Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Holds Press Conference

Aired August 09, 2013 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: But rarely does the reporter have a chance to follow up if the president doesn't necessarily completely answer the reporter's questions, one of the nature -- one of the features of these kinds of White House news conferences.

As we await the president -- he should be walking into that room, the East Room of the White House momentarily -- let's go back to Dana Bash for a second.

Dana, all this is taking place as the U.S. is on a worldwide terror alert right now, deep concerns. And I assume the president will talk about this. He's heading on vacation. He's heading out of town tomorrow. But members of Congress have been on vacation already. They're going to be on vacation for a few more weeks. So, nothing really substantively is going to get done at least until September sometime.

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, although I can tell you I have spoken to some of the Republican senators. That's right, I said Republican senators, who have been in contact with the White House about this whole question of the budget and trying to come up with a deal to make sure the government doesn't shout down, and that deadline, we should remind our viewers, is September 30.

And they said that they actually did expect to have conversations from their home states and from wherever they are during this summer recess with the White House. My understanding is that that is likely to go on. One thing to keep in mind is that when they -- when Congress comes back, which is not going to be for three weeks, three-and-a-half weeks or so, they're really going to have a limited time to figure this out.

There is kind of a to-ing and fro-ing. One thing that I kind of want to point out which actually has surprised me on the issue of immigration reform, everybody has been -- had looked to the recess as the potential time when immigration reform would actually get killed, because most House Republicans are from very conservative districts where they would be hearing from their conservative base, don't touch this.

Actually, so far, we have heard the opposite. We have seen comments from the House majority whip, Kevin McCarthy, from other congressmen like Aaron Schock, more positive, at least maybe more leaning forward to the idea of at least offering legal status to illegal immigrants. That's something we didn't hear when they were walking around the halls here in the Capitol with their fellow Republicans, so definitely a different dynamic than we expected going into this recess.

BLITZER: We just saw an aide put up on the podium over there presumably the president's opening remarks. He will have a chance to look at that. He's going to be walking out in a moment.

I think Phil Black is joining us from Moscow.

Phil, there's presumably going to be some serious questions on U.S./Russian relations right now. They are clearly strained, especially now that the president has canceled that visit to Moscow in the aftermath of Edward Snowden getting temporary asylum at least for a year in Russia.

How would you describe this relationship between President Obama and President Putin?

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's clearly very much a low point, Wolf.

But what we have seen over the last few days or so is very much the culmination of what has been steadily declining, degrading over the last 18 months or so. Relations between these two countries have been in very much a downward trajectory ever since it became pretty clear that Vladimir Putin would be returning to the presidency of this country.

That was about 18 months ago. It was at that time that you first saw some big street opposition, unprecedented protests in this country against the continued leadership of Vladimir Putin here. And that really set in train a series of events, including a crackdown on that political opposition, a lot of anti-U.S. rhetoric.

And so what it means the relationship between these two countries has been increasingly colored, not just by big international events, but also by events in this country as well. And then on top of that, you had things like Syria and the lack of progress on missile defense and so forth. It is really at really quite a poor point. The real question now is, how will Russia react to this in the long term? Its reaction so far has been pretty restrained, really quite stoic.

But President Putin has a reputation for taking these things quite personally. I think the expectation here is the relationship has hit a chill and it's likely very much to continue for the foreseeable future, Wolf.

BLITZER: We will see what happens when the president goes to St. Petersburg early in September for the G20 summit. He will not go to Moscow because of Edward Snowden's getting asylum in Russia. Instead, the president will go to Sweden before the G20 summit.

The president getting read to come into the East Room of the White House. We're watching, awaiting the president of the United States.

As we do, Kevin Madden and Donna Brazile are still with us.

All this taking place, Kevin, as a serious split among Republicans is increasingly evident out there before, shall we say, the Rand Paul, Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party vs. Mitt Romney, your side of the Republican Party if you will, and some others like John McCain.

