Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama Holds News Conference at G7 Summit. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired June 08, 2015 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:29:58] QUESTION: Do you think that there's anything more that you can do for the people who would have benefited from that

program and now are in limbo? And how do you view the possibility of your term ending without accomplishing your goals on immigration?

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On - on Ukraine and Russia and Minsk, there is strong consensus that we

need to keep pushing Russia to abide by the terms of the Minsk agreement. We need to continue to support and encourage Ukraine to meet its

obligations under Minsk, that until that's completed, sanctions remain in place.

There was discussion about additional steps that we might need to take if Russia, working through separatists, doubled down on aggression inside of Ukraine.

Those discussions are taking place at a technical level, not yet at a political level, because I think the first goal here going into a European Council meeting that's coming up is just rolling over the existing sanctions. But I think at a technical level, we want to be prepared.

Our hope is, is that we don't have to take additional steps, because the Minsk agreement is -- is met. And I want to give enormous credit to Chancellor Merkel, along with President (inaudible), who have shown extraordinary stick-to-itiveness and patience in trying to get that -- get that done.

Ultimately, this is going to be an issue for Mr. Putin. He's got to make a decision. Does he continue to wreck his country's economy and continue Russia's isolation in pursuit of a wrong-headed desire to recreate the glories of the Soviet empire, or does he recognize that Russia's greatness does not depend on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other countries.

And, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the costs that the Russian people are bearing are severe. That's being felt. It may not always be understood why they're suffering because of state media inside of Russia and propaganda coming out of, you know, state media in Russia and -- and to Russian speakers.

But the truth of the matter is, is that the Russian people would greatly benefit. And ironically, one of the rationales that Mr. Putin provided for his incursions into Ukraine was to protect Russian speakers there. Well, Russian speakers inside of Ukraine are precisely the ones who are bearing the brunt of the fighting.

Their economy's collapsed. Their lives are disordered. Many of them are displaced. Their homes may have been destroyed. They're suffering, and the best way for them to stop suffering is if the Minsk agreement is -- is fully implemented.

(inaudible) -- oh, immigration.

With -- with respect to immigration, obviously, I'm frustrated by a district court ruling that now is winding its way through the appeals process.

We are being as aggressive as we can legally to -- to first and foremost appeal that ruling and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court.

But obviously, the centerpiece, one of the key provisions for me was being able to get folks who are undocumented to go through a background check, a criminal background check, pay back taxes and then have a legal status, and that requires an entire administrative apparatus and us getting them to apply and come clean.

I made a decision, which I think is the right one, that we should not accept applications until the legal status of this is clarified. I am absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority, the Department of Homeland Security's legal authority.

[10:34:59] If you look at the precedent, if you look at the traditional discretion that the executive ranch possesses when it comes to applying immigration laws, I am convinced that what we're doing is lawful and our lawyers are convinced that what we're doing is lawful and our lawyers are convinced that what we're doing is lawful.

But the United States is a government of laws and separations of power. And when a -- even if it's an individual district court judge who is making this determination, we've got to go through the process to challenge it. And until we get clarity there, I don't want to bring people in, have them apply and jump through a lot of hoops only to have it deferred and delayed further.

Of course, there's one really great way to solve this problem, and that would be Congress going ahead and acting, which would obviate the need for executive actions. The majority of the American people I think still want to see that happen. I suspect it will be a major topic of the next presidential campaign.

And so we will continue to push as hard as we can on all fronts to fix the broken immigration system administratively. We'll be prepared if and when we get the kind of ruling that I think we should have gotten in the first place about our authorities to go ahead and implement. But ultimately, this has never fully replaced the need for Congress to act. And my hope is that after a number of the other issues that we're working on currently get cleared, that some quiet conversations start up -- back up again particularly in the Republican Party about the short-sighted approach that they're taking when it comes to immigration.

OK. Christi Parsons?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

More than 6 million Americans may soon lose health insurance if the Supreme Court this month backs the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. A growing number of states are looking for assistance as they face the prospect that their residents may lose federal insurance subsidies and their insurance markets may collapse.

Yet, your administration has given very little to no guidance on how states can prepare. What can you tell state leaders and advocates who worry that health care markets in half the country may be thrown into chaos?

OBAMA: What I can tell state leaders is that under well- established precedent, there is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case. It has been well documented that those who passed this legislation never intended for folks who were going through the federal exchange not to have their citizens get subsidies.

