Barack Obama photo

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest and the President's Senior Advisor Brian Deese

March 19, 2015

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:07 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. I apologize for the late start today. Before we get into my part of the briefing, I have brought with me the President's Senior Advisor, Brian Deese, who is going to be here to talk about the climate change announcement that the President discussed a little bit today during his trip to the Department of Energy.

So Brian has got a little bit of a topper. He'll take some questions on this topic, and then we'll get to other questions you may have today.

So, Brian.

MR. DEESE: Thanks. So I'll just be brief about the announcement that the President made today, and then happy to take questions if you've got them.

So we just returned from the Department of Energy. Before traveling over there, the President signed an executive order which sets a new goal for the federal government to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent over the next decade. That's in comparison to 2008 levels. The executive order also commits the government to increasing the share of electricity that the federal government consumes from renewable sources to 30 percent by 2025, as well.

The commitments today build on goals that this administration set in 2009 around greenhouse gas reduction. Those goals are ones that we are well on our way to meeting. And the progress we've made over the last several years gives us confidence that we can up our ambition and set these new goals today.

Indeed, last year, the federal government used less energy than we have in the past -- in any given year over the past four decades. And the reason why this is a big deal is that the federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States, so our actions have an outside impact.

In terms of making this a little bit more concrete, this is really a triple win for the environment, for the economy, and for the American people. Just to put it in concrete perspective, the announcement that we made today and the commitments that were made today will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 million metric tons between now and 2025. That's the equivalent of taking 5.5 million cars off the road. That also happens to be more cars than are registered in the state of Massachusetts -- which is my home state.

The actions will also save up to $18 billion in taxpayer resources because our agencies will consume less energy or they'll consume it more efficiently. Those are resources that can be better deployed for the objectives that the agencies have set out to tackle. And importantly, this is good for the broader economy because the actions that we take encourage the businesses that do business with the federal government as well as their suppliers and others to be more energy efficient and use more clean energy as well.

So one of the things that was most interesting about and promising about this announcement was the President, after touring the roof at the Department of Energy and seeing some of the solar panels that are up there, joined a roundtable of companies, including -- of the Fortune 100, including GE, Northrup Grumman, IBM -- all of whom came today to actually make their own commitments on reducing their own carbon pollution in the coming years. And what they told the President and the conversation that we had was really around the ways in which, when the federal government acts as a catalyst for technology or as a catalyst for investment, it enables these companies to push the envelope themselves and to push their supplier networks. And we heard a lot about the impact particularly on smaller businesses that are in the supply chains to these companies.

And so, overall, sitting around the table we had businesses that represent $45 billion in contracting with the federal government, and they explained the leveraging impact of these commitments.

This is just another example from our perspective of reinforcing that we don't need to choose between encouraging strong economic growth that's consistent with middle-class economics and which helps create good jobs here in the United States and actions to protect our planet for our kids. It's another example of the President staying on offense, taking actions that he can to try to help encourage this process forward. And this is a signal to the international community, as well, that in a year when we are working toward a global agreement on climate change that we're going to continue to do our part and encourage other countries to do so as well.

So it was a good announcement, an opportunity to hear from the private sector, and opportunity for the President to get out and get a little bit of sun on the Department of Energy roof. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions you guys have.

Q: I actually wanted to ask about Keystone. I know it's another area that's now in your portfolio. Two questions. The first is, we've kind of heard a more pessimistic tact out of the President lately as he's described the project. Is that an indication that he is, as kind of the date for having to make a decision on this nears, that he is more pessimistic about the project? And the second part that I had is a question about the extent to which you guys see Keystone as a possible negotiating chit either with Congress on a broader climate deal or with other countries as you try to, I guess, broker that --

MR. DEESE: So as you know and as you've heard Josh say many times, this is an issue that's in the process in the State Department and that process is where it is. And so I don't have any news on that. And I think that the President has spoken to this issue, but has also been clear as he's doing that that the State Department process is moving forward and will conclude.

I will say that one of the things that I think the President has reinforced and you've heard in the President's comments on this issue is his view that we all should be setting our sights substantially higher than the debate around this one pipeline, and that there is a lot of opportunity to improve the country's infrastructure and help encourage this move toward a clean energy economy if we could engage in that debate. Our hope is that we'll be able to do so.

Q: Does that mean that the President would be willing to include Keystone as part of a broader infrastructure package? Is that kind of -- we hear that phrase from you guys a lot. Is that what it's intended to mean?

MR. DEESE: I think what it means is that there's a process that's ongoing and it's going to resolve itself around Keystone that we are not getting into or commenting on. And it means that, separate from that process, the President thinks it's very important that we have not only a discussion about doing something more aggressive on infrastructure but Congress actually starts moving and showing a commitment to do so.

Q: Brian, a couple follow-ups. First, on your initial announcement, do you know the percentage that the government represents in terms of emissions in the U.S., just sort of to put that in the context of industry and otherwise?

And as a follow-up to Justin's question on Keystone, your predecessor, John Podesta, chose to recuse himself from advising the President because he has strong views on the project. Do you have strong views on the project? And how are you advising the President?

MR. DEESE: To the first question, the federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the economy. Within our federal footprint we have hundreds of thousands of buildings. That includes the Department of Defense. And in fact, the Department of Defense is responsible for the non-operational portion of the Department of Defense and is responsible for about half of the energy consumption.

So our capacity to both directly reduce energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is significant. But also as the largest consumer in a market, you have market power to help drive innovation and drive change outside of the federal footprint.

So I think that the potential for this announcement is best understood in that context. And in particular, I think that what was striking about having the private sector at the table today was we heard from them loud and clear that if the administration and the federal government sets standards and focuses incentives on certain innovative technologies, it really drives a lot of investment and a lot of change not only in their companies but throughout their supply chains.

And with respect to the second part of your question, I'm not going to speak to John. From my perspective, this is an issue that is in a separate process and we are focused on that process running its course.

Q: The length of time that it's been the State Department looking at this has surprised a lot of people. Does the President expect to get the State Department recommendations in this calendar year?

MR. DEESE: I have nothing for you on timing.