KEVIN MADDEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, yes. But I think that's what happens when you have a loss in a presidential election like that. A party comes together and they look to see what is it they can do to rebuild.

But the one thing that has united many Republicans is the opposition to this president's agenda, an agenda that increasingly the president is finding is also at odds with the hopes and aspirations of the American public.

DONNA BRAZILE, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's no longer a governing party. This is a party that one Senate candidate described as a party of gridlock, obstruction, and partisanship.

BLITZER: You're talking about the Republicans?

BRAZILE: The Republican Party.

Look, there could be -- we know about the farm bill, which has significant deficit reduction. And what we saw last week before they left to go back home, they couldn't even muster up enough Republican votes to get the transportation and housing bill out.

This is serious. The Republican Party has two personalities. And until we figure out which side the Republicans stand on, confrontation or compromise, it's very difficult to work with them.

BLITZER: But it's a good debate for the Republicans, Kevin, to have right now to try and sort out which direction the party wants to move.

MADDEN: Well, absolutely.

But I think what's also increasingly evident is that Republican Party has an opportunity to align themselves with a lot of the anxieties that the American public has about the Obama agenda on things like spending and Obamacare, the growth of government. And so I think Republicans now have an opportunity to show that they have the policies that are more consistent with their -- what they want to see, the direction they want to see the country go in.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And the president -- the president Donna, he's going to be walking through that door within a few seconds, we're told. The president will go up. And he will begin with his opening statement. And we will -- always curious to see what the president has to say as he -- the doors are now opened.

Here comes the president of the United States. So, you know what? We will listen.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking about what I believe should be our number-one priority as a country: building a better bargain for the middle class and for Americans who want to work their way into the middle class. At the same time, I'm focused on my number-one responsibility as commander-in-chief, and that's keeping the American people safe. And in recent days, we've been reminded once again about the threats to our nation.

As I said at the National Defense University back in May, in meeting those threats, we have to strike the right balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedoms. And as part of this rebalancing, I called for a review of our surveillance programs. Unfortunately, rather than an orderly and lawful process to debate these issues and come up with appropriate reforms, repeated leaks of classified information have initiated the debate in a very passionate, but not always fully informed way.

Now, keep in mind that as a senator I expressed a healthy skepticism about these programs. And as president, I've taken steps to make sure that they have strong oversight by all three branches of government and clear safeguards to prevent abuse and protect the rights of the American people.

But, given the history of abuse by governments, it's right to ask questions about surveillance, particularly as technology is reshaping every aspect of our lives. I'm also mindful of how these issues are viewed overseas, because American leadership around the world depends upon the example of American democracy and American openness, because what makes us different from other countries is not simply our ability to secure our nation, it's the way we do it, with open debate and democratic process.

In other words, it's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs. The American people need to have confidence in them, as well. And that's why over the last few weeks I've consulted members of Congress who've come at this issue from many different perspectives. I've asked the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to review where our counterterrorism efforts and our values come into tension. And I directed my national security team to be more transparent and to pursue reforms of our laws and practices.

And so today I'd like to discuss four specific steps -- not all inclusive, but some specific steps that we're going to be taking very shortly to move the debate forward.

First, I will work with Congress to pursue appropriate reforms to Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the program that collects telephone records. As I've said, this program is an important tool in our effort to disrupt terrorist plots, and it does not allow the government to listen to any phone calls without a warrant.

But given the scale of this program, I understand the concerns of those who would worry that it could be subject to abuse. So after having a dialogue with members of Congress and civil libertarians, I believe that there are steps we can take to give the American people additional confidence that there are additional safeguards against abuse. For instance, we can take steps to put in place greater oversight, greater transparency, and constraints on the use of this authority. So I look forward to working with Congress to meet those objectives.

Second, I'll work with Congress to improve the public's confidence in the oversight conducted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISC. The FISC was created by Congress to provide judicial review of certain intelligence activities so that a federal judge must find that our actions are consistent with the Constitution.