That's not just the opinion of me. That's not just the opinion of Democrats. It's the opinion of the Republicans who worked on the legislation. The record makes it clear. And under well-established statutory interpretation approaches that have been repeatedly employed not just by liberal Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court, you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for.

And so this should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn't even have been taken up. And, you know, since we're going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it's important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who've looked at this would expect them to do.

OBAMA: But look, I've said before and I will repeat again, if in fact you have a contorted reading of the statute, that says federal- run exchanges don't provide subsidies for folks who are participating in those exchanges, then that throws off how that exchange operates.

[10:39:55] It means that millions of people who are obtaining insurance currently with subsidies suddenly aren't getting those subsidies. Many of them can't afford it. They pull out. And the assumptions that the insurance companies made when they priced their insurance suddenly gets thrown out the window. And it would be disruptive not just, by the way, for folks in the exchanges but for those insurance markets in those states generally.

So it's a bad idea. It's not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words, in, as we were reminded repeatedly, a couple thousand page piece of legislation.

What's more, the thing's working. I mean, part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of Obamacare because none of them come to pass.

You have 16 million people who have gotten health insurance. The overwhelming majority of them are satisfied with the health insurance. It hasn't had an adverse effect on people who already had health insurance. The only effect it's had on people who already had health insurance is they now have an assurance that they won't be prevented from getting health insurance if they've got a pre-existing condition and they get additional protections with the health insurance that they do have.

The costs have come in substantially lower than even our estimates about how much it would cost. Health care inflation overall has continued to be at some of the lowest levels in 50 years.

None of the predictions about how this wouldn't work have come to pass. And so, I'm -- A, I'm optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation. And, B, I should mention that if it didn't, Congress could fix this whole thing with a one sentence provision. So...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: But I'm not gonna -- I'm not gonna go into a long speculation anticipating disaster.

QUESTION: (inaudible) Why not have a plan B?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I want to -- I want to just make sure that everybody understands that you have a model that -- where all the pieces connect. And there -- and there are a whole bunch of scenarios, not just with relation to health care, but all kinds of stuff that I do. where if somebody does something that doesn't make any sense, then, it's hard to -- it's hard to fix. And this would be hard to fix.

Fortunately, there's no reason to have to do it. It doesn't need fixing. All right?

Thank you very much.

Thank you the people of Germany and Bavaria. You guys were wonderful hosts.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: All right. So there he is, the President of the United States wrapping up a news conference with an extensive opening statement but then answering several questions, several reporters asking two or three questions as part of one question. Most of the questions revolving on Iraq and ISIS, Russia and Putin, health care as you just heard.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. I want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world. Let's get some analysis on what we just heard. Jake Tapper,

you're here with me. Jake, let's talk about Iraq and ISIS. The President saying he's still waiting for a plan from the Pentagon on training and arming the Iraqi military to go ahead and fight ISIS.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right. He said that they don't have a complete strategy as of right now, but they're looking for one from the Pentagon when it comes to getting the Iraqi forces trained more quickly, equipped. They're waiting for information from the Iraqis, presumably that's one of the things that he and Prime Minister Abadi will discuss. So that was one of the works in progress that he discussed.

He also, Wolf, talked about Ukraine, and he held out the threat of further sanctions. He said very specifically that there was a lot of discussion about making sure that Russia and Ukraine uphold their commitments made in the Minsk Agreements in March. And then he said that there was also a discussion about additional steps should Russia double down on the aggression not just directly by Russians but by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.

So those are two things where clearly there's a lot of discussion about trying to get prepared for the future.

Where he would not engage about preparing for the future was about whether or not the Supreme Court decides that these state exchanges are contrary to the Obamacare law. He said it was a bad idea, not something that should be done based on a twisted interpretation of four words in a several-thousand-page law.

[10:45:06] But he would not answer Christi Parsons, the reporter from "The Chicago Tribune", her questions about what would be the Plan B. What should the states, the governors, advocates do if, in fact, millions of individuals who have health insurance through Obamacare or on the state exchanges are suddenly no longer allowed to use state exchanges because the Supreme Court says they're contrary to the law.

BLITZER: And the Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision between now and the end of this month so in the coming days we'll hear from the Supreme Court. Obviously, a very, very important decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jim Acosta is traveling with the President. He's joining us right now. Well, actually, we don't have Jim Acosta. Jim Sciutto -- we do have Jim Sciutto.

