mr. earnest: i've been in a position where there have been conservative authors who have written books based on what they purport to be serious allegations against the president of the united states. i'm often in a position of responding to those incidents and trying to defend the president from accusations that are not rooted or accompanied by evidence. my point is right now that is what is happening to secretary clinton, and there is a spokesperson she has hired that can answer these questions. reporter: i'm not asking if she sold favors from the state department. i'm just asking about whether these should have been disclosed. i'm asking about disclosure. mr. earnest: right, and that is something secretary clinton's team can talk about. is how they handle this but together incident. reporter: i asked yesterday, you said you would go back and check on this question of the approval process and whether there were objections that had been raised

to approving this transaction again, allowing a russian company to go a long way towards cornering the market for uranium in the united states. mr. earnest: i do have more information on this. what you are referring to is the committee on foreign investment in the united states, chaired by the secretary of treasury, to a value waitress action's involving foreign governments that may impact u.s. national security. this is a process that is kept confidential, frankly, to protect the parties involved in the transaction. so there is nobody who should be unfairly tarnished because of the discussion about the evaluation of their proposed transactions. but there is something i can tell you, which is that the process that is conducted -- i swore to myself i was not going

to come out here and say the acronym, and i just broke my rule -- but this committee that has been established to evaluate these transactions is based on consensus. i think what that tells you is if other agencies had concerns about the transaction moving forward, they would be able to raise that in the context of this interagency committee and ensure that it was properly considered. i guess the point is this -- the state department representative to the committee does not operate independently and ram the approval process. reporter: given this was approved back before the russians invaded the ukraine before the whole series of disagreements with the russians, in hindsight, was it a mistake to approve this transaction? with this transaction be approved today, given what has happened? mr. earnest: the other thing i

came to learn about the process from the committee as there is established criteria by which they review every transaction. i am not privy to the criteria, so i'm not in position to render judgment about whether the outcome of this together committee's decision would be different based on the current circumstances. so it's hard for me to render judgment on that. ok julie? reporter: back to the accidental killings, i wanted to ask if the incidencets have caused the president to have less confidence than previously in the usefulness in targeting terrorists overseas, and when you think the review of what may have gone wrong or the lessons learned or potential reforms to how the program is run may be forthcoming. has he asked for those in the near term, and is he reconsidering his use of this technique at all?

mr. earnest: let me answer that question in two ways. one is that we know these kinds of counterterrorism operations have diminish the effectiveness of al qaeda. they have had a significant impact on their ability to function and carry out attacks against the united states. we know these kinds of operations have rendered al qaeda less capable of receiving recruits. we know these kinds of operations have diminish their command and control capability. and we know these kinds of operations have made al qaeda leaders intensely focused on their own personal security. and when these leaders are so focused on their own personal security, they are devoting less time and attention to plotting and planning against the united states. so this kind of pressure has been effective in enhancing the net -- the national security of the united states. that said, the president would

be the first to admit to you that weighing policy decisions like this is one of the most challenging things he confronts in the oval office. that weighing the important impact that a counterterrorism operation can have in terms of enhancing national security with the need to live up to the high standards that he has set and the american people expect for the u.s. government is incredibly challenging, and it's fraught with a variety of important moral questions, too. and that is one of the reasons that the president felt so strongly about moving quickly to declassify a significant amount

of information about this particular operation. that this is a situation where accountability and at least some transparency is important. as critically important as it is to protect our national security and for us to take actions even using unique capabilities of the united states to do that, has made the american people more say. but it continues to be a very high priority of this president to ensure all of our operations are consistent with the values and ideals that our country promotes around the globe. reporter: all the information that was declassified yesterday the operations that go on that we never know who else is killed, whether civilians or not. they may not have been americans, so we will never know. my question is when he laid out the near certainty standard in that siege does he still

believe it's possible to meet that standard, or is it about a judgment if you are not certain it is still worth it to undertake the position to get the natural bash the national security benefit you talked about? mr. earnest: again, this is what you are putting your finger on, the counterbalance to the national security priority that is in question here. on one hand, you have the proven effectiveness of some counterterrorism operations. on the other hand, you have a region of the world that is remote. you have a region of the world where, in some cases, the capacity of local forces is limited, where the reach of those forces is limited. in some cases, it is the will of the local forces that is limited. in those situations, it often is just not feasible to put u.s.

military personnel on the ground and, in fact, doing so has actually raised the risk of violence that could have an impact on civilians. many of our counterterrorism professionals talk about the severe risk that was posed by the bin laden mission. one of the chief risks was that individuals who lived in the neighborhood's all the helicopters, and would feel the need to try to defend themselves. certainly an understandable reaction when something like this is happening and you would put u.s. military personnel special operators, in a position of defending themselves and using violence against civilians with whom they have no quarrel. i think that is a good illustration of why putting u.s.

boots on the ground, while it may increase the certainty factor, does not necessarily reduce the risk to the civilian population. in fact, in most cases it significantly increases the risk. so the point is that narrowly tailored counterterrorism operations are the kinds of operations thatso the point reduce -- do the most to reduce the risk to civilians or reduce the risk of civilian casualties. but necessarily, these kinds of operations are contemplated in regions of the world where absolute certainty is just not possible. and this is a difficult policy question, and one the president i think, as you could tell from his comments yesterday, does not take lightly at all. reporter: is there in a of when

the review may be done? mr. earnest: i don't have information about the timeframe of the reviews we have talked about. at this point, i would not even be in position to promise we would have an extended public discussion of those reviews given the sensitive nature of what they are reviewing. reporter: you mentioned yesterday he did not specifically authorized the strike that took out the two hostages. is the president briefed each time one of these encounters is concluded, and is he briefed on if there were and how many civilian casualties there were? mr. earnest: let me see if i can get additional information about this will stop obviously, the president gets regularly bash gets regular counterterrorism briefings. but let me see if i can get more granular information about the frequency and the detail of those briefings. reporter: i'm told the president

join a conference call earlier today with secretary perez about the trade promotion authority. can you tell us anything about that and anything else he is doing personally while legislation is making its way through congress in advance of next week, to lay the groundwork for the trade agenda? mr. earnest: let me clarify one thing for stop secretary perez has been focused on the trade issue recently. the president, unannounced, jumped on the call to deliver a message that was similar to the message many of you heard the president deliver to osa activist last night. i think that demonstrates an interest president has in the kind of forceful argument he can make because of his conviction

that an agreement like the one he is trying to reach with 10 other countries in the asia-pacific region would have substantial benefit for the middle class families in the united states. this is no argument the president is eager to have an advance and he is eager to build bipartisan support for and he knows, as i have mention of the past, there is instinctive resistance to even consideration of a trade agreement. some of that is rooted in -- in the consequences of previous trade agreements that have been reached. the president made the point yesterday the kind of trade agreement that he is seeking to broker is one that would learn the lessons from those previous agreements to ensure we are maximizing the upside former can businesses and american workers. ok? reporter: the administration has

said their preferred method when dealing with terrorist like this is to detain them, debrief them then take them to a federal courthouse. did the white house want him dead or alive? mr. earnest: that is the preference. the preference of the administration applies to not just american citizens in al qaeda, but with all terrorists. our preference would be to capture, detain, debrief, and prosecute them. we have a strong track record of successfully doing that. and we believe that is consistent with our values as a country. it's also consistent with our national security interests. the fact is there are some regions of the world, including this region of the world, that are so remote and where local authorities have limited capacity that it's just not

feasible to capture or detain them. in fact, this is why these al qaeda terrorists are hiding out here. they know that it's remote, they know a local authorities have limited reach and capacity, and they know it's very difficult for the united states to come and get them. that's why they seek out compounds in this region of the world, to try to evade the united states and evade justice. and the fact is the united states does have some unique capabilities that allow us to carry out in this case counterterrorism operation against terrorists. and in this case, the operation was against an al qaeda compound that we know was frequented by al qaeda leaders, and it resulted in the deaths of an al

qaeda leader that we know posed a threat to the united states. in this case it happened to be an american citizen who had been indicted for treason for providing material support to al qaeda. reporter: you have said he was not specifically target, but you have also said when you came in today he was an al qaeda leader that was known to frequent this compound. given you do not have to go through some of the legal hoops that would have been given knowing this is an american shouldn't you have out of an abundance of caution realize there would be a high priority -- high probability he would be in this compound and taken legal steps? mr. earnest: let me where five -- let me clarify one thing about this. when our intelligence personnel has included -- has concluded this al qaeda compound was one that was frequented by at least one al qaeda leader.

