there are restrictions in place to make sure that that timeframe is not shortened.  And if it is, the international community will know about it and will be able to react.

But all of that was accomplished without deploying a single soldier or firing a single shot.  And that certainly is a testament to the President’s success in addressing some of the most significant threats facing the United States.

And then I’ll end just by mentioning the fact that President Obama took office with Osama bin Laden continuing to try to menace the United States.  He no longer is in a position to do that.  

Michelle.

Q    While we’ve been sitting here, there’s been a shooting at Fort Lauderdale Airport in a baggage claim area, and it seems like multiple people have been shot and multiple people have been killed.  Given that we don’t know what the motive is, do you know at this point, or do any of you know if the President has been notified?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know if the President’s has been notified but we can certainly look into that for you.  Obviously these are the kinds of events that we see all too often here in the United States.  And our thoughts and prayers right now are with those who are potentially affected, and certainly with the first responders in south Florida who right now are surely putting themselves in harm’s way to try to protect innocent people.  And so we’re thinking about them right now, and we’ll
President getting updated on this situation.  And we’ll let you know as soon as we can.

Q    Okay, and what do you think of the President-elect asking Congress now -- and he says he’s going to ask congressional committees -- to investigate the leaking of information to -- NBC News is the only one he named.  What’s your reaction to that, especially given that this administration prosecuted leakers multiple times?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, as I mentioned to Josh, just two days ago on his Twitter feed the President-elect was defending the integrity of the foreigner who is the leading purveyor of government secrets maintained by the United States that we’d prefer not be released.  These are secrets that have made the United States -- by virtue of their release, has made the United States less safe and has put our men and women in uniform and our men and women in the intelligence community at greater risk.  Why he’s defending his integrity, I do not know.  But it would lead me to conclude that the tweet that he sent today about NBC was prompted by something other than his concern about the inappropriate release of classified information.  

Q    So would you disagree with calling for an investigation on this particular leak?

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, obviously he called on Congress to take a look at it, and I’ll defer to members of Congress about how they want to use their investigative authorities. 

The one thing I think I would point out is that the Department of Justice with regard to the way that they interact, the way that they conduct leak investigations, and the way that they interact with reporters and protect the First Amendment rights of reporters, they have made clear and codified that journalists should not face punishment just for doing their job.  And that is a principle that has been established and strengthened and codified by the Obama administration.  And hopefully that's something that Mr. Sessions will continue, if and when he is confirmed to be the next leader of the Department of Justice.

Q    Okay, and the President said something interesting today during that Vox interview.  He said that he would support a repeal of Obamacare if the replacement was something better.  And that's a lot different than what we've been talking about in here that you said Democrats shouldn’t even work with Republicans if repeal is a method they choose.  So do you think the President was saying something different here?  Or was that just his way of saying in his view there’s no way that anything is going to be better?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what he was -- he was actually giving voice to the same argument that I was making, which is simply that if Republicans are willing to sit down and look for ways to improve the health care system, improve upon Obamacare, and are willing to work with Democrats to do that, then the President believes that Democrats should work with them.  And it sounded to me like today he volunteered to be one of them.

Q    But even if they want to repeal it?  It sounds like he’s saying something different than --

MR. EARNEST:  The President is simply saying that if Republicans have ideas that will be better for the American people, better for our economy -- and we’ve got a way to judge, right, based on the people that -- based on the way that access to health care has dramatically expanded under the Affordable Care Act, based on the consumer protections that are in place, based on the way that the deficit has been reduced, based on the way that the Medicare trust fund has been strengthened.  If Republicans have a plan to meet all of that criteria and they can do it, and it cover even more people or do it for even less money, then President Obama -- I guess the point the President is making is there’s no pride of authorship here.  And I think that should have been evident from the beginning as the President invited Republicans to take the pen and to put forward their own ideas.  And in fact, the President has willingly shared credit with the Heritage Foundation, who originally conceived of some of the key aspects of this plan.  He has readily shared credit with people like Mitt Romney, whose health care plan in Massachusetts served as a template for the Affordable Care Act.

He didn’t do that because he’s good buddies with Mitt Romney -- he’s not.  Mitt Romney ran against him in 2012, but yet President Obama was willing to use the template that he developed because it was a good idea, and it worked in Massachusetts and it’s worked for the United States of America.

So the President is basically making the point there’s no pride of authorship here.  If Republicans have ideas that are actually going to make the health care system better, the President will help them and encourage them and support them as they try to implement it.  The problem has been that for seven years, Republicans have insisted on simply voting to repeal the law without ever putting forward any sort of realistic plan to replace it.  And some of the ideas that they have floated would not make the health care system in this country better or cheaper or cover more people; it would make many of those problems worse.

And that’s the tension.  As long as Republicans are only focused on throwing our health care system into chaos, I don’t think they’re going to find much support at all from Democrats.  And I think they’re going to have trouble maintaining support among a lot of Republicans who are concerned about the impact that chaos would have on families and businesses in their home states.

Let’s see -- Olivier.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Over the last eight years we’ve seen a series of spectacular cyber intrusions, whether by the United States or against the United States.  I’m wondering under what circumstances the President thinks either an act of hacking or an act of cyber sabotage becomes an act of war.

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t asked this policy question of the President or our experts.  With regard to the Russian involvement in malicious cyber activity that was aimed at trying to destabilize our election, the President believed that that was a very serious incident.  That’s what led to the extraordinary statement from the intelligence community.  That’s what led to the serious response that was publicized by the administration last week.  That’s what led the President of the United States to raise these issues directly with President Putin when they saw one another in Asia this past fall.  And I think that’s why -- I know that’s why the President also directed the intelligence community to produce a comprehensive report that could be shared not just with this administration but with the incoming administration, with members of Congress in both parties, and with the public about what exactly happened.  Getting to the bottom of this is important because what happened is so serious.  

But I will say that I’d want you to talk to somebody with a little bit more expertise in this policy area before I took on the hypothetical question about what kind of malicious cyber activity would genuinely constitute an act of war.

Q    I ask because this morning at a breakfast with reporters, Senator Bob Corker, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that the question of intent here was paramount, saying that the collection of information is not an act of war, but perhaps the use of that information might be.  And that’s why I’m asking sort of what the President’s criteria are -- not so much hypothetical -- what are they.

MR. EARNEST:  Without having thought through a lot of that, I think that certainly is a reasonable statement from Senator Corker that intent of the malicious actor is not irrelevant.  And I know that the intelligence community, as we previously stated, has done a lot of work to try to understand not just what Russia did and how they did it, but also to try to get some insight into what their motivation may have been and what their goal may have been.  

We know at least one of their goals was to raise some doubts about the integrity of our system of democracy and the ability of the United States government to execute an election.  But if there were additional motivations, we’ll have to see what the intelligence community has been able to learn.

John, I’ll give you the last one, then we’ll do the week ahead.

Q    Thank you very much, Josh.  You’ve said repeatedly, including just a few minutes ago, that the Republicans in Congress have no alternative to the Affordable Health Care Act if it’s repealed, and yet in 2015, when the Supreme Court looked again at its constitutionality, Senator Cassidy of Louisiana, himself a doctor, unveiled a detailed plan with -- keeping some aspects of the previous plan, but offering new ones.  Today, Republicans on Capitol Hill say they have seven plans that are on the table, including Senator Cassidy’s.  Why is there sort of a difference in your view and what they're saying on the Hill, and in particular in the case of one senator who did put forth a plan?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think, John, right now it’s a pretty simple situation that we have, which is if Republicans had a plan that they had confidence in, that they believed measured up to the Affordable Care Act, that they believed would garner sufficient political support among Republicans on Capitol Hill, then why wouldn’t they put it forward?

But even the Speaker of the House himself is saying they’ll get around to putting forward a replacement at some point, hopefully later this year.  If there are so many plans that they've been talking about for so long, why aren’t they prepared to put them forward and use them as the replacement for the Affordable Care Act?

So they’ll have -- because the truth is, John -- this is the other part of it that I think is relevant.  It is new that Republicans for the first time are in charge of the White House, but it’s not new that Republicans are in charge of the Congress for the first time.

They had congressional majorities last year and the year before that.  And I’m not aware of those Republicans using their majority to pass an Obamacare alternative.  They didn't.  So that's why I doubt that there actually is a plan that they're willing to put forward, that they're willing to stand behind, that they're willing to evaluate in comparison to all of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act that the American people have been enjoying for years now.

Q    The other question that I had was, there was a number, 1,030 -- 1,030 -- that I’m sure you've seen that's been in numerous articles from Christmas to January.  

MR. EARNEST:  You're laying it on thick here, John. 

Q    All right.  I’m just telling you.  

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.

Q    That is the number of Democratic senators, governors, U.S. representatives, and state legislators who have lost their seats to Republicans in the last eight years under President Obama.  As the leader of the Democratic Party, a position you mentioned earlier, has he ever expressed any thoughts about these losses, which I believe are the biggest for an incumbent President since Herbert Hoover was President during the Depression?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, John, I think it’s always important to evaluate the context of those numbers.  And one important piece of context is simply that there was an historic wave that entered office at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 of Democratic elected officials who benefitted from President Obama being at the top of the ballot in 2008.  So when we're talking about those kinds of numbers, it’s important to recognize that those numbers got built up in the first place because of President Obama’s political success in winning the White House the first time.

That said, the President is the leader of the Democratic Party.  And he has been disappointed, particularly with regard to this most recent election, that a lot of good Democratic elected officials, public servants didn't succeed at the ballot box.  And the President has expressed his view about why that is.  It includes the need for Democratic activists and Democratic voters to express their view persuasively in communities all across the country, and that certainly is part of the challenge that President Obama is going to spend some time thinking about as a former President.  And this will certainly be the challenge that the incoming Democratic Party chairman will take on in taking office and making sure that Democrats are showing up and competing in communities all across the country.  

We’ve got the values right, we’ve got the policy prescriptions right, but we just need to go and make the argument.  And the President is confident that if and when Democrats do that, there are important gains for the party and for the country that lie ahead.

Let me just run through the week ahead real quick.  

On Saturday, the President will travel to Jacksonville, Florida to attend the wedding ceremony of a White House staffer.  There will be no media coverage of the event.  This is just a private event and the President is looking forward to it.

On Monday, the President will attend meetings at the White House.  

On Tuesday, the President will travel to Chicago, Illinois, as we’ve discussed, to deliver his farewell address to the American people.  In the address, he will thank his supporters, celebrate the ways the country has changed these past eight years, and offer some thoughts on where the country will go from here.  The First Lady, the Vice President, and Dr. Biden will also attend.

Through the rest of the week, the President intends to attend meetings at the White House and it should be an interesting week.

Thanks, everybody, have a great weekend.

Q    Can you tell us the staffer’s name or --

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll follow up with you on that tomorrow.

Thanks, everybody.

END
2:11 P.M.

S. 3084, the "American Innovation and Competitiveness Act," which amends and establishes new authorities for various programs at the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education authorities.

11:15 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Good morning.

MS. KLIFF:  Good morning.

MR. KLEIN:  Thank you for being here.

THE PRESIDENT:  It is great to be here.  And thank you so much for all the good reporting you guys have been doing on this important issue.  

MR. KLEIN:  Thank you.

MS. KLIFF:  So we will get started.  So there was an expectation that was shared among many of your staff, many congressional Democrats, that as the Affordable Care Act rolled out, as it delivered benefits to millions of people, that it would become more popular.  It would be safe from repeal or even substantial reform.  And it appears at this point that doesn’t seem to be quite true.  What do you think that theory got wrong? Why didn’t the health care law become more popular?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let’s back up and say from the start there’s a reason why for a hundred years no President could get expansion of health care coverage beyond the work that had been done for Medicare and Medicaid, targeting primarily seniors.  And the reason was that this is hard.  The health care system is big; it is very personal.  Families I think recognize the need for health insurance, but it's not something that they think about except when things go wrong -- when you have an accident or you're sick.  And so any costs, particularly at a time when families are feeling stressed economically, any added costs, higher premiums, higher co-pays, all that ends up having real impacts on families.  

And so the challenge of getting it passed was always the fact that, unlike other advanced countries, we didn’t start with a system in which everybody was covered, and we have a very complicated marketplace, and we have third-party insurers.  And what that meant was that even after we got the law passed anything that dissatisfied people about the health care system could be attributed to -- quote, unquote -- “Obamacare,” even if it had nothing to do with Obamacare.  And that was something that we recognized even when we were trying to get the law passed.

The other thing is the fact that the unwillingness of Republicans in Congress and around the country, including some governors, to, after the fight was over, say, all right, let’s try to make this work -- the way Democrats did during the time when President Bush tried to expand the prescription drug program, Part D -- meant that the public never heard from those who had originally been opposed any concession that, you know what, this is actually doing some good.  And that ends up affecting public opinion.

And the third thing is that whenever you look at polls that say 40-something percent are supportive of the law and 40-something percent are dissatisfied -- in the dissatisfied column are a whole bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters who wanted a single-payer plan.  (Laughter.)  And so the problem is not that they think Obamacare is a failure; the problem is that they don't think it went far enough and that it left too many people still uncovered, that the subsidies that people were getting weren’t as rich as they should have been, that there’s a way of dealing with prescription drug makers in a way that drives down those costs.  And so all those things meant that even after the law was passed there was going to still be a lot tough politics.

Having said all that, the thing that I've been most proud of is the fact that not only have we gotten 20 million people covered, not only have we been able to reduce the pace at which health care costs have been going up -- ever since the law was passed, basically health care inflation has been as low as it's been in 50 years, which has saved the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars, extended the Medicare trust fund by 11 years -- but most importantly, for the people who have gotten insurance through the exchanges, there’s been pretty high satisfaction rates, as surveys have shown.

So rather than look at public opinion as a whole, the thing I've been most interested in is, how is this affecting the people who have gotten benefits?  These are real families who have gotten real coverage.  And I get letters every single day from people who say, this has saved my life, or this has saved my bank account, or this has made sure that my son who got hooked on some sort of opioid was able to get treatment, or I was able to get a mammogram that caught a cancer in time.  And that ultimately is the measure of the success of the law.

MR. KLEIN:  So do you think this dynamic where when you reform the health care system, you own it goes the other way?  Republicans are beginning with the repeal-and-delay strategy. President-elect Trump has said that he does want to repeal Obamacare, but he also wants to replace it with something that covers as many people -- or he said that at least at certain points.

Do you think that the dynamic in which you became responsible for what people didn’t like is going to hamper Republican movement in their efforts to change a system that maybe they don’t like but does have a lot of people relying on it?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me start from a very simple premise:  If it works, I’m for it.  If something can cover all Americans, make sure that if they have a preexisting condition they can still get coverage, make sure that prescription drugs are affordable, encourage preventive measures to keep people healthy, that makes sure that in rural communities people have access to substance abuse care or mental health care, that Medicare and Medicaid continue to function effectively -- if you can do all that cheaper than we talked about, cheaper than Obamacare achieves and with better quality and it’s just terrific, I’m for it.

I think that part of the challenge in this whole debate.  And this is true, dating back to 2009, back to 2010, is this idea that somehow we had a fixed way of trying to fix the health care system, that we were rigid and stubborn and wouldn’t welcome Republican ideas, and if we only had, they had all these great solutions.  In fact, if you look at how this law evolved -- and I’ve said this publicly before, if I was starting from scratch, I probably would have supported a single-payer system because it’s just easier for people to understand and manage.  And that’s essentially what Medicare is, is a single-payer system for people of a certain age.  And people are very satisfied with it and it’s not that complicated to understand or to access services.  But that wasn’t available; we weren’t starting from scratch.

So what did I then do?  I said, well, where is a system out there that seems to be providing coverage for everybody that politically we could actually get through a Congress and where we could get Republican support.  And lo and behold, in Massachusetts there was a plan that had been designed on a bipartisan basis -- including by a Republican governor who ultimately became the nominee for the Republican Party -- that came close to providing universal coverage.  And I would have thought since this was an idea that had previously gotten a lot of Republican support that it would continue to get a lot of Republican support.  And yet, somehow, magically, the minute we said this is a great idea and it’s working, Republicans said this is terrible and we don’t want to do this.

So I say all this, Ezra, simply to make something very clear.  From the very start, in the earliest negotiations in 2009, 2010, I made clear to Republicans that, if they had ideas that they could show would work better than the ideas that we had thought of, I would be happy to incorporate them into the law.  And rather than offer ideas, what we got was a big no, we just don’t want to do this.  

After the law passed, for the last six, seven years, there has been the argument that we can provide a great replacement that will be much better for everybody than what the Affordable Care Act is providing.  And yet, over the last six, seven years, there has been no actual replacement law that any credible health care policy experts have said would work better.  In fact, many of them would result in millions of people losing coverage and the coverage being worse for those who kept it.

And so now is the time when Republicans, I think, have to go ahead and show their cards.  If, in fact, they have a program that would genuinely work better and they want to call it whatever they want -- they can call it Trumpcare, they can call it McConnellcare, or Ryancare.  If it actually works, I will be the first one to say, great, you should have told me that back in 2009.  I asked.  (Laughter.)  I suspect that will not happen.  

And the reason it will not happen is because if you want to provide coverage to people, then there are certain baseline things that you got to do.  Number one, health care is not cheap. And for people who can't afford health care or don’t get it through the job, that means the government has got to pay some money.  

Number two, all those provisions that the Republicans say they want to keep and that they like -- for example, making sure that people can get health care even if they have a preexisting condition -- well, it turns out that the only way to meet that guarantee is to either make sure that everybody has some modest obligation to get health care so that they're not gaming the system, or you've got to be willing to provide huge subsidies to the insurance companies so that they're taking in people who are already sick.  

And I think what you're going to see now that you have a Republican President-elect, you have Republicans who control both chambers in Congress -- is that all the promises they made about how they can do it better, cheaper, everybody is going to be satisfied, are going to be really hard to meet.  

And this is why the strategy of repeal first and replace later is just a huge disservice to the American people, and is something that I think, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you should be opposed to.  These are real lives at stake.  

I'm getting letters right now from people who say, I am terrified because my son's or daughter's insurance -- their ability to get lifesaving drugs, their ability to get drug treatment, their ability to get mental health services are entirely dependent on us being able to afford and keep our insurance.  

And if, in fact, there's going to be a massive undoing of what's one-sixth of our economy, then the Republicans need to put forward very specific ideas about how they're going to do it.  People need to be able to debate it, they need to be able to study it the same way they did when we passed the Affordable Care Act.  And let the American people gauge is this going to result in something better than what Obamacare has produced.  

And if they're so convinced that they can do it better, they shouldn’t be afraid to make that presentation.  It is really interesting to try to figure out why is it that they're trying to rush the repeal so quick.  What is it that they're afraid of?  Why wouldn’t they want to say, here's our plan, and show, side by side, here's why our plan is better than what Obamacare has produced?  Because they have said, absolutely, adamantly, that they can do it better.

I am saying to every Republican right now, if you, in fact, can put a plan together that is demonstrably better than what Obamacare is doing, I will publicly support repealing Obamacare and replacing it with your plan.  But I want to see it first.  (Applause.)  I want to see it first.  And I want third-party, objective people -- whether it's the Congressional Budget Office or health care experts across the ideological spectrum, or Vox, or whoever --

MR. KLEIN:  We'd be happy to, yes.  (Laughter.)  

THE PRESIDENT:  -- to just evaluate it.  And the public will not have to take my word for it.  They can -- we can designate some referees.  And if they can show that they can do it better, cheaper, more effective, provide better coverage, why wouldn’t I be for it?  Why wouldn’t I be for it?  

This idea that somehow, oh, this is about Obama preserving his legacy -- keep in mind, I'm not the one who named it Obamacare.  (Laughter.)  They were the ones who named it Obamacare, because what they wanted to do was personalize this and feed on antipathy towards me in their party as an organizing tool, as politics.  

But I don’t have a pride of authorship on this thing.  If they can come up with something better, I'm for it.  But you have to show -- and I would advise every Democrat to be for it -- but you have to show that it's better.  And that's not too much to ask.  And that's the challenge.  

And the question right now for Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell is, why is it that you feel obliged to repeal it before you show what it is that is going to replace?  

Because the majority of Americans have been very clear that they think that's a bad idea.  You now have Republican governors, some Republican senators, who have said, we don’t think that's a good idea.  And there's been no real explanation to why you would actually try to do this before the new President is even inaugurated.  (Laughter.)  What exactly is this rush?  Particularly if you're going to delay the actual repeal.  

If they were making the argument that this is so disastrous that we actually think we have to repeal it completely today because it's just terrible, well, I would disagree, but at least I could understand it.  But here you're saying, we're going to vote to repeal, but then were going to delay its effects for a couple of years.  Well, why, if it's so bad?

And if the answer is, well, it would be disruptive and we don't want to take people’s insurance away right away, well, then that means you have time to show us and, more importantly, show the American people who need health insurance what exactly you're replacing it with.  

In that sense -- Ezra, I know that was a long answer -- (laughter) -- but in that sense, the answer is the Republicans, yes, will own the problems with the health care system if they choose to repeal something that is providing health insurance to a lot of people, and providing benefits to every American who has health insurance even if they’re getting it through the job, and they haven't shown us what it is that they’re going to do.  Then they do own it.  Because that is irresponsible.  And even members of their own party, even those who are opposed to me, have said that that is an irresponsible thing to do.

MS. KLIFF:  Let me follow up a little bit on the congressional fight.  So we saw yesterday President-elect Donald Trump, he said yesterday on Twitter, “It's time for Republicans and Democrats to get together and come up with a health care plan that really works” -- which is something -- I remember you saying similar things in 2009, 2010, when I was covering this debate.  Knowing what you know now about partisanship, a President who has tried to do this, was, like you said, unable to get Republican votes -- what three pieces of advice would you give someone trying to attempt to pass a bipartisan health care law?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, I think I sort of gave the advice just now, which is, if, in fact, this is not about politics but this is about providing the best possible health care system for the American people, then my advice would be to say what precisely is it about Obamacare that you think doesn’t work.  Because you’ve already said that there are some things you think do work.  

The Republicans keep on saying, well, we want to keep the things that people like and that are working well.  So they think that it's a good idea that Obamacare says your kids can stay on your health insurance plan until they’re 26.  They think that's a good idea.  They think it's a good idea that if you’ve got a preexisting condition you can still get health insurance.  I assume they think it's a good idea that seniors have gotten discounts on their prescription drugs -- we closed the doughnut hole during the course of Obamacare.  They approve of some of the changes we've made to encourage a health care system that rewards quality rather than just the number of procedures involved, and how we pay providers.

So we could make a list of all the things that, as terrible as Obamacare is, actually they think works, according to them.  All right, well, let’s make, then, a list of the things they don't like or the American people are concerned about.  

Well, what we know is that people would always like lower costs on their premiums and their out-of-pocket expenses.  And although the Affordable Care Act provides a lot of subsidies to a lot of people so they can afford health insurance, what is absolutely true is we would love to see even higher subsidies to relieve the costs even more.  But that costs money.  

What we also know is that where we've seen problems in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, it has been in certain areas, particularly more rural areas, less densely populated areas, where we're not seeing as many insurers so there’s not as much competition.  Well, one way that we've suggested we could solve that problem is to say that if, in fact, there aren't enough insurers to drive competition and reduce costs and give people enough choices, then we should have a public option that's available.

So if you look at the things that people are frustrated about with Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, the big things are the subsidies aren't as high as they’d like and they don't have as many options as they’d like.  And I'm happy to provide both those things.  I'd sign on to a Republican plan that said we're going to give more subsidies to people to make it even cheaper, and we're going to have a public option where there isn't an option.  

Here’s the problem.  I don't think that's the thing that they want -- (laughter) -- to do. 

MS. KLIFF:  I don't think so, no.

THE PRESIDENT:  But I guess my point is this, that it is possible for people of goodwill to try to come up with significant improvements to the law that we already have, but it does require to be specific about what it is that you think needs to be changed.  And that, so far, has not happened.  

And my advice to the President-elect -- in fact, we talked about this when I met with him for an hour and a half right after he got elected -- I said make your team and make the Republican members of Congress come up with things that they can show will actually make this work better for people.  And if they’re convincing, I think you would find that there are a lot of Democrats out there -- including me -- that would be prepared to support it.  But so far, at least, that's not what’s happened.

MR. KLEIN:  I think Obamacare has exposed an interesting tension between controlling costs in the system and controlling economic pain for individuals.  So the law has, until now, come in under budget.  But part of the ways it's done that are higher deductibles than people expected, higher co-pays now in networks. In a couple of years, if it doesn’t change, the excise tax on high-value insurance will come into play, the individual mandate. And these things -- individual people -- while they keep the usage of health care down and they keep the cost of health care down, they make health care feel more expensive.  They make health care feel unusable.

Do you think the Affordable Care Act got the balance right on controlling system-wide costs versus insulating individuals from their health expenses?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me make a couple distinctions.  First of all, part of what happened at the beginning of the marketplaces -- and for those who aren't wonks -- (laughter) -- I was teasing Ezra and Sarah, I said this is like a Wonkapalooza.  (Laughter.)  This is some serious policy detail, here.  

But so the marketplaces are basically just those places where insurers put up, here’s the insurance package we're offering, and you can choose from a variety of different packages, and then once you’ve chosen you can figure out the subsidies that you're qualified for and that will give you a sense of what your out-of-pocket costs are.  

And what we discovered was that a lot of insurers underpriced early on, because they had done surveys and -- look, people who are purchasing health insurance are like people who are purchasing everything else, they like to get the best deal for the lowest price.  What makes health care tricky is, when you buy a TV you can kind of see what the picture looks like; when you're buying health insurance it's tempting to initially buy the cheapest thing -- until, heaven forbid, you get sick and it turns out, gosh, I can't see the doctor I want or the specialist I want, or this is more inconvenient than I expected.  

So what ended up happening was people bought, oftentimes, the cheapest insurance that they could.  Insurance companies, wanting to get as much market share as possible, ended up creating very low-cost plans, but those are going to have restrictions on them.  And that's not just if you're buying health insurance in Obamacare, that's generally how it is even when employers buy health insurance for their employees.

Now, I think that what we're seeing is insurers now making adjustments, saying, okay, we need to charge more.  And that is something that, the good news is, appears to -- may have stabilized and might be kind of a one-time thing, and now we're in a position to be able to do an evaluation of have we gotten this balance right, as you say.

We can't get health care for free.  You're going to have to pay for it one way or another.  Either the government is going to pay more so that people don't have as many out-of-pocket costs -- and that means, in some fashion, higher taxes for somebody -- or individuals are going to have to pay more out of pocket in one way or another.

The same is true for employers.  Either employers pay more for a really good health care package, but that takes something out of the employer’s bottom line, or they’re putting more costs onto workers in the form of higher deductibles and higher co-pays.  

And I think that a lot of the good work that can be done in lowering costs had to do not with cost shifting, but with actually making the system work better.  And we've done a lot of work on that.  What I referred to earlier, incentivizing a system that instead of ordering five tests because doctors and providers are getting paid for the test, you now have a system where you're going to get reimbursed if the person gets healthy quicker and is not returned to the hospital.  Well, it turns out that that can, over time, be a real cost reduction.

Those are the kinds of things that we're implementing in the system as a consequence of Obamacare.  The more we do that kind of stuff the less we're going to see this cost shifting.  But the intention has never been to say let’s make it more expensive for people to get health care so they’re going to access the system more.  And I think the proof of that is, is that even though per-person costs have not gone up a lot, the overall spending on health care has gone up because more people have come into the system.

We want people to use the health care system.  We just don't want them to use it in the emergency room.  We want them to use it to stay healthy -- and smoking cessation plans, and making sure that they’re getting regular checkups and mammograms, those are the things that are ultimately going to save us as much money as we can.

MS. KLIFF:  I have a wonky follow-up question.  

THE PRESIDENT:  There you go.  (Laughter.)

MS. KLIFF:  What about controlling prices?  We have some of the highest health care prices in the world in the United States. Most other developed countries, they regulate how much you can charge for an MRI, for an emergency room visit, for an appendectomy.  That seems like it's really at the core of this tension, the fact that we have these very high prices.  Americans don't go to the doctor more, we just pay a lot more when we go to the doctor.  That is something the health care law did not tackle.  And I'm curious to hear you reflect on that and what you would think about the role of price controls in American medicine.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, look, this is the irony of this whole debate, is the things that people are most dissatisfied with about Obamacare, about the Affordable Care Act, are things that essentially in other countries are solved by more government control, not less.  (Laughter.)  And so Republicans are pointing at these things to stir up dissatisfaction, but when it comes to, all right, what’s the solution for it, their answer is less government regulation and letting folks charge even more and doing whatever they want and letting the marketplace work its will.

I think that there are strengths to our system because we have a more market-based system.  Our health care system is more innovative.  Prescription drugs is probably the best example of this.  It is true that we essentially come up with the new drugs in this country because our drug companies are fat and wealthy enough that they can invest in the research and development.  They make bigger profits, which they can, then, plow back into drug development.  And essentially we have a lot of other countries that are free riders on that system.  So they can negotiate with the drug companies and force much lower prices, but they generally don't have a drug industry that develops new drugs.

That's true.  This is an example where you probably do want some balance to maintain innovation, but to have some tougher negotiations around the system as a whole.  And we are trying to use Medicare as the place where, since there’s no health care provider or stakeholder in the health care industry that doesn’t in some ways want to get Medicare business, we're trying to use Medicare as a lever to get better deals for consumers and better prices for consumers -- not just those in Medicare, but also people throughout the system.

But as I said, the irony is, is that when we tried to do that the people who are most resistant are the very Republican members of Congress who are criticizing us -- or at least telling the American people that you should want lower prices on various procedures.  

If we want to control prices for consumers more, then the marketplace by itself will not do that.  And the reason is because health care is not exactly like other products.  It's not like buying a flat-screen TV.  If you're sick, or if your kid is sick, most of the time you're not in a position to negotiate right there and then.  You can't walk out of the store and say, well, I'm going to see if I can get a better deal.  You're trying to figure out -- like when Sasha got meningitis when she was four months old -- make my child better, and that's all -- and I'll worry about the costs later.  And that's the mentality that most people have when it comes to health care.

So the traditional models of the marketplace don't work perfectly in the health care system.  There are areas where we can increase marketplace competition.  There are areas in which we can make it work better.  But ultimately, if we want to really get at some of these costs, there has to be some more expensive regulation in certain areas than we currently have.

MS. KLIFF:  So I recently took a trip to an area of Kentucky -- on a slightly different topic -- I saw some huge coverage gains under the health care law, but also voted overwhelmingly for President-elect Trump.  And one of the people I met there was Kathy Oller, who’s here with us today.  She is an Obamacare enrollment worker who has signed up more than a thousand people for coverage.  She supported you in 2008 and 2012, but voted for President-elect Trump in 2016, and expects him to improve on the Affordable Care Act.  And she would like to ask you a question about that.

THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead, Kathy.

Q    Hello, President Obama.  I'm so excited to meet you.

THE PRESIDENT:  It's good to see you.

Q    Thanks.  I'm a little bit nervous, as you can see.  But over the years, I've enrolled and talked to numerous Kentuckians, and I've signed up some the first time -- so it was working -- in the Affordable Care Act.  And also we've been, going over the years, and I've talked to people.  But recently we found out that there was fewer choices in our area, and the increase in the premiums and deductibles, and our facilities aren’t even taking some of them.  And many Kentuckians now are looking at the Affordable Care as unaffordable and unusable.  

And I have the opportunity to ask you a few questions that you have probably went over, but how do you think this happened? How can we fix it?  Do we start all over again?  What do you think we should do?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, Kathy, I want to thank you for being out there enrolling people.

Q    Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT:  That’s been hugely important.  (Applause.) 

The second point I would make is that Kentucky is a place where this has really worked, and it’s worked for two reasons.
One is Kentucky expanded Medicaid.  And we haven’t talked a lot about that, but a big chunk of Obamacare was just making Medicaid accessible to more people.  And those states that expanded Medicaid have seen a much bigger drop in the uninsured than those states who didn’t.  

And by the way, those states that didn’t, they didn’t do so just out of politics -- I’ll just be very blunt -- because the federal government was going to pay for this Medicaid expansion. And there are some states, because they had all this uncompensated care, ended up making money by providing more health insurance to your people.  It was a hard bargain -- a hard deal to turn down, and yet you got a number of states that turned it down mainly because Republican governors and Republican state legislatures didn’t want to make it work.

Kentucky, under Steve Beshear, was one of those people that did expand Medicaid, had a really active program.  Because I don’t poll that well in Kentucky, they didn’t call it Obamacare, they called it Connect -- Kentucky Connect, right?  (Laughter.)  

And so there were a whole lot of people who said, well, we don’t like Obamacare -- (laughter) -- but I like this program and we’ll signed you up, right?  You signed people up, you didn’t tell them it was Obamacare all the time.  (Laughter.)  And it’s actually worked.  Right?

Now, what is true in Kentucky, though, is true in some other states.  You had a governor who ran explicitly on the idea of rolling back Obamacare even though it was working.  And so the state marketplace, the state exchange he dismantled, which means we had to shift everything onto the federal exchange.  Most people got shifted, but it indicated a lack of interest and effort on his part in making the thing work.  He promised to roll back Medicaid, but he started realizing that wasn’t as good politics as he thought it was when he was running, so he hasn’t done that.  

But what is also true is -- and this is my main criticism of Obamacare, of the Affordable Care Act -- is that the subsidies aren’t as high as they probably should be for a lot of working people.  If you don’t qualify for Medicaid where you don’t have to pay, for the most part, for your coverage, and instead you’re buying health insurance on the marketplace -- so you’re a working person but you don’t have a lot of money, and particularly if you are older, where you use the health care system more and you need a better benefit package than somebody 18 or 20 might, then there are families where the premiums are still too high.

And as I said earlier, there are some parts of the country where there are only a handful of hospitals and a few doctors, and where you don’t have a lot of competition, and the insurers are looking and they’re saying, we’re not going to make a lot of money there, so you don’t end up having a lot of insurance plans in those areas.

So the two things that we could do that would really make it work even better for people in Kentucky would be, number one, provide more subsidies to folks who are working hard every day but still find the premiums even with the subsidies hard to meet, and have the public option for those communities where they’re not getting a lot of competition and insurers aren’t coming in.  

The problem is, is that that's not what's being proposed by Mitch McConnell, the senator from Kentucky.  Instead what he's proposing, I gather, is you're going to repeal the law, then you're going to come up with something, except you will have taken away all the -- the way we pay for the subsidies for working people is we're taxing wealthier folks at a little bit higher.  So he wants to cut those taxes, and that money would be gone right away.  And then he's going to promise you, or those people who you've been signing up, better health care, except there's not going to be any money to pay for it.  And nobody has explained to me yet how that's going to work.  

And so I think this takes me back to the point I made earlier.  If, in fact, the people you've been signing up, the folks in your communities, are not fully satisfied with the benefits that they're getting now and are hopeful for something better, then at the very least you should be putting pressure on your members of Congress to say, show us exactly what the deal is going to be for us before you take away the deal that we got.  Because the people you sign up, they may not be as happy as they'd like, but -- tell me if I'm wrong -- they like it better than not having any insurance at all.

MS. KLIFF:  And some didn’t even have insurance.  

THE PRESIDENT:  And some people didn’t have insurance.  Because I get letters from folks who say, for the first time in my life -- I have had a bad hip for 15 years and I've been pain-free for the first time because I finally got insurance.  So the answer is not for them not to have insurance.  And if we go back to a system where they've got to buy it on their own, they're not going to buy it because they'll have even less subsidy.  

How much time do we got?

MR. KLEIN:  I think we're quite low.

THE PRESIDENT:  We got low time?  Because I got all kinds of more stuff.  (Laughter.) 

MR. KLEIN:  Well, it's your schedule.  We're happy to keep you as long as you'd like.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there are a couple points I want to make in closing --

MR. KLEIN:  Excellent.

THE PRESIDENT:  -- but why don’t you ask some questions.

MR. KLEIN:  So one thing we haven’t touched on yet in much detail is the delivery system of follow-ups, which are a big part of the law.  So what is a policy or experiment or change in that space that has over-performed your expectations?  And what's one that has maybe not panned out as you’d liked or hoped?