Jim -- what did you hear from the President as far as Iraq is concerned because we clearly heard him giving at least some indirect lecturing to the Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi who was there with him in Germany today, some indirect lecturing. You got to get your act together. You got to work not only with Iraqi Shia but also the Sunnis and the Kurds.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: He does, but at the same time we also heard some acknowledgments, admissions from the President on where the current strategy isn't working. He said that about ISIS that if they're displaced in one place, they show up in another place, kind of this whack a mole phenomenon you have seen where you might have had a victory for instance in Tikrit but then a few weeks later you have ISIS take over Ramadi. Baiji has been handed back and forth between Iraqi and ISIS forces.

And the President acknowledging that the foreign fighter flow continuing despite a great effort by a number of nations involved. The President saying that even though in his words, "We're taking a lot of them out, they're being replenished and that doesn't solve the problem in the long term." Those are two fairly significant admissions there they haven't stopped the foreign fighter flow so all that body count talk that we had last week really irrelevant because even if you kill 10,000 or 13,000 and they're being replenished, what's the effect on the battlefield? We haven't seen it.

But also in terms of territory, if you win somewhere, the coalition, they come back somewhere else, and that's a real problem. And as you and Jake noted, to say the President to say really the onus is on Iraqi forces to fight them on the ground but the U.S. is still figuring out how it's going to help those Iraqi forces and as you note, Wolf, this old issue that's been there for a long time that that government in Baghdad isn't seen as representing the whole country, particularly the Sunnis.

That's an old problem. That's been around for years. If that hasn't been addressed, it raises real questions about how quickly you're going to be able to change that dynamic on the battlefield no matter how many more Iraqi forces you train or how many more weapons, anti-tank weapons, et cetera, that you send them there. It's a real problem. It's a real question about the effectiveness of the current White House strategy.

BLITZER: And as we said, the President did make it clear he's waiting for a plan from the Pentagon to continue arming and training these Iraqi military. He says once they're armed and trained, presumably they'll do a better job fighting ISIS.

We'll see about that. Jim Acosta is with us now. He's joining us from the scene. Jim, what stood out from your mind? You have been covering the President now for a long time. You're there with him on the ground.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, as we were saying earlier, this is a G7 summit without a lot of substance. Unfortunately, I think the President added some substance inadvertently not only with this awkward photo-op earlier in the day but this awkward phraseology of saying we don't have a complete strategy for training the Iraqi security forces.

Of course, he was talking about in a larger context this plan he's hoping to receive from the Pentagon shortly that will expand that training, expand that arming so they can take the fight to is, but in this day and age, Wolf, when a fraction of a statement can be pulled out of context, magnified, and tweeted, the President is going to have a problem on his hands and he's going to have a problem on his hands with what he just said at that news conference with respect to the battle against ISIS.

Now, at the same time, you heard the President say during this news conference, really praising Haider al Abadi, saying he is trying to overcome some of these problems that he inherited from his predecessor who was not uniting the country, who was really waging sort of a one-religion government in terms of the Shia Muslims in that country. And so that Haider al Abadi is trying to pick up the pieces from that and the President is trying to give him some time.

But Wolf, when I talked to senior administration officials inside the White House at just about every level, they say time and again, this president is not going to go against his original mandate and put U.S. combat troops on the ground. And when it comes to turning around this fight against is, it appears there really is no other alternative than to do that.

You can wait years and years for the Iraqi security forces to be able to do this fight, but unless there are U.S. combat troops on the ground in massive numbers, it's really hard to see how ISIS is going to be quickly defeated. And that is why you hear the President on down trying to prepare the American people, although they don't say it publicly very often, that this fight, this war is going to take a very, very long time -- Wolf.

[10:50:06] BLITZER: And I just want to be precise -- we have to take a quick break -- but what the President did say, he said when a finalized plan is presented to me by the Pentagon then I will share it with the American people. We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis. And then he went on to explain.

Let's take a quick break. We'll have much more right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We don't yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis as well about how recruitment takes place. how that training takes place, and so the details of that are not yet worked out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: President Obama speaking only moments ago about the situation in Iraq, the war against ISIS, uttering those words, "We don't yet have a complete strategy".