i don't want to leave you with the impression we knew specifically that mr. good doadahn frequented this compound, but it was al qaeda leader that turned out to be him. and that goes to this specific operation being targeted -- targeting the compound, not against him personally. reporter: why wasn't he a high-value terrorist? he had been very vocal in opposition to the united states. he to work this passport on camera, called for specific attacks on u.s. soil. mr. earnest: i'm not able to speak to the classification or the assessment that led to the classification of him. all i can say is we have ample evidence that indicates that he was a leading figure in the al qaeda network and that the

operation that resulted in his death made the american people safer. reporter: when the president spoke with the prime minister wednesday about the drone strike, did they have any confrontation about the alleged plot against the vatican that was revealed today? 18 members of al qaeda were plotting against the vatican. mr. earnest: i don't think that came up in the conversation. reporter: is that something the president is aware of? mr. earnest: he seen the news reports, but i have not spoken to him about that today. isaac? reporter: this is not the first time that civilians have been killed in air strikes, women, children, other people around. why did the president feel like you need to apologize for this one? mr. earnest: i think the president said in his speech a couple years ago that there had been civilian casualties as a result of some u.s. counterterrorism operations.

the president made, in this incidents an extraordinary decision to discuss publicly a number of aspects of this particular operation because of the tragic, unintended consequence of this operation. that is, the death of dr. weinstein. and the president of the united states has a special obligation to the american people, and one of the things that we have indicated about this operation and this outcome was it was particularly painful because it was an operation that was geared towards trying to protect the american people, but yet resulted in the death of an innocent american. the tragedy is compounded by the fact the individuals who carried out this operation were also involved in the effort to try to rescue dr. weinstein.

so given the circumstances, the president felt it was important again, in pursuit of accountability and a desire to live up to the high standard he has set to talk about this publicly, in front of the american people, in front of the world, to own up to the mistakes that were made. the president of the united states, while he did not order the mission, takes full response ability for it, and that is consistent with the kinds of values the president believe should be reflected in our counterterrorism efforts. reporter: any other civilians who have been killed in other strikes not tragic in the same way? mr. earnest: of course not. the innocent loss of life is a tragedy. and that is why the president has insisted upon a near-certainty standard prior to counterterrorism operations being carried out. the president insists that as

our counterterrorism professionals of may 08 -- evaluating mission that they insist civilians will not be harmed in a mission before it is carried out. and that is, as i have talked about, is important when we are talking about operating in environments where absolute certainty is not possible. reporter: one more on this. was there any consideration given to the fact the president comes out and acknowledges there was this american maneuver publicly talked about, not just the civilian killed but that the strike happened on american orders, that it would create low back -- blow-back on the ground incite more violence from al qaeda? mr. earnest: well, i will point out, as many of you have observed, there are certain basic aspects of this operation that i'm not in position to discuss.

part of that is motivated in trying to minimize the kinds of reactions that you are alluding to. but in this case, there is always that risk. the president believed that risk was outweighed by the need to be honest and come clean about what exactly had happened. and then as the commander in chief, his principal focus, his most important responsibility is keeping the american people safe. and when an operation is carried out in pursuit of that goal that results in the death of an innocent american citizen, that the president of the united states has a responsibility to own up to it and to make sure that we are drawing upon lessons learned to try to prevent something from happening again.

bill? reporter: in the speech, the president made it clear he wanted to reduce the number of unmanned strikes with a troop drawdown, which he anticipated would be over by the end of 2014. how can he still believe that the unmanned strikes are effective and necessary, given the fact these two strikes demonstrate its never possible to know you were not killing civilians? mr. earnest: well, to be clear about one thing is that the strike against the terrorist was one that was carried out with the near-certainty standard as it relates to both the presence of an al qaeda leader and an innocent civilian. not being harmed in the operation. so the president acknowledged

acknowledged that innocent civilians had been harmed and operations. what he also would knowledge did some u.s. counterterrorism operations have been critically important to our national security, that they have been effective in disrupting the command and control of al qaeda leaders and they have essentially driven many al qaeda leaders underground, fearful for their own security. that their ability to plan and plot against the united states has been sharply curtailed. reporter: can you honestly say these two strikes were critical in disrupting al qaeda? mr. earnest: i can honestly say these operations were successful in terms of taking al qaeda leaders off the battlefield. these are influential members of a network actively plotting against members of the united states, and that is critical to our national security. reporter: but you cannot say for certain they were hatching a

plot that was imminent are critical. you did not know that there was an american in that compound. mr. earnest: it's true, our intelligence professionals were not aware of the presence of those hostages. but we did know those two al qaeda leaders that were killed in these operations were individuals who played a prominent role in an organization that is actively plotting and planning against american interests and the american people. reporter: how do you know the activity and anyone compound constitute something that is active plotting and planning and not just people hiding out in a remote part of pakistan or afghanistan? mr. earnest: well, the near-certainty standard we have described as it relates to making sure civilians are not hurt also applies to the determination about whether or not a compound is related to the people who are involved in

extremist activity. and as i'm at and before, as a relates to the compound -- and as i mentioned before, it was subject to hundreds of hours of surveillance, including near continuous surveillance in the days leading up to the operation. there are other sources of intelligence that are professionals can draw upon to get some insight into what is exactly happening. but again, the standard is not absolute certainty. absolute certainty is not possible in that region of the world, given the remote nature of that region, given the limited capabilities of local forces, and given the risks that would be associated with putting u.s. military boots on the ground in that region. so they are operating against a standard of near-certainty. but again, as i mentioned yesterday, in these two

incidences, those assessments were correct. they were successful. those operations were successful in removing from the battlefield two influential members of al qaeda. reporter: but the standard you expressed there is never any guarantee against civilian casualties. mr. earnest: cap salute certainty in these situations is not possible, given the remote location given the limited reach of local authorities, and given the invisibility -- the in-feasibility of putting boots on the ground. absolute certainty is not possible in that environment. what is possible is near-certainty. and the question that is raised by this tragic incident is what kinds of changes, if any, to our policies and procedures could ensure we are better striking the balance between taking the

actions, using capacities we have to protect the american people, with the need to live up to the high standards the president established in the american people expect. ok jordan? reporter: i wanted to ask about the statement in response to the president's comments on trade. democracy for america called criticism of the agenda shameful, comparing it to comments that was beneath the president to make those comets. what is your response to that? mr. earnest: i guess am not going to get into response of somebody else's response. the president made a forceful case and i will let his stand -- i will let his words stand for it. reporter: he has faced tough criticism of democrats views on trade. the critics that come on the side of taking them to the woodshed publicly. mr. earnest: well, i'm not willing to frequently cite polls, but there was a recent