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, I think a good example of something that's worked better than we expected, or at least worked as well as we expected is the issue of hospital readmissions.  Now, it turns out that a lot of times you go to the hospital -- let's say, you get your appendix taken out, and then you go home and then there's a complication, and then you have to go back into the hospital.  That's obviously inconvenient for you and it's expensive for the system as a whole.  And it turns out that there are just a few things that you can do that help reduce people being readmitted.  

First of all, making sure that the first procedure goes well, but, secondly, making sure that there's good follow-up.  So it might be that a hospital or a health care system pays for, when you do go home, you just getting some phone calls to remind you to take the medicine that you got to take to make sure you heal properly -- because they may have done a study and it turns out that people forget to do what they're supposed to do, they don’t follow exactly their doctor's instructions, and they can't afford to have a nurse in their house who's doing it for them.  Well, maybe there are just a few things that can be done to help make sure that they do what they are supposed to do, and that way they don’t have complications. 

What we've seen is a significant reduction in hospital readmissions over the course of this law just by doing some smart incentivizing, just saying to the hospitals we'll reimburse you or we'll give you some other benefit for doing smart follow-up.  That's an area where I think we've made some real progress.  

The other place -- and this is connected -- where I think we've got some good bipartisan support is just encouraging what's called -- shifting from what's called fee-for-service payments, where you get paid by the procedure, which means that you may end up getting five tests instead of getting one test that's emailed to five providers who are treating you.  And we've started to see some real movement when we say to the system as a whole we're going to pay you for outcomes -- did the patient do well.  And that has been helpful.

In terms of areas where I think we haven’t seen as much improvement as I'd like, it's probably -- one thing that comes to mind is on the electronic medical records.  If you think about how wired and plugged in everybody is now -- I mean, you can basically do everything off your phone.  The fact that there are still just mountains of paperwork, and you don’t understand what these bills are that still get sent to your house, and nobody -- and the doctors still have to input stuff, and the nurses are spending all their time on all this administrative work -- we put a big slug of money into trying to encourage everybody to digitalize, catch up with the rest of the world here.  

And it's proven to be harder than we expected, partly because everybody has different systems, they don’t all talk to each other.  It requires retraining people in how to use them effectively.  And I'm optimistic that over time it's inevitable that it's going to get better, because every other part of our lives, it's become paperless.  But it's been a lot slower than I would have expected.  

And some of it has to do with the fact that, as I said, it's decentralized and everybody has different systems.  In some cases, you have sort of economic incentives that are pushing against making the system work better.  For example, there are service providers -- people make money on keeping people's medical records, so making it easier for everybody to access each other's medical records means that there are some folks who could lose business.  And that has turned out to be a little more complicated than I expected. 

MS. KLIFF:  Do you have any closing remarks?  And one thing I'm interested in is kind of what you see your role in this debate we're gearing up for.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, let me make a couple of closing remarks.  Number one, I think it is important to remember that just because people campaigned on repealing this law, it is a much more complicated process to repeal this law than I think was being presented on the campaign trail, as my Republican friends are discovering.  

The way this process is going to work, there's this rushed vote that's taking place this week, next week to -- quote, unquote -- "repeal Obamacare."  But really all that is, is it's a resolution that is then instructing these committees in Congress to start actually drafting a law that specifically would say what's being repealed and what's not.  Then, after that, they'd have to make a decision about what's going to replace it and how long is that going to take.  And that stretches the process out further.  

And so I think, whether you originally supported Obamacare or you didn’t, whether you like me or you don’t, the one thing I would just ask all the American people to do is adopt the slogan of the great state of Missouri -- "Show me."  (Laughter.)  Show me.  Do not rush this process.  

And to Republicans, I would say:  What are you scared of?  If you are absolutely convinced, as you have been adamant about for the last seven years, that you can come up with something better, go ahead and come up with it.  And I'll even cut you some slack for the fact that you've been saying you can come up with something better for seven years and I've never seen it.  (Laughter.)  But we'll restart the clock.  

It's interesting that we're here in the Blair House because this is a place where I met, in front of the American people, with Republicans who had already indicated their adamant opposition to health care.  And I sat with them for a couple hours -- how long was it?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS:  Eight.

THE PRESIDENT:  Eight hours.  (Laughter.)  Kathleen Sebelius, who is my Secretary of Health and Human Services, remembers -- for eight hours, on live TV, to talk about here's why we're trying to do what we're doing here, and challenging them to come up with better answers than the ones we had come up with.  And we spent a year of really significant debate.  

And I would think that given that we now have proof that 20 million people do have health insurance, that we're at the lowest rate of uninsured in our history, that health care costs, rather than spiking way up, have actually gone up slower than they have in 50 years; given that the vast majority of people who get health insurance through Obamacare have said they're satisfied with their care and that they're better off than when they didn’t have care; given that even though a lot of people don’t know it, even if you're not getting health insurance through Obamacare, you've benefitted, because if you get health insurance on the job, it now doesn’t have a lifetime limit, it doesn’t have fine print that could end up costing you a lot of money -- given all those things, I would think that you'd at least want to explain to the American people what it is that you want to do.  

And that, I think, is a minimum expectation out of this Congress and out of the President-elect.  

I'm make a second point, and that is that we just worked, on a bipartisan basis, to sign something called the Cures Bill that included two really important bipartisan priorities.  One was Joe Biden's Cancer Moonshot initiative -- because we're seeing so many medical breakthroughs in so many areas that we have an opportunity to make a real dent in how we deal with cancer, which affects everybody in some fashion -- somebody has been touched in your family with this terrible disease.  So we got a lot more money for research in that, and the bill also contained a big investment in the opioid challenge.  

As many of you know, you’re seeing more and more communities that are being ravaged by, initially, prescription drugs; then that ends up being a gateway into heroin, some of which, like synthetic heroin being produced called Fentanyl, just has terrible rates of overdose deaths.  And this is not an inner-city problem, per se, but this is reaching every community.  In some ways, it’s worse in a lot of rural communities. 

So there was a bipartisan effort for us to put some more money into that.  But here’s the thing.  If we just put money into cancer research, and we just put money into dealing with the opioid crisis, and now we’re taking away money that is providing drug treatment services in those very same communities by repealing Obamacare, and taking away the ability to access a doctor to get new cancer treatments, then we’re not really helping anybody.  So that’s a second point I want to make.

A third point I want to make is that I would encourage local communities to get involved in this process.  And I think part of the problem with this whole law has been that the people who benefit aren’t out there making noise, and the people who ideologically have opposed it have been really loud.  Well, now is the time for people who have benefitted or seen their families benefit to tell their stories.  

Because, ultimately, this is not a political game.  This is really something that affects people in the most personal ways.  My friend, Natoma Canfield, is here in the front row.  Some of you heard Natoma’s story before, where -- a cancer survivor who, because she had now a preexisting condition, was faced with either keeping her health insurance at such a high rate -- the only way she could get health insurance with a preexisting condition was to basically pay so much that she could no longer afford to pay the mortgage on her house.

And I remember her writing to me, and I thought, that could be my mom.  That could be yours.  And that’s not a choice that people should have to make.  And when most people, even if they’re not Obama supporters, hear Natoma’s story or the stories of other people who have been helped, they know it’s wrong to just take away their health care.  And it becomes less about who’s winning here in Washington.  It becomes about how are we doing right by our fellow Americans.

But those stories have to be heard.  And I would just encourage people to start telling their stories.  And tell their stories -- you’re not always going to get a lot of attention here in Washington because they want to know this vote and this insult that was hurled back-and-forth between whoever.  But you know what, tell that story in your local newspapers.  Talk to your local reporters.  Congregations that are involved in caring for those in need, make sure that you’re telling stories in church and in services so that people know.  

Because the one thing that I’m convinced about is the American people want to do the right thing.  They just -- it’s hard to get good information, and unless you’re reading Vox every day, which is hard to do -- 

MR. KLEIN:  It’s not that hard to do.  (Laughter.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  -- getting the details of all this policy is hard.  It’s complicated.  You don’t know what’s true; you don’t know what’s not true.  

I mean, those folks in Kentucky that you’ve signed up -- there are a lot of people who voted for not just a President, but also for a member of Congress who said, explicitly, we’re going to eliminate this.  Well, I understand why people might think, okay, well, he’s going to eliminate it, but he will give us something better.  But this is hard.  And what you don’t want is a situation where they make a promise that they can’t keep.  

And I’ve worked on this a long time.  If we had had a better way to do this, we would have done it.  It would have been in my interest to do it, because I knew I was going to be judged on whether or not it worked.  And those areas that don’t work had to do with there not being enough money in the system and not having a public option.  And I’m more than happy to put those fixes in place, anytime, anyplace.  But that’s not, so far, what the Republicans are proposing.  You deserve to know what it is that they’re doing.

So, anyway, I appreciate you guys taking the time to tell the story.

MR. KLEIN:  Real quick, Sarah had asked about your role going forward.

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, my role going forward?  Well, look, I mean, I do deserve a little sleep.  (Laughter.)  And I’ve got to take Michelle on a vacation.  But I’ve said consistently that the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen.  And I will be a citizen who still remembers what it was like when his mom died of cancer younger than I am now, and who didn’t have all the insurance and disability insurance and support, and wasn’t using the health care system enough to have early detection that might have prevented her from passing away.

You know, Michelle’s dad had multiple sclerosis -- MS -- but was part of that generation that just didn’t have a lot of expectations about health care and so just kind of suffered for years.  I mean, those are our stories.  So it’s not like I’m going to suddenly fade away on this.  I will be a part of the work of our fellow citizens in trying to make sure that the wealthiest country on Earth is able to do the same thing that every other advanced country is able to do.

I mean, it’s not as if this has never been done before.  If you’re in Canada, you got health care, no matter who you are.  If you’re in France, you got health care.  If you’re in England, you got health care.  If you’re in Australia, you got health care.  If you’re in New Zealand, you got health care.

I remember talking to my friend, John Key, who was the Prime Minister of New Zealand.  He is part of the Conservative Party in New Zealand.  And he said to me in the middle of this health care debate, he said, boy, if I proposed that we took away people’s health care, that we repealed it, I’d be run out of office by my own party.  (Laughter.)  Because it was just assumed that, in a country this wealthy that this is one of the basic rights, not privileges, of citizenship in a well-to-do country like ours.

So I’ll be working with all of you.  But my voice is going to be less important than the voices of people who are directly affected.  And so I would urge everybody to make your voice heard.  Now is the time to do it.  

The people who have opposed this were opposing it not based on facts, but were opposing it based on sort of an ideological concern about expansion on the state, and taxes on wealthier people that are helping people who don’t have as much money.  And I respect their role in the democracy.  They’ve been really fighting hard.  Well, folks here got to fight just as hard.

My final piece of advice would be to the news media, which is, generally speaking, when Obamacare has worked well it wasn’t attributed to Obamacare, and when there were problems they got front-page headlines.  And I think that, hopefully, now is a time where people can be a little -- this doesn’t apply to Vox, by the way.  (Laughter.)  But I think it would be a good time for people to be a little more measured and take a look at what are the facts of this thing.  Because the stakes are high.

Even on this whole premium issue -- increase issue that happened right before the election, it is true, as I said, that insurers adjusted and hiked premiums.  But I kept on trying to explain, number one, if you’re getting a tax subsidy, this wasn’t going to affect your out-of-pocket costs because the tax credit would just go up.  But nobody kind of heard that.  

And number two, these increases in premiums only applied to people who were buying health insurance on the exchanges.  In fact, 85 percent of the people don’t get health insurance through Obamacare.  And for you, your health care premiums actually have gone up a lot less since Obamacare was passed than they did before Obamacare was passed.  The average family has probably saved about $3,000 in lower health care premiums than if you had seen those same health care cost trends increase at the pace that they did before the law was passed.  But I didn’t see a lot of headlines about that -- which I understand, I mean because it’s not controversial enough, or it’s a little bit too complicated to get in a soundbite.  

So that’s why the individual voice is so important.  And that’s why I’m so appreciative of journalists who actually know what they’re talking about.  (Applause.)  

MR. KLEIN:  Thank you, Mr. President.  (Applause.) 

THE PRESIDENT:  Thanks.  Appreciate it.  (Applause.)  

MS. KLIFF:  Thank you.

12:23 P.M. 
EST

11:47 A.M. EST

MRS. OBAMA:  Hey!  (Applause.)  What’s going on?  (Applause.)  Thank you all so much.  You guys, that’s a command -- rest yourselves.  (Laughter.)  We’re almost at the end.  (Laughter.)  

Hello, everyone.  And, may I say for the last time officially, welcome to the White House.  Yes!  (Applause.)  Well, we are beyond thrilled to have you all here to celebrate the 2017 National School Counselor of the Year, as well as all of our State Counselors of the Year.  These are the fine women, and a few good men -- (laughter) -- one good man -- who are on this stage, and they represent schools from across this country.  

And I want to start by thanking Terri for that wonderful introduction and her right-on-the-spot remarks.  I’m going to say a lot more about Terri in a few minutes, but first I want to take a moment to acknowledge a few people who are here.  

First, our outstanding Secretary of Education, John King.  (Applause.)  As well as our former Education Secretary, Arne Duncan.  (Applause.)  I want to take this time to thank you both publicly for your dedication and leadership and friendship.  We couldn’t do this without the support of the Department of Education under both of your leadership.  So I’m grateful to you personally, and very proud of all that you’ve done for this country.  

I also want to acknowledge a few other special guests we have in the audience.  We’ve got a pretty awesome crew.  As one of my staff said, “You roll pretty deep.”  (Laughter.)  I’m like, well, yeah, we have a few good friends.  We have with us today Ted Allen, La La Anthony, Connie Britton, Andy Cohen -- yeah, Andy Cohen is here -- (laughter) -- Carla Hall, Coach Jim Harbaugh and his beautiful wife, who’s a lot better looking than him -- (laughter) -- Lana Parrilla, my buddy Jay Pharoah, Kelly Rowland, Usher --

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Woo!

MRS. OBAMA:  Keep it down.  (Laughter.)  Keep it together, ladies.  Wale is here.  And of course, Allison Williams and her mom are here.  

And all these folks are here because they’re using their star power to inspire our young people.  And I’m so grateful to all of you for stepping up in so many ways on so many occasions.  I feel like I’ve pestered you over these years, asking time and time again, “Well, where are you going to be?”  “I’m going to be in New York.”  “Can you come?  Can you come here?  Can you do this?  Can you take that?  Can you ask for that?  Can you come?  Can we rap?  Can we sing?”  (Laughter.)  So thank you all so much.  It really means the world to this initiative to have such powerful, respected and admired individuals speaking on behalf of this issue.  So congratulations on the work that you’ve done, and we’re going to keep working.  

And today, I especially want to recognize all these -- extraordinary leadership team that was behind Reach Higher from day one.  And this isn’t on the script so they don’t know this.  I want to take time to personally acknowledge a couple of people.  Executive Director Eric Waldo.  (Applause.)  Where is Eric?  He’s in the -- you’ve got to step out.  (Applause.)  Eric is acting like he’s a ham, but he likes the spotlight.  (Laughter.)  He’s acting a little shy.  

I want to recognize our Deputy Director, Stephanie Sprow.  Stephanie.  (Applause.)  And he’s really not going to like this because he tries to pretend like he doesn’t exist at all, but our Senior Advisor, Greg Darnieder.  (Applause.)  There you go.  Greg has been a leader in education his entire life.  I’ve known him since I was a little organizer person.  And it’s just been just a joy to work with you all.  These individuals, they are brilliant.  They are creative.  They have worked miracles with hardly any staff or budget to speak of -- which is how we roll in the First Lady’s Office.  (Laughter.)  And I am so proud and so, so grateful to you all for everything that you’ve done.  So let’s give them a round of applause.  (Applause.)  

And finally, I want to recognize all of you who are here in this audience.  We have our educators, our leaders, our young people who have been with us since we launched Reach Higher back in 2014.  Now, when we first came up with this idea, we had one clear goal in mind:  We wanted to make higher education cool.  We wanted to change the conversation around what it means and what it takes to be a success in this country.  Because let’s be honest, if we’re always shining the spotlight on professional athletes or recording artists or Hollywood celebrities, if those are the only achievements we celebrate, then why would we ever think kids would see college as a priority?

So we decided to flip the script and shine a big, bright spotlight on all things educational.  For example, we made College Signing Day a national event.  We wanted to mimic all the drama and excitement traditionally reserved for those few amazing football and basketball players choosing their college and university teams.  We wanted to focus that same level of energy and attention on kids going to college because of their academic achievements.  Because as a nation, that’s where the spotlight should also be –- on kids who work hard in school and do the right thing when no one is watching, many beating daunting odds.

Next, we launched Better Make Room.  It’s a social media campaign to give young people the support and inspiration they need to actually complete higher education.  And to really drive that message home, you may recall that I debuted my music career -- (laughter) -- rapping with Jay about getting some knowledge by going to college.  (Laughter and applause.)  

We are also very proud of all that this administration has done to make higher education more affordable.  We doubled investments in Pell grants and college tax credits.  We expanded income-based loan repayment options for tens of millions of students.  We made it easier to apply for financial aid.  We created a College Scorecard to help students make good decisions about higher education.  And we provided new funding and support for school counselors.  (Applause.)  Altogether, we made in this administration the largest investment in higher education since the G.I. Bill.  (Applause.)  And today, the high school graduation rate is at a record high, and more young people than ever before are going to college.

And we know that school counselors like all of the folks standing with me on this stage have played a critical role in helping us get there.  In fact, a recent study showed that students who met with a school counselor to talk about financial aid or college were three times more likely to attend college, and they were nearly seven times more likely to apply for financial aid.  

So our school counselors are truly among the heroes of the Reach Higher story.  And that’s why we created this event two years ago, because we thought that they should finally get some recognition.  (Applause.)  We wanted everyone to know about the difference that these phenomenal men and women have been making in the lives of our young people every day.  And our 2017 School Counselor of the Year, Terri Tchorzynski, is a perfect example.

As you heard, Terri works at the Calhoun Area Career Center, a career and technical education school in Michigan.  And here’s what Terri’s principal said about her in his letter of recommendation.  He said, “Once she identifies a systemic need, she works tirelessly to address it.”  

So when students at Terri’s school reported feeling unprepared to apply for higher education, Terri sprang into action to create a school-wide, top-to-bottom college-readiness effort.  Under Terri’s leadership, more students than ever before attended workshops on resume writing, FAFSA completion -- yes, I can now say FAFSA -- (laughter) -- and interview preparation.  I can barely say it.  (Laughter.)  They did career and personal -- personality assessments.  They helped plan a special college week.  And they organized a Military Day, hosting recruiters from all branches of our armed forces.  And because of these efforts, today, 75 percent of Calhoun’s seniors now complete key college application steps, and Terri’s school has won state and national recognition.

And all of this is just one small part of what Terri does for her students each day.  I can go on and on about all the time she spends one-on-one with students, helping them figure out their life path.  Terri told us -- as you heard, she told us about one of those students, so we reached out to Kyra.  And here’s what Kyra had to say in her own words.  Kyra wrote that “Mrs. Tchorzynski has helped me grow to love myself.  She helped me with my doubts and insecurities.”  She said, my life has changed “for the better in all aspects.”  Kyra said, “She held my hand through my hardest times.”  She said, “Mrs. Tchorzynski is my lifesaver.”  That’s what Kyra said.  (Laughter.)  

And this is what each of you do every single day.  You see the promise in each of your students.  You believe in them even when they can’t believe in themselves, and you work tirelessly to help them be who they were truly meant to be.  And you do it all in the face of some overwhelming challenges –- tight budgets, impossible student-counselor ratios -- yeah, amen -- (laughter) -- endless demands on your time.  

You all come in early, you stay late.  You reach into your own pockets -- and see, we’ve got the amen corner.  (Laughter.)  You stick with students in their darkest moments, when they’re most anxious and afraid.  And if anyone is dealing with a college [high school] senior or junior, you know what this feels like.  These men and women show them that those kids matter; that they have something to offer; that no matter where they’re from or how much money their parents have, no matter what they look like or who they love or how they worship or what language they speak at home, they have a place in this country.

And as I end my time in the White House, I can think of no better message to send our young people in my last official remarks as First Lady.  So for all the young people in this room and those who are watching, know that this country belongs to you –- to all of you, from every background and walk of life.  If you or your parents are immigrants, know that you are part of a proud American tradition –- the infusion of new cultures, talents and ideas, generation after generation, that has made us the greatest country on earth.  

If your family doesn’t have much money, I want you to remember that in this country, plenty of folks, including me and my husband –- we started out with very little.  But with a lot of hard work and a good education, anything is possible -- even becoming President.  That’s what the American Dream is all about.  (Applause.)  

If you are a person of faith, know that religious diversity is a great American tradition, too.  In fact, that’s why people first came to this country –- to worship freely.  And whether you are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh -- these religions are teaching our young people about justice, and compassion, and honesty.  So I want our young people to continue to learn and practice those values with pride.  You see, our glorious diversity -- our diversities of faiths and colors and creeds -- that is not a threat to who we are, it makes us who we are.  (Applause.)  So the young people here and the young people out there:  Do not ever let anyone make you feel like you don’t matter, or like you don’t have a place in our American story -- because you do.  And you have a right to be exactly who you are.  
But I also want to be very clear:  This right isn’t just handed to you.  No, this right has to be earned every single day.  You cannot take your freedoms for granted.  Just like generations who have come before you, you have to do your part to preserve and protect those freedoms.  And that starts right now, when you’re young.  

Right now, you need to be preparing yourself to add your voice to our national conversation.  You need to prepare yourself to be informed and engaged as a citizen, to serve and to lead, to stand up for our proud American values and to honor them in your daily lives.  And that means getting the best education possible so you can think critically, so you can express yourself clearly, so you can get a good job and support yourself and your family, so you can be a positive force in your communities.   

And when you encounter obstacles -- because I guarantee you, you will, and many of you already have -- when you are struggling and you start thinking about giving up, I want you to remember something that my husband and I have talked about since we first started this journey nearly a decade ago, something that has carried us through every moment in this White House and every moment of our lives, and that is the power of hope -- the belief that something better is always possible if you’re willing to work for it and fight for it.

It is our fundamental belief in the power of hope that has allowed us to rise above the voices of doubt and division, of anger and fear that we have faced in our own lives and in the life of this country.  Our hope that if we work hard enough and believe in ourselves, then we can be whatever we dream, regardless of the limitations that others may place on us.  The hope that when people see us for who we truly are, maybe, just maybe they, too, will be inspired to rise to their best possible selves.

That is the hope of students like Kyra who fight to discover their gifts and share them with the world.  It’s the hope of school counselors like Terri and all these folks up here who guide those students every step of the way, refusing to give up on even a single young person.  Shoot, it’s the hope of my -- folks like my dad who got up every day to do his job at the city water plant; the hope that one day, his kids would go to college and have opportunities he never dreamed of.

That’s the kind of hope that every single one of us -– politicians, parents, preachers –- all of us need to be providing for our young people.  Because that is what moves this country forward every single day -– our hope for the future and the hard work that hope inspires.  

So that’s my final message to young people as First Lady.  It is simple.  (Applause.)  I want our young people to know that they matter, that they belong.  So don’t be afraid –- you hear me, young people?  Don’t be afraid.  Be focused.  Be determined.  Be hopeful.  Be empowered.  Empower yourselves with a good education, then get out there and use that education to build a country worthy of your boundless promise.  Lead by example with hope, never fear.  And know that I will be with you, rooting for you and working to support you for the rest of my life.  

And that is true I know for every person who are here -- is here today, and for educators and advocates all across this nation who get up every day and work their hearts out to lift up our young people.  And I am so grateful to all of you for your passion and your dedication and all the hard work on behalf of our next generation.  And I can think of no better way to end my time as First Lady than celebrating with all of you.

So I want to close today by simply saying thank you.  Thank you for everything you do for our kids and for our country.  Being your First Lady has been the greatest honor of my life, and I hope I’ve made you proud.  (Applause.)  

END                
12:07 P.M. EST

America built a strong middle class over the past several generations through a commitment to keeping a high-quality education within reach of all who are willing to work for it. In keeping this promise alive, President Obama has made the largest investment in student aid since the G.I. Bill, and implemented reforms to ensure every student can earn a good-value college degree or credential. Today, many historically underserved students are enrolling in college for the first time; more students are graduating from college than ever; and new student loan defaults, delinquencies, and forbearances are on the decline. We can continue building on the progress, which includes:

Breaking Records on High School Graduation Rates: The high school graduation rate has risen steadily over President Obama’s time in office, growing by about four percentage points since the 2010-2011 school year – the first year all states used a consistent, four-year adjusted measure of high school completion. This increase reflects important progress schools across the country are making to better prepare students for college and careers after graduation. In October 2016, President Obama announced that America’s high school graduation rate reached a record new high of 83.2 percent.

Redesigning America’s High Schools: To engage, prepare, and inspire college and career-ready students, and align high school learning to the experiences and opportunities that matter in young people’s lives President Obama laid out a new vision for America’s high schools in his 2013 State of the Union address, proposing funding to scale-up innovative high school models and partnerships with colleges and employers so that all students graduate better equipped for the demands of the innovation economy. To build on this work the White House has hosted two annual summits on Next Generation High Schools in 2015 and 2016, announcing $375 million in private and public sector commitments and commitments from states and school districts estimated to impact more than 600,000 students to advance Next Generation High Schools.

Making It Easier to Access the Historic Investments in Financial Aid: President Obama has doubled investments in financial aid, increasing the maximum Pell Grant by over $1,000 and establishing the American Opportunity Tax Credit to provide up to $10,000 in tax credits to support higher education over four years. More than two million additional students have received college assistance each year through the Pell Grant over the course of the Obama Administration. A recent report by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers suggests that the Obama Administration’s increase in the average Pell Award between 2008-2009 and 2014-2015 will lead to an additional $20 billion in aggregate earnings, a nearly 2:1 return on the investment. , the White House and U.S. Department of Education are launching this year’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)—available October 1st for the first time, three months earlier than the traditional January 1st date—so that more students can access the historic investment in financial aid and better information when they need it. In the first month alone, the number of FAFSAs completed outpaced the previous years’ by over 10 percent, and has increased for Pell-eligible and first-generation students.

Promoting College Success: The College Scorecard—which was announced by the President in 2015—provides the clearest, most comprehensive national data on cost, graduation rates, debt, and post-college earnings. Organizations—like Google, College Board, and the Common Application—are building the College Scorecard tool and data into their products in order to ensure that students and families have the best information available at critical decision-making-periods. The College Scorecard data on college costs, graduation rates, and earnings will be clearly featured in the hundreds of millions of Google searches related to colleges and universities taking place in the U.S. each year. Together with the earlier availability of the FAFSA, the College Scorecard ensures that students and families have the best information available to choose a good-value school. Because students and families can learn about their financial aid eligibility within a few days of completing the FAFSA, they will have better information to compare costs and student outcomes available on the Scorecard when they are searching for and applying to schools. Next year, the FAFSA will direct students to the College Scorecard, so that students will have immediate access to the information they need to make their most consequential investment to date—by weighing their personalized financial aid estimates against a school’s student outcomes, comparing schools, and considering the full scope of their college options.

Making Community College Free for Hard-working Students: During his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama unveiled America’s College Promise (ACP), a plan that creates and strengthens partnerships to make two years of community college free for responsible students, letting students earn the first half of a college degree and skills needed in the workforce at no cost. The President’s proposal would also support four-year Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions in providing students with up to two years of college at zero or significantly reduced tuition. If all states participate, an estimated nine million students could benefit. A full-time community college student could save an average of $3,800 in tuition per year. Over 100 new free community college programs have been established in states, cities, systems, and schools across the country since the President announced ACP in his 2015 State of the Union. Altogether, they are raising and investing $338 million in new dollars to serve 210,000 students. The number of free community college programs across the country is expected to grow, with $100 million for America’s Promise Grants, the tuition-free dual enrollment pilot for 10,000 students, and resources like the America’s College Promise Playbook.

Making Progress on Commitments to Share Information about FAFSA and the College Scorecard:  Using platforms like the Up Next texting tool, students can access step-by-step advice and personalized support on completing the FAFSA, explore the College Scorecard, and complete their college entrance exams. In response to the Administration’s call to action, numerous organizations have made commitments to ensure more students are connected to information about college preparation.  Recent progress on these commitments includes:

• Increased Outreach to Underserved High Schools: The Coalition for Access, Affordability, and Success member colleges and universities completed 554 high school visits to 270 high schools where students are most likely to benefit from college information and resources this fall – with Texas A&M University leading the way with 63 school visits.  In preparation for visiting these and other under-resourced schools with high populations of lower income students, several colleges collaborated to create a series of communications to connect students with Up Next mobile text messaging campaign and introducing students to the FAFSA toolkit and College Scorecard.  Member institutions also encouraged students to make use of free tools available as part of the Coalition platform, including college entrance exam preparation and other college search tools.
• Sharing Best Practices Across the Country. Partnering with school counselors and education leaders in 42 states including the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, in just over two years Reach Higher’s growing coalition of school counselors has organized five national school counseling convenings, 2 regional convenings and 2 statewide convenings bringing education stakeholders from across the country together to discuss and share promising practices and strategies to help guide our nation’s students to reach their fullest potential.  These states have responded to the First Lady’s call to action and have made a pledge to continue in this effort beyond the administration through the commitments they have made to increase postsecondary access and success outcomes. More on Reach Higher’s work with school counselors can be found in Reach Higher’s Progress Report.
• Signing Day Bonuses. DonorsChoose.org, a crowdfunding nonprofit that's helped public school teachers raise $500 million for classroom projects, and the College Football Playoff Foundation, a nonprofit committed to supporting education across the country, are continuing to organize this spring’s 1,000 College Signing Day events, started by Reach Higher and Better Make Room. When counselors at public schools’ nationwide register to host a College Signing Day at their high school campus, they will receive $500 in DonorsChoose.org funding credits, backed by the College Football Playoff Foundation, to help fund classroom resources for their event. These $500 "signing bonuses" will help ensure counselors have the materials they need to launch successful College Signing Day events.

1:24 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Don't all answer at once.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Good afternoon.

MR. EARNEST:  I do not have comments at the top, so we can go straight to your questions.  Josh, would you like to start?

Q    Sure.  Thanks, Josh.  So some of our intelligence leaders were on the Hill today for quite a while testifying about Russian hacking, among other things.  And Clapper talked a lot about what Russia did, but declined to call it an act of war, saying it wasn’t really their place to do that.  But it seems it would be the place of the White House to make that kind of determination if it felt that it was appropriate.  So based on the details that were laid out on the Hill, does the White House feel that the Russian hacking related to the campaign constituted an act of war?

MR. EARNEST:  Josh, what I can tell you is that the Obama administration takes very seriously the effort that was undertaken by the Russians to interfere with, and even undermine, the basics of American democracy.  And the intelligence community takes that quite seriously, and that was evident from the extraordinary statement that they issued back in October, a month before the election, indicating that they had concluded with high confidence, unanimously, that Russia had undertaken this effort and that this was an effort that could only have been directed from the highest levels of the Russian government.

I think you can discern the seriousness with which we take this issue.  But taking a close look at the report that was issued last week detailing the U.S. government's response to this malicious cyber activity from the Russians -- of course, that report was not comprehensive, but it certainly noted all of the public steps that were taken by the United States government in response.  So I think you can discern that President Obama and the rest of the administration takes this issue quite seriously.  I don’t have a new label to apply to it today, but this is something that has rightly drawn the attention of the American public and certainly drawn the attention of the President of the United States.

     Q    There seemed to be this debate playing out in the course of that hearing about whether intelligence assessments are debatable or irrefutable or open to interpretation, and intelligence officials acknowledging that they put forward information and that policy leaders have to make their own judgments about it.  But in light of the President-elect's comments about what the intelligence community has come up with, does the White House think that what the IC has said about Russia's involvement is irrefutable?  Is there any interpretation that is open to -- or would you push back on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me answer that question a couple different ways.  I think the first thing -- and this is a point that I'd made in the past but I think it bears repeating, and I'll keep it brief.  The fact that the 17 intelligence agencies of the United States government issued a public high-confidence assessment a month before the election I think should give you an indication of the degree of confidence that those intelligence communities had and have in those conclusions, in that analysis. 

So this isn’t a situation where -- look, there are many situations in which the intelligence community is responsible for drawing upon different strands of partial information and trying to present to policymakers a complete picture.  That requires some interpretation.  That requires -- in some cases they would probably even say that it's educated guessing.  And what the President has always asked is that the intelligence community provide to him their unvarnished assessment.  He's also asked the intelligence community to provide dissenting views, if they exist; that surfacing disagreements that exist in the intelligence community actually does serve policymakers well by helping them get a variety of perspectives to try to understand exactly what's happening. 

And President Obama has time and again insisted on the unvarnished assessment of the intelligence community.  He's insisted on being able to consider dissenting views.  The President has insisted that the intelligence that's presented to him should not be shaded to advance a policy or ideological objective.  The President has insisted that the intelligence community should not hesitate to present to the President what could be considered bad news, because a white-washed assessment doesn’t serve anybody well.  Somebody who's consuming this intelligence using rose-colored reading glasses is not going to be able to make good decisions.

So the President has time and time again asked the intelligence community to provide him solid, up-to-date, unvarnished assessments about what's happening around the world.  And the President's decision-making has been very well-served by that, and the President is entirely confident that that's what they have produced in this case.  Because there's not -- again, according to the public statement that we saw from the intelligence community that was issued on paper before the election, based on the testimony that you saw from leaders in the intelligence community today, this is not one of those scenarios where the intelligence community has to make a tough call based only on partial information.  They've been quite definitive. 

And what you heard from some of those officials today is not just that they continue to have confidence in the assessments that they issued back in October, but based on the work that they have done in the intervening months, they actually have more confidence in the conclusion that they've put forward in October.

So I think the other thing that bears mentioning, Josh, is that the men and women of the intelligence community are experts in their field.  These are men and women who don’t do those jobs because they are getting a big paycheck.  In many cases, the men and who serve in our intelligence community are experts who could command a much higher salary in the private sector, but they choose to dedicate their talents to protecting the country.  They don’t do it for the glory because, in many cases, members of the intelligence community have to do their work in secret, so their names are never made public.  And in some cases, those officers have paid the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for this country.  And even now, even though they have made that remarkable sacrifice, their names are prevented from being made public because of the damage it could potentially do to our national security. 

So the men and women of the United States intelligence community are patriots, they're experts, and they are dedicated to getting the facts right and providing information regardless of their political motivation or their political preference.  And President Obama has benefitted enormously from their service, their sacrifice, their professionalism, and their expertise.  And the President believes that those qualities will serve the incoming President well if he chooses to draw on that resource in the same way that President Obama has.

Q    Can you say whether the President has been briefed on the version of the intelligence report that he has now received, and whether there's anything that he learned from that new report that adds to his understanding based on what he knew previously?

MR. EARNEST:  What I can tell you, Josh, is that the White House does have the report, and President Obama is being briefed on it by a range of senior officials who are members of his national security team, some of whom you saw on television earlier today.  And --

Q    It’s happening today?

MR. EARNEST:  It’s happening right now.  And this is -- obviously, the President directed the intelligence community to put together this report last month.  He asked them to complete this report before January 20th, so they are beating that deadline by a couple of weeks.  And the President has also asked the intelligence community to ensure that they are briefing Congress, which is something that Director Clapper indicated earlier today that he would do.

He has asked the intelligence community to brief the President-elect, something that apparently has been scheduled for tomorrow.  The President has also directed the intelligence community to make as much of the information that's included in the report public because it’s important for the American people to understand that it’s our democracy that has been interfered with.  And so the people who are participating in that democracy should have as much information as possible about what exactly happened.

Now, what the intelligence community will also have to do -- and this is a critical priority -- is protect sources and methods.  They need to protect their ability to guard against these kinds of intrusions in the future.  That's going to limit their ability to make as much public as they probably would otherwise like to do.  But they will scrub this report and make as much of it public as they possibly can.  But it will be a different version than is consumed by officials at the highest level of the United States government. 

And I know that Director Clapper has indicated he’s hopeful that he’ll be able to produce a public version of the report early next week.  But for more precision on the timing of that release, I’d refer you to his office.