Q: So this may be -- wouldn't even reach his desk for a decision by the end of his term?

MR. DEESE: Well, I have nothing for you on timing.

Q: So the 40 percent reduction target is for direct greenhouse gas emissions. How do you define direct versus indirect in the government? And also, does this apply to your suppliers and vendors, contractors?

MR. DEESE: So the answer to the 40 percent is it is direct; it's in terms of consumption of energy by the government. The way in which the government consumes energy is often associated with contract activity because we have contractors who are running a federal facility or, in other cases, we have contractors where we enter into performance contracts where they are actually putting up the upfront capital doing energy efficiency improvements, and then being paid back through a stream of the energy savings. So the work of the businesses who contract with the federal government is very integral to achieving this goal.

There's then a separate issue, which is those companies that are those contractors making commitments about their own activities, and that's what was, I think, exciting and new about today's announcement, was that these were companies -- this was IBM and GE and Northrup Grumman coming to the table, not only committing as a contractor to help the federal government achieve the 40 percent goal but to make commitments within their own corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So you have a company like IBM saying they're going to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2025. Part of why they're able to do that is because the innovation and the investment that the federal government is driving helps them achieve that objective as well.

Q: Brian, specifically as you can, can you tell us what's allowed the federal government to get to where it's gotten, and what kind of innovative things or lessons you've learned from those successes that will drive you to this 40 percent goal?

MR. DEESE: So I think it's a couple of things, and we've seen these play out over the last several years. The first is we've seen a substantial reduction in the cost of deploying clean energy and some of these energy-efficiency technologies. So the Department of Defense, for example, is moving out and deploying solar on base, on military installations. And they are meeting and exceeding their targets and objectives, in part because the cost of solar has come down more quickly than anticipated.

Q: They capture it there and use it there?

MR. DEESE: Correct. And that has both a cost opportunity for them but also mission-oriented opportunities because of the reliability of not having to rely on the electricity grid. It is solar flare season.

The second thing is that the data analytics have improved substantially, which matters a lot for energy efficiency. One of the things that the companies talked about today was that by having much more data about how their businesses operate and being able to aggregate that up, they're able to identify where there are gaps in their efficiency chain, identify that a certain plant is operating much less efficiently than others, and send a team in there and see whether there are valves they need to tighten or hoses they need to clamp up.

The President referred to this today as a Fitbit for business, and I think that aptly characterizes it. And some of the progress we've made on the data side has allowed us to do that.

And then, I think the third is innovations in the way we contract. And so, as I was just mentioning, one of the things that we're doing now is we're setting a goal of doing $4 billion in energy performance contracting, which is the idea that rather than the federal government having to put taxpayer dollars down to upgrade a building, we contract with an outside provider who pays the upfront cost and then gets repaid out of a stream of the savings that come from reducing the electricity costs. And because the investments here are well-proven, that's becoming a model that's working both to encourage more activity but also bring the private sector in, in an innovative way.

MR. EARNEST: Paul, I'll give you the last one, and then Brian has got to go.

Q: I was just reading a lot about the military use of biofuels like jatropha and algae to power everything from aircraft to just a green fleet that the Navy keeps talking about. Bring us up to date on that and how close are those things to becoming operational?

MR. DEESE: So that's a place where I think the armed services, in particular the Navy, see substantial promise. A lot of the work that is going into that area right now is in the R&D space -- and so both in the services and in the Defense Department, but also at USDA and DOE, investing in sort of applied research to better understand the potential and also the mission impacts of relying on these types of fuels.

So I think our view on that is that there's real promise and real opportunity. It's going to require us to maintain a consistent program of R&D investment. But I think that we still see it as an area of real promise going forward.

Q: When will the Navy and Air Force, though, be able to wean themselves off of these conventional fossil fuels that you've been hearing about for quite some time?

MR. DEESE: So I can't tell you with precision, but I can tell you that the opportunities are increasingly becoming cost-effective, and that as you think about where the military is deployed around the world and the circumstances that they're put in, the ability to have alternative sources both of electricity, where you're not reliant on the grid, but also fuels is increasingly important from a mission standpoint as well as a cost standpoint.

So we're quite optimistic that we're going to be able to push the envelope in those spaces. And that's part of the theory of the case behind the announcement that we're making today.

MR. EARNEST: Thank you, Brian.

All right, now back to our regularly scheduled programming. I know that there's a pool spray at two o'clock in the Oval, so if there are some of you that have responsibilities for that, I will not be offended if you sneak out the back.

Julie, do you want to start us with questions today?

Q: Thanks, Josh. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for yesterday -- the attacks in Tunisia. Has the U.S. been able to verify those claims?

MR. EARNEST: Julie, let me start by saying that we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of the heinous violence in Tunisia, and condemn in the strongest possible terms this terrorist attack which took the lives of innocent Tunisians, as well as tourists who were visiting from other countries.

The President's top counterterrorism advisor, Lisa Monaco, today spoke to her counterpart, who is the Tunisian Minister of Interior -- his name is Mohamed Gharsalli. She made that call to express condolences for yesterday's attack, to offer U.S. support and assistance, and to pledge solidarity with Tunisia in the face of terrorist violence.

The United States is justifiably proud of the robust cooperation that we have with Tunisia on counterterrorism and on a range of broader security issues. And we continue to stand with our Tunisian partners against terrorist violence.

We have seen reports that ISIL has claimed responsibility for these attacks. While we are not yet able to confirm the veracity of this claim, the tactics that we saw at the Bardo Museum would be entirely consistent with tactics that ISIL has previously used that show a blatant disregard and even a brutality for innocent civilians.

Q: Obviously Tunisia has been held up as a country that perhaps came out of the Arab Spring as more of a success than some of the other countries in the region. If this is the Islamic State moving into Tunisia, launching this kind of attack, what does that say about Tunisia's stability, its ability to fend off Islamic extremism?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I'll say a couple things about that. The first is we know that there is a long border that Tunisia has with Libya, which is a rather unstable place right now. And that is why the security cooperation that I referred to earlier that exists between Tunisia and the United States is so important. And that was the substance of Ms. Monaco's call today. And I'm confident that we'll continue to be in touch with the Tunisians in the weeks and months ahead as we talk about efforts that we can make to supplement their efforts to provide for security in their country.