cnn poll that indicated the president's approval rating among liberal democrats across the country is not just 90%, it was 95% -- it was not 95%, it was 97%. and i use that figure to illustrate the president has rightly, built up significant credibility with progressives all across the country. and he feels confident in making the case to them and the rest of the american people that the kind of agreement that he seeks is one that is clearly in the best interests of american businesses, american workers, and american middle-class families. the president has a strong track record of fighting for american middle-class families. and as he pointed out and i think a direct fashion doubletime to now -- indirect fashion a couple of times now he is doing this because he has earned the support of middle-class families across the country and he has earned that

support by using the authority of the presidency of the united states to fight for them. whether that is champing the affordable care act, championing wall street reform, trying to advance policies related to raising the minimum wage and paid leave, these are policies that benefit middle-class families. and it's that same spirit that motivates him to pursue this agreement with 10 other nations in the asia-pacific region that would benefit middle-class families in this country. and we are drawing upon lessons that have been learned from previous trade agreements. there are enforceable provisions as it relates to labor standards. there are enforceable provisions with environmental standards. for the first time in a trade promotion authority bill, there are provisions related to human rights. that is why the president can say this bill is the most progressive one that has ever been passed. or at least that we are hoping

will ever be passed. so the president has a very forceful case he can make. and i'm not trying to leave you with the impression the mind of every democrat is going to be changed by this but i am confident the president has a very persuasive case to make to democrats and republicans, who are willing to keep an open mind and willing to be focused on the best interests of middle-class families across the country for stop ok, francesca? reporter: totally different subject -- climate change. a duke study found that global warming has not happened as quickly as expected. their model shows a natural "wiggle," their word, of warming from 1975 until 2000, as well as a reduced rate from 2002 to 2 013. their conclusion seems to stand in stark contrast to undermine

the president's claims on earth day that global warming is a problem for this generation and that this generation cannot wait. i'm wondering your thoughts? mr. earnest: the preponderance of scientific evidence is on the side of the president. the president believes to deny the existence of climate change is to deny in observable fact -- an observable fact that is substantiated by science. and there are some who are involved in politics who choose to deny that fact because of its inconvenience to their case, and it may be inconvenient to some of their strongest political supporters. the fact is the president has demonstrated genuine leadership by challenging the country and the world to confront this situation, and do it in a way that wall, again, not just safeguard the american people -- the department of defense has

said it is a significant priority, but also a way that could have significant benefits for our economy. important investments in things like solar panels and wind energy stand to yield long-term benefits for our economy. there are good middle-class jobs to be have in a solar panel manufacturing facility in the united states. and we know that as other countries start to focus on this challenge, there is going to be a pretty good market for solar energy in a pretty good market for wind energy. if we make the yearly investments to capitalize that will have economic benefits for generations to come. the president is determined to position the united states so we can capitalize on those trends and maximize those economic benefits for middle-class families across the country. reporter: another topic is the patriot act reauthorization. president obama has called for an end to the nsa collection of

records in the past, and i want to know if he supports the legislation introduced by senate majority leader mcconnell to real the rise that act after -- to reauthorize that act 2020? mr. earnest: the president has been clear about reforms, and there is a process underway in the house that is being conducted on a bipartisan basis to advance some important reforms to the program. you will recall at the end of last year, house republicans did succeed in advancing a set of reforms that were supported by the president. unfortunately, those reforms did not make it through the senate. and the president is pleased these bipartisan efforts have been restarted in the house, and we are hopeful this will sort of be the next phase of the bipartisanship many have

observed in congress of late. there have been observations about the successful bipartisan cooperation around docks this -- doc-sys, about the iran legislation that is currently being discussed and making its way through the senate, and hopefully the next place where democrats and republicans will turn their attention and try to work together is on this issue of putting in place and portal reforms to the patriot act. all right? kevin? reporter: thank you josh. can you lay out why it is so import for the white house to review the use of the drone program? and if you don't mind, can you assess the danger of over correcting a program that has proven to be fairly successful?

mr. earnest: kevin, let me clarify one thing, there are a couple of different reviews. the first by our national security professionals to try to draw lessons learned from this particular operation to see if there are reforms or changes to the protocols that could be put in place to reflect the need to act decisively to protect the merck and people, but while upholding high standards related to the values we cherish in this country. so that is one review. and the second review is an independent review being conducted by the relevant inspector general to take an independent look at this particular operation and put forward any recommendations they may have about ensuring this process reflects the critical balance that must be struck. the president is very mindful of

the value that these kinds of operations have in protecting the merck and people and enhancing our security. but the president also has a priority to ensure we are living up to the kinds of values we try to promote in locations around the world. reporter: let me ask a follow-up, if i might. you said yesterday, the president said yesterday in the fog of war, essentially, things happen. is the risk worth it? mr. earnest: well, again, yes. there is risk associated with these kinds of operations. again, the standard that we set is near-second a -- near-certainty. that means there will be risk. but in many of these locations where operations are carried out, absolute certainty is not possible. and that means there is risk involved.

balancing that risk against the need to keep the american people safe and use our unique capabilities to safeguard the merck and people is the top priority of the president. the top priority of this president. but we also have to reflect there is a priority related to adhering to high standards related to the values we champion around the world, and upholding those values is also important to national security. this is a discussion we have had about before about advancing this. so this is a very difficult policy question, but one the president is determined to continuously improve, and that is the nature of the reviews that are underway. reporter: i think john asks something earlier -- was the president briefed after the strike? mr. earnest: julie ask that question, and i'm going to see

if i get more information if it's possible to share. if it's possible, i will. reporter: ok. lastly, a lot has been made lately about the book coming out about clinton cash. i know that you deflected a lot of the questions. to ask the state department or her people. i want to ask a broad question -- is it fair to say the white house believes that as secretary of state, hillary clinton's behavior both in the capacity of her office and as that with the clinton foundation met the ethical standard of this white house? mr. earnest: kevin, i can say in no uncertain terms there has been no evidence presented that suggests that somehow donations to the clinton foundation had any impact on any policy decisions that were made by secretary clinton nor anybody else in the state department. there is no evidence that suggest that. there are a lot of accusations

that are flying from secretary clinton's political opponents and for response to those accusations i would reap are you -- i would refer you to secretary clinton's team. but it is a simple fact that no fax have been presented that undermine the service, the exemplary service that secretary clinton performed while serving at the state department. reporter: so you would say, yes she met the standard? mr. earnest: i'm saying nobody has presented evidence to indicate she did not. chris? reporter: you talked about the terrorist cell. given that it would go across agencies, somebody would be in charge of it with would you rule out hostage -- mr. earnest: there is a specific proposal in the interim stage about the policy review, which is the idea of this fusion cell. i think it would which at least a similar goal or a goal

similar to the components, which is ensuring the efforts of the federal government to communicate with the families of hostages is properly and precisely integrated, to make sure the information that is being communicated to the families is done so clearly that it's done in a timely fashion, and, particularly when you are communicating with a family that is in an unthinkably tragic situation, like many of these families are communicating with them clearly and directly is really important. and that can be difficult when you have a large number of agencies involved in trying to rescue their loved ones. so a fusion cell could be effective in making that communication more clear and ensuring the efforts of all the agencies are more effectively