Q    And I think you were alluding to this a moment ago, but I wanted to ask you about the reports that the President-elect’s team is considering a shakeup in the way that the intelligence agencies are structured and possibly pulling back some of the employees in some of those key agencies.  Have any of the intelligence agencies, to your knowledge, received any request for information from Trump’s transition team that you believe could be used to try to do that kind of a restructuring?  And is the President urging his successor not to dismantle the intelligence apparatus, as we know it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, a couple things about this, Josh.  I did have a chance to read that report that I think surfaced last night that was attributed to anonymous transition officials.  I know that there are other transition officials speaking on the record who denied that report today.  So I think it’s difficult to tell exactly what the incoming President’s plans actually are.

That being said, the President tasked his administration and agencies all across his administration to be very focused on ensuring a smooth and effective transition with the incoming President’s team, and that includes the intelligence community.

I can't speak with a lot of precision about the conversations that have already taken place, but I know that there already -- there’s been extensive planning and a variety of conversations that have already taken place to try to prepare the incoming President and his team to assume responsibility for U.S. national security, including responsibility for the intelligence community.  But I can't speak to what plans they may have for reforming the intelligence community.  But obviously when he enters the Oval Office on January 20th, he’ll have an opportunity to consider what kinds of reforms he believes would best serve him, his team, and the country.

But I'll just say one more time how much President Obama has benefitted from the service and sacrifice of the professionals and patriots who serve this country every day, working around the clock, on weekends, over the holidays, to ensure the safety and security of the country.

Q    But I guess that's the point right there, though.  I mean, are you hearing from the intelligence officials who currently report to this President and this administration that they're demoralized by the disparagement that is coming from the President-elect?

MR. EARNEST:  I know that Director Clapper and others had the opportunity to speak to this today, and I think -- well, we heard Director Clapper express concern about some of the President-elect's comments and tweets having a negative impact on morale.  And that certainly is unfortunate.  These are -- like I said, these are men and women who could get a much bigger paycheck in the private sector.  These are men and women who don't get a lot of glory and fame for their work.  These are men and women who work long days and late nights and over the weekend and over the holidays to keep us safe.  And they are worthy of nothing less than our deep gratitude for their service and for the safety and security that we enjoy because of their service.

Ayesha.

Q    Just one more question on the intelligence briefing.  Are you expecting that the President will give like a formal response to the report, or will there be something in writing? Will there be some type of response from the President?

MR. EARNEST:  At this point, I would not expect a formal response from the President of the United States.  Obviously, if that changes, we'll make sure that all of you know.  But at this point, that's not part of the plan.  Presumably, at some point in the next few days, the President will have an opportunity to answer questions about this.  So to the extent that there is a response from President Obama about some of this, I would anticipate that it would come in that form.

Q    On another subject, going back to -- which was a big topic yesterday, was the meeting on Obamacare and basically strategizing with the Democrats on what to do next.  I wanted to kind of clarify -- does the President still believe that Democrats should work with Republicans to help make changes to Obamacare or to repeal and replace Obamacare?  Or is the idea that if they're going to repeal it and replace it, that Democrats should sit back and just kind of let the Republicans deal with the consequences of that?  What exactly is the President's position on that?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, this is an excellent question and I think your colleague, Michelle, asked a similar version of this yesterday.  And this is important.  The President's approach from day one, since the day that he signed the Affordable Care Act into law back in March of 2010 -- so we're talking about almost seven years ago -- the President has indicated not just an openness but a desire to work closely with Democrats and Republicans around ideas to further strengthen the law.

The President has even put forward some of his own suggestions for how the law could be strengthened; increasing tax credits to families to make some health care purchases even more affordable.  The President has also even floated the possibility of enhancing competition in some areas of the country that don't currently have a lot of competition by introducing a public option in some of those communities.  By enhancing competition, you could foster better options at potentially a lower cost. 

These are some of the ideas the President has put forward.  These are the kinds of ideas that you would expect Republicans to be able to support.  Republicans spent a lot of time talking about free-market solutions and tax cuts for working people.  This falls squarely in that category.

But the point here, Ayesha, is that the President has put forward specific ideas for strengthening the law.  He has welcomed -- or he would welcome Republicans and Democrats working together to implement some of those ideas to strengthen the law.  That has been true throughout his presidency, and that will be true into the next presidency.

But unfortunately, that is not the approach that Republicans have pursued.  Republicans, rather than being willing to look for solutions, have been focused for seven years on just trying to either sabotage the law, or to repeal it outright.  And when I say “sabotage,” I’m making a reference to repeated lawsuits that Republicans have filed in courts to try to interfere with the implementation of the law.  I’m referring to Republican governors who have refused, in the face of all common sense, to expand Medicaid in their state. 

The expansion of Medicaid is paid almost entirely by the U.S. government.  We know that providing essentially charity care -- health care to people who can’t afford health insurance -- is a significant drain on state budgets.  We know that it would improve health care outcomes because people would be getting checkups more often.  So people would be healthier, lives would be saved, and it would save money for all these states.  But because Republican governors think that politics are more important than saving money, more important than saving lives, they’ve blocked Medicaid expansion in far too many places.

So the Republican idea of sabotaging the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is not new.  And fortunately, they’ve been unsuccessful.  They’ve been unsuccessful in repealing the law.  They voted 50 times to repeal it and they haven’t succeeded.  And despite their best efforts to undermine the implementation of the law, we’ve actually seen that 20 million Americans have gotten health insurance because of the law.  We’ve seen that since the law was signed into force, that health care costs have risen at the slowest rate on record.  So despite these Republican efforts, the law remains in place and it has worked. 

So the advice that the President has to Democrats is if Republicans are willing to actually focus on a constructive effort to strengthen the law, that Democrats should work with them.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is not strengthening the law.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is taking health care away from up to 30 million Americans.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is to shorten and weaken -- shorten the lifespan of and weaken Medicare.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is to take away consumer protections that currently prevent Americans from being discriminated against because they have preexisting conditions.

HHS recently released a report indicating that more than 130 million Americans have preexisting conditions, and they can’t be discriminated against or prevented from signing up for health insurance right now because of the Affordable Care Act.  So that’s 130 million Americans who are going to have this protection stripped away if Republicans follow through on their plan.

So that’s not strengthening the law.  There’s no reason that Republicans should -- or that Democrats should be a party to a Republican effort to tear that law down.  But if Republicans are actually interested in trying to strengthen the law and improve outcomes for the American people, then Democrats absolutely have a responsibility to work with them.

Q    And will that depend on then the idea of what strengthening means?  Because, I mean, obviously, they’re going to repeal it -- they say they’re going to repeal it.

MR. EARNEST:  They say that, but we’ll see if -- you know, the President spent a lot of time talking about this yesterday.  Republicans have a tough road to hoe.  The promise of it sounds really good, and that’s why you heard them repeat it on the campaign trail so often:  “We’re going to repeal Obamacare.”  That was typically met by cheers from people in the crowd, many of whom probably were benefitting from Obamacare.  Trying to explain that situation is something that you’ll have to turn to somebody else for.

But the point that the President has made is that there’s one thing -- saying it on the campaign trail and getting raucous cheers from a political rally is one thing.  Actually implementing the repeal and governing the country is yet another.  Reckoning with the consequences of 130 million Americans having critically important protections being stripped away, that’s pretty complicated.  That doesn’t roll right off the tongue at a campaign rally.  Taking health care away from 30 million Americans -- that’s something that you have to explain and compensate for once you start governing, once the campaigning has ended.

So I do not think that it is a foregone conclusion, particularly because Democrats are united around the idea that the Affordable Care Act is something that’s worth protecting.  And we see lots of Republicans, including Senator Rand Paul, who voted against the reconciliation bill yesterday, expressing a lot of heartburn -- no pun intended -- about the idea of repealing the law in a way that’s going to weaken it, and in a way that’s going to take health care away from people and take away protections that are actually popular.

So I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion, and I think Democrats should draw a lot of confidence from the kind of position that they’re in right now to defend a law that is producing for the American people.  And the prospect of taking it away may sound good when it comes to the rhetoric, but when it comes to explaining exactly what they’re doing, I think it’s going to give those politicians a lot of pause.

Justin.

Q    I wanted to go back to when you were talking about dissenting views and sort of in the context of these conclusions that have been made.  Trying to connect I think the two things that you said, would it be fair to take away that there were no sort of dissenting views in any of the -- obviously, everybody signed off on this conclusion.

MR. EARNEST:  Yes.

Q    But it is accurate to say that within the ranks of the intelligence community there was kind of universal agreement that Russia was responsible for this attack and some of the sort of motivations that we've heard ascribed to Russia for the attack?

MR. EARNEST:  So you're right that the public statement that was issued back in October, a month before the election, that did indicate that Russia was engaged in an effort to undermine our democracy did represent the consensus view of all 17 intelligence agencies.

For the opinions of individual officers in those agencies, I think you’d have to go to them directly to get their opinion.  But --

Q    Well, what I'm wondering I guess is, is this report going to have -- oftentimes reports are issued -- the evaluation of something, you will hear from dissenters why they might question conclusions that were reached or an evaluation of alternate theories for what might have happened.  And so I’m wondering if we can expect those sorts of things to be included in the publicly released information, or if it will just be -- and it might be that there’s universal agreement that Russia was responsible.  But that's just --

MR. EARNEST:  Look, I think this is an entirely fair question, but it’s not one that I’m in a position to answer.  I don't know what’s going to be included in the report that is produced early next week.  That’s something that the intelligence community is working on, so we’ll have an opportunity to take a look at it there.  And then maybe we could have some more questions about this.

But look, the other thing I think I would encourage you to do is to check with some of these intelligence agencies and to see to what extent they factored in dissenting views, or if those dissenting views didn't exist.

Q    Buzzfeed reported that the FBI relied on a third-party analysis of the DNC servers to sort of reach their conclusions that Russia was responsible for this hacking.  I’m wondering if that raised any concern within the White House.  It seems like a credible third party.  But obviously I think some of the critics on the transition team have said this is the equivalent of the FBI not going to the crime scene itself to look at it.

MR. EARNEST:  Look, I can't speak to the investigative methods that were used by the FBI and the wisdom of the approach that they pursued.  So I’d refer you to them for a comment on that.

Q    Director Clapper said in his testimony today that Russia may have been responding to cyberespionage activities that the U.S. had taken.  So I’m wondering if you -- I guess if the White House believes that the Russian actions were potentially retaliatory rather than sort of proactively trying to interfere with American democracy.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, the conclusion from the intelligence community before the election was that the Russian government was motivated based on direction that was received at the highest levels of the government to interfere, undermine, or raise doubts about U.S. democracy and our political institutions.  Whether there were additional motives that Russia may have had, that’s something that I’d refer you to the intelligence community to assess.

But I guess the point that -- the thing that I would point out independent of any special or classified knowledge is simply that the two motives that you cited are in no way contradictory.  You could imagine a scenario -- I don’t know if it’s true or not -- that Russia would be motivated for one reason or another to try to retaliate against the United States for some sort of perceived slight, and that retaliation would take the form of undermining confidence in U.S. democracy.  So it’s easy to see how those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

Q    One last one on a totally different topic.  Some Turkish defense officials earlier this week seemed to float the idea of ending the use by the U.S. coalition of Incirlik Air Base.  There seems to be some frustration over the level of U.S. and international support for their operation in Syria.  What’s the level of concern in the administration that -- you’ve spoken many times about how important that air base is and what it could mean for our attempts to go after ISIL. 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I will say is that NATO is obviously a critically -- Turkey is a critically important NATO Ally, and we have benefitted from our alliance with Turkey, and we obviously have valued the partnership and commitment that they have shown to going after ISIL.

One of the priorities that we identified early on was the need for Turkey to take steps to secure their border with Syria, and they didn’t take those steps as quickly as we would have liked, but in the last several months we have seen them take definitive action that has had a positive impact in securing that border that is limiting the ability of ISIL to smuggle people and materiel across that border into Syria.

So we obviously are pleased that Turkey has taken those steps.  In general, the United States has been strongly supportive of the steps that Turkey has taken, and we have offered them additional support to supplement some of their ongoing efforts against ISIL right now.  I think that it is -- it would seem to undermine their case to threaten to eliminate our access to the Incirlik Air Base.  Presumably some of the kind of assistance that we could provide would originate from Incirlik Air Base.

So it feels a little like cutting off one’s nose to spite your face.  And hopefully that’s not in the cards.

Lynn Sweet.  Welcome back to the White House Briefing Room.  It’s always a treat to have you here.

Q    Thank you.

MR. EARNEST:  Why are you looking at me like that?

Q    I have a question.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s why I called on you.

Q    Thank you.  With President Obama coming home to Chicago on Tuesday for his farewell address, is there any message that you could share now that he may have or want to sort of reflect on as the city is grappling with a soaring murder rate?  It certainly is on the mind of a lot of people in Chicago as he comes home and as he intends to put his Obama Center in a part of the city that’s so very hard-hit by homicide.  And could you also rule in or out if the President is going to give any kind of commutation to now-in-prison Governor Rod Blagojevich?  As you know, the nature of the crime, one of the reasons he’s in prison, is in part for the attempt to try to sell then-Senator Obama’s Senate seat.  So I’m hoping you could have some reflections.

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any comment on potential offers of clemency.  There’s a process that we have --

Q    He has applied.

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah, but there’s a process that will be administered by the Department of Justice, and so I don’t have any comment on that.

With regard to the violence that has been plaguing the city of Chicago, you’ve heard the President over the last couple of years talk about his deep concern about the violence that’s plaguing his hometown.  And he is certainly concerned about the use of illegal firearms in a lot of that violence.  He believes that there are additional common-sense steps that could be taken that would at least reduce the number of illegal guns that are so readily available on the street.

He also believes that there are some simple things that could be done to make those guns a little harder to get, particularly for people that have bad intentions and shouldn’t have them in the first place.  That’s not going to prevent every act of gun violence, but it certainly would have a positive impact.

The President has also talked about some of the work that needs to be done in the community there.  And the President is certainly interested in investing in the My Brother’s Keeper initiative.  This is a program that has been implemented in a number of communities across the country, including Chicago, to try to mentor boys and young men of color who too often go overlooked.  And the President is hopeful that when he leaves the White House, this is something that he’ll be able to devote more of his time and attention to.

I know the President and First Lady are also optimistic about the potential of the Obama Presidential Center having a positive economic impact on the South Side of Chicago.  And he is hopeful that that will spur some economic activity and be a beneficial influence in the community.  And many of the plans for the Presidential Center are focused on maximizing the benefits for the surrounding community.  Obviously, this work is in the earliest of stages, but in the years ahead I know that both President Obama and Mrs. Obama will be making the positive impact on the local community one of the highest priorities of the Presidential Center.

Q    Quick follow-up.  The foundation has said that some programming is going to start in 2017 then.  Are they going -- it’s years away from this being built and up and running, the center.  So is there something that they’re going to be doing programming-wise, without the center being built, but since the foundation is up and running in Chicago anyway?  Will they wait for the bricks and mortar to be there, or will they, once they leave the White House, try to get some programs going through My Brother’s Keeper or other -- My Brother’s Keeper Alliance, which now is a nonprofit, or any other entity?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t speak to any specific programs that --

Q    That’s my main thing -- are they going to wait until the thing is built, which is years away, or do something sooner?

MR. EARNEST:  I think they are very interested in trying to make an immediate impact because this is obviously a community that is very close to them, and this is obviously where Mrs. Obama grew up and a place where President Obama spent most of his adult life.  So this is a community that is close to their hearts and one that will get a lot of their attention beginning in 2017.

Q    Do you know if he’s been by Jackson Park, or she has?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know the answer to that question.

Q    Will he swing by it?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware of plans to do that on this trip, but I haven’t looked carefully at the schedule.  So obviously if he does something like that, the presidential pool will be along for the ride.

Isaac.

MR. EARNEST:  You were speaking earlier about the high regard of the President of both the intelligence community and the work that they do.  Is he concerned about the demoralizing effect that some people have talked about from the way the President-elect has spoken about them and the assessments being made in a way that would make America less safe over the course of the years to come from that demoralizing?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I know that Director Clapper gave voice to some of these concerns in his testimony today.  He indicated that some of the rhetoric and comments could potentially have a negative impact on the morale of the United States intelligence community.  And I think I would leave it to Director Clapper to assess what sort of impact that could potentially have on our national security.

Based on what I know of our men and women in the intelligence community, they’re professionals.  And even in the face of some of the rhetoric that we’ve seen, they’re determined to do their job for the right reason:  to keep the American people safe.  And they will do their job to the best of their ability without regard to who they would prefer to see in the Oval Office, and I’m confident that that work will continue and it will continue to be executed faithfully by the patriots in the intelligence community.

Q    But the President doesn’t share Director Clapper’s concerns?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the President would -- I think what is clear to anybody, even those of us who are not in the intelligence community, is it’s hard to imagine how some of the rhetoric and comments we’ve seen would have a positive impact on morale in the intelligence community.  But I think President Obama would share my assessment about the professionalism of the men and women in the intelligence community, but he would also listen carefully to the assessment of somebody like Director Clapper when considering what the potential impact of those comments and that rhetoric could be on the intelligence community broadly.

Q    On a totally different topic, is the President excited about Tom Perriello’s candidacy for governor in Virginia?

MR. EARNEST:  I saw a news report in the Times today.  I don’t know that Mr. Perriello has made an official announcement, unless that’s happened since --

Q    It’s happening.

MR. EARNEST:  It's happening right now, huh?

Q    They put out a video this morning. 

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware that the President intends to endorse in the race, but obviously Mr. Perriello has served this administration with distinction.  And the President did enjoy a close working relationship with him in Congress and appreciated his commitment to a set of democratic values in the context of his service in Congress.  It was all too short, in the President’s view.

Q    But you don’t think that he would get involved in this?

MR. EARNEST:  But I’m not aware that the President will offer an endorsement, but maybe in his role as a former President of the United States he’ll have more time to consider these kinds of decisions.  So I’m not in a position to rule out an endorsement, but I’m not aware of one that’s planned.

Megan.

Q    Josh, do you expect the President will be calling the President-elect after today’s briefing?

MR. EARNEST:  I do not expect a phone call will occur between the President and the President-elect today.

Q    How often have they been communicating?

MR. EARNEST:  Many of their telephone conversations have been reported publicly, but I have tried to protect their ability to have private conversations by not talking about them too much publicly myself.  So I said a few weeks ago that they have had a handful of conversations.  They've had more conversations since then.  So I don’t know if now it's two handfuls or not.  But they continue to be in touch.

Q    Will the report be sent to Congress today?  And do we have an idea of when lawmakers are going to be briefed?

MR. EARNEST:  Director Clapper's office will be responsible for disseminating the report and following the President's instruction to ensure that Congress is appropriately briefed.  I don’t know that the timing for all that has been laid out at this point, but you can check with his office and they can keep you up to date on that.  But the President's expectation -- and I think this is something that Director Clapper committed to -- is that Congress will be briefed on the results of the report, and I would expect that to happen soon.

Q    And then piggybacking off of Josh's question, as far as the President's view of any kind of intelligence community shakeup that the Trump transition team may or may not be considering, what would the President think specifically about doing away with the DNI -- with the role of the Director of the National Intelligence?

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah, listen, I think -- obviously, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence was created to address an intelligence failure in the first place.  And the President has benefitted from the organizing function that Director Clapper's office has performed in drawing on the material that's collected by the wide variety of intelligence agencies all across the U.S. government.  And so serving as that organizing function I think is valuable. 

Look, I think I would also add that Director Clapper is somebody who has served as the Director of National Intelligence more for than six years now.  And President Obama has felt enormously well served by the way that he has handled the significant responsibilities of that office.  But that's not new when you're talking about somebody like Director Clapper.  Director Clapper enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1961, and he is somebody who began his career in the military as a rifleman in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves.  He is somebody who served in the Air Force and flew 73 combat support missions over Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. 

This is somebody who has put his life on the line to protect this country, and he didn’t do that because he got drafted, he did that because he signed up.  And since then, he has had a career of public service that's included him rising to the level as a Lieutenant General in the United States Air Force.  And he is somebody who has served Presidents in both parties.  He is somebody who is committed to the safety and security of this country.  And we owe him -- as he noted in his testimony today, he is ending his career in public service in January 20th, and we certainly owe him a deep debt of gratitude for his service to the country, not just as a Director of National Intelligence, but for the six decades that he has selflessly served this country. 

Q    Would the President advise the President-elect of any room for improvement within the intelligence community?

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I think what the President would say is that the incoming President and his team should take a close look at the intelligence community, and if they have proposals or ideas for implementing reforms that would ensure that the country is better served, then that's something that they should carefully consider.  But the current structure that's in place now and the individuals who populate the highest ranks of that organizational chart have served President Obama enormously well.  And he is hopeful that the incoming President will benefit from the same kind of sound advice and expertise that has made the United States safer over the last eight years.

Michelle.

Q    So are you saying that the President would say he shouldn’t change it if it has served him so well, meaning the structure?

MR. EARNEST:  I think President Obama is simply someone who has benefitted enormously from the current structure and the people who serve in that structure.  But obviously the President-elect will have an opportunity to consider if a new structure would be better for him. 

Look, we've already spent some time in here previously talking about how the President-elect has chosen to handle this information somewhat differently than President Obama has.  The President-elect has declined to get daily intelligence briefings from the intelligence community.  So he clearly has different ideas for how this should work.  President Obama believes that he was well served by getting this material briefed to him every day, and he believed that having a structure in place to support that was good for the country and good for his ability to make a good decision.  But it may be that the President-elect has some different ideas. 

Q    So is there nothing about the current structure that President Obama would change?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, I think this is going to be entirely up to President-elect Trump to decide, but President Obama has been enormously well served by the people that are in the current structure.

Q    Okay.  And we heard the Speaker of the House today say publicly in an interview that Russia did not affect the outcome of this election.  Do you think that's a fair thing to say?  Is that something that can even be known, given the intelligence that has been out there?

MR. EARNEST:  I was not able to listen to the entirety of the testimony, so I'm relying on you to provide the context for what was said.  I suspect that the point that was being made is simply the idea that the intelligence community has concluded that Russia did not succeed in tampering with voting rolls in a way that would interfere with the ability of people to cast a ballot and have it counted.  So from that standpoint, there's no evidence that the vote tally was manipulated. 

For the broader political impact of the hack-and-leak strategy that the Russians implemented, this is a strategy that obviously had a negative effect on that Democratic candidate for President.  I think that's something that people will be assessing for quite some time.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case that it had a positive impact on the Democratic campaign.  But ultimately, what was the -- how much of an impact it had I think is something that will be subject to debate for quite some time.

Q    Because I think in the past when you were asked, "Did this hurt Democrats, did it hurt Clinton in particular," you would say, well, that's up to analysts.  But you're saying that it's obvious that the Russian meddling did hurt Clinton.

MR. EARNEST:  I think particularly the week or so before we left for the holidays, I think I made pretty clear the ample evidence that is available to anybody who was paying attention --

Q    I mean, I think then we were talking about intent, that it was clearly designed to hurt Democrats.  But you're saying that it was obvious that it had a negative effect on Clinton.

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah.

Q    I just wanted to make sure that is what you're talking about.

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah, again, I don’t think that's different than what I said in December.  I haven’t -- I watch a lot of cable television and I read a lot of newspapers, and I haven’t heard anybody come out and say that having John Podesta's emails leaked on a daily basis, every day, for the last three weeks leading up to Election Day was good for the Clinton campaign.  That would certainly be a controversial analysis.  It would cut against the grain.  But I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to make that case.

Q    Okay, fine.  And today, Senator Graham said that it's time at this point to throw rocks at Russia, and not just pebbles.  So if we're going to go with the analogy of throwing stones, the response that this administration has put out there against Russia, do you consider that a pebble, or is that a rock?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that's a hard thing to assess.  I'll let Senator Graham put forward his own analogies.  I think what -- or metaphors.

Q    I mean, we know what the point is, that he and others at this hearing are implying that it's not enough.  So --

MR. EARNEST:  And I think what I would say is that this is a forceful response.  It's not the sum total of the response, but the public report that was issued last week that detailed the Russian government agencies being sanctioned, that detailed the PNGing of Russian diplomats from the United States, the closing of a couple of diplomatic facilities, the Joint Analysis Report that was issued that will interfere with Russia’s ability to carry out these kinds of operations in the future, both because by releasing this information system’s administrators in the United States and around the world can better protect their computer networks against the malware and the tactics that are employed by the Russians.

So that won’t just improve the defenses of these networks, it also means the Russians have to go back to the drawing board to look for new tactics and design new malware.  That is going to interfere with their ability to continue to carry out these actions moving forward.

So what you have seen is a serious response, and you haven’t seen the sum total of it.  And I know that there are some, including some members of the President-elect’s team, who fretted that the response was too severe.  So they’re certainly entitled to their opinion, but the President believes that the serious effort that Russia undertook to interfere in our election deserves to be met with a serious response, and that’s what was announced last week.

Q    Okay, and lastly on -- we also heard Senator McCain today.  When he was asked was that hack an act of war, he said in the broader sense he believes yes.  And I know you don’t want to add any additional labels, but what we have here was an attack that you said was designed to undermine essentially democracy in America.  So how do you draw the line in the cyber world?  What is an act of war and what isn’t?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, what the intelligence community has assessed is that it certainly interfered with our democracy, or the aim was to interfere with our democracy and to undermine public confidence.  And that’s their assessment.  And one of the challenges that policymakers will face, not just in the next administration but probably in subsequent administrations, is establishing some norms in this new realm.  In cyberspace, these norms don’t exist.  And it’s a brave new world out there, and it poses some risks.  It obviously -- in cyberspace, we’ve got enormous capabilities to strengthen our economy, to make it easier for small businesses to do business around the globe, to make our lives more convenient, and, in some cases, to make our lives more secure.

Those are all good things, but there are risks associated with those kinds of developments, and establishing some norms in cyberspace is important.  And one area where we have made some progress on this is with regard to our relationship with China, where the United States has reached an agreement with China to establish a norm that state-sponsored, cyber-enabled theft for commercial purposes is not something that’s appropriate in cyberspace.  And you heard the intelligence officials today indicate that they have seen a reduction in the kind of malicious cyber activity emanating from China targeting U.S. businesses.

That’s a positive impact.  Does that entirely solve the problem?  Of course not.  But it does give us a sense of the kinds of solutions that we need to consult to enhance our security in cyberspace.  And this is not something that’s going to get solved overnight, and this is not likely to be solved in the term of the next President, but it’s something that policymakers will be grappling with for quite some time.

Q    How is it not an act of war, then, to attack democracy in this way?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is something that is deeply serious, and something that the administration takes quite seriously.  And I think that’s evident not just from the public comments you’ve seen from the intelligence community, but that’s also evidence from the response that’s been put forward.

Bob.

Q    Hey, Josh.  Back on the Affordable Care Act for a moment.  How involved does the President plan to stay in what I’ll go so far as to say will be the replacement process, which is probably going to come piecemeal?  He was up on the Hill yesterday asking Democrats to hold fast against any major changes to this overall program we call Obamacare.  How much does Barack Obama expect the Democrats to seek his counsel or give his blessing to “this change is good, that change isn’t good” -- something along those lines?  How involved can he stay in all of this?

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, as we discussed earlier, the advice that President Obama had for Democrats is that they should fight against the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act because of the extraordinarily negative impact it would have on millions of Americans, including the 30 million Americans who would lose health insurance, and including the 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions who would lose the protection against -- that prevents insurance companies from discriminating against them.  That only happened because of the Affordable Care Act, and stripping that protection away would have a negative impact on a large number of Americans. 

The argument that the President has made is that isn’t just bad for the American people and bad for our economy and bad for the deficit, it’s also bad politics.  So I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion, and the President certainly doesn’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that Republicans will succeed in repealing the law.  They were only able to marshal 51 votes yesterday in the Senate to merely instruct committees to see if they could come up with a way to repeal the law.  So they’ve got a very narrow margin for error, particularly when you consider how united Democrats are.  And so that’s the advice that President Obama had for Democrats. 

With regard to the role that he can play in his post-presidency, I would not expect for him to play a large public role in this fight.  If there are people who want to seek his counsel, either for policy solutions or for particularly persuasive arguments that can be made publicly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he engages in those kinds of private conversations -- not regularly, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that occurred.

But as I mentioned yesterday, the President’s expectation is that congressional Democrats and Democrats across the country are going to have to stand up and speak out.  And if they do, that will serve the country well, it will prevent Republicans from succeeding in repealing the Affordable Care Act, and it will provide an excellent opportunity for a new generation of Americans, a new generation of Democrats to step forward and begin to make their voice heard and exercise some influence in our political debate and, again, in a way that would be good for the country and good for the Democratic Party.

Mark.

Q    Couple more in general terms about the review the President is being briefed on now.  I realize he’s still getting briefed, but does he have any initial reaction as to what he’s seen?  Does he think this report contains something substantial and new that he hasn’t already been briefed on?  And does it contain any smoking guns that would convince skeptics?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I haven’t seen the report, so I wouldn’t characterize it at this point about whether or not it includes smoking guns or other things.

I think just the caution that I would point out is that while the intelligence community is committed to fulfilling the President’s instructions to make public as much as possible, they’re sharply limited in their ability to produce a lot of information given the need to protect sources and methods.

So I haven’t seen the report. I don’t know what will be included in the report.  But I do anticipate that it will be difficult to produce something like that, but we’ll have to see what they come forward with.  And ultimately, I think we’ll -- I’ll be making -- I’ll be exercising some of our own judgment about what exactly the report means. 

So since the President is getting briefed on it right now, I haven’t gotten a reaction from him.  But presumably, at some point, the President will be asked about it and he’ll have an opportunity to offer up that reaction.

Q    Admittedly, chunks of it are not going to be able to made public, so the public might not be convinced.  But obviously one recipient of the full report is going to get briefed on it tomorrow.  Is this report going to be convincing to that recipient?

MR. EARNEST:  There are a number of things that come to mind that I could say in response to that question, but I’ll exercise some discretion today and say we’ll see.

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST:  I know, I know. 

Kevin.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to draw your attention to something that was circulating online yesterday, a beating that apparently took place on Facebook Live involving four individuals in Chicago.  Is the White House aware of this video? Would the President himself have been aware of this, and would he have any comment about what happened?

MR. EARNEST:  Kevin, I’ve seen the video in news coverage, and I know that local officials, law enforcement officials are investigating this matter.  Based on news reports that I’ve seen, some individuals who were likely involved are in custody.  So they are still conducting an investigation about the disturbing images that we saw in that video.

They do demonstrate a level of depravity that is an outrage to a lot of Americans.  I haven’t spoken to the President about it, but I’m confident that he would be angered by the images that are depicted on that video.  But I believe it’s important for us to defer to the important work that local law enforcement must do in investigating these kinds of incidents, so I don’t want to say a whole lot more than that. 

But obviously this is something that’s gotten a lot of attention, and for good reason.

Q    Would this rise to the level of a hate crime in your opinion?

MR. EARNEST:  I think it’s too early to tell.  I certainly don’t want to predict where the investigation would lead.  I think our expectation would be that local law enforcement would follow the facts.  And I wouldn’t speculate at this point to what degree federal officials would get involved for considering those kinds of crimes.  Obviously, a decision by the Department of Justice to investigate a matter like this is something that -- is a decision that they would have to make alone.

Q    I want to piggyback on something Justin was talking about earlier, and that is this idea that the President gets briefed on this report, and yet sanctions and other decisions were doled out on the Russians prior to the completion of the report.  And I’m wondering, does that mean there was sufficient evidence in the administration’s opinion prior to the completion of the report that the President is receiving a briefing on now to make that action?  And if that’s the case, why not wait until the report itself was complete?

MR. EARNEST:  Kevin, there was a desire on the part of the U.S. government to be forceful in our response, but also to be very precise in our response.  And that meant that there were a variety of agencies, including the Treasury Department and the Department of State, and others, had to carefully evaluate how best to use the tools that were available to them to implement a response to this situation, and as soon as those response options had been considered and developed, that we worked to implement them quickly.

There was no need to wait for additional evidence to substantiate the kind of response that was put forward.  And again, I think based on the unprecedented nature of the statement that was issued by the intelligence community a month before the election, I think that should be a clear indication to everybody of the depth of conviction, the high confidence that the intelligence community had in the conclusions that they publicized back in October.

Q    Is that report, the one the President is being briefed on, it wasn’t completed last week; it was, in fact, completed very recently -- yesterday, for example?

MR. EARNEST:  I believe that Director Clapper indicated in his testimony today that the report was only recently completed.

Q    Let me ask you about the exit statements.  It’s an interesting approach.  I don’t think I’ve ever read exit statements like we’ve seen in previous administrations sort of so publicly dispensed.  What was the thinking behind that, and why is that important?

MR. EARNEST:  These are the exit memos from the Cabinet agencies? 

Q    Yeah.

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, over the course of the last year, the President has directed his team to be focused on ensuring a smooth and effective transition to the next administration.  And that was a tasking that the President gave to officials in a wide variety of agencies before we knew the outcome of the election.

But in that process, these agencies were compiling material to help the incoming team hit the ground running to understand what kinds of issues they were likely to inherit, to understand what kinds of strategies we had implemented, and what kind of results we had to show for the strategy that we implemented.  And in developing this material, it became clear that these memos would provide the American people a lot of insight into the important work that’s been done over the last eight years, into the progress that we’ve made over the last eight years, but also in the challenges that remain. 

And the President made a decision -- and, again, I think this is consistent with his commitment to transparency -- he said, let’s make these memos public, and let’s share with the American people in a comprehensive fashion -- let’s show them our work, let’s show them what we’ve done, but let’s also be honest about the challenges that remain. 

And we’ve talked before about what the outcome of the election means for the country, and it means that somebody who has promised to try governing the country in a different way is going to get the opportunity to do that.  And there will be an opportunity for all of you and for the American public to evaluate what kind of progress they’re making.  We’ve established benchmarks about the progress that the country made in the last eight years under President Obama’s leadership, and you’ll be able to compare the progress that was made under President Obama with the results of the incoming administration’s leadership.  And I think that should inform people -- it will inform people about the most effective way to lead the country in the future.

And if the incoming administration is able to exceed these benchmarks in a whole variety of areas, that obviously would be a powerful endorsement of the approach that President Trump chooses to take.  If not, it won’t be.

Q    Couple quick ones.  First, on Gitmo, is it your expectation that there will be a reduction in the number of detainees again this week?  And can you sort of clarify the administration’s perspective on the recidivism rate of those who have either gone back into battle and have either been re-apprehended, or not? 

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, I am not able to speak to any specific detainee transfers between now and January 20th other than to confirm for you that there are likely to be some.  And whenever those transfers take place, once they have been completed, we announce them publicly.  And that will continue to be our approach through January 20th.  And my expectation is that there will be some additional announcements of that type.

With regard to this question about --

Q    Including this week, you think?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m sorry?

Q    Including this week, you think?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t speak to timing at this point.  But certainly before January 20th.

Q    Okay. 

MR. EARNEST:  With regard to this question about reengagement, you’ll recall that President Obama, upon taking office in 2009, ordered a comprehensive review of the file of every single detainee at the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  And the purpose of that review was to determine whether or not individuals under an appropriate set of security requirements could be safely transferred to another country in a way that would not undermine U.S. national security.  And the process that he established required a variety of agencies, including the Secretary of Defense, to certify that the appropriate security requirements were in place before an individual was transferred.

This careful, specific approach was a departure from the approach that was taken by the previous administration, and it shows in the results.  The percentage of those who have been confirmed of reengaging in the fight by the intelligence community -- these are individual who were released or transferred from Guantanamo before 2009, before President Obama took office -- is 21 percent.  Twenty-one percent of the Gitmo detainees who were released before President Obama took office have been confirmed by our intelligence agency of reengaging in the fight.

Since President Obama took office, and since these reforms were initiated, nine detainees have been confirmed by the intelligence community of reengaging in the fight.  Considering that we have released 183 detainees during President Obama’s time in office, a little back-of-the-envelope math would indicate that our percentage is much better, and it’s a result of the reforms that President Obama instituted on his first day in office.

Q    Does that include now-deceased combatants?

MR. EARNEST:  We can check on the details for you on that.

Q    Okay.  Lastly, Tuesday we were talking about the President and the economy and having created 900,000 manufacturing jobs.  We’re doing some number-crunching and it seems to be a little bit higher than that which we’ve come up with.  Can you sort of help me square the difference?  I think we came at around 807,000 or something.

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I said was nearly 900,000.  I did overshoot the mark a little bit.  I was just working off of memory, I didn’t have the numbers in front of me.

Q    Okay, great.