However, to build greater confidence, I think we should consider some additional changes to the FISC. One of the concerns that people raise is that a judge reviewing a request from the government to conduct programmatic surveillance only hears one side of the story -- may tilt it too far in favor of security, may not pay enough attention to liberty. And while I've got confidence in the court, and I think they've done a fine job, I think we can provide greater assurances that the court is looking at these issues from both perspectives: Security and privacy.

So specifically we can take steps to make sure civil liberties, concerns, have an independent voice, in appropriate cases, by ensuring the government's position is challenged by an adversary.

Number three, we can and must be more transparent.

So I've directed the intelligence community to make public as much information about these programs as possible. We've already declassified unprecedented information about the NSA. But we can go further. So at my direction the Department of Justice will make public the legal rationale for the government's collection activities under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. The NSA's taking steps to put in place a full-time civil liberties and privacy officer, and released information that details its mission, authorities and oversight.

And finally, the intelligence community is creating a website that will serve as a hub for further transparency. This will give Americans and the world the ability to learn more about what our intelligence community does and what it doesn't do, how it carries out its mission and why it does so.

Fourth, we're forming a high-level group of outside experts to review our entire intelligence and communications technologies. We need new thinking for a new era. We now have to unravel terrorist plots by finding a needle in a haystack of global telecommunications. And meanwhile, technology has given governments, including our own, unprecedented capability to monitor communications.

So I'm tasking this independent group to step back and review our capabilities. Particularly our surveillance technologies. And they'll consider how we can maintain the trust of the people, how we can make sure that there absolutely is no abuse in terms of how these surveillance technologies are used, ask how surveillance impacts our foreign policy, particularly in an age when more and more information is becoming public. And they we'll provide an interim report in 60 days and a final report by the end of this year so that we can move forward with a better understanding of how these programs impact our security, our privacy and our foreign policy.

So all these steps are designed to ensure that the American people can trust that our efforts are in line with our interests and our values. And to others around the world, I want to make clear, once again, that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people. Our intelligence is focused above all on finding the information that's necessary to protect our people -- and in many cases, protect our allies.

It's true, we have significant capabilities. What's also true is we show a restraint that many governments around the world don't even think to do -- refuse to show. That includes, by the way, some of America's most vocal critics. We shouldn't forget the difference between the ability of our government to collect information online under strict guidelines and for narrow purposes and the willingness of some other governments to throw their own citizens in prison for what they say online.

And let me close with one additional thought. The men and women of our intelligence community work every single day to keep us safe, because they love this country and believe in our values. They're patriots. And I believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of privacy and civil liberties are also patriots who love our country and want it to live up to our highest ideals.

So this is how we're going to resolve our differences in the United States, through vigorous public debate guided by our constitution, with reverence for our history as a nation of laws, and with respect for the facts.

So with that, I'm going to take some questions.

And let's see who we've got here.

We're going to start with Julie Pace of A.P.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

I wanted to ask about some of the foreign policy fallout from the disclosure of the NSA programs that you discussed.

You're spokesman said yesterday there was no question the U.S. relationship with Russia has gotten worse since Vladimir Putin took office. How much of that decline do you attribute directly to Mr. Putin given that you seem to have had a good working relationship with his predecessor?

Also, will there be any additional punitive measures taken against Russia for granting asylum to Edward Snowden or is canceling the September summit really all you can do, given the host of issues the U.S. needs Russian cooperation for? thank you.

OBAMA: Good. I think there's always been some tension in the U.S.- Russian relationship after the fall of the Soviet Union. There's been cooperation in some areas. There's been competition in others. It is true that in my first four years in working with President Medvedev, we made a lot of progress. We got START done. Or START-2 done. We were able to cooperate together on Iran sanctions. They provided us help in terms of supplying our troops in Afghanistan. We were able to get Russia into the WTO, which is not just good for Russia, it's good for our companies and businesses because they're more likely then to follow international norms and rules.

So there's been a lot of good work that has been done and that is going to continue to be done.