integrated. reporter: i guess the reason that a's are -- the reasob n thtat a czar has been suggested is that you have a person where the buck stops, as opposed to a group of people. you have a single individual. would you foresee there would be someone where the buckl stops? mr. earnest: as harry truman famous, the buck stops with the president. the best example i can give you is on wednesday evening president obama place telephone calls to the family of dr. weinstein to let them know of his tremendous sorrow at the death of dr. weinstein as a result of a u.s. counterterrorism operation. i think that is an indication this president is the one who is ultimately responsible in these situations. but again as a relates to

communicating with families on a regular basis, a lot of different agencies are involved, and it makes sense for these agencies to try to find the most effective way to integrate their efforts and communications with the families. we are only at the interim stage of the review process. there will be an opportunity for professionals to evaluate these proposals. there will be an opportunity for the families to offer feedback based on their personal experience. that could be useful in determining the best possible way to structure communications. i'm not in a situation where i'm ruling out the creation of a hostage czar. i'm just pointing out the proposal right now that seems to be in pursuit of a similar goal but with a different composition. reporter: the president obviously push for a quick diff last vacation -- a quick diff classification so we can talk about this. dianne feinstein is the latest

get on board that will quantify the number of people killed or hurt in drone strike. there was a proposal after that had a bipartisan sponsor. is there any consideration that could the white house support that kind of report? mr. earnest: i'm not familiar with the specific proposal they put forward. i'm confident that our national security professionals would be eager to engage in a conversation with senator feinstein or anybody else who has some thoughts on that. but i'm just not steeped in the specific details of their proposal in order to say whether this will move forward. ok byron? reporter: thanks, josh. following up on the americans killed, you would knowledge they have not been convicted of

anything. you seem to be claiming it is legal to kill americans who are suspected of being involved in terrorism as long as the target is a building instead of an individual, is that correct? that the legal interpretation? mr. earnest: i would encourage you to look at the national defense speech the president gave a couple years ago. he used a colorful illustration to explain what is it admittedly a cop located policy question. and the president described the fact that terrorists were playing a prominent role in a network actively plotting against the united states should not be able to use their american citizenship as a shield to protect them from our counterterrorism efforts. the president use the example of a sniper, somebody who

essentially was, again, trying to kill innocent people should not be protected from a swat team that was being deployed to go after them in an effort to try to protect the people who are being shot at. the point is we do have procedures in place that if there had been a specific reason to target mr. gadahn individually, the national security team and the lawyers at the department of justice would have reviewed and gone through procedures to reach a determination about that. in this case, you had an individual who happen to be an american citizen, but who was also an al qaeda leader who was killed in an operation against the al qaeda compound that he frequented. reporter: but naming the

building as the target, was that a way of getting around the procedure that has been established when there is, for example, the legal justification? was naming the targeted building a way to go around that? mr. earnest: naming the target a building was a way forced to kill al qaeda leaders, and that is exactly what happened. reporter: there is a report that a $250,000 ransom payment was paid to mr. weinstein's captors. is that something you can confirm? mr. earnest: i am not in a position to confirm that report, other than to say -- i am not in a position to confirm that report period. it is the policy of the u.s. government not to pay concessions are ransoms to terrorist holding hostages. andrew? reporter: the president has taken some measure of responsibility, and reviewed policy and so on.

i'm just wondering, is anybody going to be held accountable, some at a going to be fired over this? it seems to be a fairly obvious and substantial failure that resulted in the deaths of two innocent civilians. mr. earnest: based on what we know now, the counterterrorism professionals involved in this specific operation follow the policies and procedures that had been well-established. and those policies and procedures include reaching a near-certainty assessment that civilians would not be harmed in the operation. that assessment was drawn on hundreds of hours of surveillance of this particular compound, including near-continuous surveillance of the compound in the days leading up to the operation. these kinds of assessments are subject to other individuals

looking at the intelligence that has been collected to determine whether there are any missing pieces that might undermine the near-certainty standard has been reached. there is an effort by professionals to consider credible but contradictory intelligence and to essentially try to poke holes in the intelligence picture that has been composed. so there is a rigorous process. but that rigorous process does not result in absolute certainty. in these remote regions of the world, where the capacity to reach local fighters or authorities is limited where we have al qaeda fighters who are hiding in caves or walled compounds, absolute certainty is not possible. but the determination of near-certainty is the highest standard we can set. and based on what we know now our counterterrorism

professionals abided by those policies and protocols. ok? reporter: the saudis earlier this week -- aerial bombardments are continuing. i was wondering what is the white house's understanding of the operations, and has the announcement earlier this week changing anything with regard to military cooperation with the saudis? mr. earnest: the united states continues to provide some logistical support to the ongoing saudi military activities. but i will point out that saudi arabia and its coalition partners noted in their announcement they may continue limited operations to counter certain military movements and actions in yemen.

the united states continues to believe that it is important to shift to party negotiations that will allow yemen to restart the inclusive political transition process. we have said many times that the turmoil in yemen will not be solved militarily, but it must be solved around the negotiating table, and we encourage all parties to be supportive of that process. reporter: your level of cooperation with the saudis is the same? mr. earnest: the level of saudi military activity has diminished, but it still continues in response to and in an effort to counter ongoing military actions. and there is still u.s. military support that is being provided to back our saudi partners. ok? ally? reporter: i wanted to go back to

the weinstein family. and your response yesterday, you said the u.s. government efforts was "disappointed and inconsistent"? mr. earnest: i would say a couple things similar to what i said yesterday. first, our thoughts and prayers continue to be with weinstein family. they have been through a terrible tragedy the last several years, and this confirmation that their loved one has been killed in a u.s. government counterterrorism operation is a very sad conclusion, and our thoughts are with them at this time. it also was understandable that they would have a lot of frustration about the fact that despite the extensive and tireless efforts of a highly capable u.s. government that we were not able to rescue them. and i can understand, i think anybody could understand, how

frustrated they would be about that, particularly now that they have learned that a u.s. counterterrorism operation was responsible for his death. and i think even they pointed out in their statement that they principally held accountable and held responsible dr. weinstein's al qaeda captors. that he was killed in this operation, but he would not have been killed in the operation had al qaeda not taken him hostage a number of years ago. that said, the comment that is included in their statement is one that i think on a human level we would all understand and sympathize with. reporter: but on a practical level are you saying they are wrong? mr. earnest: on a practical level, the united states went to extraordinary relates to try to rescue him -- the united states went to extraordinary relates to try to rescue him and all of us are saddened that we were not

able to do that. i want to follow up on the latest intelligence of the death of caleb. i noted yesterday we were skeptical of isil claim she was killed as the result of a jordanian military strike. i noted there is still not yet enough intelligence to conclude definitively how and where and when precisely she died. but what i also said is there was no jordanian aircraft in the vicinity, and that is not true. at the time, there were extensive military operations being conducted by the jordanian military. this was in response to the tragic killing of their pilot by isil and there were a number of jordanian operations going on. so i talked about this a decent amount in february, and again yesterday. i tried to rely on my memory

from february and i said something that was not true, so i wanted to make sure we were clear about that. but there is an ongoing intelligence effort to try to gather more information about what -- about the circumstances of her tragic death. ok angela? reporter: yesterday, comcast and time warner scuttled their efforts at a merger. this is water under the bridge now, but there is also talks with at&t and directv. is there a sense from the white house or the administration there is concern about large telecom mergers, or large mergers in general? at this point, does the president involved himself in these mergers? mr. earnest: the president is not involved in these kinds of decisions. these are decisions made by the independent fcc. there is a role for the justice department to play in terms of