MR. EARNEST:  Ron.

Q    Just on this -- to follow Kevin's question about this review and briefing the President is getting, I don’t understand what’s new or what’s being learned or what was asked that moves the whole situation past what you knew to order sanctions and the removal diplomats to where we are today.  What questions are now answered?  And what's new, or what's the President learning about that he didn’t know then but already felt confident enough that he should make these moves?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think there are a couple of parts to this, Ron.  The first fact is that this report is, despite all the attention that is understandably focused on the review of Russian involvement and Russia's malicious cyber activity in the context of the 2016 election, this review will take a look at malicious cyber activity in previous presidential elections, as well, including by actors other than Russia.  So it's a little bit broader than just this one incident.

The second thing is, the last time that we heard formally from the intelligence community on this matter was the first week in October.  And since that time, the intelligence community has dedicated significant resources to learning as much as they possibly could about the Russian malicious cyber activity and the efforts that they undertook to undermine or raise questions about the durability of the American democracy.  So that's the material that they're reviewing and including in the report.

I can't say at this point exactly what that means for the content, because I haven’t seen the content.

Q    And you described a process kind of underway of briefing there.  Who exactly is briefing the President?  How many Cabinet secretaries are involved?

MR. EARNEST:  It's members of his national security team, including some of the individuals who testified on Capitol Hill today.  It essentially is senior officials who are responsible for compiling the report. 

Q    So we're talking about a half dozen or more people? 

MR. EARNEST:  I think it's more than that, but I don’t have a specific manifest from the meeting to share.

Q    And Director Clapper talked about the motive and intent of it on the Hill, and he said that there was more than one motive.  Does this review answer the question of whether the Russians intended to or were motivated to try to make Donald Trump or help him become President?

MR. EARNEST:  I can't speak to the contents of the report because I just haven’t seen it.

Q    But you can tell without seeing it.  Going into this process, or as this process was ongoing, was that one of the questions that was going to be answered?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I would leave it to the intelligence community to say what they're going to include in the report.  And I think this will be easier to discuss then. 

But look, as I said last month at some length, you don’t need a security clearance to know the impact that this Russian hack-and-leak strategy had on the campaign.  Again, it was the DNC whose emails were hacked and released, not the RNC's.  It was John Podesta's emails that were hacked and released, not Reince Priebus.  It was the Trump campaign that had positive things to say about President Putin's leadership.  And it was the Trump campaign that raised questions about their ongoing commitment to NATO. 

Q    But then why won't you say the Russians tried to get Donald Trump elected?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, because we're going to wait on an intelligence community assessment.  But again, I think that there's certainly some common sense that can be applied that doesn’t require a security clearance.

Q    And in talking about this, you always use the term "high confidence."  Is there something higher than high confidence?  Is there like highest confidence or most highest?  (Laughter.) 

MR. EARNEST:  The oldest confidence or something?

Q    This could actually be like a fairly low standard high confidence, that there's like ultimate and -- I hate to be --

MR. EARNEST:  It's okay.  You should probably direct this question to an expert in the intelligence community.  What I can assure you is it's not a low standard.  It is, as the name suggests, an extraordinarily high standard.  It is not an --

Q    -- been something higher?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is not uncommon for the President and other decision-makers to get analysis from the intelligence community that is a low confidence or a moderate confidence assessment.  That's not unusual.  That is an effort by the intelligence community to provide as much information and as much analysis as possible.  So the fact that these are conclusions that have been reached with high confidence is an indication of their high confidence in this information. 

Q    Clapper said it was not a close call, this wasn’t tough to figure out.  Is that true?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, I think the best way to interpret this is to consider the extraordinary nature of the statement that was issued by the intelligence community before the election.  That is not something that's happened before.  That's unprecedented.  And the fact that they were not just able, but willing, to make such a forceful statement, on the record, in advance of the election, I think is telling. 

Q    And lastly, completely different subject.  What are the President and First Lady doing tomorrow night, Friday night?

MR. EARNEST:  There have been some reports about the President and First Lady hosting a social event here at the White House, and that's something that they've done in the past and it's something I anticipate they're going to do again tomorrow.

Q    Anything more about it?  Are you going?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any details about who's attending, and I'll get back to you about my own personal plans for Friday night.  I don’t know if that's an invitation or -- (laughter) -- I'm just teasing. 

Q    This is a farewell party, essentially.

MR. EARNEST:  Look, over the years the President and First Lady have on occasion, not frequently, but on occasion have hosted parties at the White House for their friends.  And I anticipate this will be the last one that they have.  They've got some packing to do.

Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I want to ask you about a resolution that's being voted on in the House this afternoon on the U.N. Security Council Resolution on Israeli Settlement Activity.  It condemns the resolution and it calls for its repeal.  I'm wondering if the White House has seen that resolution and what, if any, reaction you have to it.

MR. EARNEST:  I'm aware of the resolution.  Obviously, it is not at all something that the Obama administration agrees with.  The action that was taken by the Obama administration a couple of weeks ago at the United Nations Security Council reflected the President's consideration of America's foremost national security interests.  It reflected a careful considering of the policy that the United States has pursued under Presidents in both parties, which is the need for a two-state solution to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians in the region.  And the United States declined to veto a resolution that expressed concern about the accelerated pace of Israeli settlement construction and, notably, the continued violence and incitement that we've seen in that context of that conflict. 

Both of those things are making it harder for both sides to come together around a two-state solution.  And, in fact, both of them -- both of those actions are actually putting a two-state solution even further out of reach.  And the administration is deeply concerned about that.  The United States has long articulated our commitment to a secure, democratic Jewish Israel living side by side in peace and security with a contiguous, viable Palestinian state.  And outside of that solution is only a single state that would force the Israeli government and the Israeli people to choose between being Jewish and democratic because -- given the size of the large Palestinian population in that area.

So this is something that -- the trend lines are not good.  And that's why the Obama administration took, admittedly, a notable step, but a step that is entirely consistent with the long-held bipartisan policy of the United States of America.

Q    And on another topic.  There are a number of House Democrats who have decided to boycott the inauguration activities to protest President-elect Trump.  Obviously, the President is going to participate in them, and he's talked about the need for a smooth transition.  Does the White House have any view on whether it's appropriate for these members to sit on the sidelines and protest the President-elect?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm not aware of any view that the President has expressed.  I think the President's view is that members of Congress can attend the inauguration if they'd like, and if they don’t want to then I think that's probably fine too.

Mark.

Q    Josh, what is the President's thinking in submitting, or resubmitting, 10 nominations to the Senate yesterday -- several inspectors general, as I recall?

MR. EARNEST:   I think the President is just fulfilling his presidential responsibility to continue ensuring that the federal government is fully staffed and the individuals, the men and women that President Obama has put forward, are individuals with the highest degree of integrity.  These are accomplished professionals who are more than qualified for these positions.  We've been disappointed that we haven’t seen the Republican Congress act as expeditiously as they should have to confirm and, in some cases, even consider some of the President's nominees.  We'll have to see what the congressional response to these nominees is, but obviously there's a short window for them to act.

Q    Very short.

MR. EARNEST:  Indeed.

Q    Does President Obama have any expectation that this GOP Senate will act on these nominations?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we certainly have seen a lot of Republican senators talk about how important it is for highly qualified inspectors general to be in place.  So we certainly -- if that's what they actually believe, then these individuals should be given due consideration.

Q    Are these the last of his nominations?

MR. EARNEST:  I can't rule out at this point additional nominations, but we'll obviously let you know. 

Q    I also wanted to ask whether there was any consideration given to sneaking in a recess appointment during the five-minute intersession recess on Monday.

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not aware that there was -- at least not seriously.  I guess I can’t speak to what everybody might have been considering.  (Laughter.)  But I’m not aware of any serious consideration to doing that.

Q    Have you seen the article written by Mike McCurry and Ari Fleischer with recommendations to the Trump press operation?  One of the things they’re recommending is no more live TV coverage of White House briefings and rotating in reporters into the seats in the briefing room.  Does that sound like something you could endorse?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I don’t think I would endorse either of those things, but they’re certainly provocative ideas and they’re not things that I would instinctively oppose either.

I think -- you know, what I’ve said publicly about this process is that it’s a valuable one, and that there’s a lot of symbolic value to a senior member of the President’s team being held accountable, and for that accountability to play out on camera and on the record.  I think that’s a good thing for our democracy and the President has actually found that to be a useful thing for his presidency.

But look, this is an exercise that presidential press secretaries have engaged in for a couple generations now, and this venue and this process has evolved over time and it’s not automatically a bad thing if there are some innovations that can be introduced that would make this kind of exchange more fruitful and even more in line with the purpose of giving all of you an opportunity to demand some transparency and accountability.

But it’s hard to imagine that there’s anything you could do to make the briefing more entertaining than it’s been over the last couple years.  (Laughter.)  I say that facetiously.

We’ll do a couple more.  Jared.

Q    Josh, what’s your message to voters who find the argument compelling -- this argument pushed out by the President-elect and certainly many of his supporters -- that intelligence community reports are not to be trusted because of alleged failures of intelligence community reports in the past?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think -- my message to voters is that the elections are quite a ways away.  So the message --

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST:  My message to citizens though -- that’s what I was just going to say.  My message to citizens is a couple of things.

The first is, there have been serious reforms that have been put in place since the high-profile intelligence failures around 9/11, and those reforms have addressed a range of bureaucratic inefficiencies that prevented some decision-makers from getting timely, accurate information.  And there should be motivation internally -- in the U.S. government, in the intelligence community, and in the White House -- to look for ways to continue to strengthen the kind of -- to strengthen the process by which the President and his team receive up-to-date, accurate information.

What I can tell you is that over the last eight years, President Obama has been extraordinarily well served by the timely and accurate advice that he has received from the intelligence community.  And so that’s been a good thing both in terms of the structure that’s been in place, but also in terms of the people who have filled the boxes in that organizational chart.

Q    Just one follow-up on Isaac’s question about former Congressman Perriello.  The President -- you’ve described and he’s described with a lot of enthusiasm for the prospect of the Affordable Care Act moving forward.  Does that enthusiasm for the ACA, which obviously was a big part of the 2010 vote that took Congressman Perriello out of office -- does that enthusiasm for Obamacare’s future translate to enthusiasm for Perriello or for a Democrat’s chances in 2017 in the gubernatorial race in Virginia?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I think I already have made the observation that if Republicans follow through on their promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act and take away health care for 30 million Americans, and strip the kinds of protections that prevent 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions from being discriminated against, that doesn’t sound like very good politics to me.  But I think it’s far too early to tell what sort of impact that could have on, for example, the Virginia governor’s race.

I do know that there is a unanimity of opinion among Democrats in Virginia about how important it is to expand Medicaid in Virginia.  And the Republican obstruction that we have seen that has prevented thousands of people in the Commonwealth of Virginia from getting access to health care, I don’t think that’s going to be a political winner for them either.  But I’ll let the individual Democratic candidates speak to their position on that.

Q    One last one.  This is about the DNC race.  The Mayor of South Bend, Pete Buttigieg, has entered that race.  Does the President know this mayor?  Does he have a relationship with him?  And this has developed during the briefing today, so I don’t expect it if you don’t have anything today.

MR. EARNEST:  I can tell you that the President has had an opportunity to meet him, and the President believes that he is obviously a young man with a very compelling story.  He’s already quite accomplished.  But I’m not aware that the President -- as I mentioned earlier, I’m not aware the President intends to formally endorse in the race, but we’ll have to see what happens.

Francesca, I’ll give you the last one.

Q    Thanks.  Coincidentally, I also have a question about the Democratic National Committee race.  You just said that the President doesn’t intend to formally or publicly endorse anyone, but has he privately endorsed anyone?  (Laughter.)  And has he --- no --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it wouldn’t be private if I said it here.  (Laughter.)

Q    No, no, no, no, no, no.  I’m just saying, has he privately endorsed anyone, and has he potentially encouraged anyone to join the race?

MR. EARNEST:  Listen, I’m not going to -- you know, obviously there are now at least a couple of people that are in the race that the President knows personally.  The President obviously thinks very highly of a number of the people that have thrown their hat into the ring.

The thing that I can tell you is that the President does believe that having a vigorous contest for a position like this is good for the party because this is the kind of decision that’s not made by party insiders in Washington, this is -- the chairman of the DNC is elected by votes cast by DNC members all across the country.  And so having a vigorous debate in our party about who should be the leader of the party and what sort of approach that person should take to strengthening our party and making sure that Democrats are doing what the President suggested in terms of being more present and more effective advocates in communities all across the country for the kinds of values that our party stands for.

But ultimately, who will be entrusted with that responsibility is a decision that will be made by the men and women of the Democratic National Committee, and their membership extends to communities all across the country.

Q    And a quick follow-up on one other thing.  So it is possible, then, that he encouraged someone behind the scenes to get into the race?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not going to talk about the conversations that the President has.  There are a number of people that the President respects, admires, and even likes who are in the race.  And having a surplus of experienced, qualified, charismatic candidates is only a good thing for the Democratic Party, and the President is pleased by that.

Q    Sure.  And then the last thing, we discussed earlier this week possible details on the speech in Chicago.  Anything else to share about that?

MR. EARNEST:  Come back tomorrow and we’ll do that, okay?

Q    Okay.

MR. EARNEST:  All right.  Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you then.

END
2:49 P.M. EST

• Daniel Willingham – Member, Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences
• John W. Keker – Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust  
• Mark Pincus – Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust  
• Waded Cruzado – Member, Board for International Food and Agricultural Development
• Louis Susman – Member, Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
• Joan Ellyn Silber – Member, Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad
• Matthew L. Wiener – Member and Vice Chairman, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States
• Rosemary Joyce – Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
• James Wright Willis – Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
• Michael McFaul – Member, National Security Education Board  
• Tissa Illangasekare – Member, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board  

President Obama said, “I am pleased to announce that these experienced and committed individuals have decided to serve our country. I know they will serve the American people well.”

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

Daniel Willingham, Appointee for Member, Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences

Daniel Willingham is a Professor at the University of Virginia, where he has taught since 1992.  Mr. Willingham is the author of Raising Kids Who Read: What Parents and Teachers Can Do, Why Don't Students Like School? and When Can You Trust the Experts?  He is a contributor to American Educator magazine.  Mr. Willingham is a member of the Advisory Committee for Learning and the Brain.  Mr. Willingham received a B.A. from Duke University and a Ph.D. from Harvard University.

John W. Keker, Appointee for Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust  

John W. Keker is Co-Founder and Partner at Keker, Van Nest, & Peters LLP, positions he has held since 1978.  Mr. Keker was an Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Francisco from 1971 to 1973.  He served as a Law Clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren at the U.S. Supreme Court from 1970 to 1971.  Mr. Keker was President of the San Francisco Police Commission from 1996 to 1997 and again from 1991 to 1992, and was Chairman of the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Board from 1981 to 1983.  He served as an infantry platoon leader in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1965 to 1967.  Mr. Keker was first appointed to the Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust in 2015 and serves as its Vice Chair.  Mr. Keker received a B.A. from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School.

Mark Pincus, Appointee for Member, Board of Directors of the Presidio Trust  

Mark Pincus is the Founder and Executive Chairman of Zynga.  Mr. Pincus has held various other executive positions at Zynga including Chief Executive Officer and Chief Product Officer.  He previously founded other technology startups including Tribe.net in 2003, Support.com in 1997, and FreeLoader in 1995.  Mr. Pincus received a B.S. from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A from Harvard Business School.

Dr. Waded Cruzado, Appointee for Member, Board for International Food and Agricultural Development   

Dr. Waded Cruzado is President of Montana State University, a position she has held since 2010.  Dr. Cruzado has also served as a member of the Board for International Food and Agricultural Development since 2013.  From 2007 to 2010, she was Executive Vice President and Provost of New Mexico State University, including a one-year appointment as Interim President.  Dr. Cruzado joined New Mexico State University in 2003 and served as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences until 2007.  From 1990 to 2002, she held a series of faculty and administrative positions at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez, including Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 1998.  Dr. Cruzado received a B.A. from the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Texas, Arlington.

Louis Susman, Appointee for Member, Board of Trustees of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Louis Susman is a Member of the Advisory Board at Atlas Mara Capital LLC.  Mr. Susman is the former United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom, a position he held from 2009 to 2013.  He was Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Citigroup Corporate and Investment Banking from 1989 to 2009.  Mr. Susman was previously a Senior Partner at Thompson & Mitchell.  He previously served as a Director of the Center for National Policy and was appointed to the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy in 1988.  Mr. Susman is Chairman of CBI Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BDT Capital Partners, and Special Advisor to Henry Crown & Co.  He is a member of the board of J Street, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Art Institute of Chicago, and Vice Chairman of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.  He was previously a member of the Board of Directors and Management Committee of the St. Louis Cardinals and the Citigroup International Advisory Board.  Mr. Susman received an A.B. from the University of Michigan and an LL.B. from Washington University in St. Louis.

Dr. Joan Ellyn Silber, Appointee for Member, Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad

Dr. Joan Ellyn Silber serves as Board President of AJC, the American Jewish Committee, St. Louis Region, and as Board President of Care and Counseling.  Dr. Silber is a board member of the Webster University College of Arts and Science Advisory Board, the St. Louis Jewish Light Scholarship Foundation, Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater St. Louis, the Newmark Institute for Human Relations, and Friends of the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra.   She was previously President of Aish HaTorah St. Louis.  Dr. Silber is a recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.  She was first appointed to the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad in 2015.  Dr. Silber received a B.A. and a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.

Matthew L. Wiener, Appointee for Member and Vice Chairman, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States

Matthew L. Wiener is Executive Director of the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), a position he has held since 2012.  Prior to that, he was Special Counsel with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP from 2011 to 2012 and served as a Member at the law firm from 2011 to 2012.  He was previously General Counsel to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter from 2009 to 2011 and Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee from 2008 to 2009.  Mr. Wiener previously worked at Dechert LLP from 1995 to 2006, first as an Associate Attorney from 1995 to 2004 and then as a Partner from 2004 to 2006.  He is an elected member of the American Law Institute and a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, positions he has held since 2013 and 2014 respectively.  Mr. Wiener has co-chaired the Adjudication Committee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice since 2014 and previously served as the legislative branch liaison to the Section’s Council in 2009.  In 2015, Mr. Wiener began serving as an elected member of the Steering Committee of the D.C. Bar’s Administrative Law and Agency Practice Section and the chair of the Section’s Standing Committee on Legislative Practice.  Mr. Wiener received an A.B. from the College of William and Mary and a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Dr. Rosemary Joyce, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee

Dr. Rosemary Joyce is Professor of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), a position she has held since 1994.  Dr. Joyce was Assistant Director of the Peabody Museum at Harvard University from 1986 to 1989 and Director of the Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology at UCB from 1994 to 1999.  She served as Associate Dean and Interim Dean of the Graduate Division at UCB from 2011 to 2015, President-Elect and President of the Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association from 2009 to 2013.  Dr. Joyce was first appointed to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee in 2011.  Dr. Joyce received an A.B. from Cornell University and a Ph.D. from the University of Illinois-Urbana.

James Wright Willis, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee

James Wright Willis is Founder and Owner of James Willis Tribal Art, positions he has held since 1972.  Mr. Willis has been an appraiser since 1972 for multiple collections including the Maxwell Stanley Collection, Jerry Joss Collection, and San Francisco Fine Arts Museum.  He is a founding member of Friends of Ethnic Art and the San Francisco Art Dealers Association and a member of the M. H. De Young Museum Ancient and Tribal Arts Study Committee and the Center for African Art.  Mr. Willis was first appointed to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee in 2003.  Mr. Willis received a B.A. from Pomona College.

Dr. Michael McFaul, Appointee for Member, National Security Education Board  

Dr. Michael McFaul is Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, positions he has held since 2015.  Dr. McFaul served as U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation from 2012 to 2014 and as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Russian and Eurasian Affairs on the National Security Council staff from 2009 to 2012.  Prior to that, he was Deputy Director of the Freeman Spogli Institute from 2006 to 2009, a Senior Associate and Director of the Russian Domestic Politics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace from 1994 to 2009, and a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University from 1995 to 2009.  Dr. McFaul received a B.A. and M.A. from Stanford University and a D.Phil. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

Dr. Tissa Illangasekare, Appointee for Member, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board  

Dr. Tissa Illangasekare is a Distinguished Endowed Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Director of the Center for the Experimental Study of Subsurface Environmental Processes at the Colorado School of Mines, positions he has held since 1998.  Previously, Dr. Illangasekare was a Professor of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder from 1986 to 1998.  From 1983 to 1986, he was an Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Louisiana State University, and from 1978 to 1983, he was a Research Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering at Colorado State University.  Dr. Illangasekare received a B.S. from the University of Ceylon in Sri Lanka, an M.Eng. from the Asian Institute of Technology in Thailand, and a Ph.D. from Colorado State University.

Mary Ellen Barbera, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2018, vice Jonathan Lippman, term expired.

David V. Brewer, of Oregon, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2019. (Reappointment)

Wilfredo Martinez, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2019. (Reappointment)

Chase Rogers, of Connecticut, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the State Justice Institute for a term expiring September 17, 2018. (Reappointment)

Claudia Slacik, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States for a term expiring January 20, 2019, vice Patricia M. Loui, term expired.

The Honorable Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, will lead the delegation. 

Members of the Presidential Delegation

The Honorable Robert Jackson, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Ghana, U.S. Department of State 

The Honorable Karen Bass, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-37)

Today, the White House is proud to host its final event focused on stopping sexual violence against students, the It’s On Us Summit.  The Summit will bring together student leaders, campus, community, business and media partners, and federal colleagues.  Attendees have gathered from across the country to hear from members of the Administration and outside stakeholders about the work that is being done to address campus sexual assault and to engage in a dialogue about the future of this work, both on college campuses and in communities across the country.

The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault Presents its Final Report

In April 2011, Vice President Biden and the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, introduced comprehensive guidance to help colleges and universities better understand their obligations under federal civil rights laws to prevent and respond to sexual assault on campus. Building on those efforts, in January 2014, the President and Vice President established the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault (Task Force). The Task Force, co-chaired by the Office of the Vice President and the White House Council on Women and Girls, has since worked diligently to assist schools in addressing campus sexual assault.

In collaboration with Federal partners, the Task Force has produced a number of practical tools that are readily available to students, administrators, faculty, campus police, health care professionals, and others who play key roles in these efforts.  Today, the White House will release The Second Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. This second and final report builds on the recommendations and lessons learned from the first report of the Task Force, Not Alone, released in 2014, and documents the advances that have been made throughout this Administration to address sexual misconduct in higher education. It also highlights some of the innovative and forward thinking initiatives that have been undertaken by campuses around the Nation.

In conjunction with the report, today the White House will also release Preventing and Addressing Campus Sexual Misconduct:  A Guide for University and College Presidents, Chancellors, and Senior Administrators (Guide).  The Guide serves as a foundation for campus leadership to develop, or further hone, comprehensive responses to sexual misconduct at their institutions. Through its final report and the Guide, the Task Force underscores the importance of university leadership sending a strong public message of support for these responses – and the faculty, staff, and students who help develop them – and championing a culture shift that promotes safe campuses that are free from sexual misconduct.

For a full list of products, tools, and research findings on campus sexual assault produced during the Obama Administration, click here.

It’s On Us

After scores of listening sessions with students across the country, the President and Vice President launched It's On Us in September of 2014.

It's On Us is a movement aimed at fundamentally shifting the culture around sexual assault. It's a rallying cry, inviting everyone to step up and realize that the solution begins with all of us. The campaign works to educate, engage, and empower students and communities across the country to do something, big or small, to end sexual assault. The campaign has three core pillars - consent education, increasing bystander intervention, and creating an environment that supports survivors. Over the past two years, almost 400,000 people have taken the It's On Us pledge online and students have hosted almost 2,000 events on over 500 college campuses nationwide. The campaign has 95 partners, including MTV, Snapchat, and Major League Baseball.

The Vice President has traveled to numerous college campuses to talk with students about the responsibility we all share to step in and prevent sexual assault when we see it happening.  As a lifelong champion for ending violence against women, he has shared this message of engagement and support for survivors with diverse audiences, including at the Academy Awards in Los Angeles in March 2016, and the NCAA Final Four Tournament in Houston in March 2016.

This year, It’s On Us launched several new programs including a nationwide Student Engagement Program structured into eight Regional Teams of student leaders. This spring, each Team will host a Regional Summit to build upon the work of the campaign over the past two years. These Regional Summits will bring together students, advocates, community leaders, and campus administrators on the local level to focus on coordinated prevention strategies and messaging. Through this series of local summits, It’s On Us will train and educate over 800 leaders on consent, bystander intervention, and creating an environment that supports survivors.

Additionally, It’s On Us recently launched two new programs: a Greek Leadership Council comprised of fraternity and sorority leadership, and a Campus Innovation Program to partner directly with college and university administrators. Over the next year, It’s On Us will continue to grow these programs, as well as launch new initiatives and critical partnerships focused on engaging the athletic and entertainment communities.

Because of the dedicated student advocates and the leadership of our partners, we are confident that the work to prevent and respond to sexual assault on campuses and in communities across the country will continue. Join our effort by taking the pledge at ItsOnUs.org.

If you or someone you know is in need of support, you can call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-4673, or visit here to chat live.

Letter from President Obama

To my fellow Americans,

Eight years ago, America faced a moment of peril unlike any we’d seen in decades. 

A spiraling financial crisis threatened to plunge an economy in recession into a deep depression.  The very heartbeat of American manufacturing – the American auto industry – was on the brink of collapse.  In some communities, nearly one in five Americans were out of work.  Nearly 180,000 American troops were serving in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the mastermind of the worst terror attack on American soil remained at large.  And on challenges from health care to climate change, we’d been kicking the can down the road for way too long.

But in the depths of that winter, on January 20, 2009, I stood before you and swore a sacred oath.  I told you that day that the challenges we faced would not be met easily or in a short span of time – but they would be met.  And after eight busy years, we’ve met them – because of you.

Eight years later, an economy that was shrinking at more than eight percent is now growing at more than three percent.  Businesses that were bleeding jobs unleashed the longest streak of job creation on record.  The auto industry has roared its way back, saving one million jobs across the country and fueling a manufacturing sector that, after a decade of decline, has added new jobs for the first time since the 1990s.  And wages have grown faster over the past few years than at any time in the past forty.

Today, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, another 20 million American adults know the financial security and peace of mind that comes with health insurance.  Another three million children have gained health insurance.  For the first time ever, more than ninety percent of Americans are insured – the highest rate ever.  We’ve seen the slowest growth in the price of health care in fifty years, along with improvements in patient safety that have prevented an estimated 87,000 deaths.  Every American with insurance is covered by the strongest set of consumer protections in history – a true Patients’ Bill of Rights – and free from the fear that illness or accident will derail your dreams, because America is now a place where discrimination against preexisting conditions is a relic of the past.  And the new health insurance marketplace means that if you lose your job, change your job, or start that new business, you’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable care and the security and peace of mind that comes with it – and that’s one reason why entrepreneurship is growing for the second straight year.

Our dependence on foreign oil has been cut by more than half, and our production of renewable energy has more than doubled.  In many places across the country, clean energy from the wind is now cheaper than dirtier sources of energy, and solar now employs more Americans than coal mining in jobs that pay better than average and can’t be outsourced.  We also enacted the most sweeping reforms since the Great Depression to protect consumers and prevent a crisis on Wall Street from punishing Main Street ever again.   These actions didn’t stifle growth, as critics predicted.  Instead, the stock market has nearly tripled.  Since I signed Obamacare into law, America’s businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs.  And the economy is undoubtedly more durable than it was in the days when we relied on oil from unstable nations and banks took risky bets with your money.

The high school graduation rate is now 83 percent – the highest on record – and we’ve helped more young people graduate from college than ever before.  At the same time, we’ve worked to offer more options for Americans who decide not to pursue college, from expanding apprenticeships, to launching high-tech manufacturing institutes, to revamping the job training system and creating programs like TechHire to help people train for higher-paying jobs in months, not years.  We’ve connected more schools across the country to broadband internet, and supported more teachers to bring coding, hands-on making, and computational thinking into our classrooms to prepare all our children for a 21st century economy.

Add it all up, and last year, the poverty rate fell at the fastest rate in almost fifty years while the median household income grew at the fastest rate on record.  And we’ve done it all while cutting our deficits by nearly two-thirds even as we protected investments that grow the middle class.

Meanwhile, over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland.  Plots have been disrupted.  Terrorists like Osama bin Laden have been taken off the battlefield.  We’ve drawn down from nearly 180,000 troops in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan to just 15,000.  With a coalition of more than 70 nations and a relentless campaign of more than 16,000 airstrikes so far, we are breaking the back of ISIL and taking away its safe havens, and we’ve accomplished this at a cost of $10 billion over two years – the same amount that we spent in one month at the height of the Iraq War.

At the same time, America has led the world to meet a set of global challenges.  Through diplomacy, we shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program, opened up a new chapter with the people of Cuba, and brought nearly 200 nations together around a climate agreement that could save this planet for our kids.  With new models for development, American assistance is helping people around the world feed themselves, care for their sick, and power communities across Africa.  And almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago.  All of this progress is due to the service of millions of Americans in intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, diplomacy, and the brave men and women of our Armed Forces – the most diverse institution in America.

We’ve also worked to make the changing face of America more fair and more just – including by making strides towards criminal justice reform, making progress towards equal pay, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and advancing the cause of civil rights, women’s rights, and LGBT rights.  I appointed two extraordinary women to the Supreme Court, marking the first time in history that three women sit on the bench, including the first Latina.  And today in America, marriage equality is finally a reality across all fifty states.

This is where America stands after eight years of progress.  By so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started – a situation I’m proud to leave for my successor.  And it’s thanks to you – to the hard work you’ve put in; the sacrifices you’ve made for your families and communities; the way you’ve looked out for one another. 

Still, through every victory and every setback, I’ve insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn’t meet all of our challenges in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.  And for all that we’ve achieved, there’s still so much I wish we’d been able to do, from enacting gun safety measures to protect more of our kids and our cops from mass shootings like Newtown, to passing commonsense immigration reform that encourages the best and brightest from around the world to study, stay, and create jobs in America. 

And for all the incredible progress our economy has made in just eight years, we still have more work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave or a dignified retirement.  We have to acknowledge the inequality that has come from an increasingly globalized economy while committing ourselves to making it work better for everyone, not just those at the top, and give everyone who works hard a fair shot at success. 

And here’s the thing – over the past eight years, we’ve shown that we can.  Last year, income gains were actually larger for households at the bottom and the middle than for those at the top.  We’ve also made the tax code fairer.  The tax changes enacted over the past eight years have ensured that the top one percent of Americans pay more of their fair share, increasing the share of income received by all other families by more than the tax changes in any previous administration since at least 1960.  Simply put, we’ve actually begun the long task of reversing inequality.  But as the global economy changes, we’ll have to do more to accelerate these trends, from strengthening unions that speak for workers, to preventing colleges from pricing out hardworking students, to making sure that minimum wage workers get a raise and women finally get paid the same as men for doing the same job.  What won’t help is taking health care away from 30 million Americans, most of them white and working class; denying overtime pay to workers, most of whom have more than earned it; or privatizing Medicare and Social Security and letting Wall Street regulate itself again – none of which middle-class Americans voted for.

We will have to move forward as we always have – together.  As a people who believe that out of many, we are one; that we are bound not by any one race or religion, but rather an adherence to a common creed; that all of us are created equal in the eyes of God.  And I’m confident we will.  Because the change we’ve brought about these past eight years was never about me.  It was about you.  It is you, the American people, who have made the progress of the last eight years possible.  It is you who will make our future progress possible.  That, after all, is the story of America – a story of progress.  However halting, however incomplete, however harshly challenged at each point on our journey – the story of America is a story of progress. 

Recently, I asked each member of my talented and dedicated Cabinet to prepare a detailed report on the progress we’ve made across the board these past eight years, and the work that remains to make this country we love even stronger.  Today, I’m sharing them with you.  And I hope you’ll share them with others, and do your part to build on the progress we’ve made across the board. 

It has been the privilege of my life to serve as your President.  And as I prepare to pass the baton and do my part as a private citizen, I’m proud to say that we have laid a new foundation for America.  A new future is ours to write.  And I’m as confident as ever that it will be led by the United States of America – and that our best days are still ahead. 

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

12:43 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Nice to see you all.  I do not have any comments at the start, so we can go straight to your questions.  Darlene, would you like to start?

Q    Yeah, thanks.  Would you give us a brief oral readout of the President's meeting on the Hill today with congressional members?

MR. EARNEST:  I'd be happy to.

Q    He was there for more than 90 minutes, so he must have had a lot to say.  

MR. EARNEST:  He did have a lot to say.  And you've heard a little bit about his comments from some of the Democratic leaders who attended the meeting.  

The President began his remarks by expressing his gratitude and pride for all of the progress that's been made over the last eight years.  And that gratitude was rooted not just in the political success that Democrats have had in advancing that agenda, but rooted in the tangible positive difference that their efforts have made in the lives of millions of Americans in communities large and small across the country.  And much of that work would not have been possible had the President not been able to work effectively with Democrats in Congress to get so much of that done, given the unreasonable and unprecedented obstruction that was erected by congressional Republicans. 

The President continued saying that that should fuel their efforts moving forward.  And even though Democrats in Congress will not have the kind of cooperative partner that they've enjoyed for the last eight years in the White House, they still have a set of values and priorities that are worth fighting for.  And the good news is that those are values and priorities that most Americans agree with and strongly support, and those are values and priorities that lead to policies that make people's lives better and make our country stronger.  And the President expressed his -- the word that he used was "envy" for the opportunity that they have to keep up that fight.  

And the President expressed his confidence in their ability not just to wage those fights with passion, but he expressed confidence in their ability to succeed -- again, both because the majority of the American people agree with them, whether it's investing in the kinds of policies that expand economic opportunity for middle-class families, whether it is expanding access to health care for every American making it not just a privilege but a right, making sure that there are consumer protections in place so that every American can't be discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition, and they can't be subject to lifetime caps that allow them to no longer benefit from insurance coverage if someone in their family gets sick.  These are the kinds of values and priorities that Democrats have long fought for, and these are the values and priorities that most Americans agree with.

So that was essentially the President's opening statement, and then he took questions from a substantial number of House and Senate Democrats.  And most of the questions centered on the proximate fight on Capitol Hill, which is the Republican attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but the President had an opportunity to touch on some other areas, as well.  And the President really enjoyed the opportunity to go up there, and was warmly received, which he has been every time by Democrats on Capitol Hill, even when he's gone up there to address differences that they have.  

But I got to tell you, in this case the President has gone to -- in the past, and you all have covered times when the President has traveled to Capitol Hill to try to bridge differences with Democrats on Capitol Hill -- that was not the case this time.  This time the President was there to affirm his support for the agenda that Democrats in Congress are fighting for.  And that unanimity will be a source of strength for Democrats in the years ahead.  And the President encouraged them to draw on it as they continue to fight for the values that they've been fighting for not just the last eight years, but for most of the people in the room they've been fighting for for their entire career in public service.   

Q    And you mentioned other areas.  What other issues did they talk about besides health care?

MR. EARNEST:  There were a range of legislative issues that I think you would expect -- criminal justice reform, immigration reform, infrastructure -- some of the other issues that Democrats are likely to be working on over the next couple of years.

Q    To go back to the question of what he wants Democrats to do when it comes to health care, once the law is repealed, would he like Democrats to negotiate with Republicans to come up with a replacement?  Or would he like them to refuse to negotiate and just leave Republicans to be the ones to come up with a replacement on their own, since they didn’t vote for it in the first place and they're the ones that are anxious to repeal it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me start out by answering your question by making a little news and saying that I agree with Congressman Rand Paul -- or Senator Rand Paul -- I just gave him a demotion -- Senator Rand Paul on something.  Senator Rand Paul wrote an op-ed in which he indicated that the people who repeal the Affordable Care Act are going to assume the blame for the chaos that ensues.  That's true.  And that's not a direct quote from his op-ed, but I think that is a faithful representation of what he wrote.  

And I do think that's an illustration of something you've heard the President talk about quite a bit since November 9th, which is that there's a difference between delivering a poll-tested, sound bite-packaged promise on the campaign trail, and actually delivering on that promise once you assume the responsibility to govern the greatest country in the world.  And there is no better example than the Republicans who -- and I'm not just talking about the President-elect here, I'm talking about Republicans in states all across the country who have spent years excoriating the Affordable Care Act and vowing to do everything that they possibly can to repeal it.  