They obviously live in a very volatile, even dangerous part of the world right now. And we certainly are interested in doing what we can to try to support the Tunisian government and the Tunisian people as they confront this threat.

Q: Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be backing away from his comments during his campaign about not allowing a Palestinian state while he's in charge. He says now that he would allow that if the circumstances change. And yesterday, officials here and at the State Department were saying that you took Netanyahu on his word during the campaign, that there would be policy ramifications for what he said. Based on what he said today, do you now think that those comments were just a campaign pledge that he always intended to backtrack on? Do you take him at his word today that he would allow for a Palestinian state?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I did have an opportunity to read quickly a transcript of the interview that he did with NBC today. What is apparent is that in the context of the campaign and while he was the sitting Prime Minister of Israel, he walked back from commitments that Israel had previously made to a two-state solution.

Now, to be clear, the United States, for more than a decade, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, has strongly supported this approach to trying to address the conflict between the Palestinian people and our allies in Israel. And it's worth pointing out that this is a policy that was supported and in place under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. It is also a policy that was -- and has on more than one occasion -- been unanimously supported by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. As recently as December of last year, the United States House of Representatives, on a voice vote -- so, essentially, without objection -- passed the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, in which the pursuit of a two-state solution was identified as our goal to resolve this conflict.

So it is, as we mentioned yesterday, cause for the United States to evaluate what our path is forward, given the Prime Minister's comments. And so we'll have to sort of see what sort of policy and priorities the Prime Minister chooses, but we certainly are in a position to evaluate our approach to these issues, given that the Prime Minister essentially backed away from commitments that Israel had previously made to this effort.

Q: And you stand by that, the need to reevaluate, to look at your options, despite what he said today? You don't think that now, based on his flip back, that what he said previously was a campaign promise to get votes?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the motivation of the Prime Minister and the comments that he made -- I think it was even just earlier this week -- is something that you'll have to take up with him. What is clear is the United States has been clear about our policy for some time. And it also merits pointing out that we pursue this policy not just because it's convenient -- in fact, it's not convenient, it's rather difficult, as has been well-chronicled by all of you in this room -- but we have been in pursuit of this goal because we believe that it is clearly in the best interests of our closest ally in the region.

We believe that it is in the clear interest of Israel to establish a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a sovereign Palestinian state. That is a way for us to defuse tensions in the region. It's not going to defuse all of them, but it certainly would substantially reduce tensions in the region. And it would, of course, serve the national security interests of the United States. But it's the best way for us to provide and protect the Israel people.

Again, it doesn't remove all threats but it certainly is the way for us to resolve what is a prominent point of contention in this region of the world. And the comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu to walk away from that commitment just this week has prompted the United States to evaluate our position on these matters going forward.

Jeff.

Q: Josh, can you put some flesh on the bone about what that means when you say you're evaluating your position? What does that mean exactly? What could the outcome of this evaluation look like?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Jeff, I would start by saying that this commitment to a two-state solution has been the bedrock of a lot of U.S. policy towards this region of the world in terms of making decisions. At the United Nations and in other multilateral fora, the United States has repeatedly intervened in some of those debates at the U.N. and other places by saying the best way for us to solve this problem is to get the two parties to sit down at the negotiating table, resolve their differences so that this two-state solution can be realized. So that principle is one that we have applied in a variety of settings to serve as the basis for decisions that have benefitted Israel and that have protected Israel from isolation in the international community.

But now the Prime Minister of Israel says earlier this week, days before an election, that this is a principle that he no longer subscribes to and that his nation no longer subscribes to. That means the United States needs to rethink our approach, that steps -- that this principle has been the foundation of a number of policy decisions that have been made here, and now that that foundation has been eroded, it means that our policy decisions need to be reconsidered. And that's what we will do.

Q: That sounds like a clear statement that Israel should no longer expect U.S. protection in the U.N.

MR. EARNEST: No, I don't want to leave you with --

Q: In the U.N., which is what you just specifically mentioned.

MR. EARNEST: That is one example in which this policy decision has served as the basis for a substantial number of policy decisions. I'm not suggesting that any policy decisions have been made at this point. I don't want to leave you with that impression. In fact, what I have tried to say is that it, understandably, has prompted us to reevaluate the strategy that we will put in place to make those decisions. And that will be something that we will do moving forward.

Q: But that's an example of the United Nations as a place where ramifications from this shift could manifest.

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, decisions that -- steps that the United States has taken at the United Nations have been predicated on this idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome. Now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution. That means that we need to reevaluate our position in this matter, and that is what we will do moving forward.

Q: Do you think Israel will be more isolated now after Prime Minister Netanyahu's rhetoric and reelection?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think that is something that is hard to predict from here. Certainly, as I mentioned yesterday, it merits pointing out that the United States continues to be committed to the kind of military, intelligence and security cooperation that has characterized the relationship between the United States and Israel for generations at this point. The reason for that is those relationships are essential to the security of the Israeli people.

And Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has observed on at least one occasion that the security cooperation between the Obama administration and the Israelis has been unprecedented in its depth. And the President is committed to continuing that cooperation. But when it comes to these other matters and evaluating our own approach to trying to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, that is something that we're going to have reevaluate in light of the Prime Minister's comments that seem to walk away from some commitments that had been long held in Israel.

Jim.

Q: Josh, was the President personally disappointed in Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I would certainly acknowledge that the President is aware of the comments and noticed them. I don't think I would characterize his reaction. But I think that there are obvious policy implications for Prime Minister Netanyahu's comments. And it has, in the mind of the President and other senior members of his team, created a need for the United States to reevaluate our approach, again, because the statements from Prime Minister Netanyahu didn't just walk away from a policy position that this President believes is in the best interests of all involved, he actually is backing away from commitments to a policy position that has been supported by the President's Republican predecessor and supported, as recently as three months ago, by every single member -- Democratic and Republican -- of the United States House of Representatives.