evaluating these proposed transactions and offering their opinion and advice about the potential impact of them. but i'm not going to be in position to comment on those recommendations or on those analysis because there is a priority placed on the independence of this process. reporter: is the president paying attention to that? mr. earnest: as you pointed out the decision by comcast and i go forward with the merger was on the front page of every for newspaper i saw today. so on confident the president is aware, but he did not have a role in that process because it's independent. ok pamela? reporter: has the president called prime minister renzi to apologize for the loss of the italian in the strike? did they speak about the hostage situation at all when they met? mr. earnest: the president did telephone prime minister renzi

wednesday, i believe. it was a direct conversation between the two of them. it was not lengthy. i don't know if they talked about the case of mr. lo porto when prime minister renzi was at the white house last week. jared, last one? reporter: i wanted to follow-up on the question yesterday, since today is the anniversary of the armenian genocide. when the president fall short of a campaign promise, thinking of other examples like guantanamo bay, you have often pointed to other factors come especially in washington, that can make that difficult. republicans in congress -- mr. earnest: i think that's a fact. reporter: i'm just reporting what you say. mr. earnest: republicans acknowledge they put language

into the bills and other pieces of legislation that bars the transfer of guantanamo detainees out of the united states and places severe limitations on our ability to place them in other places. reporter: does that impact the president's ability to for the oil -- to fulfill this promise? mr. earnest: the president issued a long statement today to mark armenian remembrance day. reporter: he used a word that does not say genocide. mr. earnest: but he did acknowledge the 1.5 million armenians were massacred in this terrible incident in history. and the president believes in the value of acknowledging those historical facts. there is a particular line in the president statement that jumped out at me, which is the president indicated that we welcome the expression of views

by pope francis turkish and armenian authorities and others who have decided to shed light on this dark chapter in history. reporter: they have called it a genocide, and the arminian societies said they are deeply disappointed president obama has broken his promise and stood apart from the global community speaking the truth about the armenian genocide. so the president trying to be on the same pages these people, but this group of american people representatives of the armenians in the united states, say the president has broken his promise. so what are the forces that are keeping the president from keeping his promise? mr. earnest: i think the president has spoken very clearly and directly in the context of this specific statement. i would refer you to those comments. i also point out the united states secretary treasury jack lew led a delegation to the

armenian remembrance services and activities in armenia. again, i think that is an indication of the president's commitment to ensuring that we not allow even these very tragic incidents from going unnoticed. and that acknowledging what happened in history is important. reporter: the extended metaphor of guantanamo bay, when you were asked about that, you said it was in the context of should we give up hope this will be resolved before the president gets out of office. you said, like many campaign promises, there is still time left, still a chance for this. should we hold out hope the president will say the word "genocide" in this context? mr. earnest: if we have a change in that to announce, we will be sure to let you know. reporter: i guess some asking if we should have a similar hope. mr. earnest: i'm suggesting you should stay tuned and we will let you know. i do not have a week ahead but

we will have something that will be included in the guidance tonight to fill you in on the presidents week. i know the president is looking forward to is weakened appearance at the white house correspondents dinner, and will afford seeing all of you there. there is always the possibility of that. >> coming up tonight on c-span a farewell ceremony for outgoing attorney general eric holder. and then vice president joe biden talks about israel. that is followed by homeland security secretary jeh johnson briefing reporters on border security efforts. >> the justice department told a farewell ceremony today for

outgoing attorney general eric holder. who has served with the obama administration since 2009. at the ceremony, holder talked about accomplishments during his tenure for voting rights same-sex marriage, and the criminal justice system. atty. gen. holder: thank you. please take your seats. [laughter] ok. a couple of business items. my portrait hangs on the fifth floor of the justice department. it has not been mentioned, my kids names are hidden in the portrait. and if you look on the button of my jacket and on the wings of the eagle, you will find three of them. that is the lore that i want to come out of the portrait, find

the names of the holder children. i want to check to make sure that you know you are on annual leave. [laughter] attorney general holder: but in my final act as attorney general, screw it. [laughter] attorney general holder: this has been a great six years. the names of the holderbeing at the justice department has -- i say the last six years, but the reality is that i've been at this department since 1976. you know, off and on. i started as a lawyer in the public integrity section. it is going to be hard for me -- not going to be, it is hard for me to walk away from the people who i love and who represent this institution that i love so much. but it is time. it is time to make a transition. change is a good thing.

and i'm confident in the work that you have done that we have laid a foundation for even better things over the course of the next couple of years. i think that as we look back at these past six years, what i want you all to understand is that you have done truly historic -- historic and big things. i mean, no matter where you look ed. if you look at, at the basic stuff. this department is restored. it is restored to what it always was, and certainly what it was when i got here, and what it always must be. free of politicization, focused on the mission, and making sure that justice is done, without any interference from political outsiders.

we have expressed faith in the greatest court system in the world, and brought the toughest national security cases into that system, and with unbelievable results. the notion that we are still having a debate on whether or not cases should be brought in the article three system, or in military tribunals is over, is dead. that is again due to the great work that prosecutors and various districts have done in putting together wonderful cases and then successfully trying those cases. we have had an impact on the environment, and people and companies that would help -- that would have this -- would have despoiled our environment. historic wins in that regard as well. if you look at financial recovery, related to the crisis, and huge amounts of money that we recovered. and then i think what is important, and tony west is here, and he deserves a special thanks for that, and what was done with the money, tried to give it to people who suffered

the most. [applause] attorney general holder: the result was never true simply -- the thought was never true simply -- never to simply take that money and put it in the u.s. treasury, but, with ways that we could get people back into their homes, or somehow try to reduce the debt load that they were dealing with. our trust division lives again and has had a tremendous impact in our country and in positive things that they have done for the american consumer. we announced or we heard today, that a merger -- which i think would have been extremely anticompetitive and not in the best interest of american consumers -- has been abandoned. that is because of the great work of the men and women in the antitrust division. our tax division, dealing with

our allies in europe. disallowing the practice that had for too long gone on way people are way ahead and money that they needed to pay taxes -- people world away -- people squirreled away hidden money they needed to pay taxes on. indian country. you think about the tough history that exists between united states and our native people. we have put on track, i think, the ability to right some really historic wrongs. we have done, i think, a great deal. much work remains to be done. but this justice department was committed to addressing those problems it as frank a way as is possible. -- and as find a way as is possible. -- in as frank a way as is possible. criminal justice reform. if you look at statistics, you see incarceration rate goes like this and then it goes up and about 1974, late 70's. we are a nation that incarcerates too many people for too long and for no good law

enforcement reason. it is time to change the approaches that we have been using for the past 30-40 years. through the great work of people in this department, we are starting to reverse that trend. again, more work remains to be done. but we are on the way. civil rights. the lgbt community is something that i have tried to focus on. i think that is a civil rights issue of our time. this whole issue of same-sex marriage that will be resolved by the court over the next couple of months or so hopefully that decision will go in a way that i think is consistent with who we are as a people. but i also think that that is a sign, an indication, one part of the fight for overall lgbt equality. i think the work that you have done in that regard will be an integral part of this legacy of this department.

