i want to thank our private sector partners who pledged to continue their support of our 100,000 strong in the americas initiative to encourage more exchanges between students. the more than $7 million i announced to expand training programs for young people across latin america antcaribbean, including the impoverished and mar i didn't knowallized communities and young leaders of the america's to launch entrepreneurs and civil society leaders across the entire region access the training and resources and connections to start the ventures, including the small businesses that create so many jobs in the region. we took steps to invest in clean energy and combat climate change. our central american partners will help in energy and clean energy projects and reduce carbon emissions and our new energy task force will identify

additional steps we can take together. a number of our countries committed to double our collective share of non-hydrorenewable energy by 2013. through our $3 billion pledge to the green project fund, the united states will help developing nations deal with climate change ensuring that all country have open access to climate data as we meet this challenge together. continued progress on cuba, new commitments to help lift up young people in the region, new partnerships to protect this beautiful land and our planet. as i said this morning the united states is more deeply engaged across the region than we have been in decades able the relationship between the united states and the americas is as good as it has ever been. we're focused on the future and what we can build and achieve together. our engames with the countries and people of the americas is

going to continue throughout the remainder of move presidency. with that, let me take questions, starting with jim. >> thank you mr. president. sir, you head back to the united states with the task of convincing the american people and congress on two major foreign policies initiatives the framework for a nuclear deal with iran and likely soon the decision to remove cuba from the list of state sponsors of terror. recent remarks by supreme layered in iran cast doubt whether that can occur. sheen tore schuler wants congress to have the right to vote on removal of sanctions. presidential politics are likely to play a part in this cuba decision issue evidentably so i'm wondering if it would take a lot of political capital to get

one done, let alone two. have you bitten off more than you can chew? >> no. [ laughter ] >> you may be surprised by that response jim. let me take them in turn. first with respect to cuba, there is majority support of our policy in the united states and there's overwhelming support for our policies in cuba. i think people recognize that if you keep on doing something for 50 years and it doesn't work, you should try something new so the american people don't need to be persuaded that this is in fact the right thing to do. i recognize that there's still concerns and questions that congress may have. we've got concerns and questions about specific activities that are taking place in cuba and human rights and reform, and there were two members of the cuban civil society that were in attendance at the meeting that i

had yesterday who expressed much of what they have to go through on a day to day basis. they were supportive of our policy of he be engagement with cuba and so, i don't think that it's so much we have to persuade anybody, the issue of the state sponsor of terrorism list, as you know, the state department that provided recommendation, it's gone through our inner agency process. i've been on the road and i want to make sure i have a chance to read it, study it, before we announce publicly what the policies outcome is going to be, but in terms of the overall direction of cuba policy, i think there is a strong majority in the united states and in cuba that says our ability to engage, to open commerce and travel and people to people exchanges is ultimately going to be good for the cuban people.

with respect to iran, i have always been clear, we are not done yet. what we were able to obtain was a political framework between the p5 plus one nations and iran that provided unprecedented verification of what is taking place in iran over the next two decades that significantly cuts back on its centrifuges that cuts pathways for it to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that calls for in return the rolling back of sanctions in a phased way that allows us to snap back if iran violates the agreement. that's the political framework. that was not just something that the united states and iran agreed to, but iran agreed to a political framework with the other p5 plus one nations.

now, what's always been clear is that iran has its own politics around this issue. they have their own hardliners, they have their own counter veiling jim pomses in terms of not going forward with something just as we have in our country. it's not surprising to me that the supreme leader or a whole bunch of other people are going to try to characterize the deal that protects their political position but i know what was discussed in arriving at the political agreement. what i've always said though is that there's the possibility of book sliding, the possibility that it doesn't get mer molallized in a way that satisfies us that we're able to verify that in fact iran is not getting a nuclear weapon and that we are preserving the