The time has now come for them to consider how they're going to make good on that promise.  Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives.  Republicans are in charge of the United States Senate.  And starting on January 20th, Republicans will be in charge of the White House.  And they’re going to have to decide how to make good on that promise to repeal and replace.  The challenge is, is that there are a lot of people in the great state -- the Commonwealth of Kentucky who are strong supporters of Senator Rand Paul, whose livelihood and, in some cases, life depends on the health care they receive from Obamacare, whether that’s expanded Medicaid or insurance that they’ve purchased in the marketplace run by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

So you could understand why Rand Paul would have some anxiety about this plan -- about this strategy that’s put forward by Republicans, and the anxiety is palpable.  One of the most articulate Republicans on Capitol Hill is the Speaker of the House, and he did a news conference today where he was unable to explain why Republicans have not put forward their replacement plan.  He’s a smart guy, he’s spent years thinking about this.  He’s smart when it comes to politics, he’s smart when it comes to policy.  We’ve got profound differences and he’s got a different point of view, but there’s nobody that questions his intellect.  And even he can’t articulate exactly why they aren’t putting forward a replacement plan.  That does not bode well for Republicans making good on this promise.  But we’ll see.

One other reason, and this is something that the President did discuss with Democrats on Capitol Hill, and one of the reasons that this is particularly hard for Republicans, including Republicans who represent states like West Virginia and Kentucky, Tennessee -- not typically states that you consider as bastions of Obama supporters -- but these are states that have many communities that have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic.  Expanded Medicaid and health insurance that people purchase through Obamacare marketplaces offer support and service and treatment to people who are being ravaged -- or to people who are addicted to opioids and are trying to beat that addiction.

And we know that this is an issue that Republicans care about.  Republicans, at the end of last year, were bragging about a piece of government spending that they had passed to increase support for treatment for people who are fighting opioid addiction.  The worst way to fight the opioid crisis is to strip away health care from millions of Americans who rely on it.

A similar argument could be made about cancer research.  That was also included in the package that Republicans were bragging about passing at the end of last year.  What good is it to invest billions of dollars in cancer research if you’re going to prevent millions of Americans from being able to get a check-up once a year?  We don’t need to do a bunch of intensive academic research in cancer to understand what kinds of screenings are important and how important those screenings are, particularly for people of a certain age, a certain demographic, and a certain medical condition.

So these are the kinds of complexities that Republicans are now responsible for because they’re responsible for governing a country of 300 million people.  

And so to go back to your more direct question -- and I think this is the other element of the answer that the President offered to Democrats -- is something that you’ve heard him say before -- in fact, since the day that he signed the Affordable Care Act into law -- which is the President believes that the country would benefit from Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill actually having a conversation about ideas for strengthening and improving the Affordable Care Act.  

The President has never made the argument that the Affordable Care Act is perfect.  It’s done a whole lot of good for people, it saved lives, but it could be improved.  But that’s never the offer that Republicans have put forward.  Democrats have put it forward.  The President himself has put forward ideas for how to strengthen and improve the program, but there’s never been a willingness on the part of Republicans to do that.  

If Republicans changed their tune, recognizing these complexities, and say, all right, Democrats, we acknowledge that tearing this thing down is not going to be good for the country and is a little more politically complicated than we anticipated, but you guys got to admit that there are some things that we can do to improve this proposal, that’s a conversation of an entire different color.  And that is a conversation that the President encouraged Democrats to consider engaging Republicans on, but that would require a different approach on the part of Republicans, but it’s a change in approach that President Obama would welcome.  

You’d have to talk to Democrats on Capitol Hill what their reaction to that would be.  I suspect they would say it depends, but I think even if they say it depends, that does indicate that they’re open to it.

Ayesha.

Q    You talked about the -- going back to the health care meeting -- you talked about the importance of Democrats sticking together.  At least one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, didn’t attend the meeting.  He felt like -- although he also criticized Vice President-elect Pence for having his meeting, but he did say that to have President Obama come that it was kind of like a poison pill that is going to hurt bipartisanship.  I mean, at this point, is there any consideration that having the President come out so forcefully saying that Democrats need to do this or do that regarding health care, that it does make this a more partisan issue?  
And then also, when you’re talking about strategies, if the Republicans are unwilling to work with the Democrats, what exactly does the President envision them doing?  Should they take some of the Republican tactics and begin -- I don’t know if it would be possible -- like shutting down government or doing things like that to get these issues -- to stop the repeal of Obamacare?  Like what specifically can they do if Republicans don't want to work with them?

MR. EARNEST:  Ayesha, I think a presidential critic would have to engage in remarkable rhetorical contortions to try to make the case that the President is the one who had made health care a partisan issue.  When you consider that the President hosted a meeting at the Blair House with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress trying to get them to come together around some basic principles of health care reform, when you consider that the essence of the Affordable Care Act was cooked up by the Heritage Foundation and implemented successfully by a Republican governor in Massachusetts who, oh, by the way, happened to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 -- that's been the approach that the President has taken.  

Republicans have voted 50 times strictly along party lines to try to repeal the bill.  So I think it's hard for anybody to suggest -- seriously, at least -- that somehow the President has made this a partisan issue.  In fact, I just indicated the President is continuing not just willingness but desire to see Democrats and Republicans come together around some ideas to strengthen the bill.

With regard to Democratic unity, I can't speak to Senator Manchin’s schedule, but I've heard him speak about why repealing Obamacare would be a terrible idea for hundreds of thousands of people in the state that he represents in the United States Senate.  He agrees with the President and the Democrats in Congress, and is showing the same kind of concern that even people like Rand Paul are showing about the impact of repealing the bill.

So, again, you’ll have to ask -- I guess I would say it this way:  I would welcome the standard of Democratic unity being whether or not Senator Manchin agrees about the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.  I think that he would say what the President has said, which is that it can be improved, Democrats and Republicans should work together to improve it, but the idea of repealing it would be bad for the state and would have bad consequences for people all across the country.

Q    And when it comes to specific strategies, would the President support Democrats kind of shutting things down, or like what type of specific strategies could they take on if the Republicans don't -- 

MR. EARNEST:  Look, the President acknowledged in his meeting with the legislators that he’s not the one who is the expert in legislative mechanics, so he didn’t have any specific tactical advice for Democrats up there.  But the President believes that these are principles that are worth fighting for; that health care is not a privilege -- access to quality, affordable health care is not a privilege, it's a right; that the policies that limit the growth in health care costs for workers, for families, for business owners, and for the United States government is a good thing and something that should be protected; that people shouldn’t be discriminated against because they have preexisting conditions; that women shouldn’t be charged more by the insurance company just because they’re women; people shouldn’t have to worry about having to declare bankruptcy just because somebody in their family gets sick.

Those are principles that are worth fighting for.  And there were a lot of nodding heads when the President made that point.

Michelle.

Q    You were asked about should Democrats work with Republicans, and you mentioned it would require a different tactic.  So are you saying that if the tactic remains repeal, then Democrats should not work on negotiating that?

MR. EARNEST:  Repealing the Affordable Care Act would have devastating consequences for people all across the country, and it's not something that Democrats support, nor should they.  And we're seeing that a lot of Republicans are queasy about supporting it -- and they should be -- because of the obvious, tangible, direct consequences that that will have on the lives of millions of people across the country.  Twenty-two million people are going to lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.  It's going to rip a hole in the deficit -- in the federal budget, and the deficit will go up if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.  That's not just my conclusion.  You can ask the CBO about that.  

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act strengthened the Medicare trust fund and extended the life of the trust fund by 11 years.  Repealing the Affordable Care Act would roll back that progress.  And we've seen, since the Affordable Care Act went into effect, the slowest growth in health care costs in our nation’s history.  

If Republicans want to go back to a day in which health care costs for everybody are skyrocketing, they can do that, but that's going to be bad for the economy and will create the kind of chaos that the American people will hold them accountable for.

Q    You talked about Democrats, that they'd be willing to work with Republicans to improve Obamacare, but only if it's not repealed.  Is that right?  Is that what you're saying?

MR. EARNEST:  Repealing the Affordable Care Act is not an improvement.  Looking for ways to design an increase in subsidies so that working families can get even more affordable access to health care that's available for purchase in the marketplace -- the President thinks that's a pretty good idea.  And that is -- subsidies is another word for tax cuts.  Ordinarily, you would think that would be something that Republicans would be able to support -- and not just able to support, enthused about supporting.

But that's not the reaction that we've seen from them.  That's just one idea that the President has put forward, but it's the kind of idea that's rooted in trying to find compromise that the President has been committed to since the day that he signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

Q    And you talked about Republican promises to repeal it, and now they're going to be -- they're going to have to be accountable for what comes next.  Today, Steve Scalise said that the President himself made promises that if you like your health care, you can keep it, and that he should actually be apologizing.  What's your response to that?

MR. EARNEST:  My response is simply that the President's record on the Affordable Care Act speaks for itself.  And when the President-elect put forward his nominee to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Congressman Tom Price, I predicted that at some point in his tenure as the Secretary of Health and Human Services he will stand at this podium and be putting forward a plan that he believes is the right one for the country.  And I said at the time that it should be measured against the progress that President Obama has made in reforming our health care system.  And I feel strongly about that.  

And whether that's expanding access for health care so that 20 million Americans have access to health care, reducing the uninsured rate in this country to all-time lows, limiting the growth in health care costs, preventing people from being discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition, preventing people from having to declare bankruptcy because somebody in their family gets sick, preventing women from being charged more for their health insurance by their insurance company just because they get sick, extending the life of the Medicare trust fund, reducing the deficit by $3 trillion over 20 years -- that's the standard that President Obama has set.  That is the way that the American people can and should judge the President's record when it comes to health care reform.  And it's a record that the President is enormously proud of, not just because of the politics, but because of the impact that it's had on the lives of millions of people all across the country.  

That's what he came into office promising to do.  That's what he campaigned on nine years ago in 2008 when he was crisscrossing the country, was taking on the kinds of tough challenges that Washington had been ignoring for too long.  And Democratic and Republican Presidents for 100 years had tried, or at least considered trying to take on the notion of health care reform.  President Obama took it on and succeeded in getting it done, and he's enormously proud of that. 

Q    He apparently did talk about some tactics, at least generally, saying that Democrats should adopt some of the things that the Tea Party did in opposing Obamacare and they should go out to town halls and things like that.  Can you expand on that?  I mean, what do you think that would accomplish?  And does the President intend to keep working on this, even after he leaves office?

MR. EARNEST:  The President was making the point that Democrats need to place a priority on telling the story of people who benefitted from the law.  And there are lots of those stories to tell -- not just the 20 million Americans who got health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act that didn’t have it before, but the millions more Americans who are not being discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition, who are able to keep their child on their health insurance until age 26, who are not being charged more from their insurance company just because they're a woman.  These are the kinds of stories that we can tell.  Certainly the expansion of Medicaid has saved countless lives across the country.  And the President does believe that it would be an effective tactic, as this debate is waged inside the halls of Congress, to communicate with the American public about the stakes of this debate.  

And the President feels strongly that this is a debate that Democrats can win because of the impact that repealing the law, as Republicans are vowing to do, would have on the lives of people in communities all across the country.  And that is something that shouldn’t just steel the spine of Democratic members of Congress; it's going to -- as I think is evident from Senator Paul's op-ed, it's going leave a lot of Republicans quite uneasy.

Q    So are we going to keep hearing from President Obama on this after he leaves?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, the President has been clear about his post-White House plans.  He's going to take a vacation, and he expects to be in a position that he can observe and follow the tradition that previous Presidents have shown, which is the country deserves an incoming President with an opportunity to go and lead the country in the direction that he believes is right, and this is a debate that will continue.  And the President also feels strongly that he's been on the national stage for more than eight years if you consider his national campaign to win the Oval Office.  It's time for the fresh blood.  It's time for the next generation of Democrats, and even some Republicans who share his values, to speak up and speak out.  It's time for them to get the spotlight.  It's time for them to have an opportunity to make that argument.  And the President believes that's important for the country.  It also ends up being important for the Democratic Party in terms of making sure that the next generation of Democrats is ready to take up the mantle.  

Jordan.

Q    I just want to follow up on that, because Congressman Cummings told a group of reporters after the meeting that the President made it "very clear that as a citizen he's going to lend his voice to this fight."  So that seems to contradict a little bit what you said.  So where's the gulf there?  And does he in some ways plan to speak out about this health care issue after he leaves office?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, the President made clear his solidarity with congressional Democrats, and there's no doubt about that among anybody in the room.  But, yes, being a citizen is different than being the President of the United States or being an elected member of Congress.  And being a former President does necessarily give you a larger platform, but the President is hopeful that he'll be able to observe the kinds of standards that previous Presidents have in giving the next President the opportunity to succeed.  

But look, the President has been pretty blunt about his approach here.  He's talked a lot, even while in office, about how important the office of citizen is both in terms of educating yourself about the issues and engaging in a democratic process.  The President will certainly do that.  And the President will be interested in supporting Democrats in Congress.  He stands with them in solidarity.  But there are some limits to what former Presidents typically do once they leave office.  

Julianna.

Q    Thanks.  Just to clarify on that, it sounds like on the one hand you're saying he's resigned to sitting on the sidelines and watching Republicans dismantle the Affordable Care Act, and the same time there's the community organizer in him that would be trying to lend a hand to the effort to salvage elements of the law.  So where does that exactly leave him?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, "resigned" is not at all the word that I would use.  I think it was evident from the Democrats in the room that the President feels quite passionate about all of these issues.  And the President is confident that the kind of argument that Democrats can put forward is a winning one.  So the President continues to be very confident, particularly on this issue of the Affordable Care Act, in the ability of Democrats to make the kind of argument that's going to resonate deeply with the American people.  And there's already some evidence that Republicans are uneasy about this, both as -- and so the two pieces of evidence that I cited today are the op-ed from Senator Paul and the inability of one of the most articulate Republicans on Capitol Hill to explain why Republicans don’t have their own replacement plan to put forward, even though he's the guy who's responsible for putting that plan forward.  So I think that is an indication that Republicans are already starting to reckon with the challenge of keeping this promise.  

At the same time, the President acknowledges that he's leaving the national stage.  That's what the Constitution requires.  That's certainly consistent with his wife's preferences.  And it's going to be time for somebody else to pick up the mantle.  Does that mean that the President is any less committed to these issues than he was before?  Of course not.  But it does mean that the President expects to be in a position that he can observe the kinds of customs and courtesy, frankly, that was afforded to him by his predecessor.

Now, the President has also been clear, and the President did discuss this in the meeting as well, that he's hopeful that this won't happen.  But if there are basic, fundamental American values that are undermined by a specific policy proposal, then he may feel the need to speak out.  But it is his hope, and I would say even his expectation, that that's not something that he will have to do.  

And I think the other thing I want to point out here -- and I think this is relevant to the entire context -- what I'm trying to lay out and describe to you is the President's plans for the first year or two that he's out of office.  And President Obama is obviously leaving this office at a young age -- he's just 55 -- and I think that there's -- he still has a lot of ambition and a lot more that he would like to do.  Most of it he hopes he will be able to do behind the scenes in terms of continuing to stay true to his roots as a community organizer, and motivating and inspiring and even offering training to people who feel called in a similar direction.  He wants to make sure that public servants, or people who aspire to public office are people who can get trained in the fundamentals of community organizing.  He wants to make sure that young people around the world are exposed to the kinds of values and principles and norms and customs and traditions of the United States when it comes to democracy and citizen engagement and respect for all people, and even entrepreneurship.  These are things that the President has talked about as a President and something that he hopes to continue in his post-presidency.

So I don’t want to leave you with the impression that there's still not a lot of important work for former President Obama to be engaged in -- there is.  He recognizes that.  And he's got a long to-do list.  But that is different than being engaged in the same back-and-forth that he's responsible for engaging in as President.

Q    So you're saying he has not closed the door to, let's say, over the next six months to a year, if he sees the direction of the Affordable Care Act, or whatever it would be replaced with, moving in a way that he is not comfortable with, that you said he feels like it doesn’t hold up to certain American values, that he would lend his voice in some way or another to that debate?

MR. EARNEST:  Look, I think the President's hope and expectation is that he will be able to allow others to take up this mantle -- with his strong support -- to carry this fight, and to do so publicly and engage in the back-and-forth.  And that's the expectation that he has and that's what he intends to pursue.

And I think that is the best description of his plans.  And, yes, I acknowledge that that stops short of entirely ruling out any sort of contingency that may prompt him to speak out publicly.  And I'm being intentional about that.  But I want to be clear that the President does not envision routine, regular engagement on these issues publicly.  That's the responsibility of Democrats in Congress; it's the responsibility of the next generation of Democrats.  And, look, it's a remarkable opportunity.  

So I go back to the way the President began his remarks to Democrats today.  They’re on the playing field fighting for the issues and priorities and values that this party and this country has long stood for.  And there’s nobility in that.  And he admires those who are willing to do it.  He is extraordinarily proud of the way that they are choosing to fight for those values and those priorities, and he will stand with them as they do it.  But ultimately it's a fight that they will lead.

Ron.

Q    Specifically, the Republicans talk about the soaring premiums and triple-digit increases in places, and high deductibles that make the policies in some cases somewhat useless because of these costs.  Now, I think your argument has been that subsidies and tax credits sort of illuminate that argument.  What’s the truth here as far as you're concerned?  Because again, there have been premium increases.  There are high deductibles.  And the other one they argue about is choice being limited.  So what are your numbers about premiums and deductibles specifically?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, obviously, this is the kind of debate that we welcome and one that I think leaves Republicans uneasy, because -- and let me explain to you why.  When we're talking about premium increases, it's important to note that the vast majority of Americans get their health insurance through their employer, and premium increases --

Q    Right.  3.8 percent or something.  

MR. EARNEST:  Just 3.4 percent.  

Q    Sorry.

MR. EARNEST:  That's okay, I've got the numbers in front of me; I've got an advantage.  So it's important that the vast majority of Americans have benefitted from the law because we know that the Affordable Care Act has had a positive impact in keeping the growth in those health care costs low for the vast majority of Americans.  

So there is a smaller group of Americans that doesn’t get health insurance through their employer.  And before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, these were people who didn’t have access to health care, or the only health care they had access to was health care that was riddled with loopholes that didn’t actually provide the kind of protections the insurance companies promised.  So what the Affordable Care Act did is it essentially established a marketplace and said this is the benchmark for policies that can be sold publicly.  So people had access to quality health care.

Now, the question is you’ve got that benchmark and so there’s quality health care that's available for people who don't get health insurance through their employer -- how do we make it affordable.  And the way that we make it affordable through the Affordable Care Act -- the aptly named Affordable Care Act -- is that more than 70 percent of the people who go shopping at that marketplace of quality plans will get assistance, subsidies, from the federal government that will allow them to purchase those plans for less than $100 a month.  

That's a good deal.  That's about the cost of a cellphone.  It's not free, but it's a good deal.  And it does give them access to health care that they didn’t previously have.  

The question is, for the three in ten, or less than three in ten Americans who don't get health insurance through their employer -- so this is a minority of the minority -- there has been a lot of volatility in some markets with health insurance.  And so the question is, what do we do for those people?  The President has put forward some ideas.  One of the ideas that he’s put forward is to expand subsidies and make it easier for more people to get access to subsidies, or higher subsidies, so that more people can get access to that affordable health insurance.

Another idea that the President had put forward is --

Q    But that essentially raises the numbers, right?  The government cost raises -- does it not?

MR. EARNEST:  It potentially could, but we’d be happy to --

Q    And that's the argument against this, that it's more government involvement, that it costs more.  

MR. EARNEST:  More government involvement only to the extent that it is providing tax credits to Americans to make it easier for them to choose which health insurance they would like to buy.  So I don't buy the argument that it is more government involvement.  I do understand the argument that it is more government spending.  But it's a paltry increase when you consider that over the next two decades the Affordable Care Act is going to reduce the deficit by $3 trillion.  So the increase in subsidies and the cost of doing so is a drop in the bucket when you consider the long-term deficit decrease associated with the Affordable Care Act.

Q    So why, if you take yourself away from this for a minute -- not too far away but -- (laughter) --

MR. EARNEST:  Sometimes I would like to.  (Laughter.) 

Q    You will soon.  And you just said something about how the President feels very confident that they have an argument that will resonate with the American people.  Well, it didn’t in the election clearly.  And you would say that this was, in many ways, the defining and animating issue for the Republicans -- repeal.  How does the President explain that, this distance?

MR. EARNEST:  Because there is a difference between campaigning and governing.

Q    No, no, no, I get that --

MR. EARNEST:  Right?  So it is easy to go and stand on the campaign trail and make a bunch of promises about repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.  It’s another thing altogether to come into office and be responsible for the 22 million people who will lose health insurance if you do that.

Q    So you’re saying it’s just a failure of messaging?  This is the Democrats' and the President’s, perhaps, failure to show up every place, as he says, and go to Iowa a hundred times and all?  I mean, is that -- because you still argue on the merits.  You think if you look at the numbers that this argument about premium increases and deductible increases, it’s just not there, it’s just not true.

MR. EARNEST:  I think the argument is, simply, that Republicans are the ones who now bear the burden of explaining how the American people are going to benefit from their ideas.  And yes, Democrats have shown how difficult that is.  But we’ve been willing to pay that political price to make a difference in the lives of millions of Americans across the country, and we’ve got a good argument to make because we’re right on the merits.

So not only does the complexity make it harder for Republicans to actually explain what impact their policies would have.  There’s also the rather inconvenient fact that the Republicans ideas are actually bad for people.  They’re bad for the economy.  They’re bad for small businesses who are trying to pay for insurance for their employees.  They’re bad for people who have to purchase their insurance through the market.  They’re bad for people who have to purchase their insurance, or get their insurance through their employer.  They’re bad for the U.S. government that will see the deficit skyrocket if Republicans follow through on their plan to replace the Affordable Care Act.

So as complicated as it’s been for Democrats to make a compelling case about the positive impact of our plan, it’s going to be even more complicated for Republicans, not just because they have to delve into the complexity, but because they have bad ideas.  And trying to convince people, in the space of that complexity, that their bad ideas are actually good is going to make it even harder for them.  And when you consider how wrapped around the axle they are on day one of the new Congress, I think that would explain some of the President’s confidence.

Steven.

Q    Josh, since you’ve been to the podium, the Senate has passed the budget resolution.  Senator Paul voted against it, but there were 51 votes -- 

MR. EARNEST:  Boy, that is a pretty narrow margin, isn’t it?

Q    So what do you make of it?

MR. EARNEST:  Yeah, well, I make of that -- well, first of all, the bill they passed today, this suggestion to instruct Congress -- you know the lingo better than I do; I haven’t worked on Capitol Hill.  But essentially, this is the first step in that process.  

The actual vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act is one that’s coming.  And I anticipate a vigorous debate between now and then, particularly when you consider that when -- some of colleagues here in the White House have had a little more experience working on Senate campaigns than I do -- but it sounds like 51 Republican senators may have cast the deciding vote to take away health care from 22 million Americans.  They may have cast the deciding vote to blow a hole in the deficit.  They may have cast a deciding vote to shorten the lifespan of Medicare and to weaken it by a decade or more.  They may have cast the deciding vote to take away protections that prevent people from being discriminated against because they have preexisting conditions.  You see where I'm going here.  

And Senator Rand Paul looks like he's eager to avoid being on receiving end of those critiques.  And he's not a particularly vulnerable incumbent -- at least yet.  We'll see.  Thank you for the opportunity to answer the question.

Jennifer.  Nice to see you.  Welcome to the White House.

Q    Thanks.  So Julian Assange from WikiLeaks -- what's the administration's current assessment on him?  Should he be considered as credible or should he be considered a criminal or a fugitive.  What's the assessment?

MR. EARNEST:  The assessment I think that I can share is the assessment that was put forward by the intelligence community -- all 17 agencies of the intelligence community -- on October 7th, 2016.  And it said in part this -- I'm just going to directly quote from them:  "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks, and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona, are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. 

Mr. Assange, of course, is famously in charge of WikiLeaks.  So I think that's a pretty definitive statement from the 17 different agencies of the United States government that deal in intelligence.  And this is an assessment that they put out back in October before the election.  

Lalit.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  I wanted to ask you a question, basically a follow-up on the retweet done by the U.S. Ambassador to India, Richard Verma.  In the retweet, he has tweeted a two-and-a-half minute video of three (inaudible) in Mumbai, and (inaudible) offering the job of a class teacher to President Obama after he retires on January 20th.  Has the President seen it?  Is he planning to take up that offer? 

MR. EARNEST:  Lalit, I have to admit I have not seen the retweet, but why don't we take a look at it and we'll get back to you with an answer, okay?

Q    And when the President hands over his mantle to Trump on January 20th, what are the things he would like Mr. Trump to do when he becomes the President on the front of India-U.S. relationship?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President has -- President Obama has invested deeply in strengthening the relationship between the United States and the world's largest democracy in India.  And the President believes that there are profound national security, diplomatic and economic benefits for strengthening those ties.  So I haven't heard the incoming President articulate what ideas he has for the relationship between the United States and India, but President Obama has certainly found that relationship one that's worth investing in.  And he certainly is optimistic about the ability to strengthen the United States economically and to enhance our influence around the globe by strengthening our relationship with India.

Kevin.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Following the Senate vote there, on the Donald Trump tweet about the delay in the intel briefing until Friday, is that an accurate description of how -- 

MR. EARNEST:  It's not.

Q    Can you sort of explain that process, and I don't know if you can explain why he said what he said.

MR. EARNEST:  I can't.  And fortunately, that's not my job.  What I can tell you is that the intelligence community has been working at the direction of the President to put together a report that reflects their consensus view about malicious cyber activity in the context of the 2016, 2012, and 2008 presidential elections.  This is only a month or so ago that the President directed the intelligence community to work on this report, and he asked them to produce this report before he leaves office on January 20th.  I can tell you that the intelligence community will make good on meeting that deadline with some time to spare.  And based on what I’ve been told by the intelligence community, they have not encountered any delays in producing that report.

One of the other notable things is that the President didn’t just -- in addition to directing them to compile the report, the President directed the intelligence community to both brief the contents of the report to relevant members of Congress on Capitol Hill and to the President-elect and his team to make sure that they understood exactly how serious this is.  So that’s something that the President directed the intelligence community to do, and I’m confident that they’ll make good on that promise as well.

I think the real question that looms is a question that’s been raised by some of the public comments or tweets from the President-elect, which is just simply, who are you going to believe?  On the one hand, you’ve got the Russians and the aforementioned Mr. Assange.  On the other side, you’ve got the 17 intelligence agencies of the United States government, outside cyber experts that have taken a look at this situation, you’ve got Democrats on Capitol Hill, you’ve got Republicans on Capitol Hill, and at least one adviser to Mr. Trump expressing concern about Russia’s malicious activity in cyberspace in the context of the election.

So there’s a pretty stark line that’s been drawn, and the President-elect will have to determine who he’s going to believe.  And the decision that he makes about that I think will have long-term consequences for the way he chooses to govern the country.

Q    How confident are you that that report will make its way to the hands of lawmakers before the end of this week?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have a timeframe to set on it, but I can tell you -- I can confirm that the intelligence community will meet their deadline of January 20th with ample time to spare.

Q    Is it fair to say that the President’s trip to the Hill today was also, in part, to preserve and protect his legacy, not just the Affordable Care Act but also to encourage Democrats to fight for the many pieces of legislation, executive orders -- to really uphold his vision and their vision, presumably, moving forward?  Is it fair to characterize his trip to the Hill in that way?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the way that I would characterize the President’s trip to the Hill is it was an opportunity to say thank you to Democrats in Congress who have been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with him to move the country in a direction that’s more fair, that’s more just, that’s more prosperous, and that’s more safe.  And over the last eight years, they’ve made remarkable progress in doing that.  And the President has spoken on many occasions about how much of that progress would not have been possible without the tenacity and courage and passion and commitment of Democrats in Congress. 

And so he wanted to say thank you, not just in terms of how appreciative he is for their cooperation and their collegiality, but also to thank them on behalf of the country for the progress that we have made.  But he also went up there to encourage them, and to motivate them, and to inspire them that even as he leaves and even as somebody who has not committed to working with Democrats on Capitol Hill enters the White House, that Democrats have a set of values and an agenda that’s worth fighting for.  And Democrats have the benefit, the advantage of being strongly unified around that agenda and around those values, and that will serve them very well because Republicans aren’t.  

Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t unified, and they don’t appear to be particularly unified when it comes to a bunch of priorities that are being decided by the incoming President-elect, including on the issue of Russia’s malicious cyber activity and their interference in our democracy.  So that is an advantage that Democrats have, it is an advantage from which they should draw strength, and it is an advantage that I think will serve them very well in the years ahead as they do fight for a set of priorities that President Obama has been trying to advance for the last eight years.

Q    Given that, last question, is it then fair to say that he is not concerned at all about his legacy, about a dramatic change happening here in Washington once he leaves office?  Or would you take the opposite view that he is concerned about a great many of the ideas that he had will be, frankly, undone?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the President is concerned about the impact that Republicans would have if they made good on their promises to dismantle so much of the progress that we have made over the last eight years.  And his concern is rooted in the fact that millions of Americans have access to health care because of what President Obama and Democrats in Congress were able to achieve with the Affordable Care Act.  Rolling that back is going to have a negative impact on the lives of those 22 million Americans, but that’s what Republicans are promising to do.  

Democrats in Congress and the administration worked effectively together to implement the Wall Street Reform legislation that has made sure that taxpayers will no longer be on the hook for bailing out big banks who make risky bets that go bad, and they implemented that in a way that the economy still thrived.  The stock market more than doubled since that bill was signed into law, and the President is pleased with that progress and is concerned about the impact that it would have on our economy if Republicans roll all that back.

The same is true when it comes to a range of national security issues.  The same is true when it comes to investments in clean energy.  The same is true when it comes to investments in education.  So that’s what the President’s concern is.  And the truth is, the only people who -- well, I’d say it this way:  The people who are in by far the best position to prevent that from happening are congressional Democrats who are unified around the idea that those things are worth fighting for, and the President is confident that they will, and the President is confident that they’re going to have some success in doing it.

Sean.

Q    I wanted to follow up on one exchange you had with Michelle a little earlier.  You said that after the President has been on the national stage for eight years that “it’s time for fresh blood.”

I take it you were referencing congressional Democrats, but does the President have satisfaction in the current ranks of the Democratic leadership given that there really hasn’t been much fresh blood there?  We see Charles Schumer moving up to majority leader in the Senate, but he was already a senior Democrat in the Senate, and the House Democratic leadership looks the same, at least at its highest levels.

MR. EARNEST:  The reference that I was making there was certainly to congressional Democrats, but not just to congressional Democrats.  

There’s an opportunity for mayors and governors and other people who aspire to elective office to make their voices heard.  It’s not just people who are in elective office who have a responsibility to speak out on the most important issues facing the country.  Citizens have that same kind of responsibility, and the President does believe that when he leaves the stage there will be big shoes to fill, and not likely by one person, at the risk of mixing metaphors.  

And the President is hopeful, I would say even confident, that there will be Democrats in Congress and across the country who step up to answer the call to fight for the kinds of democratic values that are good the country, that make America more prosperous, that make America more safe, that make America more fair, and that will serve the country and the party very well.

With regard to congressional Democrats, the President has deep respect and admiration for the ability of the congressional leaders that have been there the entire time that he’s been here for the last eight years.  But I think even those leaders would be the first ones to acknowledge they’re not going to be able to do it alone.  We’re going to need to see rank-and-file Democrats standing up and making the case, not just on ABC News, but back home, talking to their people in the communities and making the case to local newspapers and on local radio and on local television stations about what Democrats are fighting for and about what Democrats believe in and why it’s in the best interest of the people in those communities.

So at one point during the meeting today -- I don’t remember who exactly it was -- one of the leaders had suggested that all the newly-elected members of the Democratic caucus should raise their hand to be recognized, and a lot of hands went up.  I’m sure somebody was taking attendance at the meeting; I wasn’t.  I don’t think that every member of the Democratic caucus was there.  I don’t think Senator Manchin was the only one who didn’t attend.  I don’t know what reasons they may have for that, but it sure looked like a lot of the people who were elected for the first time and are serving their second full day in office as a member of the United States Congress spent an hour and a half with the President today.

And I think that’s a pretty good indication that the President’s words and message has resonated deeply with them, has certainly played at least some part in inspiring them to seek public office.  And I think that means that they’re more than energized for the fight ahead.

Q    But as the President looked around at the Senate and the House Democratic caucuses, he must have seen that the numbers are a lot smaller than they have been in previous years.  And particularly after the wave election in 2010, a lot of this was a result of the political capital he spent on Obamacare, right?  That there was a wave back against the President for passing that legislation.  Does he at all acknowledge the political capital that was spent then and have any regret of some of the other legislative priorities he didn’t get through, like criminal justice reform, immigration reform, infrastructure -- those other things you mentioned earlier?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I think there’s a lot of analysis that can be done of the 2010 election, and let me just stipulate that I disagree with the analysis that you put forward about that solely being a backlash against the Affordable Care Act.  I think the President would acknowledge that capital was spent in terms of passing and implementing the Affordable Care Act.  But to a person, I feel confident that Democrats would agree that it was worth it if that’s what’s required to get 20 million Americans covered on insurance.  If we’re going to outlaw insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions or charging women more just because they’re women -- it’s worth it.  That’s the reason you got into the fight, that’s the reason you ran for public office in the first place.  It’s the reason that you chose to engage in public debate in the first place.

So, yes, the President is proud of that and the progress that we've made as a result.  Does that answer your question?

Q   Yes.  I have one quick other question.  So as far as the Russian hacks go, I know normally you can’t discuss sources and methods and how you guys are given intelligence, but can you at least characterize the sort of intelligence that’s coming in that proves that this was a Russian hack?  Is it digital fingerprints that you’re tracing back to a computer in Russian possession?  Is it human sourcing, that you’re intercepting phone calls and hearing Russians talk about this kind of thing?  Or where is the confidence coming from?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m obviously quite limited in what I can say from here, but I think there are a couple of things that I can point to that I think answer the questions that you’ve raised.  It’s essentially two.

The first is, the statement that was issued by the intelligence community in October of 2016 before the election, making clear that Russia was interfering in our election represented the consensus view of 17 different intelligences agencies.  That’s not usually the way intelligence works.  That kind of unanimity of opinion, particularly when the stakes are so high, is notable.  The decision by the intelligence community not just to reach that conclusion, but to make it public, is notable.  And I think it reflects the depth of their confidence in that assessment.

But your question goes to what explains the depth of that confidence -- why.  I think the only thing that -- the thing that I can certainly say from here is that there was a release last week of the Joint Analysis Report that was issued by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, and included in that report was specific technical advice to computer network operators, systems administrators across the country and around the world about steps that they could take to protect their networks from malicious Russian cyber activity.  

I think that’s an indication that there was a deep technical analysis that was done.  And being able to put forward that technical analysis so that people could protect themselves from the Russians I think reflects the work that was done that pretty definitively ties this back to the Russians.

The other effect of releasing that information means that Russia now has to go back to the drawing board and change some of their tactics.  If people who are responsible for defending computer networks are now aware of the places from which those attacks originate, if they're aware of the kinds of tactics that are used in erecting and executing those attacks, if they're aware of the kinds of software, the malware that is used and they can defend their networks against that malware, that's going to make things a lot more difficult for the Russians.  So that isn’t just an effort to erect defenses to repel malicious Russian activity, it's actually to set back Russian efforts to carry out those kinds of attacks.

So I think that is an indication of the depth of the analysis that was done.  It's technical in nature, I would stipulate that from the beginning.  But I think it's an indication that the intelligence community is following more than their gut instinct.  And I think the way that you can tell that is based on the technical analysis that was put forward, and the demonstration of the conviction in their analysis by expressing their unanimous opinion publicly before election about what exactly happened.  