Q: And the one comment that the Prime Minister made that we haven't talked about yet is he said in a Facebook video, or a posting on Facebook, that Arab voters were heading to the polls in droves. I know during the gaggle yesterday, Josh, you sort of volunteered a reaction to some of those remarks. And I'm just curious why you decided to do that. It seems to me, and I think it would seem to a lot of people reading into that that for you to volunteer that means that that comment was not taken very well here at the White House.

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think that that comment and that tactic was something that was noticed not just here in the White House, but by I think people around the world. And that cynical Election Day tactic was a pretty transparent effort to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens and their right to participate in their democracy. And Israel, rightly, prides itself on a vibrant democracy. But one of the core values of a vibrant democracy is ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to participate. And those comments and those tactics certainly do not reflect a commitment to those values.

And the thing that I pointed out yesterday is also important that over the last several weeks we've had a number of occasions in which we've discussed the relationship between the United States and Israel. And you've often heard me point out that one of the things that binds our countries together so closely is our shared values, and a commitment to a set of values that are deeply integrated into our country, our government, and our citizens. And these kinds of cynical, divisive Election Day tactics stand in direct conflict to those values. And that does have -- again, that does erode at the values that are critical to the bond between our two countries.

And that is why I felt like I needed to -- even though I was not asked about it -- to make note of it.

Q: I know you said you don't want to characterize the President's reaction. That sounds like it wasn't very good -- sounds like it wasn't a very good reaction. (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: Well, if you want to -- I won't characterize his reaction. If you want to try to discern his reaction based on the way that I have talked about some of the policy implications for the Prime Minister comments, then you're welcome to do that. But I won't characterize his specific reaction.

Q: And I asked you the other day if this relationship between the President and the Prime Minister can be salvaged in any way. Is that -- is the President hopeful for that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I will say that the -- and this is something that, again, in the context of the wide-ranging discussions that we've had in this room about U.S.-Israeli relations over the last couple of months, I have been clear, and this continues to be the view of the administration, that there are deep, important bonds between the United States and Israel. And these are ties and commitments that extend far beyond any one President, that extend far beyond any one Prime Minister, and extend far beyond, probably most importantly, any one political party.

And the foundation of that relationship includes the ties between our people, the values that we share in common that are very deeply held, and the kind of security cooperation that exists between our two countries. I have said on a number of occasions, and it continues to be true today that Israel is the closest ally of the United States in the Middle East, and it will continue to be.

Bob.

Q: Josh, this would have been a ludicrous question six months ago, maybe it still is -- but in light of the recent days and events, what we've been discussing here, is there going to be another Obama-Netanyahu meeting in the future?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't have any scheduling updates, and I'm not aware of one, but I wouldn't rule it out. I got asked a little bit yesterday about the President making a phone call to congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu. I can tell you that already today White House officials have been in touch with their Israeli counterparts to try to schedule this phone call. This phone call could take place as early as today. So there certainly is the possibility of a conversation over the telephone between the two leaders. But I don't have any information about a future meeting.

Q: Is that today?

MR. EARNEST: Correct.

Mara.

Q: Denis McDonough is going to speak to J Street on Monday.

MR. EARNEST: That's correct.

Q: Is he going to talk about this, or just the Iran nuclear thing? What's the purpose of his visit and what's he going to talk about?

MR. EARNEST: I haven't seen his remarks yet. I know that he will spend some time talking to this group that obviously has a keen interest in U.S.-Israeli relations about a range of issues that have an impact on U.S.-Israeli relations. So I'm confident he'll reiterate some of the things that I've said about the bond between our two countries. I'm confident that he'll reiterate the kind of important and close security cooperation that exists between our two countries, because that security cooperation is essential to the safety and security of the Israeli people. And I certainly wouldn't rule out that there might be some discussion about our ongoing efforts to resolve diplomatically the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program.

Q: But is there a message in him choosing J Street? I mean, he's not going to speak to AIPAC.

MR. EARNEST: I don't have any detailed preview of his remarks at this point to share with you, but if I can get something before tomorrow I'll let you know.

Major.

Q: Josh, in an entirely different context, the President once said elections have consequences. If I hear you correctly, you're saying to the Israeli Prime Minister, election rhetoric has consequences as well, and that you're holding him more toward what he said in the heat of the campaign than you are in the aftermath, where he's trying to walk something back. Does the White House believe Netanyahu cannot walk this back and this is essentially an irretrievable declaration on opposition to a two-state solution?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm keenly aware of this every time that I walk out here to spend time with all of you that words matter, and that is certainly true in this instance. And I know very well that the Israeli Prime Minister is aware of that. And he was talking about something that even he would acknowledge is a very important issue and an issue that has serious consequences for the country that he leads. And the President and the administration take him at his word. So that has -- because of what he has articulated and because of his pretty clear indication that he is prepared to withdraw from very serious commitments that Israel had previously made to a two-state solution, that does and has prompted us to reevaluate our approach to this matter.

Q: Is there something he could say, and more importantly, something he could do, maybe specifically related to the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, that would verify or convince this administration that he is recommitting to a two-state solution?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think the first step will be for the Prime Minister to, I think, clarify both in his own mind, probably, but also with the other members of the government that he will soon be working to form about what their policy is going to be.

And obviously the United States will be closely watching additional comments from the Prime Minister and members of his party, and certainly closely watching the actions that they take. But I don't have any sort of specific bar to set at this point, other than to say that there are consequences, or that words do matter, and that I think every world leader or everybody who is in a position to speak on behalf of their government understands that that's the case, particularly when we're talking about a matter as serious as this one.

Q: The State Department yesterday made clear that Secretary Kerry's call was brief and simply to congratulate the Prime Minister. Will the agenda for this phone call, if it's today or tomorrow, between the President and the Prime Minister be broader than that and will this be a topic the President will want to explore with the Prime Minister?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I mentioned in my remarks in the gaggle yesterday that we did intend to raise directly our concerns about some of the divisive Election Day tactics that we saw directly with the Israelis. I wouldn't rule out the President discussing that in his phone call with the Prime Minister.

Q: -- solution and settlements additionally?

MR. EARNEST: Well, after the call has been completed, we will provide a readout and we'll see if we can get you some of those details.