What's also true is, is that when President Putin, who was prime minister when Medvedev was president, came back into power, I think we saw more rhetoric on the Russian side that was anti-American, that played into some of the old stereotypes about the Cold War contest between the United States and Russia.

And I've encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward as opposed to backwards on those issues with mixed success.

And, you know, I think the latest episode is just one more in a number of emerging differences that we've seen over the last several months around Syria, around human rights issues where, you know, it is probably appropriate for us to take a pause, reassess where it is that Russia's going, what our core interests are, and calibrate the relationship so that we're doing things that are good for the United States and hopefully good for Russia as well, but recognizing that there are just going to be some differences and we're not going to be able to completely disguise them, and that's OK.

Keep in mind that although I'm not attending the summit, I'll still be going to St. Petersburg because Russia's hosting the G-20. That's important business in terms of our economy and our jobs and all the issues that are of concern to Americans.

I know that one question that's been raised is is how do we approach the Olympics. I want to just make very clear right now, I do not think it's appropriate to boycott the Olympics. We've got a bunch of Americans out there who are training hard. Who are doing everything they can to -- to succeed.

Nobody's more offended than me by some of the anti-gay and lesbian legislation that you've been seeing in Russia. But, as I said just this week, I've spoken out against that not just with respect to Russia, but a number of other countries where we continue to do work with them, but we have a strong disagreement on this issue.

And one of the things I'm really looking forward to is maybe some guy and lesbian athletes bringing home the gold or silver or bronze, which would I think go a long way in rejecting the kind of attitudes that we're seeing there.

And if Russia doesn't have guy or lesbian athletes, then, it'll probably make their team weaker.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) OBAMA: Keep in mind that, you know, our decision to not participate in the summit was not simply around Mr. Snowden. It had to do with the fact that, frankly, on a whole range of issues where we think we can make some progress, Russia has not moved. And so we don't consider that strictly punitive.

We're going to assess where the relationship can advance U.S. interests and increase peace and stability and prosperity around the world. Where it can, we're going to keep on working with them. Where we have differences, we're going to say so clearly.

And my hope is, is that over time Mr. Putin and Russia recognize that rather than a zero sum competition, in fact, if the two countries are working together, we can probably advance the betterment of both peoples.

Chuck Todd?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

QUESTION: Given that you just announced a whole bunch of reforms based on essentially the leaks that Edward Snowden made on all of these surveillance programs, does that change -- is your mind-set changed about him? Is he now more whistleblower than he is a "hacker," as you called him at one point, or somebody that should be filed charges? And should he be provided more protection? Is he a patriot? You just used those words.

And then just to follow up on the personal. I want to follow up on a personal...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: OK. I want to make sure everybody is asking one question; would be helpful.

QUESTION: No, I understand. I just -- it was a part of a question that you didn't answer.

OBAMA: All right.

QUESTION: Can you get -- can you get stuff done with Russia, big stuff done, without having a good personal relationship with Putin?

OBAMA: I don't have a bad personal relation with Putin. When we have conversations, they're candid. They're blunt. Oftentimes, they're constructive. I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive.

So, the issue here really has to do with where -- where do they want to take Russia. It's substantive, on a policy front. And, no, right now, this is just a matter of where Mr. Putin and the Russian people want to go. I think if they are looking forward into the 21st century and how they can advance their economy and make sure that some of our joint concerns around counterterrorism are managed effectively, then I think we can work together.

If issues are framed as "if U.S. is for it, then Russia should be against it," or we're going to be finding ways where we can poke each other at every opportunity, then probably we don't get as much stuff done.

See, now, I've forgotten your first question, which presumably was the more -- more important one.

No, I don't think Mr. Snowden was a patriot. As I said in my opening remarks, I called for a thorough review of our surveillance operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference, and I think the American people's preference, would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws; a thoughtful fact-based debate that would then lead us to a better place.

Because I never made claims that all the surveillance technologies that have developed since the time some of these laws had been put in place, somehow didn't require potentially some additional reforms. That's exactly what I called for.