Q    It sounds like, though, that you're pointing more to the digital fingerprint more so than human intelligence.  Is there any concern that that could be manipulated if somebody was so smart to manipulate the intel so that it made it look like it was Russia?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I'm pointing to is the one thing that I feel like I can point to publicly to substantiate some of the claims that we've made.  It doesn’t mean that there isn’t additional evidence out there; I'm sure that there is.  But there is a priority that's placed on protecting sources and methods.  And with regard to sort of this question about manipulating that kind of digital evidence, I felt confident based on that expertise and technical know-how of the United States intelligence community that that's something that they considered before putting forward that technical information and before putting forward their unanimous high-confidence assessment about what exactly happened.

Bill Press.  Nice to see you, Bill.  

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Nice to see you.  Happy New Year.

MR. EARNEST:  Happy New Year.

Q    I was wondering, having you had an opportunity yet to meet with or to speak with the person who's been designated as your successor at the podium?

MR. EARNEST:  I did have an opportunity yesterday to meet with Sean Spicer, the gentleman that has been hired by the President-elect to succeed me as the White House Press Secretary.  

Q    (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST:  I was going to say, I believe that I had met Sean in passing previously at a social occasion, but this is the first time I had had an opportunity to sit down with him and have a conversation.  And yesterday, in my office, we sat down with him and his assistant, and Jen Psaki joined for that conversation, and we had a long conversation about what it's like to work at the White House.  And we certainly talked about some of the complicated logistics of working in this environment, but we also talked a little bit about the approach to the job that Jen and I have taken in fulfilling our roles at this White House.  

And it was a good conversation, and I know that he's excited about the opportunity -- and he should be.  Getting to work at the White House is a genuine honor, and certainly having the opportunity to stand at this podium and speak to all of you, and engage in a debate about a set of issues that I certainly feel strongly about, and to advocate for a President that I respect enormously is a genuine honor.  And I think Sean sees it the same way, and he should.

Q    It has certainly been a question among many of us:  Did the subject of whether or not he intends to hold daily press briefings come up in your conversation?

MR. EARNEST:  I'll let him speak to whatever plans that he has.  

Q    If it did come up or if it does come up, from your perspective, having been there now for, what, the last four or five years, what would your advice be about the importance or the wisdom of the daily press briefings?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the argument that I've made in the past is I think there is genuine value to the day-to-day engagement that I have with all of you.  The symbolic value of the President hiring somebody to play a senior role in his staff, to come out here every day on camera, on the record, and answer whatever question you guys dream up, and be an advocate for the policies that the President has prioritized and be held accountable for knowing what the President thinks, faithfully expressing his view, and being factual and accurate in making that case -- that's a healthy part of our democracy.  There aren’t many countries in the world that encourage this kind of engagement.  So I think it's genuinely a good thing.

I think there are some aspects of it that are not as efficient as they may have been a generation ago.  Before iPhones and Blackberrys and email, there were many fewer opportunities for the press corps to interact with White House staff.  But the truth is, I think there's a lot of symbolic value to doing this, and it's good for the country, and I think the President believes that it serves his interest well to have somebody out here making an argument in support of his policies.  And I think it certainly serves your viewers and listeners and readers to hear firsthand from somebody at the White House who's willing to stand up here and put their name behind a forceful case and an explanation of what the President is doing and why he's doing it.

But obviously the incoming administration will have to make up their own mind about the wisdom of pursuing a strategy that the President believes in because of its role in our democracy, but also because of the way that it's contributed to his success as President.  

Dave.

Q    Josh, Democratic leaders in the California legislature announced today that they've hired Eric Holder as outside counsel to represent the state in what they anticipate will be legal battles against the Trump administration.  Does the White House think it's appropriate for a former Cabinet member to get paid to fight the policies of a new administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I've seen only the headlines of some of the news reports that you're citing, and there's nothing that struck me in reading those reports that there's anything at all inappropriate about what Mr. Holder was choosing to pursue.   

First of all, I'll say that it's not surprising to me at all that the state of California would want to choose somebody as smart and as experienced and well-versed in these policy issues as Mr. Holder is.  It's one of the reasons that President Obama chose him to be the Attorney General.  Obviously, Mr. Holder is a telegenic, articulate advocate for a whole set of issues, and I suspect that the people of the state of California will benefit from him putting those same skills to work, advocating for them.  And it doesn't strike me that there's anything wrong with it.

Q    The President obviously has been very close to Mr. Holder over the years, considers him a friend.  Did he know about this?  

MR. EARNEST:  I haven't spoken to the President about Mr. Holder's new job, but it's certainly true that the President holds Mr. Holder in high regard, both for his intellectual and legal abilities, but also because he's a pretty good guy.

Jared, I'll give you the last one.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  A couple different versions of the Affordable Care Act repeal being discussed.  On one hand, you've got reconciliation, which the Senate parliamentarian has ruled doesn't apply to all of the law but only certain parts of it.  And then you've got the Vice President-elect and Sean Spicer discussing today the possibility of executive actions that could be taken on day one.  Does the legislative team here at the White House have any sense of what could be done to the Affordable Care Act by executive action, and whether any of that would be, in this administration's mind, an improvement of the law?

MR. EARNEST:  I am not aware of what the incoming team may have been referring to with regard to potential changes through executive action that they're looking at.  I think the thing that I can faithfully relate to you is that if we had conceived of a way for the President to use executive action to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, then I assure you we would have done it.  But look, I think we'll have to let the incoming administration provide some more insight into what their plans are before I can comment on it.

Q    Do you think that it signals strength or weakness of the plan that executive action is one of the first out of the gate moves for this, or do you not have enough to go on?

MR. EARNEST:  I think it's hard to discern at this point exactly what their plans are.  I just think that whatever changes they choose to make, they'll be held to a rather high standard for assessing the success or failure of those changes.  And we'll be counting on all of you to hold them to that standard.

Thanks, everybody.  We'll see you tomorrow.

END 
1:54 P.M. EST

3:21 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Please be seated.  

Well, good afternoon.  It turns out these are easier when you're talking about somebody else.  (Laughter.)  At a moment like this, I think of all the times I’ve stood before our men and women in uniform.  Commissioning our newest officers.  Presiding over promotions.  Presenting the Commander-in Chief’s Trophy to -- the best football team in the military.  I will let you argue over that one.  (Laughter.)  I have never taken sides.

Secretary Carter, I could not be more grateful for your gracious words, but more importantly, for your outstanding leadership, across, as you noted, more than three decades and nearly all of my presidency.  You have always given me, Ash, your best strategic counsel.  You’ve made sure that we were investing in innovation for the long term and a strong Force of the Future.  As a physicist, Ash is also one of the few people who actually understands how our defense systems work.  And I know that our troops and their families are immensely grateful for the compassion that you and Stephanie have shown them over the years.  So to you and your family, on behalf of all of us, thank you for your outstanding service.  (Applause.)  

General Dunford, we’ve relied on you as Commandant of the Marine Corps, as our commander in Afghanistan, and now, as our nation’s highest-ranking military officer.  I thank you, and General Selva and the entire Joint Chiefs for the unvarnished military advice that you’ve always provided to me, for your dedication, for your professionalism, for you integrity.  Because of you, because of this team, our Armed Forces are more integrated and better prepared across domains -- a truly Joint Force.  Which is why, as a White Sox fan, I can overlook the fact that you love the Red Sox.  (Laughter.)  Moreover, on a personal note, outside of your professional qualities, you are a good man, and I am grateful to have worked with you.  And thank Ellyn for allowing you to do this.  (Applause.)  
 
To members of Congress; Vice President Biden -- who, along with Jill, has known the love and the pride and the sacrifice of a military family.  To Deputy Secretary Work; service secretaries; distinguished guests; dedicated civilians from across the Defense Department; my national security team; most of all, our men and women in uniform.  I thank you for this honor, and for the warmth and respect that you’ve always shown me, the support that you’ve shown Michelle and our daughters during these past eight years.  

And so, although I recognize that the formalities require me listening to praise directed in large part to me, I want to turn the tables -- I am still Commander-in-Chief, so I get to do what I want to do -- and I want to thank you.  Of all the privileges of this office -- and there are many -- I will miss Air Force One, I will miss Marine One -- (laughter) -- but I can stand before you today and say that there has been no greater privilege, and no greater honor, than serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the greatest military in the history of the world.  (Applause.)  
     
When I took office, I noted that Presidents and those of you in uniform swear a similar oath -- to protect and defend this country and the Constitution that we cherish.  By stepping forward and volunteering, by raising your right hand and taking that oath, each of you made a solemn pledge.  You committed yourself to a life of service and of sacrifice.  And I, in turn, made a promise to you, which, to the best of my abilities, I've  tried to uphold every single day since, that I would only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, with the strategy, the well-defined goals, with the equipment and the support that you needed to get the job done.  Because that’s what you rightfully expect and that is what you rightfully deserve.

I made that pledge at a time when less than one percent of Americans wear the uniform.  Fewer Americans know someone who serves.  And as a result, a lot of Americans don’t see the sacrifices you make on our behalf.  But as Commander-in-Chief, I do.  I’ve seen it when I looked into the eyes of young cadets, knowing that my decisions could very well send them into harm’s way.  I’ve seen it when I’ve visited the field -- at Bagram and Baghdad -- far from your families, risking your lives so that we can live ours safely and in freedom.  And so you’ve inspired me, and I have been humbled by you consistently.  And I want every American to know what I know -- through year after year after year of continuous military operations -- you have earned your place among the greatest generations.

The list of accomplishments that Joe and Ash so generously mentioned, they’re because of you.  It's what I tell my staff -- I'm the front man, but you're the ones doing the work.  Because of you, our alliances are stronger, from Europe to the Asia Pacific.  Because of you, we surged in Afghanistan, trained Afghan forces to defend their country, while bringing most of our troops home.  Today our forces serve there on a more limited mission -- because we must never again allow Afghanistan to be used for a safe haven in attacks against our nation.

It's because of you -- particularly our remarkable Special Forces -- that the core al Qaeda leadership that attacked us on 9/11 has been decimated.  Countless terrorist leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are gone.  From South Asia to Africa, we have forged partnerships to go after terrorists that threaten us.  Because of you, we are leading a global coalition against ISIL.  These terrorists have lost about half of their territory.  They are losing their leaders.  Towns and cities are being liberated.  And I have no doubt this barbaric terrorist group will be destroyed -- because of you.

You've shown that when it comes to fighting terrorism, we can be strong and we can be smart.  Not by letting our forces get dragged into sectarian conflicts and civil wars, but with smart, sustainable, principled partnerships.  That’s how we’ve brought most of our troops home -- nearly 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan down to 15,000 today.  That’s how, even as we’ve suffered terrible attacks here at home, from Boston to Orlando, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years.    

Because of you, the world has seen the awesome reach of American Armed Forces.  In some of the first few weeks of my job, when Somali pirates took Captain Phillips, later on, when they kidnapped Jessica Buchanan, it was you that went in and you that risked everything, and you that brought these Americans home to their families.  

The world has seen your compassion -- the help you deliver in times of crisis, from an earthquake in Haiti to the tsunami in Japan.  Think of Ebola and the countless lives this Armed Forces saved in West Africa.  It was you that set up the architecture and set the example for the world's response.  One woman in West Africa said, “We thanked God first and then we thanked America second for caring about us.”  That’s the difference you make -- you continue to make -- in the lives of people around the world.

As you know well, with service comes great sacrifice.  And after 15 years of war, our wounded warriors bear the scars -- both seen and unseen.  In my visits to their bedsides and rehab centers, I have been in awe, watching a wounded warrior grab his walker and pull himself up and, and through excruciating pain, take a step, and then another.  Or hearing troops describe how they grappled with post-traumatic stress but summoned the strength to ask for help.  As a military and as a nation, we have to keep supporting our resilient and incredibly strong wounded warriors as they learn to walk and run and heal.  As they find new ways to keep serving our nation, they need to know that we still need your incredible talents.  You've given so much to America, and I know you have more to give. 

And then you have not seen the depths of true love and true patriotism until you’ve been to Dover, when our troops receive our fallen heroes on their final journey home; until you have grieved with our Gold Star families who’ve given a piece of their heart to our nation -- a son or a daughter, a father or mother, a husband or wife, a brother or a sister.  Every one a patriot.  Every single one of these American families deserves the everlasting gratitude and support of our entire nation.      
 
Today, after two major ground wars, our Armed Forces have drawn down, and that is natural and it is necessary.  And after reckless budget cuts of sequester, we need to keep improving the readiness, and the training, and modernizing our forces.  So let me take this opportunity, while I still have it, to appeal to our friends from Congress who are here:  We cannot go back to sequestration.  There is a responsible way forward -- investing in America’s strengths, our national security and our economic security.  Investing in the reform and the equipment and support that our troops need, including the pay and the benefits, and the quality of life, and the education and the jobs that our troops and our veterans and all of your families deserve.    
 
But make no mistake, even with the challenges of recent years -- and there have been challenges-- our allies and adversaries alike understand America’s military remains, by far, the most capable fighting force on the face of the Earth.  Our Army, tested by years of combat, is the best-trained and best-equipped land force on the planet.  Our Navy is the largest and most lethal in the world -- on track to surpass 300 ships.  Our Air Force, with its precision and reach, is unmatched.  Our Marine Corps is the world’s only truly expeditionary force.  Our Coast Guard is the finest in the world.  

And we’re also the best because this military has come to welcome the talents of more of our fellow Americans.  Service members can now serve the country they love without hiding who they are or who they love.  All combat positions in our military are now open to women.  And Joe Biden and I know that women are at least as strong as men.  We’re stronger for it.  It’s one of the reasons that our military stands apart as the most respected institution in our nation by a mile.  (Applause.)  The American people look up to you and your devotion to duty, and your integrity, and your sense of honor, and your commitment to each other.  

One of my proudest achievements is that I have been able to, I think, communicate through the constant partisan haze, along with so many others, how special this institution is, and the esteem in which our military is held has held steady and constant and high throughout my presidency.  And I’m very grateful for that.  Because you remind us that we are united as one team.  At times of division, you’ve shown what it means to pull together.

So my days as your Commander-in-Chief are coming to an end, and as I reflect on the challenges we have faced together and on those to come, I believe that one of the greatest tasks before our Armed Forces is to retain the high confidence that the American people rightly place in you.  This is a responsibility not simply for those of you in uniform, but for those who lead you.  It’s the responsibility of our entire nation.

And so we are called to remember core principles:  That we must never hesitate to act when necessary to defend our nation, but we must also never rush into war -- because sending you into harm’s way should be a last and not first resort.  It should be compelled by the needs of our security and not our politics.  We need to remember that we must not give in to the false illusion of isolationism, because in this dangerous time, oceans alone will not protect us, and the world still seeks and needs our leadership as the one indispensable nation.  

We have to remember that our military has to be prepared for the full spectrum of threats, conventional and unconventional, from 20th century-style aggression to 21st century-style cyber threats.  And when we do go to war, we have to hold ourselves to high standards and do everything in our power to prevent the loss of innocent life, because that’s what we stand for.  That’s what we should stand for.  We have to remember that as we meet the threats of our time, we cannot sacrifice our values or our way of life -- the rule of law and openness and tolerance that defines us as Americans, that is our greatest strength and makes us a beacon to the world.  We cannot sacrifice the very freedoms that we’re fighting for.

And finally, in our democracy, the continued strength of our all-volunteer force also rests on something else -- a strong bond of respect and trust between those in uniform and the citizens that you protect and defend.  At a time when too few Americans truly understand the realities or sacrifices of military service, at a time when many political leaders have not served, if some in the military begin to feel as though somehow they are apart from the larger society they serve those bonds can fray.  

As every generation learns anew, freedom is not free.  And so while less than 1 percent of Americans may be fighting our wars, 100 percent of Americans can do their parts -- at the very least -- to support you and your families.  Everybody can do something -- every business, every profession, every school, every community, every state -- to reach out and to give back, and to let you know that we care, to help make the lives of our troops and your families just a little bit easier.  Everybody can do something.  

And that’s why Michelle and Jill Biden have mobilized more Americans to honor and support you and your families through Joining Forces.  And that’s why, even after we leave the White House, Michelle and I intend to keep on looking for ways to help rally more of our fellow citizens to be there for you, just like you’ve always been there for us.  

So we can’t say it enough and we can’t show it enough.  Thank you for your patriotism.  Thank you for your professionalism.  Thank you for your character in representing the very best of the American spirit.  Our nation endures -- we live free under the red, white and blue -- because of patriots like you.  

It has been a privilege of a lifetime to serve with you.  I have learned much from you.  I’m a better man having worked with you.  I’m confident that the United States and our Armed Forces will remain the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known.  

God bless you and your families.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)  

END
3:44 P.M. EST

David J. Arroyo, of New York, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for a term expiring January 31, 2022. (Reappointment)

Elizabeth A. Field, of the District of Columbia, to be Inspector General, Office of Personnel Management, vice Patrick E. McFarland, resigned.

Glenn Fine, of Maryland, to be Inspector General, Department of Defense, vice Jon T. Rymer, resigned.

Michael P. Leary, of Pennsylvania, to be Inspector General, Social Security Administration, vice Patrick P. O'Carroll, Jr., resigned.

Carolyn N. Lerner, of Maryland, to be Special Counsel, Office of Special Counsel, for the term of five years. (Reappointment)

Tulinabo Salama Mushingi, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Senegal, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.

Brent Franklin Nelsen, of South Carolina, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for a term expiring January 31, 2022. (Reappointment)

Rebecca Emily Rapp, of Wisconsin, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation for a term expiring July 13, 2019, vice Sharon L. Browne, resigned.

Jessica Rosenworcel, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five years from July 1, 2015. (Reappointment)

Robert P. Storch, of the District of Columbia, to be Inspector General of the National Security Agency. (New Position)

11:31 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, Happy New Year, everybody.  I want to begin by thanking Ash Carter, our Secretary of Defense; General Joe Dunford and Vice Chair Paul Selva, and all of our commanders here.

The purpose of this meeting -- something I do on a regular basis -- is to allow me to hear directly from those who are charged with the most solemn responsibility of maintaining the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and keeping the American people safe.  It is in these meetings that we have been able to set broad strategy, identify areas where we have to improve, address the health of the force.  And I can say to the American people that they are extraordinarily lucky and I am extraordinarily lucky to be served by such extraordinary patriots.

This will be my last meeting with them.  And so part of my goal here is just to say thank you to them and let them know how much I appreciate the counsel, the advice, the leadership that they have consistently shown throughout my time in office.  

But in addition to saying thank you, I will get their views on the fact that we still have a lot of active threats around the world and we still have men and women in harm’s way around the world who are busy protecting our homeland and our vital interests and our allies.  And we've got to make sure that during this transition period that there is a seamless passing of the baton, that there’s continuity, and that any issues that still remain -- and obviously we still have major fights against ISIS in Mosul and in Syria; Afghanistan is still active -- that in all of these areas we are doing everything we can to make sure that the next President will benefit from the same kinds of outstanding advice and service that these people around the table have provided me.

So it has been, as I've said repeatedly, one of the greatest honors and privileges of being President serving as Commander-in-Chief to such outstanding people.  And I couldn't have done it without all of you.  And I know that my optimism about America going forward is in part because we have such an amazing military -- not only one that knows how to fight, but also knows how to uphold the values of rule of law and professionalism and integrity, and recognizes our constitutional structure and maintains strict adherence and respect for civilian authority and democratic practices in determining how we use the awesome force of the American military.

So I just want to say thank you to all of you.

And with that, we've got to do some work.  All right?  Thank you so much.  I appreciate it.

END              
11:35 A.M. EST

**Please see below for corrections, marked with an asterisk.

1:20 P.M. EST

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Happy New Year.  Hope you all got some quality time with your families over the last couple of weeks.  I know the President did while he was in Hawaii, and I hope you were able to do the same thing.

Before we get started, I actually wanted to mark a little -- a memory with all of you.  Today actually reflects the 9th anniversary of the President’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.  And I was fortunate enough to have worked on his Iowa caucus campaign, and so this is a day that I know that many of my colleagues at the time will mark in their own way.  I thought I would actually do it by reading just a couple of short excerpts from the speech that he delivered that night. 

This was the President speaking to a group of very excited supporters.  There are some famous lines in this speech, but my attention, as I was reading this last night actually was attracted to a couple of different paragraphs -- and let me read them to you now.

“Years from now, you’ll look back and you’ll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope.  For months, we’ve been teased, even derided for talking about hope.  We always knew that hope is not blind optimism.  It’s not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.  It’s not sitting on the sidelines, or shrinking from a fight.  Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.” 

He went on to say that “Hope is the bedrock of this nation; the belief that our destiny will not be written for us but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, but who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.” 

I didn’t deliver that speech nearly as well as he did that night.  And I certainly --

Q    It was a dramatic read. 

MR. EARNEST:  I tried.  I tried.  (Laughter.)  I gave it the old college try.  And I certainly can’t take credit for having written this powerful speech.  But I think it is an apt illustration of how remarkably committed President Obama has been over the course of his presidential career to a core set of principles that aspire to something great; that put their hope in the American people to build the kind of country that we all believe in, where we all have an opportunity to succeed regardless of what we look like or where we come from.

And there’s a reference in this to “those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, but who have the courage to remake the world as it should be.”  The President was talking about all Americans who are committed to investing in this country.  But I have very vivid memories of the young men and women who signed up to work on President Obama’s campaign back in 2007 for the 2008 caucuses.  And I say young men and women because even back at the time, nine years ago, when I was at the ripe old age of 32, I was the old guy, and that our campaign was populated by young people -- not young people in their 20s and 30s, but young people in their 20s.

And I have a vivid memory of one fall afternoon -- it was in the middle of the week.  The Winneshiek County Democrats in Northeastern Iowa were hosting their fall dinner, and there were two Obama campaign organizers who were eager to have somebody from the campaign come and speak at the fall gathering for all the Democrats.  This was a prime opportunity to recruit supporters and other influential people in the community, particularly Democrats, to win over their support.

And the campaign, unfortunately, was not able to find anyone for them, so I went up there.  (Laughter.)  And so I made the more than four-hour drive from Des Moines, Iowa, to Decorah, Iowa -- Winneshiek County is in the northeastern part of the state.  And what I found there were two Obama campaign organizers, two young people who were utterly committed to the task.  It was this young woman from Tennessee and a young African American man.  And I point that out because I don’t think there are too many other people in Winneshiek County that either had a southern accent like that young lady did, or were African American like that young man.

But what I found in the few hours that I was in town with them is they knew everybody.  When I got there, I pulled into their office and they said, well, you must be thirsty after your long drive.  They said, let’s go down to the grocery store and we’ll get you something to drink.  And they were walking through the grocery store aisles greeting people by name, and greeting the clerk who was checking us out by name.  And we went to the county dinner, and it was a small affair at an outdoor shelter at a park in Winneshiek County, and they were greeting everybody by name.  And I remember that night after the dinner I took them out for a couple of drinks at a local bar, and they’re greeting the bartender and other people at the bar by name.

It was an indication of how these two people were so committed to the cause and so passionate that they mustered the courage to go to some place that they had never been, to a community where they were very obviously outsiders, because of the passion that they felt for President Obama and his vision for the future of the country.

So I appreciate you indulging me on the anniversary of the victory to talk about the warm memories that I have of this important event, not just in the history of the people who have supported President Obama over his career, but in the history of the country.  And to all of my colleagues and friends who worked on that campaign and are marking that day today, I continue to feel the sense of solidarity and comradery with them that was so critical to our victory nine years ago.

So with that long wind-up, Darlene, welcome back.  Happy New Year. 

Q    Same to you.

MR. EARNEST:  And let’s go to some questions.

Q    Great.  So tomorrow, the President is going to the Capitol to talk to Democrats there about health care.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s right.

Q    What is the message?  What is the goal?  What does he hope to accomplish by going up there and meeting with them?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this will be an opportunity for the President to meet with the Democrats in the House and the Senate for the incoming United States Congress.  And they’ll be there to principally discuss how to counter the stated Republican objective of repealing the Affordable Care Act.

The stakes are high.  And I know that, particularly at this time, when we’re thinking about -- when there’s a lot of discussion about the President’s legacy, that some people might think that, well, the President is very concerned about the political capital that he’s invested in this and he doesn’t want to see it all go away.  That’s certainly true.  But the President’s priority and the President’s motivation is rooted in looking out for the interests of the 22 *30 million Americans whose health care would be taken away if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act.  He’s interested in looking out for the millions of Americans who get health care through their employer who have seen that the growth in their health care costs has been sharply limited -- just 3.4 percent in 2016.

Overall, the growth in health care costs is the lowest it’s been on record.  And if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, they will reverse that progress.  Millions of Americans across the country are protected from being discriminated against because they have a preexisting condition.  They’re allowed to keep their kids on their insurance plan until their kids turn 26. Women are not allowed to be charged more by their insurance company just because they’re women.  All of that would be undone if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Obviously, we’re deeply concerned about the impact this would have on Medicaid and Medicare.  The Affordable Care Act extended the lifespan of the Medicare trust fund by 11 years.  So if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, they’ll be hastening the demise of Medicare that millions of seniors rely upon for their basic health care needs.

So the President is deeply concerned about the impact that this Republican action could have.  He’s also concerned about this Republican tactic of repeal-and-delay that ultimately is nothing more than just bait-and-switch.  The prospect of, oh, don’t worry, the 22 *20 million Americans who have health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act, we’ll get around to offering up a replacement at some later date.  That’s not a responsible way to govern, and it certainly is not an indication that you’re looking out for working people in this country.

Democrats are, however, interested in looking out for working people in this country, no one more so than the Democratic President of the United States, Barack Obama.  So that’s what they’ll be there to talk about, and the President’s message will be to encourage them in that fight and to offer his own insight about the most effective way to engage in that fight.

Q    Is he going to be looking in some way to exploit Republicans appearing to be divided over what to replace Obamacare with?  Is that part of the discussion tomorrow?  Sort of take advantage of their inability to agree on a replacement?

MR. EARNEST:  There does appear to be some division in the Republican Party.  That's understandable.  Many of you have told the stories of people who are represented in Congress by Republicans, who voted for those Republicans, who are pleading with those Republicans not to take away their Obamacare.  So it's not surprising to me that there are some Republicans who are now a little queasy about the prospect of -- the impact that repealing Obamacare would have on their own supporters, on people in their congressional districts.  Because we know there are people all across the country who benefit from this law, who are protected by this law, whose lives have been saved by this law. 

And the prospect of taking it away is a question of life or death for some people.  And so it's not surprising to me that that does leave some Republicans queasy.

What the President has long said -- and I'm sure that this is true of other Republicans on Capitol Hill -- I don't speak for them -- but the President has long been open to the idea that if there are Republicans who are genuinely interested in reforming the Affordable Care Act in a way that would strengthen the program the President would be strongly supportive of that effort.  And he’s put forward his own ideas for how we could do that, but he certainly would be open to ideas from Republicans to do that. 

But that's not what Republicans have offered.  What they’ve offered more than 50 times is just a proposal for tearing the program down in a way that would leave millions of Americans vulnerable.  So there is this division in the Republican Party that does leave them vulnerable because they haven’t actually indicated any desire to work with Democrats to strengthen the program, which means that there is a premium placed on Republican unity, and if they’re not able to preserve that unity, it will pose a challenge to their efforts to accomplish this goal.

But there are a lot of steps to this process that Republicans have laid out that they’re prepared to undertake, and we'll see if they are able to do them.  The country would be much better served by them looking to work in a genuinely bipartisan fashion to strengthen the Affordable Care Act and not just extend, but actually strengthen the many protections that benefit millions of Americans across the country.

Q    Last one on this.  The President has said on a few occasions that his administration has been good on policy, but where it had fallen down has been in communicating policy to the public.  And I'm wondering --

MR. EARNEST:  I try not to take that personally when he says that.  (Laughter.) 

Q    So I'm wondering if the trip up to Capitol Hill tomorrow and then this health care-related interview that he’s doing later in the week on Friday -- is this some sort of attempt to kind of do the sales job on ACA over or better?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, look, I don't think -- I think as you all have seen in covering the President over the last eight years, there aren't many do-overs.  I can't think of any.  So, no, this is not a do-over.  But I think this is an opportunity for the President once again to make what he finds to be a particularly persuasive argument about the benefits of the proposal. 

And the one thing that we have long said that has proved to be true is that the more that people understand what’s included in the Affordable Care Act, the more that people see firsthand how they benefit from the Affordable Care Act, the more popular it's likely to be. 

And there’s no denying that Obamacare has been subjected to hundreds of millions of dollars of political attacks -- many of them, if not most of them, false -- about the impact of the law. So there is stiff headwinds that we have encountered in trying to make the argument in favor of the Affordable Care Act.  But the one thing that has proved to be true is that the more that people understand what’s included in the Affordable Care Act and how they benefit from it, the more popular the program is and the harder it is for Republicans to build political support for tearing it down. 

Jeff.

Q    Josh, North Korea has said it is close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile.  As the Obama administration comes close to its end, what more can you do on North Korea in the remaining three weeks of the President’s term, and what kind of advice do you have for the incoming administration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, the most important thing that any Commander-in-Chief has to do is protect the American people.  And for years, the United States has -- at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama -- has increased the defenses that are deployed in the Pacific region to protect the American people from this threat. 

So there are radar facilities and antiballistic missile facilities that have been installed in places like Japan and Guam and in Alaska.  There are naval vessels, ballistic missile defense ships that are patrolling the Pacific Ocean.  The number of them has been increased as a result of a decision made early on by the Commander-in-Chief to make sure that we could protect the American people from this threat.  And I can confirm once again that the United States military does believe it has the capacity to protect the American people from the threat that's emanating from North Korea.

But these defenses are not the only steps that the Commander-in-Chief has ordered.  The United States is also engaged in a rigorous, intensive diplomatic effort to build international support for tough sanctions against the North Korean regime.  And the United Nations Security Council last fall passed the toughest resolution yet, imposing the toughest sanctions yet against the North Korean regime, putting a hard cap on the amount of coal that can be exported -- because we know that they use the revenue from those coal exports to try to fund some of these programs, so putting that hard cap in place is going to have an impact on their ability to continue to develop their programs.

And we're only able to succeed in implementing those measures with the cooperation of China.  And given the differences that we have with China on a number of other issues, it's no small diplomatic undertaking to get them to work effectively with us -- which they have, to their credit -- to impose some of these measures and to increase pressure on the North Korean regime. 

The problem has not been solved, but we certainly have defenses in place to protect against the threat that emanates from there.  And we certainly have made progress in building important diplomatic support to apply pressure to the North Korean regime to limit their ability to continue to develop this program, but also to give them an incentive to change their strategy.  They haven’t yet, but we're going to continue to apply that pressure.

Our advice to the next administration I think will largely be to listen to the advice of our military commanders about what’s necessary to protect the American people with regard to our deployments in the Pacific, and to look for opportunities to work effectively with countries like China and Russia and our allies -- South Korea and Japan -- to apply pressure to North Korea to make clear that they should renounce their nuclear ambitions and put an end to the kind of destabilizing rhetoric that we've seen all too often emanate from the North Korean capital.

Q    Thank you.  And on a separate issue.  The White House’s reaction to the congressional Republicans’ decision to curtail and then not curtail the Office of Congressional Ethics today -- is this one of those perhaps rare instances where you agree with President-elect Trump?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, first of all, I think that it is rather revealing that the first step taken by congressional Republicans in the new Congress was to vote in secret to gut ethics regulations.  These are ethics regulations, by the way, put in place by Democrats in response to ethical scandals plaguing congressional Republicans.  So I note that there’s a lot of talk about ethics and revolving doors, but the revolving door that we see right now is the continual challenge on the part of congressional Republicans to skirt responsibility for their ethical violations.

With regard to the -- well, let me also say, I suspect this is not going to be the first time that we see congressional Republicans in this Congress seeking to help people in positions of power and influence escape accountability when it comes to the interests of the American people.  I’m confident we're going to see congressional Republicans do the work of their donors on Wall Street to try to gut Wall Street reform that would allow them to escape accountability for a bunch of financial transactions that we know are not in the public interest and actually do put taxpayers at risk and potentially put taxpayers on the hook for bailing out those big banks if those risky bets go bad.

One other thing we know congressional Republicans are likely to do is to go to their donors in the oil industry and say, hey, we can help you escape accountability for polluting the air and water and land that the American people treasure and in some cases depend on for our sustenance.

I think the real question for the President-elect is will he stand up to them then.

Q    Would you agree then with my, I guess, question that this is a rare instance where you agree with the President-elect’s criticism?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, first of all, I’ll let the President-elect’s team explain exactly what he was intending to communicate in this tweet.  It was not immediately obvious to me that he was indicating opposition to the gutting of ethical requirements.  Some people at least interpreted his tweet as indicating that the optics of doing it first were bad.  But again, I’ll leave it to the incoming team to explain it.

Because the position of this administration is that people who are entrusted with positions of authority in the United States government do have certain ethical obligations and they should be held independently accountable for adhering to those ethical requirements.  Certainly the executive branch does in a variety of ways. 

And I do recall that when President Obama served in the United States Senate, he was one of a small number of members of the United States Senate who championed legislation to create and independent ethical oversight structure on the Senate side, too. Unfortunately, that effort did not succeed.  But the President’s views on the importance of these kinds of ethical oversight structures are well known.  And the President has long placed a priority on ensuring that they are strong.

Michelle.

Q    You didn't paint a very hopeful picture at one point there.  But the fact that this did die, that leadership took it out, do you see that as promising at all?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I started out reading a speech about hope, so I try to be an optimistic guy.  But what I also -- just to go back to that speech -- “We know that hope is not blind optimism.  It’s not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.” 

So when you have a bunch of Republicans who campaigned for their office saying that they want to gut regulations that prevent Wall Street bankers from taking advantage of middle-class families, when you have a bunch of Republicans who run for Congress saying that they're going to make it easier for their largest contributors in the oil industry to pollute our water and our air, it’s hard to feel particularly optimistic about their willingness to look out for the American people. 

But like I said, if the President-elect is willing to stand up to them in those instances that would be welcome news.  So we’ll just have to see exactly how that plays out.  I will say that it is -- even in the face of all that optimism, it is disheartening that the very first thing that Republicans in Congress chose to do was to vote in secret to gut ethical accountability.  That's not draining the swamp.  But that's day one.  We’ll see what the days in the future lead to.

Q    Okay.  So you talked about the President on the Hill tomorrow talking to Democrats to encourage them and how best to counter gutting Obamacare.  So what specifically does he want them to do?  I’m confused on what there is that can be done.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, you’ll have an opportunity, as Darlene referenced, to hear from the President at greater length about this later this week.  But I think you can certainly anticipate that the President will encourage Democrats to focus on those aspects of the Affordable Care Act that are strongly supported in bipartisan fashion all across the country. 

The best example for this is the consumer protection that prevents insurance companies from discriminating against people that have preexisting conditions.  There’s nothing ideological or partisan about that notion.  It’s actually just a matter of basic fairness.  And what we have found is now that that law -- or that rule has been in effect for the last few years, we've actually seen Democrats and Republicans both come together and acknowledge that that's a good idea, that actually is fair. 

And so the question, really, for Republicans is how do you construct a policy that protects that fairness?  Right now what Republicans are suggesting is that they would basically take away the requirement that everybody has health insurance, and that ultimately is going to interfere with the ability to ensure that insurance companies sign everybody up.  So that's ultimately something that Republicans are going to have to reconcile.

And I think this is something the President has talked about at some length, which is that there is a difference between campaigning and governing.  There’s a difference between going out there on a campaign trail and using all kinds of rhetoric saying you're going to repeal the Affordable Care Act because of the impact it’s having on our economy.  So you have to ignore a lot of facts in order to make that kind of rhetorical statement.  But once you are faced with actually implementing it, the questions get a lot harder.  And your ability to follow through on that promise that sounded really good on the campaign trail is called into question.

Q    So he wants Democrats to pressure their Republican colleagues?  When you say, focus on that, what does he expect them to be doing right now?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the President’s message to them is that they should be out there telling the stories of their constituents who are benefitting from this law.  I think that's certainly the most important thing they can do.

There are a number of Democrats on Capitol Hill who do have ideas of things that could be done that would strengthen the Affordable Care Act.  So some of them may choose to use this as an opportunity to offer up some additional suggestions and try to seek to Republican cooperation to strengthen the law.  The President certainly would encourage them to do that.

I think you can also expect to hear the President make the case that it’s not just about protecting the Affordable Care Act, it’s also about making sure that we're protecting Medicaid and Medicare.  And if we tear down the Affordable Care Act, we're having a terribly negative impact on Medicare and Medicaid, as well.  So I think there are a lot of strong, persuasive arguments to be made that would I think persuade many Americans that the idea of tearing down the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea.