Q: But all you can say for sure is he'll raise the rhetoric issue?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think all I'd say is I wouldn't rule out that he would raise the rhetoric issue. I hesitate to predict what he does before he has done it.

Q: There have been reports and we've got some information that the Syrians may have been involved in the downing of this drone along its border. To what extent has the President been briefed on this? And to what extent is he either reviewing or being presented with retaliatory options?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Major, what I can confirm for you is that on Tuesday, U.S. military controllers lost contact with an unarmed, remotely piloted aircraft that was operating over northwest Syria. I do know that the President has been briefed on this matter. But for additional questions about the situation I'd refer you to the Department of Defense. I know that they are still looking into this matter to determine exactly what had happened.

Q: You don't have a verified fact pattern that allows you to say that the Syrians were responsible?

MR. EARNEST: I don't. But you should check with the Department of Defense for the latest on this.

Q: If that were the case, would that dramatically change either our ongoing operations there, or might it provoke a retaliation?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don't want to get ahead of where the facts are. You are referring to previous comments that I and others, I believe including the President, have made about the message that the United States sent on behalf of the United States military and our coalition partners that the Assad regime should not interfere with our ongoing efforts against ISIL inside of Syria. We certainly continue to believe that that is what the Assad regime should do, which is not interfere with our ongoing efforts there as we deal with ISIL and some other extremists that may pose a threat to the United States and our interests around the world. Our insistence that they not interfere still applies.

Q: One other question. Orrin Hatch and Paul Ryan wrote a letter yesterday asking the President to reconsider what you had said here at the podium that you are open to, and he's open to using executive authority to close tax loopholes, calling it politically unwise and constitutionally indefensible. Would you like to react to that?

MR. EARNEST: I haven't read the letter. I was informed of its existence, however. I will just say what I said at the time, which is the President has put forward a very specific plan, one that earns -- or deserves bipartisan support, about how we can do some common-sense things that would close tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and well-connected, and use some of that revenue to invest in the kind of infrastructure that we all benefit from. That would create jobs in the short term and lay a strong foundation for our economy over the long term.

That's a pretty common-sense approach that would involve some element of business tax reform, and this administration is very interested in working in bipartisan fashion in Congress to try to make something like that a reality.

At the same time, I'm not ever going to take off the table, and the President certainly, when he's talking to his team, doesn't take off the table any options that may be available, using his own executive authority, to try to move the country forward and to move our tax code in a direction of fairness.

That all said -- and I think I said this at the time, as well -- there's no sort of imminent decision or announcement that would fall broadly in this category. So to the extent that there is a lot of fretting and hand-wringing on Capitol Hill, I would urge them to not lose any sleep over this, but rather -- maybe it's worth burning a little midnight oil to try to get to work in bipartisan fashion to take some common-sense steps in the direction of business tax reform that would make our tax code more fair, but also stands to channel more benefits to the middle class.

Ali.

Q: Josh, you say that words matter, but in the context of what Prime Minister Netanyahu said, he said today that he would be supportive of a two-state solution. So I'm just wondering why the White House is being so selective with the rhetoric that Prime Minister Netanyahu has used to base these considerations to policy going forward.

MR. EARNEST: Well, Ali, I think the reason for that is simply that for years, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his predecessor have been committed to a two-state solution and to this approach. And because of his comments days before the election, it does raise questions about his commitment to that solution. And that solution is the foundation of a substantial number of U.S. policy decisions as it relates to the conflict between the Israeli and the Palestinian people. So the fact that his commitment to this issue has been, understandably, called into question, it raises questions about our approach, at least in the minds of policymakers inside the administration. And that is why we are going to evaluate our approach to this matter moving forward.

Q: On a separate topic, there are reports that a draft agreement in Switzerland has been circulated that contains a stipulation that Iran would retain 6,000 centrifuges. I know that some over there have commented on this, but I'm just looking to see if the White House has anything on it.

MR. EARNEST: I can tell you that that report is not accurate, that there is no such draft document that's being circulated. I can tell you that there are, as you know, ongoing conversations in Switzerland between Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, Under Secretary Wendy Sherman at the State Department, and their Iranian counterparts. There are a number of our P5+1 partners participating in those conversations as well, as they should.

I can tell you that those bilateral meetings between the U.S. and our Iranian counterparts have been difficult but constructive. On the technical side, the discussions have been professional and fruitful in terms of identifying the technical issues, clarifying them, sharpening them, and looking at the options on the table for a potential agreement. But I don't have a particularly detailed readout of those ongoing discussions other than to assure that those reports are not true.

Q: So notwithstanding the fact that there may not be a draft proposal with that particular detail in it, there is a draft proposal being circulated, right?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the reports about this matter are not accurate. And so I know this is something that the Deputy Secretary of State has spoken to today, as well, so we've been trying to be as clear as we can be with you about this. There are ongoing discussions, and we've been pretty clear about trying to live up to our commitment to ensure that those conversations take place in a way that protects the confidentiality of those discussions. And that merely is because these negotiations are at a place where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed to.

So to start floating out that there are certain aspects of the agreement that may be on a draft resolution or that may be agreed to is counterproductive to the negotiations, and in this instance not accurate.

Q: I just want to be clear on what part of my question was not accurate. Is it the details of the draft, or the fact that a draft exists, period?

MR. EARNEST: I can tell you pretty definitely that there is no draft document that's being circulated.

Q: Being circulated. But is there a draft document?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I think I've done as much as I can to try to give you a sense of what's happening in the discussions, while at the same time trying to protect the ability of those negotiators to do their work.

Q: But presumably, we are leading to the end of the period where a technical agreement is going to be formed. Should we anticipate some sort of document coming out of those -- out of that deadline?

MR. EARNEST: Well, this is a good question because this does refer to something that the Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, referred in the letter that he sent to Chairman Corker over the weekend. And in that letter, Mr. McDonough made clear that if a political agreement can be reached by the end of March -- which is the deadline -- that the administration would work to share the details of that political agreement with members of Congress.