and then, you know, the thing that is some ways animates me angers me, is this whole nation of the right to vote. we celebrated this year the 50th anniversary of the passage of the voting rights act. i went to selma to commemorate bloody sunday. john lewis was here earlier. this nation fought a civil war injured slavery by another name, -- endured slavery by another name, dealt with legalized segregation. a civil rights movement in the mid to early 60's transformed this nation. the notion that we would somehow go back and put in place things that make it difficult, more difficult for our fellow citizens to vote is simply inconsistent with all that is good about this country, and something that i was bound and determined to fight. and our civil rights division has done a superb job in crafting lawsuits based on an

voting rights act that was wrongfully gutted by the supreme court. i think we will see successes from those cases that have been filed. but that, that, of all things can simply not be allowed to happen. the right to vote must be protected. [applause] attorney general holder: i want to thank my family, my lovely wife, for the sacrifices they have made over the years. not only to allow me to be attorney general, deputy attorney general. to be u.s. attorney in washington, d.c. honey, you have been the rock in the family. you have allowed me -- [applause] attorney general holder: you have allowed me the opportunity to do the things that really

animated me and allowed me to work with all these great people. i want to also say something about the folks that you see standing here. my detail. these are people, men and women, who literally sacrificed their well-being in terms of their interactions with their families, they travel with me, they missed weekends, they work long and hard hours, and are prepared to do ultimate kinds of things. and i could not do this job without them. they will not smile because they never do that. [laughter] attorney general holder: i see marcus is smiling a little bit there. [laughter] attorney general holder: he is also smiling. [laughter] [applause]

attorney general: holder: -- attorney general holder: then, i just want to thank all of you. all of you. you are what makes this institution great. you know, we have a great building, and it is something that is historic and -- historic and -- historic andin its nature. it is only kept great by the dedication commands, the commitment that all of you show on a daily basis. i hope that you all will understand that the jobs that you have -- there is not a routine job in the department of justice, given the great power that we are entrusted with, the responsibility that we have. i don't want you all to ever think that, if we skip tuesday,

we will get through the day. that is not who we are. it is not who you are. i think that has certainly been shown in the way that you have conducted yourselves, and by the way that you have accomplished so much over the last six years. i said earlier that when we celebrated robert kennedy's 50th anniversary, the swearing-in in 2011, people said that that was the golden age for the united states department of justice. i think 50 years from now, and maybe even sooner than that people will look back at the work that you all did and say that this was another golden age. that is how good you all are. that is how good you all are. that is how dedicated, committed, and wonderful you all have been. with a focus on justice, focus on helping those who cannot help themselves, you have distinguished yourselves. there is a long line of

excellence in the united states department of justice. every now and again, at an appropriate time, a group comes along that is worthy of special recognition. and you all are in fact one of those groups. i'm proud of you. proud of you. i will miss you. i am going to miss this building, this institution, and more than anything, i will miss you all. this building will always be home. you all will always be my family. and wherever i am, and whatever i'm doing, i will be rooting for you from the sidelines. now i want to do something here. we have these bands that i have been wearing for the last whatever number of whatevers. i can officially take this off now. [laughter] [applause]

attorney general holder: i think we can officially say now that eric holder is free. [laughter] attorney general holder: it is not necessarily something that i want. i don't ever want to be free of this great institution. i don't want to ever be free of the relationships that i have forged with so many of you. i don't want to ever be free of the notion that i am a member of the united states department of justice. this is something that has meant the world to me. it has helped to define me as an individual and as a lawyer, as a man. for that reason, although i got rid of those bands, i am free in one sense. that is not really as consequential as the way i will never be free nor want to be free of the united states department of justice, or free from all of you. thank you for your support over

the past six years. i look forward to all that you will do under the great new leadership of a wonderful attorney general who will be sworn in on monday. and i expect that you will do great things over the course of the next two years, and be on -- and beyond that for those of you who are career employees. i expect that you will do great things as long as you are part of the justice department. there are some of you here who will be here 20 years from now 30 years from now. and i expect that your biographies will be littered with wonderful, wonderful things. again, thank you so much. i will miss you. and as i said, as i ended a previous speech -- this is my third going away. [laughter] attorney general holder: but i promise, it is the last one. i will end this one, i love you all madly. thank you. [applause]

>> eric holder's successor loretta lynch will be sworn in on monday. she will be the first african-american woman to have the justice department. you can watch that live on monday on c-span. >> the office of director of

national intelligence marks the 10th anniversary today. president obama was part of the event in virginia. he talked about the role of odi and the work it is doing. he talked about counterterrorism efforts that resulted in the death of two hostages held by al qaeda. ]president obama: i want to make one point again, we are going to review what happened and identify changes that can be made. i know that those of you who are here share our determination to continue to do everything we can to prevent the loss of innocent lives. you know, i was asked by somebody how you absorb news like that we received the other day. and i told the truth. it was hard.

but the one thing i wanted everybody to know is i know you because i work with your, because i know the quality of the same. is that we all bleed when we lose in american life -- work with you, because i know the quality of the team. is that we all bleed when we lose an american life. we do not take this work likely and i know that each and every one of you understands the magnitude of what we do. and the stakes involved. these are not abstractions and we are not cavalier about what we do. and we understand the solemn responsibilities that are given to us. and our first job is to make

sure that we protect the american people. there is not a person that i talked to involved in the intelligence community that does not also understand that we have to do so while upholding our values and ideals and laws. our constitutions and our commitment to democracy. and that is part of the reason why i am so grateful to work with you. because i know that you share that commitment. but understanding that this is hard stuff. everybody here is committed to doing it the right way. and for that reason, you know, i am absolutely committed to making sure the american people understand all that you put in to make sure we do it the right way. >> you can see all of the event

with president obama online at c-span.org. as president biden spoke yesterday at an event marketing the independence of israel. the talked about the friendship between the u.s. and israel. he also spoke about the framework agreement between the u.s. and iran, something the israeli government has expressed concern about. this is 40 minutes. [applause] >> we will begin with the singing of the national anthem. >> ♪ oh say can you see

by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous night o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rocket's red glare the bombs bursting in air

gave proof through the night that our flag was still there oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave? ♪ [applause]

>> ♪ [hebrew] ♪

[applause] >> please join me in welcoming the ambassador. [applause]

ambassador under armour -- ambassador dermer: on behalf of all of my colleagues at the israeli embassy, my wife and i want to welcome all of you to this israel independence day celebration. i want to especially welcome the many officials from the obama administration senators, members of congress, and ambassadors who are here tonight. above all i want to thank you vice president biden. [applause] ambassador dermer: it has been a many years since the vice president came to this event. so we deeply appreciate you being here with us tonight. [applause] ambassador dermer: i know that it reflects your personal

commitment to israel which you have expressed in so many ways over a 40 year career as a senator and vice president. but i also think your presence here helps reaffirm the alliance and friendship between our two countries. actually, alliance and friendship are probably the wrong words. i lies have common interests. friends have -- allies have common interests. friends have common values. america and israel have both. we confront the same enemies and are driven by the same ideals. american israel share a common heritage and a common destiny. common values. america and israel have both. that is why prime minister netanyahu was perhaps more accurate when he said last month but america and israel are more than allies and more than friends. we are family. [yiddish]

you speak a little yiddish, right? [applause] ambassador dermer: all families have disagreements. i do not know how it works in catholic families, but i can tell you that in jewish families, disagreements can get pretty heated. [laughter] ambassador dermer: what helps us overcome those disagreements is the understanding that what unites us is more important than what divides us. this is especially true of the relationship between america and israel. [applause] ambassador dermer: and it is something that i think about every day as israel's ambassador to the united states. we often speak about the unprecedented security cooperation and intelligence cooperation between our countries as if we are routinely checking off some inconsequential list. but i know that is really lives