Q    Okay.  And just quickly, does the administration believe that North Korea is that close to that ICBM capability?  And what does the President think of Donald Trump’s response to North Korea via his tweets?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, what I can -- the intelligence community has previously said that the United States has not seen North Korea test or demonstrate the ability to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on an ICBM.  I’m not aware that that assessment has changed.  And some of the administration -- the intelligence community officials that I have spoken to today were not aware that that assessment has changed.  If it has changed, it’s something that will come from the intelligence community.

With regard to the President-elect’s tweets, I’ll let his team explain exactly what he means.

Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST: Margaret.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  I appreciate it.  Happy New Year.

MR. EARNEST:  Happy New Year to you.

Q    Thanks.  So I’m just wondering whether you've spoken with President Obama about the possibility of slapping a tariff on cars made in Mexico and imported into the U.S. and what you think the impact of that would be on foreign policy or the economy.

MR. EARNEST:  I have not spoken to President Obama about that.  I know that that is contrary to the approach that President Obama has taken when it comes to trying to manage our trade relationships around the world.  In fact, the President was strongly supportive of a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that his administration negotiated that included Mexico that would have raised labor standards, raised environmental standards, would have protected intellectual property, and would have made it easier and fairer for U.S. businesses that are competing against Mexican businesses.  That would have been good for the U.S. economy.  That would have been good for U.S. workers.  It would have been good for U.S. businesses. 

The incoming President does not seem to share that view and he believes in a different approach.  And many economists have expressed concerns about how the imposition of tariffs like some have suggested would actually have a starkly negative impact on the economy because it would not just result in higher prices being paid by American customers, it means that American goods that are shipped overseas face a similar retaliatory tariff. 

And since we're not starting out on a level playing field, even if the tariff is equal in stature to the tariff that's imposed by the United States, it will have a disproportionate, negative impact on those American products.  And many economists have made the argument that imposing a tariff like that is actually the worst of both worlds when it comes to the interests of the United States, our consumers, our workers, and our economy.

So that's why the President has tried a much different approach.  But ultimately, the next administration will have to pursue the strategy that they believe is the best, and we’ll have an opportunity to evaluate what works best.

The President has a very strong track record when you consider the performance of the U.S. economy under his leadership, under the economic strategy that he has put together.  But the incoming President was elected on a promise to try things different -- to try different things, and to do things differently.  And we’ll have an opportunity to evaluate how well it works.

Q    I just wanted to go quickly -- do you know whether President Obama has spoken with the President of Mexico?  Today, perhaps?

MR. EARNEST:  No, I’m not aware that they’ve spoken today.

Q    And the kind of flipside to the President-elect’s Twitter-related actions on car policy, the Ford Motor Company has announced that they’ve canceled this major expansion into Mexico and are going to preserve some jobs in the U.S.  Would you say that that’s good news?  And would you applaud President-elect Trump for his actions on that?  Or do you know enough about it to comment on it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ve read some of the news coverage of this.  I’ve not been in touch with either the transition team or the auto -- Ford about their announcement, but I read in published reports about their announcement that it was not tied to any political considerations.  And I noted that over the last five years or so that Ford has actually increased the number of workers at their company by about 28,000. 

So this is only the latest step in a long-running, significant and positive trend for the U.S. economy that those jobs are being protected.  So that’s obviously good news.

Jon.

Q    Josh --

Q    28,000 domestic?

MR. EARNEST:  We can look up the numbers for you.  We’ll follow up.

Q    Josh, on the measures taken against Russia, why was Vladimir Putin not mentioned as one of those sanctions?  Is that an indication you didn’t have evidence that the Russian leader was responsible for this, or directed this, approved it?

MR. EARNEST:  Not necessarily, Jon.  The intelligence community has indicated their view that given the significance of the actions that Russia carried out against the United States, their conclusion is that this is something that had to have been directed at the highest levels of the Russian government.

Q    So why not hit the President?  I mean, he’s the guy responsible.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as you know, typically, with regard to sanctions policy, that there are only certain circumstances in which the leader of the country is personally named.  I can’t get into all the -- there’s no denying that this is a significant action.  So what I would say is just that it would be rather extraordinary if Mr. Putin himself were among the people who were listed.  But I can’t speak to the decisions that were made by the experts at the Treasury Department about who was named and who was not.

Q    So when the Chinese hacked OPM in 2015, 21-plus million current and former government employees and contractors had their personal records stolen by the Chinese.  Why did the White House do nothing publicly in reaction to that hack, which, in some ways, was even more widespread than what we saw here from the Russians, allegedly?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think that what we’ve seen is that these are two cyber incidents that are malicious in nature, but materially different. 

Q    Twenty-one million people had their personal data taken.  Fingerprints, social security numbers, background checks -- I mean, this was a far-reaching hack.

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not downplaying the significance of it, I’m just saying that it’s different than seeking to interfere in the conduct of a U.S. national election.  I can’t speak to the steps that have been taken by the United States in response to that Chinese malicious cyber activity.

Q    But nothing was announced.  There was not a single step announced by the White House in response to that.

MR. EARNEST:  That is true that there was no public announcement about our response, but I can’t speak to what response may have been initiated in private.

Q    But no diplomats expelled, no compounds shut down, no sanctions imposed, correct?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I can’t speak to --

Q    You don’t do that stuff secretly.  I mean, that’s --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, certainly when it comes to the diplomats, that’s right, there were no diplomats PNGed.  That’s something that we would announce publicly.

But, look, I can’t speak to the response because, as you pointed out, that’s not something that we have announced.  It certainly is something that we take seriously.  It certainly -- the President has raised directly with his Chinese counterpart.  And we certainly have seen commitments from the Chinese with regard to some norms in cyberspace that we would like to see them observe -- for example, we did see the Chinese President commit in the Rose Garden in the fall of 2015 that Russia -- or that China would not be engaged in the kind of cyber-enabled theft for commercial gain that’s sponsored by national governments.

So that represents some progress, and that does represent the protection of U.S. commercial interests here in the United States.  And that certainly is an important step, an important part of establishing some of these rules of the road that will allow the international community to resolve how to limit the malicious behavior of some actors in cyberspace.

Q    But do you see how -- that there’s just this wildly different response?  With the Russians, which, of course, is very politically charged, the White House takes this action, makes it public.  With the Chinese, which was not so political charged but was absolutely as far-reaching a hack as we had ever seen in this country, nothing was done publicly.

MR. EARNEST:  At least of the government.  At least of the government, right?  There are ample examples of other malicious cyber actors in the private sector --

Q    But in response to that OPM hack --

MR. EARNEST:  -- exploiting personal identifiable information and engaging in other wide-reaching malicious cyber activity.

But, look, I’m not suggesting that somehow that’s not important.  What I’m just saying is that it’s materially different than the kind of hack-and-leak strategy that we saw the Russians engage in to try to influence our democracy.  That is significant.  That’s serious.  And that explains the serious steps that President Obama has imposed against the Russians in response.

But with regard to the Chinese, we have made some progress with them in trying to limit the kind of malicious cyber activity that could threaten U.S. interests either in the United States or around the world, in our government or in the private sector.  And we’re pleased with some of the progress that we’ve made.  But there is no denying that the next administration will assume a significant burden in trying to craft a policy in cyberspace that effectively stands up to our adversaries and looks out for the interests of the American people.

Q    Okay.  And then just one other quick -- Sean Spicer.  I think this is your first briefing since he was announced as the incoming press secretary for President Trump.

MR. EARNEST:  It is.

Q    Any advice to Sean on how to conduct this job?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, listen, I had an opportunity to congratulate Sean via email shortly after the announcement was made.  As you all have heard me say on a number of occasions, the opportunity and the honor to stand before this podium and advocate for a set of values and a President that I deeply believe in is extraordinary, and it’s the kind of opportunity that I wouldn’t trade for anything.  I sincerely hope that he finds the same kind of challenge and satisfaction in the job that I have.

And I don’t know Sean personally, but I expect to get the chance to meet him soon and to talk to him about this job a little bit.

Isaac.

Q    Iwant to bring it back to North Korea for a second.  Does the President feel confident in Donald Trump’s ability to protect the United States if a nuclear missile is launched by North Korea? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Isaac, that hearkens back to some of the rhetoric that was used by both sides in the campaign leading up to the election, and the President expressed some rather profound concerns about the incoming President.  But the election is over.  And I’ve done my best to avoid re-litigating those fights.

I think what I can tell you is that the President has strong confidence in the men and women of the United States military, the men and women of the United States intelligence community, the men and women in the United States State Department who ultimately are responsible for implementing policies that protect the American people, including from the threats that emanate in North Korea.

So we’re going to be counting on our men and women in the intelligence community to continue to provide decision-makers with the best available intelligence about North Korea’s actions.  We’re going to rely on the Department of Defense and the men and women of the United States military to make more strategic decisions about stationing equipment and antiballistic missile technology to protect the American people.  And we’re going to be relying on the men and women of the State Department to go and build an international coalition to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime to compel them to pursue a different path.

And those are all institutions and patriots who, every day, set aside politics, set aside their own political leanings, set aside their own preferences about who should be President of the United States, and just focus on the task at hand.  And the people in those three communities -- at the State Department, the Defense Department and intelligence community -- all have substantial responsibilities when it comes to protecting the American people.  And the President has confidence that those men and women, those American patriots, will continue to do their important work with enormous skill and expertise and patriotism to protect the country.

Q    But going back to -- as you said, there was a lot of talk about this during the campaign.  It’s been about two months since he delivered his last campaign speech.  In those two months, does he feel more confident in Donald Trump’s ability to handle the nuclear situation, both in having the nuclear codes and protecting from a nuclear attack?  Less confident?  Or is he in the same place that he was the day of the election?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t spoken to the President about this, but my assessment would be that his opinions have not changed.  But the time and place for presenting those opinions has come and gone, and we’re focused now on a transition.

Q    And just on the WikiLeaks -- Julian Assange did an interview in which he -- with Fox News in which he says that the administration -- first of all, he says that WikiLeaks did not receive its information from a state actor, and, second of all, says that there are essentially holes in the case that the administration has laid out about the role that WikiLeaks had, that WikiLeaks wasn’t mentioned in anything that the President or anybody has said about this, and that this means that you guys must not be sure that there is a connection there.  What’s your response to that?

MR. EARNEST:  My response is that the President has complete confidence in the assessment that’s been put forward by the intelligence community, and there’s no reason to doubt it.

Q    And that WikiLeaks received -- that there’s no lack of mentioning WikiLeaks for any purpose, or -- what Assange is talking about is that you guys didn’t say -- you’ve connected it to the Russians, but you haven’t said, well, then it went to WikiLeaks from the Russians, that that’s just semantics, essentially, from Assange?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I didn’t see the entirety of his -- I didn’t see much of any of his interview, so it’s hard for me to respond directly in kind.  I think what I can tell you is the President has complete confidence in the assessment that’s been put forward by the intelligence community.  And there’s still work that they’re doing on this.  And the President has tasked the intelligence community with putting forward more information before January 20th not just about what Russia did in the 2016 election, but about some of the malicious cyber activity that we saw in the context of the 2008 and 2012 elections, as well.  And there certainly is the possibility that more evidence that’s pertinent to some of those claims could be included.  We’ll have to wait and see.

Q    Just last question -- do you have any update on when we should expect the intelligence report that the President has asked for?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have an update on timing at this point, just before January 20th.

Julianna.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  David Axelrod tweeted -- going back to the House Ethics Office -- David Axelrod tweeted “This House Ethics drama was an absolute gift to Donald Trump, a big fat zeppelin for him to shoot down, which he did.”  Do you think that this was teed up for the President-elect, who himself has had some issues regarding conflicts of interests and some of his own ethical questions swirling around him leading into his inauguration?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I haven’t spoken to David today.  My guess is he wasn’t expressing admiration for a clever strategic move on the part of Republicans to make the President look -- the President-elect look good.  I actually think he was making the opposite point, that Republicans in Congress have revealed a lot about their priorities when the first action that they took was to vote in secret to gut some of the ethical requirements that they’re subject to.  So I think the point that David was making is simply that it’s pretty obvious to everybody that that’s a really bad idea.

Kevin.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I just want to circle back on Jon’s question about Russia versus China, and the reaction.  Lisa Monaco has previously cited diplomatic inroads with China as part of the reason why the administration has had some success in limiting and reducing cyber activity -- negative cyber activity from the Chinese.  And I’m curious why, then, would the administration continue that same process with the Russians to get a similar response, rather than the sort of heavy-handed expelling operatives and shuttering --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, I think the response to the Chinese action has been different than the response to the Russian action because their actions that both those countries undertook were different.  What we saw on the part of the Chinese was concerning with regard to some of the malicious cyber activity that had an impact on the U.S. government.  The Russian cyber activity was actually a more specifically directed threat to undermine U.S. democracy. 

So their tactics were different.  Their ultimate goal was different.  And that would explain why our response was different.  In both cases, we’ve taken that malicious cyber activity and those breaches quite seriously, but our responses have, as I acknowledge to Jon, have been different.

Q    Also, on the Ford Motor announcement -- and you may or may not have had a chance to see it, the one where they’re saying essentially they’re going to not develop this plant over in Mexico.  Donald Trump had previously threatened to levy some sort of a tax or, if you will, some sort of tariff on cars that were made there that would come back to the U.S.  You were asked earlier if you thought this was a victory for I think maybe Donald Trump, but I’d be curious if you think this is a victory for the American people and American workers in particular, who may now benefit from the fact that there will be more jobs related to this decision than might have been.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Kevin, it won’t surprise you to hear that the President who has presided over an economy that’s created nearly 900,000 manufacturing jobs is pleased to hear when another 700 manufacturing jobs have been saved. 

Q    I also want to ask you something the President sort of hinted at -- or maybe not hinted at, maybe he just came right out and said it.  (Laughter.)  He said, “Listen, if I were able to run again, I would have beaten Donald Trump.”  Why do you think the President made that point?  What was behind his decision to make a comment like that?

MR. EARNEST:  Because his point was -- if you go back and look at the interview, he was making the point that the message that he delivered in his 2008 campaign and in his 2012 campaign is one that deeply resonated with the American people and got him -- allowed him to build a strong coalition all across the country, that allowed him to be elected in 2008 and reelected in 2012 with strong majorities not just of the electoral college, but actually a majority of the voting population.

And President Obama is the first President to be elected and reelected with more than 51 percent of the vote since Eisenhower.  And that’s an indication of how much strong support there is all across the country for the President’s message.  And the President believes, after eight years, that he’s stayed true to that message, that he’s campaigning on the same set of values and on the same set of -- message that appeals to the idea that everybody in America should have an opportunity to succeed and that people shouldn’t be --

Q    -- that message in North Carolina; he was out very forcefully.  They saw that message in Michigan; he was out very forcefully.  And neither state went for the Democrat in that particular circumstance.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s true.  But I think what we’ve found -- and this was true in 2010 and to a lesser extent in 2014, but still in 2014 -- that when the President wasn’t on the ballot that he didn’t have as much success as he would have liked in making that same argument in support of other candidates.  And I think there are a lot of theories as to why that is, but that’s undeniably true.

Q    Would the President like to debate Donald Trump?  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  No, he would not.

April.

Q    Josh, the President is going to be -- when it comes to ACA and the contributions it’s given to millions of people -- and you’ve already cited some of the positive points.  But because this is so important for the President in the waning days to lean in like this, can you get into the conversations that President Obama has had with Donald Trump in the lead-up to tomorrow?  Can you talk to us about what he said about ACA on the phone?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t.  I’ve worked hard to try to protect the ability of the President of the United States to have private conversations with the President-elect.  And when some of the fact of those calls has spilled into the public, we’ve done our best to try to confirm and explain to you the context of those conversations.  But for the substance of the calls, I’m going to protect their ability to have those calls in private.

Q    The President here, the last day before he went on vacation, did say when he talks to Donald Trump, he explains the benefits of some issues.  Was he talking about ACA as one of those conversations and the benefits that he was talking about?

MR. EARNEST:  I wouldn’t be surprised if the Affordable Care Act was among those.

Q    So when he says “benefits,” does he tout the things that we already know?  Or does he go into the weeds about things and talk about more that we -- things that the average person doesn’t know and how it works?  What makes it work?  What would be a problem if it’s taken away?  What does he say when he talks about the benefits to Donald Trump about that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I’m just not going to get into the context of their -- to the substance of the conversations that they’re having.

Q    The President did allude to that, so he didn’t -- he didn’t allude to it, he did tell us that from this podium.

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.

Q    Okay.  So lastly, with everything going on now, the back-and-forth between the President-elect and the sitting President of the United States in the waning days of this President’s presidency, is there a possibility, a strong possibility that there will be a final press conference from President Obama before he leaves office?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any scheduling announcements at this point, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something like that happened.  We’ll keep you posted.

Q    Is it to protect -- would it be to protect his legacy more so, or to put a final note to America?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll wait until we have something to announce before we describe why we announced it.  (Laughter.)

Jordan.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  While the President was in Hawaii, it was reported that the Obama administration is -- well, it informed Congress that it could transfer up to 19 prisoners from Guantanamo Bay before the President leaves office.  Are you able to confirm those reports?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not in a position to confirm individual notifications to Congress.  As you know, Jordan, the statute does require that when the administration is prepared to transfer a detainee from the prison at Guantanamo Bay to another country in the context of security requirements that would limit their ability to pose a threat to the United States, the administration is required to give Congress 30 days’ notice before completing that transfer. 

So this is part of our routine effort that we’ve undertaken over the last several years to reduce the population of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  But I can’t speak to any individual notifications that have been made to Congress or give you a specific preview about potential upcoming transfers.  But I think I would expect at this point additional transfers to be announced before January 20th.

Q    On that note, Donald Trump tweeted today that there should be no further releases from Guantanamo.  Is his attitude on that issue going to factor into the administration’s decisions at all on transfers in the final day?

MR. EARNEST:  No, it will not.  He’ll have an opportunity to implement the policy that he believes is most effective when he takes office on January 20th.

Ron.

Q    On the Russia hacking, you’ve heard some of the statements from the President-elect that are skeptical of the intelligence assessments.  Has there been any conversation between members of this administration and the incoming administration about the skepticism, about the intelligence about Russia being behind this hack?

MR. EARNEST:  I can’t speak to any specific conversations, but I’m confident in the context of the transition and getting the President-elect’s team up to speed on a range of important national security issues that we’re currently dealing with here.  I’m confident that officials in the administration, including at the White House, have represented to the transition team full confidence in the assessment in conclusions that have been announced by the intelligence community.

Q    So what do you think of the President-elect’s statements that he knows things that others don't know and that he still is not convinced that the Russians are behind this?

MR. EARNEST:  I'm glad that it's somebody else’s job to explain exactly what he meant.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Because you --

MR. EARNEST:  Because I don't know.  So presumably, somebody who has an opportunity to speak to him directly can try to explain to those of us in the public who weren’t quite sure what he’s referring to.

Q    But this is a serious thing, though, because this was a matter of national security that --

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, I --

Q    -- the sanctions were levied and these diplomats were expelled.  This was a big, big deal.  How concerned is the President or the administration about the President-elect’s attitude that he knows more or something different and that he’s still not convinced?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, in the context of the campaign we had ample opportunity to --

Q    This is the real thing -- this is not the campaign.

MR. EARNEST:  The campaign is over, that's right.  The campaign is over.  And now we are in a position where our responsibility is, as public servants in the Obama administration, to do as much as we possibly can to help the President-elect’s team get up to speed and understand the complexity and depth of the range of issues, both domestic and national security, that they’re going to be tasked with managing, starting just 16 days from now.

Q    Bottom line, you can't explain why there’s this difference of opinion here in terms of --

MR. EARNEST:  The bottom line, there’s a reason that the President-elect has his own spokesperson, and there will be somebody else standing behind this podium when he takes office.

Q    When you were talking about the review that's underway on cyber issues, I think you said that in terms of proof or evidence that there may or may not be a public release of what we would consider proof or evidence of the claims.  Is that true? 

MR. EARNEST:  There are a couple of things on this.  Isaac was asking me about some of the claims that were apparently made in an interview about how or whether or to what extent WikiLeaks may have been involved in this effort.  And I was trying to answer his question by saying that it's possible, though I don't know, but it's possible that additional information that would be helpful in understanding what WikiLeaks’s role in all of this could be included in that report.  I don't know whether it will be or not.

Q    But as to the role that the Russians played in the -- the intelligence agencies in Russia and so forth.

MR. EARNEST:  That's a definitive conclusion that's been reached -- that was announced, actually, before the election.  Some of the information that was included in the Joint Analysis Report that was released by the FBI and DHS last week included technical information about the tactics and technology and software that was used by the Russians to carry out these actions and other actions like them.  I think that's -- its technical, but I think it's pretty solid evidence of Russian involvement in this matter.

Q    So you don't -- the administration doesn’t feel a need to present more proof?

MR. EARNEST:  No.  The administration feels a responsibility to communicate as directly and as clearly as possible with the American public to help them understand what the U.S. government knows about Russian efforts to undermine our system of government.  And we've already done that.  We did that before the election, and I would anticipate that that report that the intelligence community is working on would also further that goal.

Q    And on meetings on Hill about the Affordable Care Act, is that the only issue on the agenda?  Or is there anything else that the President wants to communicate to these incoming members of Congress about his concerns, his priorities, his hopes and fears?

MR. EARNEST:  Protecting the Affordable Care Act is the primary topic on the agenda.  I wouldn't rule out that other things may come up.  And if they do, we'll do our best to give you a readout.

Q    What else is there?  I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of -- 17 and a half days or whatever is left -- what else is there that the President is really trying to --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we obviously touched on a couple of them.  We talked about the Affordable Care Act, and there isn't just the need to try to protect the Affordable Care Act from being destroyed by Republicans; there’s also a need to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make it possible for people to sign up for the Affordable Care Act.  And we've actually seen people signing people up at a record clip.  Despite all this negative publicity and despite some of the uncertainty that Republicans are injecting into this process, we're actually seeing a record number of people signing up for the Affordable Care Act that are at a record rate.  So that's a positive step.  And we certainly -- that didn’t happen by accident.  And we certainly want to make sure we're doing what’s necessary to facilitate those signups.

Obviously following through on the business with Russia in terms of implementing the steps that were announced last week ad also putting forward this report before January 20th are steps that we're focused on.

You can certainly always expect the President to be very focused on the counter-ISIL campaign.  And the President will continue to meet with his national security team.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that's something that members of Congress may be interested in.

And of course, we're focused on a smooth and effective transition.  And that means trying to pay attention to all the little details that may not rise to the level of an interaction like this, but are still critical to a seamless handoff of governing responsibility from one administration to the next.  And that requires the time and attention of a lot of people inside the administration, including the President of the United States.

Q    How is all that going? 

MR. EARNEST:  So far it’s going well.

Q    We’ve heard mixed messages about it.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ve heard mixed messages about this from the other side.  But this administration has remained focused on the effective -- facilitating the effective transition that President Obama promised at the beginning of last year.  And we've made good on that promise so far.

Mark.

Q    Josh, now that the new Congress has been convened, does President Obama have any intention of making any nominations or resubmitting any old nominations to the new Congress?

MR. EARNEST:  Nothing that I have to preview here.  But if we have -- if we're going to re-nominate some people, we’ll make sure and let you know publicly that we've done such.

Q    Should we assume the Garland nomination has now lapsed?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the President acknowledged at a Hanukkah event that Chief Judge Garland attended last year that President Obama expects Chief Judge Garland to continue to serve the American people with distinction on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.

The fact that he was not given the opportunity to explain to the Senate and to the American people why he would have served the country honorably and with distinction on the United States Supreme Court is a scar on the reputation of the United States Senate. 

It is a part of the legacy of Republican leadership in Congress from the last several years.  And I don't mean that as a compliment.  And I think that for years the United States Senate will be dealing with the fallout of the decision that they made to so egregiously subject Chief Judge Garland to such unfair treatment.

Republicans themselves have praised Chief Judge Garland.  Republicans have described him a consensus nominee.  Republicans have praised his service to this country -- both as a judge but also as a federal prosecutor, and a senior official at the Department of Justice who led the investigation and prosecution of one of the worst terrorists in American history.

Merrick Garland is a patriot.  And he deserved far better treatment than he received from Republicans in the United States Senate.  But because he’s the bigger man, he’s going to continue to serve this country with honor and distinction at the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.  And the President is quite proud that he’ll do that.

Q    What do you mean by fallout?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I mean that there will be difficulty in the Senate not just in the Trump presidency, but for future Presidents as they navigate the process of nominating judges to the federal bench. 

What sort of credibility do Republicans have in making the case to Democrats that they should fairly consider the nominations of a Republican judge -- of a Republican President?  Republican senators blocked an eminently qualified Supreme Court nominee whose qualifications were not in question simply because he was nominated by a Democratic President.  How then can Republicans go to Democratic senators and say that they should support nominees put forward by a Republican President?  They have no standing in which to do that.

Now, will Democrats do the right thing and fulfill their constitutional obligations?  I think they probably will.  But they won’t be doing it because Republicans have any semblance of moral high ground or any sort of moral leverage or any moral weight to their claim that that's what Democratic senators should do.

And I think that that breakdown of comity in the United States Senate, that abdication of the basic responsibility of members of the United States by subjecting it to such intense partisanship and actually allowing partisanship to supersede constitutional obligation, it’s discouraging.  And it’s a precedent that I think Republicans will regret setting.

Q    Also, can you tell us what President Obama’s thinking is in going to Chicago next week for the farewell address?  I went back and checked.  All the farewell addresses back to Eisenhower were delivered here at the White House.  Why does President Obama want to go out of town?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, President Obama is going to go back to his hometown, go back to the place where he began his career in public service -- a community, a city that was so supportive of him throughout his career in public service. 

And there is a unique story to President Obama’s public service having started out as a community organizer and somebody whose first job in public service wasn’t in politics, per Senate -- at least it didn't involve running for office -- but was actually focused on trying to help people in the economically disadvantaged communities advocate for themselves.

And that commitment to fighting for working people is something that has motivated President Obama from his earliest days as a community organizer to his last days as President of the United States.  And so it’s a fitting bookend that he would go back to that city where he got his start to make a speech like this.

Q    Will that be his last out-of-town trip?

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, I would anticipate that it will be his last out-of-town trip as President of the United States. 

Q    Thank you.

MR. EARNEST:  Alexis.

Q    Josh, to follow up on the list that you were giving to Ron, is the President going to -- how would he describe to Democrats that he speaks to this week and also to the beneficiaries of DACA what to expect, what they should plan on, what they should anticipate after the 20th?  Because some Democrats have urged the President to act in a unique kind of way before he leaves to extend the benefits or to maintain the benefits of DACA?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’m not aware of any specific announcements that you should expect from the President on this particular issue.  Of course, there is a longstanding precedent in the U.S. government for the way that information like this is maintained. 

There’s a commitment that was made to people who came forward to apply for deferred action -- DREAMers.  These are individuals who came to the United States as children, were brought to the United States as children and are here through no fault of their own.  And the United States is the only country they've ever known.  And many of these are young people who have graduated from high school, gone on to college, served on our military, have otherwise shown themselves to be quality additions to the country and to communities across the country.

And so the President’s view is that these individuals are American in every way but their papers, and that the limited enforcement resources of the United States’ government are better focused on people who are in the United States illegally and have criminal records, or only recently crossed the border.  Those are the kinds of people that are worthy of aggressive enforcement action.

And that is exactly the kind of policy that this administration has pursued.  It’s made our country safer.  It’s made our country fairer.  And I know at least at one point, the President-elect indicated that he thought that was a pretty smart approach.

But when it comes to what he will do after January 20th, even the current President of the United States is not sure exactly what the incoming President may decide to do.

Q    The other thing I wanted to ask you is a small detail for January 20th.  So is there any change to the normal protocol or customary protocol where we expect the President-elect, the Vice President-elect to come for coffee at the White House and to ride together with the outgoing President to the swearing-in?

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t seen the schedule for January 20th.  But obviously as that date gets closer, we’ll be able to walk you through all the minute details of that day that symbolize the kind of peaceful transition, the peaceful transfer of power that is a hallmark of American democracy and it critical to the strength and success of our country.

Q    But you can't confirm today that President Obama and Mrs. Obama extend an invitation to the Trumps to come for coffee before they go up to the swearing-in?

MR. EARNEST:  At this point, I would expect that as we have over the last couple of months, we will observe the kinds of traditions and steps that have ensured a smooth and effective transition.  That's what we've been doing for the last two months.  I would expect that continue on the last day.

But when it comes to the actual details of the schedule, we’ll have more to say about that as the day gets closer.

Francesca.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  On Ford, you had said that it didn't seem like there were any political considerations for the decision that was made today, or at least that you hadn’t seen anything --

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I said is that Ford had indicated that their decision was not affected by politics.

Q    Okay, sure.  But the CEO of Ford did say that he was encouraged by the pro-growth policies of President-elect Trump and the new Congress.  And that certainly sounds like it’s a political consideration or at least a calculation that it would be better to build more cars in the United States under the incoming President than under the current President.

MR. EARNEST:  My guess is you should ask that question to the Ford CEO.  But I don't think that he would want his comments to be interpreted that way.  But you should ask somebody who has spoken to him.

Q    A couple more on a different subject.

MR. EARNEST:  Sure.

Q    You seemed a little bit feistier today in response to some of the things that the President-elect has said, or else you're just happy to see us --

MR. EARNEST:  Maybe it’s because I shaved that holiday beard this morning, so I’m feeling a little --

Q    That's possibly could be it.  (Laughter.)  And again, perhaps it’s just you're happy to be back here.  But it does seem like during the two-week break between when we were last here and now, that the détente between the old administration and the new administration has somehow been broken.  You had President-elect Trump talking about roadblocks that this administration was putting out, and you directly challenging him today when it comes to ethics, when it comes to Ford with trade, that sort of thing.  Is there a reason for that?  Is it that the clock is ticking down on the administration?  Do you not see it that way?

MR. EARNEST:  I don't see it that way.  I think that -- what I have done since the day after the election when I stood at this podium for almost two hours answering your questions is I’ve made clear that the vigorous, deeply held, passionate differences of opinion that we have on a range of issues from policy to basic American values, there are differences.  And they're profound.  But there’s also a profound responsibility that all of us who serve in this administration, including the President, has to ensure a smooth and effective transition. 

That doesn't mean that we're prepared to go along with everything that the incoming administration says, but it certainly does mean that we have a responsibility to give the incoming President every opportunity to get a running start on the job. 

And that's something that President Obama has taken to heart in his Oval Office meeting and the handful of conversations that they've had on the telephone since then.  And there have been a number of meetings all across the federal government that demonstrate our ongoing commitment to ensuring a smooth and effective transition.

     It doesn't mean those differences went away.  And the fact that those differences exist don't mean that the transition has hit a rough spot.  It means that these are deeply held views of the Obama administration, and they differ sharply with the President-elect. 

But the President-elect campaigned on doing things differently.  He campaigned on taking a different approach, and he won an election against a candidate who was pursuing a strategy that was more similar to what President Obama has pursued.  Now, the President-elect didn't get more votes, but he did win the election.  And since day one, this administration has been focused on ensuring a smooth and effective transition.  And we've made good on that promise.

And the fact that we have differences of opinion is not evidence that the transition is breaking down.  It’s evidence that we've got well-known differences, but we're not letting them get in the way of a smooth and effective transition.

Q    And on that note, could you tell us a little bit more about the tone that the President will take in that speech next week, what some of the themes maybe he’d hit upon would be, and whether or not his family will go with him on that trip?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll have more on the speech before the end of this week.  I know that the speech is still going through some drafts.  Rather than preview it now, let me get it a little bit farther down the process of being written.  But I’ll come back to you with something before the end of the week.

Q    How many drafts?

MR. EARNEST:  We’ll keep you posted.

George.

Q    I’ve got to ask you a quick follow on your nostalgic journey back to Decorah. 

MR. EARNEST:  Yes.

Q    What happened to those two young organizers?  Did they end up in the Cabinet?  Ambassadors?  How did you reward them? (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  I know one of them worked at the White House.  And I’m not sure what happened to the other one. 

Q    You didn't reward the other one.  (Laughter.) 

MR. EARNEST:  Both of them have gone on to do quite well, I’m sure.  But there are at least a couple of other people that I first met in that Iowa, Des Moines -- at Des Moines, Iowa campaign headquarters that are still working at the White House today.  So I’m not the only one who is still around.

Chris, I’ll give you the last one.

Q    Great.  Over the weekend, Judge Reed O’Connor issued a nationwide injunction against the Obama administration interpretation of the Affordable Care Act to prohibit discrimination against transgender people and women who have had abortions.  Does it make sense for the administration to fight that decision in the 17 days that remain before Trump takes office?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’d refer you to the Department of Justice for the legal strategy that we’ll pursue.  But obviously the administration believes deeply that all Americans regardless of their sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation should have access to quality affordable health care free from any sort of discrimination.  That's not just a principle and a value that the administration believes strongly in.  I’m confident that the vast majority of Americans believe strongly in that principle, as well.

Thanks, everybody.  We’ll see you tomorrow.

END
2:35 P.M. EST

The White House * 11:00 AM ET – First Lady Michelle Obama will deliver her final remarks as First Lady at the 2017 School Counselor of the Year event in the East Room of the White House. School Counselor of the Year is an annual White House tradition started in 2015 by Mrs. Obama.

As part of her Reach Higher initiative, Mrs. Obama has championed school counselors and encouraged post-secondary education for students across the country. Awardees from all 50 states are selected by the American School Counselor Association, based on criteria including: creative school counseling innovations, effective school counseling programs, leadership skills, and contributions to student enhancement.

Prior to the First Lady’s remarks, awardees and guests will attend a panel featuring Education Secretary John B. King Jr., former Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Friday Night Light’s actress Connie Britton, 2016 School Counselor of the Year Katherine Pastor, and First-Generation Baltimore Founder Verlando Brown.

Follow along with the 2017 School Counselor of the Year ceremony by using the hashtag #SCOY17 and #ReachHigher.

The audio of the address and video of the address will be available online at www.whitehouse.gov at 6:00AM EDT, December 31, 2016.

Mensaje semanal

La Casa Blanca

31 de diciembre de 2016

Feliz año nuevo a todos. En esta época en la que pasamos la página del año que termina y miramos hacia el futuro, solo quiero tomar un minuto para agradecerles todo lo que han hecho durante los últimos ocho años para fortalecer a los Estados Unidos.

Hace apenas ocho años, cuando me preparaba para asumir el cargo, nuestra economía estaba en el borde de una recesión. Casi 800,000 estadounidenses se estaban quedando sin trabajo cada mes. En algunas comunidades, prácticamente una de cada cinco personas estaban desempleadas. Casi 180,000 soldados estaban en Irak y Afganistán, y Osama bin Laden seguía prófugo. Y les habíamos estado dando largas a algunos desafíos, desde el sistema de salud hasta el cambio climático, durante demasiado tiempo.

Después de ocho años, ahora tenemos otra historia. Hemos transformado la recesión en una recuperación. Nuestras empresas han creado 15.6 millones empleos nuevos desde el inicio de 2010 y hemos logrado que más gente vuelva a trabajar que todas las demás economías importantes del mundo juntas. La resurgente industria automotriz ha añadido casi 700,000 puestos de trabajo y está produciendo más coches que nunca. La pobreza está disminuyendo. Los ingresos están aumentando. De hecho, los ingresos familiares de un hogar típico aumentaron $2,800 el año pasado: este es el mayor incremento jamás registrado, y las personas de clase baja y clase media tuvieron mayores ganancias que las personas de clase alta.

Veinte millones de estadounidenses viven con la seguridad financiera de tener cuidado de salud. Los índices de graduación del colegio secundario de nuestros hijos están en el nivel más alto de la historia. Hemos traído de vuelta a 165,000 soldados de Irak y Afganistán, e eliminamos a Osama bin Laden. Por medios diplomáticos, hemos suspendido el programa de armas nucleares de Irán, abierto un capítulo nuevo con la gente de Cuba y juntado a casi 200 naciones en torno a un acuerdo climático que puede salvar el planeta para nuestros hijos. Casi todos los países del mundo consideran que, hoy por hoy, Estados Unidos es una nación más fuerte y respetada que hace ocho años. Y, por fin, la igualdad matrimonial es una realidad de costa a costa.