The President does believe that Congress has an important role to play in this matter. They have all along. And as we try to keep them in the loop on the ongoing negotiations, they can be rest assured that if an agreement is reached -- and again, the odds of this have not changed -- but if an agreement is reached, that we would be in a position to communicate what the terms of that agreement were -- what the terms of that agreement are, if one is reached, with members of Congress.

Q: And would that look like something like the JPOA which was a one-page or so document that was laid out?

MR. EARNEST: At this point, I don't know what form it will take. But we certainly will go to great lengths to communicate what those details are to members of Congress.

Q: Can I ask about one more issue on the domestic side? The human trafficking bill that failed again in the Senate today -- I'm just wondering if it does pass and the anti-abortion measures or abortion funding measures are still in the bill, would the President veto it if it came to his desk?

MR. EARNEST: Look, right now there is not any clarity and there's no indication that this bill is going to pass. The fact of the matter is it's been brought up for a vote two or three times now just this week, and the outcome has been the same -- which that it's fallen at least a couple of votes short of having the necessary support to pass the United States Senate.

So, at this point, it's not going to come to that. But right now the challenge for Republicans is how are they going to do something that on its face seems so simple, which is to pass a common-sense bill that is going to crack down on child sex traffickers. And the fact that Republicans are having a hard time passing this piece of legislation I think is a testament to the kinds of struggles that we've seen in the Republican majority in their short tenure in the Senate.

Q: One last question. Senator Corker has proposed a way forward in this debate, which would be to redefine the bill as an appropriations bill and not an authorization. Is that something the White House would support?

MR. EARNEST: That is the first time that I've heard that compromise proposal floated. So if we have a specific position on that compromise, I'll make sure that you get it.

Carol.

Q: Josh, you comment a lot on the President's reaction to various things. And so why not give us a sense of his reaction to comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu, particularly when he very clearly prompted a pretty dramatic shift in U.S. policy?

MR. EARNEST: Well, because I think, at this point, at least, if there is an opportunity for any of you to ask the President directly what his reaction is, then --

Q: (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST: Well, it's possible that somebody may take advantage of that opportunity to do so. But what I have been focused on is just making sure that I try to help you understand what the thinking is behind the policies that we have in place and why we believe that that thinking now needs to be reevaluated in light of the Prime Minister's comments. I'm not suggesting it's somehow an unfair question to ask. I'm just saying that what I'm prepared to discuss here are the policy consequences of the Prime Minister's comments.

Q: On Afghanistan, there's a number of reports that the President is rethinking the drawdown time frame. And obviously the President of Afghanistan is coming for a visit next week. Where is the President on that decision? And do you expect that he will -- has he made a decision? And if not, when do you expect that he will make a decision?

MR. EARNEST: The President has not made any decisions to change at this point the strategy for drawing down our military presence in Afghanistan. That said, the President threw out the process of drawing down our military presence in Afghanistan. The President has demonstrated a willingness to listen carefully to the advice of his commanders on the ground, as well as members of his national security team about the pace of that drawdown. And it is -- in the mind of the President, it makes sense that that strategy constantly be checked against the security situation inside Afghanistan.

It certainly is one that is dependent upon the political leadership inside of Afghanistan. So as there are updates to the security situation on the ground, and as there are updates to the leadership in Afghanistan -- we've recently seen a peaceful, democratic transition in Afghanistan, the first one in that country's history -- it does raise some questions. And these are questions that have been posed by the new Afghan leadership about the flexibility that's built into the strategy.

So the point I'm trying to make is that the President has not, at this point, made a decision. I would anticipate that this discussion that he has certainly had with members of his military leadership, members of national security team, is a discussion that he'll also have with his Afghan counterpart when President Ghani is in the United States next week.

Chris.

Q: Follow up in a different way on the question that Carol asked. At his weekly briefing today ,John Boehner was asked about a lukewarm response to -- by the administration to the reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu, to which apparently Boehner laughed and said, "Lukewarm is the understatement of the day." So how would you characterize the administration's reaction to the reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu?

MR. EARNEST: Well, again, as I believe I said yesterday, we certainly congratulate the Israeli people on the completion of another election. And again, the fact that there are free and fair elections in Israel to determine the political leadership of their country is one of the many important things that the United States has in common with Israel. It's part of what forms the bond between our two countries, this sort of commitment to democratic principles and a democratic tradition.

And the President does intend to, later today, or as early as today at least, telephone the Prime Minister to talk to him about the election and to offer his congratulations on the apparent victory of his party in the elections.

Q: You've also suggested that on that call he could also call him essentially on the rhetoric, that that could be part of the conversation. How do you see this relationship moving forward since it is widely regarded to be split not just on policy but on personality?

MR. EARNEST: People have made that observation for a number of years now, frankly, long before some of the differences that we've discussed here. And in spite of the observation that some have made about those differences, the strong military, intelligence and security cooperation between our two countries hasn't just persisted, it's been strengthened. And there are a variety of ways in which the President has demonstrated his commitment to that security cooperation. The best example that you often hear me cite is how, last summer, when Israel was under siege, when Israeli citizens were under siege by rockets fired by extremists in Gaza, at the request of the President of the United States, Congress fast-tracked funding for the Iron Dome program, a program that was established under President Obama's leadership, to replenish the supply of equipment that could shoot down those extremist rockets.

So this is an indication of the President's willingness to act decisively to support that relationship, particularly in a way that enhances Israel's security. The President remains as committed to that as ever.

Q: Well, what we're talking about, Josh is -- what we're talking about is the viability of a two-state solution. And it was before the United Nations General Assembly 18 months ago that the President said one of the two things -- one of the two breakthroughs he wanted most was Israeli-Palestinian peace. You can't make the argument that where we are right now as opposed to where we are when maybe people started talking about a frayed relationship a couple of years ago is better.

MR. EARNEST: That's right. And the reason is that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the context of the election, made some pretty clear comments indicating a withdrawal from commitments that Israel had made to that two-state solution process. And again, that goes to one of the central elements of our policy in the Middle East. And again, this is a policy that was put in place -- or at least a policy that has been in place under both Democratic and Republican Presidents, and it is a policy that as recently as December of last year, three months ago, that was unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans.