So, the fact is is that Mr. Snowden's been charged with three felonies. If in fact he believes that what he did was right, then, like every American citizen, he can come here, appear before the court with a lawyer, and make his case. If the concern was that somehow this was the only way to get this information out to the public, I signed an executive order well before Mr. Snowden leaked this information that provided whistleblower protection to the intelligence community for the first time.

So, there were other avenues available for somebody whose conscience was stirred and thought that they needed to question government actions.

But, having said that, once the leaks have happened, what we've seen is information come out in dribs and in drabs, sometimes coming out sideways. Once the information is out, the administration comes in, tries to correct the record, but by that time, it's too late or we've moved on. And a general impression has I think taken hold not only among the American public, but also around the world, that somehow we're out there willy-nilly just sucking in information on everybody and doing what we please with it.

That's not the case. Our laws specifically prohibit us from surveilling U.S. persons without a warrant. And there are a whole range of safeguards that have been put in place to make sure that that basic principle is abided by.

But -- but what is clear is that whether because of the instinctive bias of the intelligence community to keep everything very close, and probably what's a fair criticism, is my assumption that if we have checks and balances from the courts and Congress, that that traditional system of checks and balances would be enough to give people assurance that these programs were run properly. You know, that assumption, I think, proved to be undermined by what happened after the leaks. I think people have questions about this program. And so -- so, as a consequence, I think it is important for us to go ahead and answer these questions. What I'm going to be pushing the IC to do is rather than have a trunk come out here and a leg come out there and a tail come out there, let's just put the whole elephant out there so people know exactly what they're looking at, let's examine what is working, what's not. Are there additional protections that can be put in place? And let's move forward.

And there's no doubt that Mr. Snowden's leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board to go through, and I'd sat down with Congress, and we had worked this thing through. It would have been less exciting; it would not have generated as much press. I actually think we would have gotten to the same place and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country.

Major Garrett?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask you about this debate that's playing itself out in editorial pages, in the blogosphere, even in the Senate Democratic Caucus, about the choice you eventually will make, the next Federal Reserve chairman. There is a perception among Democrats that Larry Summers has the inside track, and perhaps you've made some assurances to him about that. Janet Yellen is the vice chair of the Federal Reserve. There are many women in the Senate who are Democrats who believe that breaking the glass ceiling, that would be historic and important.

Are you annoyed by this sort of roiling debate? Do you find it in any way unseemly? And do you believe this will be the most important, if not the most important economic decisions you'll make in the remainder of your presidency?

OBAMA: It is definitely one of the most important economic decisions that I'll make in the remainder of my presidency. The Federal Reserve chairman is not just one of the most important economic policymakers in America. It's -- he or she is one of the most important policymakers in the world. And that person presumably will stay on after I'm president. So this, along with Supreme Court appointments, is probably as important a decision as I make as president.

I have a range of outstanding candidates. You've mentioned two of them, Mr. Summers and Mr. Yellen -- Ms. Yellen. And they're both terrific people. I think the -- the perception that Mr. Summers might have an inside track simply had to do with a bunch of attacks that I was hearing on Mr. Summers preemptively, which is sort of a standard Washington exercise that I don't like, because when somebody's worked hard for me and worked hard on behalf of the American people, and I know the quality of those people, and I see him getting slapped around in the press for no reason before they've even been nominated for anything, then I want to make sure that somebody's standing up for them. I felt the same way when people were attacking Susan Rice before she was nominated for anything. So, you know, I tend to defend folks who I think have done a good job and don't deserve attacks. But I consider them both outstanding candidates. My main criteria -- I've stated this before, but I want to repeat it -- my main criteria for the Fed Reserve chairman is somebody who understands they've got a dual mandate. A critical part of the job is making sure that we keep inflation in check, that our monetary policy is sound, that the dollar is sound. Those are all critical components of the job, and we've seen what happens when the Fed's not paying attention. You know, we saw prior to Paul Volcker coming into place inflation shooting up in ways that really damaged the real economy.