Hemos realizado progresos extraordinarios en los últimos ocho años. Y la realidad es que nada de eso era inevitable. Todo fue el resultado de las decisiones difíciles que tomamos y el resultado del trabajo y la capacidad de recuperación de todos ustedes. Y lograr que los Estados Unidos siga avanzando es tarea de todos. Conservar y desarrollar todo lo que hemos conseguido – desde ayudar a que más jóvenes puedan pagar sus estudios superiores, poner fin a la discriminación basada en las condiciones preexistentes, hasta endurecer las normas que regulan a Wall Street, y proteger al planeta para nuestros hijos– eso va requerir que trabajemos todos juntos. Porque esa siempre ha sido nuestra historia: la historia de gente cotidiana que se une para llevar a cabo la difícil, lenta, a veces frustrante, pero siempre vital tarea de autogobernarse.

Ser su Presidente ha sido el privilegio de mi vida. Y mientras me preparo para asumir un papel incluso más importante –el de ciudadano– quiero que sepan que los acompañaré a cada paso del camino para asegurar que este país siempre procure estar a la altura de la increíble promesa de nuestra fundación: que todos somos iguales y que todos merecemos tener todas las oportunidades posibles de vivir nuestros sueños. De parte de la familia Obama a la suya, les deseamos un feliz y bendito 2017. 

2:42 P.M EST

MR. STROH:  Thank you very much and, everyone, thanks for joining our call this afternoon.  This will be a background press conference call on the administration response to Russian malicious cyber activity and harassment.  I will introduce the senior administration officials that we have here on the call, but as a reminder, they'll be referred to on background as senior administration officials.  And secondly, we'll embargo the content of this call until the call concludes, so please no tweeting or filing while the call is ongoing.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, everybody.  I'll just make some brief comments and then turn it over to my other colleagues.

So today's actions were all approved by President Obama as a package of steps that is in response to very disturbing Russian threats to U.S. national security.  And we're responding here to a pattern of Russian behavior that has been evident over some time. 

First of all, as you are all aware, in October, we took the very unique step of publicly attributing efforts to interfere in the U.S. election to Russia.  And as you know, we've continued to refine and develop our assessment of those Russian efforts and, as President Obama has directed, there will be a report issued summarizing what we know with respect to those efforts.  And we can talk about that later in the Q&A.

In addition, as my State colleague can speak to, we've seen other Russian actions that aim to directly interfere with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, particularly a pattern of harassment of our diplomats inside of Russia.  So the range of actions announced today are in response to those Russian provocations and actions.  They include a set of sanctions that my colleague from Treasury can speak to, include some important efforts that we're taking with respect to cybersecurity and attribution, and include some actions against some of the Russian personnel and facilities here in the United States.  And, again, each of my colleagues will speak to the unique actions taken.

I would just add this is not the sum total of everything that we are doing in response to Russia's actions, including its malicious cyber activities and its interference in our election.  As President Obama and others have said, some of those actions will be public and some of them will not.  And today, we are announcing a series of the public measures that we're taking, but that should not be mistaken for the sum total of our response.  

I'd also note that this should come as no surprise to the Russian government, given that we have warned publicly and privately, including directly from President Obama to President Putin, that there would be a response for these Russian actions.  So, again, we've been very clear about our intent here.

The only other thing I'd say by way of an introduction is that this really serves two purposes.  One, there has to be a cost and a consequence for what Russia has done.  It is an extraordinary step for them to interfere in the democratic process here in the United States of America, and there needs to be a price for that.  They need to be held accountable for that.  And we believe that this should be of concern to all Americans, as the President said in his statement and to members of Congress from both parties, because this was an attack on our democratic system, and we're responding in kind.  

Secondly, we also believe that these steps are important because Russia is not going to stop.  We have every indication that they will continue to interfere in democratic elections in other countries, including some of our European allies.  There's no reason to believe that they will not try to interfere in future American elections, be they state and local elections, midterm elections, or future presidential elections.  And so we also need to publicize what we know about who is responsible, demonstrate that there's a cost, try to reveal what we know about how Russia operates in this space.  And, again, more of that information will be in the report that the President has directed be prepared, but some of that is embedded in the response that we're taking today.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague to talk through the sanctions in particular.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  The number of significant actions that the President took and that Treasury has taken today -- first, I wanted to note that the President has amended the Cyber Executive Order, and that's an executive order that he issued originally in April of last year, which was meant to target malicious cyber activity by state or non-state actors anywhere in the world who were tampering with the infrastructure, who were disrupting the ability of networks of computers -- for example, through DDoS attacks -- or who were misappropriating funds -- basically cyber -- or cyber theft of intellectual property for commercial gain.  

The single prong that the President has added today makes clear that we will -- future administrations will have the authority to go after those who are tampering with or misappropriating through cyber means with the purpose or effect of interfering with election processes.  And that's basically the progress the President is -- on with the actions today.  

Under this new authority, the President has sanctioned nine entities and individuals.  First and foremost, two Russian intelligence services -- the GRU and the FSB -- four individual officers of the GRU who are the senior-most ranking leaders of the GRU, as well as three companies -- Russian companies that have provided material support to the GRU's cyber operation.  Those companies are the Special Technology Center St. Petersburg, Zorsecurity, and the Autonomous Noncommercial Organization, which is often known by its acronym, ANO PO KSI -- all of which have provided cyber services and training to the GRU.  

In addition to the actions taken by the President under the -- executive order, Treasury is targeting two Russian individuals, Evgeniy Bogachev and Aleksey Belan, under the preexisting cyber EO.  In both cases, they’re notorious cyber criminals who have been responsible for major (inaudible) and havoc in the international financial system, including against American companies.  

Bogachev and the cyber criminals associated have been responsible for the theft of over $100 million -- U.S. financial institutions, as well as Fortune 500 (audio drop) universities and government agencies.  And Belan has been responsible for compromising at least three major e-commerce companies and misappropriating the data, including private identifying data, from those companies.

As all of these actions make clear, we will not tolerate the abuse of our systems, including our election systems, by foreign actors.  And these authorities are standing authorities that can be drawn upon in the future, as well.

I’ll now turn it over to my colleague.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thank you.  I wanted to talk with you all about the Joint Analysis Report that we issued today along with the FBI.  As you know, on October 7th of this year, DHS and the DNI issued a joint statement that attributed the compromise of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including a U.S. political organization, and the subsequent disclosure of those emails to the Russian government.

So today, with this Joint Analysis Report, we are expanding on that statement and providing details on the tools and the infrastructure used by the Russian military and civilian intelligence services to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the recent election, and -- to include state-owned voter registration databases, as well as a range U.S. government political and private sector entities.

And a key objective in the release of this information today, of course, is to -- particularly the technical124 information is to better help network defenders in the United States and abroad to identify, detect and disrupt Russia’s global campaign of malicious cyber activities.  

The establishment of the attributions back to the Russian intelligence service is based on a U.S. government assessment that incorporates the technical information that’s included in this JAR, the Joint Analysis Report, as well as the intelligence information and collection.  Russia’s civilian and military intelligence services have been engaged in aggressive and sophisticated cyber-enabled operations targeting the U.S. government and its citizens for a number of years.  We are referring to this set of malicious cyber activity as GRIZZLY STEPPE -- and that’s S-T-E-P-P-E -- and that becomes relevant for things like finding this JAR on the -- on our website.  You can find it at US-CERT -- that’s C-E-R-T -- .gov/grizzlysteppe.  So again, that’s G-R-I-Z-Z-L-Y-S-T-E-P-P-E, all one word.

These operations that we’re describing in the JAR included spear-phishing campaigns, which have targeted government organizations, political infrastructure entities, think tanks, universities, political organizations, and corporations.  Theft of information from these organizations and, specifically, recently, the public release of that information in operation of targeting other countries, including U.S. allies and partners -- Russian intelligence services have undertaken damaging or disruptive cyberattacks, including on critical infrastructure, in some cases, masquerading as a third parties or hiding behind false online personas which are designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack.

The JAR itself provides technical indicators that are related to many of these operations.  Importantly, it lays out in an extended section of the JAR recommended mitigations, and, equally important, information on how to report incidents or detection of malicious indicators or activities to the U.S. government.  

The JAR does recognize that some really excellent work has been done already by security companies and the private sector networks’ owners or operators themselves.  And some of this information is -- they have provided previously.  But we are also providing new indicators of compromised malicious infrastructure identified during our own course of investigations and incident response, along with the Bureau.  Again, we’re focused on providing network defenders with the tools they need to identify and detect and disrupt Russian malicious activity targeting our country’s networks.  

So again, in the JAR itself, we have provided some descriptions of approaches that Russian intelligence services used, as well as some of the technical indicators, including Internet protocol addresses, the set of numbers that basically serves as an address for each computer in their use to transmit data to and between computers.  These IT addresses are -- reflect infrastructure that the Russian intelligence services are using, and oftentimes it’s other people’s networks without the owner’s knowledge.  And they do that, obviously, to hide their malicious activity, but that means that these addresses also host, oftentimes, legitimate websites and other Internet services.  And so we are providing this information for network defenders, network administrators to be able to use to try to detect and put on their watch list so that they can be alert to potential malicious activity.

We’ve also released -- it’s not included in the JAR, but separately we’ve released two malware samples that Russian intelligence services use to broadly conduct their malicious activities, and we’ve given those to antivirus vendors so that they can be used to help, again, both private sector and government folks defend their networks.

We’ve provided a subseries of questions that companies need to be asking themselves, as well as a list of steps that they can take, some basic cyber hygiene practices that are really important and can actually stop 85 percent of the malicious activity that we see.  We’re going to continue our NCCIC, our National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center, to look at the research and analysis, and we will continue to issue subsequent updates to the JAR if and when additional information becomes available.  

And so we really urge that folks out there continue to check the US-CERT website and, again, both implement these recommended mitigations, but also provide information to the government to help fill in the bigger picture.  What we're asking the companies to do is to take this technical information, go back through their logs and see if they see indications of this malicious activity in the past.  Because knowledge of these historical incidents -- even if the bad actors are no longer active in your system -- it’s important for the government to know about it and understand it.  It helps to fill in the bigger picture, provides greater insight into the scope and scale of Russian activity, and helps all the network defenders.

DHS has added these indicators to the automated information sharing that we have implemented this year, which provides them to companies that sign up at machine speed.  And so we encourage companies to continue to sign up to receive those indicators.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Thanks, I’m here at State.  You all saw the statement that we put out earlier today with the other interagency statements on the President’s decisions.  We implemented two of his decisions.  We declared persona non grata 35 Russian officials operating in the U.S. who were acting in a manner inconsistent with their diplomatic and consular duties.  And we also have denied Russian personnel access to two Russian-owned compounds in the United States.  And this is part of the comprehensive response to their interference in our elections and a pattern of harassment.  I have some details on the harassment, as well, but maybe I’ll stop there.  I’ve got details on the harassment for later in the conversation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Great.  Any of you guys want to say -- before we open to questions? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would just add that the actions inconsistent with their responsibilities and duties that my colleague referred to were intelligence activities.  And the two facilities which the Russians are now denied access to were used for intelligence collection activities, as well.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And I would just add that from our view, the purpose of the indicator release is really twofold.  One is to put the weight of the U.S. government behind the attribution of a lot of this activity to the Russian government and their intelligence services so that network defenders should prioritize fixing those issues and identifying that, because that is sponsored by a government that is carrying out malicious aggressive activity against us.  And two, to cause them some operational friction and inhibit their ability, at least for a little while, to carry out their activities and to cause them some problems.

Q    Hi, thanks very much.  Can you comment broadly on how difficult it would be or easy it might be for President-elect Trump to undo some of the things that you've been announcing today?  And specifically how difficult or easy would it be for him to allow some of the officials back into the country who are being asked to leave?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll start and see if any of my colleagues want to weigh in.  

First of all, we're taking these actions consistent with our assessment of what Russia has done.  To be very clear here, they have been interfering in both the American democratic process and in the conduct of American diplomacy.  And so this should be of concern to all Americans -- again, to members of both parties, members of Congress from both parties.  This has been a sustained effort to both harass our diplomatic personnel and interfere in our democratic process.  And as I said, we have no reason to believe that Russia’s activities will cease. 

They have been engaged in malicious cyber activity for some time now.  They have interfered in democratic elections not just here in the United States, but other countries.  So one reason why I think that it is necessary to sustain these actions is because there’s every reason to believe that Russia will interfere in future U.S. elections and future elections around the world.

That said, to your question, these are executive actions.  So if a future President decided that he wanted to allow in a large tranche of Russian intelligence agents, presumably a future President could invite that action.  We think it would be inadvisable.  As my colleague just said, these diplomatic compounds were being used for intelligence purposes.  That is a direct challenge to U.S. national security, and I don't think it would make much sense to reopen Russian intelligence compounds.

Secondly, the officials who have been PNGed are Russian intelligence agents.  So I don't think it would make much sense to invite back in Russian intelligence agents.  The officials who were sanctioned were participating in malicious cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and interfering in our democratic process.  So, again, hypothetically you could reverse those sanctions, but it wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

I don't know if any of my colleagues have anything they want to add to that.

Q    You've made reference at several points to attacks on critical infrastructure in the U.S., and I was wondering does that include the campaign against U.S. companies in 2014, U.S. energy companies?  And does it also include other things that you could identify?  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Certainly, so I think in broad terms we know that the Russian government has targeted critical infrastructure around the world, and it is part of their normal operating procedures.  And if you look at the list of malware and other kinds of activity that are listed in the JAR as being tied to the Russian intelligence services, you would see some of those that are aimed at critical infrastructure, such as BlackEnergy and Havex.  So that's the kind of activity that we're talking about.

Q    Thank you for doing the call.  First of all, I was wondering if you could talk about the chronology of the way you're doing this.  Russia has been saying for weeks now if you guys really have evidence that we were behind this, prove it, show us what you have.  And so why are you doing the announcement of these retaliatory actions before you’re releasing this report that the President has promised that ostensibly would back up the accusations that you’ve made?

And then for State, you guys are saying that the actions to kick out the diplomats and shutter these compounds are related to harassment, which is kind of a separate issue, but you’re rolling it out as part of this big package.  So is it fair to say that the decision to move forward with those penalties now is part of your attempt to be tougher on Russia over the cyber actions?  Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, let me just start on that.  On your second question, I think for the -- we’ve been looking at the issue of how to respond to the harassment of our diplomats for some time, but the fact is it’s hard for us to separate that from the context of a foreign power also interfering in our democratic election.  

So it’s fair to say that President Obama’s direction was that we should look at these actions as interconnected, and that the same hostile posture and the same flagrant violation of basic norms of international behavior that guided their harassment of our diplomatic personnel are also seen in the interference in our election.  So again, that’s why we looked at this as a package.  And, frankly, if you look at the actions taken with respect to the diplomatic personnel and facilities, they were also related to an intelligence purpose.  So just as it was a Russian intelligence effort that was tied to the interference in our election, we see a nexus to Russian intelligence and the actions taken by the State Department today in addition to the response of the harassment of our diplomats.  And my State colleague can speak to the harassment of diplomats.

On your first question, look, we don’t -- we actually, as you know, publicly put out the assessment that Russia was interfering in our election in early October.  So we have been public with that assessment for some time now.  Frankly, if you look at who is designated and what entities are designated and what’s in the JAR, you begin to get a sense of our assessment of how Russia approached those issues.  And what we’ll be doing in the report that the President asked for is look comprehensively at the information that we have and the analysis that flows from that information.

This is not in question, though.  There’s no debate in the U.S. administration about the fact -- and it is a fact -- that Russia interfered in our democratic election.  We’ve established that clearly to our satisfaction.  I would never expect Russia to come out with their hands up and acknowledge what they did.  They don’t do that.  They didn’t do that -- they still deny that they are intervening in eastern Ukraine.  And, frankly, I’d say to journalists, let’s look at what they say and what they do.  This is a country that has intervened in a sovereign country and denied that they did it, even though everybody could see that they were doing it, with respect to Ukraine; that has bombed civilians in Syria while denying that they were doing it.  

So we don’t see this as a he said, she said situation, we see this as, there are facts and then there are things that Russia says.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I would also add, and maybe my colleague can speak to this more directly, but the process of putting together sanctions packages is extremely onerous and requires evidence that can stand up in court.  So this is a very intense, elaborate process with a lot of input from agencies across the board.  

We don’t need to tell the Russian government what it’s been doing.  It knows what it’s doing.  We owe it to the American people to explain what the Russian government is doing, and the President’s instruction for the U.S. government to do a report on what happened is exactly directed at explaining to the American people what happened.  But we don’t need to make the case to the Russians, for all the reasons that my colleague has laid out.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  State, you may want to talk about the harassments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, the pattern of harassment over several years is really disturbing, and we felt -- and were pleased with the President’s decision to do something about it.  

They have -- you saw the YouTube video of the June 6th incident where our diplomat was assaulted by a Russian police officer.  Embassy officials have been harassed and detained on their routine diplomatic travels around the country.  Russian state-owned television has put some of our diplomats at risk by putting personal details about them on TV.  They’ve blocked our ability to make our consulate general in St. Petersburg safe, in terms of the perimeter of security and new construction.  They’ve closed 28 American Corners around the country and the American Center, which is making it impossible for us to do our job in terms of culture, education, and people-to-people ties.  

So a whole series of pattern of actions over a number over years is what triggered this part of the decision.

Q    Hi, thanks for doing this.  Just to be clear here, the Russians that are being expelled from here and denied access to these -- you called them recreational compounds -- are you saying, one, these very intelligence officers are involved, or is that something they -- out of Moscow?  And two, are you talking about a compound within the embassy compound or someplace else, say in Washington?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I can speak to that, but I believe my colleague would be best positioned to do so.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The compounds are not part -- are not contiguous with the embassy.  One is in Maryland and one is in New York.  They are compounds that the Russian government owns and that they use for multiple purposes -- as described by my colleague, intelligence, but also recreational, as well.  And under the Foreign Missions Act, we have the authority to restrict their access to these properties based on their pattern of behavior.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  And just to be absolutely clear, there are 35 Russian diplomats -- actually intelligence officers -- who were PNGed by State.  The denial of access to the two compounds is all Russian personnel.  The Russian missions in Washington, in New York -- all Russian personnel will be denied access to those two compounds beginning at noon tomorrow, or December 30th.  And those who were PNGed have 72 hours from the moment of having been informed to leave.  So they should be gone, by my calculation, that would be Sunday -- by noon on Sunday.  And for the Russian speakers among you, I will wish you s novym godom.

Q    Thanks very much.  First of all, President-elect Trump said on Wednesday that we ought to “get on with our lives” when asked about sanctioning Russia.  So there have been reports that some of the other actions, the not-public actions that were to be taken against Russia was going to be left to the next administration.  Is that the case?  Or are there other non-public actions that are already being taken?  And is your decision -- will your decision in any way change based on the signals coming from the President-elect that he does not believe that this is a matter that should be pursued, the election matter itself?  

And would you describe the harassment against our diplomats in Moscow as unusual, or -- are you focused on the normal pattern of behavior, or is this unusual between us and the Russians in terms of what you’ve seen, as you just described?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So on your first question, as you’ve heard us say many times, our approach is that there’s one President at a time, and that President Obama is going to execute the duties of his office until January 20th.  And he is acting in what he believes to be the best interest of the United States.  

I’d say a couple of things.  One is, there are any number of actions that we’re taking -- some we announce, some we don’t -- that will be in process as the next administration takes office.  So again, there may be things that commence while we’re in office in addition to what we’re saying today.  When the new administration takes office, it’s entirely their judgment as to whether or not they continue down the course that we have set in a number of different areas.

I guess what I’d suggest is that the Russian actions have been sustained over an extended period of time, and by any definition are against the national interests of the United States, not the interests of President Obama.  The harassment of our diplomats -- which is not in line, frankly, with the way things have been in the past; it’s been escalating steadily for some time -- is a direct threat to the ability of the United States of America to conduct diplomacy.  And I would think that that would be of concern to future administrations.

The interference in our election is a pattern that we see in other Western democracies, including some of our closest allies.  And I think future administrations would find it concerning if there are efforts to undermine the democracies of our closest allies in the world.  

What we’ve seen in general with their malicious cyber activity has targeted our critical infrastructure beyond even our election process.  So I would think that the malicious cyber-targeting of American critical infrastructure would be of concern to future administrations.  I’d note, from our own consultations, that this is an issue of great concern to American business, and so I would expect that future administrations would be concerned about the threat to the American economy from malicious Russian cyber activity.

So again, as I said earlier, some of the actions we’re taking have to do with Russian intelligence efforts, which, again, are aimed at harming the national security of the United States.  I would think that future administrations would be concerned about those efforts.  If they aren’t, then they should explain why, and they’ll have the opportunity to explain why.  But I think clearly we’re taking these actions because of what has been a pattern of behavior over an extended period of time that we’ve seen replicated in other countries, and we believe it’s the right approach to take.

I don’t know if my colleagues want to comment on the kind of historical perspective of harassment.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, my understanding -- and I’ll leave it to my colleague -- but my understanding is the State Department assesses that the pattern of Russian harassment of our diplomatic mission in Russia is unprecedented for the post-Cold War era, that this really was a change in behavior in the last two or so years.

But I’ll turn it over to my colleague for the authoritative comment.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Just to agree with you and my colleague, nothing to add from here.  Exactly right.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I just want to emphasize that, of course, the Joint Analytic Report contains information also that does go beyond just the election’s malicious cyber activity, and again, to highlight activity aimed at critical infrastructure but also other non-governmental organizations, really a broad campaign.  And the list of actors and actor sets, and of malware, et cetera, including BlackEnergy and Havex, is an indication of how broad this campaign is and how serious it is. 

Q    Thanks very much.  Can you explain to us why these activities come -- why these actions come at the time that they do?  There was obviously a debate about taking each of the steps that you've announced today prior to the election.  There was -- there’s obviously been concern about retaliation by the -- and escalation by the Russians.  Can you say whether or not you believe in retrospect that you wish you had acted earlier?  And can you also on just one factual issue tell us whether or not the facilities that you've closed in New York and Maryland you believe were just generally intelligence facilities, or whether they were used as part of the DNC and other hacking activity here?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Your second question obviously kind of gets pretty precise on intelligence equities, so I don't think we can speak to that.

On the timing question, look, I’d say there are a range of factors here.  Number one, each one of these steps takes a different amount of time to prepare.  As you know -- and my colleague can speak if he wants to -- sanctions packages are time consuming, as you're establishing both the basis for the action and then refining the target list.  The JAR itself is a complex procedure, as we are putting together the information that we can share publicly that provides the best possible guidance about what we know.  And then obviously, the response to the harassment is something we've been focused on for some time.  

So a number of points.  First of all, with respect to how this fit around the election, I think our first priority was to publicly disclose the information.  So before we were going to take an action, the most important thing was to make public what we knew, and we did that on October 7th.  And that was a fairly unique, if not unprecedented, step to come out with a common view of the U.S. intelligence community that a foreign power, Russia, was interfering in our election.  So point one is getting out that information.  

We also wanted to give a warning directly to the Russians accompanying that public message and also in private, which he did at numerous times, about the fact that we knew what they were doing, and that we would be preparing a response.  And we therefore wanted to have them absorb that message and have that effect -- see how that affected their behavior.  

We also, frankly, in the run-up to the election were very focused on securing the election itself.  And we have no indication at all that the efforts included tampering with the vote.  And so in terms of a priority for a lot of our cybersecurity efforts, we wanted to make sure that our election was secure.  And the warning to Russia combined with our efforts to secure the voting process I think was a priority.  

Let’s also bear in mind that even as we have made this disclosure and were preparing these steps, material had been hacked and was being released.  So it’s not as if that genie could be put back into the bottle.  We were putting this together and preparing a response in the context in which this information had been shared with other parities and was being publicly released and widely reported on by our news media.  So what we wanted to do then is methodically work through these different elements:  What could we do on sanctions?  How are we going to deal with Russia’s diplomatic presence here in the United States?  What are we doing with the JAR?  And how are we preparing other elements?  And that takes some amount of time to put together.  And we also wanted to, again, do some of this as a package.  

So I think the President has been very deliberate:  Let’s gather the information; when we had enough confidence to put it out, we released it publicly.  We issued a warning.  We worked to secure our election.  We worked to develop these responses.  When the responses were complete, we aligned them so that we would be doing this as a package.  And that I think explains the nature of the timeline.  

I don't know if anybody wants to speak to individual components of that process in terms of how they were put together.  

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I think I can just add that from the very start of when, even going back some time, we have been engaging diplomatically with the Russians and raising our concerns about their activity -- even if not all of that became public -- whenever we learn about or detect intrusions into companies or organizations, we do notifications to those companies, and we go and we tell them.  DHS began ramping up its coordination, as my colleague was talking about, in order to make sure that we doing everything possible to secure the electoral infrastructure.  We started that back in the summer.

All this has been building for some period of time.  So it’s not like all of these actions sort of popped in kind of right now out of the blue, they are really part of a long-term effort that we’ve been building over time to push back on this kind of Russian behavior, and they’re setting the stage for the fact that we will have to continue to deter and push back on this kind of behavior going into the future.

MR. STROH:  All right.  Thank you very much for participating in today’s call and, as of now, the call is concluded and the embargo is lifted.  Thanks, everyone.  Have a nice day.

END
3:27 P.M. EST

• Rhoda Mae Kerr – Member, National Infrastructure Advisory Council
• Carl Newman – Member, National Infrastructure Advisory Council    
• Ellen Ochoa – Member, National Science Board, National Science Foundation
• Walter Ray Allen Jr. – Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council
• Deborah A. Oppenheimer – Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council
• Scott Straus – Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council
• Jeremy M. Weinstein – Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council  

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

• Bridget Altenburg – Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy
• Brenda S. “Sue” Fulton – Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy  
• Soudarak “Sue” Hoppin – Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Air Force Academy  

President Obama said, “I am honored that these talented individuals have decided to serve our country.  They bring their years of experience and expertise to their roles, and I know they will serve the American people well.”

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

Rhoda Mae Kerr, Appointee for Member, National Infrastructure Advisory Council   

Rhoda Mae Kerr is Fire Chief of the Austin, Texas Fire Department, a position she has held since 2009.  Previously, Chief Kerr served as Fire Chief of the Little Rock, Arkansas Fire Department from 2004 to 2009.  From 1983 to 2003, she served at Fort Lauderdale Fire-Rescue as a firefighter and in leadership roles including Deputy Fire Chief and Division Chief.  Prior to entering the fire service, Chief Kerr was a coach and physical education teacher at the high school level from 1970 to 1983.  Chief Kerr served as President of the International Association of Fire Chiefs and President of the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association from 2015 to 2016.  Chief Kerr received an A.S. from Broward Community College, a B.A. from William Paterson University, and an M.P.A. from Florida International University.

Carl Newman, Appointee for Member, National Infrastructure Advisory Council    

Carl Newman is CEO of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority in Mississippi, a position he has held since 2015.  Mr. Newman was General Manager of George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas from 2012 to 2015.  Prior to that, he worked at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona from 1980 to 2012, including as its Assistant Aviation Director, Deputy Aviation Director, and Aviation Maintenance Superintendent.  He is currently the Chair of the American Association of Airport Executives.  Mr. Newman received a B.S. from the University of Arizona and an M.S.A. from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.

Dr. Ellen Ochoa, Appointee for Member, National Science Board, National Science Foundation

Dr. Ellen Ochoa serves as the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, a position she has held since 2013.  Previously, Dr. Ochoa served as Deputy Director of the Johnson Space Center from 2007 to 2012.  Prior to that, she was the Deputy Director and Director of Flight Crew Operations for the Johnson Space Center from 2002 to 2007.  From 1990 to 2007, Dr. Ochoa was an Astronaut at the Johnson Space Center and was the first Latina to travel to space.  She also served as a Branch Chief and Group Lead at the NASA Ames Research Center from 1988 to 1990.  Dr. Ochoa began her career as a member of the technical staff for Sandia National Laboratories from 1985 to 1988.  She served as a member on the Stanford University Board of Trustees from 1999 to 2009.  Dr. Ochoa holds a B.S. from San Diego State University, and an M.S. and Ph.D. from Stanford University.

Walter Ray Allen Jr., Appointee for Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Walter Ray Allen Jr. is a retired professional basketball player.  Mr. Allen played in the National Basketball Association (NBA) for 18 seasons with four teams from 1996 to 2014.  He most recently played with the Miami Heat from 2012 to 2014.  Mr. Allen played for the Boston Celtics from 2007 to 2012, the Seattle SuperSonics from 2003 to 2007, and the Milwaukee Bucks from 1996 to 2003.  He is a 10-time NBA All-Star, won two NBA Championships in 2013 and 2008, and received an Olympic gold medal as a member of the 2000 United States Men's Basketball Team.  Mr. Allen was named USA Basketball Male Athlete of the Year in 1995.  Mr. Allen founded the Ray of Hope Foundation in 1997.

Deborah A. Oppenheimer, Appointee for Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Deborah A. Oppenheimer is an independent film producer.  Ms. Oppenheimer is a Production Consultant for the BBC series, Downton Abbey, a position she has held since 2010‎.  She was Executive Vice President at Carnival Film & Television from 2012 to 2014, Executive Vice President of International Television Production at NBCUniversal International Television from 2010 to 2012, President of Mohawk Productions at Warner Bros. from 1995 to 2009, and a Producer, Development Executive, and Production Executive at Lorimar from 1984 to 1993.  Ms. Oppenheimer conceived and produced the feature documentary, "Into the Arms of Strangers: Stories of the Kindertransport,” for which she received an Academy Award in 2001.  She is a member of the Advisory Committee of the Television and Film Arts Strategic Council at the State University College of New York at Buffalo.  Ms. Oppenheimer was first appointed to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council in 2012.  Ms. Oppenheimer received a B.A. from the State University College of New York at Buffalo.

Dr. Scott Straus, Appointee for Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Dr. Scott Straus is Associate Chair and Director of Graduate Studies of Political Science and Professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he has worked since 2004.  Dr. Straus previously worked as a freelance journalist based in Africa from 1995 to 1998.  He was awarded the Winnick Fellowship at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide in 2011 and the William Kiekhofer Distinguished Teaching Award in 2009.  Dr. Straus received a B.A. from Dartmouth College and an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Jeremy M. Weinstein, Appointee for Member, United States Holocaust Memorial Council

Dr. Jeremy M. Weinstein is a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, a position he has held since 2015.  Dr. Weinstein is also a Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, a role he has held since 2011.  He served as Deputy and Chief of Staff to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 2014 to 2015 and 2013 to 2014, respectively.  Dr. Weinstein has held various roles at Stanford University including Associate Professor of Political Science from 2009 to 2015, Director of the Center for African Studies from 2007 to 2008 and 2011 to 2013, and Assistant Professor of Political Science from 2004 to 2009.  He was Director for Development and Democracy for the National Security Council from 2009 to 2011.  Dr. Weinstein is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Global Development.  Dr. Weinstein received a B.A. from Swarthmore College and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University.

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

Bridget Altenburg, Designee for Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy  

Bridget Altenburg has served since 2013 as the Chief Operating Officer of the National Able Network, a nonprofit specializing in workforce development training.  Ms. Altenburg was the Executive Director of Chicago Cares from 2011 to 2013 and was the Director of Development for the Academy for Urban School Leadership from 2008 to 2011.  Previously, she held several management positions at Bally Total Fitness from 2002 to 2006 and served as a Captain in the United States Army.  Ms. Altenburg received a B.S. from the United States Military Academy and an M.B.A. from Columbia Business School.

Brenda S. “Sue” Fulton, Designee for Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy  

Brenda S. “Sue” Fulton is the Director for Disruptive Channels at Pfizer Consumer Health, a position she has held since March 2016.  Ms. Fulton has worked at Pfizer since 2012, serving as a Franchise Lead and Director for Consumer Healthcare from 2012 to 2016.  Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Board of Directors of SPART*A, an organization of LGBT service members and veterans.  Since 2011, she has also served as a member of the Board of Visitors to the United States Military Academy and was elected as Chair of the Board in 2015.  Ms. Fulton is a founding member of the Board of Directors for OutServe, an association of LGBT active duty service members, and was the organization’s Communications Director from 2010 to 2012.  In 2009, she co-founded Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point graduates and allies, and served as the organization’s Executive Director from 2010 to 2012.  Earlier in her career, Ms. Fulton held product management roles at Schering-Plough/Merck from 1997 to 2011.  In 1980, she was commissioned in the Army Signal Corps and served for five years in Germany, where she commanded a military intelligence company.  For her service, Ms. Fulton was awarded the Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster and a Meritorious Service Medal.  She was honorably discharged from the Army with the rank of Captain in 1986.  Ms. Fulton received a B.S. from the United States Military Academy.

Soudarak “Sue” Hoppin, Designee for Member, Board of Visitors to the United States Air Force Academy  

Soudarak “Sue” Hoppin is President of the National Military Spouse Network, an organization she founded in 2010.  Ms. Hoppin has served on the Board of Visitors to the United States Air Force Academy since 2012.  From 2007 to 2016, she was a member of the Air Force Charity Ball Committee and served as its Publicity Chair from 2008 to 2016.  From 2010 to 2013, Ms. Hoppin served on the Board of Directors of Blue Star Families.  She was also the Military Family Liaison to the Fairfax County School Superintendent’s Business and Community Advisory Council from 2009 to 2012.  In 2005, she joined the Military Officers Association of America as a Benefits Associate, and rose to become Deputy Director for Spouse Outreach by 2010.  Ms. Hoppin received a B.A. from the University of Denver and an M.A. from the University of Oklahoma.

December 28, 2016

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

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the "order") that takes additional steps to address the increasing use of significant malicious cyber-enabled activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions. These steps have been taken with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015.

The order amends section 1(a) of Executive Order 13694 by providing authority for blocking the property and interests in property of any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions. The order also blocks the property and interests in property of the persons listed in the Annex to the order.

I have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the order. All agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the order.

I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Entities

1. Main Intelligence Directorate (a.k.a. Glavnoe Razvedyvatel’noe Upravlenie) (a.k.a. GRU); Moscow, Russia

2. Federal Security Service (a.k.a. Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti) (a.k.a FSB); Moscow, Russia

3. Special Technology Center (a.k.a. STLC, Ltd. Special Technology Center St. Petersburg); St. Petersburg, Russia

4. Zorsecurity (a.k.a. Esage Lab); Moscow, Russia

5. Autonomous Noncommercial Organization “Professional Association of Designers of Data Processing Systems” (a.k.a. ANO PO KSI); Moscow, Russia

Individuals

1. Igor Valentinovich Korobov; DOB Aug 3, 1956; nationality, Russian

2. Sergey Aleksandrovich Gizunov; DOB Oct 18, 1956; nationality, Russian

3. Igor Olegovich Kostyukov; DOB Feb 21, 1961; nationality, Russian

4. Vladimir Stepanovich Alexseyev; DOB Apr 24, 1961; nationality, Russian

- - - - - - -

TAKING ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ADDRESS THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO SIGNIFICANT MALICIOUS CYBER-ENABLED ACTIVITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps to deal with the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities declared in Executive Order 13694 of April 1, 2015, and in view of the increasing use of such activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions, hereby order:

Section 1. Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13694 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:

(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;

(ii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) harming, or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services by, a computer or network of computers that support one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(B) significantly compromising the provision of services by one or more entities in a critical infrastructure sector;

(C) causing a significant disruption to the availability of a computer or network of computers;

(D) causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain; or

(E) tampering with, altering, or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions; and

(iii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State:

(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, the receipt or use for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain, or by a commercial entity, outside the United States of trade secrets misappropriated through cyber-enabled means, knowing they have been misappropriated, where the misappropriation of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;

(B) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsections (a)(ii) or (a)(iii)(A) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;

(C) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in subsections (a)(ii) and (a)(iii)(A)-(C) of this section."

Sec. 2. Executive Order 13694 is further amended by adding as an Annex to Executive Order 13694 the Annex to this order.

Sec. 3. Executive Order 13694 is further amended by redesignating section 10 as section 11 and adding a new section 10 to read as follows:

"Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to determine that circumstances no longer warrant the blocking of the property and interests in property of a person listed in the Annex to this order, and to take necessary action to give effect to that determination."

Sec. 4. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 5. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on December 29, 2016.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 28, 2016.