So it does prompt the administration and policymakers here to reevaluate our thinking about our approach to these issues, because the commitment to that two-state solution has been in a lot of ways sort of a guiding principle as we have made decisions about actions at the U.N. and other places. And now that our ally in those negotiations has indicated that they are prepared to withdraw from those commitments, or at least a weakness in those commitments, that I think it's only common sense that the United States would begin to reevaluate our approach.

Q: On a radically different topic which may not even be in your briefing book -- last July -- as Eric has a heart attack -- I think it was last July in Kansas City, the President brought up a letter he got from a little girl asking him why there were no women on currency, and suggesting, apparently, a long list of names, according to the President on that day, of women who perhaps should be on coins or on bills. There is now apparently some steam behind a movement called "Women on 20s." I'm wondering if you know if the President is aware of it, if he would support having a woman on currency ,and what would that involve, do you know?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think this is the first time I'm hearing of that specific movement.

Q: (Inaudible.)

MR. EARNEST: So there you go. (Laughter.) But I'm sure that as the President I think expressed in response to the young lady who asked him about this, the President was intrigued by the idea. I would suspect that he'd be intrigued by this idea as well. I think it's rather complicated to make decisions about who goes on the currency, it may even involve legislation. And given the climate for action in Congress right now, it may make a change like that seem rather unlikely. But certainly it's a provocative notion and one that at least I'm intrigued by.

Kevin.

Q: I want to ask you about U.N. Security Council resolution, perhaps, proposing a return to the '67 borders as it relates to a possible two-state solution. Would the President support something like that?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I would direct you to my colleagues in the U.S. Ambassador's office at the United Nations who can sort of give you a sense of what sort of resolutions are currently being considered by the Security Council and what our position on them might be.

AS I've mentioned before, for years the United States has predicated our decision-making at the United Nations at least in part on the commitment of the United States and both the Israelis and Palestinians to pursuing a two-state solution. And in light of the recent comments from the Prime Minster that indicates a lack of commitment to that principle, it means that the United States is in a position to reevaluate our thinking about this and a wide range of other issues that do have some consequences for actions that we take at the U.N. and other places.

But I don't want to leave you with the impression that any sort of decisions have been made in that regard. But certainly some new thinking needs to go into how we're going to approach these issues.

Q: Is it fair to say the White House feels like Bibi Netanyahu turned his back on a longstanding position that the two of you have had as it relates to the two-state solution?

MR. EARNEST: Well, it is clear that he indicated a lack of commitment to this policy. But I want to be clear that this is not just a policy that has been supported by President Obama. It's a policy that was supported by President Bush; it's a policy that I know that President Clinton supported at the end of his tenure in the White House; and it's a policy that was supported just three months ago by every single member of the House of Representatives, Democrat and Republican.

So this is not a situation where the Prime Minster is creating some daylight between himself and President Obama. It's creating some daylight between Democratic and Republican Presidents in the United States, and every single member of the House of Representatives.

Q: You said earlier that words matter. Is it fair to characterize what the Prime Minster said about Arab-Israelis as patently racist? And does the White House repudiate the suggestion that they were going to the polls in droves, to use that sort of tactic and language?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think that it is certainly a pretty cynical tactic and there's no doubt that it's divisive and it is a pretty transparent attempt to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens and their right to participate in the election. And I've made pretty clear our views on that topic, and I wouldn't rule out others in the administration making their views on this topic pretty clear as well.

Q: Last thing. Can you at least acknowledge that perhaps in Israel there are lot of people who feel like now the Americans are turning their backs on the Israeli people as it relates to U.N. dealings? Do you sense that at all?

MR. EARNEST: Well, what I sense is that there has never been a stronger commitment to the kind of security cooperation between our two countries that is essential to the security of the Israeli people. That cooperation will continue.

But what we have seen is a weakening commitment from the Prime Minister of Israel to the pursuit of a two-state solution. And I think it's only a matter of common sense that the United States, which for a long time has used the pursuit of a two-state solution as the foundation of our decision-making with regard to policy in this region of the world, that that's something that needs to be evaluated now. And that's what we will do moving forward.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that any specific policy decisions have been made,but it does mean that some new thinking because of the Prime Minister's comments -- that some new thinking does need to go into those policy positions.

Pam.

Q: So just to be clear, some of that new thinking, would that mean that the U.S. is rethinking at the U.N. whether it would either endorse or not stand in the way of a resolution that would declare a separate Palestinian state?

MR. EARNEST: Well, on previous occasions, when the United States in the context of the United Nations Security Council has stood up and raised objections along the lines of resolutions like this, we've done so by saying -- and I've even had the occasion to say this myself -- that we believe that the dispute is best resolved between the Israeli and Palestinian people by the two sides sitting down and brokering a two-state solution.

After the comments of the Israeli Prime Minister, it's pretty clear that Israel is no longer committed to that outcome, to that pursuit. So it's difficult for us to base that decision on a policy that our closest ally in these talks doesn't support. So it doesn't mean that our position has changed, but I think it is pretty clear that that position needs to be evaluated in the context of Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent comments.

Q: On another issue, members of Congress have apparently been told that the Secret Service routinely destroys video surveillance recordings after 72 hours. Does that seem like a prudent thing to do for the tapes around the White House? And is there any concern that because there are no tapes of that March 4th incident that somebody is trying to sort of, like, cover it up?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I will confess that I am not aware of the details of the Secret Service's policy when it comes to security tape. So I would direct those questions to the Secret Service.

The thing, though, that I have noticed is the very definitive public statement from the Director of the Secret Service, Joe Clancy, to holding those who are in his agency and under his authority accountable for their actions. And I and, more importantly, the President have confidence in the ability of Mr. Clancy to run that agency, to implement needed reforms, and where necessary, ensure that members of that agency are held to the very high standard that they have set for themselves, including by holding them accountable.

Q: And when he testified before Congress, he said that the pressure on these agents is so great that some turn to alcohol. Is that a concern that they're under so much pressure that they have to turn to alcohol?