equals city to snap back sanctions in the event that they are breaking any deal and that's why the work is going to be so important between now and the end of june to memorialize this. either there's going to be a document that iran agrees with the world community about and a series of actions that have to be taken or there's not. part of the challenge in this whole process has been opponents of basically any deal with iran have constantly tried to characterize what the deal is without seeing it. now if we are able to obtain a final deal that comports with the political agreement and i say if, because that's not yet final, then i'm absolutely positive that that is the best way to prevent iran from getting

to nuclear weapon, and that's not my opinion. that's the opinion of people like ernie moniz my secretary of energy a physicist from m.i.t. who actually nose something about this stuff that's the opinion of nuclear experts who examined the deal. very rarely do you see a consensus, consensus too strong a word, a large majority of people who are experts in the field saying this is actually a realistic, plausible meaningful approach to cut off the pathways for iran getting a nuclear weapon and that it is more likely to succeed not only than maintaining current sanctions or additional sanctions but more likely to succeed than if we took a military approach to solving the problem. again, that's not uniquely my opinion. that is -- talk to people who

are not affiliated with the administration some of whom were skeptical about our capacity to get a deal done and have looked at it and said if we are able to actually get what was discussed in the political framework, it's absolutely the right thing to do. now, there's politics and political pressure inside of the united states, we all know that. the prime minister of israel is deeply opposed to it. i think he's made that very clear. i have repeatedly asked what is the alternative that you present that you think makes it less likely for iran to get a nuclear weapon and i have yet to obtain a good answer on that, and the narrow question that's going to be presented next week when congress comes back is what's congress's appropriate role in looking at a final deal, and you know, i've talked to bob worker ben cardin, the ranking

member on the democratic side and i want to work with them so congress can look at this deem when it's done. what i'm concerned about is making sure we don't prejudge is or those who are opposed to any deal whatsoever try to use a procedural argument essentially to screw up the possibility of a deal. last comment i'm going to make on this. you know, when i hear some, like senator mccain recently suggest that our secretary of state john kerry who served in the united states senate, a vietnam veteran, has provided exemplary service to this nation is somehow less trustworthy in the interpretation of what's in an agreement than the supreme leader of iran, that's an indication of the degree to which partisanship has crossed all beyondries.

we're seeing this again and again, with the letter by the 47 senators who communicate directly to the supreme leader of iran, the person they say can't be trusted at all warning him not to trust the united states government. we have mitch mcconnell trying to tell the world don't have confidence in the u.s. government's abilities to fulfill any climate change pledge that we might make. now we have a senator suggesting no our asks is misinterpreting the deal and giving the supreme leader of iran the benefit of the doubt interpretation. that's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy regardless of who is president or secretary of state. we can have arguments and they're legitimate arguments to be had. i understand why people might go

mistrustful of iran. i understand why people might oppose the deal, although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se, but they just don't trust any deal with iran and may prefer to take a military approach to it. but when you start getting to the point where you are actively communicating that the united states government and secretary of state is somehow spinning presentations and a negotiation with a foreign power particularly one that you say is your enemy that's a problem. it needs to stop. jim, there you are. >> you are listening to president obama taking questions from the media at the summit of marries in panama city.

in addition to speaking about his meeting with cuban penalty castro, he is taking questions on other foreign policy issues. we will continue to listen to president obama field questions from the media. >> i would be remiss if i didn't ask you about another secretary of state, hillary clinton who's expected to announce her campaign for the presidency tomorrow. do you foresee being involved in her campaign, and do you hope that she runs on your record? thank you very much. >> it was a candid and fruitful conversation between me and raul castro. in the conversations i've had so far with him, two on the phone and most recently face-to-face that we were able to speak honestly about our differences and our concerns in ways that i think offer the possibility of

moving the relationship between our two countries in a different and better direction. we have very different views of how society should be organized and i was very direct with him that we are not going to stop talking about issues like democracy and human rights and freedom of assembly and freedom of the press not because we think we are perfect and that every country has to mimic us exactly, but because there are a set of universal principles for which we stand and one of the goals of my administration is to have some consistency in speaking out on behalf of those who oftentimes don't have a voice. i think during his speech in the plenary session he was clear about areas of policy in the u.s. he doesn't like and i think he'll continue to speak out on that those. what's been clear from this