are saved -- israeli lives are saved because of that cooperation and mr. vice president, you know that american lives are saved because of that cooperation. i know what america means to israel, what it means to have the most powerful country in the world on your side. and what it would mean to not have america on israel's side. mr. vice president, you know what israel means to america. what it means to have a strong, stable, democratic ally in the heart of the most dangerous reason owners -- region on earth. and what it would mean for america to have no israel. on independence day we do not focus on challenges, we focus on achievements. 67 years ago today we established a sovereign jewish state in our ancestral homeland

these same land on which thousands of years ago our patriarchs and prophets and kings world. israel has come -- things ruled. israel has become home to half of the world's jews. in 67 years, israel has gone from an ill-equipped and undermanned military to having one of the more powerful and capable military is in the world. in the 67 years, -- [applause] ambassador dermer: in 67 years israel has gone from being a small agricultural backwater to being a global technological power. today is the day when we marvel at israeli technology that is powering the world's computers, irrigating land, and helping

paraplegics walk for the first time. today is the day when israelis can take pride in having one a dozen nobel prizes -- won a dozen nobel prizes and six european basketball championships. [laughter] [applause] ambassador dermer: i know it is not the nba, but it is pretty good. [laughter] ambassador dermer: we can take pride in having developed a dynamic culture with world-class museums terrific wine, and a country so exciting that israel is actually go to manhattan to unwind. [laughter] ambassador dermer: today is the day when we are especially proud of our vibrant and rambunctious democracy where concepts like freedom, equality, and justice are not empty words. in israel, a daughter can gr ow up to be a fighter pilot or government official.

a muslim can graduate first in her class at our most prestigious university. a christian can worship as they please in a thriving community. what is even more remarkable -- [applause] ambassador dermer: what is even more remarkable is that israel has achieved all that it has during 67 years of multiple wars, doubtless terror attacks and a continuous and unrelenting effort to destroy it. ladies and gentlemen, here in washington, israel's independence day also gives us an opportunity to thank america for the partnership that has grown so much stronger over these past 67 years. people forget but in 1948, the united states placed an arms embargo on israel.

israel fought the war of independence with check rifles -- czech rifles. today the united states helps with billions of dollars in military assistance, providing israel with some of the most advanced weapons systems, and jointly developing with israel perhaps the world's best missile-defense program. in 1948 -- [applause] ambassador dermer: in 1948, israel was exporting oranges to the united states and our bilateral trade was almost $34 million. today we export cutting-edge technology by 1000 times $238 billion -- our bilateral trade has grown by 1000 times to $38 billion. [applause]

ambassador dermer: for over 67 years, america has stood by israel's side in countless ways. from airlifts to loan guarantee s to help stabilize the economy to vetoes of and that israel resolutions -- of anti-israel resolutions at the united nations. america and israel have had serious disagreements but we have weathered all of those disagreements to grow closer and closer decade after decade. i am confident that the security challenges america and israel will face and the innovation america and israel will create together will pull our countries even closer together in the years and decades ahead. ladies and gentlemen, as israel celebrates it's independence, we

give thanks for what we have overcome and how far we have come. we also give thanks to the american people, to their representatives in congress, and presidents from harry truman to barack obama, for all of the help you have given us along the way. [applause] ambassador dermer: we give thanks for all america has done to make israel stronger, safer and more prosperous. for support that has enabled israel bolster defend itself -- both to defend itself by itself against any threat and to forge historic peace agreements with egypt and jordan. as we celebrate israel's independence in the capital of this great nation, imf confident as ever that despite all of the challenges -- i am as confident

as ever that despite all of the challenges, israel's best day is still ahead. [applause] vice president biden: i asked and i'-- am i up? i think so. hello, mr. ambassador. my name is joe biden. [applause] vice president biden: everybody knows i love israel. i was thinking as ron was saying that he does not know what it is like an catholic families, whether we argue as much as allegedly occurs in jewish families.

two of my three children married jews. [laughter] vice president biden: and you want to see what happens then. as a matter of fact, my daughter the dream of every irish catholic father is for his daughter to marry a jewish surgeon [laughter] vice president biden: and she did. i want you to know, i think the only time on record in the state of delaware at the oldest catholic church in the state, or the second oldest, 1842, we signed it in the catholic rectory. [laughter] vice president biden: not a joke, i think that is a first. we had a hopa on the altar. we have a catholic priest, father murphy, and a rabbi. and it was hard getting a rabbi, by the way. [laughter] vice president biden: i had to

go up to montgomery county to find one. [laughter] vice president biden: montgomery county, pennsylvania. the reason he came was because of his mother-in-law. [laughter] vice president biden: and, you know, my daughter asked me daddy, what do you want played at the wedding? and i said maybe they could be on eagle's wings." the rabbi, a wonderful guy presided over 75% of the wedding. the vows were administered by the catholic priest. and as the wedding party was departing, down the aisle, they played the hore. -- hora. i figured it out, the way to end arguments is to marry/ [laughter] vice president biden: the fact

of the matter is that 77 years ago at midnight, may 14, 1948, against all odds, in the wake of serious tragedy defiant in the face of overwhelming, overwhelming military numbers massed on its borders the modern state was born. what you did next -- [applause] vice president biden: what you did next was no less. you were blessed with one of the greatest generations of founding fathers and mothers of any nation in the history of the world. ben-gurion sharon, perez, the old-fashioned israel and -- they old-fashioned israel into a vibrant democracy -- all

fashioned israel into a vibrant democracy. you defended your homeland and became the most powerful military in the entire region. and all of these years later all of these years later, things have changed. but the danger still exists. the people of israel still love in a dangerous -- live in a dangerous neighborhood. just to be an israeli still demands uncommon courage. much has changed but two things have remained absolutely the same. the courage of your people and the commitment of mine. [applause] vice president biden: so today we celebrate your independence and our friendship which was born just 11 minutes after israel's founding.

president obama and i are proud to carry forward the unbroken line of american leaders who have honored america's secret promise to protect the homeland of the jewish people. it is no secret that like other administrations before us we have had our differences. i have been here for a long time, for eight presidents. i have witnessed disagreements between administrations. it is only natural for two democracies like ours. as ron said, we are like family. we have a lot to say to one another. sometimes we can drive each other crazy but we love each other and we protect each other. [applause] vice president biden: i know many of you personally. as many of you have heard me before we would have to invent

one because ron is right, you protect our interests as we protect yours. so let's get something straight -- [applause] vice president biden: in this moment of some disagreement occasionally, between our two governments, i want to set the record straight on one thing. no president has ever done anything more to support israeli security and president obama. just a fact. [applause] vice president biden: each time a rocket has rained down from gaza, president obama stands up before the world and defends israel's right to defend itself. under president obama, with the united states congress, america has provided $20 billion in military assistance to israel and cutting-edge weaponry needed to maintain a qualitative

advantage against any potential opponent. you all know the stories of the ira and dome. -- iron dome. would you might not know is that next year we will deliver to israel the joint strike fighter. the only country in the middle east with a fifth-generation aircraft. no other. the israeli military and israeli intelligence c community will continue to tell you we continue to discuss what needs to be done to strengthen israel so she can maintain that ed. -- edge. [applause] vice president biden: our commitment is not in political or national interests, it is personal. it is personal for me and it is personal for the president.