MR. EARNEST: There is no doubt that the men and women of the Secret Service are dedicated professionals who, as I just mentioned, hold themselves to a very high standard of professionalism and execution. And that is the reason that they for so long have earned the very high respect of members of Congress and those of us who serve in the White House and watch them do their jobs. And there's no doubt that the men and women of the Secret Service have very difficult jobs and there can be no tolerance for error and they are held to a very exacting standard. And that is certainly why we are grateful for the good work that the vast majority of them does on a daily basis.

And I'm certain that that job comes with a lot of pressure as well. I can't speak to the culture or some of the questions that have been raised about alcohol use by members of the agency, but we certainly are appreciative of their work and understand that a lot of the pressure that they feel comes from the very high standards that they have set for themselves.

Justin.

Q: I wanted to look back on the Corker bill. Senator Reid said earlier this week that he was not telling Democrats in Congress to vote against the bill -- it's obviously something that you guys have advocated Democrats, everybody in Congress vote against. So I'm wondering both if you're disappointed in Senator Reid's position, and also what you guys are doing in lieu of Senator Reid's lobbying efforts to kind of convince and hold what is narrowly approaching I guess a veto-proof majority.

MR. EARNEST: I didn't see the comments of Senator Reid and I am not aware of his position on this issue. But we've been very clear and the President has been very clear that passing this kind of legislation would interfere in the negotiations. And it would be a piece of legislation both that we would encourage members of Congress in both parties, frankly, to not support. But if it is a piece of legislation that passes both the House and the Senate, it is a bill that will be vetoed by the President.

Q: On the deal itself, there's been some speculation that oil prices are falling because if a deal is reached, you guys would pretty quickly pull back sanctions on Iran's oil sales. So I'm wondering if you can describe certain elements of the plan before -- you can describe it all sort of under what conditions the U.S. would be willing to suspend its sanctions on Iran's oil program.

MR. EARNEST: Well, I can't go into a lot of detail on this because you are going to some of the very details that are, even as we speak, being negotiated; that what the United States and our international partners seek from these negotiations are very specific commitments from the Iranians to come into compliance with international expectations about their nuclear program.

We're also seeking commitments from the Iranians that they will submit to a very intrusive set of inspections, and in an exchange for those specific commitments, the international community will begin to waive certain elements of the sanctions regime that's been in place against the Iranians and had a devastating impact on their economy.

So the pace and scope and extent of that sanctions relief is something that is being negotiated in a very detailed fashion in Switzerland, so I wouldn't want to speculate on that.

The one thing that we have said -- and I will just remind you of this -- is that the President believes that there should be a phase-in associated with this; that it would not be a smart negotiating tactic to on the first day of the agreement remove all of the sanctions that have been in place against Iran. What the President would like to see -- and I think this is true of our international partners as well -- is a sustained commitment by Iran to living up to the terms of the agreement. And in exchange for that sustained commitment would be a phased reduction or waiving of the sanctions. But, again, this is something that we don't envision taking place over weeks or months; this is a longer-term proposition.

Q: One last one. Leader Pelosi seemed to indicate that there was some sort of breakthrough on the doc fix today. I'm wondering if you guys were involved in those negotiations at all, and if you've seen the legislation that might come out, if it's something that you guys think you'll be able to support.

MR. EARNEST: Well, I know that there have been members of the administration who have been in touch with members on Capitol Hill about this specific issue. These negotiations, however, have primarily taken place between Democrats and Republicans and members of the House and members of the Senate. That's been the nature of those discussions. The White House has been -- the administration, I should say, has been aware of them and in the loop on them. But ultimately these are negotiations that are taking place on Capitol Hill, and so I'd refer you to those individual offices for questions about any agreement that may be nearing completion.

Q: Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST: Francesca.

Q: Back on the Secret Service. It would seem from your previous response that you or the White House weren't aware that they were deleting surveillance tapes after 72 hours. Did I interpret that correctly?

MR. EARNEST: What is true is I am not aware of what their policy is for maintaining security tape records at the White House.

Q: Okay. So if it were true what Jason Chaffetz said, that they're deleting them or getting rid of them after 72 hours, would the White House think that that's appropriate?

MR. EARNEST: Well, right now I understand that Directly Clancy is scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill before one House committee. I don't know if it's Mr. Chaffetz's committee or not -- but on this very matter. So there will be an opportunity for members of Congress to ask him directly about what policies are in place as it relates to maintaining videotape. And they can also -- if they have questions about it -- can ask him about the wisdom of the current policy that's in place.

Q: Sure. But just one quickly to follow up on that, though. But does the White House I guess -- because I guess I'm not particularly concerned what the members of Congress on that committee think -- does the White House think that it would be -- that it's appropriate for them to be getting rid of tapes that quickly? Because in this specific instance Director Clancy said that he didn't even know about the incident for five days, so the tapes it would seem would have been destroyed before he even knew about it. So given that information, does the White House think that they should be keeping them for a certain amount of time even?

MR. EARNEST: Well, what I'm saying is that we should give Director Clancy the opportunity to answer questions about what the policy is and to explain the rationale of that policy before we begin second-guessing the wisdom of that policy.

Jordan, I'll give you the last one.

Q: Thanks, Josh. I wanted to ask you about President Obama's comments yesterday when he said it would be transformative if everyone voted, at the event in Cleveland. And I know you referenced the --

MR. EARNEST: Kind of provocative, huh? Yes.

Q: Yes, it was provocative. And he referenced Australia's mandatory voting law. So I wanted to know if the President believes that the United States should adopt such a mandatory voting law.

MR. EARNEST: The President was not putting forward a specific policy proposal. I think somebody had asked him a pretty open-ended question about campaign finance reform and about the state of elections in this country. And I think the President gave a pretty open-ended answer about a variety of ways in which this challenge could be confronted. He talked about a constitutional amendment that would relate to campaign finance, and then that from there he talked about some of the reform proposals that have been implemented in other countries. The President was not making a specific policy prescription for the United States.

Thanks, everybody. Enjoy some basketball today, all right?

END 2:20 P.M. EDT

Barack Obama, Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest and the President's Senior Advisor Brian Deese Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/310373

Filed Under

Categories

Location

Washington, DC

Simple Search of Our Archives