[10:54:59] Jake Tapper, as Jim Acosta pointed out, probably if taken out of context, those words will come back to haunt the President.

TAPPER: Well, it recalls when he said at a press conversation roughly a year or so ago that they didn't have a strategy yet to combat ISIS but specifically what President Obama was referring to in this comment was they don't have a complete strategy, the Pentagon, when it comes to improving and quickening the pace of training of Iraqi forces.

And then came a question about whether or not U.S. troops, further U.S. troops -- there are already about 3,000 in Iraq -- whether that would be on the table. And what President Obama said was basically that the countries in the G7 were open-minded to sending troops but Iraq, this is my language, not his, "needs to get its act together".

As soon as the Iraqi forces show they are capable of standing their ground and not leaving as we have seen time and time again, then there can be discussion of additional troops from other countries, but until that happens, that seems to be off the table.

BLITZER: Let's get some more analysis. Josh Rogin is joining us, he's a columnist for "Bloomberg View". Also joining us Rick Francona, CNN military analyst; and Van Jones, our political commentator.

Josh, I guess a lot of people will start asking why doesn't the Pentagon have a strategy for arming and training the Iraqi military? This war has been going on now for quite a while.

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's because the situation on the ground keeps changing so rapidly and our process here in Washington where we make these kinds of decisions just isn't nimble enough to respond to the quick nature of the way that is operates and the events in Iraq are unfolding.

I mean what we're getting at here even though the President didn't really need to say we don't have a strategy, it kind of feeds into this perception, this narrative, that's been driven a lot by his critics which is what we're doing doesn't have the chance of achieving the goal of defeating ISIS which is what the President has said is the objective.

So while the Pentagon can make tweaks here and there, increase the training, increase the arms, there's not a lot of expectation that that's going to achieve success in the mission anytime soon. And this reflects a huge disconnect between the President's time line, which is years for defeating ISIS, and what the Iraqis and a lot of people in congress want to see, which is a much quicker time line which would mean a much bigger U.S. commitment.

BLITZER: I assume Colonel Francona, to do serious training and arming of the Iraqi military, a lot more U.S. military personnel are going to have to be sent over there. Right now about 3,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq.

COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: if he wants to increase the speed of the training as he said he's going to have to put more American boots on the ground to do that. but I think Josh has a key point here is that there was a strategy. the Pentagon had a strategy. it was to train the Iraqis to be the ground forces and it would be used in conjunction with U.S. and coalition air power.

And what we're seeing is just not working. what the plan that the strategy they have now isn't working. they need to change the strategy and they need to up the amount of air power they're using and better control it. Right now we're in a reactive state. ISIS is actually calling the shots. they're making the moves. We're reacting. we need to take the fight to them.

BLITZER: what about that, Van Jones? what did you think?

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, a couple of things. As soon as he made that comment, I winced because in this media environment you know one statement like that is going to be taken out of context, and he will pay a cost for it.

I think sometimes this president has a tendency to wander into being sort of the professor in chief kind of thinking about things a little bit too much out loud and forgetting that there's an opportunity there just to be the commander in chief and to give those short, declarative, reassuring statements about the forward direction of where he's going, not talking so much about where we are. Do I think he's going to pay a price for that.

I do want to say though that there were -- this was not just about a military policy. There was also a lot of talk about domestic policy and also a quick reference on the trade policy. You have to give the President some credit. he did not convey when he was giving his remarks about trade policy that he is, in fact, in the middle of a full-scale revolt here in the United States from his own party trying to dump overboard the very deal he's trying to sell to the Europeans. He has not sold it to his own party in the United States.

So when it comes to the domestic front, talking about Obamacare, talking about immigration, talking about trade policy, very smooth, very reassuring. But I think he did do himself some harm today, missed an opportunity to show that same assurance on foreign and military policy.

BLITZER: All right. Van Jones, thanks very much. Lieutenant Francona, thanks to you. Josh Rogin. Jake you're going to be back later today at 4:00 p.m. eastern on the lead. I will be back in one hour here on CNN and CNN International later at 5:00 p.m. Eastern in "THE SITUATION ROOM".

Thanks very much for joining us. We'll have complete coverage of all of the day's events. That's coming up.

Right now "AT THIS HOUR" with Berman and Bolduan starts right now.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN HOST: An elaborate prison break, a desperate manhunt under way right now for two killers.

>