you have heard me say this, many of my friends, before, but it bears repeating on this day. it began at my father's dinner table. my father is a righteous christian. we would have discussions and occasionally eat. my father, my father talked about how he could not understand why there was a debate among americans or why there was a debate among american jews about whether or not we should recognize israel. why should there be any debate about why we had not been more -- not done more? i learned from my father about the concentration camps. the first thing i did with my children, but each of them turned 15, i took them to europe

and flew them directly to dock o -- dachau and made them spend the day with me. i have done the same things with my grandchildren. my grandchild finnigan met with a survivor of all twits -- auschwitz and dachau who was proud to welcome the vice president and his granddaughter. all you have to do to understand is to stand on the golan and look down. i remember the first time i did that as a young senator. all that you have to do is wander throughout israel. all you have to do is take that helicopter ride the entire length of the fence. all you have to do is just look at the map. all you have to do is set foot

and you understand. i have had the great privilege of knowing every israeli prime minister since golda meier and more than just casually. i have worked with many of you in this room for up to 40 years. you know me. you raised me. you educated me. and i know you. so believe me when i tell you it is not only personal to me, it is personal to president obama as well. the president was raised with memories of his great uncle who marched with patton's army to liberate jewish prisoners from you can walled -- buchenwald. he grew up hearing about the six-day war. i remember sitting in front of golda meier's desk as she

flipped maps up and down, chain-smoking. [laughter] vice president biden: talking about losses in the six-day war. sitting next to her military attache at the time. brock is a -- barack as a young senator, he heard about it, he read about it. as senator, barack obama went to see with his own eyes the lives of the families that live under threats which he helped protect as commander-in-chief. as president he stored in jerusalem and declared to the whole world "those who would hear to the ideology of rejecting israel's right to exist, they might as well reject the earth needs them or the sky above -- beneath them or the sky above because israel is not going anywhere.

so long as the united states of america is there, israel will not be alone there go he means it. -- alone." he means it. that is my president. the need for israel to have the right and the capacity and the capability to defend itself. at the same time he says that we have israel's back and you can count on that. the same commitment is fundamental to our strategy for the entire middle east. and we get into the controversial pieces. iran. remember, this is the president for the first time in american history muted the declared policy of the united states to use all of the instruments of our power to prevent -- not contain, prevent -- iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

he stated that all options are on the table and then he made sure of what did not exist before. he made sure that we spent the time and money and research to develop the capacity required to act against their capacity to develop a weapon if ever needed. all of the skepticism of the many that we work with in the u.s. congress, european allies, russia china, to put in place the toughest sanctions on a regime in modern history. we also knew the cost of not negotiating. midway through the last administration, the u.s. government refused to directly engage and insisted at the same time that iran dismantle its entire program. the result?\ by the time president bush left offic, iran had dramatically advanced its movement towards

acquiring nuclear weapons. so we have taken a different approach. combined an unprecedented pressure with direct diplomacy to find an enduring solution. negotiations began and we have come a long way. you have seen the parameters that were before. it is a framework, only a framework, not a final deal. a good deal of work lies ahead to see if iran will enshrine the commitments that went into the framework as a part of the final deal. if they do, each of iran's pals to a bomb would be meaningfully blocked -- paths would be meaningfully blocked. breakout time to create a weapon's worth of bomb grade material would go from 2-3 months which it is today to over a year.

to ensure at least one year breakout for a decade. four years after that the breakout time would continue to be much longer than today. we would prevent the iraq reactor from being a source for plutonium for nuclear weapons. we will put into place the toughest transparency requirements providing the best checks against a secret path to the bomb. this is not a grand bargain between the united states and iran. it is a nuclear bargain between britain, france, russia, china germany, the eu america, and iran. it is based on a hard-hitting, hardheaded, uncompromising assessment of what is required to protect ourselves, israel and the region of the world. if the final deal on the table does not meet the president's requirements, we simply will not sign it. the final deal must effectively

cut off iran's pathway to a bomb. if it doesn't, no deal. the final deal must ensure a breakout timeline for at least one year for a decade. a final deal must include sanction relief calibrated against iran taking meaningful steps to constrain the program. if it doesn't, no deal. a final deal must provide a verifiable insurance to the international community to ensure that iran's program is peaceful going forward. if it doesn't, no deal. if iran sheets at any -- iran sheets at any time and does for a nuclear weapon, every option we have to respond today remains on the table and more. i have been involved in arms control agreements since i was a kid in the senate at 30 years of age. every major agreement.

towards the end i was deeply involved, negotiating when brezhnev was still around, leaving a delegation of the senators. just like arms talks with the soviet union another regime we fundamentally disagreed with, another regime that was unacceptable, another regime whose proxies were forcibly making trouble and we forcibly countered around the world, we negotiated to reduce the nuclear threat to prevent a nuclear war and it kept us safer. that is what we are attempting to do today. we also continue to agree with israel's leaders going back decades. to sharobn, whose funeral i had the honor of eulogizing. that the two state solution is the solution to the future of israel. the united states stands ready to help israel decided, if they

decide how to get there and if they want our help getting their. -- getting there. i will always remember my friend and mentor and holocaust driver who worked with me before he became chairman of the affairs committee once said. he said "the veneer of civilization is paper thin. we are its guardians and can never rest." that is why we must never retreat from the fighting every scourge -- from fighting every scourge of anti-semitism as we find it. you see, in too many places, would legitimate criticism crosses over -- when legitimate criticism crosses over into bigotry, when an explicitly anti-semitic attack takes place at a kosher grocery store

assaults on religious jews on the streets of european capitals. some of you may remember how harshly i was criticized as chairman of the foreign relations community when i held hearings on anti-semitism in europe. the committee when i held hearings on an estimate is them in europe. -- committee when i held hearings on anti-semitism in europe. whenever it rears its head, we have to stop it. enough is enough. we have to fight it everywhere we find it. i will conclude and my friends jimmy and r -- friends kid me and ron may as well, telling my story about meeting golda meier. it had a profound impact on me. one of the most consequential meetings in my life.

i have met every major world leader in the last 36 or 37 years in a literal sense. what i remember -- but i remember meeting for close to an hour with her as she went through what went over the six-day war and the price that was paid. and i just had come from egypt. there was me go to egypt and go to the suez canal. -- they let me go to egypt and go to the suez canal. i thought they were getting ready to attack again. and everyone, including my military and the israeli military, thought i was crazy. driving from cairo all the way up the suez, you could see great plumes of dust and sand. it seemed isolated. turns out it was maneuvers taking place in the desert.

and i was really worried. and we went through and she painted a bleak, bleak picture. scared the hell out of me, quite frankly. about the odds. all of a sudden, she looked at me and she said, would you like a photograph? and i said, yes ma'am. and those double-blind doors opened up into the hallway looks like a foyer. we walked out and the press was standing there. we did not say anything, we just stood side-by-side. she thought i looked worried and she spoke to me, and she said "senator, you look so worried." i said, my god, madam prime minister.

the picture you paint. she said "don't worry." i thought he only said this to me. she said "we have a secret weapon in our conflict with the arabs. you see, we have no place else to go." i was criticized in the national press a couple of weeks ago when i said that in fact every jew in the world needs there to be an israel. it was characterized by the conservatives as saying i was implied jews were not safe in america. they do not get it. they don't get it. israel israel is absolutely essential. absolutely essential. for the security of jews around

the world. and that is why you have never farmed out your security. you have accepted all of the help we can give. but i promise you, if you are attacked, we would fight for you. [applause] the truth of the matter is -- the truth of the matter is we need you. the world needs you. imagine what it would say about humanity and the future of the 21st century for israel not sustained, fiber, and free. --