entire summit is the uninimity the leaders think this is the right thing to do because what they see as a possibility of a more constructive dialogue that ultimately benefits the cuban people and removes what to often has been a distraction or an excuse from the hemisphere acting on important challenges that we face. so, i am cautiously optimistic that over the coming months and coming years that. process that we've initiated first announced in december, reaffirmed here at the summit of the americas will lead to a different future for the cuban people and a different

relationship between the united states and cuba. with respect to hillary clinton i'll make my comments very brief. she was a formidable candidate in 2008. she was a great supporter of mine in the general election. she was an outstanding secretary of state. she is my friend. i think she would be an excellent president and i'm not on the ballot, so, you know, i'm not going to step on her lines when she makes a decision to announce i'm confident that she will be very clear about her vision for the country moving forward, if she announces and you know, in terms of her relationship with my administration, she was focused

and working on really important foreign policy initiatives and you know, the one thing i can say is that she's going to be able to handle herself very well in any conversations or debates around foreign policy, and her track record with respect to the domestic policies i think one that cares about working families. if she decides to run and she makes an announcement, she is going to have some strong messages to deliver. >> thank you mr. president. first of all on cuba, two questions, the cuban government has frequently said it cannot allow more political or personal freedoms or press freedoms because the united states has used both covert and otherwise actions to try to overthrow the castes and does your new era in

fact end regime change efforts by that the united states and should the cubans then respond by allowing free elections and tolerance of dissent now because of the changed policy? and secondly on the issue of hillary clinton, vice president biden of course said that the democratic race is wide open. what is your opinion on that? is the race still wide open? >> not only have i run my last election but i am not in the business of prognosticating future election. that is your job and there is no shortage of people who are happy to opine on that. i will not be one of them. on cuba, we are not in the business of regime change. we are in the business of making sure the cuban people have freedom and the ability to participate and shape their own

destiny and lives and supporting civil society and there's going to be an evolution regardless of what we do inside of cuba, partly it's going to be generational. you know, if you've listened to president castro's comments earlier this morning a lot of the points he made referenced actions that took place before i was born, and part of my message here is the cold war is over. there's still a whole lot of challenges that we face, and a lot of issues around the world and we're still going to have serious issues with cuba on not just the cuban government's approach to its own people, but also regional issues and

concerns. they're going to be areas where we would cooperate, as well. cuban doctors deployed during the ebola crisis made a difference. cuban activity in haiti in the wake of the earthquake made a difference so there may be areas of collaboration, as well, but what i've said to president castro is the same thing to leaders throughout the region. we have a point of view and we won't be shy about expressing it but i'm confident that the way to lift up the values that we care about is through persuasion and that's going to be the primary approach that we take on a whole host of these issues primarily because they don't implicate our national security in a direct way and i think that we have to be very clear, you know, cuba is not a threat to the united states.

that doesn't mean we don't have differences with it, but, you know on the list of threats that i'm concerned about i think it's fair to say that between isil and iran getting a nuclear weapon, and activities in yemen and libya and boko haram, russian aggression in ukraine and the impact on our allies there, i can go down a pretty long list, climate change, you know, so i think our approach has to be one of trying to work with the region and other countries and be very clear about what we believe and what we stand for and what we think works and what doesn't. so often when we insert ourselves in ways that go beyond

persuasion it's counter productive. it back fires. that's been part of our history and which is why countries keep on trying to use us as an excuse for their own governance failures. let's take away the excuse and be clear that we're prepared to partner and engage with everybody to try to lift opportunity and prosperity and security for people in the region. major garrett. >> good afternoon mr. president. allow me full to quote the supreme leader directly. united states activities since the announcement which the framework has been deceptive, it is lying, it is devil issue. on two particular points he said ires military sights cannot be inspected under the excuse of nuclear supervision and all sanctions should be removed when the deal is signed.

is it that your opinion mr. president, that this is pure posturing and should be disregarded by your government and you and your secretary of state and if so, could you help me understand to whom the supreme leader would be posturing? because under my limited understanding of iranian politics that's not a job description usually applied to the supreme leader. >> that is a well crafted question major. let me just suggest that even a guy with the title supreme leader has to be concerned about his own constituencies and the issue is not whether i have to take his word for whether that's his understanding because we've got work until the end of june to see if we've got a document that works. and if that is his understanding and his position in ways that can't be squared with our concern about being able to

embark on vigorous inspections to assure that iran isn't cheating under any program and that we don't have the capacity to snap back sanctions when we see a potential violation then we're probably not going to get a deal, so, you know, part of the concern that i have in this debate here, major is i don't understand why it is that everybody's working so hard to anticipate failure. the opponents of the deal don't seem to be focused on how do we get to a good deal witness much as they're focused on that how can we show that it's not possible to get a good deal. my simple point is let's wait and see what the deal is. and we'll be able to look, and if in fact we're not satisfied that it cuts off the pathways for iran obtaining a nuclear

weapon then we won't sign it. if on the other hand it does, then i will strongly argue and i believe the american people will support and the international community will support that it's far preferable to the other alternatives. now, major it's not going to be perfect in the sense that, you know if you asked prime minister netanyahu or some members of the republican caucus or even some democrats if you ask me would i prefer that iran never did have, will never have even a single in the bolt anything related to nuclear power don't have nuclear scientists, nobody capacity to develop it, that would be great but that's not possible not achievable, not achievable through sanctions or

military means. they're going to have some form of peaceful nuclear power and that will then pose a challenge for the international community which is why the political agreement calls for unprecedented framework of inspections that allows us to assure that it's not being used or diversed in ways that could be weaponized, but we're going to have to see whether or not we can get a deal or not. my only question is why do we keep on trying to short circuit the actual negotiations? when they are -- nobody's -- we're not disarming. we're not getting rid of our nuclear weapons. we're not getting rid of our navy we're not giving anything up. we are simply waiting to see what it is at a the negotiators come up with and if in fact we are able to come up with something that works then we'll

know and, you know, with respect to the supreme leader, yes, it's a pretty important title. that's, you know, seems a little more clear cut than president. on the other hand, there may be ways of structuring a final deal that satisfactory their pride their optics, their politics but meet our core practical objectives and that's what we've got to give the negotiators room to determine. last question, karen deyoung. karen? there she is. >> thank you. just to belabor the point on that question, mr. president the -- your people have said that the framework agreement that's what's in it stands, that they are not renegotiable points

although the implementation of them can be renegotiated in some way and i wonder how within that framework that's already been agreed how we can come up with something that satisfies the kinds of concerns that he were raised no inspection of military sites immediate lifting of all sanctions the day that the thing is signed, and also on cuba, i wanted to ask ask you discuss the state sponsored terrorism list with president castro, the cubans have raised an issue about the 45 day waiting period. i wonder if that came up. i know your government is eager assuming the recommendation is approved to remove it and is approved by you that we move ahead quickly women boozes. cubans have raised concerns about that 45 days and how something could go wrong in those 45 days and it doesn't really give them access to the

kinds of things they think they can have when and if they're removed from the list. does that come up and is it your belief that once they are removed from the list that there is no impediment to go ahead with opening embads, once you approve their removal from the list? >> ok. so i'll make one last run at iran here. there is a political framework the outlines of which were established between iran and the p.5 plus one. in some cases there was great specificity around for example the reductions that need to take place in the number of centrifuges or the conversion of four down into a facility that does not permit the potential production of weapons-grade uranium, and in other cases

there was language of in tent, but the details matter and how those details are interpreted are going to be subject of negotiation. it's not accurate to suggest that and i don't think my team has ever suggest that had somehow everything's all done and it's just a matter of writing it up. this is a situation in which we have a framework that is if implemented powerful and will achieve our goal in making sure iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon but the details make a big difference, how they're structured and i guarantee you there will be some tough negotiations around that, and that's what i said the first day when we announced that we had an agreement and that's what we'll continues to, so there's really no contradiction here. keep in mind that when we started